Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Ohio as a cosponsor of this important amendment to improve air quality and public health by reducing emissions from diesel engines.

I believe that this amendment will take important strides not only toward the stated goal of reducing emissions but also in making advanced clean diesel technology more viable in the United States. Diesel engines now can increase fuel economy by as much as 25 to 40 percent. If we can do that--and do it without harmful tailpipe emissions--we could make significant progress toward improving overall fuel economy and reducing our oil consumption.

This bipartisan amendment would establish national and State grant and loan programs to promote reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment authorizes $200 million annually for 5 years to fund programs that will help us to replace older diesel technology with newer, cleaner diesel technology. The grant program, which will be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, has the potential to result in significant reductions in diesel particulate matter and help communities in meeting national ambient air quality standards.

Under this amendment, 70 percent of the funds available would be to provide grants and low-cost revolving loans on a competitive basis for retrofit of buses, heavy duty trucks, locomotives, or non-road engines to help achieve significant emissions reductions particularly from fleets operating in poor air quality areas. The remaining 30 percent of the funds would go for grant and loan programs administered by states.

The important steps that will be taken by these programs offer great promise for reducing diesel emissions and making clean diesel a commercially viable advanced vehicle technology in the U.S. Our friends in Europe have taken advantage of the opportunities that diesel offers for improving fuel economy and reducing oil dependence. We have not been able to do so here in the U.S. because of our concerns about tailpipe emissions. Initiatives such as those included in this amendment will help the U.S. to develop advanced diesel technology that will be able to meet our emissions standards in a cost-effective manner.

I am pleased to join my colleagues today in supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, it's an honor to pay tribute to a great man, a distinguished Senator, and a dear friend who passed away on June 10, Senator Jim Exon of Nebraska.

Last week, I joined several of my colleagues in attending his funeral in Lincoln, NE. It was inspiring to be with the people who knew him best and loved him most. Jim was a giant in Nebraska politics not because of the power he wielded but because of the respect and affection he had earned.

Jim Exon was a decent man, without pretension or prejudice. He spoke plainly. He called it like he saw it. He did what he thought was right, regardless of the pressure that might have been put on him. Jim laughed the same wonderful, booming laugh with Presidents as he did with the people back home. He was a large man, and he had a heart to match.

That is why he was beloved in Nebraska and never lost an election, serving two terms as Governor and then three terms as Senator. That is why he was popular even as the father of the Democratic Party in an overwhelmingly Republican State. And that is why his friendship and kindness meant the world to me.

Jim and I were both members of the class of 1978, and we--and our wives--quickly became close friends. We served together on the Armed Services Committee; in fact, we sat next to each other for 18 years. We had honest, substantive debates about our defense policy, and I will always cherish the memories of that time. His only interest was the security and prosperity of our country and his beloved Nebraska.

Jim worked for a strong national defense. He supported responsible budget policies. And he was ahead of his time in warning against terrorism and arguing for a Department of Homeland Security. For so many of us, he was a source of wise counsel and trusted advice. With Jim, you could always be certain he was telling you what he thought was right, and he usually was right.

We will miss him terribly, but we are fortunate to have had him for so long. My thoughts and prayers, and those of my wife Barbara, are with his loving wife Pat and his entire family.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders, or ``ICOM,'' Act of 2005. We have all heard the stories of how the first responders could not communicate on 9/11 and this lack of communication cost lives. The same situation is happening all over this country and we need to improve interoperable communications before more lives are lost. Attaining this objective will require substantial resources and a strong commitment by Congress and the Administration. This legislation takes an important first step in this effort.

We have seen how bad the problem is in Michigan. For example, on the morning of Sunday, October 26, 2003, Michigan first responders held an exercise to test the emergency communications response capabilities at Michigan's international border with Canada. As we all know, during any emergency, effective communications is an absolute requirement. However, during the exercise, in order to communicate between fire agencies, the fire commanding officer needed 3 portable radios literally hanging around his neck and hooked to his waist band to attempt scene coordination. The Incident Commander was shuffling radios up and down to his ear and mouth in an attempt to figure out ``who'' was requesting or providing information. Further, the fire commanding officer had no communication with any law enforcement or Emergency Medical Service agencies. To communicate with those agencies, 5 additional radios would be required. This is totally unacceptable.

First and foremost, the ICOM Act will provide dedicated funding for initiatives to achieve short- and long-term solutions to interoperability to States or regional consortia within each State for State-wide or regional communications planning, system design and engineering, procurement and installation of equipment, training and exercises, or other activities determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be integral to the achievement of communications interoperability.

This legislation will also provide the recently authorized Office for Interoperability and Compatibility the resources and authorities necessary to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach, develop a national strategy, facilitate the creation of regional task forces in each State, fund and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts, encourage more efficient use of resources, and test and deploy more reliable and less costly public safety communications systems. Finally, the ICOM Act also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This includes promoting research through the Directorate of Science and Technology and Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, and considering establishing a Center of Excellence. The research agenda will focus on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of today's diverse public safety communications systems, examining how current and emerging technology can make public safety organizations more effective, and how local, State, and Federal agencies can utilize this technology in a coherent and cost-effective manner, evaluating and validating new technology concepts, and advancing the creation of a national strategy to promote interoperability and efficient use of spectrum.

I recently authored an amendment that passed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that would assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The ICOM Act will complement that legislation by providing funding, support, research and development to improve interoperable communications on a national level.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders, or ``ICOM,'' Act of 2005. We have all heard the stories of how the first responders could not communicate on 9/11 and this lack of communication cost lives. The same situation is happening all over this country and we need to improve interoperable communications before more lives are lost. Attaining this objective will require substantial resources and a strong commitment by Congress and the Administration. This legislation takes an important first step in this effort.

We have seen how bad the problem is in Michigan. For example, on the morning of Sunday, October 26, 2003, Michigan first responders held an exercise to test the emergency communications response capabilities at Michigan's international border with Canada. As we all know, during any emergency, effective communications is an absolute requirement. However, during the exercise, in order to communicate between fire agencies, the fire commanding officer needed 3 portable radios literally hanging around his neck and hooked to his waist band to attempt scene coordination. The Incident Commander was shuffling radios up and down to his ear and mouth in an attempt to figure out ``who'' was requesting or providing information. Further, the fire commanding officer had no communication with any law enforcement or Emergency Medical Service agencies. To communicate with those agencies, 5 additional radios would be required. This is totally unacceptable.

First and foremost, the ICOM Act will provide dedicated funding for initiatives to achieve short- and long-term solutions to interoperability to States or regional consortia within each State for State-wide or regional communications planning, system design and engineering, procurement and installation of equipment, training and exercises, or other activities determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be integral to the achievement of communications interoperability.

This legislation will also provide the recently authorized Office for Interoperability and Compatibility the resources and authorities necessary to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach, develop a national strategy, facilitate the creation of regional task forces in each State, fund and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts, encourage more efficient use of resources, and test and deploy more reliable and less costly public safety communications systems. Finally, the ICOM Act also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This includes promoting research through the Directorate of Science and Technology and Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, and considering establishing a Center of Excellence. The research agenda will focus on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of today's diverse public safety communications systems, examining how current and emerging technology can make public safety organizations more effective, and how local, State, and Federal agencies can utilize this technology in a coherent and cost-effective manner, evaluating and validating new technology concepts, and advancing the creation of a national strategy to promote interoperability and efficient use of spectrum.

I recently authored an amendment that passed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that would assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The ICOM Act will complement that legislation by providing funding, support, research and development to improve interoperable communications on a national level.

Mr. President, I thank our friend from Washington for making this modification. This is a very important modification from my perspective. But for this modification, the language of the amendment would propose that the goals that are set forth--which are only goals but nonetheless they are goals--would need to be achieved by implementing measures ``under existing authorities of the Federal agencies.''

That is the language which is in 151(c)(2)(B) of the amendment. That is lines 8 and 9 on page 4 of the amendment.

Now, that is very problematic language and unacceptable language because if we are going to achieve the goals that are set forth, if we have any chance of doing so, it would have to be with significant changes in our authorities--for instance, in the tax incentives which would be so essential in order to achieve a reduction in imports of oil. There is no way I can see or that many others can see that we could achieve the kinds of reductions that are hoped for without significant tax incentives being put into the law--tax incentives that do not now exist.

There are some existing authorities and some existing tax incentives, but they do not come close to what they must be if we are going to reduce the amount of imported oil that we use. So it is important to me that the existing authorities language either be removed or superseded in this amendment so that the President could seek and we could grant, if we so chose, new authority, additional authorities, new tax incentives, for instance, to move to new technologies. That is the effect of the modification to the amendment that was sent to the desk, which reads:

Nothing in this section precludes the President from

requesting additional authorities to achieve the targets in

subsection (c).

So that change seems to be very essential since there is no practical way that these goals can be met, in my book--either the short-term goals of one million barrels per day or the long-term goals of 7.64 million barrels per day--unless there are changes in our tax structure and the other authorities that we provide in the executive branch. This savings clause now makes it clear that both as to the short-term and the long-term goal for savings, there is not a limit in the amendment to using existing authorities but rather additional authorities can be sought by the President.

I thank the Senator from Washington for making that change. In the colloquy between myself and the Senator from Washington, it makes clear that the amendment does not assume or require changes in technologies or CAFE standards or anything else. It is technology neutral. According to this colloquy, the amendment does not assume or propose an increase in CAFE standards. All of the other potential changes, technologically, that could help get us to where we want to go, including diesel technologies that are so important, hybrid technologies, hydrogen technologies--it does not put those specific technologies in place, either requiring them or, of course, not precluding them because this is technology neutral. That becomes critically important because, again, without those technologies there is no way we can achieve these goals. But there is no effort in this amendment to identify the specific technologies or the mechanisms by which these goals would be achieved. Particularly important, obviously, is the language that states that the amendment does not assume or propose an increase in CAFE standards, and another part of the colloquy makes it clear that the amendment neither assumes nor proposes regulatory changes to the CAFE system and that is not part of this amendment.

So the colloquy will speak for itself. It is a lot longer than I have just summarized, but it is a very significant colloquy to me in terms of what the amendment does and what it does not do.

I thank the Senator from Washington for working out this colloquy with me.

modification of cantwell amendment 784

The amendment sets a goal for a savings of 7.6 million barrels of oil by 2025. Are there assumptions made by the amendment?

Does the amendment assume an increase in CAFE standards?

Does the amendment assume an increase in ethanol production and use?

Does the amendment assume an increase in use of biodiesel fuels and technology?

Does the amendment assume an increase in the use of diesel engine technology?

Does the amendment assume a major increase in the use of hybrid electric vehicle technology?

Does the amendment assume a major shift to use of renewable hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles?

Does the amendment assume an increase in tax incentives to encourage use of advance technologies?

Does the amendment assume regulatory changes in how the CAFE system works?

Does the amendment assume regulatory changes that would allow for greater use of diesel technology?

Does the amendment assume the Congress will provide other new authorities to the President?

Does the amendment assume that there are adequate ``existing authorities of appropriate Federal agencies'' to meet the goal of saving 7.64 million barrels of oil per day by 2025?

Does this amendment set a goal of reducing imported oil or reducing overall use of fossil fuel?

To achieve the one million barrels of oil a day in savings required by 2015, must the President use existing authorities, or can the President seek additional authority?

If the President can seek additional authority to meet the requirement to save 1 million barrels of oil a day, would the Senator be willing to modify the amendment to make that clear?

Mr. President, I support the goals for reducing this Nation's dependence on foreign oil that are embodied in the Cantwell amendment. We need to strive for energy independence, and I believe it is important to take bold steps toward reducing our oil consumption. Our policies have long ignored the problem of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and we remain as vulnerable to oil supply disruptions today as we have been for decades. Taking the steps necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is a critical objective for this country.

I have long supported a broad array of Federal efforts to meet this objective. I believe that we need a long-term, comprehensive energy plan, and I have supported initiatives that will increase our domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner and provide consumers with affordable and reliable energy. There are many provisions included in this bill that will help take important steps in this direction-- particularly those provisions of this bill that address energy efficiency and renewable energy and will lead us toward greater uses of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

I have also long advocated Federal efforts that will lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology. As many of my colleagues have said, we need a level of leadership similar to the effort of a previous generation to put a man on the moon. I believe we need our own moon shot in the area of automotive technology to develop alternatives to petroleum and to make more efficient use of all forms of energy.

We need a significantly larger effort than anything on the drawing boards. We need to put greater Federal resources into work on breakthrough technologies--such as hybrid technologies, advanced batteries, advanced clean diesel, and fuel cells--that will provide potentially dramatic increases in vehicle fuel economy and help us

move toward making this Nation less dependent on foreign oil and reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases.

Federal Government investment is also essential not only in research and development but as a mechanism to push the market toward greater use and acceptance of advanced technologies. For example, expanding the requirements for the Federal Government to purchase advanced technology vehicles will help provide a market for advanced technologies. We also must have far greater tax incentives for advanced technologies than have been proposed to date.

I believe the goals for reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Cantwell amendment can be met by taking bold actions in the areas I have mentioned and without relying on increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Higher CAFE standards will not produce real results--they will only exacerbate the inherent discriminatory features in the CAFE system that give an unfair competitive advantage to foreign auto manufacturers and have contributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. Senator Cantwell and the sponsors of this amendment have assured the Senate and her amendment was modified so that there are no policy assumptions in this amendment that will increase CAFE standards. The goals of this amendment are laudable, and since they are simply goals--which after the modification can be achieved with new authorities, tax incentives for instance, and do not rely on use of existing authorities--I can now support the amendment.

Madam President, it is with great pride that I congratulate the University of Michigan Softball Team on winning the 2005 National Championship. The Wolverines completed an impressive season by defeating the two-time defending champion University of California-Los Angeles Bruins two games to one in thrilling fashion capped by a three run home run in the tenth inning of the final game of the 2005 College World Series. This victory marks the first time a team east of the Mississippi River has won this title and cements the University of Michigan program as a true national powerhouse in college softball. The Wolverines played with superb skill and dogged determination throughout the season and in the World Series to clinch their first championship, the second National Championship ever for a women's athletic program at the University of Michigan.

The top ranked Wolverines entered Wednesday night's game hungry for the final win that would secure their first National Championship trophy. The Wolverines and Bruins split the first two games of the best of three series and were locked in a fierce battle in the third and final game to determine the ultimate victor. The Wolverines and Bruins ended regulation with the score tied at one run each. The tenth inning would prove pivotal as Samantha Findlay seized this opportunity and hit a three run homer to provide the boost necessary to secure this extra innings win. This grand display of athleticism, coupled with her play throughout the postseason, helped earn Findlay the Women's College World Series Most Valuable Player Award.

That victory provided the perfect ending to a remarkable season for the

University of Michigan Softball Team. After a 32 game winning streak at the beginning of the season, the Wolverines became the Nation's top- ranked college softball program for the first time in school history, and they were able to maintain the top ranking for the rest of the season. The Wolverines ended the season with 65 wins and 7 losses, the best record in school history and was one of three schools in NCAA history to hit 100 home runs in a season.

Many members of the Wolverine team have been honored for their efforts both on and off of the field. Eight of the team's 19 members were named to the Big Ten all-conference team, including five on the Big Ten first team. Perhaps even more impressive is that six Wolverine players were named to the spring 2005 Academic All-Big Ten Conference team. The Wolverines' pitcher, Jennie Ritter, was honored with the Big Ten Pitcher of the Year title and was a finalist for the Amateur Softball Association's USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year. A member of the Big Ten second team, Samantha Findlay, earned an award as the Big Ten Freshman of the Year. The 2005 University of Michigan Softball team included Stephanie Bercaw, Angie Danis, Samantha Findlay, Alessandra Giampaolo, Tiffany Haas, Lauren Holland, Jennifer Kreinbrink, Grace Leutele, Becky Marx, Jessica Merchant, Rebekah Milian, Nicole Motycka, Jennie Ritter, Lauren Talbot, Michelle Teschler, Michelle Weatherdon, Lorilyn Wilson, Stephanie Winter, and Tiffany Worthy.

This season proved to be an especially memorable one for Head Coach Carol Hutchins for several reasons. Coach Hutchins eclipsed the 900 career win mark during the season, and her 940th win resulted in a championship for the Wolverines. She currently enjoys the distinction of being the most victorious coach in University of Michigan history and currently ranks among the top ten Division I active coaches in career wins and winning percentage.

As we honor this impressive triumph, I am reminded of the many times I have had the pleasure of congratulating a strong Wolverine team. Michigan can be proud of this most recent success, their fifty-second National Championship in school history. I am proud to join Senator Stabenow in congratulating the University of Michigan Softball Team on winning the 2005 Softball National Championship. I know my Senate colleagues share my admiration of the poise, skill and hard work necessary to achieve this milestone.

Mr. President, in recent years, there has been numerous reports regarding .50-caliber sniper rifles and the danger they pose to our communities and homeland security. It is important that we take action to prevent potential terrorists and violent criminals from having easy access to these dangerous weapons.

The .50-caliber sniper rifle is a favorite weapon of militaries around the world. According to a report released by the Violence Policy Center last year, a .50-caliber sniper rifle is capable of accurately hitting a target over 1,500 yards away, and the ammunition available for the rifle includes armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive bullets. The report also cites the U.S. Army's manual on urban combat, which states that .50-caliber sniper rifles are designed to attack bulk fuel tanks and other high-value targets from a distance using ``their ability to break through all but the thickest shielding material.'' According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the leading manufacturers of the .50-caliber sniper rifle has also promoted their rifle's ability to destroy ``multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.''

While these capabilities may be desirable for military purposes, the .50-caliber sniper rifle provides the same capabilities to terrorists who may use them to bring down civilian aircraft, attack critical infrastructure, or kill innocent Americans. Currently, these powerful weapons are subject to only minimal Federal regulation and are treated the same as other long rifles including shotguns, hunting rifles, and smaller target rifles. A loophole in the law, commonly known as the ``gun show loophole,'' also allows for .50-caliber sniper rifles to be purchased without even a minimum background check.

I have cosponsored the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act introduced by Senator Feinstein. This bill would reclassify .50-caliber rifles under the National Firearms Act, NFA, treating them the same as other high-powered or especially lethal firearms like machine guns and sawed off shotguns.

Among other things, reclassification of .50-caliber sniper rifles under the NFA would subject them to new registration requirements. Future transfers or sales of .50-caliber sniper rifles would have to be conducted through a licensed dealer with an accompanying background check. In addition, the rifle being sold would have to be registered with Federal authorities. The additional requirements would help ensure that these dangerous weapons do not fall into the hands of potential terrorists or violent criminals.

We should recognize the extraordinary capabilities of .50-caliber sniper rifles and the danger they pose to our homeland security. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act to help protect our Nation from those who may wish to do us harm.

Mr. President, this week there will be celebrations in observance of the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865, also known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was on this date that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the 13th amendment in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country. Since that time, over 130 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil.

Throughout the Nation, we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19 we celebrate ``Juneteenth Independence Day.''

I am happy to join with my colleague, Senator Barack Obama, in commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day with the submission of S. Con. Res. 42, in recognition of the end of slavery and to never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tiffany Mason, the most recent Senate page from Michigan, for her hard work, dedication, and enthusiasm in carrying out her daily responsibilities over the last several months. It is, in part, through the efforts of our Senate pages that the Senate is able to efficiently carry out its important work, which includes receiving messages from the President and allowing for the introduction of bills. Pages are also asked to complete a variety of other important tasks when the Senate is in session.

Senator Daniel Webster has the distinction of selecting the first Senate page more than 150 years ago. In those days, as is the case today, a page was chosen and sponsored by a Senator. During his or her time in Washington, a page is not only expected to serve the needs of the Senate but also to attend school and complete the necessary requirements of high school juniors. Thirty pages from across the country serve as Senate pages each session. In May 1971 the first two female pages were selected to serve in the Senate.

Tiffany is a part of a fine tradition and a select group that has had the great privilege to serve as a U.S. Senate page. She has proven through her work in the Senate and through her many successes in the past that she, like many of her peers, are some of our Nation's best and brightest. Tiffany has received several awards and has participated in many different activities over the course of her high school career. These experiences have served her well and will continue to do so as she continues to learn, grow, and mature.

The work that has been done by this page class is valued by all in the Senate. I know my colleagues join me in thanking Tiffany Mason and the rest of the page class for a job well done. I wish her the very best in the future.

Mr. President, the opportunity has finally come to make the record right--to begin to balance what has been an imbalance. We have come to this floor to apologize for the silence of the U.S. Senate regarding the lynching of our fellow Americans, primarily African Americans.

Tonight, we begin to redress the lynching madness that swept our country from the 1880s and which continued unchecked through the 1950s, and even as recently as the 1960s. It is estimated that nearly 5,000 Americans were lynched during this time. African Americans were strung up from trees, burned at the stake, mutilated in the town square for all to see. Those who committed such atrocities went without punishment. Justice was not only denied, it was ignored, abdicated, and overthrown.

The victims were not just those who were killed. A lynching is not only a heinous and savage act against one person; it is an act of violence against the rights of an entire community. Its victims are everyone who hears its hateful message.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett explained well the nature of lynching in America. Born in Mississippi a few months before the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Ida Wells-Barnett was the editor and co- owner of a Black newspaper called ``The Free Speech and Headlight.'' In 1900, she wrote:

Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the

creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled

fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It

represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent

people who openly avow that there is an ``unwritten law''

that justifies them in putting human beings to death without

complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without

opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal.

Lynching was an attack on the rule of law itself, and yet the U.S. Senate did not act against it. Antilynching legislation was called for by seven U.S. Presidents. The House of Representatives passed three antilynching bills. This body passed none, though many were introduced.

In 1935, Senator Edward Costigan spoke in favor of an antilynching bill he had introduced with Senator Robert Wagner. Having made a careful yet passionate argument for his proposed legislation, Senator Costigan concluded:

If one can mention, much less picture such appalling facts

as I have recited without being revolted, he is indeed

hardened out of all semblance to humanity. They destroy our

claim to civilized life. They must not be permitted to

multiply. Every repetition of mob brutality denies its

victims the right of speedy and impartial trial and the equal

protection of laws guaranteed by the Constitution. No man can

be permitted to usurp the combined functions of judge, jury,

and executioner of his fellow men; and whenever any state

fails to protect such equal rights, I submit that the federal

government must do its utmost to repair the damage which is

then chargeable to us all.

Faced with both the opportunity and the responsibility to act, the Senate simply failed. That failure is a permanent stain on this body, and we are not trying to wipe it away. We only hope that acknowledging it will allow for some national healing.

To the families of victims of lynching who sit in the Senate Gallery tonight, let me offer my personal sorrow over the injustice you have suffered. I hope our action today will bring you some comfort, though it cannot ease your loss.

As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I also want to say a special word about the members of the American Armed Forces who were lynched in the country they had defended. Following both World War I and World War II, returning soldiers were lynched, many while still wearing their military uniforms. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation. There would be no new respect for these brave African Americans who had fought for our country, only the old order of injustice and hate.

Mr. President, it is easy for the Senate to apologize now. This is not a tough decision, only a somber one. But there are still tough decisions ahead. While we cannot bring justice to those who were lynched, we can continue to bring about the just society that was mocked and shredded by acts of lynching.

In that spirit, I hope that today is part of a larger effort toward racial reconciliation and justice. We can continue by honoring the Tuskegee Airmen with the Congressional Gold Medal for their contributions to our Nation's defense and to its progress, as proposed in bipartisan legislation, S. 392, introduced on February 16, 2005. And we can make progress on so many vital issues--education, health care, jobs--that would improve the lives of African Americans and all Americans. We have moved past lynching, but we have not reached justice. I hope we will not fail to act.

In closing, I would like to thank my able colleagues, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator George Allen, for their diligence and leadership in bringing this healing resolution, which I was pleased to cosponsor, before the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I am supporting the two nominations before the Senate.

With today's confirmation of William Pryor, 211 of 218 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed. After Richard Griffin's and David McKeague's upcoming confirmation, 213 of 218 of President Bush's nominees will have been confirmed. What a contrast to the way that President Clinton's nominees were treated. More than 60 of President Clinton's nominees never received a vote in the Judiciary Committee. In the battles over judicial nominations that have consumed this body in recent years, the way those nominees were treated stands out as uniquely unfair. Even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that treatment of President Clinton's nominees was ``inexcusable.''

For the last 4 years of the Clinton Presidency, there were Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit court. The Republican majority refused to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee on Clinton nominations for those vacancies. Indeed, one of those nominees waited longer for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee than any nominee in American history had--a hearing she ultimately never received.

Her nomination was held up for some time by former Senator Spencer Abraham in an attempt to secure the nomination of his preferred candidate to a second position. Then, the seats were kept vacant because the majority hoped that a Republican would be elected President and would put forward his nominees for those vacancies. When President Bush came to office, he not only filled positions which should have been filled by nominees of President Clinton, his nominees were allowed to go forward even over the objections of their home state senators.

Today, we will confirm two of President Bush's Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court. They should be confirmed and I will vote for them. In deciding to move on, we should not excuse the treatment of President Clinton's nominees or the refusal of President Bush to adopt a bipartisan solution to the acknowledged wrong. A brief history of the Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit will also hopefully prevent a recurrence of the tactic which was used against Clinton nominees-- denial of a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, year after year--not just in the last year of a presidential term but in the years before the last year of a presidential term.

Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White was nominated to fill a

Sixth Circuit vacancy on January 7, 1997. Some months later, Senator Leahy, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, came to this floor to urge that the Committee act on her nomination. This would be the first of at least sixteen statements on the Senate floor by Senator Leahy regarding the Sixth Circuit nominations over a 4 year period.

A year and a half after Judge White was nominated--Senator Leahy came to the floor and said: ``At each step of the process, judicial nominations are being delayed and stalled.'' His plea was again ignored and the 105th Congress ended without a hearing for Judge White.

On January 26, 1999, President Clinton again submitted Judge White's nomination. That day, I urged both Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to recognize that fundamental fairness dictated that she receive an early hearing in the 106th Congress, having received no hearing in the 105th.

On March 1, 1999, a second Michigan vacancy on the Sixth Circuit opened up. The next day, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, reiterated that nominations were being stalled by the majority.

The reason that the majority in the Judiciary Committee did not hold a hearing on Judge White was because of Senator Abraham's opposition, based on his effort to obtain the nomination of Jerry Rosen, a district court judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, to the second Michigan opening on the Sixth Circuit. President Clinton, however, in September of 1999, decided to nominate Kathleen McCree Lewis to that seat.

Soon thereafter, I spoke with Senator Abraham about the Lewis and White nominations, Senator Leahy again urged the Committee to act, calling the treatment of judicial nominees ``unconscionable.''

On November 18, 1999, I again urged Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to proceed with hearings for the two Michigan nominees. At that time I noted that Judge White had been waiting for nearly 3 years and that the confirmation of the two women was ``essential for fundamental fairness.'' 1999 ended without Judiciary Committee hearings.

In February of 2000 Senator Leahy spoke again on the Senate floor about the multiple vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. Less than two weeks later, I again made a personal plea to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to grant a hearing to the Michigan nominees.

On March 20, 2000, the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit sent a letter to Chairman Hatch expressing concerns about a reported statement from a member of the Judiciary Committee that ``due to partisan considerations'' there would be no more hearings or votes on vacancies for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals during the Clinton administration. His concern would turn out to be well founded.

On May 2, 2000, I sent a note to Chairman Hatch, but neither Judge White's nor Ms. Lewis's nominations were placed on the Committee's hearing agenda. Over the next several months, Senator Leahy went to the floor ten more times to urge action on the Michigan nominees. I also raised the issue on the Senate floor on several occasions.

In the fall of 2000, in a final attempt to move the nominations of the two Michigan nominees, I met with Majority Leader Lott to discuss the situation. On September 12, I sent him a letter saying ``the nominees from Michigan are women of integrity and fairness. They have been stalled in this Senate for an unconscionable amount of time without any stated reason.'' Neither the meeting with Senator Lott nor the letter prompted the Judiciary Committee to act on the nominations, and the 106th Congress ended without hearings for either woman.

By this point, Judge White's nomination had been pending for nearly 4 years--the longest period of time that any circuit court nominee had waited for a hearing in the history of the United States Senate. Ms. Lewis's nomination had been pending for about a year and a half.

The experience of Kent Markus of Ohio will shed some light on these events. Professor Markus was nominated by President Clinton in February of 2000, to fill an Ohio vacancy on the sixth Circuit. Both home state senators indicated their approval of his nomination. Nevertheless, he was not granted a Judiciary Committee hearing. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Professor Markus recollected the events:

``. . . To their credit, Senator DeWine and his staff and

Senator Hatch's staff and others close to him were straight

with me. Over and over again they told me two things:

(1) There will be no more confirmations to the 6th Circuit

during the Clinton Administration, and

(2) This has nothing to do with you; don't take it

personally--it doesn't matter who the nominee is, what

credentials they may have or what support they may have.

And Professor Markus continued:

``. . . On one occasion, Senator DeWine told me ``This is

bigger than you and it's bigger than me.'' Senator Kohl, who

had kindly agreed to champion my nomination within the

Judiciary Committee, encountered a similar brick wall . . .

The fact was, a decision had been made to hold the vacancies

and see who won the presidential election. With a Bush win,

all those seats could go to Bush rather than Clinton

nominees.

The logic of it was quite straightforward, and unfair.

Senator Stabenow and I are not alone in our view that what occurred with respect to the Michigan nominees was fundamentally unfair. As I said, even Judge Gonzales, then-White House Counsel, has acknowledged that the treatment of some nominees during the Clinton administration was ``inexcusable.''

Given that belief, Senator Stabenow and I had hoped that the Bush administration might consider a bipartisan approach and believed that simply moving forward with Bush nominees would mean the unfair tactic used against the Clinton nominees would succeed.

The number of Michigan vacancies on the federal courts provided an unusual opportunity for bipartisan compromise. In an effort to achieve a fair resolution of the mistreatment of President Clinton's Michigan nominees, Senator Stabenow and I proposed a bipartisan commission to recommend nominees to the President for two of the then-four open Michigan Sixth Circuit positions. Similar commissions have successfully been used in other states. Such a commission would not guarantee the recommendation of any particular individual, much less the nomination of any particular individual, since the nomination decision is the President's alone. That proposal was rejected. The administration rejected another proposal to resolve the matter suggested by Senator Leahy and endorsed by then-Republican Governor John Engler.

In the hopes of stimulating a bipartisan response, Senator Stabenow and I returned negative blue slips on President Bush's nominees. Despite past practice of not proceeding in the face of negative blue slips from home state Senators, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the nominees.

In 1999, Chairman Hatch had stated, with respect to the Clinton nomination of Judge Ronnie White, ``had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge (Ronnie) White in committee, [he] would never have come to the floor under our rules, [and] that would be true whether they are Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way the Judiciary Committee has operated . . .''

During the entire Clinton Presidency, it is my understanding that not a single judicial nominee got a Judiciary Committee hearing if there was opposition by one home-state Senator, let alone two. In our case, both home-state Senators opposed proceeding with President Bush's Michigan judicial nominees absent a bipartisan approach, but the Committee held hearings anyway.

So, the unreturned blue slips of one Republican Senator was enough to block Judiciary Committee consideration of two nominees by a Democratic President. But despite negative blue slips of both home State Democratic Senators, hearings were held for Sixth Circuit nominations of President Bush. That is inconsistent and unfair.

Mr. President, each of us who was here during that time knows what happened to President Clinton's Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit was unfair. Senator Hatch said it accurately, and I give him credit for putting it just this way when, in July of 2004, he said the following:

The two senators from Michigan have been very upset and if

I'd put myself in their shoes I'd feel the same way.

Well, it is time, however, to move on. And we support moving on with these two nominations and hope that in doing so, it might produce some bipartisanship and compromise. But bipartisanship cannot just be a one- way street. It requires reciprocity.

In closing, I thank the many Senators who worked for a bipartisan approach to the Michigan nominees. In particular, I thank Senator Harry Reid, who, like Senator Daschle before him, got personally involved and tried to achieve a compromise. I thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary efforts over the many years. I cannot tell you how many times he came to the Senate floor to make a statement. I thank him for his efforts personally to try to resolve this matter. I also thank Senator Specter, who has recently provided some bipartisan suggestions to the White House.

With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to bring the results of a recent study on gun violence by a University of Michigan researcher to the attention of my colleagues. The study found that adolescents who are exposed to gun violence are more likely to carry out serious acts of violence.

The study, completed by University of Michigan doctoral student Jeffrey Bingenheimer, analyzed data from more than 1,500 adolescents. The participants underwent a series of interviews over the course of several years as part of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. Among other things, initial interviews focused on exposure to firearm violence, including being shot or shot at or seeing someone else shot or shot at within the previous year. Subsequent interviews were designed to uncover whether the participant had engaged in violent acts themselves. These acts of violence were defined in the study as shooting at or shooting someone, being in a gang fight, attacking someone with a weapon, or carrying a hidden weapon. Reportedly, 23 percent of those interviewed reported being exposed to gun violence and 12 percent indicated that they had carried out violent acts themselves. Statistical analysis of the resulting data revealed that adolescents who were exposed to gun violence were more than twice as likely to carry out violent acts within the following two years.

Describing the results of his study, Mr. Bingenheimer stated, ``The primary implication of these findings is that violence can be transmitted from person to person by means of exposure in the community. This makes the `epidemic of violence' metaphor seem particularly apt, and is consistent with sociological theories of violent crime as a contagious social process.''

While Congress cannot simply legislate an end to the gun violence epidemic, we can do more to support local law enforcement officials as they work to prevent gun violence in our communities. One important program, known as COPS, was created by President Clinton in 1994 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in hiring additional police officers to reduce crime through the use of community policing. Nationwide, the COPS program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through continued annual appropriations, its funding has been significantly cut. I am a cosponsor of the COPS Reauthorization Act which would continue the COPS program for another six years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year, nearly double the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. Among other things, this funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers. Having more officers on our streets helps to

deter gun violence and therefore reduces the chance that adolescents are exposed to such crimes.

In addition, Congress can make it more difficult for potential criminals to gain access to dangerous firearms. Under current law, when an individual buys a handgun from a licensed dealer, there are federal requirements for a background check to insure that the purchaser is not prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. However, this is not the case for all gun purchases. For example, when an individual wants to buy a handgun from another private citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no requirement that the seller ensure the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. This creates a loophole in the law, making it easy for criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited buyers to evade background checks and buy guns from private citizens often at organized gun shows. This loophole creates a gateway to the illegal market because criminals know they will not be subject to a background check when purchasing from another private citizen even at a gun show. It is important that Congress close this ``gun show loophole'' to help stop the flow of dangerous firearms to prohibited buyers who may use them in violent crimes.

Much more can be done to break the cycle of gun violence that plagues many of our communities. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass common sense legislation that will help to achieve this goal.

Mr. President, every week, thousands of truckloads of solid municipal waste are being imported into the United States for disposal in US. landfills. Most of these shipments enter at three border crossings in Michigan: Port Huron, Sault Ste. Marie, and Detroit. Canadian shipments are entering this country' without regulatory controls to protect the environment and public safety as required by a treaty between the US. and Canada. The loads of municipal solid waste are more than just a nuisance. Canada's weekly importation of thousands of truckloads of trash into Michigan is a potential threat to our environment, health, and security.

I join with my colleague Senator Stabenow today in introducing S. 1198, the companion to H.R. 2491, which was reported by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Waste today. It is long overdue for Congress to address this critical issue for Michigan and the rest of the U.S. This bill has the support of the entire Michigan Congressional delegation.

Our legislation requires the EPA Administrator to implement regulations enforcing terms of the United States-Canada treaty within 24 months, and it gives States the authority to regulate foreign waste transported into the U.S. until those regulations to implement and enforce the treaty become effective. Our bill implements the treaty's requirement that the Canadian environmental department notify the EPA of each shipment of waste that enters the United States. The EPA then has 30 days to object to the shipment or accept it.

I believe this legislation will help to protect the health and environment of the people of Michigan. I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan initiative with the other members of our State's congressional delegation and with Gov. Jennifer Granholm. I urge the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take action on this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, every week, thousands of truckloads of solid municipal waste are being imported into the United States for disposal in US. landfills. Most of these shipments enter at three border crossings in Michigan: Port Huron, Sault Ste. Marie, and Detroit. Canadian shipments are entering this country' without regulatory controls to protect the environment and public safety as required by a treaty between the US. and Canada. The loads of municipal solid waste are more than just a nuisance. Canada's weekly importation of thousands of truckloads of trash into Michigan is a potential threat to our environment, health, and security.

I join with my colleague Senator Stabenow today in introducing S. 1198, the companion to H.R. 2491, which was reported by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Waste today. It is long overdue for Congress to address this critical issue for Michigan and the rest of the U.S. This bill has the support of the entire Michigan Congressional delegation.

Our legislation requires the EPA Administrator to implement regulations enforcing terms of the United States-Canada treaty within 24 months, and it gives States the authority to regulate foreign waste transported into the U.S. until those regulations to implement and enforce the treaty become effective. Our bill implements the treaty's requirement that the Canadian environmental department notify the EPA of each shipment of waste that enters the United States. The EPA then has 30 days to object to the shipment or accept it.

I believe this legislation will help to protect the health and environment of the people of Michigan. I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan initiative with the other members of our State's congressional delegation and with Gov. Jennifer Granholm. I urge the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take action on this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize 10 individuals in Michigan for their dedication and service to public education. The Utica Community School District can be proud of these men and women for their devotion to improving the lives of countless young people.

The Utica Community School District encompasses Utica, most of Sterling Heights, Shelby Township and parts of Ray, Washington, and Macomb Townships. It is the second largest school district in Michigan, with a current enrollment of over 29,000 students. Utica takes pride in its educational standards, dedication, and service to its students. These goals would not have been possible without the efforts of the following 10 school administrators who have a combined 300-plus years of service and have collectively touched the lives of more than 500,000 children over the course of their careers. The accomplishments and the impacts on public education these individuals have had over the years are numerous and impressive.

Each of these individuals has played a vital role in building strong relationships with students, parents, teachers, and the community at large in this diverse and vibrant region of southeast Michigan. They exemplify the necessary dedication, determination, and professionalism to foster individualized attention to each student. I am pleased to honor each of them:

David A. Berube, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources; Vivian V. Constand, Director of Elementary Education; Joseph F. Jeannette, Assistant Director of Elementary Education; Susan E. Meyer, Director of Secondary Education; Glenn A. Patterson, Director of Human Resources; Diane M. Robinson, Supervisor of Employee Benefits; Nancy M. Searing, Assistant Director of Secondary Education; Linda M. Theut, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent, Judith M. Wagner, Supervisor of Special Education; and John S. Zoellner, Director of Fiscal Services.

On July 1, 2005, these individuals will retire from their respective careers in education, and their leadership and talents will surely be missed. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating these 10 distinguished individuals for their many efforts throughout the years, and to recognize their record of service to the Utica community schools and to the surrounding community.