Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to vote for this budget resolution today. I believe this blueprint for the government's spending and revenues will help put us back on a fiscally responsible path.

Before I turn to the merits of this resolution, I want to address the fact that my amendment to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund to promote American manufacturing has been included in this resolution. I thank Senators Conrad and Gregg for accepting this amendment, and I look forward to working with them and other Members to carry out its intent.

I believe that we must take strong and dramatic actions in this Congress to revitalize and support our domestic manufacturing sector. We need to enhance our research and development programs, provide tax incentives to encourage and sustain domestic manufacturing, and level the playing field for our domestic manufacturers in the global marketplace. My amendment will be helpful as we fight in this Congress to take these important steps.

We need to stop the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs from the United States. Our economy and well-being are directly linked to the health of our manufacturing sector, yet we continue to lose manufacturing jobs in this country. Since 2001, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs nationwide--including more than 200,000 in my home State of Michigan.

Millions more manufacturing jobs hang in the balance. Our companies face enormous pressure in competing in the global marketplace without sufficient support from the U.S. government. Our companies are not competing against other companies overseas--they are competing against other governments that strongly support their manufacturing sectors.

We need to provide significant federal support for technology initiatives and advances that will help keep our companies on the cutting edge of technology development and competitive in the global marketplace. All of this requires a bold and comprehensive effort across many segments of our federal government. It will involve many committees and many federal agencies, but I believe it is critical to stem the tide of the domestic manufacturing crisis occurring in this country.

My amendment points us in the direction we need to take. It will support legislation that would revitalize our domestic manufacturing sector in four critical ways--by increasing Federal research and development; by expanding the scope and effectiveness of manufacturing programs across the Federal Government; basing support for development of alternative fuels and leap-ahead automotive and energy technologies; and by establishing tax incentives to encourage the continued production in the U.S. of advanced technologies and the infrastructure to support them.

There are many other parts of this resolution to be pleased with as well. For too long now we have been digging deeper and deeper into a ditch of debt. President Bush's budget submitted to Congress in February would continue that trend by increasing the gross Federal debt by nearly $3 trillion to $11.5 trillion by 2012. That's $38,000 per person. The budget resolution we are considering today should start to reverse that trend.

First, this resolution reestablishes a strong pay-go rule, which would require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for elsewhere in the budget or receive a supermajority of at least 60 votes in the Senate. This concept is common sense for most families, who work to live within their means by balancing what goes out with what comes in. I heartily welcome its return.

This budget also takes the positive steps of establishing a new budget point of order against long-term deficit increases and allowing the Senate's unique budget reconciliation process, which was abused in recent years by the Republican majority, to be used for deficit reduction only, not to increase the deficit with measures which otherwise could not pass the Senate.

This budget also sets a blueprint for going after our country's massive $350 billion tax gap, which is the difference between the amount of taxes owed by

taxpayers and the amount collected. One of the primary tax gap areas I hope Congress will focus on this year is the offshore tax haven and tax shelter abuses that are undermining the integrity of our tax system. There are many ways Congress can go about tackling these problems, and I commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee for their willingness to take on and push Congress to address these complicated areas. Cracking down on these abuses which shift the tax burden onto ordinary taxpayers is a critical step toward achieving fairness in our tax system.

Additionally, I am pleased that this budget assumes an extension of alternative minimum tax, AMT, relief for 2 years. This is relief we know is needed to avoid imposing this unintended tax increase on millions of middle income families. This time frame gives the Finance Committee time to work out a fix that is appropriate and, I hope, paid for.

The two AMT amendments offered to this resolution which we considered today were not paid for. The amendment offered by Senator Lott would add $231 billion to the debt over the next 5 years, and Senator Grassley's amendment would have cost $533 billion over that same time. We must not only fix AMT, we must fix it responsibly.

Furthermore, I am pleased that this budget resolution supports our men and women in uniform by providing all the funding requested by the President for national defense, for both the underlying national defense program and the additional costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe our policy in Iraq must change, but I do not support attempts to cut off funds for our troops in the field. This resolution fully funds our forces at home and overseas, at the levels I and Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, requested in our letter to the Budget Committee.

I also believe funding for these ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should be accounted for in our budget, and that it was past time the President and Congress stop treating these costs as if they were unanticipated ``emergency'' expenditures. I am pleased that this resolution supports the request Senator McCain and I made to build these costs into the budget.

This has two beneficial effects. First, it makes this budget more honest about the cost of this war and the impact it has on our federal deficit. Second, putting this spending into the regular budget process helps ensure that funding requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will receive greater congressional oversight. I commend Senator Conrad for his continuing leadership on fiscal responsibility and accountability.

On the issue of funding for our Nation's veterans, I am pleased that this resolution includes the resources needed to ensure that our veterans get the health care they deserve. In total, the resolution provides more than $43 billion for the Veterans Affairs healthcare system--$3.5 billion more than President Bush's budget. Again, this year, the Senate has rejected President Bush's proposal to raise copayments and to impose new fees and higher copayments on certain veterans.

I am also pleased that this budget affirms the Senate's commitment to authorize at an appropriate level the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, before it expires in September 2007. Making sure children have adequate health care should be one of our nation's top priorities. However, President Bush's budget would lead to the loss of critical coverage in many states. It is imperative that we reject that inadequate proposal, and this budget resolution does that.

This budget also represents a significant improvement over the President's budget for education. There are more funds for Pell grants, IDEA, and No Child Left Behind Act than the President requested. It would be shameful to fail in our responsibility to our children to adopt a spending blueprint that does not provide our schools the resources they need.

I am also pleased that this budget rejects the broad array of cuts to environmental protection programs that were included in the President's budget. This budget resolution fully funds the Environmental Protection Agency's programs to support clean and safe drinking water, and increases funding for the Superfund program by $211 million over the level in the President's budget. The budget also provides about $900 million more for the EPA than the President's budget. This bill also protects Federal lands by rejecting President Bush's proposal to assume revenues from proposals to sell Federal lands.

I am also heartened that the budget rejects the President's proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR.

Further, I also support the Senate's adoption of an amendment to fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, at $3.2 billion, which will ensure that more households can be served by this very important program. Unfortunately, this program has been woefully underfunded by President Bush's budget, as well as in past years.

I also want to talk a bit about a couple more of the amendments we voted on today. I support extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income taxpayers. However, I opposed Senator Graham's amendment because it would have extended the excessive tax cuts for those in the highest income bracket which I have opposed from the first time we voted on it in 2001, and which we simply can't afford.

I also opposed an estate tax amendment offered by Senator Ben Nelson. I would support legislation to prevent a return to the 2001 exemption level, which is too low and no longer appropriate. The current law estate tax exemption level for 2009 of $3.5 million, $7 million for couples, is appropriate and results in only one-third of one percent of estates owing any estate tax. I also had concerns about the Nelson amendment because it proposed a reduction of the rate to 35 percent, which would be a huge loss to the treasury and the amendment does not specify how the revenue needed to keep these changes from increasing the deficit would be raised.

It is a welcome change to be voting for a budget resolution that I believe can change the failed fiscal policies and irresponsible tax cuts pushed by this administration. This resolution paves the way for important investments in America's future to put our country back on track and to begin the long process of climbing out of the ditch of debt.

Mr. President, during this budget debate there have been different views expressed regarding the amount of revenue that would result if Congress will go after the offshore tax haven and tax shelter abuses that are undermining the integrity of our tax system. There are many ways Congress can go about tackling these problems, and I commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee for their willingness to take on and push Congress to address these complicated areas. Cracking down on these abuses is a critical step toward achieving fairness in our tax system.

If Congress addresses these inequities, it would also bring in billions of dollars needed to pay for many important national priorities. These priorities are recognized in this budget resolution itself, such as education, children's health care, veterans medical care, community development block grants, and law enforcement. We can go a long way toward paying for these critical programs by stopping these tax dodges that rob the Treasury of up to $100 billion a year, and shift the tax burden from high-income persons and companies who are principal users of offshore tax havens onto the backs of middle-income families who pay their taxes.

For many years, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of which I am chairman, has been looking at the problem of offshore corporate, bank, and tax secrecy laws and practices that help taxpayers dodge their U.S. tax obligations by preventing U.S. tax authorities from gaining access to key financial and beneficial ownership information.

The subcommittee has also spent years looking at abusive tax shelters, which are complicated transactions promoted to provide tax benefits unintended by the Tax Code. They are very different from legitimate tax shelters, such as deducting the interest paid on home mortgages or congressionally approved tax deductions for building affordable housing. Some abusive tax

shelters involve complicated domestic transactions; others make use of offshore shenanigans. All abusive tax shelters are marked by one characteristic: no real economic or business rationale other than tax avoidance.

I would like to talk briefly about what we found during those investigations. I think the specifics help make clear that if we have the political will, these are areas ripe with abuses that we can put an end to.

Offshore Investigation. During its year long investigation into offshore tax haven abuses, the subcommittee issued more than 70 subpoenas, conducted more than 80 interviews, and reviewed more than 2 million pages of documents. In the resulting hearing held in August 2006, the subcommittee showed through case studies that offshore tax haven countries have, in effect, declared economic war on honest U.S. taxpayers by giving tax dodgers a way to avoid their U.S. tax bills and leave them for others to pay. Offshore tax havens attract these tax dodgers by shrouding their financial transactions in a ``black box'' of secrecy that is extremely difficult to penetrate. They sell secrecy to attract customers and reward them with low or no taxes.

This legal black box allows tax dodgers to hide assets, mask who controls them, and obscure how their assets are used. An army of ``offshore service providers'' lawyers, bankers, brokers, and others then joins forces to exploit the impenetrable curtain of secrecy and help clients skirt U.S. tax, securities, and antimoney laundering laws. Many of the firms concocting or facilitating these schemes are respected names here in the United States.

These schemes require the secrecy of tax havens because they can't stand the light of day. Our investigation laid out six case studies that illustrated the scope and seriousness of the problem. In one case, two U.S. citizens moved about $190 million in untaxed stock option compensation offshore to a complex array of 58 offshore trusts and corporations and utilized a wide range of offshore mechanisms to exercise direction over these assets and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment gains. These untaxed earnings were then used to finance business ventures, acquire real estate, provide loans, and buy art, furnishings and jewelry for the personal use of the family members.

Much of this elaborate scheme involved an offshore bank and an administrative services firm for offshore entities, both housed in a building in the Cayman Islands that we have shown a few times on the Senate floor during this budget debate, the Ugland House. Believe it or not, the building is the official address of 12,748 companies. Just having a post office box in the building enables these shell companies to shift profits that otherwise should be reported as taxable income in the country where it is actually earned.

In another case study, two offshore shell corporations engaged in fake stock transactions, seeming to trade stock back and forth as if it were fantasy baseball to create the illusion of economic activity. The shell corporations pretended to run up hundreds of millions of dollars in fake stock losses and then used these phantom losses to offset about $2 billion in real capital gains of the promoters' U.S. clients. The result was $300 million in lost tax revenues to the Treasury. This offshore scheme would be comical because of its complexity but for the sobering fact that these tax haven abuses are eating away at the fabric of the U.S. tax system and undermining U.S. laws intended to safeguard our capital markets and financial systems from financial crime.

Our investigation shone a needed spotlight into the black box of offshore tax havens. It revealed a system that is corrupt and corrupting. Honest Americans are footing the bill for tax haven abuses, and it is long past time for Congress to shut those abuses down.

Abusive Tax Shelters. In addition to offshore shenanigans, there are plenty of homegrown tax shelters being used to dodge taxes. For 5 years, our subcommittee has also been conducting investigations into the design, sale, and implementation of these complex transactions that have no economic or business rationale other than to avoid tax. Our first hearing on this topic in recent years was held in January 2002, when the subcommittee examined an abusive tax shelter purchased by Enron. In November 2003, the subcommittee held 2 days of hearings and released a staff report that pulled back the curtain on how even some respected accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and law firms had become engines pushing the design and sale of abusive tax shelters to corporations and individuals across this country. In February 2005, the subcommittee issued a bipartisan report that provided further details on the role these professional firms played in the proliferation of these abusive shelters. Our subcommittee report was endorsed by the full Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in April 2005. Most recently, a 2006 subcommittee staff report entitled, ``Tax Haven Abuses: The Enablers, the Tools, and Secrecy,'' disclosed how financial and legal professionals designed and sold yet another abusive tax shelter known as the POINT Strategy, which depended on secrecy laws and practices in the Isle of Man to conceal the phantom nature of securities trades that lay at the center of that tax shelter transaction.

The subcommittee investigations have found that many abusive tax shelters are not dreamed up by the taxpayers who use them. Instead, most are devised by tax professionals, such as accountants, bankers, investment advisors, and lawyers, who then sell the tax shelter to clients for a fee. In fact, as our 2003 investigation widened, we found a large number of tax advisors cooking up one complex scheme after another, packaging them up as generic ``tax products'' with boiler- plate legal and tax opinion letters, and then undertaking elaborate marketing schemes to peddle these products to literally thousands of persons across the country. In return, these tax shelter promoters were getting hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, while diverting billions of dollars in tax revenues from the U.S. Treasury each year.

For example, one shelter investigated by the subcommittee and featured in the 2003 hearings has since become part of an IRS effort to settle cases involving a set of abusive tax shelters known as ``Son of Boss.'' Following our hearing, more than 1,200 taxpayers have admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay back taxes, interest, and penalties totaling more than $3.7 billion. That is billions of dollars the IRS has collected on just one type of tax shelter, demonstrating both the depth of the problem and the potential for progress. The POINT shelter featured in our 2006 hearing involved another $300 million in taxes lost to the Treasury on transactions conducted by just six taxpayers.

Tax Levies on Federal Contractors Who Don't Pay Their Taxes. That is not all. For the last 4 years, our subcommittee has been focusing attention on another sector of the tax gap involving Federal contractors who don't pay their taxes. These contractors are stuffing their pockets with taxpayer dollars, while stiffing Uncle Sam by not paying their taxes.

Past subcommittee hearings have exposed the fact that there are about 27,000 defense contractors with $3 billion in unpaid taxes; 33,000 contractors with other Federal agencies who owe $3.3 billion in unpaid tax debt; and 3,800 GSA contractors with $1.4 billion in unpaid tax debt. Earlier this week, another subcommittee hearing put the spotlight on 21,000 Medicare physicians and related medical suppliers with $1.3 billion in unpaid tax debt. These mind-boggling numbers represent tens of thousands of companies putting their hand in the taxpayers' wallet, while dodging billions of dollars in tax obligations.

A key program designed to stop this type of abuse is the Federal Payment Levy Program. This program was enacted about 10 years ago to enable the Federal Government to identify Federal payments being made to tax deadbeats, and to withhold a portion of those taxpayer dollars to pay off a portion of the person's tax debt. For the last 4 years, our subcommittee has conducted an intensive effort to strengthen the tax levy program for Federal contractors who don't pay their taxes. As a result, over the past 3 years, tax levy collections as a whole have more than doubled, increasing from about $136 million in 2004 to nearly $340 million in 2006. Of these totals, tax levy collections from Federal contractors in particular have also more than doubled, increasing from about $28 million

to $62 million. But $62 million is only a fraction of the billions of uncollected taxes owed by Federal contractors getting paid hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars. Much more can and should be done to reduce the Federal tax gap by increasing tax levy collections.

The first step would be to require the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to move as quickly as possible to make all $450 billion Medicare and Medicaid payments each year subject to the tax levy program, so that all of these taxpayer dollars are screened for repayment of tax debt. The next step would be to strengthen the tax levy program as a whole. In 2006, for example, the Federal Government identified a total of about $122 billion in assessed tax debt that could be collected, in part, through the tax levy program. At the same time, it determined that only about 45 percent of that uncollected tax debt was actually matched against the Federal payments being made that year. In other words, in 2006, some $67 billion in tax debt was never ``turned on'' for actual collection under the tax levy program.

Simple reforms could ensure that a lot more of that $67 billion is set up for collection under the tax levy program. One key barrier right now, for example, is an elaborate series of tax levy notices, mandated by law, that currently have to be issued by the IRS before tax debt can be collected through the tax levy program. While the tax levy notices make sense if the Federal Government is targeting payments being provided by a third party, such as an employer, they make a lot less sense when the levy is targeting taxpayer dollars going to the very people who owe the tax debt. For that reason, Senator Coleman and I plan to introduce legislation to reform the tax levy notice process for Federal payments. We also plan to strengthen other aspects of the tax levy program to start narrowing that multibillion-dollar tax gap.

IRS Enforcement Efforts to Reduce the Tax Gap. In our efforts to reducing the tax gap, it will be critical that we give the IRS the funds it needs to go after tax dodgers. For every dollar invested in the IRS's budget, the service yields more than $4 in enforcement revenue. Beyond the additional revenues collected, increased IRS enforcement deters those who might otherwise have dodged their tax obligations and reassures honest taxpayers that compliance with the law is broadly achieved.

I am pleased that this budget resolution fully funds the President's budget request for the IRS, and includes an additional $399 million available for IRS enforcement activities. I can't think of many better investments to recover revenues wrongfully lost to the U.S. Treasury and to build respect for the law and respect for the honest Americans who play by the rules and meet their tax obligations.

Scope of Problem. The abusive tax shelters and offshore case studies that the subcommittee has delved into are merely a handful of examples that can be used to better understand the details behind these widespread problems.

Because secrecy is such a key component of offshore abuses, it is incredibly difficult to estimate just how much income is sheltered offshore. Recent estimates from tax experts, Joe Guttentag and Reuven Avi-Yonah, estimate that offshore tax haven abuses by individuals cost the U.S. Treasury between $40 billion and $70 billion a year in taxes that are owed but not collected.

Corporations are also using tax havens to avoid payment of U.S. taxes. Preliminary results from a study to be released soon by Kimberly Clausing of Wellesley College show that $50 billion in U.S. revenue was lost in 2002 from profit-shifting by corporations to low-tax countries. A GAO report Senator Dorgan and I released in 2004 found that nearly two-thirds of the top 100 companies doing business with the U.S. Government had one or more subsidiaries in a tax haven. One company, Tyco International, had 115. Enron, in its heyday, had over 400 Cayman subsidiaries.

Data released by the Commerce Department further demonstrates the extent of U.S. corporate use of tax havens, indicating that, as of 2001, almost half of all foreign profits of U.S. corporations were in tax havens. A study released by the journal, ``Tax Notes'' in September 2004 found that American companies were able to shift $149 billion of profits to 18 tax haven countries in 2002, up 68 percent from $88 billion in 1999.

A 2004 study by Professor John Zdanowicz found that transfer pricing abuses by corporations cost the U.S. Treasury $53 billion a year. Last year the IRS settled a transfer pricing dispute with one company alone, drug giant Glaxo SmithKline, for $3.4 billion. The size of this settlement with just one company indicates that it is worth looking to see if there are ways to improve the relevant portions of the Tax Code. Treasury has proposed regulations in this area, and I urge the administration to finalize those rules in as strong a form as possible. I also urge the Finance Committee and others to make it a priority to stop these transfer pricing abuses that are hurting average taxpayers as well as disadvantaging U.S. companies that play by the rules.

How to Address the Problem. One of the big questions that surrounds all of this is how to start addressing these problems. I have a bill that would be a huge step in the right direction. We can't let the offshore tax havens hide $100 billion in U.S. tax revenues which are needed to protect our troops, fund health care and education, and meet the other needs of American families. We cannot tolerate high-priced accountants, lawyers, and banks concocting ways for tax cheats to offload their unpaid taxes onto the backs of honest taxpayers. That is why earlier this year I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, along with Senators Coleman and Obama. This bill provides a powerful set of new tools to clamp down on offshore tax and tax shelter abuses.

Among other measures, our bill would:

Establish Presumptions to Combat Offshore Secrecy by allowing U.S. tax and securities law enforcement to presume that nonpublicly traded, offshore corporations and trusts are controlled by the U.S. taxpayers who formed them or sent them assets, and to presume that money moving between U.S. taxpayers and offshore entities is taxable income, unless the taxpayer proves otherwise;

Impose Tougher Requirements on U.S. Taxpayers Using Offshore Secrecy Jurisdictions by listing 34 jurisdictions which have already been named in IRS court filings as probable locations for U.S. tax evasion;

Authorize Special Measures to Stop Offshore Tax Abuses by giving Treasury authority to take special measures against foreign jurisdictions and financial institutions that impede U.S. tax enforcement;

Strengthen Detection of Offshore Activities by requiring U.S. financial institutions that open accounts for foreign entities controlled by U.S. clients, open accounts in offshore secrecy jurisdictions for U.S. clients, or establish entities in offshore secrecy jurisdictions for U.S. clients, to report such actions to the

Mr. President, Canada's commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals in the world. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), over one million seals have been killed for their fur in the past three years. In 2006 alone, more than 350,000 seals were slaughtered, most of them between 12 days and 12 weeks old.

Canada officially opened another seal hunt on November 15, 2006, paving the way for hundreds of thousands of baby seals to be killed for their fur during the spring of 2007. Today, I am joined by Senator Collins and Senator Biden in submitting a resolution that urges the Government of Canada to end this senseless and inhumane slaughter.

A study by an independent team of veterinarians in 2001, found that the seal hunt failed to comply with basic animal welfare standards and that Canadian regulations with regard to humane killing were not being enforced. The study concluded that up to 42 percent of the seals studied were likely skinned while alive and conscious. The United States has long banned the import of seal products because of widespread outrage over the magnitude and cruelty of the hunt.

It makes little sense to continue this inhumane industry that employs only a few hundred people on a seasonal, part-time basis and only operates for a few weeks a year, in which the concentrated killings takes place. In Newfoundland, where over 90 percent of the hunters live, the economic contribution of the seal hunt is marginal. In fact, exports of seal products from Newfoundland account for less than one- tenth of one percent of the province's total exports.

Canada is fortunate to have vast and diverse wildlife populations, but these animals deserve protection, not senseless slaughter. Americans have a long history of defending marine mammals, best evidenced by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Polls show that close to 80 percent of Americans and the vast majority of Europeans oppose Canada's seal hunt. In fact, close to 70 percent of Canadians surveyed oppose the hunt completely, with even higher numbers opposing specific aspects of the hunt, such as killing baby seals.

The U.S. Government has opposed this senseless slaughter, as noted in the attached, January 19, 2005, letter from the U.S. Department of State, in response to a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to President Bush, urging him to raise this issue during his November 30, 2004, visit with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The clubbing of baby seals can not be defended or justified. Canada should end it, just as we ended the Alaska seal hunt more than 20 years ago.

I ask unanimous consent that the January 19, 2005, letter from the U.S. State Department and the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, time and time again we have seen this administration's inability to divorce politics from policy in areas that politics should have no place. The recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys lends yet another example to that failure. It is clear that some of these firings were politically motivated. I support S. 214 and have cosponsored this legislation because it will restore the 120-day limit for interim appointments made by the

Attorney General and restore the district court's role in making any subsequent interim appointments to deter the kind of Department of Justice actions we have seen recently.

Until 1986, interim U.S. attorneys were appointed by their respective district courts and were allowed to serve until the vacancy was filled by a U.S. attorney nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the law was changed to allow the Attorney General to make an interim appointment for 120 days, provided the appointee was not a person for whom the Senate had refused to give advice and consent. If a successor was not named at the end of the 120-day period, then the district court would appoint a U.S. attorney to serve until the vacancy was filled. This process remained unchanged for 20 years, until last year.

During the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization last year, the process was altered to eliminate appointments by the district court and to allow the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney indefinitely, or until the vacancy is filled by a U.S. attorney nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The legislation before us today is simple: it would repeal those changes, which were made without debate, and would require an interim appointment made by the Attorney General to expire after 120 days or when a successor is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, whichever comes first. If at the end of the 120-day period no successor has been confirmed, the relevant district court would be authorized to appoint an interim U.S. attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The legislation would also terminate existing interim appointments 120 days from enactment or upon confirmation of a successor, whichever comes first.

We all know that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. However, U.S. attorneys are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution, not the President and Attorney General. When they are sworn in, U.S. attorneys swear to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' There is no requirement that U.S. attorneys ``exhibit loyalty to the President and Attorney General,'' as was said to be a goal in an e-mail from Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Gonzales, recommending the retention of those attorneys.

One of the U.S. attorneys who was asked to resign was Margaret Chiara, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan. In an e- mail dated March 2, 2005, Kyle Sampson wrote to then White House Counsel Harriet Miers, designating Ms. Chiara as one of the U.S. attorneys who was recommended for removal because she was one of the ``weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.'' That assessment ran contrary to the Department of Justice's evaluation of Ms. Chiara, which found her to be well regarded, hard working and a capable leader who had the respect and confidence of the judiciary, agencies, and U.S. Attorney's Office personnel. Further, during Ms. Chiara's tenure as the U.S. attorney from the Western District of Michigan, she achieved an overall increase of more than 15 percent in felony prosecutions and convictions (the Northern Division alone experienced an increase of 84 percent in the number of criminal cases prosecuted during the 2-year period of 2003-2005). The Department of Justice invited Ms. Chiara to serve on several key subcommittees of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Ms. Chiara developed an attorney training and mentoring program for the Western District of Michigan that now serves as a national model that was acknowledged as a ``best practice'' by the Department of Justice. Ms. Chiara was awarded the ``Building Bridges Award'' by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and ``Lifetime Achievement Recognition'' by the Women's Historical Center and Michigan Women's Hall of Fame.

On December 7, 2006, Mr. Sampson e-mailed William Mercer, then acting Associate Attorney General, stating that ``All Senators have been notified and are fine/no objections.'' Apparently Republican Senators were contacted, but Democrats were not contacted. This Senator was not notified. In fact, the ``Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys'' drafted by Mr. Sampson, states that, on December 7, ``where there is no Republican home-state Senator, the home-state `Bush political lead[s]' are contacted.'' Obviously, it was more important to contact the ``political lead'' than the home-state Senators of these U.S. attorneys, which is further evidence that these firings had political motivations.

I am pleased that we will pass this important legislation today, to restore integrity and political confidence to the process of filling the vacancies of U.S. attorneys. I am also pleased that the Judiciary Committee will continue their investigation into this matter by issuing subpoenas, if necessary.

Mr. President, the National Rifle Association leadership has stated repeatedly that a ban on assault weapons is ineffective and unnecessary. They assert that guns labeled as assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes and that most people use them for hunting. However, despite these repeated assertions, the list of

people speaking out against assault weapons continues to grow.

Jim Zumbo, an outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoor magazines, delivering lectures across the country and who starred in a highly rated TV show about big-game hunting. Jim has been an NRA member for 40 years, and, according to his Web site, has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities across the country. This relationship changed drastically when Jim expressed his commonsense opinion on assault weapons.

Last month, after learning that some hunters were using assault weapons to hunt prairie dogs, Jim expressed his thoughts in his personal blog on the Outdoor Life magazine website. He wrote:

Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these

weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to

call them ``terrorist rifles.''

He continued by stating that in his:

. . . humble opinion, these things have no place in

hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people

who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious

concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that

hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of

our ``sporting firearms.''

The reaction from NRA officials was swift and callous. They immediately severed all ties with Mr. Zumbo. His TV program on the Outdoor Channel was canceled, and his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine ended. In addition, many of his corporate ties to the biggest names in gun making, such as Remington Arms Co., were terminated.

Jim Zumbo has worked for years to improve the image of outdoorsmen. As he put it:

As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the

woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public,

an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce

ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them

from the prairies and woods.

We all owe Jim Zumbo a debt of gratitude for his forthrightness, his honesty and his courage. We must put the safety of our communities first by taking up and passing sensible gun legislation that includes renewing the assault weapons ban.

Madam President, in November, the American people sent a clear message to Washington. They said: Change the course in Iraq. A few weeks later, the Iraq Study Group issued its bipartisan report calling for a change of course in Iraq. Even the President's new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, during his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that the current course in Iraq was not working. But instead of developing a new strategy, the President has stayed on his failed course, plunging American troops deeper and deeper into a civil war on the streets of Baghdad and relying on the promises of Iraqi politicians who have not delivered on previous promises.

The question for us today is whether we will accept that failing strategy or whether we will change it. The President's deepening military involvement will not lead to a stable Iraq because it has a fundamental flaw. It tries to impose a military solution on a political crisis.

Listen to the assessment of Iraq Prime Minister Maliki of the situation in his country. This is what he said:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of bloodletting of innocents are the Iraqi politicians.

Outside the White House is a consensus that a political solution among the Iraqis is required, but President Bush persists on a military deepening involvement.

The President claims that Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks that they have put forward, but the track record of Iraqi politicians indicates otherwise. On issue after issue, the Iraqi politicians have failed to keep their word, and Iraq is worse off because of those failures.

The President's course of action--deeper and deeper military involvement--sends a signal that the Iraqi leaders can continue to bicker without consequence. If the Iraqis fail to meet their own benchmarks, the President will presumably continue to bail them out by sending American troops to police an Iraqi civil war. Unless failure to meet benchmarks has consequences, those benchmarks have little meaning. We must change the course if there is going to be any hope of success in Iraq.

The best leverage we have is the presence and mission of American forces. As long as our presence is open-ended, the dynamic in Iraq will remain the same: Insurgents will target our troops, militias will cause mayhem, and the Iraqi politicians will sit in relative safety in the Green Zone, unwilling to make the compromises so essential to reaching a political settlement that can save their country. But if we send a clear message that we are ending the open-ended commitment, that will shift responsibility to the Iraqis, both politically and militarily, for their own future.

By requiring the President to change the mission of American forces to the three missions specified in the Reid resolution, by beginning a phased redeployment of American forces in 4 months, the resolution before us would force the Iraqi leaders to face reality and to understand that their future as a nation is in their own hands, not ours. The Iraqis will finally be forced to decide if they want a civil war or they want a nation. They will then understand we cannot save them from themselves.

The President and his supporters ask for patience. But asking for patience now, after all these years of asking for patience without success, is a little like Lucy asking Charlie Brown to try to kick the football one more time. We ought to be wise enough by now to know that increased military involvement won't achieve the political settlement that is needed.

General Peter Chiarelli, Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said the following:

We need a commitment by all Iraqis of all the ethno-

sectarian groups to commit first to nonviolence and to

resolving their differences through the political process. I

happen to believe that we have done everything militarily we

possibly can.

General Casey made a similar point in early January when he said:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main

burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the

government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about

reconciliation and dealing with the militias.

The real battle for Baghdad is a political battle. Maximizing success in Iraq requires us to change course and to shift responsibility to the Iraqi political leaders for the future of Iraq. To paraphrase British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the next chapter of Iraq's history needs to be written by the Iraqis.

Our vote today will decide whether we will begin changing course to maximize chances of success in Iraq or whether we will remain mired in the status quo of sending more and more American troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war.

Madam President, I believe one Senator is on his way right now, and the Senator's notice should produce some other Senators as well.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this dividing the hour of debate on the motion to proceed?

Mr. President, next Tuesday will mark the start of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. Our Nation has spent almost $400 billion now in Iraq and is spending an average of almost $9 billion in U.S. taxpayers' funds per month. More importantly, we have lost almost 3,200 American service men and women and have suffered almost 24,000 wounded.

The resolution before us is aimed at turning the responsibility for the future of Iraq over to the Iraqis themselves. Last year, we adopted a resolution which said that calendar year 2006 was going to be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. That was over a year ago.

We were supposed to be through a year of significant transition by now. It has not happened. The only way it is going to happen is if this Congress makes it happen.

Many of us have long maintained it was necessary that pressure be placed on the Iraqis to come together politically because only a political settlement could bring about the end of sectarian violence in Iraq and the defeat of the insurgents.

I have recounted how Ambassador Khalilzad and even President Bush have told me a number of statements that many of us have made--that we should begin to reduce our presence in Iraq--were, indeed, useful statements, useful in an effort to prod the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.

Those words--the words of President Bush, Ambassador Khalilzad, and recently Secretary Rice--words prodding the Iraqis to take responsibility, telling the Iraqis the open-ended commitment is over, telling the Iraqis we must begin to reduce our presence in 4 to 6 months are useful words for the Iraqis to hear.

The problem is it is not the President who is speaking those words. The problem is the administration has not adopted those words as a matter of policy. Now it is time for Congress to explain to the Iraqis: It is your country. We cannot save you from yourselves. It is time for us, the Congress, to tell the Iraqis as a reminder that it is their own Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, who acknowledged the following when he said a few months ago:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of aggravation and bloodletting are the [Iraqi]

politicians.

A few weeks ago, Ambassador Khalilzad said in an interview on television that the congressional debate is ``useful in one way. It does send a message to the Iraqis that the patience of the American people is running out, and that is helpful to my diplomacy.''

I wish to repeat this because there are a number of Members of this body and there are a number of members of the administration who have attacked this debate as somehow or another undermining our troops. It is quite the opposite. We support our troops when we give them our best thinking as to how to succeed in Iraq. It is good for our troops to have a debate in this democracy about whether a course is failing or succeeding and, if it is not succeeding, to offer our best thoughts as to how to make it succeed.

Our troops deserve everything we can give them. They haven't gotten it. They deserve the best equipment. They didn't get it. They deserve treatment when they come to our hospitals. They didn't get it. They deserve our best thinking, our honest thoughts as to how we can succeed in Iraq, how can we change course from a failing course to one which succeeds.

We know there is no military solution in Iraq, there is only a political solution, and that must be achieved by the Iraqis themselves. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. It is their country. After 4 years of shedding American blood and American treasure, it is long overdue that the Iraqi leaders be told, not just by this Congress, although we alone apparently will do it, but by the administration that they and they alone have the responsibility, the capability, and the power to make Iraq a country instead of a place of civil strife.

This resolution we are about to embark upon will end the open-ended commitment of American military forces that is not working. We must change this course. Only the Iraqis can save their country, and we will be helping to force them to do that. It shouldn't be necessary, but it is. We will be helping to force the Iraqi leaders to save their country if we step up finally and say: We have been there longer than we were in World War II. We have been in Iraq longer than we fought the Korean war. Iraqis leaders, only you, and you alone, can decide: Do you want a civil war or do you want a nation? We hope you choose a nation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, after 4 years of fighting and the loss of almost 3,200 American lives, 24,000 wounded, $350 billion spent on this war, it is long past time for a new approach in Iraq. Everybody who participates in this debate wants to maximize our chances of success in Iraq. Even those of us who voted against going to war and those of us who have disagreed with how this war has been conducted want to see a stable Iraq which enhances our own national security.

But continuing the current course and surging along the current course does not do that. The President's current course of action, of putting more U.S. military personnel in the middle of a growing civil war in Iraq, does not enhance our security and it does not maximize the chances of success.

The President's plan has a fundamental flaw because what is needed in Iraq is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders, not a military solution. Our troops perform bravely and brilliantly, but American military firepower will not end the civil war in Iraq. It has been apparent for a long time that there is no military solution in Iraq, that an Iraqi political solution is necessary to end the violence. GEN Peter Chiarelli, commanding general of

the multinational force in Iraq, said the following in December:

We need a commitment by all Iraqis, of all of the ethno-

sectarian groups to commit first to nonviolence and to

resolving their differences through the political process . .

.

And he continued:

I happen to believe that we have done everything militarily

that we possibly can.

At his confirmation hearing in December, I asked our new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates:

Do you believe that the end to violence in Iraq requires a

political settlement, and that we need to communicate a sense

of urgency to the Iraqis to pressure them to reach a

settlement that only their politicians can reach?

Dr. Gates replied:

Yes, I do.

The Iraq Study Group stated that:

The violence in Iraq cannot be stopped or even contained if

there is no underlying political agreement among Iraqis about

the future of their country.

Perhaps most telling was Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's acknowledgment recently on this essential point. This is what Iraq's own Prime Minister said:

The crisis is political. And the ones who can stop the

cycle of aggravation and blood-letting of innocents are the

Iraqi politicians.

The real battle for Baghdad is not a military battle, it is a political one, and that battle can be resolved only by Iraqi politicians and not by our military.

So how do we pressure the Iraqi leaders to reach the political settlement that is essential? We can start by ending our open-ended commitment to Iraq. The President has changed his rhetoric about ending our open-ended commitment, but he has not changed his policy. In fact, he sent the opposite message when he sent more troops to Baghdad.

Our objective in Iraq, and the objective of this resolution, must be to shift responsibility to the Iraqis, both politically and militarily, for their future. For that to happen, we must end the open-ended commitment that has been made by this administration to Iraq of the presence--without decision by us, leaving it up to the Iraqis for how long and how many--of American troops.

We must make clear to the Iraqis that their future is in their hands, not ours. We must make it clear to the Iraqis they must reach a political settlement among themselves and, if they do not, we cannot save them from themselves.

As General Abizaid said in November:

It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

General Casey made the same point in early January when he said:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main

burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the

government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about

reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other

thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's

problems, which are at base their problems.

The Iraq Study Group specifically drew the connection between the importance of ending the open-ended commitment of American troops and persuading the Iraqis to make political compromises. There is a connection between the two, the Iraq Study Group said, between ending the open-ended commitment and getting the Iraqis to resolve their political differences. Here is the way they put it in the Iraq Study Group's report:

An open-ended commitment of American forces would not

provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take

the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of

quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an

incentive, the Iraqi government might continue to delay

taking those difficult actions.

That is the Iraq Study Group.

Columnist Tom Friedman put it succinctly recently in the New York Times:

Right now everyone in Iraq is having their cake and eating

it--at our expense. We have to change that.

But instead of putting pressure on the Iraqis, the President is putting his faith in the Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks they have set for themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi Government in meeting some of the benchmarks and promises it has set for itself and it has made.

Iraqi President Talibani said in August of 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge surely has not been kept.

Prime Minister Maliki said last June he would disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept.

The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its recommendations for changes in the constitution to the Council of Representatives within 4 months of the formation of the Iraqi Government last May. Well, the commission has yet to formulate any recommendations.

Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of the provincial election law, approval of a new de- baathification law, and approval of a new militia law. Not one of those laws has been enacted.

On January 30, Secretary Rice wrote to me about these benchmarks. She said the Iraqi Government had adopted a lot of benchmarks, and she attached those benchmarks to her letter called ``Notional Political Timeline.''

Here is what she said about the benchmarks attached to her letter:

. . . Iraq's Policy Committee on National Security agreed

upon a set of political, security, and economic benchmarks

and an associated timeline in September 2006.

Then she said:

These were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council on October

16, 2006, and referenced by the Iraq Study Group; the

relevant document (enclosed) was posted at that time on the

President of Iraq's website.

The posted document shows one benchmark after another, starting in September 2006, going through March of 2007, and I am going to read them off.

By September 2006:

Form a Constitutional Review Committee;

Approve the law and procedures to form regions;

Agree on political timetable;

Approve the law for Independent High Electoral Commission

(IHEC);

Approve the Investment Law.

By October 2006:

Approve provincial elections law and set date for

provincial elections;

Approve a hydrocarbon law.

By November 2006:

Approve a de-Ba'athification law;

Approve provincial council authorities law;

Approve a flag, emblem and national anthem law.

By December 2006:

Approve Coalition Provisional Authority . . . concerning

armed forces and militias;

Council of Representatives to address amnesty, militias and

other armed formations;

Approve amnesty, militias and other armed formations law.

By January 2007--this was the timeline--

Constitutional Review Committee completes its work.

By February 2007:

Form independent commissions in accordance with the

Constitution.

By March:

Constitutional amendments referendum (if required).

Now, there may have been one or two of those guidelines met. If so, I am not sure what they are, but I want to at least allow the possibility that a flag, emblem, and national anthem law was adopted. But of those perhaps 15 milestones--and a timeline for them--to be adopted by the Iraqi Presidency, not more than one--but maybe two--of the 15 have been adopted. And none of the important ones have been adopted.

We are told by Secretary Rice, that was on the Web site of the President of Iraq. Then suddenly and mysteriously it disappeared from that Web site a few months ago.

When I asked Secretary Rice--I wrote her a letter asking: You said, Madam Secretary, this was on the Web site, but it disappeared from the Web site. Can you find out why? We have not heard back from the Secretary of State about that problem.

So much for the promises and commitments and milestones of the Iraqi leadership. They post them on a Web site month by month what these promises and commitments and milestones and benchmarks are, and then-- poof--they disappear from the Web site, just as though they were not made. That is the problem with milestones, benchmarks which have no consequences when they are not met.

The President talks about benchmarks, and yet he has not outlined any consequences for the Iraqis if they fail to meet these new benchmarks. I have little hope they will meet benchmarks they lay out unless they see no alternative. It is time to go beyond the toothless benchmarks and to make clear to the Iraqi leaders their dawdling must end and that their nation is in their hands, and we cannot decide for them how to build a nation, whether to build a nation, or whether they prefer to have a civil war.

The administration says our debate on this bill would embolden the enemy. But what that shows is a serious lack of understanding of the situation we face. Congressional debate over Iraq policy does not embolden the enemy. The enemy is already emboldened. The enemy is emboldened by an open-ended presence of western troops in a Muslim country's capital, which serves as a magnet for extremists and gives a propaganda club to our enemies.

The enemy is emboldened by an invasion of Iraq without the support of the international community, and with no plan for a violent aftermath. The enemy is emboldened by a million and a half Iraqi refugees, with thousands more being added each day. The enemy is emboldened by a surge of American troops into a civil war that postpones the day when Iraqi leaders will take responsibility for their own future.

And now our responsibility as a Congress. What is our responsibility? What this resolution does is implement our responsibility by working to make the day when Iraqi leaders take responsibility for their own nation come sooner rather than later. The most recent intelligence estimate says ``the current security and political trends in Iraq are moving in a negative direction.''

Our resolution is the best way to stop the Iraqi leaders from continuing to fiddle while Baghdad burns. It would seek to pressure the Iraqi leaders to achieve a political solution by requiring our President to promptly transition the mission of American forces in Iraq to protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure, to training and equipping Iraqi forces, and to conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Our resolution would require the President to begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after enactment, with the goal--I emphasize ``goal''--of redeploying all United States combat forces by March 31, 2008, except for--except for--those that are needed to carry out the three missions which are described in the resolution, and which I have just outlined. That goal and the three limited missions are the same as the goal and the limited missions recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

Passing this resolution would deliver a cold dose of reality to the Iraqi leaders and would tell them we are not going to be their security blanket without end. When they finally understand our military presence in Iraq is neither permanent nor unconditional, then--and only then-- are they likely to take the political steps necessary to deal with sectarian violence and to defeat the insurgency.

By shifting responsibility to the Iraqis for their own future and their own country, this resolution does what is needed the most--it puts pressure on the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.

As we consider the future of our involvement in Iraq, we must always be mindful of the price our military and their families are paying as a result of multiple deployments of units and people to Iraq. We must be mindful that the lack of attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan has allowed al-Qaida and the Taliban to regroup and strengthen. We must also be mindful that our nondeployed forces lack the equipment and other resources needed to maintain an acceptable level of readiness, and, as a result, the risk our Nation faces has substantially increased.

We must be tragically mindful, always, that the pledge to take care of those courageous soldiers and marines, who have sustained serious physical and mental injuries in combat, has been broken by this administration.

In recent days, there have been statements suggesting a debate in Congress on the war in Iraq is undermining the troops. Just last Monday, Vice President Cheney said, among other things, that:

When Members of Congress pursue an antiwar strategy . . .

they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining

them.

Contrast the Vice President's statement with statements Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Pace made recently on February 7 before the House Armed Services Committee.

Here is what Secretary Gates said:

I would tell you that I think that our troops do understand

that everybody involved in this debate is looking to do the

right thing for our country and for our troops, and that

everybody is looking for the best way to avoid an outcome

that leaves Iraq in chaos. And I think our troops are

sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the

debate's really about. It's about the path forward in Iraq.

Here is what General Pace said, and contrast this to what Vice President Cheney said--how worthy Secretary Gates' statement is--and listen to how worthy General Pace's statement is compared to the stale and unworthy comments of the Vice President of the United States about what this debate signifies.

General Pace:

There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in

Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.

And then he added:

From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they

understand how our legislature works and they understand that

there is going to be this kind of debate.

When I listened to the Vice President and his unworthy remarks, it reminded me of not only how worthy our troops are and how they are professional enough to understand what their duty is, but also that they are loyal Americans to know and understand that it is our duty to debate this war. For those of us who think it is leading in the wrong direction and going nowhere, it is on a road to failure, it is our duty to try to change that course.

Contrast our troops and their honor and their loyalty to the principles upon which this Nation was founded, reflected, interestingly enough, in a poll taken of our military by the Military Times. This poll was printed in the Army Times a few months ago. The question that was asked of our troops was whether they approve of the President's handling of the war in Iraq. Forty-two percent of our troops disapproved of the President's handling of the war in Iraq. Thirty-five percent of our troops approved of the handling of the war by their Commander in Chief. They are divided as Americans are divided. We should not only respect their bravery, we should respect their intelligence and their commitment to this debate in the Congress. That is what they are fighting for: that we can debate a mission and we can debate how to best secure this country so that we can debate how to best succeed in Iraq.

That is what our troops believe in. That is what they are fighting for. It is insulting to them. It is insulting to them to say, as the Vice President of the United States said, that a debate in the United States Congress as to how best to succeed in Iraq, how best to change the course in Iraq, somehow or other undermines the troops.

So we have before us an opportunity, an opportunity which can only be achieved if this debate can advance beyond the motion to proceed. We will be voting on that motion later on today or tomorrow. I hope that Senators, regardless of our views on this war, will allow this Senate to once again debate the direction in Iraq. The last real vote we had was one that denied us this opportunity to proceed. I hope there will be enough of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will recognize the importance of this debate to this future--the future of this country, to the future of this world, perhaps; to the lives of so many of our gallant, brave troops and their families, and perhaps, indeed, to the future well-being of this institution because this institution surely should be about debating issues as transcendently important as our future in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some correspondence between myself and Secretary Rice, and Senator McCain and myself with Secretary Rice be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island would yield.

There is no order that has been established, No. 1. I would like very much to establish an order for the convenience of all Senators, but I would have to know more about the other side in terms of what their wishes are. I know Senator Schumer wanted to begin at about 1:45, and then I know Senator Dorgan was in the queue--it is an informal queue. I believe, if my memory is correct, although I don't have the sheet of paper in front of me, Senator Dorgan wanted to come out between 3:00 and 4:00.

We will do everything we can to accommodate Senators, and if Senators could let me know, for those who want to speak in favor of the motion to proceed, when they would like to be here and about how long they need, I would be most appreciative, and I will try to put together an order.

Can we put in an order now that Senator Reed has the floor, and we would be happy to alternate if a Republican shows up. Let me ask Senator Dorgan. I did tell Senator Schumer that we would try to fit him in at 1:45. Can we put Senator Specter in immediately after Senator Schumer? Could we put the Senator from Pennsylvania in immediately after Senator Schumer because I have not specified with him the amount of time he needs. But I would prevail upon him to see if he could end close to 1:55. Let me raise that with Senator Schumer.

Could I ask the Senator from Rhode Island about how much time he needs?

As always, he is most accommodating. The Presiding Officer apparently also wishes to have time. Could we put the Senator from New Jersey in after the Senator from Pennsylvania? Why don't we set up the next three Senators on this side to be Senator Reed, Senator Schumer, and then Senator Specter, and then Senator Menendez.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bill Nelson be recognized next and Senator Graham be recognized after Senator Nelson, and then we return to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Cardin be recognized for 5 minutes and then Senator Kennedy be recognized immediately after the remarks by the Senator from Maryland.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, on this side, the order then be Senator Dodd, Senator Brown, and Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, after Senator Dodd is recognized, we had previously indicated that Senator Brown and then Senator Dorgan would be recognized. We are trying to see whether it might be possible to substitute Senator Kerry for Senator Brown, leaving Senator Dorgan in the same position. We are trying to determine that right now. For the time being, it will be Senator Dodd, then Senator Brown or Senator Kerry, and then Senator Dorgan.

Madam President, I support the Improving America's Security Act of 2007 because it takes a giant step in implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Keeping America safe requires more than expensive weapons and war funding; it also requires a commitment to homeland security. This legislation shows that commitment.

We learned on September 11 and during Hurricane Katrina how important it is for our first responders to be able to communicate with each other. For years, I have been urging the Department of Homeland Security to establish a dedicated funding source for interoperable communications equipment. I am pleased that this legislation creates a grant program dedicated to improving operability and interoperability at local, regional, State and Federal levels.

I am also pleased that this legislation moves us closer to the equitable distribution of homeland security grant funding. For 5 years, the largest homeland security grant programs have distributed funds using a formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of funds to be divided equally among the States, regardless of size or need. The current ``small State formula'' has severely disadvantaged States such as Michigan with high populations. In addition, it reduces the amount of funding that can be allocated to States with highest risks. Although I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass two amendments that I supported that would have lowered the minimum funding level even further, the .45 percent minimum in the underlying bill is an improvement from the current .75 percent base funding amount.

The legislation also includes language that I authored that directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish international border community interoperable communications demonstration projects on the northern and southern borders to improve collaboration and help identify common frequencies for cross border communications. These interoperable communications demonstration projects will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders by identifying common international cross-border frequencies for communications equipment; fostering the standardization of interoperable communications equipment; identifying solutions that will expeditiously facilitate communications interoperability across national borders; ensuring that emergency response providers can communicate with one another and the public at disaster sites or in the event of a terrorist attack or other catastrophic event; and providing training and equipment for relevant personnel to enable those units to deal with threats and contingencies in a variety of environments.

Also included in the legislation is language that I authored that will require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, before publishing the final rule. The WHTI will require individuals from the United States, Canada, and Mexico to present a passport or other document proving citizenship before entering the United States. Although we all share the goals of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to make our borders as secure as they can be, we need to make sure that we are achieving that goal in a way that will not cause economic harm to our States. I am also pleased that language was included in the bill that I worked with Senator Coleman on to require the Department of Homeland Security to sign a memorandum of understanding with one or more States to conduct a pilot project to see whether secure driver's licenses could be used as a form of documentation for travel between the U.S. and Canada under the WHTI. The amendment also provides that DHS must evaluate the pilot project and map out next steps, including an expansion if appropriate.

This legislation also takes important steps to shore up rail, transit and cargo security in the United States. The legislation establishes a grant fund for system wide Amtrak security improvements and much needed infrastructure upgrades as well as authorizes an existing grant program for improving intercity bus and bus terminal security. It establishes a grant program for freight and passenger rail security upgrades and requires railroads shipping high-hazard materials to create threat mitigation plans. It authorizes studies to find ways to improve passenger and baggage security screening on passenger rail service between the U.S. and Canada. The bill will hopefully move us closer to addressing something I have been trying to get implemented at our northern car and truck border crossings for years: establishing a preclearance system. The study is required to identify what exactly is needed to perform prescreening of rail passengers on the northern border.

I am pleased that the Senate retained language that will require that TSA screeners finally come under an unambiguous personnel system. A further amendment that I supported will finally give Transportation Security Administration screeners the whistleblower protections afforded to most other Federal workers, including law enforcement officers. It also gives them the right to appeal suspensions and to collectively bargain, just like their counterparts in the Border Control, FEMA and the Capitol Police.

The bill also requires studies on how to improve the safety of transporting radioactive and hazardous materials and shipments of explosives and radioactive materials on our highways. I am pleased that this legislation requires the screening of all cargo carried on passenger airplanes within 3 years.

The intelligence failures before the Iraq war were, to a significant degree, the result of the CIA shaping intelligence to support administration policy. The CIA's errors were all in one direction, making the Iraqi threat clearer, sharper and more imminent, thereby promoting the decision to remove Saddam from power. Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped. ``Slam dunk'' was the assessment.

Among the most important things we can do to keep this from happening again is to strengthen congressional oversight to ensure that intelligence community assessments are objective and uninfluenced by the policy judgments of whatever administration is in power. The 9/11 Commission agreed, stating in its report that ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' Section 1102 of S. 4 bill is directed at that goal.

Too often Congress is stonewalled or slow-walked by the executive branch in accessing intelligence information necessary to make policy and conduct oversight of the intelligence community. Section 1102 of this bill adds a new section 508 to the National Security Act that will ensure Congress has access to intelligence information critical to do its job.

Section 508 requires elements of the intelligence community to provide, upon request from congressional committees of jurisdiction, timely access to intelligence information. The requirement would apply unless the President certified that the requested documents were not being provided because the President was asserting a constitutional privilege. Requiring the

intelligence community to respond to requests for information from the vice chairman and ranking member of the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, will encourage rigorous oversight regardless of which party controls the Congress.

In addition to providing information in a timely manner, we expect the intelligence community to provide Congress its assessment of intelligence matters uninfluenced by the policy goals of the administration. However, an Office of Management and Budget--OMB-- memorandum directs executive branch agencies to clear, through OMB, legislative proposals, agency reports, and testimony on pending legislation. The memo also states that ``If agencies are asked by Congressional Committees to report or testify on pending legislation or wish to volunteer a report, similar clearance procedures are followed.''

Our intelligence agencies should not have to get permission from the OMB, or any other executive branch official to share their views with the Congress. Section 1102 of the bill adds a new section 508 (d) to the National Security Act that says no executive branch official can require the intelligence community to get permission to testify or to submit testimony, legislative recommendations or comments to the Congress. Section 508 (d) is based on authority that exists for numerous other executive branch agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the National Credit Union Administration.

A CRS legal review of direct reporting requirements like the one created by section 508 (d) states that ``direct reporting provisions are well within the Congress's constitutional authority to inform itself in order to perform its legislative function which has been consistently acknowledged by Supreme Court decisions, and dates back to the early enactments of the First Congress in 1789.'' The CRS review calls Department of Justice objections to direct reporting requirements ``without substantial merit.''

Finally, it is important for whistleblowers to know that they can come directly to Congress if they have evidence that someone has made a false statement to the Congress. And the Congress has a right to that information--even if it is classified.

Section 1102 of the bill adds a new section 509 to the National Security Act making it clear that intelligence community employees and contractors can report classified information directly to appropriate Members of Congress and cleared staff if the employee reasonably believes that the information provides direct and specific evidence of a false or inaccurate statement to Congress contained in an intelligence assessment, report or estimate.

Section 509 is substantively the same as section 225 of the Senate- passed version of the intelligence reform legislation. Section 225 was stripped from the intelligence reform bill in conference. Section 509 is also similar to a provision that passed the Senate twice previously. Once as part of the fiscal year 1998 Intelligence Authorization Act and once as a stand alone measure S. 1668, in the 105th Congress. S. 1668 passed the Senate 93-1.

Section 509 is also consistent with congressional findings passed in the 105th Congress as part of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and incorporated by reference into the intelligence reform bill. Those findings state among other things that:

Congress, as a co-equal branch of Government, is empowered

by the Constitution to serve as a check on the executive

branch; in that capacity, it has a ``need to know'' of

allegations of wrongdoing within the executive branch,

including allegations of wrongdoing in the Intelligence

Community; . . .

(N)o basis in law exists for requiring prior authorization

of disclosures to the intelligence committees of Congress by

employees of the executive branch of classified information

about wrongdoing within the Intelligence Community . . .

I am pleased that the Senate will soon pass this legislation, for the families and friends of those we lost on September 11, 2001, and for the safety and security of our Nation.

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 ``Medicare Doctors Who Cheat on Their Taxes and What Should Be Done About It.''

This is the fourth hearing to result from a three year investigation conducted by the Subcommittee into Federal contractors that provide goods or services to the Federal Government, but fail to pay their taxes. A 2004 hearing determined that 27,000 contractors with the Department of Defense had a tax debt totaling roughly $3 billion. A 2005 hearing determined that 33,000 contractors doing business with civilian Federal agencies had unpaid taxes totaling $3.3 billion.

In addition to examining contractors for DOD and civilian agencies, the Subcommittee has examined similar misconduct by contractors for the General Services Administration (GSA). A Subcommittee hearing in March 2006 determined that 3,800 GSA contractors collectively owed $1.4 billion in unpaid taxes.

The upcoming March 20th hearing will further explore the problem, focusing specifically on Medicare physicians and related suppliers that receive substantial income from the Federal Government but do not pay the taxes that they owe.

Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives from the Government Accountability Office, the Internal Revenue Service, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, as well as the Financial Management Service. A final witness list will be available on Friday, March 16, 2007.

The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise J. Bean, of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-3721.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Madam President, the epidemic of gun violence is endangering many in our communities both large and small. Illegal guns are being used at an increasing rate to harm our children, our neighbors, and our police officers. We must not allow this spiral to continue.

One example of a community heavily affected by gun violence is in Pennsylvania, where in 2004 the State led the Nation in homicide rates among African-American victims. Handguns were used in 81 percent of the State's murders. In Pennsylvania's largest city, Philadelphia, more than 2,000 people were injured by firearms last year alone. According to the Philadelphia police department, this represents an increase of 31 percent in just 3 years. Philadelphia saw 406 people murdered in 2006, up from 380 in 2005.

Just a short trip south of Pennsylvania lies another example of the how guns are affecting our communities. According to the nonprofit organization Ceasefire Maryland, a crime is committed with an assault rifle every 48 hours in the State of Maryland. The Maryland State Legislature is attempting to address this horrifying statistic by considering a bill backed by Governor Martin O'Malley that would ban 45 different assault weapons statewide. This action could serve as an excellent example of a legislature taking a commonsense approach to reducing gun violence. Congress and President Bush have allowed the Federal assault weapons ban to expire.

Month after month, we watch these tragedies unfold on the news and yet Congress has not taken the necessary steps to help control these acts of violence or ease the anxiety that many parents and families feel each day as their loved ones go to school, church, or work. According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, gun crime rose 49.4 percent nationally between 2004 and 2005. Almost 5.9 million people were victims of gun violence between 1996 and 2005.

The American people have a right to demand that their schools, places of worship, and other public places be better protected from gun violence. Much more can be done to break the cycle of gun violence that plagues our communities. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass commonsense legislation that will help address this problem.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I want to recognize Guardian Industries, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Guardian has been a leader in the glass, building, and automotive parts manufacturing industries and an important contributor to Michigan's economy for many years.

Guardian Industries was established in 1932 as Guardian Glass Company. What began as a small windshield fabrication business in Detroit, MI, grew to become a large-scale operation with the opening of its first float glass assembly plant in 1970. Since then, Guardian has built or acquired numerous fabrication plants throughout the world and diversified its business through the purchase and development of new technologies and methods of production.

Over the years, Guardian Industries has steadily grown to become one of the world's chief manufacturers of float glass and fabricated glass products and the world's largest producer of mirrors. Guardian has also become a major player in the building materials and distribution business and a leading supplier of exterior products to the automotive industry.

During its 75 years of existence, Guardian Industries has made a significant contribution to Michigan's economy. With a global workforce of over 19,000 employees, including about 1,000 in southeast Michigan, Guardian has demonstrated its commitment to making Michigan's economy a leader in manufacturing and technological development. Guardian Industries also plays an important role in community improvement throughout southeastern Michigan. Through its awarding of scholarships to local students pursuing advanced degrees and its financial support of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Guardian has shown a commitment to strengthening the fiber of community in Michigan.

I know my colleagues join me in commending the tremendous effort and hard work of the many employees of Guardian Industries over the years and wish them many more years of success and growth.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act'' with Senator George Voinovich and our co-sponsors. I also want to thank Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rahm Emanuel for introducing similar Great Lakes restoration legislation in the House today.

The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan, but to the Nation. Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market.

While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased

threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.''

The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, seven people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than ten billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, over 1,850 beaches in the Great Lakes were closed. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60% of the forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, thus diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.

The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years, and, in 2005, 1,500 people through the Great Lakes region worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released in December 2005, and, today, I am introducing this legislation to implement many of those recommendations.

This bill would reduce the threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the improvement, operation and maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would improve fish and wildlife habitat by providing additional resources to States and cities for water infrastructure. It would provide additional funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and would give the EPA additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase out mercury in products and to identify emerging contaminants. The bill would authorize the restoration and remediation of our waterfronts. It would authorize additional research through existing Federal programs as well as our non-federal research institutions. And it would authorize coordination of Federal programs.

The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good stewards by ensuring that the Federal government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This legislation will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act'' with Senator George Voinovich and our co-sponsors. I also want to thank Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rahm Emanuel for introducing similar Great Lakes restoration legislation in the House today.

The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan, but to the Nation. Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market.

While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased

threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.''

The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, seven people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than ten billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, over 1,850 beaches in the Great Lakes were closed. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60% of the forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, thus diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.

The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years, and, in 2005, 1,500 people through the Great Lakes region worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released in December 2005, and, today, I am introducing this legislation to implement many of those recommendations.

This bill would reduce the threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the improvement, operation and maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would improve fish and wildlife habitat by providing additional resources to States and cities for water infrastructure. It would provide additional funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and would give the EPA additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase out mercury in products and to identify emerging contaminants. The bill would authorize the restoration and remediation of our waterfronts. It would authorize additional research through existing Federal programs as well as our non-federal research institutions. And it would authorize coordination of Federal programs.

The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good stewards by ensuring that the Federal government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This legislation will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Mr. President, in 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban which was enacted into law, and in March 2004, 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 help protect Americans from assault weapons. On September 13, 2004, the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. Today, law enforcement agencies across the country have been forced to upgrade their firepower in order to counter what they describe as an increasing presence of high-powered weapons on the streets.

According to an article last week in USA Today, Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, revealed that an informal survey of approximately 20 police departments showed that since 2004, all of the agencies have been forced to either add weapons to their officers' units or replace existing weaponry with military-style arms. ``This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher- caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban,'' Knight explained.

The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the sale of 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. It also 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.

Ron Stucker, criminal investigations chief of the Orange County Sheriff's Department in Florida, stated that over the past 2 years his department has been arming many of its deputies with assault weapons. These deputies are now ``frequently'' encountering dangerous assault weapons even during routine traffic stops.

In Houston, homicides rose 25 percent in 2006 over the previous year. Police Chief Harold Hurtt acknowledged the AK-47 assault rifle has become the ``weapon of choice'' for major drug dealers, warring gangs and immigrant smugglers. ``The reality on the street is that many of these weapons are readily available,'' according to Hurtt, whose department has also been consistently upgrading its weaponry with assault style arms.

It is clear that allowing the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse has contributed to the dangerous and deadly consequences so many of us feared. Over the past 2 years criminals have been permitted easier access to weapons that simply have no place on our streets. I urge my colleagues to enact a commonsense ban on assault weapons.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I report that a victim of a hate crime in the city of Detroit died 10 days after the brutal incident.

Andrew Anthos was an extraordinary citizen with a passion for community service. During the last 20 years, Mr. Anthos repeatedly traveled by bus from Detroit to Lansing with a singular purpose, to urge the Michigan capital's dome be illuminated in red, white and blue, to honor his country.

Mr. Anthos wrote me last year to inform me of his efforts. As he put it, he wanted Michigan to be ``the first State to inaugurate this patriotic tribute to its loyal citizens.'' He had support from many in the State, and had hoped for dedication lighting during Michigan Week, which will occur in May of this year, when Michigan would celebrate its 170th anniversary as our 26th State.

On the evening of February 13, 2007, Mr. Anthos was riding a bus home from the Detroit Public Library. A passenger on the bus yelled at him and asked if he was gay. The man then followed him off the bus, where Mr. Anthos was helping a wheelchair bound friend off of the bus. The assailant then struck Anthos in the back with a metal pipe, leaving him critically injured, lying in the snow.

The man left, without any effort to rob Mr. Anthos. This clearly was a hate crime, where Anthos was targeted because of his sexual orientation. Mr.

Anthos tragically was left paralyzed from the neck down, before he slipped into a 10-day coma. He passed away on February 23, 2007. His killer has yet to be found.

Unfortunately, Andrew Anthos has not been the only victim of a hate crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's latest statistics tell us that over 8,800 individuals were the victim of a hate crime in 2005. 4,900 of these crimes were racially motivated, while 1,200 were based on sexual orientation. Many of these crimes resulted in death or serious bodily harm.

No one should be targeted because of the color of their skin, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation. We have an obligation to make America a fully inclusive nation, a country that does not tolerate bias, discrimination or bigotry.

Next week, as an original cosponsor, I will join Senators Kennedy and Smith in introducing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill will, for the first time, expand the definition of a hate crime to include gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. It will also allow the Federal Government to assist local law enforcement in investigation of hate crimes.

We should condemn and act against the hate crimes that have plagued our Nation and have had such a devastating impact on Andrew Anthos, and thousands of others and their families. I hope the Senate will take swift action to enact the Kennedy-Smith bill.

In addition, I hope that State governments will strengthen their own hate crime statutes to combat this growing trend. Andrew Anthos gave so much to our community, and it is essential that we give back to his memory by doing everything we can to reduce the incidence of these crimes.