Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I wish to thank Senator Specter for yielding time and I wish to thank all my colleagues for this debate.

I intend to vote to confirm Michael B. Mukasey to be the 81st Attorney General of the United States. I do so for one overarching reason: the Department of Justice, one of the crown jewels among our Government institutions--once the crown jewel--is now adrift and rudderless. It desperately needs a strong and independent leader at the helm to set it back on course. A number of people's lives who are affected day to day in quiet but material ways by what this Justice Department does are at risk. We don't hear from them. Their issues, whether it is the ability to vote or the right to be safe or the ability to be protected from economic crime, we don't hear about that. But it matters.

Under previous leadership--or lack thereof--the Justice Department has become adrift. The Justice Department has become rudderless. The Justice Department has become politicized. The Justice Department has become an agency where morale is as low as it has ever been. So we desperately need a strong and independent leader at its helm to set it back on course, and that is not a trivial statement or a statement to be forgotten or passed over. I believe Judge Mukasey is that person.

As almost everyone in America knows, the Justice Department has been run into the ground by the Bush administration, especially under Alberto Gonzales. As I said when I introduced Judge Mukasey, he will be inheriting an agency experiencing its greatest crisis since Watergate and, if confirmed, his tasks will be no less momentous and no less difficult than that facing Edward Levi when he took the reins of John Mitchell's Justice Department after Watergate. A department in such crisis should not be left to an unconfirmed and unaccountable caretaker.

We need to look no further than our own investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee to see that we need a real leader at the top of the Justice Department. What we learned in that investigation over the last 9 months leads inexorably to the conclusion we cannot afford a caretaker Attorney General for the next 14 months.

Let me review--because they seem almost forgotten in this Chamber tonight--some of the most disturbing revelations. We learned that outstanding U.S. attorneys were dismissed without cause or, worse, because they may have been too tough on Republicans or too soft on Democrats. We learned that career Civil Rights Division lawyers have been driven out in droves; that when these lawyers said that civil rights were being violated or the Voting Rights Act was being violated, they were overruled by political decisions made from the top.

In my judgment, there was no way that any fair Justice Department would have allowed the voter ID process that is now in place in Georgia and take back the ability to vote that was fought for so long and hard.

We learned that individuals appear to have been prosecuted for political reasons. In the other House, the Judiciary Committee did an extensive investigation, and in the process of doing one, it appears more and more likely that a Democratic Governor in Alabama is sitting in jail because of a political prosecution. How can we have that in America? How can we allow that? How can we countenance it?

We learned that White House liaison Monica Goodling unlawfully rejected young lawyers for career jobs because they were not conservative ideologues.

We learned that there were improper political litmus tests in hiring decisions in the Civil Rights Division, in the prestigious Honors Program, and even in the Summer Law Intern Program. So politics permeated the Justice Department--the Department,

above all, that should be immune from politics and had been until this administration.

We learned that Bradley Schlozman, in violation of the Department's own policy, brought indictments on the eve of an election in Missouri, seemingly to influence the result. We learned that politics seems to have trumped professionalism in decisionmaking about voting rights cases, tobacco litigation, and other matters. The list goes on and on.

Justice is sacred in this country. It is the Justice Department that must produce justice.

In sum, we learned that politics has been allowed to infect all manner of decisionmaking at the Department of Justice.

Now we are on the brink of a reversal. There is virtually universal agreement, even from those who oppose Judge Mukasey, that he would do a good job in turning the Department around in these areas.

One of my colleagues who is voting against the nominee nonetheless lauded Judge Mukasey as ``a brilliant lawyer, a distinguished jurist and, by all accounts, a good man.''

Another colleague on the Judiciary Committee, who is also voting nay, had this to say:

Over the remaining 15 months of the Bush Presidency, the

Department must recover its credibility and its reputation. .

. . Judge Mukasey appears to have the intelligence, the

experience, and the stature to undertake this very important

task.

Such comments of confidence echo the comments of those who have appeared before the judge in court. As a jurist, Judge Mukasey has a well-deserved reputation for efficiency, fairness, and integrity. Indeed, even those who didn't always receive the benefit of a favorable ruling from the judge have been quick to describe the judge's basic fairness and decency.

Upon his retirement from the bench, one of Jose Padilla's lawyers said, ``I admire him greatly'' and described herself as ``another weeping fan.'' That is a lawyer for Mr. Padilla.

Another Padilla lawyer has said, ``I don't always agree with where he comes out, but I am happy, always happy to draw him as a judge. You are going to get your day in court.'' He went on to say that ``his sense of fairness and due process--it's more than intellectual. It's really down to the genetic level. It's in his DNA.''

There are many such testimonials for Judge Mukasey. Because he is so dead wrong on torture, which I think he is, does not take away all of these other things. And if we are to reject him, make no mistake about it, we will not have somebody in his place who can live up to that standard. Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has already said he would install an acting caretaker Attorney General who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. It would be another Alberto Gonzales or maybe even worse. It would be the Cheney-Addington wing running the Justice Department on the issues of security. Judge Mukasey is hardly perfect. He would not be the person I would have nominated, but he is clearly head and shoulders better than what we would get. That is not something to be dismissed. That is not something to be forgotten. It is hardly mentioned on this floor.

The main function of the Justice Department would be taken back and railroaded far from where it should be, and it would be gone for another long 14 months. It would mean accepting and exacerbating the declining morale at the highest levels of the Department. It would mean delaying vital reforms relating to depoliticizing prosecutions. It would mean tolerating continued vacancies in many of the top positions at the Justice Department. Perhaps most important, it would mean surrendering the Department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, David Addington. All the work we have done--the hearings, the letters, the requests to get the Attorney General to resign--would be undone in a quick moment. That is serious, colleagues.

I have complete respect for people who disagree. It is a values choice. But let's not forget that a caretaker Attorney General will not be close to Judge Mukasey on the issues that brought the downfall of Attorney General Gonzales. Let us also not forget that Judge Mukasey has had a long and distinguished career. Because his views on torture are different from so many of ours, including my own, does not evaporate all of these other important considerations.

Let me be clear on the torture question, which understandably motivates so many of my colleagues. I deeply oppose this administration's opaque, mysterious, and inexplicable policy on the use of torture. This is not a policy that was constructed by Judge Mukasey.

In particular, I believe that the cruel and inhumane technique of waterboarding is not only repugnant but also illegal under current laws and conventions, period. I also support Congress's efforts to pass additional measures that would explicitly ban this and other forms of torture. I voted for Senator Kennedy's antitorture amendment in 2006, and I am a cosponsor of a similar bill in this Congress. If it was important to do it in 2006, it is also important to do it in 2007.

When Judge Mukasey came before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, he refused to state that waterboarding was illegal. That was unsatisfactory, that was wrong, and that will be a blemish on his distinguished career for as long as he lives. But he has personally made it clear that if Congress passed further legislation in this area, the President would have no legal authority to ignore it--not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by article II of the Constitution. That is a very important point.

My colleagues say we will never pass an amendment on torture and waterboarding. That may be; it may not. But the fact that Judge Mukasey has rejected the overreaching theory of the unitary executive certainly in this area, and in others, says something about what kind of Attorney General he will be on torture, on wiretapping, and on all of the other issues where basically this Department and this administration thought Congress should have no say at all.

Furthermore, maybe it will be the courts that will rule torture is illegal. Judge Mukasey will abide by those court decisions that make waterboarding illegal. Judge Mukasey will allow those court decisions to stand. I don't think we doubt that.

The expansive article II argument, of course, is one that this administration--in the form of President Cheney and David Addington-- has explicitly endorsed. In an infamous torture memo, the following passage was reportedly insisted upon by David Addington:

Prohibitions on torture must be construed as inapplicable

to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-

chief authority. . . . Congress may no more regulate the

President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy

combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop

movements on the battlefield.

That is a horrible statement. Unlike either of his predecessors, Judge Mukasey specifically rejects this view.

I asked him:

If Congress were to legislate against certain forms of

coercive interrogation, such as waterboarding, in all

circumstances, not just relating to those in the Department

of Defense custody, would it be acting within its

constitutional authority?

He answered ``yes.'' No qualifier. And contrary to the views of the Vice President and his Chief of Staff, he specifically stated that the President would not have legal authority to ignore it, even under his inherent authority under article II. For a Bush nominee, this is no small commitment. It is a dramatic difference from both Attorney General Ashcroft and Attorney General Gonzales. It is a quantum leap over the views of Alberto Gonzales and signals that we may yet get an independent review--and perhaps reversal--of some of the worst of the administration's legal policies.

I also believe this because I asked him what he thought of a book written by Jack Goldsmith called ``The Terror Presidency.'' Mr. Goldsmith, as many will recall, was the former head of the Office of Legal Policy, the principal person who sounded the alarm over badly reasoned and overreaching legal opinions within the Government. He was the courageous official who started the process that led to the infamous showdown in the hospital room of John Ashcroft over the President's warrantless wiretapping program.

In his book, Mr. Goldsmith is a relentless critic of the unilateral my-

way-or-the-highway approach of Vice President Cheney and David Addington. When I asked Judge Mukasey what he thought of the book, he said he thought it was superb, and he endorsed many of its arguments. He also told me privately that the administration's unilateral approach to legal policy was likely responsible for its low approval ratings in the polls. So we have a nominee who is head and shoulders above his predecessors in a number of ways, including in his commitment to work with Congress.

One more thing on the issue of torture, my colleagues. Let's assume Congress cannot pass a law, and let's assume even that the courts do not rule the way we think they should. Still, Judge Mukasey will be head and shoulders different, very possibly, than a caretaker. Mukasey would be more likely than a caretaker to find on his own that waterboarding and other coercive techniques are illegal. He didn't say they are illegal. A caretaker would. He said he would have to study them. He should not have to. There is still a chance that somebody regarded as thoughtful and independent, and a lawyer above all, may-- and I cannot say he will, and I wish I could--find on his own that waterboarding and other coercive techniques are illegal. Certainly, there is more of a chance with Judge Mukasey than with a caretaker. So even if you are voting on the issue of torture alone--which I am not-- to vote down Judge Mukasey and install an independent caretaker will not solve the problem of torture and, in all likelihood, will leave us worse off, not better.

Judge Mukasey's answers to our questions demonstrated more openness to ending the practices we abhor than either of those who were the previous Attorney General nominees.

In many respects, Judge Mukasey reminds me of Jim Comey, a former Deputy Attorney General in the Bush administration who has been widely praised for his independence. Would we turn down Jim Comey knowing his courage? No. Today, would we turn down Goldsmith? No. Both of them have very conservative views.

Might I have an additional 5 minutes to finish my remarks, I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, again, if the issue is torture alone, we clearly will be as bad off as we are today with a caretaker. We may-- not will, maybe not even likely--have a chance, a decent chance of being better with Mukasey than with the alternative. And as with Comey and Goldsmith, no, Mukasey will not have our views particularly on issues of security. No one this President nominates will. That is why we are working so hard to get a new President with different views. But on issues of the rule of law and independence and integrity, Judge Mukasey will clearly be much better than others.

I wish to say this to my colleagues, a vast majority of my colleagues who oppose this nomination: I respect their views. I understand the anger and the anguish about what this administration has done to that beautiful lady who stands in the harbor of the city in which I live. I share that anguish. I share it. Unfortunately, we are in a world where this administration will continue for another 14 months.

Let me ask my colleagues to think about this: Let's say we reject Judge Mukasey tonight and the caretaker is installed, and 6 months from now the exact same policies we abhor continue. Will this have been a great victory?

I understand the importance of standing up to the President. Few would accuse me of not doing that. And I understand the importance of symbolic victory. But this is a tough choice because there is a lot at stake on the other side. There is at stake the integrity of a department which is in shambles, which is politicized, and which has routinely rejected the rule of law which is the fundamental wellspring of this Nation and this democracy. And we have a chance, at least a good part of the way, to restore it. The Department of Justice is the front-line agency safeguarding our civil rights, fighting public corruption, curbing violent crime, enforcing environmental laws, and much more.

I deplore the administration's opaque policy on torture, as I mentioned before, but I also care about attempts to affect elections through suspiciously timed criminal prosecutions. I care about criminal cases brought for political reasons. I care about allegations that our leading law enforcement agency is stocked with inexperienced cronies rather than experienced professionals. I care about a downward spiral in civil rights cases brought in recent years. I care about a loss of morale among a 100,000-person strong institution and every week, at one airport or another in this country, how insistent U.S. attorneys came to me and said: Do something. Judge Mukasey, in all likelihood, will do something. A caretaker will not. I don't want to turn those pleas aside, even though I have strong disagreement with Mr. Mukasey on many substantive issues, torture among them. I care about a continuing uptick in violent crime due to a department's failure to keep its eye on the ball and not have the most qualified people in important positions. I care about the Department, and I care about justice. And it is not a small matter to take someone who is measurably better than what his replacement would be and reject it.

Again, this is value choice. There are good arguments on each side. People's values will have them come down on different sides. But anyone who thinks this is an easy choice, anyone who thinks that should Judge Mukasey be rejected things will improve from the desperate, deplorable state in which they are now is wrong.

No one questions that Judge Mukasey would do much to turn around the Justice Department and move to remove the stench of politics from this vital institution. I believe we should give him that chance. There is too much at stake not to.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. First I would like to thank Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott and their staff for all of their hard work on this bill. This bill is the product of true collaboration and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. Serving nearly 26 million riders each year, Amtrak provides an invaluable service to travelers and commuters all over the country and particularly along the Northeast corridor.

Unfortunately, in the past few years, we have seen efforts to fully fund and modernize Amtrak thwarted, leaving Amtrak repeatedly underfunded by the administration. This bill will end this pattern of stop-gap funding and provide Amtrak with the resources it needs to improve service and passenger safety as we move forward. As you know, many of the security measures initially included in this bill have already been signed into law as part of the Implementing the 9/11 Recommendations Act. I congratulate my colleagues on

these accomplishments as these measures will significantly strengthen the security of our passenger rail system.

As Amtrak formulates its plan for the future, it is important that it has the funding and support needed to maintain the system and restore operations to high performance levels. By authorizing $10 billion over the next 6 years for repairs and operating costs, in addition to millions in grant funding, Amtrak will be able to accomplish this goal and meet the transportation and safety needs of travelers who rely on the system. This bill will also ensure that Amtrak is able to restore the Northeast corridor--the most heavily trafficked stretch of the system--to a state of good repair by the end of 2012. This corridor is relied upon by leisure and business travelers alike and is an integral part of the Northeast economy. I am proud to be an original cosponsor on this bill and believe it provides Amtrak with a solid blueprint for the future.

In New York particularly, Amtrak is indispensable to the economy and business community. Thousands of riders travel daily to New York City for meetings, to visit family and friends or for an early dinner before a Broadway show. Amtrak offers New Yorkers reliable and hassle-free access to cities all along the east coast, making it a crucial mode of transportation for hundreds of thousands of travelers each year.

I am committed to working with my colleagues to continue to improve passenger rail service through Federal support and increases in safety and security and I look forward to the final passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I also would like to commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter for putting together a funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education that reflects of our Nation's priorities and will do much to help the American people. Of particular importance to me and my State is the funding for the National Health Service Corps. I appreciate that the chairman and ranking member were able to restore funding to the fiscal year 2007 level for this program, but believe that we need to do more to combat the serious issue of physician shortage in the underserved areas of our States. In my State, hospitals and health centers are searching for physicians who will fill the numerous vacancies that physician retirement and retention problems have created. We need more specialists, surgeons, and general practitioners, dentists, nurse practitioners, and nurse-midwives. We need to do more to recruit and retain these essential providers--and that is exactly what the National Health Service Corps does. Robust funding of this program, in addition to pursuing other strategies to assist areas experiencing health professions shortages, will make a significant difference to patients and the providers and facilities that care for them. I thank the chair and ranking member and hope that the National Health Service Corps program funding is increased by the $5.8 million that was approved by the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, does my colleague from Oklahoma intend to speak on this amendment? Then I would like to speak after both my colleagues have spoken and respond to what they have to say.

I only intend to speak for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to make a few comments. First, I would like to say this: I have tremendous respect for my colleague, and I would say friend, from Oklahoma. I don't think he does this out of any personal animus or even a direct, crass political advantage. I think he believes, and I respect that. So I would like to say that at the outset, and I say the same for my friend from Arizona. They have both been consistent in this, and they don't put in--even though their States do get earmarks, even earmarks for museums, it is not the wish of the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Arizona to do that. That is point 1.

Point 2, generally, about fiscal responsibility, I would say both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like so many others, have voted pretty strongly against spending programs. But they don't vote the same way against tax cuts. They don't do pay-go on tax cuts. They vote to cut taxes much more than all of the earmarks in this entire bill, even though it makes the deficit worse, even though it is a fact that our children will suffer because of the debt.

So there is no high moral ground here. There is a view as to how big Government ought to be, but the idea of keeping the budget balanced for our children and for our grandchildren, I daresay, this new Congress, under Democratic leadership, is toeing the mark far more carefully than previous Congresses did. We have instituted pay-go--pay-go for tax cuts, but pay-go for spending programs as well.

Any economist will tell you, if you have a large deficit, it doesn't matter whether the deficit was caused by either reducing taxes or by raising spending. So, frankly, I think the arguments of my colleagues would have a great deal more suasion in this body if they were to say they will not vote for any tax cut that is not paid for either because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you wish to say I am for shrinking Government and I don't care what the deficit is, that is just fine. But if you are making the argument that we should not pass debt on to our children, debt from tax cuts and debt from spending programs is exactly the same debt.

Yes.

I don't know offhand.

I respect my colleague for that. But the Senator from Arizona--I know of his record longer, and he does not have that record.

I appreciate that, and I look forward, when tax-cutting amendments come to the floor, to working with my colleague to say they ought to be paid for if we are going to do it, like we did, for instance, in the recent SCHIP bill.

I will make a second general point, and I will get to the specifics of this program. There are many needs in this country, and this country has always been one of federalism. Most of our time, effort, and energy goes into broad programs that basically do the same thing in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New York--whether it is helping pregnant women, whether it is education, or whether it is road building. Those are large national needs that this body has determined are real. But we have always had a view that States and localities are important.

Frankly, since the 1930s, there has been a view that the Federal Government has every right or reason to help those States and localities specifically, and that is what good earmarks are. Earmarks are not all good. Spending programs are not all good. Tax cuts are not all good. Each of them can be aimed at a specific place. Each of them can be aimed for the wrong reason. But I am proud of the earmarks I have put in the bills that we have had this year and in previous years. I am proud to defend them and I am glad we are having this debate. I do believe there is a balance, and I don't believe saying every program the Federal Government does ought to be just aimed across the country because Sullivan County in upstate New York, in the Catskill Mountains, is quite different from the county that surrounds Tulsa, OK, or the Grand Canyon in northwestern Arizona.

Yes, there should be a balance. To me, the balance in this bill--and the overwhelming majority are for broad Federal programs, but a certain amount are designated for earmarks--makes sense. Now, obviously, if you are putting an earmark in for something out of your State, or for the wrong reason, that is wrong. But let me tell you, if you go to Sullivan County, NY--and I appreciate that my colleague from Oklahoma has conceded this is a good program; he just doesn't think the Federal Government ought to spend for it. But I appreciate that because if you go to Sullivan County, NY, it is the place where the Catskills are. Until about 1950, the area boomed. Then the airplane boom hit and all the people from New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston who vacationed there started getting on airplanes and going to Florida, the Bahamas, California, and now Arizona to vacation. So Sullivan County became one of the poorest areas in our State. You drive up there, and you will see, from the Old Glory days, the great hotels that are boarded up. You will see the little bungalow colonies that people used to go to, which are now decrepid. I have been there many a time. I was there as a kid. I went to summer camp in the Catskills across the river in Pennsylvania. I would go there, of course, as a Senator frequently. It is an area that needs help.

When you ask the people what is the No. 1 thing they need, it is jobs. In this bill, we talk about jobs, no question. But I daresay the people of Sullivan County--the economic development experts, the town and local officials--have a better idea of what would create jobs in Sullivan County than the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Arizona and, quite frankly, the Senator from New York. They are there, they know it. They live on the ground. They are the ones who see their children unable to get work. They are the ones who have seen and remember the older once great days, and now the decline, and they are desperate to try to restore some of the jobs so their children won't have to go away.

This Bethel Center for the Performing Arts was one of the two economic development projects that Sullivan County put at the top of its list, the other one being a racetrack, remaking the old Monticello Raceway to help with gambling, which is still pending in the Department of the Interior, where the Secretary, from Idaho, who doesn't seem to have a real understanding of the need, says it is an out-of-State tribe and we don't want to do it.

A job training program will be very nice, but it would not help Sullivan County to a large extent. All of the other large Federal programs we fund in this bill will not help Sullivan County. The people of Sullivan County, as well as the people in the rest of New York, who elected myself and Senator Clinton to try to help them with their specific needs, as well as make the country a better place--we don't tell them what is good for them. We make sure the money will be spent where it is supposed to be spent. But we defer to their decision. This was their decision. A lot of other things in Sullivan County might have needed specific help, but this was their decision. It is a good decision.

I believe--and this is where, I suppose, my colleague and I have a difference--that the Federal Government should play a role. Being a U.S. Senator means making the big, broad national policies for this country, and it means helping the Sullivan Counties of each of our States. I argue that a Senator who doesn't do that is derelict in his or her responsibilities to their State. So I am proud of this earmark. It is the right type of earmark.

My colleague mentioned the State government and why doesn't the State do it. The State has put $15 million into this. The local county officials have clamored for this for years. There was a previous earmark put in by Congressman Hinchey in the House of Representatives to help build a road. It is

a whole performing arts center at Bethel, not just a museum, but it is about $100 million. We hear about State and private partnerships, and this is one of them. The locality and the State are putting far more money into it than Washington. So both the State and the county and the town of Bethel have stepped up to the plate. They are not just asking the Federal Government for something they would not spend money for.

Every one of our counties has a need like this. If we are going to let a broad-brushed argument that there should be no earmarks stand-- none--we are not going to be able to help these specific needs. I am proud to do it. I spend some time doing it, and I am going to continue to do it. I think it is part of my job. I think the people of Sullivan County and the people of New York State and the people of the United States would agree with that when told the facts of this particular situation and a little history of Sullivan County, which I have just outlined.

So I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment because this is, as my colleague from Oklahoma says, a worthy project, and most of them are--not all. I have great respect for my two colleagues on the Senate floor. I don't think they are motivated by anything other than the best of intentions. Most of my colleagues believe they want to help out the Sullivan Counties, and we should be getting at the deficit. But the right way to do it is to put in pay-go across the board, not tie our hands and eliminate one specific type of program.

I want to review a little about the Bethel Museum in Sullivan County. It is a museum that not just covers Woodstock in the late 1960s, but it covers a whole post-World War II period, focusing on the sixties. It was a tumultuous decade, and it is a good idea to study it. Museums and libraries are a very important part of our history and education, as well as a job magnet. I don't think there is a debate that they are important. They have broad-brushed Federal programs that help libraries and museums. So that is not the argument.

Most important, it is an economic engine, as important as an economic engine might be in southeast Oklahoma, in the Indian country of Arizona, or the mountains of Montana, and it is what the two Senators-- Senator Clinton and I--in listening to the needs of Sullivan County and the people of Sullivan County, the elected officials there and the Chamber of Commerce have said they need most of all.

I hope my colleagues will support us and vote down this amendment because when they vote down this amendment, they are standing up for the other role we have in the Senate: to help our communities in the way they believe is best, not the way Washington dictates is best.

Madam President, this is the largest economic development program in one of our poorest counties. It is the Bethel Performing Arts Center. It is a large complex. It is a $100 million program. Madam President, $85 million has been donated by a major philanthropist. The State has put in close to $14 million. This is our $1 million.

Every one of you has a poor county. They have gotten together, and this is their economic development project. It is not just a museum; it is a whole complex devoted to history in America from 1945 through to the present.

If you believe in helping counties, if you believe every one of us wants the Federal Government not to just pass broad-brushed programs but to help individual needs in our States--this one coming from the leaders who have spent years and years in the Catskills to try to bring that area back--this is the project.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 3321 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am, like my colleagues, strongly in favor of extending the section 508 program. This is a critical program for some New York hospitals, and I appreciate the chairman's commitment to include the extension in future Medicare legislation.

Mr. President, before my friend and colleague from Illinois sits down, I have a question. I am going to speak on hate crimes, but that will be after the Senator from Vermont, who is waiting.

I would like to ask the Senator from Illinois a question. We, the Democrats, have a reputation of, well, tax and spend, tax and spend. But just seeing my colleague from Massachusetts here, I realized that in the two major bills we have just done--and my friend from Illinois has mentioned one on higher education and one on children's health--A, we have paid for them. Unlike what has been done on the other side, say, with the prescription drug program, we paid for them. We are being fiscally responsible. And we didn't pay for them by hurting average folks in terms of their taxes. The tobacco tax, which the Senator from Massachusetts just mentioned, and on the college tuition, we are paying for that by making the banks pay a little more. Not a nickel of taxpayer money is coming for that.

So I ask my colleague, how would he compare the record of the new majority on fiscal responsibility compared to the old majority?

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Matthew Shepard Act as an amendment to the DOD authorization bill.

Federal hate crimes legislation is a much-needed and long missing piece of the civil rights and criminal law puzzle.

First, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his determination and leadership on this bipartisan amendment.

I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues--Majority Leader Reid and Chairman Levin--for their support of hate crimes legislation and this amendment. Many people had amendments they wanted on this bill, but Senator Levin and Senator Reid understood the importance of this legislation.

Dr. King once said ``In order to answer the question, `where do we go from here?'. . . we must first honestly recognize where we are now.''

We are still in a time where racism and other hatred are ever- present.

We are still in a time when our old scars and wounds from times past have not healed.

Yes, we have made progress, but all of us know we have a long way to go. And the only way we can get there is if we travel together, as one Nation.

And if our Federal Government can say with one strong, unified voice that crimes based on hatred will not be tolerated, then that is a step forward.

And we can also say that those hate-mongers who commit these crimes will not get off lightly; but rather will pay the consequences of committing a crime against a larger community.

We can all say this together by voting for the Matthew Shepard Act before us today. The act is named for a brave and courageous individual, who was killed simply because of who he was. This act deserves a quick and strong passage.

We have been here before. In 2004, this body passed hate crimes legislation, only to see it stripped away in conference. And I stand before my colleagues today to say--it is time to pass this legislation once again.

Current Federal hate crime laws are inadequate to deal with the rising tide of hate crimes that are tearing at the very fabric of our communities.

This legislation would remove the ``federally protected activity'' requirement that currently exists, and also expand the groups of individuals that are covered by Federal law including sexual orientation.

In addition, this legislation gives much needed resources and assistance to State and local law enforcement officials in investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

Let me clear, this legislation allows the Federal Government to act only with the consent of State or local law enforcement officials.

This law can be seen as a backstop--in case State hate crime laws do not cover a particular crime, or if State or local officials need the resources of Federal law enforcement.

This should assuage any federalism concerns that some of my colleagues may have.

Additionally, Congress has the clear mandate to act in this arena, based on both our authority under the commerce clause and the 13th amendment.

This type of crime--violence based on a person's skin color, religion, ethnicity, or other traits and characteristics, are as old as slavery itself. It is unconscionable. Matthew Shepard was killed because of his sexual orientation. Who can defend that? Who can say we should not increase the strength of the laws to deal with that hatred, bigotry and nastiness?

Hate crimes differ from other crimes because the criminals target groups of individuals who have been traditionally marginalized or stigmatized in our society.

This violence directly affects an individual's ability to feel safe and secure in a particular location, and has the effect of forcing people from their homes, or impeding their ability to travel.

Additionally, hate crimes are greater crimes. These crimes affect an entire community. They are not aimed at one individual. In fact, they are often not aimed at the individual upon whom they are committed but, rather, a much broader group. In that sense, these crimes are anti- American. They fly in the face of American pluralism, ``E Pluribus Unum'' that is on every dollar bill we see. Yes, out of many, one. Those who commit hate crimes are saying: No, there are certain groups of people who should not become part of the American fabric.

What could be more un-American than that?

Hate crimes must stop. The violence directly affects an individual's ability to feel safe and secure in a particular location and has the effect of forcing people from their homes or impeding their ability to travel. But, additionally, they are greater crimes because they affect an entire community, not just one individual. In that way, these crimes hurt all of us--the American community.

Because of that, the perpetrators of these crimes should be punished for their actions; both Federal and local law enforcement working together to punish the perpetrator is an important and sometimes necessary signal showing that violence motivated by hatred

is not tolerated at any level. This legislation enjoys a broad range of support from numerous civil rights organizations to the National District Attorneys Association; rightfully so, since this affects all of us as Americans. I urge my colleague to vote for this important piece of civil rights and criminal law.

I hope we will get an overwhelming vote from both sides of the aisle, a condemnation of hatred, a condemnation of pointing to a particular group and saying: You don't belong. You can be subject to vicious and nasty crimes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about H.R. 2640--it is called the NICS Improvement Act--and the Leahy-Schumer amendment.

I have worked long and hard on this bill. It has been a long time in coming. Now it is time to get it passed. To put it simply, the young man who was behind the great tragedy at Virginia Tech had a long history of mental illness but still fell through the cracks of our checking systems and bought guns and ammunition.

It is against the law for someone with serious mental illness to buy a gun. When the system fails, we are all less safe. This bill will get desperately needed resources to the States to help improve our Federal background check process. This bill will make it harder for someone to get lost in the system.

We cannot wait any longer before passing this commonsense piece of legislation. We cannot sit back and watch another Virginia Tech shooting happen without doing everything we can to stop it.

I have worked hard on this bill for more than a decade and the background check system to which it is added. In 2002, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and I introduced legislation similar to what I am discussing today. It was in response to another senseless shooting. This one was at Our Lady of Peace Church, in our State, in Lynbrook, on Long Island. That was where someone with a long history of mental illness bought a gun, walked into Our Lady of Peace Church, killed Father Lawrence Penzes and a long-time parishioner, Eileen Tosner.

So back then we introduced a bill to get money to the States to help them get important records--on mental illness, convictions, things such as that--into the NICS system. But because of the climate of mistrust on all sides of the gun issue, that bill was never passed into law. I believe it passed the House once. I believe it passed the Senate once. But the two never hooked up.

Now, here we are again. It saddens me that it has taken this long--it has been years since Our Lady of Peace; it has been 5 months since Virginia Tech--to move the debate forward and try to get something done about safety on our streets and college campuses.

Now we are so close. The House has passed similar legislation that went through with the support of both the NRA and the Brady Campaign. That does not happen too often. As you know, when the NRA and I agree on an issue, there is a good chance some good can come of it.

We already have a comprehensive background check system, but since the system relies on up-to-date computer searches to produce fast results, it is only as good as the automated information the States provide. That is why the focus of the bill is to get more records into the system. So under the bill, States that opt into the system that do well will be rewarded with grants and financial incentives. States that do not will be punished.

We have modified that so smaller States that have more difficulty keeping the records because they have smaller budgets will not be penalized. Senator Leahy correctly insisted that be done to protect his State of Vermont. But it affects smaller States as well. The amendments Senator Leahy has suggested and been added to this bill, I believe, improve it without getting any of our delicately balanced coalition out of kilter in any way. So I thank Senator Leahy for doing that.

Perhaps the most important thing I can say about this bill is it is all about public safety. It is all about enforcing the laws on the books. This is not--and this is important--is not a gun control bill. No lawful gun owners are going to have their guns taken away. Nobody who should be allowed to get a gun will have his or her rights restricted.

The bill targets only those records that are supposed to be in the system already--records that demonstrate whether someone is seriously mentally ill, a felon, or so on. What Virginia Tech showed us is when the background check system fails, the consequences can be terribly tragic.

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and I saw that in Long Island and, of course, the Nation saw it at Virginia Tech. Nothing can bring back the 33 young people who died last April, and we do not know if we can prevent another Virginia Tech from happening, but our bill will take a substantial step toward making the system better and keeping our streets and schools safer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to paint a rosy picture, when the situation in Iraq suggests otherwise.

First, I thank Senator Carl Levin for the good work that he and the committee have done on drafting the Defense authorization bill. Next, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss Senator Feingold's amendment.

I am a cosponsor of the Feingold amendment because I believe it is imperative that we change the mission in Iraq to reflect the ugly reality on the ground.

We are worse off today in Iraq than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, democracy and stability continue to erode. If there was ever a need for a change of course in Iraq, it is now.

Despite the fact that 70 percent of Iraqis believe that the surge has worsened the overall security and political situation of their country, it remains terribly clear that President Bush and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are equally determined to maintain our present, failing course in Iraq.

Months ago, the violence in Iraq devolved into a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and U.S. troops are still stuck in the middle. Our troops have no business policing a civil war.

And the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same: there is no central government and the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds dislike one another far more than they like or want any central government. This dooms the administration's policy in Iraq to failure.

That is why I am here in support of the Feingold amendment. This amendment will ensure that most our troops will be safely redeployed from Iraq by next summer, and those that remain will undertake a mission that reflects the reality in Iraq.

U.S. troops will conduct limited counterterrorism missions, and they will train Iraqi security forces that support the U.S. mission. We will not train Iraqis that have attacked U.S. troops.

This amendment will make sure that U.S. troops are no longer policing a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. It will let the Maliki Government know that U.S. troops will not, nor cannot, remain in Iraq indefinitely. Only that understanding will make the Maliki Government move forward in the difficult process of political reconciliation that Iraq needs.

The Democratic Congress will continue to fight this administration's failing policy, and help chart a new way forward in Iraq. This amendment is the first step in that direction, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to support it.

I salute my colleague from Wisconsin for his undaunted leadership. He is way ahead of his time on this issue. I am a cosponsor of the Feingold amendment because I believe it is imperative we change the mission in Iraq to reflect the ugly reality on the ground. We are worse off today in Iraq than we were 6 months ago. Our troops are doing an excellent job--make no mistake about it--but if the whole purpose was to strengthen the Government, by every standard the Government is weaker. Despite the fact that 70 percent of Iraqis believe the surge has worsened the overall security and political situation of their country, it remains terribly clear that President Bush and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are equally determined to maintain our present failing course in Iraq. To change that course does not require weak medicine. It requires strong medicine. That is what the Feingold amendment is.

Months ago, the violence in Iraq devolved into a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis, and U.S. troops are stuck in the middle. Our troops have no business policing a civil war, and we should not continue to do that with our troops, with our dollars, and with the heart and soul of this Nation. We must change course, and we must do what it takes to change course.

That is why I support the Feingold amendment. It will ensure that most of our troops will be safely redeployed from Iraq by next summer, and those who remain will undertake a mission that reflects the reality in Iraq. This amendment will make sure U.S. troops are no longer policing a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. It will let the Maliki Government know U.S. troops will not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Only that understanding will make the Iraqi Government move forward.

The Democratic Congress will continue to fight this administration's failing policy until we change it. One of the best tools we have to do that is the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about two important issues addressed in this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I would like to thank Senators Murray

and Bond for their leadership on this bill. This bill will make America safer and stronger by improving our transportation and housing infrastructure.

First, I would like to discuss the need for FAA modernization. My amendment would convey the sense of the Senate on the issue of FAA modernization. For too long, the FAA has been derelict in its duty on this important aspect of public safety.

Something is wrong when the thousands of everyday Americans with GPS devices in their cars are working off what appear to be more modern navigation systems than the FAA.

My amendment makes clear that this delay in implementing a modern air traffic control system threatens both the safety of our air passengers and the economy by delaying thousands of business and recreational passengers each day.

This amendment makes clear that the FAA must act now and fully implement the modernization system using the resources allocated in this bill to keep our skies safe.

The committee took a significant step forward in this bill by providing hundreds of millions of dollars for modernization. I thank them for their commitment to this issue, and now it is time for the FAA to step up to the plate and do their share.

We should urge the FAA to move as quickly as possible in implementing the modernization system to finally put an end to the endless delays and dangerous near misses on our Nation's runways and in our skies.

Next, I would like to discuss the subprime crisis in the Senate about the need to assist the many families facing foreclosure as their subprime loans reset to unaffordable levels.

I have been studying this issue for some time. The mortgage industry has become the Wild West, and far too many homeowners have gotten caught up in the teaser-rate promises of subprime mortgages only to be devastated when they reset to higher, unaffordable levels.

I have concluded that one of the best tools we have in helping to avoid this upcoming wave of foreclosures is the efforts of nonprofit organizations specializing in foreclosure avoidance and homeowner counseling.

So I would like to thank Senators Murray and Bond for responding to my request for additional resources by allocating $100 million for those nonprofits to assist homeowners who are facing foreclosures. An estimated 2 million mortgages are scheduled to reset to higher interest rates in the next 12 months. This will mean a devastatingly high number of foreclosures, unless major action is taken.

But because there are so many distressed homeowners right now, the nonprofits are overwhelmed. Some have already received more calls for help this year than they did all of last year, and things are likely to get worse before they get better. The non-profits simply do not have the resources to deal with this crisis. The home mortgage market is in a state of emergency, and these nonprofits are our best-equipped first responders. We ought to lend them a hand.

This investment will pay for itself many times over, through the avoidance of foreclosures and the pain and suffering they cost this country, both in economic and noneconomic terms.

But government alone cannot solve this problem. It will require a major commitment by others as well, particularly those banks and mortgage servicers which have the ability, through loan modifications and refinancings, to help homeowners avoid foreclosures. These lenders and servicers made plenty of money while the housing markets were good, and I believe it is time for them to pitch in to help avoid the consequences of their actions, which contributed to this current crisis.

This is why I have asked the country's major mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers to increase their efforts to help subprime borrowers avoid foreclosure. I have also asked them to also provide monetary commitments to the nonprofits, which everyone acknowledges are key to solving this problem.

For the millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes, these nonprofits can provide shelter from the foreclosure storm.

This is a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem.

I am encouraged that my colleague, Senator Bond, agrees that we need more resources devoted to this problem. I agree that $100 million more dollars is a good thing. I am concerned, however, that the conditions put on this money may restrict its most beneficial uses. I want to be sure that all the funds we dedicate are used to help keep every family possible in their homes, and I look forward to continuing to work with the committee to ensure that the funds in this amendment can do just that.

This subprime crisis is a danger to the housing market and the market as a whole, and efforts and resources at all levels of government and in the private sector should be devoted to alleviating this ongoing problem.

Finally, I would like to applaud my friend and colleague, Senator Murray, whose leadership and determination were instrumental in getting $1 billion of additional funding for bridge replacement and rehabilitation.

This amendment addresses what we have known for far too long--we have been neglecting our infrastructure for far too long.

The disaster in Minnesota was a wake-up call to get our Nation's transportation infrastructure in order. For far too long, highways and bridges in New York and across the country have been allowed to degrade to the point of dangerous disrepair.

As I have said before after similar disasters, we must learn from them and fix the problems that caused them. We can no longer afford to neglect our aging highways and bridges in older cities.

This amendment goes a long way in learning from this disaster and fixing serious problems in our Nation's infrastructure. I commend Senator Murray for her leadership.

I was proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and look forward to working with Senator Murray on further projects in the future.

I look forward to working with the committee on my amendments and to finishing this bill which represents, for the first time in a long time, the resources our country needs to support its infrastructure, transportation and housing positions.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey for his outstandingly eloquent, heartfelt words. We share a region. We shared the tragedy of that day as Senators doing our best in a very troubled time. We continue to share it now in our mutual desire to keep our region safe from terrorism in terms of homeland security.

I was at the Ground Zero site early this morning and before the ceremony of commemoration began mingled with some of the families of the victims. There is nothing more heartfelt than seeing these fine people, average folks from every different background, profession, ethnic, religious, economic level, holding pictures in their laps, often young men, young women in their prime, in the beginning and beauty of their lives. Their parents are holding the pictures. Husbands are holding pictures of wives; wives holding pictures of husbands; children holding pictures of their dads. There is nothing more touching and more meaningful than going over and looking at the faces of these fine people. All they have to hold are the pictures and the memories of the people whose lives were snuffed out. This happened in so many instances, close to 3,000 instances, each one a family member, a friend, a business associate--gone, and gone for the most irrational and hateful reasons.

We fought many wars before, but most of them were about things we could maybe not agree with but understand--a desire for territory, religious domination, righting a wrong. No, this war--aimed at the innocent, aimed at civilians, aimed at average Americans--had an irrational hatred to it that is hard to comprehend. We do remember. One of the family members attached this ribbon to my lapel. Of course, I wear this flag which I put on September 12, 2001. Every day I wear a suit or a sport jacket, I have this flag on, the same one I put on my lapel then in hope and memory of those who were missing, because we didn't know how many had died. I wear it every day to think of those who were lost and what we lost and what their families lost and what our country lost. God willing, I will wear it every day for the rest of my life to remember them.

Today we do remember. We remember Ground Zero. We remember here on the Senate floor. And most of all, we remember in countless homes throughout the country, throughout the world--most of them concentrated in New York and New Jersey--as people remember those who were taken from them.

There is not much to say about such a mindless act of evil cruelty with almost no goal other than frightening people. But one thing we assure the terrorists together: Regardless of our political views, we are not frightened. We are hurt; we are saddened; sometimes we feel lost. But we are not frightened. They have strengthened our resolve-- our resolve to win the war on terror, do it the smart and rational way, don't do it in a mean, evil way

like the means used by the terrorists. But we will prevail. We will rebuild buildings at Ground Zero. We will rebuild the network--slowly, but surely--that protects us at home. We will rebuild the strength of America abroad to fight terrorism and adapt. And we will prevail. But we will also never forget, never forget those people, some of whom were friends of mine, a guy I played basketball with as a kid in high school, a firefighter from the neighborhood in which I was raised, a businessman, very successful, who helped me on my way up--we will never forget them, never. We will resolve that their memory will importune us to be better as individuals and as a nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 954, a bill to designate the post office located at 365 West 125th Street in Harlem as the Percy Sutton Post Office Building. Percy Sutton is a giant of the New York community. He is a patriot, a veteran Tuskegee Airman, and a pioneering leader in multiple fields-- politician, civil rights activist, lawyer and entrepreneur. And, through a lifetime of extraordinary work in the public and

private sectors, he has been the driving force behind the exemplary renaissance of Harlem.

Simply put, Percy Sutton is a commendable American, who never stopped believing in the promise of our Nation, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, even when legally sanctioned discrimination held him down. By dint of his talent, hard work, optimism and faith in the possibility of America, he became the perfect embodiment of the transformation of America from a separate and unequal place to a more perfect union.

Percy is an intellectual of the first order who worked at a New York post office to put himself through law school. Therefore, naming the post office in his honor, in his beloved Harlem--a community he has done so much for--is a perfect tribute to this prominent American.

The youngest of 15 children, Percy Sutton was born on November 24, 1920, in San Antonio, TX. His parents were both educators, and his father went on to become one of the first African American principals in the Nation. All of his siblings graduated from college, and his brothers include the first black elected official in San Antonio and a judge on the New York Supreme Court.

Percy Sutton attended Prairie View A&M University, Tuskegee Institute, and the Hampton Institute. His public service career began when Sutton served with the now legendary Tuskegee Airmen in World War II, winning combat stars as an intelligence officer. Despite being barred from flying fighter planes for the Army Air Corps because of his race, he remained committed to serving his country. After an honorable discharge from the Army, he enrolled in Brooklyn Law School. During this time, he worked for the U.S. Post Office in New York as a clerk during the evening shift and later as a conductor in the New York City subway system to put himself through school.

Motivated to fight racial discrimination, upon finishing law school Sutton become an important civil rights advocate. His commitment to fight for justice and equality lead him to become a well-known attorney, representing Malcolm X and other activists during the civil rights era. Sutton also served as president of the New York chapter of the NAACP.

Percy has also been a pillar in Harlem and New York politics. A leader of the Harlem political scene, he worked with Mayor David Dinkins, Congressman Charles Rangel, and former New York Secretary of State Basil Paterson to create a lasting force for effective community representation at the local, State and national levels. In 1964, Sutton was elected to the New York State Assembly, where he served for 2 years before becoming the president for the Borough of Manhattan for 10 years, when that office was at the center of gravity of New York City's policymaking apparatus.

His strong ties to Harlem can be further seen in the historic Apollo Theatre, which he purchased and completely revitalized in 1980. Sutton also produced ``It's Showtime at the Apollo.'' Today, as Harlem thrives, the Apollo Theatre remains a cornerstone of the community. Sutton also started the Inner City Broadcasting Company, home of the first African American owned radio station in New York. Through it all, Percy was a trail blazer in the extraordinary transformation of Harlem. While victory has many fathers and mothers, no one person has done more, for more time, or more effectively to realize this vision, than Percy Sutton.

Percy Sutton's impact on his community and his country is immeasurable. Renaming the post office building in Harlem, the neighborhood for which he has done so much, the Percy Sutton Post Office is a perfect tribute to this special man.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Iraq, as I have every day this week that we have been here. First, I know we all have the deepest gratitude and respect for the sacrifice of the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, the troops are doing their job. I am concerned, however, that their mission is not worthy of their great sacrifice, especially the President's surge.

The surge, despite earlier reports this week, has failed to meet the objectives set out by the President. And the President can't change that fact by changing the goal. He is now claiming progress in Iraq as evidence that the surge--directed at Baghdad--is working. While the President has claimed progress in Anbar, it was not the surge that brought the momentary calm to this region, because the surge was focused mainly on Baghdad, and the difficult process of political reconciliation. Its objective, as stated by the President himself, was to create breathing room for the central Iraqi Government to make political progress.

Our brave troops have been in Anbar for years and years, doing the first-rate job they always do in what is a very difficult environment. Now, however, some elements of the local population, and some of their leaders, have made common cause with the brave men and women of our military. They have cooperated with our troops out of distaste for the brutal methods of al-Qaida. While this is a welcome and helpful development, it is neither the foundation upon which a successful long- term strategy can be launched, nor is it a result of the surge, which was targeted mainly at Baghdad and the national Iraqi political process.

We have heard about successes in the past. They are temporary. They are not based on any permanent structural change or any permanent change in the views of the Iraqi citizens. The Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds still despise each other. They dislike each other more than they like any central government. We have heard about success in the past in Baghdad, and we have heard about success in Fallujah, and they vanish like the wind because the fundamentals on the ground haven't changed.

Now, at a time when the American people are crying out for a change in course, some are pointing to a temporary situation in one province-- Anbar--as a way to continue the present misguided policy. It makes no sense. It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. There is no central government that has any viability, and the warlords in Anbar Province have no relationship with the central government whatsoever. The Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, as I have stated, dislike each other far more than they like or want any central government, and these two facts doom the administration's policy to failure.

We should not have our brave soldiers fighting a civil war caught between rival political and religious factions. We desperately need a change in course, a change in course that recognizes the political situation on the ground, and I urge that this body move forward to do just that.