Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 on Thursday, July 15; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4173, the Wall Street reform bill, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. President, Senators should expect a rollcall vote at approximately 11 a.m. tomorrow. That vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the Wall Street reform conference report.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.

The Senate will soon vote on the nomination of GEN David Petraeus, who is once again stepping forward to render invaluable service to our Nation, as he has so often in the past. Certainly the events that bring General Petraeus to this moment were unforeseen. But we can be certain that when confirmed, he will bring highly experienced leadership and a profound understanding of the President's strategy in Afghanistan which he helped shape as Commander of the U.S. Central Command.

General Petraeus confirmed yesterday before the Armed Services Committee that he fully supports the President's strategy. That strategy includes a surge of U.S. combat troops who will be in place later this year.

That strategy includes a counterinsurgency campaign focused on securing the safety of Afghanistan's population and pursuing the insurgents who threaten that safety. The President's strategy, which General Petraeus supports, includes the setting of a July 2011 date to begin reductions of U.S. combat troops as a way of focusing the attention of the Afghan Government and military on preparing Afghan forces to take greater responsibility for the security of their own people. I have long believed that focusing on building the capacity of the Afghan security forces to secure their nation's future is

critical to the success of our mission in Afghanistan. General Petraeus agrees. He told our committee yesterday:

We want Afghan ownership of Afghan problems, whether it's

security problems, political problems, economic problems, you

name it.

That is what the Afghans want as well. That is what we were told. A number of us were there a year ago in Afghanistan when 100 or so elders gathered at a shura in southern Afghanistan. When we asked them what they wanted the United States to do, they told us we should train and equip the Afghan Army to provide for their country's security and then depart. And the 1,600 delegates to Afghanistan's Consultative Peace Jirga, which occurred at the beginning of June, adopted a resolution calling on the international community to ``expedite'' the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces so they can gain the capacity ``to provide security for their own country and people.''

The Afghan Army fields about 120,000 troops, including 70,000 combat troops. They should, wherever possible, be leading the fight against the insurgents. The Afghan Army enjoys the support of the Afghan people. That means that Afghan troops leading the fight would be the Taliban's worst nightmare. It would demonstrate that insurgent propaganda, which portrays us as out for domination and for our own ends, is a lie. If the Afghan people are to see this as their fight, it should be a fight led by their own soldiers with our support and not the other way around.

I wish to read an exchange from yesterday's hearing on this issue. I asked General Petraeus the following question:

The urgent increase in the size and capability of the

Afghan army and having Afghan forces leading operations more

and more is bad news for the Taliban. Now, I've described

that as the Taliban's worst nightmare, because their

propaganda that they are fighting against foreign forces who

want to control Afghanistan will ring more and more hollow

with the Afghan population [if] the Afghan army, which has

the support of the Afghan people, [is] leading the effort to

defeat the insurgents.

Then I asked General Petraeus: Is that something you would generally agree with? His answer was that he agreed with that statement.

I am also encouraged that General Petraeus committed at our hearing to a review of deployments by the Afghan Army to see how more Afghan troops might be deployed to the south where operations are the most intense and to ensure that Afghan leaders are leading operations in the south wherever possible.

General Petraeus also reiterated to the committee his support for the July 2011 date to begin reductions of U.S. combat troops. As he put it:

I saw [setting that date] most importantly as the message

of urgency to complement the message of enormous additional

commitment.

As the Presiding Officer well knows because he is an esteemed member of our committee, General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency. He led the effort to write our military's manual on counterinsurgency. As commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and the U.S. Central Command, he has served his country with great distinction at a time of great need. We are fortunate that once again he has answered his Nation's call, and we are grateful for the sacrifices he, his wife Holly, and his family are willing to once again accept.

I strongly support his nomination. His nomination was unanimously supported by the Armed Services Committee yesterday. I hope our colleagues will give General Petraeus an overwhelming vote of support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. President, first of all, let me say I very much join Senator McCain's comment about General McChrystal. I spoke about his heroics yesterday, his integrity yesterday at the Armed Services Committee in my statement, and I reiterate them today. General McChrystal is someone who has the deep respect of all who know him. And while fate took a strange bounce in his life, he has the strength and integrity of character that he is going to be able to deal with it very well.

We all want success in Afghanistan, and setting a date, as the President has done and General Petraeus supports, to begin reductions of our forces is critical to that success, because it is the Afghans who must succeed, with our support. It is the Afghan Army that must grow and get stronger because it is that way where the people will be supportive of this effort, where they will take the risks if they know the Afghan Army is large. They know already it is on their side. They will take the risks to tell that army where the bad guys are, where the insurgents are, and not be afraid.

General Petraeus was asked yesterday whether he backs the President's approach with respect to a deadline, and his answer was clear: ``Not only did I say that I supported it, I said that I agree with it.''

President Obama has made a decision. General Petraeus is very much a part of that decision. He agrees with that decision that we need to begin reductions in July of 2011 of our troops as a way of sending a powerful message to the Afghan leadership about their responsibility to provide security for their own country. And when they do take the lead--whether it is in operations in Kandahar or elsewhere--that is the way the people will rally behind the government, will rally against the hated Taliban.

The Taliban has no love among the people of Afghanistan. The Afghan Army does, and it is that army which must take the lead for the sake of success in Afghanistan. That is what setting this date is all about. That is why General Petraeus supports setting that date, not for withdrawal of all of our troops but for the beginning of reductions of our troops, as that powerful signal about what is at stake here and what the Government of Afghanistan must do to achieve success for them and for us.

A few final words about the July 2011 date set by the President for the beginning of reductions in our combat presence in Afghanistan. That decision also made clear that the pace of those reductions would be dependent on circumstances at the time, and that the United States would continue a strong strategic commitment to Afghanistan.

That July 2011 date imparts a necessary sense of urgency to Afghan leaders about the need to take on principal responsibility for their country's security. We saw in Iraq the importance of setting dates as a way of spurring action. President Bush in November 2008 decided to move all U.S. forces out of Iraqi cities and towns by June 2009 and to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of December 2011. That decision helped focus the Iraqi Government and military on the need to take principal responsibility for the security of their country. The Afghans' success, and ours, depends on that happening in Afghanistan as well.

We have already seen a positive effect of setting the July 2011 date to begin reductions of our troops. Lieutenant General Caldwell, who commands our training efforts in Afghanistan, told us that when President Obama announced the date, the Afghan leadership made a greater effort to reach out to the local leaders and elders, resulting in a surge in recruits for the Afghan army.

General Petraeus has said he agrees with the President's policy setting that July 2011 date, and told me that if he ceases to agree he will so advise his Commander in Chief, which he, of course, has a responsibility to do as a military commander.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would also now reclaim the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.

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

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today about one of the best teachers I have ever known: Senator Robert C. Byrd.

The man we lost this week is known for many things: as the longest serving member of Congress in the Nation's history; as an accomplished legislator; as an author and historian; as a self-made man who reached exalted heights, yet never forgot the coal miners and the families of the mountain home community from which he came. I think of him as a teacher, one who began teaching me from the moment I came to the U.S. Senate, and one whose lessons I sought right up to the time he was taken from us this week.

Serving as a new Senator in the majority means, among other things, hours spent in this Chamber, presiding over the Senate. I was fortunate that for many of my early years here, I spent much of that time in the Presiding Officer's chair listening to Senator Byrd speak on the history of this body, its traditions and practices, and its historic debt to another great body that played a major role in mankind's march toward democratic government, the Roman senate.

I was learning from him two decades later, when Senator Byrd led a small group of us who filed a lawsuit and later a legal brief challenging a law we believed to be unconstitutional: the law granting the President the so-called line-item veto. He, like I and many others, saw this law as bending the Constitution in ways that usurped Congress's constitutional authority and responsibility. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The majority in that case, citing its ``profound importance,'' concluded that the line-item veto ``may or may not be desirable,'' but that it was surely not consistent with ``the procedures designed by the Framers of article I, section 7 of the Constitution'' the so-called presentment clause.

I remember standing next to Senator Byrd at a press conference celebrating that victory for the Constitution, as he pulled out of his pocket the copy of that great founding document he always carried with him. A copy of the Constitution that sits today on my desk, in front of me at all times, was inscribed to me by Senator Robert C. Byrd.

I had hoped to visit with him this week to again listen and learn. In February, Senator Byrd sent all of us, his Senate colleagues, a letter setting out his position on preserving the ability to engage in extended debate in the Senate. It was yet another powerful defense of both the enduring traditions of the Senate, and the need for thoughtfulness in invoking those traditions. Senator Byrd's letter sparked some thoughts of my own, and last week, I discussed with his staff scheduling a meeting with him this week to get his take. Once again, I was in need of the insight and wisdom of Senator Robert Byrd.

How I wish he were here today, to continue teaching us. While that was not to be, the lessons of Senator Byrd's life and long service will endure.

His career is a testament to hard work and determination. This is a man who spent 10 years in night school classes to earn his law degree, who when he focused on an issue he did so with uncommon intensity. We can all learn from his commitment and grit.

Like any good teacher, Senator Byrd never stopped trying to learn. He was a man of strong convictions who knew the value of admitting when he was in error. He acknowledged that earlier in his life, he had taken positions and held opinions on the subject of civil rights that he later regretted. When he shared those regrets, he created a powerful teachable moment. We can all learn from his willingness to learn and grow to the very end of his life.

He was tireless in his defense of the role the Constitution assigns to the Congress, and specifically the Senate, in our democracy. In his letter to us in February, he wrote: ``The Senate is the only place in government where the rights of a numerical minority are so protected.'' He called those protections ``essential to the protection of the liberties of a free people.''

Whether it was Congress's constitutional obligations to render judgments on matters of war and peace or to exercise the power of the purse, Senator Byrd was a relentless fighter for the role the Founding Fathers carefully set out for us. He was not defending Senate authority for its own sake. His passion was not for Senate prerogatives for their own sake, but for the brilliantly conceived constitutional balance of powers essential to our freedoms. He passionately believed that we must not yield one ounce of the authority that the Constitution entrusts to the peoples' elected representatives. We can all learn from the conviction, the dedication and the intellectual power he brought to that cause, to the end of making it our cause. Let the mission he so eloquently espoused be our mission, though our power to persuade be far less than Senator Byrd's.

Robert Byrd had many loves--his late, beloved wife Erma, West Virginia and its people, his God, and the Constitution of the nation he cherished. But the Senate is his special legacy. For more than two centuries we have kept our traditions intact: our unique respect for extended debate and minority rights, and for the legislative authority that the Constitution places in our hands to exercise and defend. These traditions are maintained because of Senators like Robert Byrd, Senators who live them and fight for them. I learned more about these weighty issues from this great teacher than from anyone or anything in my years in the Senate.

Robert Byrd is no longer with us, teaching us, leading us. But the lessons of Robert Byrd's life and career will endure, guiding all of us now occupying these desks, and Senators who will occupy these desks for ages to come.

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

Mr. President, the conference report before us today attempts to deal with one of the most important and difficult national security challenges we face: the Islamic Republic of Iran--a country whose leaders disregard international norms, abuse the rights of their own people, support terrorist groups, and threaten regional and global stability.

Iran's continued refusal to be open and transparent about its nuclear program jeopardizes the security of its neighbors and other countries in the Middle East. There is a strong, bipartisan determination in this Congress to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. President Obama has focused considerable effort towards that goal. He has said ``the long-term consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable'' and that he doesn't ``take any options off the table with respect to Iran.'' I support that view, and if Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, all options, including military options, should be on the table.

The United States and the international community remain committed to trying to solve these especially difficult problems peacefully. The administration has sought through a variety of means to engage the government of Iran and make clear the benefits to their nation and its people if Iran complies with international norms. Through six U.N. Security Council resolutions, the latest passed just this month, along with numerous U.S. laws and executive orders, the United States has sought, unilaterally and with our international partners, to persuade Iran to abide by its international obligations. The goal of all these actions has been to make Iran understand in practical terms the consequences of its actions.

So far, Iran has refused to listen. That is why the conference report we consider today is so important. If we are to resolve our differences with Iran, hopefully without resorting to military action, we must exhaust every opportunity to make clear, without any room for doubt, the price Iran will pay for its continued violations of U.N. resolutions.

The measure before us will sanction Iran for its willful misbehavior, and it will penalize multinational firms that support Iran. More specifically, it will sanction firms that sell Iran refined petroleum or refining products, or goods, services or information that help it develop its energy sector; ban U.S. banks from transacting with foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an organization that combines a key component of Iran's military establishment with an extensive business empire that represses Iran's citizens; broaden sanctions available under the Iran Sanctions Act by adding to the menu of available sanctions a ban on access to foreign exchange in the United States, a ban on access to the U.S. financial sector and a ban on U.S. property transactions; ban companies that assist Iran in blocking the free flow of information or restricting its citizens' freedom of speech from contracting with the U.S. Government, and require that companies bidding on U.S. Government contracts certify that they and their subsidiaries do not engage in sanctionable conduct; and strengthen the U.S. trade embargo against Iran by putting into law longstanding executive orders and limiting the goods exempted from the embargo.

While passage of this conference report--just like the U.N. Security Council's passage of Resolution 1929 on Iran--is important, it is critical that this law be implemented vigorously. It also will be critical that the U.N. panel created by Security Council Resolution 1929 is active in its efforts to identify non-compliance of any U.N. member states. Iran's continued unwillingness to disclose fully and completely information about its nuclear program surely means that Iran is either pursuing a nuclear weapon or preserving options to develop a nuclear weapon. It is only from full implementation of this law and pressure from the international community that Iran may be dissuaded from this course.

The measures contained in this conference report would exact a real price from Iran for its continuing threats to international peace and security. Only by forcing Iran to pay such a price, and by penalizing the abettors of Iran's actions in violation of U.N. resolutions, can we bring Iran into compliance with its responsibilities under international law and human rights standards.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Stabenow for her tenacity and her efforts. I join them with a full heart at a very sad moment when we see an unconscionable Republican filibuster succeed again today against the extension of unemployment benefits and the other parts of this American jobs bill.

I asked Senator Whitehouse if he would yield to me for a moment. He was on the floor before me. I will not take advantage of his good nature and good grace other than to say we are not going to abandon this effort. We are going to proceed with every tool we have at our disposal to make sure people who desperately need the extension of these benefits are protected, as intended by this program.

The financial crisis and resulting recession that continue to trouble our Nation have called for sustained action on the part of the Congress. From passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to the Wall Street reform legislation now taking its final shape, we have sought to reduce the harm this recession has caused our fellow citizens. Passage of the legislation that we were denied the chance to consider today would have been another significant step in fulfilling that task.

The legislation we failed to take up would extend unemployment benefits through November of this year. For the more than half a million residents of my State who are receiving unemployment benefits, and millions more across the country, this extension is crucial. For many families, these benefits are all that is keeping food on the table and a roof over their head. The income they provide is important not only to families receiving the benefits, but to the communities in which they live and to the businesses for whom those families are customers.

But now opponents of extending unemployment insurance are, once again, filibustering this legislation. So under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and bring an end to debate.

The opponents of this extension say they are concerned about deficit spending. This would be more convincing if not for two factors. First, many of these same opponents were in favor of massive, unpaid-for tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest Americans, tax cuts which, according to independent analysts, made a far greater contribution to our deficit than any of the measures we have taken to address the financial crisis and recession.

Second, concern about long-term deficits in the middle of a continued recession is the equivalent of pulling out fire hoses in the middle of a flood. The catastrophe we face today is that millions of Americans are without work and will not be able to find work until we can generate real growth in our economy. The danger to them and to our economy today is not deficit spending; it is recession. It is the fact that factory floors remain silent, that shops lack shoppers, that businesses are without customers. Failure to pass this measure does nothing to address that shortfall.

Surely my colleagues understand that assistance to families in need is not just an aid to those families. It helps all of us by helping us pull out of the recession. Direct assistance to Americans in need is the single most effective tool we have in boosting our economy. Aid such as unemployment assistance has a greater bang for the buck than any other stimulus effort we can make. If we abandon the drive to extend these benefits, we abandon a key effort to strengthen our economy.

The stakes are enormous. The people who need these benefits are not abstractions. They are real people, flesh and blood, who are paying the price, who have been paying the price for months and months, for a crisis bred on Wall Street. More than half a million of them live in my State, which was suffering in recession even before the crisis hit. These are people who desperately want to work, who want to provide for their families, who want to give a better life to their children. They have done so in the past. They want to do so again. What they ask from us is a small measure of assistance so they can continue to feed and shelter their families while they search for work.

Literally thousands of emails and letters have flowed into my office from people asking us to extend these benefits. One from Waterford, MI, from a worker whose benefits expired in April, reads: ``Our life savings are gone! At some point we will be homeless, no doubt about it. We need help from Washington.'' Another, from Burton, MI, wrote to me: ``I know things will get better but we need help to make ends meet until then.''

Those stories, those pleas, have come in by letter and email by the thousands. The many months of on-again,

off-again extensions of unemployment benefits have added painful anxiety and uncertainty to what is already a tragedy for hundreds of thousands of Michigan families. Time and again, we have delayed and debated on whether to extend these benefits. On more than one occasion, a single Senator--just one--has obstructed our consideration of legislation to extend them. Now it appears that our colleagues across the aisle, despite enormous effort by the majority leader and Senator Baucus and others, have decided they simply will not allow an up-or- down vote on the extension.

We will have failed a basic responsibility to our constituents if we abandon the effort to approve an extension of unemployment benefits. Millions of Americans ask only that their government provide the safety net that keeps them from falling deeper into tragic uncertainty and debt. The Republican filibuster of that help is unconscionable. It leaves millions of families all across this country without help in their hour of need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

First, Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Leahy and members of the Judiciary Committee for the hearing they gave to Mark Goldsmith for the Eastern District of Michigan. He is an extraordinary judge. He has proved it already on the bench in Michigan. He has wonderful judicial temperament, he knows how to listen, he knows how to think, and he brings to the bench--and will bring to the bench when, hopefully, we confirm him--the kind of judicial temperament we want in our district court judges. So I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions, while he is on the floor. I have talked to Senator Sessions about Mark Goldsmith, and I thank him for his receptiveness.

I believe all the members of the Judiciary Committee who had the chance to read the record or to be there at the hearing will agree that this is an unusually well-qualified nominee for our district court bench, and I thank them for their unanimous vote to bring him out of the committee.

Judge Goldsmith has had an impressive legal career. He graduated with high distinction and honors in economics from the University of Michigan in 1974. He was a member of the Honors Program in Economics at the University of Michigan and founded and served as editor-in-chief of the Michigan Undergraduate Journal of Economics. He graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1977.

Judge Goldsmith has served on the Oakland County Circuit Court in the civil/criminal division since March 19, 2004, when he was appointed by Governor Jennifer Granholm. He also served as a magistrate at the 45-B District Court and as a Special Counsel to the State Bar Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, a hearing panelist for the Attorney Discipline Board and as an adjunct instructor at Wayne State University Law School.

Prior to his service as a circuit court judge, Judge Goldsmith practiced law for nearly 25 years. He is admitted to practice in several states, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, U.S. Court of Military Appeals, U.S. Air Force Court of Military Review and numerous U.S. District Courts.

Judge Goldsmith is also committed to legal community service. He served as president of the Federal Bar Association, Eastern District of Michigan Chapter and has served for many years as that organization's pro bono chair, receiving certificates of recognition from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan for his pro bono involvement. He is currently a member of the executive board of Wayne State University's Center for the Study of Citizenship and a member of the Fair Housing Advisory Board of Legal Aid and Defender Association, Inc. Further, he helped establish the Circle of Friends--teaching language and acculturation skills to immigrants--and has served on the board of Forgotten Harvest--a distributor of food to the needy--and on the Regional Advisory Board of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League.

Judge Goldsmith will be an excellent addition to the Eastern District Court and will serve with great distinction. I wish him well and thank my colleagues for supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Goldsmith nomination.

Mr. President, this Sunday, June 20, the world will observe the tenth annual World Refugee Day. On this day, we call attention to humanity's efforts, through the United Nations, the work of individual governments, and of nongovernmental organizations, to alleviate the plight of those forced from their homes by conflict or hatred.

Sadly, while the world's commitment to these refugees is great, the scope of the problem is even greater. Last year, more than 43 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes, the largest number since the mid-1990s. At the same time, data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees show that the number of refugees who resettled in 2009 was at the lowest level in two decades.

These figures, just for 2009, include more than 2.8 million people who have fled homes in Afghanistan, more than 1.7 million people from Iraq, more than half a million in Somalia, nearly half a million from the Democratic Republic of Congo. These stunning numbers represent the human cost of humanity's inability to live in peace. These seemingly endless millions represent mothers who struggle to feed their babies, children unable to go to school, families without dependable access to clean water or food or medical care. They are without homes, and if the world is silent to their pleas for aid, they will be without hope.

Fortunately, this human tragedy has prompted global action, with the United States in the lead. The Refugee Act of 1980 guides U.S. policy with regards to refugees, and since its passage, more than two and a half million people forced from their homes have been resettled in the United States. Of the more than 112,000 refugees who found refuge in countries other than their home in 2009, about 80,000, or nearly three- quarters, were resettled in the United States.

Despite our commitment to aiding refugees and to finding them new homes, our current policies often stand in the way of fulfilling our responsibility to help. Current law and administrative practice too often put unnecessary burdens on those seeking asylum here, even barring some who hope to escape the worst sorts of violence and persecution from entering the United States.

Seeking to address these problems, I have joined Senators Leahy and Durbin in sponsoring the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. Our legislation would extend protections for those seeking asylum in the United States; reform the process by which asylum seekers can be expelled from this country; modify existing law to ensure that legitimate asylum-seekers are not inadvertently caught up in antiterrorism protections while ensuring that terrorists are unable to manipulate the system to gain entry; and ease the path to resettlement for asylum-seekers and their families. Failing to remedy these gaps in our refugee law would carry a great human cost. As Dan Glickman, the president of Refugees International, testified to the Judiciary Committee during a hearing on our bill last month, ``The Refugee Protection Act will help us do the right thing by

creating a more efficient and fair process for providing safe haven to the world's most vulnerable.''

We face this continuing challenge without one of the world's most eloquent and effective advocates for the world's refugees. Senator Ted Kennedy led the drive to pass the original Refugee Act of 1980. He was a tireless advocate for the innocent victims of conflict, religious persecution and ethnic hatred. As we approach another World Refugee Day, we would benefit enormously from his leadership, but we can gain inspiration from his example. So long as there are people forced from their homes by war and persecution, this Nation will have a responsibility to act, and the Refugee Protection Act is an important opportunity to do so.

Mr. President, leaders demonstrate their talent and character not when life is easy but at times of crisis. During the greatest crisis in the history of the American auto industry, that industry's workers and the communities in which they live have benefitted enormously from the leadership of a quiet Kentuckian whose devotion to working families cannot be overstated.

When Ron Gettelfinger took office as president of the United Auto Workers in 2002, I do not think anyone, and certainly not Ron, foresaw the turbulence ahead. As his 8 years as president of the UAW come to a close, it is time to congratulate and thank him for exceptional leadership in tough times.

Ron navigated those rough waters guided by two lights: a clear-eyed assessment of what was necessary to preserve America's auto industry, and the sure knowledge that millions of families depended on its preservation.

That knowledge came from Ron's days on the assembly line at Ford's Louisville assembly plant, from his days as his plant's local president, from his service as regional president for UAW members in Indiana and Kentucky, and from his time at Solidarity House in Detroit. He is a sharp, tough-minded negotiator, but underlying his talents and skills is a real emotional bond with the workers who have depended on his leadership. That bond with his members meant that when Ron Gettelfinger asked them to make sacrifices, they knew it was not because he was taking the easy way out, but because it was necessary.

The sacrifices have been great. Ron knows this better than anybody. But he also knows that in making those sacrifices, the workers of the UAW have set the stage for a renaissance in the U.S. auto industry, one that is already taking shape in the form of increased sales, more consumer confidence, and a commitment to the clean energy technologies that will shape our transportation future.

I have been proud to stand with Ron Gettelfinger in many of his battles. Members of the United Auto Workers honor the leaders who over nearly a century of progress and challenge have guided their union. I have no doubt that for generations yet to come, those workers will honor Ron's work in guiding their union through one of the most difficult periods in its history.

Mr. President, our Nation is not lacking in complex challenges. But among the most complex and difficult is this: How can we deal with the reality of climate change while also strengthening an economy that has depended for so long on fossil fuels? There is no denying the difficulty of meeting those often conflicting goals. The resolution before us purports to respond to this challenge, but I cannot support the approach that Senator Murkowski offers. Let me explain why.

Senator Murkowski offers a resolution of disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding regarding the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. This resolution's impact would be to block EPA from implementing that rule.

First, I believe we all should understand that the subject of this resolution--EPA's endangerment finding--is a product of scientific review of the facts regarding climate change. Current law, and a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, require EPA to act in the face of these facts. If you believe in the science, as I do, then you must either acknowledge EPA's responsibility to act or seek to change the law that imposes that responsibility.

Second, as a practical matter, I am afraid this resolution, if enacted, would have an effect quite different from its sponsors' stated intent. The argument in favor of the resolution is that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would unwisely harm our economy. In fact, for my State, passage of this resolution more likely would produce economic harm. That is because it would undo a carefully crafted agreement among the Federal Government, auto manufacturers, environmental groups and others, reached more than a year ago, relating to national greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. This agreement resulted in a single, national standard for such emissions, binding on all States through 2016. The certainty and predictability of a binding national standard is vital for vehicle manufacturers. To help them pursue the path to a clean-energy future, that path must be clearly marked, and not confused by the myriad of different turns they would face if individual states are allowed to set their own standards.

EPA at one point granted California a waiver permitting that State to separately regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. California officials have agreed, for 2010 to 2016, to a joint NHTSA- EPA process for regulating carbon emissions from vehicles. If the Murkowski resolution is enacted, California would presumably act to use its waiver, and other States would follow. The economic impact of varying State regulation would harm manufacturers that are the economic backbone of many States and communities across this Nation. Auto manufacturers and auto workers have made clear, in letters to the Congress, their concerns that the result of this resolution's passage would be to upend a clear national standard binding on all States. While the supporters of this resolution may not intend such a consequence, it is surely there, and that is why I cannot support this resolution.

Let me also take this opportunity to point out that my commitment to a single national emissions standard that is binding on all States also leads me to oppose the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill in its current form. Why? Because carbon dioxide is a global problem. The threat of greenhouse gas emissions is not unique to any State. There is an urgent need for government action to confront the problem of carbon dioxide, but the need is for strong national and international action. To suggest that the need is different from one side of a State line to the other actually undermines the argument that carbon dioxide is a global threat that knows no boundaries.

Just as vehicle manufacturers and workers have made clear their concerns that the Murkowski resolution threatens a single, binding national standard, they have also made clear their concerns about the effects of the Kerry-Lieberman bill as currently written. As the United Auto Workers Union has pointed out in a letter to Senators, that proposal ``fails to provide regulatory predictability for the automotive sector because it does not require continuation of the Obama administration's historic achievement in promulgating one national standard for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy for light duty vehicles.'' The UAW is right. The Kerry-Lieberman bill, while hinting that there should be a single national standard, does not commit the Nation to such a standard. In order to gain my support, it must include such a commitment.

So, let no one misunderstand my vote today. I oppose the Murkowski resolution because it will unravel the agreement on a single national carbon standard for mobile sources binding on all States through 2016. I also oppose the Kerry-Lieberman bill as currently drafted because it does not ensure such a standard beyond 2016.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Do the Write Thing Challenge, or DtWT, is a national program that provides middle school students across the country with the opportunity to examine some of the most pressing issues facing their community. It encourages students to examine and confront the causes and the effects of youth violence through classroom discussions and writings. The focus is on preventative measures with an emphasis on personal responsibility. Since the program's founding in 1994, hundreds of thousands of students have reaped benefits from this community-based approach to addressing these complex and tragic issues.

Middle school students from cities across the Nation participated in DtWT. These students submitted creative and poignant essays, poems, plays, or songs about their personal experiences with youth violence. They wrote about the effect of violence in their lives and about how they can contribute to efforts to eradicate it. Students also pledged to carry out their ideas in their daily lives. This strategy, which empowers young people to make positive changes in their lives and communities, has surely had a positive impact on the communities in which these students reside.

Each year, a DtWT Committee made up of business, community, and government leaders from each participating jurisdiction reviews the writing samples and selects two national finalists. I am pleased to recognize this year's national finalists from Detroit, Karan Patrick and KeJaun Williams. Their creative pieces about youth violence are heart-wrenching and timely. Karan and KeJaun wrote personal pieces about the profound impact violence has had on their young lives and about the lasting consequences of their choices. They conveyed a deep understanding of the result of youth violence. I am impressed by the maturity they displayed

in confronting this topic and congratulate them on being selected as national finalists.

This summer, they will join other DtWT national finalists in Washington, DC, for National Recognition Week. While here, they will attend a ceremony in their honor. Their work also will be placed permanently in the Library of Congress.

I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the work of the DtWT finalists and the many organizers across the country who facilitated open discussions in schools about youth violence. Their work is an essential element in the development of local solutions to youth violence in Michigan and across the Nation, and I applaud their efforts.