Floor Statements

Mr. President, today is the American Cancer Society's 31st annual Great American Smokeout. This is an annual event designed to encourage the 45.8 million Americans who smoke tobacco to kick the habit. First held in 1977, American Smokeout Day challenges smokers to give up their cigarettes for 24 hours, in the hope that their decision to quit will be permanent.

Each year, approximately 440,000 Americans die from tobacco-related diseases. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths for both men and women, accounting for one in five deaths in the United States. In Maryland alone in 2005, there were more than 7,000 smoking-related deaths, many from lung cancer.

Americans know much more today about the dangers of tobacco than we did 31 years ago when this event first took place. We know cigarettes contain more than 250 chemicals that are known to be harmful, including hydrogen cyanide, which is used in making chemical weapons; carbon monoxide, which is found in car exhaust fumes; and ammonia, which is used in household cleaners.

We have also learned that smoking affects not only tobacco users, but also the people around them. Recent research has demonstrated the serious hazards of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes nearly 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, and it is especially harmful to young children. Tragically, secondhand smoke is cited as the cause of approximately 430 sudden infant death syndrome, SIDS, fatalities in the United States each year.

My home State of Maryland is 1 of 22 States that have enacted laws banning smoking in nearly all public places. Gov. Martin O'Malley signed the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007 into law on May 17, 2007. It will go into effect on February 1, 2008. This law specifically prohibits smoking in public meeting places, public transportation vehicles, and indoor places of employment, including all restaurants and bars.

We also know it is never too late to quit. There are significant health benefits to quitting, even after 30 or more years of smoking. Studies have shown that quitting at age 30 reduces one's chances of dying from smoking-related diseases by more than 90 percent, and quitting by age 50 reduces one's chances by more than 50 percent.

Today is also a prime opportunity for our seniors who still smoke to quit. Doing so will save overall health care costs and save lives. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 9.3 percent of Americans age 65 and older smoke cigarettes, and nearly 300,000 seniors die of smoking-related diseases every year. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have estimated that smoking-related health problems accounted for

about 10 percent of total Medicare costs.

Many elderly smokers began their habit decades ago, when tobacco companies told us that smoking carried no health risks. But we know better now, and help is available. Since 2005, Medicare has covered the cost of smoking cessation counseling for beneficiaries with diseases caused by tobacco use, such as cardiovascular disease, lung disease, weak bones, blood clots, and cataracts. Medicare also covers counseling for beneficiaries who take medications for diabetes, hypertension, blood clots, and depression because tobacco use can reduce the effectiveness of these medicines. Medicare Part D plans also cover smoking-cessation products such as nicotine patches and gum as long as they are prescribed by a physician.

There has been significant progress in the fight against cancer, and one factor is the decline in overall smoking rates in the U.S. But a recent New York Times article entitled, ``The Smoking Scourge Among Urban Blacks,'' reported dramatic increases in smoking among poor minorities in cities across America and particularly in my home town of Baltimore. On city streets, cigarettes are sold individually as ``loosies'' for 50 cents each, targeting people who cannot afford the nearly $5 cost of a full pack. Despite the success of antismoking campaigns among American society as a whole, recent research shows that more than half of poor, Black young adults still smoke. So we must continue to do more to educate minority children and young adults about the health hazards of smoking. We won't be able to attack the problem of health disparities in earnest until we do.

Finally, it is time for the United States to recognize nicotine as a drug and regulate its use. That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Kennedy's bill, S. 625, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by a majority of this body, would give the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, advertising, promotion, sale, and use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. Congress cannot in good conscience allow the Federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco.

In closing, I want to recognize the extraordinary efforts of the American Cancer Society in raising awareness of the dangers of tobacco use and in sponsoring the Great American Smokeout. Over the years, ACS has helped millions of Americans live healthier, longer, and fuller lives. With comprehensive tobacco control programs, indoor smoke-free workplace laws, and a multitude of smoking cessation resources available today to help smokers, there has never been a better time to quit. Today's smokeout will give many more Americans the motivation to put out their last cigarette.

Mr. President, 53 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower named November 11 ``Veterans Day,'' setting aside that day to honor all Americans who have served our country so honorably in the military, both in war and in peace.

I want to take the opportunity this day of remembrance provides to say to all veterans and their families, thank you for your courage, your character, your strength, and the enduring power of your example. All Americans owe you our gratitude and appreciation for your commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation.

Since our Nation's struggle for freedom more than two centuries ago, nearly 50 million men and women have served in the U.S. military and nearly 25 million of these veterans are alive today. Our thoughts and prayers also are with our veterans of tomorrow--the 1.4 million Americans serving in our Armed Forces, including the more than 189,000 service men and women who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the noble service and tremendous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the United States stands as a beacon of democracy, hope, and opportunity to the rest of the world.

At this moment, as we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our servicemembers must remain steadfast and strong. Our veterans have earned access to quality health care, affordable educational opportunities, and a chance to thrive once home.

I am proud today to be a part of this Congress that has worked to honor our commitment to our Nation's veterans. In September, the Senate passed the Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for 2008. The legislation provides nearly 65 billion dollars for the Veterans' Administration. Specifically, the bill makes substantial new investments to improve and strengthen health care for our brave veterans, making critical investments in medical services, including treatment of traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; funding for new claims processors to address the backlog of pending disability claims, and the investment in VA repair and maintenance necessary to prevent another Walter Reed type situation. These investments address key shortcomings in our veterans health care system.

Although a minority in the Senate blocked our ability to send that legislation to the President's desk last week, we voted this past Thursday to provide temporary funding at the level the Bush administration requested. That amount is $4 billion less than what we in Congress originally intended. We remain committed to ensuring the VA receives the full $65 billion necessary to provide veterans the care and services they have earned.

But just as important as the quality of care is access to care. My colleague, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, and I have worked together to secure Federal funding for two new VA community-based clinics in Maryland--one at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince

George's County and another at Fort Detrick in Frederick County. Not only will facilities like these help to reduce backlog and waiting times, they will allow more veterans to receive care close to home.

We know, however, that we can and must do more for our Nation's veterans, for those who have given so much to our country. In addition to giving our veterans the benefits they deserve, we must continue to honor their service and keep the memory of our fallen soldiers alive. In that spirit, I introduced bipartisan legislation to grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, S. 1692, the only fraternal veterans' organization in the Unites States devoted exclusively to veterans of the Korean war. This bill unanimously passed the Senate, and I am hopeful it will soon pass the House. Should that happen, it will ensure that the nearly 1.2 million American veterans of the Korean war will receive the Federal recognition they deserve for their dedication and sacrifice.

As elected leaders, we also have an obligation to act as good stewards for our military, exercising wise judgment for its use and providing the equipment, training, and materiel necessary for its success. My colleagues and I have made a good faith effort to act as those stewards.

Just this past Thursday evening, Congress passed a spending bill that provides $460 billion for the Department of Defense, which is $40 billion above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Congress directed that money be spent on a pay raise and better medical care and benefits for our troops but also on procuring new equipment for our National Guard, increasing troop strength, and developing the Armed Forces and the tools necessary to engage in the very different types of conflicts we are confronted with in the world today.

In his second inaugural address, a portion of which is engraved on our Veterans' Administration building, President Lincoln said:

Let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up

the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the

battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which

may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among

ourselves, and with all nations.

I see those words as a charge to us here in Government, laying out the grave and important work we have left to do. But I think these words can serve as a guide to all of us, in every community, today and every day, as we welcome and honor our returned and returning heroes and work toward a more perfect Union.

Mr. President, I have the opportunity to serve on the Judiciary Committee, so I participated in the confirmation hearings on Judge Mukasey. I had a chance to personally meet with him. I had the chance to propound written questions and received written answers from him. Throughout this process, all of us have been looking for a person to be the next Attorney General who would be an Attorney General for the American people and not just the President of the United States.

I cannot accept Judge Mukasey's answer on waterboarding. As my colleagues have said, waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates death by drowning. The original question that was asked Judge Mukasey on the second day of the confirmation hearings asked specifically about waterboarding. He didn't really answer the question. I must tell you, I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that question. He indicated that he may not have been familiar with what waterboarding is. I found that difficult to believe, but okay. He would have a chance to reflect upon it, be able to look at the historical information on waterboarding, and we asked him a written question followup as to whether he would comment on the interrogation technique of waterboarding.

The question was asked. As waterboarding is generally known, it has been used for centuries. Judge Mukasey would not give us a direct answer as to whether waterboarding was torture and prohibited under U.S. law. Then we find out that Judge Mukasey says: Look, if Congress passes a statute that specifically outlaws waterboarding, I would enforce that statute. That is not necessary because waterboarding is already illegal. But that causes me some additional problems.

Let me talk a little bit about the various issues because to me it is more than just waterboarding. We are talking about torture and the U.S. position on torture and the U.S. leadership in advancing human rights as the leader of the free world. I believe that reputation has been damaged.

The United States historically has provided clarity and leadership on advancing human rights issues. There should be no doubt that waterboarding is torture and waterboarding is illegal. My colleagues have cited the torture statutes that have been passed by the Congress that make it clear that this kind of conduct would fall under the general definition of torture and is illegal in the United States.

It is internationally condemned under the Geneva Conventions article 3. Our Constitution prohibits torture, and waterboarding would fall under that. We prosecuted Japanese officials after World War II as war criminals because they waterboarded American soldiers.

We recently passed the McCain amendment that said that cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States would not be permitted. So there should be no doubt that waterboarding is torture and illegal.

Admiral Hutson, who testified before the committee on a panel of outside witnesses, told us a little bit more about the historical aspects of waterboarding. He is a former Judge Advocate General, former senior uniformed legal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. He stated that waterboarding ``is the most iconic example of torture.'' It was devised during the Spanish Inquisition, and its use has been repudiated for centuries. This is not a new technique. It is well known. I don't believe we need to pass another statute. It is clear already.

I have heard my colleagues say: All we have to do is pass a statute. Does that mean we are going to have to pass a statute that outlaws all types of specific uses of torture such as mock execution or forced nudity or attack dogs or the use of rack or thumb screws? Are we going to have to outlaw those specific techniques because it is not clear under our statute of torture that is illegal today? I hope not. I hope it is clear that these techniques are torture, as is waterboarding, and it is illegal.

Admiral Hutson put it best when he said the Attorney General, as our chief

law enforcement officer, has to be absolutely unequivocal as to what is torture and what is not. On torture, I want the President of the United States and the Attorney General to be very clear to the international community that the United States will not tolerate torture being used by the United States, waterboarding being used by the United States or used against any American. We have to be clear about that.

I want our Government to use all resources at its disposal if a foreign agent attempts to torture an American, including waterboarding of an American. It has been said, but can you imagine the resolution that would be brought before this body if an American soldier was waterboarded by a foreign enemy, what we would be doing here, each one of us?

I have my concern because I want our country to be clear on this issue. I have the President of the United States, in a signing statement on the McCain amendment, saying: Well, maybe torture doesn't apply to me. Now I have an Attorney General nominee who tells us that he can't tell us with precision that waterboarding is illegal?

We do have international responsibilities. We are the leader of the free world. I am proud to represent this body in the Helsinki Commission as the chair, to speak up internationally on human rights issues. I find myself defending America. I am having a hard time on this issue as to where we stand on the issue of torture.

Judge Mukasey is not responsible--let me make it clear because some of my colleagues have intimated this--for the Bush administration's policies on torture or on techniques to interrogate. He is not responsible. He had nothing to do with it. But I do believe we need to make sure he will stand up to the Bush administration to challenge these tactics if they, in fact, are illegal. Judge Mukasey is a good person. He is an honorable man. But on the critical issue of whether he will stand up to the President and give independent advice as to what is torture and what is not, I have my doubts.

I will be voting against his confirmation.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the International Center Act to make it clear that Intelsat can continue to lease the land on which its headquarters building is located.

Congress created Intelsat when it passed the Communications Satellite Act in the 1960s, intending it to be an international organization charged with establishing the world's first global satellite system. In 2000, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, which essentially mandated that Intelsat become a private company. The purpose of the ORBIT Act was to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite

communication services for the benefit of consumers. Congress inadvertently overlooked some important changes that were required to complete this transformation and, as a result, had to make technical changes to correct these oversights.

One technical correction still needs to be made, however: the International Center Act, ICA, must be amended to ensure that Intelsat's lease of the land on which its headquarters is located comports with the law. The U.S. Government owns this land. The State Department and Intelsat entered into a long-term lease for the land on which Intelsat built its headquarters many years ago. Intelsat constructed and fully owns the building. The lease was originally entered into pursuant to the ICA and has been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2006. The ICA, however, limits leases of this property to foreign governments and international organizations. At the time Intelsat leased the property and built its headquarters building, it was an international organization.

When Congress mandated in the ORBIT Act that Intelsat privatize, it created a problem regarding Intelsat's land lease. Once Intelsat was no longer an international organization, it technically no longer satisfied the requirements of the ICA. In other words, Congress' action requiring Intelsat to privatize has left the company's right to continue to lease the land in question. But it was never the intent of the ORBIT Act to create this uncertainty with respect to the legality of Intelsat's land lease.

The bill I am introducing amends the ICA to eliminate this uncertainty that the ORBIT Act created regarding the lease. It is necessary to ensure that the now privatized Intelsat can continue to lease the land. My bill would in no way alter the rights or obligations of the parties or any of the lease terms or conditions. It in no way expands any of Intelsat's rights under the existing lease. Nor does it change in any way the rights or powers that the State Department currently has under the lease. The Secretary of State will continue to have the same right to prohibit any use, development, occupancy, lease, or sublease as is currently authorized under the existing lease. My bill makes no substantive change in the relationship between the State Department and Intelsat. It merely eliminates the inconsistency between the lease and the ICA that was caused by Intelsat's privatization-- which Congress required when it passed the ORBIT Act.

The State Department has approved this legislation to amend the ICA. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, too, and act on it expeditiously.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the International Center Act to make it clear that Intelsat can continue to lease the land on which its headquarters building is located.

Congress created Intelsat when it passed the Communications Satellite Act in the 1960s, intending it to be an international organization charged with establishing the world's first global satellite system. In 2000, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, which essentially mandated that Intelsat become a private company. The purpose of the ORBIT Act was to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite

communication services for the benefit of consumers. Congress inadvertently overlooked some important changes that were required to complete this transformation and, as a result, had to make technical changes to correct these oversights.

One technical correction still needs to be made, however: the International Center Act, ICA, must be amended to ensure that Intelsat's lease of the land on which its headquarters is located comports with the law. The U.S. Government owns this land. The State Department and Intelsat entered into a long-term lease for the land on which Intelsat built its headquarters many years ago. Intelsat constructed and fully owns the building. The lease was originally entered into pursuant to the ICA and has been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2006. The ICA, however, limits leases of this property to foreign governments and international organizations. At the time Intelsat leased the property and built its headquarters building, it was an international organization.

When Congress mandated in the ORBIT Act that Intelsat privatize, it created a problem regarding Intelsat's land lease. Once Intelsat was no longer an international organization, it technically no longer satisfied the requirements of the ICA. In other words, Congress' action requiring Intelsat to privatize has left the company's right to continue to lease the land in question. But it was never the intent of the ORBIT Act to create this uncertainty with respect to the legality of Intelsat's land lease.

The bill I am introducing amends the ICA to eliminate this uncertainty that the ORBIT Act created regarding the lease. It is necessary to ensure that the now privatized Intelsat can continue to lease the land. My bill would in no way alter the rights or obligations of the parties or any of the lease terms or conditions. It in no way expands any of Intelsat's rights under the existing lease. Nor does it change in any way the rights or powers that the State Department currently has under the lease. The Secretary of State will continue to have the same right to prohibit any use, development, occupancy, lease, or sublease as is currently authorized under the existing lease. My bill makes no substantive change in the relationship between the State Department and Intelsat. It merely eliminates the inconsistency between the lease and the ICA that was caused by Intelsat's privatization-- which Congress required when it passed the ORBIT Act.

The State Department has approved this legislation to amend the ICA. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, too, and act on it expeditiously.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have the honor of serving on our Judiciary Committee, which is charged with the responsibility of recommending to this full body whether to confirm Judge Mukasey as the next Attorney General of the United States. In that capacity I have had the chance to sit through the confirmation hearings at which Judge Mukasey testified before our committee for 2 days. I chaired the third panel of independent witnesses and had a chance to question national experts in regard to the issues that I think are important and that must be met by our next Attorney General. I had the opportunity to personally meet with Judge Mukasey in my office to go over the priorities of the Department of Justice and how he would try to reverse some of the problems in that Department. I had the chance to specifically ask written questions to the nominee and got responses on those written questions.

I must tell you, first, I do believe Judge Mukasey is an honorable person. He has a distinguished record of public service, and he would represent a refreshing change within the Department of Justice. He has the ability to restore morale and traditional professionalism, particularly among the career attorneys at the Department of Justice.

But one of the critical issues in evaluating who should be our next Attorney General is whether that individual will exercise the independence that is so required by the Attorney General of the United States; in short, whether he will represent the people of our Nation and not just the President of the United States.

We all know the record of the former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. We know about how partisan politics interfered with the selection and promotion of career attorneys at the Department of Justice. We all now know the story of the firing of the U.S. attorneys and how it appears that partisan politics in criminal investigations-- criminal investigations--may have interfered with the operation of the Department of Justice. So independence is a critically important factor in the next person to be the Attorney General of the United States.

Because of Judge Mukasey's response to the questions relating to waterboarding, I have concern about his independence. Judge Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding is torture. In reply to questions that were asked, he responded that he would use independent judgment as to what constitutes torture. He said he would prosecute anyone who violated our laws. He said, in fact, if his views conflicted with those of the President of the United States in a fundamental way, and if he were unable to reconcile those differences, he would leave the office rather than compromise his views.

Let me read three questions I asked of the Attorney General nominee. I asked: As Attorney General, would you order the Justice Department to prosecute individuals who, under 18 U.S.C 2340 and 2340(a), committed acts of torture?

Judge Mukasey's answer:

The Department of Justice has an obligation to bring

prosecutions to enforce all valid criminal statutes and, as I

explained during the hearing, torture is prohibited by

federal law.

I then asked the nominee: Do you believe that any ``exceptional circumstances'' exist that would justify torture?

His answer was no.

I then asked: As Attorney General, would you authorize the use of torture in any circumstance?

Once again, his answer was no.

I cannot understand why Judge Mukasey will not tell us clearly that waterboarding is illegal under our laws. The fact that he leaves open that waterboarding could be permitted as an interrogation technique has me very concerned.

Judge Mukasey now acknowledges he understands what is generally meant by waterboarding. I gave him the benefit of the doubt during the hearing. He said: I am not familiar with the technique.

That is difficult to understand but--OK. He then had time to reflect and learn about waterboarding as generally understood, waterboarding that has been condemned for literally hundreds of years--since the Spanish Inquisition. He now understands what is generally meant be waterboarding. But during the confirmation hearing and in follow-up questions he would not rule out the potential use. Questions asked during the confirmation hearing did not ask about a specific technique that may have been authorized by the President for interrogating detainees. That is not what was asked. The question that was asked is about waterboarding as generally understood. It was not a hypothetical question.

Waterboarding has been condemned by the United States. The United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding as a war crime after World War II. We brought charges as war crimes for those who would try to use that torture technique against Americans.

In 2005, the Congress passed the McCain amendment which prohibits the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment and punishment of persons under the detention, custody, and control of the U.S. Government. We also then required that the Army must use the field manual while interrogating detainees.

In 2006, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibited waterboarding. During our final panel of witnesses, I had a chance to question Admiral Hutson, who has a very distinguished record of service to our country-- former Navy Judge Advocate General, senior uniformed legal adviser to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. So we had a chance to talk about waterboarding. He said waterboarding is one of the most iconic examples of torture. It was devised during the Spanish Inquisition. Its use has been repudiated for centuries.

Admiral Hutson said we look to the Attorney General as our chief law enforcement officer. He has to be absolutely unequivocal as to what torture is and is not. We need clarity from our principal leaders.

So it appears to me that Judge Mukasey was yielding to the White House pressure on waterboarding in answering the questions of our committee. I find that very troubling. I am looking for an Attorney General who will exercise independent judgment as to what the law of our country is, and that no one is above our law.

On November 1, 2007, President Bush implied if Judge Mukasey answered the questions on waterboarding, he would give ``terrorists a window into which techniques we may use and which ones we may not use.'' I want the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States to tell the world, unequivocally, that the United States will not permit the use of torture. I am not clear about the President. We all remember his signing statements to the McCain amendment, which leaves questions as to whether torture could be allowed under some circumstances. Now we are not clear, with Judge Mukasey's answers, as to whether waterboarding could be permitted under some circumstances as a form of torture.

I think it is absolutely clear our leaders must make it apparent to all the United States will not use torture, nor will it ever tolerate any other country using torture or any individuals using torture against an American. If a foreign agent attempts to use waterboarding, as it is generally understood, or any other form of torture against an American, I want our country to use every means at its disposal to hold that offender accountable.

On November 1 the President also said Judge Mukasey could not ``go on the record about the details of a classified program he has not been briefed on.'' I agree with the President of the United States. Judge Mukasey was not asked about specific practices of a classified program. He was requested to give information about waterboarding as generally understood. He had an obligation to answer that question.

The 9/11 Commission, in one of its recommendations to Congress, said the

United States should engage its friends to develop a common approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. Instead, we have gone it alone. We have not sought the advice of the international community, and we are paying a heavy price for the manner in which we are proceeding. We are losing our support internationally as it relates to how we treat detainees. We are losing our ability as an international leader, as the leader in fighting for human rights advancements throughout the world. We are losing our leadership and credibility on this issue.

I serve as the Senate cochair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and delegate to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE-Helsinki process was started in 1975 between the countries in Europe, Central Asia, Canada, and the United States. It is best known for its human rights dimensions. It fought during the Soviet Union days, behind the Iron Curtain--fought to open the process and to defend human rights and to stand against torture. Today we are fighting in the emerging democracies to make it clear the human rights of all people must be respected, and torture cannot be permitted while we are being questioned by the Organization for Security for Cooperation in Europe as to what we are doing.

I am having a hard time finding the right answers, particularly on the issue of torture. As I said at the beginning, Judge Mukasey is a good person and an honest man. On the critical issue of standing up to this administration as an independent adviser against torture, I have my doubts. For that reason, I will be voting against his confirmation in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, quite frankly, I don't understand the objections of the President of the United States to the Children's Health Insurance Program we are considering here today. I hope we all understand the importance of this program and how important it is for children in America to have health insurance. We know, and we have a lot of studies which show, that children who have health insurance are far more likely to be immunized against diseases, far more likely to have the benefits of preventive health care, are far more likely to get the type of health care intervention that will lead to healthier lives. Quite frankly, that will save us money because they are going to be healthier and need less health care during their lifetime. We also know that children who have health insurance are far more likely to have better attendance records at school. The list goes on and on and on. So it makes sense for children to have health insurance.

The legislation we are considering is aimed at working families-- working families that cannot afford the cost of health insurance. These are families playing according to the rules. They are doing everything right, but they can't afford the cost of insuring the family with health insurance.

A family from Baltimore came and testified before the Presiding Officer's committee for the reauthorization of the CHIP program. The mother explained that having children's health insurance--having the Maryland program--that mother no longer has to wake up in the morning and decide whether the child is sick enough to see a doctor. She doesn't have to worry that if her child is playing on a playground and gets hurt, how they will be able to afford that bill.

Our children are the innocent casualties of the failure of our country to have universal health coverage--universal health insurance. They are the innocent casualties. The bill we have before us tries to do something about it.

This is a bill that is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill; it is a bill that has been compromised in the best sense of the legislative process: Democrats and Republicans working together to produce a bill that could be supported not just for 1 year but supported now for a decade. It is a bill that builds upon private insurance. That was important to get the consensus among Democrats and Republicans. It is a bill that is administered by our States; it is not administered in Washington. This is a program that our States administer. I am proud of the State of Maryland MCHIP program, the Maryland Children's Health Insurance Program. It is designed in Maryland to meet the needs of our children, and the Federal Government is a partner in helping to pay for the program. This is a bill that has been worked in the best sense of the legislative process, by Democrats and Republicans.

It is an affordable program. I have heard the President of the United States talk about the affordability. This program is affordable. First, as I mentioned earlier, it saves health care dollars. Children who have access to preventive health care are going to save us money over the long term in health care expenditures. Secondly, this bill is paid for. I know that is not always the case with legislation we pass, but this bill will not add a penny to the deficit. In fact, I would argue that this bill will actually help us in balancing the Federal budget. It is fully paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax, but economists tell us that as a result of the increase in the cigarette tax, there are going to be millions of people who will either stop smoking or will never start smoking--particularly young people who won't start smoking now because of the extra cost in buying a pack of cigarettes. The Presiding Officer and I know how much that will save in our health care system for someone who doesn't smoke. That is not figured into the cost estimates here, the savings we will have to our health care system because of the number of children who will never start smoking.

In Maryland, this bill will mean that Maryland will not only be able to continue the 100,000 children who are currently enrolled in the program--because if we don't pass this bill, we can't continue our current commitment--but will add 40,000 more children to the Maryland Children's Health Care Program.

That is good. We need to do that. Let me remind you that, in Maryland, we have 800,000 people without health insurance. That is not just children, that is the whole community that has no health insurance. Obviously, we want to reduce that number. This bill makes a small step in dealing with the gap we have in America where people have no health insurance, but it is an important step because it deals with children. We can certainly do that.

I wish to talk about one part of the program that, quite frankly, hasn't gotten a lot of attention, and it is a very important part, which is the reason we need a reauthorization bill. In a reauthorization bill, we can expand the program to deal with the needs in our communities. This bill covers required dental services, so all the children in the Children's Health Insurance Program will receive dental insurance coverage.

C. Everett Koop, a former Surgeon General of the United States, says,

``There is no health without oral health.'' Again, he is a former Surgeon General. The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry said dental decay is the most chronic childhood disease among children in the United States--five times more likely than asthma. Regarding the vulnerability of our children, of those children between the ages of 6 to 8, 50 percent have tooth decay. If you are poor and live in poverty, you are two times more likely to have a problem with your teeth. If you happen to be a minority--if you are an African American, 39 percent of them have untreated tooth decay. If you live in a rural part of your State--Mr. President, I know your State and my State have rural communities--only 11 percent of our population ever visit a dentist. We have a problem with dental care in this country. Twenty-five million Americans live today in areas that have inadequate dental care services. So we can do better, and this bill moves us in the right direction. There is a direct relationship between general health and oral health. We know that. One example: Plaque has been directly related to problems with heart disease. We know there is a relationship there, and there is a lot to be learned.

I am going to try to put a face on this issue because we talk about what it means to have 25 million people who don't have access to dental services. I will tell you about one child, Deamonte Driver. He lived in Prince George's County in my State, which is about 6 miles from here. He was a 12-year-old who had problems with his teeth. His mom tried to get him to see a dentist and could not find one who would treat him. He sort of fell through the cracks.

Finally, he was suffering from horrible headaches, so his mother did what many parents do with children who don't have health insurance-- took the child to the emergency room. One of the reasons we want to see the CHIP bill passed is to get children less expensive preventive health care so they don't have to use emergency rooms as primary care facilities. He went to the emergency room, and he was admitted. It seemed as if he didn't just have tooth decay, he had an abscessed tooth that went untreated. No dentist would see him. He had no insurance. They performed an operation and tried to alleviate his pain and save his life. They performed a second operation and spent a quarter of a million dollars, which we paid for because it was uncompensated care. That boy died because, in 2007, we have no program in this country to provide that child an $80 tooth extraction and for children to be able to see dentists.

Mr. President, one of the really good things about this bill before us--our reauthorization bill--is we have a chance to do something about that. We have a chance to do something about the Deamonte Drivers of our communities, to make sure our innocent children get the type of attention they so much deserve.

What does this bill do for dental care? It has a guaranteed dental benefit, coverage of dental services necessary to prevent diseases, promote oral health, restore oral structure to health and function, and treat emergency conditions. That is what is covered in this legislation which we will vote on in a few hours. How do you meet that? It is interesting. The States are giving benchmarks. You can do it if you have a benefit like ours, our Federal plan, in which dental benefits are included. The State can meet the requirements by providing the benefits Federal employees get. They can take the dental benefits in their State employees' plan and use that as a model or they can take the most popular commercial plan in their State for enrollment for Medicaid enrollees and use that as their benchmark.

So when you are using commercial insurance as the benchmark for what children should be able to have insurance to deal with their dental needs, to me, that is the way we should be going. It is in this bill.

This is even more important. The bill provides for dental education for parents of newborns. When babies are born, they don't have teeth, so why is that important? One out of every five children between the ages of 2 and 4 has tooth decay in their baby teeth. This bill provides for education so that parents know about the risks of oral health and know how to deal with oral health as their babies grow up. It also makes it easier to locate a participating provider.

Let me go back to Deamonte Driver again, from Prince George's County. His parents sought the help of a social worker, Laurie Norris, who tried to find a dentist who would treat Deamonte Driver. That social worker made over 20 phone calls to try to find a dentist who would treat Deamonte Driver--without success. Think about the time that went into that. Think about how many parents must be so discouraged in trying to get help for their children.

Well, this legislation before us today, which we will vote on in a couple of hours, does something about that. It requires that the Web page on the Children's Health Insurance Program list the coverage available by State for dental benefits under the CHIP program, plus the list of providers who will provide that care. So if this bill becomes law, with one phone call or one click of the mouse, a parent will be able to know exactly what the benefits are and exactly which dentist that parent can contact in order to get his or her child the type of care they need.

I have heard my colleagues talk a lot about this Children's Health Insurance Program, how important it is to the health of the people in our communities. I know how important it is in Maryland. I am proud of our program at the State level, which has the cooperation and help of the Federal Government as a partner. It is a bipartisan bill, developed by Democrats and Republicans, and the bill makes sense from the point of view of proper allocation of money in our health care system and will save us money--all of those things.

At the end of the day, it does speak about priorities. What is important? Where are our priorities? What do we want to be known for? Whom did we stand up for?

This bill spends $35 billion over a 5-year period, and it is fully paid for. We can all make our own comparisons, but I think about the cost in Iraq, which, over a 3-month period, is costing more than this bill, and it is not paid for, but we seem to always have the money for that. And we come up with excuses to oppose this legislation.

I thank the leaders who were responsible for bringing this legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope we can get the type of support we need to pass this, notwithstanding the objections of the President. I always hold out hope that President Bush will sign a bill--a bill that will allow the people of Maryland and throughout this country to have adequate care so that we don't have to again see a story such as Deamonte Driver's--a child who died because we could not find a way to get him basic dental care.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we need to invest in America's infrastructure. Today, America invests only three-tenths of 1 percent of our gross domestic product in public buildings and roads and bridges, ports and railroads. This abysmal figure is the lowest rate in the recent history of public investments dating back to at least the 1960s, and maybe before that. In Minnesota earlier this year, we saw some of the tragic consequences of the failure to invest in America.

I am glad to see the Sununu amendment was not agreed to. That amendment would have put a cap on our subsidies that Amtrak can utilize on its routes. In truth, however, such an amendment would put an end to all of Amtrak's long-distance trains within 5 years. By eliminating all of these essential rail services, the amendment would also lead to the slow but certain death of America's regional service as well.

The Nation receives extraordinary public benefits from mass transportation systems. They take thousands of cars off of our congested highways. They take tons of pollutants out of the air we breathe. They move people more efficiently into and out of our most congested areas. Such an amendment and the veto threat issued by the White House both are based on wrong assumptions--that we should be taking management flexibility and financial resources away from Amtrak. We should be doing exactly the opposite. We need to invest in Amtrak, just as we need to invest in our bridges, buildings, ports, and other transit systems.

Amtrak operates approximately 90 trains daily in Maryland, mostly on the Amtrak-owned Northeast corridor, through Baltimore, Penn Station, and New Carrollton. In addition to the Northeast corridor service, including the Acela Express, Regional, and Metroliner trains, Amtrak operates five long-distance trains through Maryland, as well as two regional trains. More than 1.7 million passengers board and disembark in Maryland's Amtrak stations every year. Those numbers are increasing. Amtrak's fiscal 2007 ridership topped 25.8 million. That is the fifth year in a row that Amtrak has seen a growth in passenger service.

So our constituents want this service. They need this service. It is in our national interest to promote a more efficient passenger rail system. It also set a record for the highest ridership that Amtrak has seen since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation was enacted in 1971.

Amtrak employs more than 2,500 Marylanders, brings good jobs that range from corporate executives and accountants to trainmen and the men and women who operate and maintain the tracks. Amtrak operates weekday MARC commuter rail service on the Northeast corridor, including Washington, Baltimore, and Perryville, under a contract with the Maryland Transit Administration. It has a shared capital agreement with the State. Both Amtrak and the State of Maryland invest jointly in the improvements. The joint benefit program included the investment of $28 million by the State in 2006.

Amtrak is part of the infrastructure backbone of Maryland. It carries millions of passengers, employs thousands of workers, and benefits all of us, both economically and environmentally. Let me underscore that.

Transit service is important for quality of life, so people can get from one place to another. It is certainly a lot easier if you are trying to get from Baltimore to New York to get on a train. It takes you right to downtown New York. You don't have to worry about going through the security of an airport. It is easier for people to use the rail service. But you are also helping our environment. It is a friendlier way for our energy and dealing with the environmental risks of transportation today to our environment. I was at a hearing yesterday regarding global climate change. Rail service will help us in dealing with the challenges of our environment. So it is in our environmental interest.

It is also in our economic interest. It helps us to become more energy efficient. We import too much oil. We are dependent upon countries with policies with which we disagree. Amtrak is part of the solution by improving rail service in this country. So we will be helping the security of America, the economy of America, and certainly the environmental issues as well.

Mr. President, we need to rethink our approach to America's critical infrastructure. We need to reinvest in Amtrak. It is an investment in America that is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I thank the leadership in the Senate for bringing this issue forward. It will have my support.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 2 days ago the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the Health Impacts of Global Warming. Our lead witness was Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Administrator for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Dr. Gerberding was invited to testify by Chairman Boxer because the Director is a highly respected leader in the public health arena. The committee wanted to have the benefit of her expertise as we grapple with one of the most important issues of our time, global climate change.

As everyone now knows, Dr. Gerberding's written testimony for the hearing was severely edited, with whole pages deleted. The White House says that some of her written comments did not represent the consensus view of the scientific community.

The very first line that the White House censored in Dr. Gerberding's testimony was this: ``Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth's climate is changing.''

If that statement doesn't represent the overwhelming sentiment of the

world's scientific community, I don't know what does. I find it astounding that this simple, sober statement of scientific fact would be censored.

These continuing efforts to silence the scientific community would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high. In the censored portions of her testimony, Dr. Gerberding lists them for us: direct effects of heat; health effects related to extreme weather events; air pollution- related health effects; allergic diseases; water- and food-borne infectious diseases; vector-borne and zoonotic diseases; food and water scarcity, at least for some populations; mental health problems; and long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects.

Mr. President, I found Dr. Gerberding's oral testimony to be excellent. She answered my questions directly and without qualifications. Her responses to the other Senators on the panel appeared to be equally candid.

Oral testimony is always limited by time, and committees rely heavily on the written comments of witnesses to provide a more complete perspective. Because of votes on the Senate floor on Tuesday morning, we were especially constrained for time.

I regret that we did not have the benefit of Dr. Gerberding's full statement prior to the hearing. Certainly, they would have added a more complete picture of the human health impacts associated with global warming than she was able to convey in the highly censored version that was transmitted to the committee.

The American people and the U.S. Senate have a right to know what our top health officials have to say on this critical issue. Today I will be submitting to the Record a full copy of the testimony that Dr. Gerberding had intended to offer. Her views are critical to this debate.

Science shouldn't be silenced. And today we will make sure Dr. Gerberding's words are heard.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of her draft testimony be printed into today's Record. The American people can read for themselves what the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had to say before the White House censors tried to silence her.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is offered by Senator Smith and myself. Refugees who come to this country are entitled to loans to help them defray the cost of transportation and to resettlement assistance once they arrive. I am for that.

This amendment provides similar benefits to those who qualify for Special Immigration Visas. These are Iraqi and Afghan translators who have helped us, and now, in risk of their lives, are allowed to come to a safe haven, the United States.

This amendment extends a helping hand to those who have helped us under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. As I indicated, refugees are entitled to this benefit for up to 7 years. This provides benefits for only up to 6 months for the SIV holders.

It is carefully crafted. It has been scored at not adding additional costs to the budget. I think this is a matter of basic fairness. I urge my colleagues to support the Cardin-Smith amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3396, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the fiscal year 2008 Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Some call this legislation the most significant appropriations bill we will consider as it touches the lives of every single American. Each American citizen has the right to basic education, adequate healthcare, and access to employment opportunities. In providing funding across three major

agencies, we are ensuring that our citizens have every opportunity to reach their maximum potential. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a few of the bill's major provisions.

American workers deserve every opportunity to provide for their families. Investment in training, education, and employment services leads to good jobs that provide self-sustainability for workers and their families. This was the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act and is what the funding provided for in this bill accomplishes through various job training programs. This bill acknowledges the value of training and employment services by continuing to fund adult employment and training, youth training and dislocated worker assistance programs.

This bill also provides critical funding for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. NIH funds significant health research at over 3,000 institutions throughout the U.S. and around the world. While increased funding provided in this bill is a good start, we can, and must, do more. NIH funding supports research to develop and find cures for a myriad of health issues, including cancer, diabetes, stroke, and mental illness. These are significant health concerns facing Americans today.

As you are aware, NIH is headquartered in Bethesda, MD, where more than 18,000 are employed. So it is especially important to me, a Senator from Maryland, that we give all of these individuals the resources they need to improve and save lives through health research. I commend the Appropriations Committee for supporting this agency with a 3.3 percent increase to the overall NIH budget. However, if we expect America to remain a leader in medical advancements and technologies, we must be committed to providing researchers the resources they need to move forward. I am committed to that goal and urge my colleagues to remain vigilant, as well.

This bill provides a $125 million increase above the administration's budget request for the Social Security Administration's, SSA, administrative expenses and for that I am grateful. However, that increase does not adequately address SSA's serious backlog issue. It is no secret that the Social Security Administration's resources are stretched thin. Disability claims are arising at an alarming rate. Currently, over three-quarters of a million individuals are waiting for a hearing decision as pending hearings have increased to a record 752,103. Further, the time that an applicant must wait for a hearing continues to rise, currently averaging 523 days. Compounding the crisis, Medicare reform legislation passed by Congress has increased SSA's responsibilities. Field offices average over 850,000 visitors a week. Meanwhile, SSA continues to downsize its labor force. Further, we hear a lot of talk about fraud, waste, and abuses within the SSA.

I submit that we will never get a handle on the problem unless we provide adequate resources to address it. We in Maryland are fortunate to have the Social Security Administration Headquarters in Baltimore. By not adequately addressing the SSA backlogs, not only are we doing harm to the hundreds of thousands of individuals that, due to health circumstances beyond their control, can no longer support themselves, we are also tying the hands of the hard-working individuals assisting them. Again, I commend the Appropriations Committee for providing additional funding SSA administrative expenses but note that the agency needs additional funding to avoid further staff reductions and an increasing disability backlog.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their support of my amendment establishing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should maintain ``deemed status'' coverage under the Medicare Program for clinical trials that are federally funded or reviewed. Under current policy, trials that are federally funded or reviewed by institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, received ``deemed status'' and were not subjected to additional review to be eligible for reimbursement. This policy has worked well for 7 years.

Prior to 2000, too few seniors participated in clinical trials. One reason for this disparity was Medicare's reimbursement policy. Because Medicare was modeled on the indemnity health insurance policies, it did not pay for treatment considered ``experimental'' in nature, and so often denied reimbursement for the routine patient care costs associated with clinical trials. Many seniors could not afford to pay these costs themselves, and so they were by and large excluded from these trials. CMS has recently considered changing this policy, requiring trial sponsors to undergo a process certifying that they have met 13 separate criteria to qualify for Medicare coverage. This new policy has the potential to reverse the progress that has been made over the past 7 years by making it much more difficult for trials to qualify.

Seniors' participation in clinical trials serves two vital functions. First it affords many seniors with serious illnesses their only hope for lifesaving treatment. Second, it is key to researchers' efforts to determine the effectiveness of therapies for seniors. Since this issue has come to light, I have heard from hundreds of patients and providers across the country who agree that we must continue to remove access barriers to innovative healthcare treatments for our seniors. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support on this important matter.

The Appropriations Committee is committed to funding significant programs that address real issues that touch the heart and home of Americans. This includes some innovative programs in my home State of Maryland, such as: funding provided through this bill will allow the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CBF, in collaboration with Living Classrooms Foundation, LCF, to continue providing students with rich, meaningful field and classroom programs focusing on the natural and cultural history of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Funding will allow CBF and LCF to reach approximately 700 teachers, and 87,000 underserved students.

The bill funds KIPP Ujima Village Academy in Baltimore through its parent organization. KIPP Ujima opened its doors in the summer of 2002 with its first class of fifth graders, and now serves 300 fifth through eighth grades. Over 99 percent of its students are African American, and 87 percent qualify for Federal free or reduced-price meals program. KIPP Ujima is the highest performing public school serving middle grades in Baltimore City, as measured by the 2006 Maryland State Assessment. On that exam, 100 percent of seventh and eighth graders scored proficient or advanced in mathematics, achieving the highest math scores in the State of Maryland.

Carroll County Youth Service Bureau, CCYSB, provides a continuum of community-based mental health services for children, adults, and families throughout Carroll County. CCYSB uses a multidisciplinary approach to deliver prevention, intervention and treatment services in the least restrictive and most cost-effective manner. Funding provided in the bill will allow CCYSB to reach more underserved patients in need of mental health services.

The bill also provides funding for equipment and technology in a number of Maryland healthcare facilities, including St. Agnes Hospital, Mercy Medical Center, Northwest Hospital, Kennedy-Krieger, Lifebridge, and Holy Cross. The technology and equipment provided will allow these facilities to better detect, diagnose, and treat patients who suffer traumatic illnesses and injuries.

I thank Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, and their staffs for all of their hard work to develop a bill that addresses many other basic rights that all Americans deserve: education, employment, and health care.

Mr. President, there are still some requests on our side for time. I would hope we would have a chance--

Mr. President, I will be speaking for about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I was under the impression that time was divided between the proponents and opponents.

Mr. President, I will be speaking in opposition to the nomination.

I understand that. I wonder if we would follow the normal practice of allowing those in opposition to be able to speak in regular order rather than having to wait for the time.

Yes, I would prefer to have an opportunity to speak.

I thank Senator Specter for the courtesy. I notice Senator Leahy is not on the floor, and I appreciate my colleague from Pennsylvania organizing the debate on the floor.

I appreciate that.

This is a unique body, the Senate of the United States. One of our most important responsibilities is the advice and consent on Presidential appointments on the confirmation of Federal judges. The Constitution envisions that we will use independent judgment in order to make these decisions. Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution gives us the power to confirm Federal judges.

I know all of my colleagues know these are lifetime appointments, so this is our one chance in order to evaluate those who will serve as Federal judges. We are talking about the U.S. Court of Appeals. For most Federal cases, this will be the final decision on a case that is brought in the

Federal court. Very few in percentages of the cases reach the Supreme Court of the United States. So the Court of Appeals is responsible for much of our laws in this country as far as the final judicial determination.

When I sought to become a Member of this body, I went over with the people of Maryland the standards I would use in trying to decide whether to vote to confirm a judge. I talked about judicial temperament and experience, but I also talked about a standard that I think is very important, which is a judge's or potential judge's passion for the Constitution of this country in order to protect every individual. I think it is important that we take a look at that, particularly when we talk about an individual who will serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

I have sat in the confirmation hearings. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. I had a chance to listen to Judge Southwick. I had a chance to listen to the questions that were posed back and forth. I must tell my colleagues I cannot support this confirmation. I will vote against it, and I would like to give the reasons why.

Senator Specter talked about some of the opinions that Judge Southwick participated in or some of his rulings, and I think that is what we should be looking at. For Judge Southwick, we do have an idea about his passion for the Constitution and what his priorities will be by looking at the type of cases he ruled on, the opinions he joined, and the opinions he wrote. So let me talk about the two opinions Senator Specter raises, because I think they are important opinions in order to get some insight as to this judge's passion for the Constitution.

The 1998 case of Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services was an important case. It was very offensive to not just the minority community but the entire community. The racial term that was used should never be used, as Senator Leahy said, in the workplace or anyplace else. The dissent of that opinion, of that decision, got it right, where it said that the racial epithet is inherently offensive and its use establishes the intent to offend. Unfortunately, that was the minority opinion in that court. On appeal it was overturned, but Judge Southwick joined the majority. The rationale in the majority opinion I think is important, because it speaks to what Judge Southwick used to reach his conclusions. In that opinion he said the absence of evidence of a near race riot, the remark is too inconsequential to serve as a basis of dismissal.

I find that very offensive. I think we do have to be held accountable to where we allow our name to be added. Fortunately, as I said, that was corrected, but it took an appellate court to do that.

In 2001, we have S.B. v. L.W. where a 12-year-old child is taken away from her mother. It was done because she was a lesbian. The language in the opinion is very offensive. It talks about a homosexual lifestyle, words that I think we all know bring out bigotry in our society. But Judge Southwick went further in that case. He joined a concurring opinion that said your sexual orientation is a matter of choice and any adult may choose any activity in which to engage. That person is not thereby relieved of the consequences of his or her choice.

No wonder Judge Southwick is being challenged by many respected national groups. Upon questioning within our committee on confirmation, I didn't get a sense that there was a retraction by Judge Southwick of these decisions. He stuck by the decisions.

At the confirmation hearing, Senator Durbin asked him a pretty simple question. He asked him a question about whether during his life or career, he ever took an unpopular point of view on behalf of those who were powerless or vulnerable and needed someone to stand up for their rights when it was not a popular position. That, to me, is a softball question: When did you stand up for someone else's rights? Judge Southwick couldn't think of a single example throughout his entire career.

So there is no wonder that there is concern about whether this potential judge on the court of appeals will protect all of our rights as the cases come before him and why there is so much concern about his confirmation.

But I want to go on to another issue that Senator Leahy raised, and that is the issue of diversity. Diversity is very important. We expect all of our citizens will live according to the rule of law and will have confidence that the laws we make and the Court's rulings on those laws will be fair to all communities, so they have a right to expect that there will be equal access to participation in all branches of Government. Looking at the record in the Fifth Circuit, there is reason for concern. The Fifth Circuit is Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas-- the highest percentage of minority population in the country of any circuit outside of the District of Columbia--44 percent minority. Of the 10 nominees President Bush has submitted to the Federal bench from Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit--10--none have been African American. Mississippi has the largest percentage of African Americans of any State in the Nation: 36 percent. Of the 19 Federal judges on the Fifth Circuit, only one is African American. These are important issues to the people of that circuit and to the people of this country.

So there are many organizations that are opposing Judge Southwick's nomination. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of opposition and concern from the J. Franklin Bourne Bar Association and the National Organization for Women, the Legal Momentum, and the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am going to quote very briefly from the letter from the Bourne Bar Association where it says:

A representative democracy is a must in a free society, and

as such the residents of the State of Mississippi, Texas, and

Louisiana are deserving of a Federal judiciary that reflects

the composition of their respective citizenry.

Ten nominees from this area; none African American.

The National Organization for Women states:

Judge Southwick has a disturbing record and an appalling

lack of sensitivity on women's rights, racial justice, and

discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action:

Judge Southwick has demonstrated his disdain for equal

rights and equal protection under the law.

So I am not convinced Judge Southwick is the best that we can find for the court of appeals. I am not going to give the President a blank check, and I will vote against the confirmation of Judge Southwick.

Once again, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment so I may call up amendment No. 3400.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, Senators Smith, Lieberman, Durbin and I offer this amendment to grant Iraqi and Afghan special immigrant visa holders 6 months of eligibility for resettlement assistance when they arrive here in the United States.

The United States currently provides up to 500 special immigrant visas, SIVs, to translators from Iraq and Afghanistan. To be eligible for an SIV, an individual from either of those two countries must: (1) faithfully serve as a translator with the U.S. military or chief of mission for at least a year and (2) be recommended to the program by a general, flag officer, or chief of mission. Visas are also issued for the spouse and dependent children of the SIV applicant.

According to the Department of State, the U.S. issued 823 special immigrant visas to Iraqis this year. This included 432 visas for principal applicants and 391 visas for family members.

As a matter of course, immigrants who come to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including Iraqis and Afghans, are eligible for travel loans to help them get to the United States and for resettlement assistance once they arrive here. As a matter of course, the Federal Government tries to ensure that refugees are able to make the transition to a productive life in the United States by providing preliminary housing; school enrollment; and job training assistance.

In spite of their service to our country, however, individuals from Iraq and Afghanistan who come here on Special Immigrant Visas receive no help with travel or readjustment.

The U.S. Government does not keep track of how many of the 823 Iraqis admitted into this program actually have been able to travel to the United States. Experts believe that many translators with SIVs are still trapped in the region because they cannot afford the cost of the SIV fees and the plane tickets, especially if they are bringing members of their immediate family.

Like refugees, many Iraqi and Afghan special immigrants face hardships that make it difficult to immediately adapt to their new home. Many have been forced to leave their homes and all their personal wealth in Iraq. Many have been forced to pay ransoms or have been robbed by criminals while fleeing the country. Moreover, while translators are paid well by Iraqi standards, that compensation doesn't amount to much for people trying to live in the United States.

U.S. soldiers are paying for the plane tickets of their Iraqi interpreters out of their own pockets and acting as hosts and social workers for the individuals and families they are unofficially ``sponsoring'' when they arrive here in the U.S. This puts a heavy strain on our soldiers attempting to make their own tough readjustment to life back home.

Special immigrant translators have no past experience obtaining work permits, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, and all the other documents and necessities of everyday life in this country. While special immigrant translators have valuable job skills, they often need further training and assistance with job placement.

So Senator Smith and I have introduced this amendment to make these special immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan eligible for 6 months-- of resettlement assistance. They have been the eyes and ears of our military, and they have saved so many American lives. They now have a target on their back because of their service to our country, and we need to protect them by granting them safe refuge in the United States. Frankly, I don't know how we could justify doing any less for people forced to flee their homes and their country because they have been helping us. This is just for 6 months--just enough to get them on their feet.

I would note that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has estimated that the amendment would have no effect on direct spending under current law.

The Iraqis and Afghans admitted under the special immigrant visa program have risked their lives to serve the United States. Without the assistance my amendment offers, they may remain trapped in the region or they may face a tougher time than is necessary or right adjusting to U.S. society. My amendment is a helping hand to people who have helped us. It's a way to repay them for their service by helping them to get here and begin living safe and productive lives in America. We have a strong obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis and Afghans who have worked so bravely with us--and have often paid a terrible price for it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Russian Federation is, in many respects, a democratic state. Elections are held at regular intervals, local and national elective bodies meet and pass legislation. Referenda may be held on major issues, both at the national and local level, although this exercise may be reduced in the near future.

But there is another consideration, in which the Russian Federation falls short in its democratic characterization.

Freedom of the press is vital to the existence of a stable democratic state. Journalists must be able to openly report on all issues without fear of physical harassment or economic pressures. It is no accident that Napoleon said that four newspapers were more effective than a thousand bayonets.

Therefore, it is regrettable that a number of Russian journalists have recently been murdered while reporting on subjects sensitive to the Russian government. Other have been beaten or otherwise prevented from doing their job. One recent victim was involuntarily incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital.

Among those Russian journalists who have given their lives for their profession was Anna Politkovskaya, who reported extensively on the brutal war in Russia's secessionist region of Chechnya. Last week, friends, colleagues, and supporters of this courageous woman marked the one-year anniversary of her assassination.

Politkovskaya was fearless in her efforts to bring correct and unbiased information on the Chechen war to her readers. This was a hard-earned counterpoint to the propaganda that much of the electronic media turned out daily on the conflict . . . when there was any mention of it at all. While other journalists reported on the conflict from afar, she routinely traveled to troublesome areas to view and describe first-hand the problems and issues in the war-torn region. She was one of few Russian reporters to actively engage the Chechen people in open dialogue, and she presented her findings in a fair and balanced manner. Her resume included a long list of awards and commendations for her investigative skills and professional competence.

On October 7th, 2006, Ms. Politkovskaya was carrying groceries up to her Moscow apartment when, according to authorities, a gunman clad in black fired twice, shooting her once in the head. The murderer left the weapon at her side, a brazen gesture indicating, or meant to indicate, the commission of a contract murder. The Moscow newspaper Novaya Gazeta, where Ms. Politikovskaya worked, suggested the assassin or assassins had been following her closely and probably for a long time. Indeed, she was used to being watched and harassed. Numerous threats had already been made on her life, and at one point in 2001 she was forced to flee to Vienna.

As Co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I would also note that Anna Politkovksya delivered memorable and compelling testimony on the conflict in Chechnya at Commission hearings on Capitol Hill in September 2003, and she was awarded the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's annual Prize for Journalism and Democracy in that year.

Recently, several suspects were arrested in connection with the murder. However, there are disturbing reports that the investigation has been marked

by irregularities and apparent political considerations. For instance, Russian officials have been quick to assert that certain individuals and factions outside of the Russian Federation must have ordered the killing, although they have presented no credible proof. The fact is that Politkovskaya's work was extremely critical of corrupt and incompetent officials in the Russian government. At the time of her death, she had been working on a story about the torture of detainees in the jails of the pro-Moscow Chechen authorities.

The true instigator of this murder might well reside in Moscow, London, Grozny, or Murmansk. In any event, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated during a visit last week to Germany that the investigation is ``on the right track.'' Let us hope that he is correct.

And let us also remember the sacrifice and the journalistic integrity of Anna Politkovskaya and her colleagues in Russia and throughout the world, who risk life and limb every day to discern the truth and bring it to their fellow citizens.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I would like to engage the chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Maryland, in a colloquy concerning current Federal investments in space research programs that provide hands-on training experience for university students in the space science and engineering disciplines.

The senior Senator from Maryland has a long history of successfully championing Federal investment in the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, NASA. That history of Federal investment has kept the United States at the forefront in exploring space and expanding our knowledge of the complex world in which we live today. This investment in NASA has also made NASA an important partner of our Nation's colleges and universities in providing unparalleled educational experiences in the critical areas of science, technology, and engineering. Scientific research is critical to innovation, yet federally funded science programs have not kept pace with our need to train future generations of scientists and engineers, thereby diminishing the research and training opportunities offered to university students across the country. In the last 40 years, U.S. suborbital experimental launches have decreased 80 percent--from 270 per year to 50 planned launches in 2007. Decreases in suborbital launches have resulted in a corresponding drop in the hands-on training opportunities our universities provide to undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students in hard sciences. These training opportunities are essential for recruiting and maintaining a highly trained workforce and for protecting our national preeminence in science, engineering, and exploration.

The National Research Council released a report in June on ``Building a Better NASA Workforce and Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration.'' The report recommended that NASA focus more of its education budget on workforce-related programs such as the Graduate Student Researchers Program and other co-op programs. We know that some of NASA's programs involving sounding rockets, weather balloons, and small satellite launches are outstanding examples of worthy Federal investment that not only produces usable scientific data but provides outstanding hands-on learning opportunities for the next generations of scientists and engineers. Our investment in these programs has not kept pace with demand, and that is a problem we may want to address in future years as we consider the NASA budget. But before we make a decision about the right level of future Federal funding for these programs, I think it would be helpful for NASA, as one of our premier research institutions, to provide a report on its current investment in suborbital experimental launches and what will be needed in the future.

I ask my colleague from Maryland, in her role as chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, whether she would agree that it would be useful for NASA to study this issue and report back to the Congress on it in time for our consideration of the fiscal year 2009 CJS appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3093, the fiscal year 2008 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. I congratulate the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and the ranking member, Mr. Shelby, for their fine work in producing a bill that supports law enforcement, scientific research and technology, and enhances U.S. competitiveness. I would like to take a moment to note just a few of the bill's important provisions.

This body recently passed the DOD appropriations bill supporting our troops overseas. The CJS bill supports our day-to-day warriors here at home. That is, our law enforcement officers. It funds the FBI, the DEA, and the ATF; Federal law enforcement agencies charged with protecting our citizens from internal terrorist threats, international drug cartels, and the rising threat of violent crime. Further, the bill provides for important victims' assistance programs for those whose lives are forever altered by violent crime.

The CJS bill focuses on what is right with America by providing the resources needed to compete in the global economy. In my home state of Maryland, we are very fortunate to have The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST assists industry in developing technology, modernizing manufacturing processes, ensuring product reliability, and facilitating rapid commercialization of products based on new scientific discoveries. Advances in avionic navigation systems and modern-day mammograms and semiconductors are indicators of the value of NIST. This bill provides $186 million above the administration's request for this significant agency that is crucial to U.S. competitiveness.

Maryland is also fortunate to be home to several National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration facilities. NOAA provides scientific, technical, and management expertise to promote safe and efficient marine and air navigation; assess the health of coastal and marine resources; monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global environments, including weather forecasting; and protect and manage the Nation's coastal resources. NOAA's significance is strongly felt in Maryland which, with the Chesapeake Bay, boasts 4,000 miles of coastal land. I am proud that this bill strongly supports NOAA through the provision of $4.21 billion.

I join my colleagues to note the importance of NASA. NASA programs serve a number of functions, such as planetary exploration, pioneering aeronautic technologies, and space operations. This includes maintaining the space shuttle and supporting the International Space Station. Previous cuts, combined with the Columbia tragedy have strained NASA's resources. We must provide the necessary funding in order for America to remain a leader in space exploration, aeronautics, and planetary science. I applaud the committee for identifying this truth and supporting NASA.

I would like to further thank the committee for supporting several key programs in Maryland, including:

Chesapeake Bay Programs--The health condition of America's largest estuary is critical. Programs that assess, manage, and monitor bay ecosystems are imperative to preserving this vast natural resource. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the significance of focusing on the Chesapeake Bay. Funded bay programs will not only research viable restoration solutions but also focus on educating the public as to the importance of preserving the bay. These education efforts include the successful Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training Program, or B-WET, that enhances environmental literacy in K-12 students. In addition, there are Chesapeake Interpretive Buoys that act as markers for the newly established Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historical Trail, providing interpretive information for both trail users and educators while also providing essential science information about bay health.

Maryland Eastern Shore Broadband Coverage--The bill provides funding for the continued construction of a broadband link between the Wallops Island Flight Facility and the Patuxent River Naval Station. This telecommunication enhancement will help pave the way for high-tech business and employment opportunities on Maryland's eastern shore.

Maryland Radio Interoperability Project--The State of Maryland has committed to developing a radio interoperability Project that will link State and local law enforcement agencies. Cooperation and shared information between agencies will develop a more effective, efficient law enforcement system for the protection of our citizens.

Baltimore Felony Diversion Program--The city of Baltimore has developed a pilot project designed to divert drug addicted offenders to long-term substance abuse treatment, aftercare, and monitoring as an alternative to detention and method of reducing recidivism.

This bill is good for Maryland and good for America. I am honored to support it.