Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments this morning on the Warner resolution and the negotiations that went on yesterday, led by Senator Levin, to deal with Iraq.

Three weeks ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Rice presented the President's plan for Iraq. The Presiding Officer, among others, was there. Its main feature was to send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian war, in the middle of a city of over 6 million people.

The reaction to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Republicans and Democrats alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition. That pretty much reflected the reaction across the country.

Consequently, Senators Hagel, Levin, Snowe, and I wrote a resolution to give Senators a way to vote their voices, vote what they had said. We believe, the four of us, and I know the Presiding Officer does, as well, that the quickest, most effective way to get the President to change his course is to demonstrate to him that his policy has little or no support in this Senate, in our committee, or, quite frankly, across the country.

After we introduced our resolution, Senator Warner came forward with his resolution. The bottom line of the resolution is essentially the same, and it was: Don't send more American troops into the middle of a civil war.

There was one critical difference between the Biden-Levin and the Warner amendment. Senator Warner's resolution, in one paragraph, left open, I think unintentionally, the possibility of increasing the overall number of American troops in Iraq--just not in Baghdad. So from our perspective it wasn't enough to say don't go into Baghdad with more troops; we wanted to say don't raise the number of troops, as well.

The provision in the Warner amendment that allowed for that, if read by the President the way he would want to read it, I believe, would have allowed an increase in troops. We believe very strongly--Senator Levin, myself, Hagel, Snowe--that would send the wrong message. We ought to be drawing down in Iraq, not ramping up. We ought to be redeploying, not deploying into Baghdad. We should make it clear to the Iraqi leaders that they have to begin to make the hard compromises necessary for a political solution.

A political solution everyone virtually agrees on is the precondition for anything positive happening in Iraq. Now, I make it clear, I and everyone else in this Senate knows that it is not an easy thing for the Iraqi leadership to do, but it is absolutely essential.

So we approached Senator Warner several times to try to work out the difference between the Biden and the Warner resolutions. I am very pleased that last night, through the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, we succeeded in doing just that. The language Senator Warner removed from his resolution removed the possibility that it can be read as calling for more troops in Iraq.

With that change, I am very pleased to join Senator Levin, now known as the Levin-Warner resolution, as a cosponsor of that resolution. For my intent, at the outset when I first spoke out about the President's planned surge of American forces in Iraq, when I spoke out before the new year, I made it clear that my purpose was to build bipartisan opposition to his plan because that was the best way to get him to reconsider. That is exactly what this compromise does.

Now we have a real opportunity for the Senate to speak clearly. Every Senator will have a chance to vote on whether he or she supports or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. If the President does not listen to the majority of the Congress--and I expect the majority of Congress will vote for our resolution--if he does not respond to a majority of the Congress and a

majority of the American people, we will have to look for other ways to change his policy. But this is a very important first step.

Also, I would like to take a moment to present what I believe are the principal findings of our 4 weeks of hearings, over 50 hours, if I am not mistaken, of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. While no unanimous prescription has emerged, there is remarkably broad consensus on three main points: First, American troops cannot stop sectarian warfare in Iraq, only a political settlement can do that; the second point of consensus, we must engage in intensive regional diplomacy to support the settlement among Iraqis; third, the U.S. military should focus on combatting terrorists, keeping Iraq's neighbors honest, training Iraq's troops--not on policing a civil war. Indeed, combat troops should start to redeploy as soon as our mission is narrowed.

Those three points were overwhelmingly agreed upon by an array of the most well informed foreign policy experts, both military and civilian, that we have arrayed before that committee in a long time.

Since a political settlement is so critical, we have examined this issue in detail. We have looked at the benchmarks the President has proposed--on oil law, debaathification reform, constitutional reform, and provincial elections--but the divisions are so deep and passions run so high now in Iraq we may be beyond the point where such modest measures can stabilize Iraq.

I believe, and have believed for some time, something much broader is necessary, something much bolder is necessary. Les Gelb, the chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Defense Department official, and I put forward just such a proposal 9 months ago. It is premised upon our conviction that the heart of the administration's strategy--building a strong central government--will, in fact, not succeed. As a matter of fact, in the testimony we heard, most pointed out where countries have been drawn by the slip of a pen by world leaders after World War I and World War II--the Balkans, Iraq, and many other places we could name--there have basically only been two models that have brought stability: A straw plan, a la Saddam, or a Federal system, a la the Iraqi Constitution.

The reason a strong central government will not work, although desirable, is there is no trust within the Government, no trust of the Government by the people of Iraq, no capacity of the Government to deliver services, no capacity of this new Government to deliver security.

In a sense, it is understandable. Indeed, we must bring Iraqis' problems and the responsibility of managing those problems down to local and regional levels where we can help the Iraqis build trust and capacity much more quickly and much more effectively.

We have proposed that the Iraqis create what their constitution calls for: three or more ``regions'' they call them--not republics--three or four more regions consistent with their constitution. We call for Iraq's oil to be shared equally with a guarantee that the Sunnis get their share and have some international oversight to guarantee it. We call for aggressive diplomacy--which, again, most every witness called for, including the Iraq Study Group--we call for aggressive diplomacy in the creation of a contact group consisting of Iraq's neighbors and the major powers in the world, including large Islamic countries to support a political settlement.

We believe we can redeploy most, if not all, of America's troops from Iraq within 18 months under this plan, leaving behind a small force in Iraq or in the region to strike at terrorists, the jihadists, the al- Qaidaists, keeping the neighbors honest, and training Iraqi forces. The time has demonstrated this plan is more relevant and inevitable than it was even the day we put pen to paper and set it out 9 months ago. It takes into account the harsh reality of self-sustaining sectarian violence; it is consistent with Iraq's Constitution; and it can produce a phrase used by a New York Times columnist in describing our plan. It can produce ``a soft landing'' for Iraq and prevent a full-blown civil war that tears the country apart and spreads beyond its borders.

I might also add, as people have come to understand, what I am calling for is not partitioning, not three separate republics; what I am calling for is what the Iraqi Constitution calls for: decentralization of control over security and local laws with the central government having responsibility for the Army, distribution of resources and currency and other things that a central government must do.

As that has become clearer and clearer, some of the most powerful voices in the American foreign policy establishment have come forward to suggest it makes sense.

Secretary Kissinger told our committee yesterday:

I'm sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional

autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely this will emerge

out of the conflict that we are now witnessing.

Former Secretary of State Albright said:

. . . the idea of the . . . constitution of Iraq as

written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal

of regional autonomy, is appropriate.

James Baker, former Secretary of State, coauthor of the Baker- Hamilton commission report told us that there are indications that Iraq may be moving toward three autonomous regions, and ``if it is, we ought to be prepared to try and manage the situation.''

Time is running out. We are going to have as a consequence of the compromise reached between the Biden-Levin resolution and the Warner resolution, now known as the ``Levin-Warner whoever else is attached to it'' resolution--we are going to have for the first time a full-blown debate in the Senate.

I hope the administration will be listening. I suggest we are coequal--Congress, along with the President--in deciding when, if, how long, and under what circumstances to send Americans to war, for shedding America's treasure and blood.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments this morning on the Warner resolution and the negotiations that went on yesterday, led by Senator Levin, to deal with Iraq.

Three weeks ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Rice presented the President's plan for Iraq. The Presiding Officer, among others, was there. Its main feature was to send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian war, in the middle of a city of over 6 million people.

The reaction to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Republicans and Democrats alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition. That pretty much reflected the reaction across the country.

Consequently, Senators Hagel, Levin, Snowe, and I wrote a resolution to give Senators a way to vote their voices, vote what they had said. We believe, the four of us, and I know the Presiding Officer does, as well, that the quickest, most effective way to get the President to change his course is to demonstrate to him that his policy has little or no support in this Senate, in our committee, or, quite frankly, across the country.

After we introduced our resolution, Senator Warner came forward with his resolution. The bottom line of the resolution is essentially the same, and it was: Don't send more American troops into the middle of a civil war.

There was one critical difference between the Biden-Levin and the Warner amendment. Senator Warner's resolution, in one paragraph, left open, I think unintentionally, the possibility of increasing the overall number of American troops in Iraq--just not in Baghdad. So from our perspective it wasn't enough to say don't go into Baghdad with more troops; we wanted to say don't raise the number of troops, as well.

The provision in the Warner amendment that allowed for that, if read by the President the way he would want to read it, I believe, would have allowed an increase in troops. We believe very strongly--Senator Levin, myself, Hagel, Snowe--that would send the wrong message. We ought to be drawing down in Iraq, not ramping up. We ought to be redeploying, not deploying into Baghdad. We should make it clear to the Iraqi leaders that they have to begin to make the hard compromises necessary for a political solution.

A political solution everyone virtually agrees on is the precondition for anything positive happening in Iraq. Now, I make it clear, I and everyone else in this Senate knows that it is not an easy thing for the Iraqi leadership to do, but it is absolutely essential.

So we approached Senator Warner several times to try to work out the difference between the Biden and the Warner resolutions. I am very pleased that last night, through the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, we succeeded in doing just that. The language Senator Warner removed from his resolution removed the possibility that it can be read as calling for more troops in Iraq.

With that change, I am very pleased to join Senator Levin, now known as the Levin-Warner resolution, as a cosponsor of that resolution. For my intent, at the outset when I first spoke out about the President's planned surge of American forces in Iraq, when I spoke out before the new year, I made it clear that my purpose was to build bipartisan opposition to his plan because that was the best way to get him to reconsider. That is exactly what this compromise does.

Now we have a real opportunity for the Senate to speak clearly. Every Senator will have a chance to vote on whether he or she supports or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. If the President does not listen to the majority of the Congress--and I expect the majority of Congress will vote for our resolution--if he does not respond to a majority of the Congress and a

majority of the American people, we will have to look for other ways to change his policy. But this is a very important first step.

Also, I would like to take a moment to present what I believe are the principal findings of our 4 weeks of hearings, over 50 hours, if I am not mistaken, of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. While no unanimous prescription has emerged, there is remarkably broad consensus on three main points: First, American troops cannot stop sectarian warfare in Iraq, only a political settlement can do that; the second point of consensus, we must engage in intensive regional diplomacy to support the settlement among Iraqis; third, the U.S. military should focus on combatting terrorists, keeping Iraq's neighbors honest, training Iraq's troops--not on policing a civil war. Indeed, combat troops should start to redeploy as soon as our mission is narrowed.

Those three points were overwhelmingly agreed upon by an array of the most well informed foreign policy experts, both military and civilian, that we have arrayed before that committee in a long time.

Since a political settlement is so critical, we have examined this issue in detail. We have looked at the benchmarks the President has proposed--on oil law, debaathification reform, constitutional reform, and provincial elections--but the divisions are so deep and passions run so high now in Iraq we may be beyond the point where such modest measures can stabilize Iraq.

I believe, and have believed for some time, something much broader is necessary, something much bolder is necessary. Les Gelb, the chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Defense Department official, and I put forward just such a proposal 9 months ago. It is premised upon our conviction that the heart of the administration's strategy--building a strong central government--will, in fact, not succeed. As a matter of fact, in the testimony we heard, most pointed out where countries have been drawn by the slip of a pen by world leaders after World War I and World War II--the Balkans, Iraq, and many other places we could name--there have basically only been two models that have brought stability: A straw plan, a la Saddam, or a Federal system, a la the Iraqi Constitution.

The reason a strong central government will not work, although desirable, is there is no trust within the Government, no trust of the Government by the people of Iraq, no capacity of the Government to deliver services, no capacity of this new Government to deliver security.

In a sense, it is understandable. Indeed, we must bring Iraqis' problems and the responsibility of managing those problems down to local and regional levels where we can help the Iraqis build trust and capacity much more quickly and much more effectively.

We have proposed that the Iraqis create what their constitution calls for: three or more ``regions'' they call them--not republics--three or four more regions consistent with their constitution. We call for Iraq's oil to be shared equally with a guarantee that the Sunnis get their share and have some international oversight to guarantee it. We call for aggressive diplomacy--which, again, most every witness called for, including the Iraq Study Group--we call for aggressive diplomacy in the creation of a contact group consisting of Iraq's neighbors and the major powers in the world, including large Islamic countries to support a political settlement.

We believe we can redeploy most, if not all, of America's troops from Iraq within 18 months under this plan, leaving behind a small force in Iraq or in the region to strike at terrorists, the jihadists, the al- Qaidaists, keeping the neighbors honest, and training Iraqi forces. The time has demonstrated this plan is more relevant and inevitable than it was even the day we put pen to paper and set it out 9 months ago. It takes into account the harsh reality of self-sustaining sectarian violence; it is consistent with Iraq's Constitution; and it can produce a phrase used by a New York Times columnist in describing our plan. It can produce ``a soft landing'' for Iraq and prevent a full-blown civil war that tears the country apart and spreads beyond its borders.

I might also add, as people have come to understand, what I am calling for is not partitioning, not three separate republics; what I am calling for is what the Iraqi Constitution calls for: decentralization of control over security and local laws with the central government having responsibility for the Army, distribution of resources and currency and other things that a central government must do.

As that has become clearer and clearer, some of the most powerful voices in the American foreign policy establishment have come forward to suggest it makes sense.

Secretary Kissinger told our committee yesterday:

I'm sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional

autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely this will emerge

out of the conflict that we are now witnessing.

Former Secretary of State Albright said:

. . . the idea of the . . . constitution of Iraq as

written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal

of regional autonomy, is appropriate.

James Baker, former Secretary of State, coauthor of the Baker- Hamilton commission report told us that there are indications that Iraq may be moving toward three autonomous regions, and ``if it is, we ought to be prepared to try and manage the situation.''

Time is running out. We are going to have as a consequence of the compromise reached between the Biden-Levin resolution and the Warner resolution, now known as the ``Levin-Warner whoever else is attached to it'' resolution--we are going to have for the first time a full-blown debate in the Senate.

I hope the administration will be listening. I suggest we are coequal--Congress, along with the President--in deciding when, if, how long, and under what circumstances to send Americans to war, for shedding America's treasure and blood.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007.

These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines who provide our domestic security and public safety--our Nation's law enforcement personnel. Indeed, they face one of the most difficult work environments imaginable--an average of 165 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. Our Nation's law enforcement officers put themselves in harms way on a daily basis to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens and the domestic security of our Nation. Nevertheless, many times these brave officers do not receive basic rights if they become involved in internal police investigations or administrative hearings. According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due

process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' Similarly, the Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.''

The legislation being introduced today, which is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police Organizations, seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not currently provided. First, this bill allows law enforcement officials to engage in political activities when they are off-duty. Second, it provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, and administrative disciplinary hearings. Additionally, it calls upon States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the rights and protections afforded in the bill. For example, my own State of Delaware has a law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and those procedures would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill.

This bill will also include important provisions that will enhance the ability of citizens to hold their local police departments accountable. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure citizen complaints against police officers are investigated and that citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

I would also like to note that I understand the objections that many management groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police's, have to this measure. I have discussed this with them, and I've pledged that their views will be heard and considered as this bill is debated in Congress. It is my view that we must bridge this gap. Without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials, the enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. Law enforcement officials are facing unprecedented challenges, and management and labor simply must work together on this issue and the numerous other issues facing the law enforcement community.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007.

These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines who provide our domestic security and public safety--our Nation's law enforcement personnel. Indeed, they face one of the most difficult work environments imaginable--an average of 165 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. Our Nation's law enforcement officers put themselves in harms way on a daily basis to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens and the domestic security of our Nation. Nevertheless, many times these brave officers do not receive basic rights if they become involved in internal police investigations or administrative hearings. According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due

process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' Similarly, the Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.''

The legislation being introduced today, which is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police Organizations, seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not currently provided. First, this bill allows law enforcement officials to engage in political activities when they are off-duty. Second, it provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, and administrative disciplinary hearings. Additionally, it calls upon States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the rights and protections afforded in the bill. For example, my own State of Delaware has a law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and those procedures would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill.

This bill will also include important provisions that will enhance the ability of citizens to hold their local police departments accountable. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure citizen complaints against police officers are investigated and that citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

I would also like to note that I understand the objections that many management groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police's, have to this measure. I have discussed this with them, and I've pledged that their views will be heard and considered as this bill is debated in Congress. It is my view that we must bridge this gap. Without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials, the enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. Law enforcement officials are facing unprecedented challenges, and management and labor simply must work together on this issue and the numerous other issues facing the law enforcement community.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does not fall further into debt at the United Nations, and to pay the debt that we have accrued since January 1, 2006.

For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution to the U.N. for its peacekeeping operations--for missions in places like Lebanon, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo--that advance our national interests and spread the burden of keeping the peace among other nations. We are approximately $80 million in debt, and the number grows every month as new bills come in for peacekeeping operations.

Here is why.

In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after fiscal year 1995. The United Nations continued to bill the United States at 31 percent. As a result, a debt accrued--that is, the gap between the 25 percent allowed under U.S. law, and the 31 percent we were charged by the U.N.

In 1999, when Congress approved the ``Helms-Biden'' law, it authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.

In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N., even though Ambassador Holbrooke had not reached the target of 25 percent. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.

In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke, but the most recent temporary change in law expired on December 31, 2005.

Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping, even though the United Nations assesses the United States at a higher rate.

Mr. President this is a problem. At a time when our government continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it. How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time push the U.N. to get its financial house in order?

More important, U.N. peacekeeping operations advance America's national security. If the U.N. didn't do them, we might have to do so. The U.N. `blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. Right now, the United States continues to seek support at the U.N. for a robust mission in Darfur. We have voted time and again in the Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions.

Through U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. contributes to international peace and stability where we have critical foreign policy interests, while sharing the human, political and financial costs with other nations. We should not shortchange these operations.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does not fall further into debt at the United Nations, and to pay the debt that we have accrued since January 1, 2006.

For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution to the U.N. for its peacekeeping operations--for missions in places like Lebanon, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo--that advance our national interests and spread the burden of keeping the peace among other nations. We are approximately $80 million in debt, and the number grows every month as new bills come in for peacekeeping operations.

Here is why.

In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after fiscal year 1995. The United Nations continued to bill the United States at 31 percent. As a result, a debt accrued--that is, the gap between the 25 percent allowed under U.S. law, and the 31 percent we were charged by the U.N.

In 1999, when Congress approved the ``Helms-Biden'' law, it authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.

In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N., even though Ambassador Holbrooke had not reached the target of 25 percent. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.

In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke, but the most recent temporary change in law expired on December 31, 2005.

Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping, even though the United Nations assesses the United States at a higher rate.

Mr. President this is a problem. At a time when our government continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it. How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time push the U.N. to get its financial house in order?

More important, U.N. peacekeeping operations advance America's national security. If the U.N. didn't do them, we might have to do so. The U.N. `blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. Right now, the United States continues to seek support at the U.N. for a robust mission in Darfur. We have voted time and again in the Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions.

Through U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. contributes to international peace and stability where we have critical foreign policy interests, while sharing the human, political and financial costs with other nations. We should not shortchange these operations.

Mr. President, today I wish to publicly congratulate Ms. Madeleine Cooper Taylor on her recent appointment as a member of the city council of Memphis, TN. Last Tuesday, she was appointed unanimously by the council to serve the remaining term of council member TaJuan Stout Mitchell.

Ms. Taylor has worked as a program coordinator for the Memphis branch of the NAACP since 1991 and is a lifelong Memphian.

Now, I am not normally in the habit of coming to the Senate floor to congratulate a new city council member, especially one who is not from my home State of Delaware. But this is no normal circumstance. Madeleine Cooper Taylor is the mother of Reagan Taylor, an attorney and presidential management fellow whom I have been fortunate enough to have on my staff for the past 6 months.

During her rotation on my Judiciary Committee staff, Reagan has made an invaluable contribution to legal and drug policy for our country. Thanks to her efforts, we have succeeded in reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and our fight against the scourge of methamphetamine has been bolstered. And even though she is scheduled to rotate out of my office at the end of this month, as we speak she is hard at work improving security for our State and local courts and better utilizing DNA as a powerful tool in solving horrendous crimes.

While Reagan tirelessly works to make our communities safer through her efforts on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Councilwoman Taylor stated in one of her first public statements after her appointment that she is concerned about crime in her community. As the old saying goes, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

It has been my pleasure to have Reagan Taylor on my staff over these past months, and it is my distinct honor to congratulate Madeleine Cooper Taylor on her new public office. I wish them both the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and I do so again because it is my sincere belief that in order to better prevent attacks here at home, we must dramatically reorder the priorities of the Federal Government.

This legislation says in basic terms that we value the security of all Americans over the tax cuts for our Nation's millionaires. Right now, we under fund homeland security and public safety, and at the same time, we have established extremely large tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. This legislation will re-set our priorities by creating a homeland security trust fund that will set aside $53.3 billion dollars--less than one year of the tax cut for millionaires--for the exclusive purpose of investing in our homeland security. Through this trust fund we will allocate an additional $10 billion per year over the next 5 years to enhance the safety and security of our communities.

Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we are ill-equipped to respond to one. Hurricane Katrina showed us that little has been done to enhance our preparedness and the devastating consequences of our failure to act responsibly here in Washington. And, just over a year ago, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on the Administration's and Congresses' progress in implementing their recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's.

Last November, the American people voted for a change and their decision ushered in a new Democratic Congress. Under new leadership, we have made a decision to implement the 9/11 Recommendations. I have long argued that we need to take these prudent steps, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this is done, but under the proposals currently being circulated we do not put forward any dedicated funding to pay for these security upgrades.

I believe that the most important responsibility of our Federal Government is to provide for the safety and security of the American people. And, I also believe that we need to do this in a fiscally responsible way. Secretary Chertoff has argued that one strategy of Al Qaeda is to bankrupt us by forcing us to invest too much in our domestic security.

This is an outrageous claim. This is simply a matter of priorities.

This year the tax cut for Americans that make over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just one year of the Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million dollars is nearly $60 billion. In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that--approximately $34 billion--to fund the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department intended to help secure the entire Nation.

For a Nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we face, how can this be the right priority? The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007 would change this by taking less than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires and invest it in homeland security over the next 5 years.

By investing $10 billion per year over the next 5 years, we could implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We could hire 50,000 additional police officers and help local agencies create locally based counter-terrorism units. We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its traditional crime fighting functions. We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical infrastructure, fund efforts to implement 100 percent scanning of cargo containers, fund a grant program to ensure that our first responders can talk in the event of an emergency, and nearly double the funding for state homeland security grants. And, the list goes on.

To add to the concerns that we face with respect to homeland security, crime is unquestionably on the rise in the United States. The FBI reported earlier this past fall that violent crime and murders are on the rise after years of decreases. Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we should be.

We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer shortage in communities throughout the nation. Yet, we provide $0 funding for the COPS hiring program, and we've slashed funding for the Justice Assistance Grant.

We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have enough interoperable equipment and available spectrum. Yet, we have not forced the networks to turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local agencies purchase equipment every year.

We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are scanned, yet we do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems.

We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden soft targets.

I am hopeful that this will change under the new Democratic Congress, and this legislation will help ensure that we do all this in a fiscally responsible manner.

In addition, this legislation will also establish an independent agency whose sole purpose will be to make recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security with respect to distributing homeland security with respect to risk and vulnerabilities, to improve the grant making process to ensure that all spending is made towards the common goal of improving preparedness and response, and to eliminate any waste of our precious homeland security resources. This board will be comprised of experts at the Federal, State and local level, with law enforcement and first responder experience to ensure that all stakeholders' viewpoints are considered in the recommendation process.

I will conclude where I started. This is all about setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut to the richest Americans who don't need it, we should take some of it and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans. Our Nations most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice.

The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007 will ask them to sacrifice, and I am convinced that they will gladly help us out. And to those who say this won't work, I would remind them that the 1994 Crime Bill established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, specifically designated for public safety that put more than 100,000 cops on the street, funded prevention programs, and more prison beds to lock up violent offenders. It worked; violent crime went down every year for 8 years from the historic highs to the lowest levels in a generation.

Our Nation is at its best when we all pull together and sacrifice. The bottom line is that with this legislation, we make clear what our national priorities should be, we set out how we will pay for them, and we ensure those who are asked to sacrifice that money the government raises for security actually gets spent on security.

This legislation is about re-ordering our homeland security priorities. I will push for its prompt passage, and I hope to gain the support of my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and I do so again because it is my sincere belief that in order to better prevent attacks here at home, we must dramatically reorder the priorities of the Federal Government.

This legislation says in basic terms that we value the security of all Americans over the tax cuts for our Nation's millionaires. Right now, we under fund homeland security and public safety, and at the same time, we have established extremely large tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. This legislation will re-set our priorities by creating a homeland security trust fund that will set aside $53.3 billion dollars--less than one year of the tax cut for millionaires--for the exclusive purpose of investing in our homeland security. Through this trust fund we will allocate an additional $10 billion per year over the next 5 years to enhance the safety and security of our communities.

Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we are ill-equipped to respond to one. Hurricane Katrina showed us that little has been done to enhance our preparedness and the devastating consequences of our failure to act responsibly here in Washington. And, just over a year ago, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on the Administration's and Congresses' progress in implementing their recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's.

Last November, the American people voted for a change and their decision ushered in a new Democratic Congress. Under new leadership, we have made a decision to implement the 9/11 Recommendations. I have long argued that we need to take these prudent steps, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this is done, but under the proposals currently being circulated we do not put forward any dedicated funding to pay for these security upgrades.

I believe that the most important responsibility of our Federal Government is to provide for the safety and security of the American people. And, I also believe that we need to do this in a fiscally responsible way. Secretary Chertoff has argued that one strategy of Al Qaeda is to bankrupt us by forcing us to invest too much in our domestic security.

This is an outrageous claim. This is simply a matter of priorities.

This year the tax cut for Americans that make over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just one year of the Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million dollars is nearly $60 billion. In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that--approximately $34 billion--to fund the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department intended to help secure the entire Nation.

For a Nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we face, how can this be the right priority? The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007 would change this by taking less than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires and invest it in homeland security over the next 5 years.

By investing $10 billion per year over the next 5 years, we could implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We could hire 50,000 additional police officers and help local agencies create locally based counter-terrorism units. We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its traditional crime fighting functions. We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical infrastructure, fund efforts to implement 100 percent scanning of cargo containers, fund a grant program to ensure that our first responders can talk in the event of an emergency, and nearly double the funding for state homeland security grants. And, the list goes on.

To add to the concerns that we face with respect to homeland security, crime is unquestionably on the rise in the United States. The FBI reported earlier this past fall that violent crime and murders are on the rise after years of decreases. Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we should be.

We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer shortage in communities throughout the nation. Yet, we provide $0 funding for the COPS hiring program, and we've slashed funding for the Justice Assistance Grant.

We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have enough interoperable equipment and available spectrum. Yet, we have not forced the networks to turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local agencies purchase equipment every year.

We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are scanned, yet we do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems.

We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden soft targets.

I am hopeful that this will change under the new Democratic Congress, and this legislation will help ensure that we do all this in a fiscally responsible manner.

In addition, this legislation will also establish an independent agency whose sole purpose will be to make recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security with respect to distributing homeland security with respect to risk and vulnerabilities, to improve the grant making process to ensure that all spending is made towards the common goal of improving preparedness and response, and to eliminate any waste of our precious homeland security resources. This board will be comprised of experts at the Federal, State and local level, with law enforcement and first responder experience to ensure that all stakeholders' viewpoints are considered in the recommendation process.

I will conclude where I started. This is all about setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut to the richest Americans who don't need it, we should take some of it and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans. Our Nations most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice.

The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007 will ask them to sacrifice, and I am convinced that they will gladly help us out. And to those who say this won't work, I would remind them that the 1994 Crime Bill established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, specifically designated for public safety that put more than 100,000 cops on the street, funded prevention programs, and more prison beds to lock up violent offenders. It worked; violent crime went down every year for 8 years from the historic highs to the lowest levels in a generation.

Our Nation is at its best when we all pull together and sacrifice. The bottom line is that with this legislation, we make clear what our national priorities should be, we set out how we will pay for them, and we ensure those who are asked to sacrifice that money the government raises for security actually gets spent on security.

This legislation is about re-ordering our homeland security priorities. I will push for its prompt passage, and I hope to gain the support of my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. President, today, Senator Hagel, Senator Levin, and I are submitting a bipartisan resolution that opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.

This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence.

Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq.

That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Last week, when Secretary of State Rice presented the President's plan to escalate our troop presence in Iraq to the Foreign Relations Committee, the reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.

This resolution will give every Senator a chance to say where he or she stands on the President's plan.

I believe that when a President goes way off course on something as important as Iraq, the single most effective way to get him to change course is to demonstrate that his policy has waning or no support--from both parties.

The more we make Iraq a partisan issue, the more the President is likely to dig in. The more we show that Americans across the board don't want to go down the path of escalation, the better our chance to stop it.

Iraq is not a partisan issue. It's a challenge we must meet as Americans.

The very first sentence of our resolution says something the three of us believe profoundly: ``U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and the bipartisan support of Congress.''

This resolution will demonstrate that, right now, the support is not there for the President's policy in Iraq. The sooner he recognizes that reality and acts on it, the better off all of us will be.

President, the climate has changed. It has changed outside these walls: the year just concluded was the warmest on record in the United States. And the climate has changed in the halls of the Senate, where the causes and consequences of global warming--and how we should respond--will be a major concern of this new Congress.

Outside, the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has grown from 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 430 parts per million today. We are on a path that could double the pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases, threatening an increase of as much as 10 degrees in the next century.

The physical consequences of global warming are right before our eyes: the shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers, stronger storms driven by warmer ocean waters, changing growing seasons, animal migration, and rainfall patterns. Future consequences if we continue business as usual will include rising sea levels, the spread of diseases, abrupt climate shifts that could shut down the Atlantic cycle that warms Europe, or shrink the Amazon rainforest, which provides twenty percent of the oxygen we breathe.

These changes will profoundly alter the assumptions on which the economic, political, and security arrangements of our world have been constructed. Our national borders, our cities, our cultures, are all built around patterns of rainfall, arable land, and coastlines that will be redrawn as global warming proceeds. By one estimate, 200 million people, in the coastal cities of New York, Tokyo, Cairo, and London, in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, in the islands of the Pacific and Caribbean, could be permanently displaced by climate shifts.

Throughout human history, massive population shifts, frustrated expectations, and the collapse of economies, have all led to conflict. Even the richest nations, source of the emissions behind global warming, will face huge costs coping with those catastrophes. The poorest nations, whose economies have contributed little or nothing to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, will be hit the worst, and will have the fewest resources with which to respond. This is a recipe for global resource wars, and even greater resentment of our wealth by those less fortunate--a new world disorder.

Weare failing in our responsibility to steward the riches we have inherited. We are bequeathing our children not just a ruined landscape, but a world of conflict as well.

This is a classic tragedy of the commons. We have treated our atmosphere as a costless dump for the waste gases that are the byproduct of our great wealth. There was a time when we could plead ignorance. That day is past. The science is now clear. There was a time when we might have claimed the cost of changing our ways was too great. That day is past. We now know the costs of inaction are unacceptably high. There was a time when we could claim that our actions, in isolation, would be ineffective. That day is past. It is now clear that our inaction reduces the effectiveness of international efforts to address climate change, and provides an excuse for China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and the other leading emitters of the future to stay with us on the sidelines.

Today, I am joining with my friend Senator Dick Lugar to submit this resolution, to put the Senate on record in support of a return of the United States to a leadership role in the international search for solutions to the problem of global warming.

Our resolution calls for United States participation in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change--signed by the first President Bush--that will protect the economic and security interests of the

United States, and that will commit all nations--developed and developing--that are major emitters of greenhouse gases to achieve significant long-term reductions in those emissions. The resolution also calls for a bipartisan Senate observer group to monitor talks and ensure that our negotiators bring back agreements that all Americans can support.

With the glaring exception of the United States, the major industrial nations of the world are proceeding with their commitments, under the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions an average of seven percent below 1990 levels. The period from 2008 through 2012 will test their ability to meet those commitments, which were first negotiated in 1997. It is past time for us to begin the discussions that can lead to the next steps, beyond the Kyoto date of 2012. Those next steps must not only include the United States, the leading historical source of greenhouse gases. They must include those nations who will soon overtake us in that role, those who will be the leading emitters in 2012.

The Biden-Lugar Resolution states that the evidence of the human role in global warming is clear, that the environmental, economic, and security effects will be costly, and that the response must be international. The resolution recognizes that there are real economic benefits from both reducing the waste and inefficiencies inherent in greenhouse gas emissions, and from the markets for new, climate- friendly technologies. Most importantly it puts the Senate on record, calling for the United States to resume its role as leader in the international effort to address this global threat.

I personally believe that the single most important step we can take to resume a leadership role in international climate change efforts would be to make real progress toward a domestic emissions reduction regime. For too long we have abdicated the responsibility to reduce our own emissions, the largest single source of the problem we face today. We have the world's largest economy, with the highest per capita emissions. Rather than leading by example, we have retreated from international negotiations.

In this Congress we will see renewed efforts to pass legislation to create that regime, to reduce our domestic emissions, and to open our many responsible American businesses to both international emissions trading and the new markets for clean technologies in the developing world. Moving toward that goal will be crucial to the effectiveness and credibility of our international efforts.

We are all on this planet together. We cannot protect ourselves from the effects of climate change by acting alone--this is a global problem that will require a global solution. To undertake meaningful reductions, countries will need to know that their actions will not be undercut by ``free riders'' who continue business as usual while they commit to change. To build that trust will require commitments by all of the key players, and the institutions to coordinate the actions of independent nations.

With this resolution, Senator Lugar and I want to put the Senate on record in support of a new effort to build that trust, to make those commitments, to participate in a coordinated international effort to confront the real threat of climate change.

Mr. President, today I wish to briefly honor a friend of mine of many years who recently reached a milestone in her golf game that many of us strive a lifetime for without success. Ann F. Trzuskowski celebrated the Thanksgiving weekend by achieving something that neither her husband Fran nor I ever have: a hole in one. The lucky club was a 7 wood, striking the ball the perfect 93 yards into the eighth hole of Ford's Colony Williamsburg's Marsh Hawk Course. Golf is the sort of game that draws you in with promises of grace and then torments you with its difficulty. I congratulate my friend on defying the golf gods with a single shot.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend from Maine, Senator Collins, to submit a Resolution Marking January as National Stalking Awareness Month. I introduce today's measure because I want to renew our Nation's resolve to fight stalking and to promote public awareness about the newest stalking tool, technology.

Imagine that you are a young wife--estranged from your husband. A court has ordered him to stay away from you, but he shows up everywhere you go. You see him while driving on the road, in the parking lot at work, at a nearby table in restaurants, and at your friends' homes. Although you haven't spoken to him in months, he always knows exactly where you are.

Last year, the Seattle police received such a report from Sherri Peak, whose estranged husband seemed to know her every move. Detectives believed that Robert Peak was stalking his wife, and they brought Sherri's car into the city shop to scan for tracking devices. After several hours of futile searching, one officer popped off the dashboard cover and spotted a global positioning system (GPS) and a cell phone embedded in the car. Then police checked the victim's home computer and found spyware that allowed her husband to hack into her e-mail. Sherri Peak was indeed being stalked--via technology.

The Peak case illustrates a disturbing criminal trend and the dark side of technology. The devices we use to surf the Internet, e-mail one another, download music, and find our way in unfamiliar towns have also equipped stalkers with powerful tools. While ``conventional'' stalkers follow a victim from home to work or place countless phone calls to their homes, technology-empowered stalkers use GPS to track victims and computer programs to trace every Web site victims visit and every e- mail they send or receive. Stalkers can harass or threaten their victims (or urge others to do so) via e-mail or Web sites set up to harm the victim.

The potential impact of these tactics is staggering. National statistics show that 1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men will be stalked during their lifetime. The average duration of stalking is 2 years, and more often than not it is accompanied by physical violence. In one study, 3 of 4 women murdered by their intimate partners had been stalked by that partner before they were killed.

Although all 50 States and the Federal Government have stalking laws, many were drafted before the widespread use of e-mail, the Internet, chat rooms, Web sites, social networking sites, GPS, cell phones, and tiny hand-

held video and digital cameras. Last year Congress tightened the Federal stalking law to take into account these potential stalking tools and techniques. Although some States are following suit, I urge state legislators to continually assess the power of their stalking laws to prohibit and appropriately punish acts of stalking with current or even future technology.

January is National Stalking Awareness Month--the perfect opportunity for parents, lawmakers and community leaders to carefully review State and local laws on stalking and insist that laws keep pace with technology and protect our families. Valuable information on stalking can be found at the Stalking Resource Center (www.ncvc.org/src). We are indebted to the Center's expertise and leadership on this issue. For immediate and confidential assistance, I also urge people to contact the National Crime Victim Helpline at 1-800-FYI-CALL.

I often watch my grandchildren learn with ever more speed to deftly manipulate technology, everything from making digital movies, downloading music, to surfing the Internet. It is clearly a brave, new world. And one that each of us should embrace, learn and celebrate. But with new rights, always come new responsibilities. Through vigilance, both citizens and officials can combat stalking via technology. Just as parents and teens are starting to learn how to protect their privacy while on-line, we can all learn how to detect high-tech stalking and what to do if it occurs.

Before closing, I would like to thank Senator Collins for her commitment to this issue; it is always a pleasure to work with her.

S. Res. 24

Whereas an estimated 1,006,970 women and 370,990 men are

stalked annually in the United States and, in the majority of

such cases, the person is stalked by someone who is not a

stranger;

Whereas 81 percent of women who are stalked by an intimate

partner are also physically assaulted by that partner, and 76

percent of women who are killed by an intimate partner were

also stalked by that intimate partner;

Whereas 26 percent of stalking victims lose time from work

as a result of their victimization, and 7 percent never

return to work;

Whereas stalking victims are forced to take drastic

measures to protect themselves, such as relocating, changing

their addresses, changing their identities, changing jobs,

and obtaining protection orders;

Whereas stalking is a crime that cuts across race, culture,

gender, age, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability,

and economic status;

Whereas stalking is a crime under Federal law and under the

laws of all 50 States and the District of Columbia;

Whereas rapid advancements in technology have made cyber-

surveillance the new frontier in stalking;

Whereas there are national organizations, local victim

service organizations, prosecutors' offices, and police

departments that stand ready to assist stalking victims and

who are working diligently to craft competent, thorough, and

innovative responses to stalking; and

Whereas there is a need to enhance the criminal justice

system's response to stalking, including through aggressive

investigation and prosecution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the Senate designates January 2007 as ``National

Stalking Awareness Month'';

(2) it is the sense of the Senate that--

(A) National Stalking Awareness Month provides an

opportunity to educate the people of the United States about

stalking;

(B) the people of the United States should applaud the

efforts of the many victim service providers, such as police,

prosecutors, national and community organizations, and

private sector supporters, for their efforts in promoting

awareness about stalking; and

(C) policymakers, criminal justice officials, victim

service and human service agencies, nonprofit organizations,

and others should recognize the need to increase awareness of

stalking and availability of services for stalking victims;

and

(3) the Senate urges national and community organizations,

businesses, and the media to promote, through observation of

National Stalking Awareness Month, awareness of the crime of

stalking.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in enthusiastic support of Kent Jordan, a fellow Delawarean, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

If Kent is confirmed by the Senate, he will have completed a meteoric rise to a seat on the Federal court of appeals, and no one is more deserving.

But before I talk about Judge Jordan, allow me to say a few words about the Judge whom Judge Jordan is nominated to replace. This spring, Judge Jane Roth informed the President that she would be taking senior status. Judge Roth has been a stellar presence on the Federal bench; she has served her country with dignity, wisdom and distinction. She is dedicated to the rule of law, and her representation of our State on the court of appeals has brought nothing but distinction to Delaware.

Like many of you, I have known Judge Roth for several years, and I look forward to her continued brilliant service as a senior judge of the circuit.

As I told the Judiciary Committee at his hearing, Kent Jordan has very large shoes to fill, but I am confident that he is up to the task.

Judge Jordan began his legal career with a clerkship in the chambers of Judge Latchum, a pillar of the bar in Wimington. He went on to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney, working on some highly publicized cases and bringing some really bad characters to justice.

He then became a partner at one of Delaware's top law firms, Morris James Hitchens & Williams, before becoming general counsel to the 102- year-old Corporation Services Company and finally, 4 years ago, being confirmed by this Senate to serve on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Mr. Chairman, the past 4 years have demonstrated what those of us familiar with Judge Jordan already knew. He possesses the sterling academic and professional skills, as well as the vital judgment and temperament, to be an outstanding Federal district judge.

Lawyers who have appeared before Judge Jordan--even those he has ruled against--have described him as openminded and fair. His colleagues on the bench have come to value his intellect, integrity and his friendship.

If confirmed, Judge Kent will be an asset to the appellate bench and a model of responsible jurisprudence for years to come. I have full confidence that he will bring to the appellate bench all of the assets he has so clearly demonstrated in the district court.

I highly commend Judge Jordan to my colleagues and ask that they vote to confirm his nomination.