Floor Statements

Madam President, this bipartisan legislation makes technical changes to legislation I previously introduced, S. 487, along with Senators Bond, Dorgan, Graham, Durbin, Mikulski, Pryor, Cardin, Isakson, Coleman, Brown, and Chambliss and which passed the Senate on July 9, 2007. Companion legislation, H.R. 710, was introduced in the House by Representatives Charles Norwood and Jay Inslee,

where the bill was renamed in honor of Representative Norwood, a longtime advocate of organ donation, following his passing on February 13, 2007. This legislation, which applied only to kidneys when first introduced, was subsequently broadened in a Senate substitute amendment I offered and the Senate adopted unanimously on July 9, 2007. The legislation was broadened to include paired donation of other organs as the field of transplantation advances, and in order that those advances not be hindered.

Today, the House has returned the bill passed by the Senate on July 9, 2007, with several technical changes and we are all pleased that with its adoption today and fast-track to the President for his signature, the saving of thousands of lives is on the horizon.

Our legislation will save lives by increasing the number of kidneys and other organs available for transplantation through the process called paired organ donation. It addresses this relatively new procedure, which is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, UNOS, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the National Kidney Foundation, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, as well as many other organ donation and transplant organizations. Paired organ donation, which did not exist when the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, was enacted more than two decades ago, will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney or other organ to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that they are medically incompatible, to still become living kidney donors.

In the process of organ paired donation, a donor who is willing to give an organ to a family member or a friend, but is biologically incompatible, donates to another patient, who also has an incompatible donor. By cross-matching two or more incompatible living donor recipient pairs, more patients can receive organs and more donors can give an organ. Paired organ donation results in donor-recipient matching, that would not otherwise occur.

This legislation is necessary because the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, which contains a prohibition intended by Congress to preclude purchasing organs, is unintentionally impeding the facilitation of matching incompatible pairs, as just described. Our legislation would simply add paired donation to the list of other living-related donation exemptions that Congress originally placed in NOTA. It removes an unintended impediment to paired donations by clarifying ambiguous language in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA. That section has been interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such donations. In section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ purchases,'' says, ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration . . .'' This legislation does not remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line to section 301 which states that paired kidney donations do not violate it.

Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements that permit paired donation be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. Some transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief that these arrangements do not violate section of 301 of NOTA, but they contend that they are doing so under a cloud.

No Federal dollars are needed to implement this change. And, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save roughly $220,000 in the end-stage-renal disease program because of the significantly lower cost of transplantation compared to dialysis cost. It is essential that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that transplant centers which have hesitated to implement incompatible living kidney donation programs can feel free to do so.

Currently, over 97,000 people are waiting for an organ, including 72,000 who are waiting for a kidney transplant, over 2,600 of whom are in the State of Michigan, as they endure countless hours attached to a life-sustaining dialysis machine hoping that a organ donor will become available before they die. Because of the shortage of available organs, approximately 3,800 people die every year while on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. For them, time is of the essence.

Last but certainly not least, the great success we have achieved here today would not have been possible without the support of my good friend and colleague in the House, Representative John Dingell chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and my distinguished and caring colleague in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. In addition, there are those who energetically led the effort in educating Congress on the need for paired donation and they have long been a progressive force in organ donation and transplantation. I thank Dr. Robert M. Merion, professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Transplant Center and secretary of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, ASTS, as well as Dr. Goran B. Klintmalm from Baylor University Medical Center and president of the ASTS, for their tireless advocacy for this lifesaving legislation. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeff Crippin, director of liver transplants at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, and president of the American Society of Transplantation, AST; Dr. David Briscoe, director of transplant research at Children's Hospital in Boston, Harvard University; Dr. David Cohen, director of kidney transplant, Columbia University; and Bill Lawrence of United Network of Organ Donor Sharing for his steadfast leadership in the cause of organ donor awareness and organ transplantation.

Senate passage and enactment of this legislation is a fitting tribute that honors the memory of six members of the University of Michigan Transplant Team, who died in a tragic plane crash while on an emergency mission to deliver life-saving organs to the University of Michigan Hospital to save the lives of transplant patients.

I would like to share with my colleagues the sentiments expressed by Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan, upon learning of the tragic loss of the six members of the University of Michigan Transplant Team. Her remarks, given on June 5, 2007, are as follows:

Our hearts are broken by the devastating and irreplaceable

loss of six members of the Survival Flight transplant team.

Every day, the doctors, nurses and flight personnel of

Survival Flight do heroic work in saving the lives of others,

and that is how we will remember those who perished in

Monday's tragedy--as selfless heroes.

There is no greater act than that of saving a life, and

through our grief, we take comfort in knowing these six men

died in the service of a fellow human being.

Please hold in your hearts David Ashburn, M.D., a fellow

(physician-in-training) in cardiothoracic surgery; Richard

Chenault II, a transplant donation specialist with the U-M

Transplant Program; Dennis Hoyes, a Marlin air pilot; Rick

Lapensee, a transplant donation specialist with the U-M

Transplant Program; Bill Serra, a Marlin air pilot; and

Martinus (Martin) Spoor, M.D., a cardiac surgeon who had been

on the U-M faculty since 2003.

Our thoughts and prayers are with their families, friends

and colleagues.

Finally, I would also like to share an excerpt from a letter I received from Dr. Robert Merion regarding his cherished colleagues and friends who were members of the University of Michigan Transplant Team, as follows:

All of my colleagues who perished in that horrible crash

were committed to organ donation. In fact, the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services awarded one of them,

Richard Chenault II, its Medal of Honor in 2006 for his

successful efforts to increase organ donation at the

University of Michigan. All six of these fine men would have

been extraordinarily proud to know that their names were

being invoked to stimulate final passage of a bill that will

provide the gift of life to so many others.

I commend the Senate on the passage of this much-needed legislation and look forward to the President signing it in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``United Nations Development Program Operations in North Korea.'' In April 2007, the United Nations Development Program, UNDP, took the unprecedented step of shutting down its operations in North Korea due to refusals by the North Korean government to allow UNDP to increase the transparency and accountability of its funding programs there. The Subcommittee's December 13th hearing will examine UNDP operations in North Korea, reviewing evidence and taking testimony on certain problems in the relationship between UNDP and the North Korean government, whether the problems in North Korea are localized or systemic, and whether UNDP has sufficient whistleblower and ethics safeguards in place. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives of the Government Accountability Office and the Department of State. Following the hearing, the Subcommittee will receive a public briefing from representatives of the United Nations Development Program. A final witness list will be available Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 2 p.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support fairness in our Tax Code and fiscal responsibility in our budgets and appropriations.

Sometime in the next 2 weeks, the Senate will likely be asked to vote on legislation to fix the alternative minimum tax--what we call the AMT. The issue before us is not whether the AMT ought to be fixed. Fixing it is the only fair thing to do for America's middle-class families. The real issue is whether we are going to fix it in a way that is fiscally responsible, so that we do not leave our children and our children's children to foot the bill--yet again--for our spending.

After 6 years of runaway deficits and Tax Code revisions that have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest among us, Democrats committed during the 2006 election that we would reinstitute fiscal responsibility. We pledged to play it straight with taxpayers: we said we will not run up deficits with the cost of new legislation; we will pay for what we legislate. That pledge applied to program increases, to new programs, and to tax cuts. The Democrats' fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go pledge is the only way we have been able to temper deficit spending that has once again become the norm in Washington over the past 7 years.

So far we have held firm on the so-called ``pay-go'' commitment. But fixing the AMT carries a cost of $51 billion, and pressure is mounting on the Senate to break that commitment and add to the record $9 trillion national debt that is already threatening future generations. In the name of fairness and fiscal responsibility, the Senate should resist that pressure.

President Bush has recently used the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility.

President Bush said, ``You have to have some fiscal discipline if you want to balance the federal budget.''

The distinguished minority leader, Senator McConnell added that it is time ``to get us out of the business of political theater and back to the business of governing in a fiscally responsible way.''

I agree with those sentiments even if they are 6 years too late. But being fiscally responsible as we fix the AMT will require the Senate to do more than talk the talk about fiscal discipline; it will require the Senate to walk the walk by paying for any tax reductions, and not paying for them by increasing the national debt.

Unfortunately, some of our Republican colleagues have a blind spot: they call for fiscal discipline when Congress wants to pay for an earmark or a new program, but when tax cuts are on the line, fiscal discipline is suddenly tossed into the legislative trash can. True fiscal discipline means we have to look at the bottom line for taxpayers no matter what kind of legislation we are debating, including a fix for the AMT.

The AMT was intended, when adopted in 1969, to ensure that every American with significant income contributes at least some taxes to this great country. It was designed to stop the highest income taxpayers from using tax loopholes to escape contributing one thin dime to Uncle Sam, ensuring that they shoulder their fair share of the tax burden.

The AMT included exemptions to make sure that middle class Americans were not forced to pay higher AMT taxes instead of their normal tax burden. But in recent years the AMT has gone wrong. The problem is that the AMT's exemptions protecting the middle class have not been adjusted for inflation, and the AMT is now loading additional taxes onto the backs of working families who already pay their fair share.

In 2006, 4 million taxpayers had to pay higher taxes due to the AMT. In 2007, with no fix, 23 million Americans will have their taxes increased because of the AMT. That includes 830,000 taxpayers in Michigan, which is 18 percent of all the taxpayers in the State. Only a few of these Michigan taxpayers are upper income, and most are not taking advantage of unfair tax loopholes. But if they are caught by the AMT, all 830,000 Michiganders could be hammered with hundreds or even thousands of dollars in additional taxes.

There is a consensus in Washington that the AMT exemptions ought to be expanded so that the AMT impacts only upper income Americans, and not middle class Americans already working hard just to get by. The only issue is whether we are going to pay for it.

Protecting the middle class from AMT taxes in 2007 will cost the Treasury about $51 billion over 10 years. Faced with this cost, the House has taken the fiscally responsible course of action. It has sent us a bill, H.R. 3996, which would protect the middle class from the AMT sledgehammer in a way that is revenue neutral and does not add to our national debt.

The House bill includes three fiscally responsible provisions that would raise $52 billion to pay for the AMT fix. These measures would ensure fairness in the taxes levied on stock profits and in the taxes paid by hedge fund managers. Each provision represents an important tax reform in its own right that merits our support as a matter of tax fairness.

The first of the House measures would require stock brokers to start reporting the cost basis of the securities they sell for their clients on the 1099 forms that brokers already send to those clients and to the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. Reporting the cost basis on these forms is a simple way to help ensure that the stock owners accurately report to the IRS any profits earned from the sales of the stock, and it enjoys broad, bipartisan support. It is expected to generate about $3.4 billion in added tax revenues over the next 10 years.

The next two House provisions would affect the income taxes paid by hedge fund managers, a small group of investment advisers who are among the wealthiest in America today.

Hedge funds are private investment funds accessible only to wealthy individuals and large institutional investors. The experts who decide how to invest these dollars are typically called hedge fund managers. In 2006, there were about 2,500 hedge funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. Hedge funds take money only from sophisticated investors such

as pension funds, university endowments, and individuals who have at least $5 million in investments. By taking investment dollars only from sophisticated investors, hedge funds can avoid complying with SEC regulations that apply to mutual funds and other investment funds available to the general public.

Last year, press reports indicate that the top U.S. hedge fund manager made $1.7 billion in compensation. That's billion. The average compensation for the top 25 hedge fund managers was around $570 million. Each. Think about that. For comparison, the 2006 median income for U.S. households was less than $49,000, which is less than one ten thousandth of the income collected by those top hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers make their money by charging their clients a management fee equal to 2 percent of the funds provided to the hedge fund for investment and, in addition, by taking 20 percent of the profits earned from those investments. The 20 percent share of the investment returns from hedge funds is known as ``carried interest.'' Under current law, most hedge fund managers claim that this carried interest qualifies as capital gains subject to a maximum tax rate of 15 percent, rather than as ordinary income subject to a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.

When hedge fund managers take 20 percent of their clients' investment returns, they are being compensated for managing those client funds; they are not collecting profits from investing their own money. Characterizing this compensation as capital gains is a tax dodge that has been allowed to go on for too long. This tax loophole allows hedge fund managers to pay a 15-percent capital gains rate on millions--or even billions--of dollars in income. Meanwhile, a receptionist in the same office receiving a $50,000 salary pays at a regular tax rate. Making a salaried worker pay a higher tax rate than the managers who are making hundreds of millions of dollars is a tax travesty, and it has got to stop.

The House bill would restore fairness by putting an end to this tax loophole. The second provision of the House bill would make it clear that the 20 percent carried interest is, in fact, taxable as ordinary income, making hedge fund managers pay the same income tax rates as ordinary Americans. If enacted, it would raise about $25.6 billion over 10 years, half the cost of fixing the AMT.

The third provision in the House bill would address a smaller group of hedge fund managers--those routing their compensation through offshore corporations located in tax havens.

The hedge fund managers participating in this tax dodge typically don't live or work in the tax haven where the offshore corporation is incorporated. The offshore corporation often doesn't have any physical presence in the tax haven either--it functions as a shell company with no full-time employees or physical office. The whole arrangement is a phony setup to enable the hedge fund manager to appear to get paid outside the United States, direct the offshore corporation to place the compensation in an offshore retirement plan, and defer payment of any U.S. taxes on that compensation until sometime in the future. In the meantime, the offshore corporation can invest the funds tax free and accumulate investment returns for the hedge fund manager. The result of all this tricky maneuvering is that hedge fund managers are able to defer U.S. income taxes and circumvent parts of the U.S. Tax Code that limit tax free contributions to retirement plans. Some are able to defer paying taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars of annual income.

The House bill would put an end to this offshore tax dodge by requiring hedge fund managers to pay taxes on any earnings from their deferred offshore compensation, as those earnings accrue. The tax-free ride would be over. If enacted, this provision would raise $23.8 billion over 10 years.

Requiring accurate reporting of stock profits, applying the same tax rates to carried interest as to the income of ordinary Americans, and taxing deferred offshore investment income are provisions that promote tax fairness and make a lot of sense. Together, these three House provisions would raise more than $52 billion over 10 years, enough to pay for the entire $51 billion AMT fix so that we can protect middle class Americans from the AMT sledgehammer without running up the national debt.

So why is the Senate hesitating to enact the House bill?

Some claim that forcing hedge fund managers to pay their fair share of taxes would somehow put an end to the capitalist spirit in America. Whatever the merits of the argument for lower taxes on capital gains, those arguments certainly do not make any sense when applied to income earned for servicing and managing other peoples' capital. Surely the person who earned $1.7 billion would have had that same capitalist spirit and zeal for investing whether his take home pay was $1.7 billion or $1.1 billion.

Some of my colleagues argue that the Senate just should add the $51 billion cost of the AMT fix to the deficit and leave it at that. But when some taxpayers are given a free ride, the rest will inevitably be asked to make up the difference, whether it is through increased debt or higher taxes down the road. We all know that there is no free lunch, and there is no free tax cut, and history shows that when upper income groups avoid paying taxes, the middle income groups end up footing the tax bill. Unfortunately, some continue to grasp onto the fiscally irresponsible attitude that, in just the last 7 years, has added $3.5 trillion to the $9 trillion debt ditch already threatening the economic well-being of the next generation. And they would dig that debt ditch deeper--instead of paying for the AMT tax cut--primarily to protect hedge fund managers from paying their fair share of taxes.

I don't understand how some can claim that the deficit matters when the debate is over $22 billion in appropriations for health, education or veterans, but not when the issue is $51 billion in tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans.

The bottom line is that the House found the political will to impose tax fairness on hedge funds when they passed H.R. 3996. The Senate can and should do the same. If we don't--if we give in to the pressure to break the pay-as-you-go rules that have so far held firm in the Senate--it will be that much easier to break the rules again in the future. Giving up on pay-go would let down American taxpayers who are counting on us to act responsibly and pay for what we legislate.

If the Republican filibuster continues and succeeds, and if we cannot muster 60 votes to break it, we would then be forced with the choice of raising taxes on 23 million working families or violating our pay-as- you-go rules. I would protect my constituents at the expense of an even deeper national debt. But we don't have to go that way, and we shouldn't. With the House bill we can protect our constituents from unintended tax increases, we can ensure fairness in the tax code, and we can avoid increasing the Federal deficit.

I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to take a look at the tradeoffs presented in the House bill. The House bill will allow us to fix the AMT for a year, and at the same time ensure that the wealthiest among us contribute their fair share to this great country. I urge my colleagues to take seriously Congress's commitment to fiscal responsibility as well as fairness, and to pass H.R. 3996.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in my view, the United States has pursued failed trade policies for the past 20 years or more. This failed trade policy is reflected in our record trade deficits with the world. This failed trade policy has led us to accept a one-way street in trade where we allow too many countries access to our markets without insisting that they give us reciprocal access to theirs.

I have opposed trade agreements when they were in the same failed mold as our past trade policy, when they clearly were not requiring a more level playing field for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service sector employees, and when they failed to insist on basic internationally recognized labor and environmental standards. However, I have supported trade agreements that leveled the playing field and that did include strong and enforceable internationally recognized labor and environmental standards.

I particularly commend the work of my brother, Representative Sander Levin, chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, and others, for substantially improving the Peru Free Trade Agreement by reopening this agreement to incorporate enforceable worker rights and environmental standards in the body of the agreement. This is something Democrats have been working to include in trade agreements for over a decade. I agree with my brother who has characterized this groundbreaking achievement as, ``an historic breakthrough on trade by amending pending U.S. free trade agreements to incorporate a fully enforceable commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic international labor standards, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism and remedies as other FTA obligations.''

This breakthrough is surely of critical importance. For the first time in any FTA, the labor chapter requires both the United States and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the five core standards incorporated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. These include, one the right to organize; two, the right to bargain collectively; three, prohibitions on forced labor; four, protections for child labor; and five, freedom from employment discrimination.

The agreement also requires for the first time that the United States and Peru adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the obligations in the seven multilateral environmental agreements that both the United States and Peru are party to. All of these added obligations are subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism that applies to all other FTA obligations.

Peru is a small economy and makes up less than 1 percent of overall U.S. trade, and in 2006 was only our 43rd largest export market. Furthermore, 98 percent of U.S. imports from Peru already enter the United States duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the General System of Preferences. The Peru FTA will at least give American exports a more level playing field in Peru by allowing them to enter Peru duty free, which is currently not the case, although Peruvian products already enter the U.S. duty free.

As a rule, I do not like the idea of trade agreements coming up under fast-track procedures because it limits Members of Congress to an up- or-down vote with no chance to amend or improve it. Thankfully, we did not extend fast- track authority. In this case, my brother, Sandy Levin, and others successfully amended this agreement through an historic bipartisan agreement which vastly improved the agreement. The changes that were made represent an important break with the failed and flawed trade policies of the past and signify a better approach to trade that supports American workers and protects the environment. For all of these reasons I will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a joint hearing entitled, ``Speculation in the Crude Oil Market.'' This joint hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the Subcommittee on Energy will examine the role of speculation in recent record crude oil prices. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration and energy market experts. A final witness list will be available Friday, December 7, 2007.

The subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of

the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``Credit Card Practices: Unfair Interest Rate Increases.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine the circumstances under which credit card issuers may increase the interest rates of cardholders who are in compliance with the terms of their credit cards. This hearing will be a followup to the Subcommittee's March 2007 hearing, which examined practices related to credit card grace periods, interest charges assessed against debt that was paid on time, and excessive fees. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include a panel of cardholders who experienced interest rate increases, as well as representatives from credit card companies.

The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask I be yielded that time.

Mr. President, once again the Senate has an opportunity to address the situation in Iraq. This morning, we are considering a motion to proceed to H.R. 4156 that contains a so-called bridge fund of $50 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq.

The House-passed bill provides for the President, within 30 days after enactment, to commence a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq and for the transition of those forces to specific missions: (1) protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities, U.S. forces, American citizens; (2) conducting limited training, equipping and providing logistical and intelligence support to Iraqi Security Forces; and (3) engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al Qaida affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. It sets a goal for the completion of the transition would be December 15, 2008.

Some argue that we should not identify the new more limited missions or commit to transition to them. The President told the American people on September 13 that we will transition to a new phase starting in December and that ``As this transition in mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.'' Does that sound familiar? Well, it's like the House passed language before us.

It is the goal of completing the transition that he objects to-- although it is a goal and not binding. Setting a goal may be too much for he who is unwilling to set a goal--but just don't misrepresent it as a fixed timetable when it is stated as a goal.

From all accounts, the surge has already produced militarily progress--sectarian violence in most regions of Iraq, particularly Baghdad, is down.

The problem is that, while the surge has at this point seen militarily progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose as announced by President Bush last January, when he stated that its purpose was to give the Iraqi government ``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.'' The President also said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' Well we haven't. The President statement that he ``will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced'' is so much hollow rhetoric. Those benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law; approving a de-Baathification law; completing the work of a Constitutional Review Committee; and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1\1/2\ years ago, which were to have been completed by January 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided. As a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than they were at the start of the surge. The Iraqi political leadership's response to the breathing space provided by the surge has been nothing less than abysmal.

One year ago this month, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki himself: ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi] politicians.'' Secretary of Defense Gates agreed with that assessment in December of last year. President Bush agreed in January. Petraeus agreed in September. If everyone agrees that this is a political crisis, why does the administration keep focusing on military solutions?

General Odierno, according to yesterday's Washington Post, described the breathing space as a window of opportunity, which may close at any time. Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this window of opportunity is of course their decision. We can't make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country.

But how long U.S. forces remain deployed to Iraq, and with what missions, and how long U.S. forces continue to fight the insurgency instead of the Iraqi army taking over that fight, and how long we continue to subject our brave and valiant servicemen and women to the risk of death and serious injury--those decisions are in our hands.

Secretary Gates has said that pressure on the Iraqi political leaders is useful. President Bush has acknowledged as much. How can Congress act to put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? By setting a goal for the transition of the missions of U.S. forces in Iraq to the more supporting and less direct role. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in their December 2006 report essentially called for a transition of the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq very much like that called for in this bill--only they called for it to take place by the first quarter of 2008.

We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them. Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice.

The bill we will hopefully vote for sets a goal for completion of a transition to missions the President has said were going to transition to. I wish it were binding but setting a timetable as a goal is better than silence which leaves in place the open-endedness of our current presence.

It is that open-ended commitment which continues to create in the minds of the Iraqi political leaders the false impression that their future is in our hands instead of theirs.

We should vote for cloture on the House passed bill and be allowed to vote on its substance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the danger involved in combating crime in our Nation is escalating. Police departments across the country are being forced into a dangerous arms race with criminals and gangs. Increasingly confronted with assault rifles capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute, law enforcement officers have been forced to carry military-style arms in order to counter such criminal firearm supremacy.

Recently, tensions have increased throughout south Florida's police departments after three Miami-Dade police officers were wounded and another killed by a man using an assault weapon. In a recent interview with CNN, Sergeant Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County, stated that, ``It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq. We are like soldiers. It is a war.''

Over 60 police officers have been gunned down so far this year in the United States. According to Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, we are currently on pace to set an alltime high. ``We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted. It's something all Americans should be outraged about.'' Like many others, he lays the blame for this increase on the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

``It's different now. It's shootings on a weekly basis. Ten years ago, that just didn't happen. They don't get out and run from us anymore. They stop, and they're shooting at us,'' Sergeant Pfeil went on to say. ``They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s . . . They have automatic weapons now.''

Miami Chief of Police John Timoney said he began noticing a significant increase in the use of automatic weapons used in crimes dating from the time the assault weapons ban was permitted to lapse. This increase includes an 18 percent increase last year and 20 percent increase this year.

The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the sale of 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. Additionally, it prohibited the sale of semiautomatic weapons that incorporated a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features included folding telescoping stocks, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers.

I voted to establish the assault weapons ban, and 10 years later I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for another 10 years. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, and bipartisan support in the Senate, neither President Bush nor the Republican congressional leadership acted to protect Americans from assault weapons like the one used in the attack on the Miami-Dade police officers. As a result, police officers across the country are being forced to counter previously banned military-style assault weapons.

This Congress, as in previous ones, I will once again cosponsor the reinstating the assault weapons ban. Congress must take up and pass this piece of sensible gun safety legislation to aid our law enforcement agencies and to help prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General. His nomination comes at a critical time. At this moment in history, America is faced with serious challenges both at home and abroad. We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and are engaged in a long-term struggle against al-Qaida and other extremists. Military might alone will not be enough for us to win these fights. Strengthening America's security requires us to harness the power of our ideals and values and lead a global effort to confront these threats. When we project moral hypocrisy or suggest that our commitment to our fundamental values depends on the circumstances, we lose the support of the world in our common efforts against common enemies, thereby compromising our own security.

The pictures of American soldiers mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the stories of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay compromised our moral authority and our ability to lead the global struggle against al- Qaida. America must demonstrate an unambiguous commitment to basic human rights. And this is not some intellectual musing. It is hard headed pragmatism.

Earlier this year, I visited some of our veterans at a Michigan VA hospital. I asked one Korean war veteran who was lying in his bed: What can we do to help you? And do you know what he said? ``Win back the respect of people around the world for America.'' That veteran understands that the erosion of support for America makes us less secure and weakens us in a way that military force cannot remedy.

I have devoted significant time looking into the issue of detainee abuse and considering what is appropriate when it comes to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Building back the respect for America that the Michigan veteran and all of us seek requires a definitive commitment to treating all people--even our enemies--in a manner consistent with both our laws and basic human rights.

Last month I asked Judge Michael Mukasey, President's Bush's nominee to be Attorney General of the United States, what I thought was a straightforward question for the record:

Would you consider it inhumane to secure a detainee onto a

flat surface and slowly pour water directly onto the

detainee's face or onto a towel covering the detainee's face

in a manner that induced a perception by the detainee that he

was drowning?

That question to Judge Mukasey should have prompted a simple answer of ``yes.'' But the Judge said that, while the tactic is ``repugnant'' to him, he could not say it was inhumane without evaluating the ``facts and circumstances.'' Judge Mukasey's ambiguous response is more than deeply troubling, it sends a message--from the man nominated to head the Department of Justice--that abuses of detainees in U.S. custody may not have been categorically wrong, but that such acts might have been justified by the circumstances.

In 2002, the Department of Defense requested authority to use a number of aggressive interrogation techniques--including mock drowning--on detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. FBI agents vigorously objected to the aggressive techniques. One stated in a

legal analysis that aggressive techniques, including mock drowning, were ``not permitted by the U.S. Constitution.''

Another FBI agent also expressed alarm to his Justice Department colleagues over a DOD interrogation plan for a detainee held at Guantanamo Bay, saying ``You won't believe it!'' An e-mail described abuses that a FBI agent had witnessed, including detainees being chained in fetal positions on the floor for 18 to 24 hours at a time, having urinated and defecated on themselves and being subjected to extreme cold.

If Judge Mukasey were to be confirmed to lead the Department of Justice, he would take charge of the FBI. How would Judge Mukasey respond to those FBI agents? Would he have said that the validity of those objections depended on the ``circumstances''?

Over the past 5 years, the Department of Justice has repeatedly issued aggressive legal opinions that seek to exploit any possible legal ambiguity to justify the administration's policies. In 2002, for example, the Department of Justice issued a now disavowed memo finding that physical pain had to be ``equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death'' to constitute torture. The Executive order that the President issued in July of this year interprets Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to bar only those outrageous acts that are done ``for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual.'' The Geneva Conventions make no such distinction. These results-driven interpretations of law have contributed to the negative image of the United States in the world, leaving many to question why we attempt to impose standards on other countries that we do not require of ourselves. These interpretations endanger our troops when captured because their captors will cite these interpretations to justify abuses of our troops.

It does a disservice to our Nation for a person who has been nominated to lead the Department of Justice to hide behind purposeful ambiguities, particularly at a time when our Nation's prestige has been so tarnished by abuses against detainees in our custody. The legality of mock drowning--waterboarding--does not depend on the circumstances. It is illegal.

Waterboarding clearly runs afoul of three Federal statutes--the 1994 antitorture statute, the Military Commissions Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act--and it is inconsistent with our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

In his answers to questions from the Judiciary Committee, Judge Mukasey refused to state whether waterboarding constitutes torture under U.S. law. Under the Federal antitorture statute adopted in 1994, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, an act is torture if it is specifically intended to cause ``severe physical or mental pain or suffering.'' The statute defines ``severe mental pain and suffering'' as mental harm caused by, among other things, ``threat of imminent death.'' Pouring water over a detainee's face to create the sensation of drowning is intended to threaten imminent death.

In questions for the record of an August 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Durbin asked each of the Judge Advocates General, JAGs, of the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, and Navy whether, in their personal view: ``the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of a drowning (i.e., waterboarding) (was) legal?'' The answer from each of the JAGs was an unequivocal ``No.'' The Marine Corps JAG responded to Senator Durbin ``Threatening a detainee with imminent death, to include drowning, is torture under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340''--the anti-torture statute. Similarly, the Air Force JAG stated: ``An interrogation technique that is specifically intended to cause severe mental suffering involving a threat of imminent death by asphyxiation is torture under 18 U.S.C Sec. 2340.'' And the Army JAG responded: ``inducing the misperception of drowning as an interrogation technique is not legal.''

Whether the practice of mock drowning is legal is a question that our Nation's top military lawyers had no problem answering. But the nominee for Attorney General says that it depends on ``circumstances,'' it could be ``yes,'' it could be ``no.''

The U.S. Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape--SERE-- School trains our troops, whose dangerous assignments leave them susceptible to being captured, to resist and survive abusive tactics that might be used by the enemy. Waterboarding is one of the tactics that troops are exposed to at Navy SERE school. Listen to how a former master instructor and chief of training at the Navy's SERE school described waterboarding in an October 31, 2007, article in the New York Daily News:

Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time

to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration.

Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the

uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it

can lead straight to terminal hypoxia--meaning, the loss of

all oxygen to the cells.''

As he put it, ``waterboarding is a torture technique--without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.''

A U.S. Federal court has concluded that mock drowning constitutes torture. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined an interrogation technique used by the Philippine military under Ferdinand Marcos whereby ``all of [the victim's] limbs were shackled to a cot and a towel was placed over his nose and mouth; his interrogators then poured water down his nostrils so that he felt as though he was drowning.'' The court referred to this practice as ``water torture'' and found against those responsible for this and other illegal acts.

By contrast, Judge Mukasey not only refuses to state that waterboarding is torture, he also refuses to say whether it constitutes ``cruel or inhuman treatment,'' which is illegal under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act in the wake of Abu Ghraib scandal. The statute bans interrogations tactics that constitute ``cruel or inhuman treatment,'' which it defines as any act generally intended to cause ``serious mental or physical pain and suffering.''

Medical experts who have treated and observed the survivors of water torture have described the physical and psychological severity of the practice and its long-term effect. Dr. Allan Keller, associate professor of medicine at New York University, NYU, School of Medicine and director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that a person subjected to the waterboard, ``gags and chokes, [and] the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.'' Dr. Keller put it plainly, the ``clinical experience and data from the medical literature are clear and unequivocal. These techniques can cause significant and long lasting psychological and often physical pain and harm.''

It is clear that waterboarding involves ``serious'' physical or mental pain or suffering and therefore constitutes illegal ``cruel or inhuman treatment'' under the Military Commissions Act. Yet in response to questions from Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden, Judge Mukasey would not say whether waterboarding is ``cruel or inhuman'' under this legal standard.

When asked whether the practice of mock drowning on detainees was ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading,'' which is a violation Detainee Treatment Act, Judge Mukasey would not respond to the question, simply giving his stock answer that his analysis depends on the ``circumstances.''

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 to make clear that inhumane treatment is illegal. The Detainee Treatment Act prohibits subjecting any detainee in U.S. Government custody or control, wherever held, to ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.'' Those terms were defined to restrict any conduct that would constitute cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, which includes conduct that ``shocks the conscience.''

There can be no question that mock drowning ``shocks the conscience'' and

rises to the level of ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' under the Detainee Treatment Act.

I asked Judge Mukasey whether the practice of mock drowning on detainees was ``inhumane,'' which would be a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Judge Mukasey would not respond to that question, again giving his stock answer that his analysis depends on the ``circumstances.'' Regardless of what the President's recent Executive order would suggest, the humane standard of Common Article 3 has never varied depending on the type of information in someone's possession or the purpose behind the acts.

The Army Field Manual on Intelligence, which sets standards for military interrogations consistent with the Geneva Conventions and with U.S. law that prohibits ``torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' explicitly bans certain coercive techniques including ``waterboarding.''

Throughout history America has condemned waterboarding by seeking prosecution of enemies who have used the technique on American servicemembers. Following the Second World War, U.S. military commissions and international tribunals prosecuted individuals who had used waterboarding, or similar forms of water torture on civilians and Allied forces. The U.S. military commissions in the Pacific theater explicitly held that the ``water cure'' was torture in prosecuting cases related to the mistreatment of captured U.S. bomber crews. The U.S. Military Commission at Yokohama, Japan also tried four Japanese defendants for torture, including water torture, of American and Allied forces. Each of the defendants was convicted and sentenced to 20 years hard labor.

Would Judge Mukasey find it acceptable if U.S. soldiers were subjected to mock drowning by our enemies? Would he say that its acceptability depends on the ``circumstances''? Would Judge Mukasey say that he needed to know the motives of our enemies before saying that our soldiers who endured waterboarding had been tortured or subject to inhumane treatment? Would he distinguish between someone who waterboarded our troops to elicit information as contrasted to someone who used the technique on our troops for sadistic purposes?

Judge Mukasey needs to be clear that waterboarding is illegal for the sake of protecting our men and women in uniform from abuse should they ever be captured. Judge Mukasey has not been clear and if he is confirmed to head our Justice Department, it will be America signaling moral ambiguity about what is unambiguously torture and inhumane.

In fact, the United States has prosecuted its own servicemembers who have used waterboarding and similar water tortures during interrogations. During the American intervention in the Philippines, in 1902, a military court rejected MAJ Edwin Glenn's defense of ``military necessity'' and convicted him for using water torture on a captured insurgent. During the Vietnam war, a soldier participated in water torture which was captured in photos and published in the Washington Post on January 21, 1968. According to the Washington Post, the soldier was court martialed for his involvement in the practice.

U.S. veterans who served as interrogators in the Second World War recently discussed how proud they were that they were able to obtain vital information by using skill, not torture, and by treating a dangerous enemy with ``respect and justice.'' In an article in the Washington Post last month, one veteran proudly exclaimed:

During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on

anyone. We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm

proud to say I never compromised my humanity.

I had hoped Judge Mukasey would stand with that veteran and stand up for American values. But despite the clear law and history, Judge Mukasey engaged in legalisms and obfuscation, playing into the negative image that others project about the U.S.--that we apply double standards.

This kind of obfuscation tarnishes America's image, which has a negative impact on our ability to organize and maintain alliances to achieve national goals. As Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, stated:

The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about

Iraq. The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to

be--You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you

are breaking your own rules.

Purposeful ambiguity about the legality of waterboarding and the other coercive interrogation techniques he was asked about is at the center of Judge Mukasey's confirmation, just as it is at the center of how we are viewed in the world. That ambiguity is untenable and unacceptable in the person who, if confirmed, will symbolize America's concept of justice before the world. For these reasons, I oppose Judge Mukasey's nomination to be Attorney General.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``Speculation In the Crude Oil Market.'' The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing will examine the role of speculation in recent record crude oil prices. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include oil industry and energy market experts. A final witness list will be available Tuesday, November 13, 2007.

The subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Madam President, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Detroit Repertory Theatre, one of Michigan's oldest, continuously operating professional theatre companies. Located in the heart of Detroit, this theatre company has made significant contributions to the arts landscape in Detroit and across Michigan, forging an enduring legacy over the last half century.

The arts play an important role in building and sustaining communities by bridging cultural, ethnic, economic differences, and by being an important economic catalyst. Since its inception in 1957, the Detroit Repertory Theatre has been at the forefront of this effort and has provided world-class theatre productions for the greater Detroit community. Its ongoing emphasis on racially and ethnically diverse casting and its focus on theatrical relevancy have allowed it to carve out an important niche in the grassroots theatre world.

The Detroit Repertory Theatre's golden anniversary is particularly impressive considering the myriad challenges grassroots theatre companies face. This theatre company has not only weathered and adeptly overcome every challenge but continues to provide quality performances, while focusing on making their productions both relevant and accessible to the community. Integral to the theatre's mission is reaching out to a broader theatre audience through various successful outreach efforts, including Arts in Education Programs, Free Acting Workshops, the New Playwrights' Program, and the Charitable and CMO Partnerships.

True to its bold tradition of forging ahead, this anniversary not only celebrates past achievements but concurrently looks forward and embarks on new challenges. On Saturday, the Detroit Repertory Theatre will hold a black tie benefit to formally celebrate its golden anniversary and to kickoff its 50th Anniversary Challenge. This effort seeks to raise the funds necessary to execute its operational and community development initiatives, seeking to position the theatre to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

When an organization enjoys the type of success the Detroit Repertory Theatre has over the years, there are many who have sacrificed much and deserve acknowledgement and our heartfelt gratitude. It is in this spirit that I know my colleagues join me in recognizing and congratulating all those who have contributed to the Detroit Repertory Theatre's many successes over the last 50 years, in particular Bruce Milan, an original cofounder and the theatre's artistic and managing director, as well as his fellow cofounders, Barbara Busby and Dee Andrus. The community looks forward to an equally impressive record of success over the next half century. Break a leg!

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``Medicaid Providers That Cheat on Their Taxes and What Can Be Done About It.'' More than 30,000 Medicaid providers owe more than $1 billion in unpaid Federal taxes, according to a recent investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office at the request of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The GAO study included only 7 States, which means the total number of Medicaid providers that cheat on their taxes could be considerably higher. The Subcommittee's November 14 hearing will cover the extent of the problem, as well as possible solutions. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives of the Government Accountability Office, the Internal Revenue Service, the Financial Management Service, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A final witness list will be available Friday, November 9, 2007.

The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

Madam President, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 would help ensure that millions of the Nation's uninsured children can receive access to health care.

Last month, the House and Senate passed legislation reauthorizing the popular children's health insurance program. In the Senate, this bipartisan bill passed with a veto-proof majority of 67 votes. Since then, the President has vetoed this legislation and Congress has worked hard to create a new bipartisan bill that addresses items President Bush objected to. Despite

this, the President continues to threaten a veto on this strengthened bill that focuses on ensuring children from low-income working families receive access to necessary health care.

I hope that the President will listen to the majority of the Nation that supports the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and signs this bill when it reaches his desk.

Currently, 6.6 million children are enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. There are still 9 million uninsured children nationwide, 6 million of which are eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act would provide more than 3 million uninsured children from low-income families with health insurance. This means, that in my home state of Michigan, 80,900 more uninsured children will receive access to much needed health care.

I believe that we have a moral obligation to provide all Americans access to affordable and high quality health care. I do not understand how the United States is one of the most developed and wealthiest nations in the world, but we continually send the message that an additional $35 billion to provide American children from low-income families with access to health care is too large an investment for those that represent our future.

I firmly believe no person, young or old, should be denied access to adequate health care, and the expanded and improved Children's Health Insurance Program is an important step toward achieving that goal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the State of Michigan today celebrates the 50th anniversary of the bridging of Michigan's two peninsulas through the engineering feat known as the Mackinac Bridge. A suspension bridge spanning a 5 mile stretch of the Straits of Mackinac, the Mighty Mac or Big Mac has become an icon of Michigan.

Although dreams of connecting the Upper and Lower Peninsula by bridge began in the 1880s, it would take more than 70 years for that dream to become a reality. In the meantime, ideas for crossing the straits ranged from the improbable--a floating tunnel to the impractical--a series of bridges and causeways--to the doable--a ferry service.

In 1923, Michigan began car ferry service across the Straits of Mackinac between Mackinaw City and St. Ignace. Traffic on the car ferries became so heavy within just five years that another option--a bridge--needed to be seriously considered. The State Highway Department undertook a feasibility study that reported favorably on a bridge.

Although the need and the know-how were there, the money was not. The Mackinac Straits Bridge Authority of Michigan, established in 1934 by the State legislature, tried twice that decade to obtain Federal funds from the federal Public Works Administration but was refused. World War II stopped further progress on a bridge.

In January 1951, the Mackinac Straits Bridge Authority issued a favorable feasibility study. Legislation to finance and build the bridge passed in early 1952. The Authority was ready to offer bonds for sale by March 1953, but the money market had weakened. Later that spring, the Michigan Legislature passed a bill to pay for the annual operating and maintenance costs of the bridge from gasoline and license plate taxes. The market strengthened by the end of the year and almost $1 billion worth of Mackinac Bridge bonds were sold.

Prentiss M. Brown, a former U.S. Senator and chairman of the board of Detroit Edison Company, served as the first chairman of the Mackinac Bridge Authority and shepherded the process of securing financing for the Mackinac Bridge. In the words of Jack Carlisle, an announcer for WWJ radio in Detroit, Brown ``refused to accept defeat when it seemed inevitable. Prentiss M. Brown just wouldn't stay licked.''

Construction of the bridge officially began on May 7 and 8, 1954, with ceremonies in St. Ignace and Mackinaw City. Designed by Dr. David B. Steinman, building the Mackinac Bridge required a complex choreography of engineering detail and construction skill as evidenced by the 4,000 engineering drawings and 85,000 blueprints. Over 11,000 people worked on the bridge including 350 engineers, 3,500 workers on site and 7,500 workers at quarries, mills, and shops elsewhere.

On November 1, 1957, the Mighty Mac opened to traffic with the formal dedication taking place the following June. The dream of bridging the Upper and Lower Peninsula had finally become a reality.

At 552 feet above the water, the main towers of Big Mac are almost exactly as high as the Washington Monument, which stands at 555 feet. When measured by its total length of 26,372 feet, the Mackinac Bridge qualifies as the longest suspension bridge in the United States, but falls to third place behind the Golden Gate Bridge and Verrazano Narrows Bridge if only the suspended portion of the bridge is counted.

Once a year, the Big Mac opens its span to the oldest form of transportation--walking. Begun in 1958, the annual Mackinac Bridge Walk has become a Labor Day tradition for Michigan families on both peninsulas. The bridge's beautiful silhouette beckons thousands with the promise of an exhilarating 5-mile walk and spectacular views of shoreline and water from 200 feet above the Straits of Mackinac.

Over the past 50 years, the Mackinac Bridge has become an elegant landmark for our State and a source of pride for all of us. Today Michigan commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Mackinac Bridge with a celebration at Bridge View Park in St. Ignace. My heart is with all the people who are there celebrating, and I wish the rest of me were there too. Congratulations, Big Mac.