Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, Senator Coburn be given an opportunity to make his comments, and then immediately following him Senator DeMint be given his opportunity to speak here on the floor.

I thank the distinguished President of the Senate.

Mr. President, last week I shared some of my thoughts and concerns regarding section 803 of S. 4. I am referring to the section that was inserted into this important piece of legislation during the committee consideration; this section would permit TSA's Transportation security officers, our Nation's airport security screeners, to engage in collective bargaining--a change that was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

During those remarks, as a former union member, I argued that collective bargaining would adversely affect one of the greatest weapons that our Transportation security officers employ: the flexibility to change tactics quickly.

Why? Because we all know that one of the central aspects of any collective bargaining agreement is a determination of the conditions by which an employee works; when a person works, where he or she works, and how he or she works are all matters which are open to negotiation. Obviously, efficiency and productivity can be dramatically affected-- for better or worse--by a collective bargaining agreement.

In my last address on this issue, I also pointed out that flexibility has been one of the central tenets of our Nation's successful antiterrorism response, as was shown so well last August when the security services of the United Kingdom discovered a well-organized conspiracy that reportedly sought to blow up commercial aircraft in flight using liquid explosives disguised as items commonly found in carry-on luggage.

As that case showed only too well, quick and decisive action was required to protect our citizens and commerce from a very real threat. That action was taken by our Transportation security officers, who, within 6 hours of learning of the plot, made quick use of this highly classified information and trained and executed new security protocols designed to mitigate this threat.

What would have been the result if collective bargaining had been in effect? Very real questions and uncertainties can be raised about the impact that a TSA subject to collective bargaining could have had on the discovery of that plot. Should the Government have to bargain in advance over what actions it can or cannot take when dealing with an emergency situation? If so, how would we know what to bargain for? Would there be time to conduct this negotiation? I think not.

One of the TSA's great strengths in responding to the U.K. plot was the fact that a fundamental change in our tactics was accommodated in a short period of time. Would not the vital capability of a uniform response to emerging threats be drastically curtailed if Transportation security officers were permitted to join different unions at various airports? Think about that. There would be separate collective bargaining agreements at various locations which would force TSA to implement dissimilar procedures in order to meet the legal requirements of each agreement. That obviously will not work.

I can see the posters now: ``Defend America, but only during the hours and under the conditions that my union negotiated.''

What about the relationship that will be created between supervisors and Transportation security officers? Might not collective bargaining create an atmosphere of us-versus-them? During a war, is this the attitude that we wish to foster? Rather, should we not attempt every day to enhance all of our agency's capabilities by building a team mentality?

What about training?

What about training? One of TSA's great successes took place in 2005 when the agency, in fewer than 6 weeks, was able to train 18,000 transportation security officers in new methods to discover explosives.

What would have occurred if a collective bargaining agreement had been in place? Rules governing training are often found in collective bargaining agreements--rules that require further negotiation as to the need, method, and time of training. It is common to hear in other situations that these negotiations require 60 to 180 days before training is implemented. Would that be a change for the better? I think not.

As I mentioned before, during the U.K. plot transportation security officers were retrained in 6 hours, and in fewer than 6 weeks they received new explosive training. Are we to sacrifice this impressive capability for an ad hoc system that might work after 60 or 180 days of negotiation? I would think not. Now, that would be a true gift to al- Qaida.

Additionally, many collective bargaining agreements require that an employer only judge if a worker has learned a new technical skill on a ``pass or fail'' basis. Imagine that. Would you feel safe traveling in an aircraft knowing that all a security screener had to do was get 1 point above failing to be certified in a technical skill or would you feel safer under the current system that rewards technical skill, readiness for duty, and operational performance? I know which system gets my vote.

Then there is the question of the law. Can the Federal Government prevent employees, especially those with national security functions, from engaging in collective bargaining? The law and decisions reached by our Federal courts are clear. Under section 111(d) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security--which is the position now held by the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration-- has the discretion:

To employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the

compensation, terms and conditions of employment of the

Federal service for such a number of individuals as the Under

Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out screening

functions.

In 2003, the then-Under Secretary signed an order that stated:

In light of their critical national security

responsibilities, Transportation Security Officers shall not,

as a term or condition of their employment, be entitled to

engage in collective bargaining.

Unions, of course, challenged this law before the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Federal courts, charging that it violated the transportation security officers' constitutional rights and Federal law that allow workers to join unions.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority upheld the opinion that:

There is no basis under law to reach any result other than

to dismiss the union's petitions. Congress intended to treat

security screeners differently than other employees of the

agency.

On appeal to the Federal courts, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the district court that the Federal Labor Relations Authority was the correct venue for the union's complaint and that the union's constitutional claims should be dismissed.

As I have said on many occasions, I support collective bargaining, but I will not support collective bargaining under these conditions.

We are at war. The decisions we make will mean the difference between life and death. I will not risk the lives of Americans so that an important constituency of the other party--or both parties, for that matter--can receive a political reward.

I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this section and supporting the DeMint amendment that will remove it from that bill.

Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak next, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to voice my strong opposition to section 803 of S. 4 and urge my colleagues to join me in advocating its removal from this important piece of legislation.

What is section 803? This provision would permit TSA's transport security officers, our Nation's airport security screeners, to engage in collective bargaining, a change that was not among the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Let me repeat that: it was not among the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

At first, some may look at it and say: Why not? The professionals at TSA are Federal employees. As such, they cannot strike. They can already join a union, so why not permit collective bargaining?

As a former union member and one who believes in collective bargaining as a general rule, I can see why many believe that such a request is reasonable. Unfortunately, as much in life is, the devil is in the details.

The fact remains that we as a nation are at war. Through the hard work and dedication of our Armed Forces and civil servants such as those at TSA, our Nation has, so far, been spared further tragedies such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001. However, our past success must not lull us into a false sense of security. Those who wish to undermine and even destroy Western civilization have been beaten back but still remain a potent adversary. Al-Qaida is a sophisticated enemy which searches for our weaknesses and attempts to devise ways to exploit our vulnerabilities. The surest way to play into their hands is to act in a ``business as usual'' manner. In order to defeat this enemy, we must be nimble, we must constantly change our tactics and strategies, and we must be flexible and unpredictable.

That is why the American people demanded that we create the TSA. The people saw that our Nation required a professional Government agency whose primary purpose is to keep the traveling public safe, an agency that consists of experts who can identify terrorists and their plots before they board an aircraft or other mode of transport.

So what has this to do with the ability of TSA employees to engage in collective bargaining? If one looks at the details, it has everything to do with TSA's ability to keep several steps ahead of the terrorists. We all know one of the central aspects of any collective bargaining agreement is setting the conditions by which an employee works. When a person works, where they work, and how they work are matters which are open to negotiation. Obviously, efficiency and productivity, for better or worse, can be dramatically affected by a collective bargaining agreement.

So how would this affect TSA's operations? One must remember the events of this past summer. In August, the security services of the United Kingdom discovered a well-organized conspiracy that reportedly sought to blow up commercial aircraft in flight using liquid explosives disguised as items commonly found in carry-on luggage. Within 6 hours, due to their professionalism and the current flexibility of their work structure, TSA's Transportation Security Officers were able to make quick use of this highly classified information and train and execute new security protocols designed to mitigate this threat. In six hours that is impressive.

In contrast to this history of success and impressive performance, the possibility of collective bargaining only raises questions and uncertainties. For example, should the Government have to bargain in advance of what actions it can or cannot take when dealing with an emergency situation? If so, how would we know what to bargain for? Remember, before the events of September 11, what rational person would have thought of using a commercial aircraft as a suicide bomb? What other heinous act might occur that we have not contemplated? Remember, this is an enemy that uses surprise.

Other questions come to mind. If timely intelligence is gathered that requires an immediate change in TSA's operation, does the Government have to inform a private entity such as the union? Do we not wish to preserve the maximum level of flexibility not only to catch terrorists but to provide a secure situation where the business of the Nation can continue unmolested?

Another example of the flexibility of the current system can be found during this winter's snow storms in Denver. Local TSA officials were overwhelmed by the influx of stranded and newly arriving passengers. The agency responded by deploying 55 officers from

the mountain State region, including, I am proud to say, my own home State of Utah, so that security screening operations were able to continue around the clock until the situation was resolved. Under collective bargaining, redeployments such as this could be hindered by red-tape and cumbersome procedures, greatly reducing the ability of TSA to respond efficiently and effectively to these eventualities.

It also raises the question, under a collective bargaining agreement, whether redeployment decisions might be subject to seniority rules rather than sending individuals with the proper skills. Is deployment subject to binding arbitration? If so, what effect will that have during emergencies?

Bureaucratic hurdles preventing the TSA from operating efficiently and effectively during a time of war are not the only problems created by section 803. The provision also would create an unacceptable drain of resources away from the TSA's primary mission, which is protecting the traveling public. Resources would be diminished because of the cost to implement and execute a collective bargaining agreement.

TSA estimates if this section were enacted, it could cost, in the first year alone, $175 million. Why? The agency would be forced to train its employees on union issues and employ labor relations specialists, negotiators, and union stewards. One must also remember that these funds will have to come out of the Department of Homeland Security's budget, a budget which is consistently criticized as being too small by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

So what do the taxpayers lose for that $175 million? Such a reduction in funding is the same as a loss of 3,815 transportation security officers, or 11.5 percent of the total workforce. It also equates to closing 273 of the 2,054 active screening lanes, which would be 12 percent of the current lanes. In terms that most of the frequent flyers in this body would understand, the loss of capacity to screen 330,000 passengers every day. Imagine that line

This is not to say that TSA employees should bear an unfair burden. Far from it. TSA employees, and especially transportation security officers, should be afforded just compensation and the safest possible working conditions. Some who advocate collective bargaining say transportation security officers have not been given a raise in four years. That is not accurate. TSA's pay scheme is based upon technical competence, readiness for duty, and operational performance. Accordingly, in 2006, TSA paid out over $42 million in pay raises and bonuses based upon job performance.

If a transportation security officer has a complaint, a grievance, or does not believe he or she has been paid properly, these are addressed through the agency's Model Workplace Program, where employees and managers form councils to address those concerns.

This does not mean that employees' due process protections for the resolution of employment issues have been sacrificed. Transportation Security Officers can seek relief from the TSA's Ombudsman Office and Disciplinary Review Board or from outside Government agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Another misconception is that transportation security officers do not have whistleblower protections. As a result of a formal memorandum of understanding between TSA and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, all Transportation Security Officers now have this protection.

Others in favor of collective bargaining point to the Transportation Security Officers' attrition rate. Initially, this was a problem. However, the agency has addressed and is continuing to address this issue. I am pleased to report that the Transportation Security Officers' voluntary attrition rate of 16.5 percent is lower than comparable positions in the private sector, which are estimated at 26.4 percent.

Injury rates are decreasing.

The agency has worked hard to reduce lost time claims by 44 percent. Just in 2006, injury claims resulting in lost workdays have been reduced by 32 percent. This is not luck but part of a comprehensive strategy to look after the well-being and safety of transportation security officers. These safety initiatives include providing a nurse case manager at each airport, utilizing optimization and safety teams to create ergonomic work areas to reduce lifting and carrying heavy bags, and an automated injury claims filing process.

Another question some ask is, Since Customs and Border Protection Agents are permitted to engage in collective bargaining, why not Transportation Security Officers? However, when Congress created the TSA, the goal was to create a new organization that would meet the unique needs of our War on Terrorism--a modern organization that would have the maximum flexibility to protect the national security of the United States. This, of course, is the same charter as the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. These agencies do not permit collective bargaining for this and other reasons.

Should we hold the TSA to a different standard despite the fact that securing our transportation systems is one of the most vital roles our Government can play? Is TSA perfect? No, of course not. But look at what has been achieved. Five years ago, TSA did not exist, and now we can all take pride in the agency and more importantly in its personnel who have done such a remarkable job in keeping our Nation safe. They deserve our respect, our thanks, and they deserve fair compensation. But in doing so, we must not undermine one of their greatest weapons in this war--their flexibility to change tactics and strategies at a moment's notice. Such a course of action could have a calamitous effect on our Nation.

Mr. President, as I previously mentioned, in general, I am a supporter of collective bargaining. However, in these times, we must not change a policy that could inadvertently jeopardize the lives of Americans.

I urge my colleagues to remove this section from the bill.

I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska is here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the many heroes who have emerged out of a horrific tragedy that took place in my home State this week.

On Monday evening, February 12th, a lone gunman entered Trolley Square, a bustling shopping, dining, and entertainment plaza located in Salt Lake City. For the next several minutes he randomly shot and killed five people and wounded four others--leaving a path of destruction and a community in utter shock and grief.

Those who lost their lives that evening included: Teresa Ellis and her friend Brad Frantz; Kirsten Hinckley, a 15-year-old sophomore at Brighton High School; Vanessa Quinn who was meeting her husband at Trolley Square to shop for a long-awaited wedding ring; and Jeffery Walker, a Utah marketing director.

In the ensuing minutes, shoppers scrambled for cover and feared for their lives. Shop owners corralled customers

and helped them take refuge in closets, backrooms, and hidden cubby holes. Frantic 9-1-1 calls were placed by many and within minutes courageous police officers had contained the suspect.

As the story unfolded, one hero stood out in the chaotic terror. Off- duty Ogden police officer Kenneth Hammond was at Trolley Square having a pre-Valentines Day dinner with his pregnant wife, Sarita. As they were finishing their meal, the Hammonds heard popping noises and looked over the mall balcony to see bodies laying below.

Officer Hammond sent his wife back to call the police and lockdown the restaurant. Shouting his name to let customers know he was an off- duty police officer, and not a second gunman, he made his way to the bottom level. He engaged the shooter in a gun battle hoping to distract him from killing any other innocent people. Running out of ammunition, he was soon joined by a Salt Lake City officer and members of the SWAT team. Within about 9 minutes, the battle was over--the suspect lay dead along with five beloved members of our community.

We can only imagine the terror that the brave Hammonds felt. Mrs. Hammond, fearing for her husband's safety, bravely went to protect other shoppers and alert authorities. Officer Hammond, fearing he would not be recognized as a law enforcement official since he was off duty and in another jurisdiction, still selflessly reacted to save lives.

Without a moment's hesitation, Officer Hammond put the needs of our community first before any thought for his own safety or well-being.

There is no question his heroic acts saved countless other lives that could have been lost on that tragic evening.

Words cannot express the vital role his selfless service and courageous action played in ending the massacre.

Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank described Officer Hammond's quick action and courage this way: ``Going in and engaging a subject who was well armed and prepared to engage him, without having the benefits of a uniform, extra equipment or magazines for his firearms, is truly heroic.''

In addition to Officer Hammond, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the many, many other police officers from various law enforcement agencies who responded to the calls for help. Precisely and courageously these officers went about their duties evacuating the premises, getting immediate help for hurt victims, comforting the grief-stricken shoppers, and containing the crime scene. I want to commend the rapid response of law enforcement agencies who worked together on a crime scene of this magnitude. I am proud of all of the officers who rendered such important service.

It is hard to understand why something this horrific happens in life. But in this time of our deepest sorrow, it has been comforting to witness so many wonderful Utahns who have stepped up to lighten the burdens of those involved.

Neighbors in the vicinity of Trolley Square opened their homes to shell-shocked shoppers that night as a refuge to wait for further instructions. Total strangers hugged and comforted those leaving the mall who desperately needed a strong shoulder to lean on, and grief counseling services are being made available to those impacted by this tragedy. As neighbors and fellow Utahns, we are united in our grief and desire to comfort those suffering.

My home State has suffered a tragedy of incomprehensible magnitude. The actions of one determined to kill will have an impact on many of our wonderful citizens for years to come. As difficult as this has been and will continue to be, the examples of selfless service and heroic acts will never be forgotten.

I have been deeply touched by so many who truly made a difference in the aftermath of this tragedy. Elaine and I pray that our Heavenly Father's peace will comfort the family members and friends of the victims, as well as all who have been forever touched by this tragedy.

I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague Senator Christopher Dodd, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007.

Every State and U.S. territory routinely screens newborns for certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and functional disorders. Most of these birth defects have no immediate visible effects on a baby but, unless detected and treated early, can cause physical problems, mental retardation and, in some cases, death.

Babies who have these diseases and babies who do not have these diseases look the same at birth. Fortunately, most babies are given a clean bill of health when tested. In cases where babies are found to have metabolic disorders or hearing impairment, early diagnosis and proper treatment can make the difference between healthy development and lifelong impairment.

Except for hearing screening, all newborn screening tests are done using a few drops of blood from the newborn's heel. Newborn screening checks for diseases that can cause problems with the way the body gets energy, how the body makes hormones, or how the body makes blood cells.

Currently each state or region operates by law its own newborn screening program. Individual programs vary widely in the number and types of conditions for which they test. According to the National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resources Center, some States test for as few as four disorders, while others test for 30 or more.

Disparities among States in screening tests given at birth result in too many babies with serious birth defects not being diagnosed and treated in time to avoid death or long term disability. Many States offer only limited educational materials for parents and health care providers about the availability of newborn screening tests; therefore parents are often unaware of the importance of testing and may learn too late that their newborn has an abnormal metabolic condition which could have been treated.

In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics completed a report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services which recommended that every baby born in the United States be screened for 29 disorders, including certain metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. Currently, only 11 States and the District of Columbia require the recommended screening for all 29 disorders.

Last year there was much success in improving newborn screening in my home State of Utah, which increased testing from 4 to 36 disorders. The expansion of newborn screening is a major advancement for children's healthcare in Utah, as the screening should identify an additional 15 to 20 Utah infants every year in time to help them get the treatment they need to live a fuller and healthier life.

Enactment of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act would provide necessary resource materials to educate parents and health providers about newborn screening and help states expand and improve their newborn screening programs. Other important provisions of this legislation help ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening and call for establishing a system for collecting and analyzing data from newborn screening programs.

The bill will establish grant programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn screening and coordinated follow-up care once newborn screening has been conducted. It will help States expand and improve their newborn screening programs, educate parents and providers and improve follow-up care for infants. The bill also contains provisions for a contingency plan for newborn screening in the case of a national public health emergency, such as that which was witnessed in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 is endorsed by the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Easter Seals, and the American Public Health Labs. These groups recognize that expanded newborn screening will help pediatricians and other healthcare providers identify rare disorders than can be easily confused with common pediatric problems. Diagnosing and treating these conditions will help prevent irreversible brain damage, permanent disabilities, and possibly death. I urge my colleagues to take a stand for newborn health and support this bill.

I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague Senator Christopher Dodd, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007.

Every State and U.S. territory routinely screens newborns for certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and functional disorders. Most of these birth defects have no immediate visible effects on a baby but, unless detected and treated early, can cause physical problems, mental retardation and, in some cases, death.

Babies who have these diseases and babies who do not have these diseases look the same at birth. Fortunately, most babies are given a clean bill of health when tested. In cases where babies are found to have metabolic disorders or hearing impairment, early diagnosis and proper treatment can make the difference between healthy development and lifelong impairment.

Except for hearing screening, all newborn screening tests are done using a few drops of blood from the newborn's heel. Newborn screening checks for diseases that can cause problems with the way the body gets energy, how the body makes hormones, or how the body makes blood cells.

Currently each state or region operates by law its own newborn screening program. Individual programs vary widely in the number and types of conditions for which they test. According to the National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resources Center, some States test for as few as four disorders, while others test for 30 or more.

Disparities among States in screening tests given at birth result in too many babies with serious birth defects not being diagnosed and treated in time to avoid death or long term disability. Many States offer only limited educational materials for parents and health care providers about the availability of newborn screening tests; therefore parents are often unaware of the importance of testing and may learn too late that their newborn has an abnormal metabolic condition which could have been treated.

In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics completed a report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services which recommended that every baby born in the United States be screened for 29 disorders, including certain metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. Currently, only 11 States and the District of Columbia require the recommended screening for all 29 disorders.

Last year there was much success in improving newborn screening in my home State of Utah, which increased testing from 4 to 36 disorders. The expansion of newborn screening is a major advancement for children's healthcare in Utah, as the screening should identify an additional 15 to 20 Utah infants every year in time to help them get the treatment they need to live a fuller and healthier life.

Enactment of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act would provide necessary resource materials to educate parents and health providers about newborn screening and help states expand and improve their newborn screening programs. Other important provisions of this legislation help ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening and call for establishing a system for collecting and analyzing data from newborn screening programs.

The bill will establish grant programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn screening and coordinated follow-up care once newborn screening has been conducted. It will help States expand and improve their newborn screening programs, educate parents and providers and improve follow-up care for infants. The bill also contains provisions for a contingency plan for newborn screening in the case of a national public health emergency, such as that which was witnessed in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 is endorsed by the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Easter Seals, and the American Public Health Labs. These groups recognize that expanded newborn screening will help pediatricians and other healthcare providers identify rare disorders than can be easily confused with common pediatric problems. Diagnosing and treating these conditions will help prevent irreversible brain damage, permanent disabilities, and possibly death. I urge my colleagues to take a stand for newborn health and support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today along with my colleagues, Senators Harry Reid, John Warner, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, and Bernie Sanders, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007.

The American Cancer Society estimates that a woman in the United States has a one in eight chance of developing invasive breast cancer during her lifetime. This risk was about 1 in 11 in 1975. All women are at risk for breast cancer. About 90 percent of women who develop breast cancer do not have a family history of the disease. The most recent available statistics show that 40 percent of all women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer died from the disease within 20 years. These are frightening statistics.

Furthermore, the disease is not limited by gender--in 2007, approximately 1,750 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men in the United States. In my home State of Utah, as indicated by the Utah Cancer Registry, breast cancer has the highest incidence rate of the ten leading cancer types. This disease has an impact on nearly every American's life.

Breast cancer death rates have been dropping steadily since 1991; however, challenges still remain. The bottom line is that we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Although scientists have discovered some risk factors for breast cancer, the known risk factors account for only a small percentage about 30 percent--of breast cancer cases. There are no proven interventions to prevent breast cancer and there is no cure.

There is general belief within the scientific community that the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role has been less-examined. Research has investigated the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields; but, in most cases, there has been no conclusive evidence. Some scientists hypothesize that certain subgroups of women have genetic variants that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures.

In addition, a large study of twins demonstrated that the majority of breast cancers cannot be explained by inherited factors. The incidence of breast cancer in Western industrialized countries, such as the United States, is much higher than the incidence in Africa and Asia. When women migrate from a country with low incidence to a country with high incidence, their daughters experience the breast cancer risk of the new country's population. The discrepancy in incidence among various countries suggests that some of the differences in incidence may be explained by environmental exposures.

In-depth study of these potential risks could provide invaluable information in understanding the causes of breast cancer, and could lead to new prevention strategies. Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer.

My colleagues and I are introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007 to address this palpable need for research. It creates a national strategy to conduct research into the possible links between breast cancer and the environment. The time to address these frightening statistics is now.

Specifically, the bill authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting research on environmental factors that may be related to breast cancer. These centers will work across institutions, across disciplines, and with community organizations to study environmental factors that may cause breast cancer.

This legislation is modeled after the highly successful and promising Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP), which operates under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that involves consumers.

Isolated studies have been conducted to look at suspected environmental links to breast cancer; but these studies are only a small step toward the broad strategic research that is required. What is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, nationally-focused strategy to address this oversight a strategy like the one outlined in this bill.

It is important to note that while we have made progress in the fight against breast cancer, we are still a long way from prevention or a cure--breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Studies have shown that environmental factors that cause breast cancer may exist, but conclusive evidence is scarce. This bill will go a long way in helping the scientific community explore environmental triggers of breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act had strong bipartisan support in the 109th Congress, with 66 Senate cosponsors. In the House of Representatives, 262 Members supported the legislation.

I urge my colleagues to think of breast cancer patients and their loved ones, and support this important bill. This Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term investments required to discover the environmental causes of breast cancer so that we can better prevent it, treat it more effectively, and, ultimately, cure it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act which would update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails and allow possible additions to them. The trails in question are the Oregon, the Mormon, the Pony Express, and the California National Historic Trails.

In 1978, the Oregon and Mormon trails were established by the National Trails System Act which defined these trails as ``point A to point B,'' limiting them to one beginning point and one final destination. At that time, The Mormon Pioneer National Historic trail was defined as the route Brigham Young took in 1846 through Iowa and then to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. The Oregon Trail was defined narrowly as the route taken by settlers from Independence, MO, to Oregon City from 1841 to 1848. It was limited to a single trail with only three variants as well. Unfortunately, we have come to realize that this rigid definition precludes designation of some very important historical sites.

Congress passed an amendment for the establishment of the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails in 1992. This amendment broadened the statute to include the possibility of trail variants for the California Trail and provided a more accurate depiction of the original trail. The legislation I am introducing today will provide additional authority for variation to these four trails to provide a more accurate depiction of history.

To those of us in the West, these trails are the highways of our history. With this legislation, I hope to capture the important stories made along the variations of these main trails. Since the enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1978, there has been a great deal of support to broaden the Act to include these side roads of the trails.

Not every pioneer embarked on their journey from Omaha, NE, or Independence, MO and not every great or tragic event took place along the main routes. Tens of thousands of settlers began from other starting points. These trail variations and alternate routes show the ingenuity and adaptability of the pioneers as they were forced to contend with inclement weather, lack of water, difficult terrain, and hostile Native American tribes.

The Act requires comprehensive management for the historic trails. In 1981, such plans were completed for the Mormon and Oregon trails. Since that time, however, endless hours of research by the Park Service and trails organizations have produced a more complete picture of the westward expansion. The National Park Service has determined, however, that legislation is required to update the trails with this newfound history.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would authorize the study of further important additions to the California, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express National Historic Trails and allow for a more complete story to be told of our history of the West.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Utah Public Land Conveyance Act of 2007, S. 532. This legislation is designed to improve the management of public lands and open space for the benefit of the citizens of Park City, UT.

Park City has an existing lease on an 88-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management land known as Gambel Oak and on a 20-acre parcel of BLM land known as White Acre. The leases for these properties have been for recreational and public open space purposes. This legislation would convey

these two parcels to Park City, so that they can be better managed for recreation and open space. The BLM has limited resources and is not able to manage these lands for the full benefit of the public.

It's important to note that although these parcels of lands would be conveyed to Park City, they would continue to be protected from development and could be used only for recreational and public open space purposes. Moreover, this bill would require Park City to pay fair market value for the land.

I believe having public lands interspersed with private lands within a city's boundary creates unnecessary management headaches, and the land conveyance to Park City will help bring cohesion to Park City's overall effort to manage their city's growth for the benefit of its citizens.

Along those lines, the legislation also would allow two small parcels of BLM land in Park City to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, thus allowing these lands to be brought under the city's zoning scheme. Proceeds of these sales would go to the Department of the Interior to pay for the costs of administering this legislation. The remaining proceeds would be given to the BLM and dedicated toward restoration projects on BLM lands in Utah.

As you can see, this legislation goes a long way to simplify and consolidate the management of lands in Park City, UT. The legislation allows the BLM to focus to a greater extent on the public lands which lay outside of city limits while raising revenue to facilitate that effort.

I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Rob Bishop who has worked hard to put this legislation together and has introduced a companion bill in the House, H.R. 838. I look forward to working with him to get this legislation passed for the good people of Park City.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Utah Public Land Conveyance Act of 2007, S. 532. This legislation is designed to improve the management of public lands and open space for the benefit of the citizens of Park City, UT.

Park City has an existing lease on an 88-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management land known as Gambel Oak and on a 20-acre parcel of BLM land known as White Acre. The leases for these properties have been for recreational and public open space purposes. This legislation would convey

these two parcels to Park City, so that they can be better managed for recreation and open space. The BLM has limited resources and is not able to manage these lands for the full benefit of the public.

It's important to note that although these parcels of lands would be conveyed to Park City, they would continue to be protected from development and could be used only for recreational and public open space purposes. Moreover, this bill would require Park City to pay fair market value for the land.

I believe having public lands interspersed with private lands within a city's boundary creates unnecessary management headaches, and the land conveyance to Park City will help bring cohesion to Park City's overall effort to manage their city's growth for the benefit of its citizens.

Along those lines, the legislation also would allow two small parcels of BLM land in Park City to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, thus allowing these lands to be brought under the city's zoning scheme. Proceeds of these sales would go to the Department of the Interior to pay for the costs of administering this legislation. The remaining proceeds would be given to the BLM and dedicated toward restoration projects on BLM lands in Utah.

As you can see, this legislation goes a long way to simplify and consolidate the management of lands in Park City, UT. The legislation allows the BLM to focus to a greater extent on the public lands which lay outside of city limits while raising revenue to facilitate that effort.

I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Rob Bishop who has worked hard to put this legislation together and has introduced a companion bill in the House, H.R. 838. I look forward to working with him to get this legislation passed for the good people of Park City.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in the debate over whether we should be supporting or withdrawing our support from the President's plan to surge over 20,000 more troops into Iraq, I am acutely aware of one overriding irony. Those who are seeking to begin the withdrawal from Iraq are committing the same conceptual error that many of the same critics have accused the administration of committing when they made their flawed plans for the invasion of Iraq. They are not thinking about what will happen on the day after we begin our withdrawal.

Let me say that the situation in which we find ourselves today in Iraq is certainly in part due to the administration's failure to anticipate many variables in the Iraqi theater, in the region, and in Iraqi society. Those who prepared only for the military defeat of Saddam's forces committed such a profound error that it will be a lesson learned in the history books long after we are gone.

We did not prepare for the vehemence with which certain elements of the displaced Sunni elite would fight to retain their status quo.

We did not anticipate how fractured and weak the oppressed Shia society of Iraq would be once the dictator was deposed, and we did not appreciate how unprepared the Shia would be to present true leadership.

And we did not anticipate, because we apparently did not plan for this, that a political and leadership vacuum created by the fall of Saddam would invite the influence of Iran, whose interests in Iraq are anything but charitable.

The mistakes that we have read so much about--the failure to secure massive ammunition dumps, the peremptory disbanding of the Iraqi army, the sweeping de-Baathification policies that alienated many Sunnis not directly responsible for the Saddam's tyranny--all of these mistakes derive from our failure to think about what would happen in Iraq the day after Saddam fell. It was a much more profound mistake than not sending enough troops; we simply did not imagine that we would be facing problems that would require more troops.

Thinking of what was the most fundamental criticisms of our failures to anticipate the terror of September 11, I am reminded of the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that we did not have the imagination to prepare for that attack.

In Iraq, where our imagination failed again, a thorough understanding of Iraqi history and society should have helped.

I am not talking about rehashing the history of imperialists, who would argue to justify their creation of the unnatural state of Iraq, or who would argue about the superiority of one sect over the other.

I am not talking about the history as told by anthropologists, who argue about ancient fights and long-simmering disputes.

A thorough study and understanding of Iraq would have required us-- and the top policymakers of this administration--to understand the complexity of Iraqi society as it was in 2003. And if we had done so, we would have had the imagination to prepare for the many contingencies that quite naturally developed when we so boldly sought to change the status quo.

We know that we had next to no intelligence on Iraq--and if you have read the latest NIE on Iraq put out last Friday, you will be dismayed, as I am, to read that we have very little more intelligence today.

But how about open source knowledge on which we could have made more careful assessments of what to expect the day after the tyrant toppled?

It was a tragic mistake to underestimate the role of criminality underpinning Saddam's regime in its last decrepit days, a criminality that was unleashed immediately after we invaded and which has added great complexity to the conflict among the many armed groups in Iraq today.

But we should not have underestimated the reluctance with which the Sunnis would accept their new de-classed position in Iraq.

We should not have overestimated the ability of the Shia, with no political experience, to assume political power. Had we properly assumed the difficulties that we would have faced, we should have been prepared for a period of instability, during which the neighbor to the east, Iran, would not sit idle.

I say this because I cannot support the administration today without honestly assessing what happened in the preparation and implementation of this war over 4 years ago.

And now, 4 years later, the Senate has determined to take up an increasingly partisan debate over what to do to prevent losing the Iraq war.

And we are now debating a variety of what I hope will be non-binding resolutions in response to the President's announcement to surge 21,500 troops into the Iraq conflict.

This is an extremely somber moment in the history of this nation. We find ourselves in the midst of a war that it appears some still do not fully understand. It is a war whose dynamics and politics are completely in flux, and with the consequences of both our actions in the field--as well as in our politics right here--being profound for the Iraqi people, the Middle East region and our national security.

Make no mistake: What we do communicate is America's political will, and our political will is directly related to the morale of our troops. Those who seek to, for rhetorical purposes only, assert their support of the troops while communicating their opposition to their mission cannot sever this natural connection between political will and morale.

While it is always good for the Senate to debate great matters of war and peace--and, indeed, there are no more important matters--the imbalance between partisan rhetoric and substantive direction on this question has been, to my mind, unsettling. A perilous state of war in Iraq is not improved by the partisan level of debate here.

I have watched the course of this conflict with increasing concern and dismay.

As I said, I have been profoundly disappointed in realizing the errors we have made in implementing this war.

I have been greatly dismayed in the failure of the Iraqi people to resist the descent into sectarian violence, and their failure to demand leadership from their elected leaders.

I have been horrified by the level of barbarism. I have not been surprised, I must say, by the Sunni jihadists, whose barbarism should be well known by now, but by Shia militias, who, operating under a government dominated by the Iraqi Shia for the first time in modern Iraq's history, seem to operate without restraint or morality by their authorities in their nihilistic persecution of their real and perceived enemies. I can understand the sense of revenge one must feel when one has been

released from decades of oppression; I can understand the anger and despair one feels when one's family is targeted for murder; I can appreciate the rage when one's shrines and mosques are bombed. I will never understand a revenge that takes as its victims other innocents and noncombatants.

The American people have been shocked by this level of brutality as well--but we shouldn't call it mindless, because in the diabolic minds of the Sunni al-Qaida and ex-Baathist perpetrators, it has a reason: to push Iraq into chaos. In the minds of the bloody Shia militia leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr, there is also a rationale: Their militias complete the cyclical logic of barbarism.

In this cycle is perpetuated a nihilistic violence that will so destabilize Iraq that the Sunni jihadists will be able to create a safehaven where they will expand their reach and refocus on their long- term goals. They are succeeding, and if they succeed they will focus on us.

In this cycle is perpetuated a nihilistic violence that will so destabilize Iraq that the Shia will be left so victimized and subject to militia rule that Iran will further assert its influence to undermine this fledgling nation. If post-Saddam Iraq succeeds, its success would provide the Shia world with an alternate model to the corrupt and failing regime in Tehran. If it fails, Tehran will have a field in which to meddle for years.

The Iraqi Shia, so traumatized by years of oppression under Saddam, and traumatized--let us be perfectly honest about this--by America misleading them and neglecting them in their hour of need immediately after the first gulf war--have failed to stand up and present political figures who can assert leadership instead of political impotence.

Iran is not a passive player here, no.

It is not in Iran's interest for the Iraqi Shia to build a strong, independent, Shia Arab state.

It is not in Iran's interest to have the seminaries of Najaf and Karbala returned to their central position in the world of Shia scholarship, possibly eclipsing Qum. To have this occur would lessen the legitimacy Iran desperately needs as ideological cover for Persian supremacy. The Iraqi Shia, Arabs who were the rank-and-file cannon fodder in the 8-year war against Iran, are now left open to Iran's meddling by their own weak government.

The Sunnis, Iraqi and others throughout the region, are quick to tell us we have fallen into a preexisting and ancient conflict between the Arabs and the Persians, and the Iraqi Shia and their seemingly hapless leaders are caught in between. And that is where we find ourselves today.

Now the Senate is to respond to the policy advanced by the President before the Nation on January 10.

We are to express approval or disapproval to the President's initiative in the middle of a war like this Nation has never faced. At a moment when the situation in Iraq is critical and the outcome is uncertain, some believe our excercise here will provide valuable clarity.

As I have said, it is fitting that the Senate debate this war.

From the day we passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein the fall of 2002, it has been fitting to debate this war, and we have, through many floor speeches and amendments to authorizing or appropriating legislation. Whether it is fitting that we respond to the President's latest change in military strategy with these resolutions is another matter.

I have paid a great deal of attention to the hearings held before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. I thank and commend the chairmen and ranking minority members of both committees for the many opportunities for substantive review they have sought to present to us and to the American public.

Dozens of substantive testimonies have been submitted, and the questioning has been, in many cases, direct and detailed.

As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have also had the opportunity to listen to the opinions of the leaders of the intelligence community, and I have read the reports coming from Iraq including, most recently, the National Intelligence Estimate released last Friday.

The public needs to be reminded: There are no silver bullets, no glowing assessments, no confident predictions.

Surrounding this debate, there is a level of political taunting amongst ourselves that I find troubling.

From the majority leader, I hear public pronouncements of 21 Republican seats to be defended in 2008--and I find it disturbing that anyone would question that a Senator of any party would hinge his or her voice on such momentous policy problems for the purpose of personal political survival.

Does anyone doubt that the November election in 2008 is a world away from the carnage of Iraq today?

Can anyone predict with certainty what the situation will be in Iraq almost 2 years from now?

I do not like the rhetoric of ``cut and run'' any more than I like the rhetoric accusing members of my party for ``heading for the tall grass.''

Lives are in balance and we should not be throwing around glib rhetoric.

In that sense, the exclamation of a member of my party 2 weeks ago that we should all be accountable on these resolutions or go be shoe salesmen has a certain urgency, although I do not condescend to the working man, a good many of whom are fighting in this war as we speak.

Nor do I believe that if I go and buy a pair of shoes from a good shoe salesman today that those shoes will not last longer and give better value than some of the resolutions being bandied about today, to be forgotten months from now when the war will bring to us either the reality of some progress toward stability, more stalemate in strife or even greater chaos.

One should predict the future with caution and humility. But, I can make one prediction here, particularly to those on the other side of the aisle: Iraq will be a central issue before this Congress, and before the next administration, in 2009.

We cannot make it go away before then. There is no way that a withdrawal begun now will leave a new administration free from the policy problems presented by Iraq.

So we should liberate ourselves right now from seeking partisan advantage, because as much as some may wish to walk away from Iraq, its relevance to our security and standing is not going to diminish. Not for a long time.

I will support the President's plan for this surge, and I will support any resolution that articulates such support, provided I can agree with all of its language. In doing so, I am acutely aware that the situation we are addressing is at least in some part a function of policy failures committed by this administration.

Admitting this, I have to say that I am unaware, through my reading of American military and diplomatic history, of any conflict in the midst of which our leaders saw clearly the end. Rarely have outcomes been perceivable through the shifting tactics and circumstances that war presented in the moment of greatest chaos.

Many times, in hot wars and cold wars, we have reassessed and changed policy.

Retroactive analysis and accountability are important--sometimes it is critical to understand minor and major mistakes in order to correct flawed policy--but the challenge is to seek the policy amongst the realistic options that will best deliver us to our goals for the future, not to sink in self-satisfying denunciations of the past.

I have read each of these resolutions carefully. I oppose the original Biden amendment, because I fundamentally disagree with it.

Its first resolution clause states:

It is not in the national interest of the U.S. to deepen

its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating

the United States military force presence in Iraq.

I deeply disagree.

Not only does this set up a potential constitutional conflict between the executive and legislature as to who runs foreign policy in a war, its intent is to inhibit the President from trying to improve the situation in Iraq at a perilous time. Further, to maintain the status quo in Iraq, as this clause implies, is to guarantee greater chaos in Iraq.

If the opponents of the President want to force a withdrawal, shouldn't they say so directly?

The second clause of the original Biden resolution stated:

The primary objective of U.S. strategy in Iraq should be to

have the Iraqi political leaders make the political

compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq.

When I read this, I have to ask, where have the authors of this language been? That was our strategy, which we tried mightily, from 2004 until last year: to let politics lead the way to security. But the forces of insurgency and chaos overwhelmed the fledgling political process and now we clearly realize we have to implement and achieve security before we can regain political process.

Am I the only one here who finds it ironic that critics of the administration who support this resolution appear to be advocating a policy that has failed?

The next clause reads:

Greater concerted regional and international support would

assist the Iraqis in achieving a political and national

reconciliation.

This is not a policy option, but a dreamer's delusion. It is true, in the abstract, that international support would be greatly beneficial to the Iraqis. But if you look at the region, this dream of international cooperation is not based on reality. Aspirations should not substitute for harsh reality.

Then the resolution states:

Main elements of the mission of the U.S. forces in Iraq

should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity

of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional

interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, and accelerate

training of Iraqi troops.

But, we are conducting counterterrorist activities, and the fight in al-Anbar for which the President has requested a small number of this surge is exactly for that. But this resolution disapproves of that, if you are to re-read the first clause. We are accelerating training, but we have learned that, if you are going to do it right, you can't speed it up beyond a certain point.

To paraphrase my colleague, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, who has said of rushed intelligence assessments:

If you want it bad, you're going to get it . . . bad.

If we rush the training, as we have seen, we're going to get ineffective results. If our training of the Iraqi security forces is to be effective and successful, we need to take the time to do it right.

I am all for reducing regional interference, but to do so might mean exercising power and influence, and critics of this President have a conniption if you suggest anything other than a diplomatic tea party with Syria or Iran.

And I do not consider it wise to commit to the territorial integrity of Iraq. We should be agnostic about this question, and recent history should keep us humble against knee-jerk commitments to territorial lines drawn by imperial powers. A previous Bush administration fumbled on the wrong side of history in the last days of the Cold War when it argued against ``suicidal nationalism'' at a time when the Soviet Union was dissolving. A failure to recognize that Yugoslavia was a false state led the U.S. to delay for years an involvement that could have saved hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

If a soft partition could be achieved without bloodshed, I would support that in Iraq, although no one has figured out how to do that, yet, and it remains unclear whether Iraqis themselves, particularly urbanized Iraqis, desire this or could survive a bloody partition.

But I repeat: If I could imagine a nonviolent partition implemented by an international organization that would have the support of the Iraqi people, I would rather find the billions to do that than the billions to fight a war. In the case of finding financial resources for soft partition, I would expect we would have a somewhat better response from the international community than we are having now.

The next resolution clause states:

The U.S. should transfer, under an appropriately expedited

timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting

sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and

Iraqi security forces.

But just because we want to shed ourselves of this war does not mean we can immediately stand up Iraqi security forces. We have been trying to do that, and it is taking time. This clause is, in effect, purely aspirational. It makes us feel good, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground.

The final clause states:

The U.S. should engage nations in the Middle East to

develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and

reconciliation process for Iraq.

Mr. President, who are the players in the Middle East who are both: (a) sympathetic to the Iraqi cause, and (b) strong enough to be effective?

No country meets both of these simple conditions.

They aren't there. It is too typical of the critics of this administration to substitute the process of diplomacy for the substance of hard policy choices.

Now, I do not oppose diplomacy. It is a legitimate tool in the tool kit. But diplomacy must always be part of a broader policy. Before I would support this administration's diplomatic initiative toward Iran, I would want to see a comprehensive Iran policy. However late in the day, the administration appears to to be forming such a policy, and it appears to include elements of confrontation and competition, as well as a clearly stated solicitation for more constructive relations, as any sound and sophisticated policy should.

If we are to sit down with Iran while Iran is continuing with a program for nuclear development, continues to be the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, continues to undermine the stability in Lebanon, and is working against the coalition's forces in Iraq, I would want those Iranian diplomats that we are sipping tea with to know that we are competing and challenging them on all of those fronts. It would be foolish to talk to Iran simply hoping we could convince the Iranians to see the world our way.

The nations of the region with whom we are close do support the peace and reconciliation in Iraq. And those nations want us to remain in Iraq until the situation is stabilized. Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia--none of those governments want us to leave Iraq the way it is now. But Syria and Iran and al-Qaida, too--they want us to leave, and leave behind chaos they can exploit.

My colleague and good friend, Senator Warner, has made an effort to write a resolution that smoothed away some of the aspects of the original Biden legislation which I find I cannot support.

In particular, the senior Senator from Virginia recognizes, in the first clause, the President's foreign policy prerogative, while somewhat ambiguously also stating that the resolution's intent is not ``to question or contravene'' the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I say ``ambiguously,'' because Senator Warner's first resolution clause is remarkably similar to Senator Biden's:

The Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces

and urges the President to consider all options and

alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth

below.

It seems to me, however, that adding troops to meet the goals the President has set--achieving a zone of security in Baghdad from which the Iraqi political leadership can assert its leadership and implement essential policies--is a major option that the Warner resolution precludes.

Further, Senator Warner's resolution strongly supports our efforts against Sunni jihadists, including al-Qaida, in Anbar Province, as I do.

Senator Warner and the cosponsors of his resolution, however, do not want to see us in between the various sects fighting in Baghdad.

I have to ask: If we are to encourage the anti-al-Qaida Sunni elements in Anbar to join us in a fight to eradicate al-Qaida, what credibility do we have to do so if we are standing by while Sunni jihadists target Shia in Baghdad, and Shia militias slaughter Sunnis in response?

Part of how we got here is by not imagining the way the perpetrators of sectarian strife calculate. We can't continue to fail to understand this dynamic, nor to believe that we can ignore it.

I will support the President's surge strategy because I believe there is a reasonable chance--reasonable, not guaranteed--that a strong military presence that has open rules of engagement to attack insurgents, militias and other criminal elements may create a zone of calm and security for Baghdad. This goal is to create the

space for political leaders to make effective decisions on oil resources, federalism, economic development and other critical issues to entice the majority of the Iraqis into believing there is an alternative to civil war.

Such a period of calm, if achieved, is essential not only for the political system to assert itself, but for us to complete the majority of our training of Iraqi security forces.

If we are to succeed, we won't be able to do it alone. The Iraqi Sunnis are going to have to lead in defeating the foreigners who are terrorizing them in their homes in western Iraq and leading the attacks against Shia in Baghdad.

The Sunnis will have to lead in ejecting al-Qaida, as they have begun to do so.

The Sunnis, not the Shia, are going to have to definitively expose and defeat the former Baathists who have not accepted that the Baath era is over.

The Sunni will have to address this challenge, not the Shia.

And the Shia, not the Sunni, are going to have to lead in ending the terror of the Shia militias.

The Shia are going to have to defeat those who claim to advance the Shia cause by revenge, by torture, by barbarism. If the Maliki government fails to muster the political will to do so, we cannot impose it from the outside.

Perhaps the Iraqi government can finally make progress toward building institutions that will sustain a unified Iraq, toward passing legislation that will divide Iraq's enormous natural resources equitably among the three ethnicities, that will open the civil society to Sunnis, instead of punishing them indiscriminately for their dominance during the Baath era.

Perhaps.

But if not, this Nation and this administration should not be irrationally wedded to the notion of a unitary state of Iraq. We need to imagine all options, rather than cling to ideas which may have departed from the realm of reasonable options.

I will support this surge because the option right now of withdrawing leaves three critical questions unanswered:

No. 1: How do we continue the fight against foreign Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida, in the west of Iraq?

No. 2: Are we to leave a fractured Shia substate unstable enough for Iran to exert expansionist influence, thereby strengthening Tehran?

No. 3: Are we prepared as a nation to see a bloodbath ensue, in Baghdad and elsewhere, that may make other American foreign policy failures--Budapest in 1956, Vietnam in 1975, the Shia slaughter after we ejected Saddam from Kuwait in 1991--pale in comparison?

As I said at the beginning of this speech, the critics' attempts to set the stage for withdrawal commits the same strategic blunder they legitimately accuse the Bush administration of making in its implementation of the Iraq war. They didn't think of the day after Saddam fell. Today the critics are not thinking of the day after we withdraw.

Today, however, we need to recognize that worse than the vanity about easy victory committed in 2003 is the denial of calamitous defeat that would occur if we leave before we make every attempt to stabilize the country.

For this reason, I will support the administration, but I will do so under no casual assumptions or glib assurances.

I will also do so by demanding that the administration be much more forthcoming in its plans for the day after--the day after we complete our surge into Baghdad, the day after we can honestly assess that Baghdad has been pacified, and heaven forbid, the day after we assess that the chaos unleashed and manipulated by the forces of destruction are prohibiting a meaningful and comprehensive success.

I am not conceding defeat, nor preparing for withdrawal.

I am supporting a strategy for success. So far, President Bush--who has a lot to answer for the mistakes that have been made--is offering the only way to try to leave Iraq in better shape than it is now.

He has my support, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, not long ago, Utahns suffered a long and devastating drought, from which we have not fully recovered. The drought has instilled in us the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce an important bill that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply.

The Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2007 would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The bill would give the Bureau of Reclamation access to the dam to study it and make adjustments as necessary to cater to the ever growing needs of Utah citizens. This is no ordinary dam. It is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water.

Thousands of Utahns rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. In my view, expanding the dam is a simple and inexpensive way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it.

Moreover, last year, the Watkins Dam began to leak slightly. If the dam were to breach, it would flood many hundreds of acres of farm and grazing land, which would spell an agricultural disaster. This legislation would provide the resources and the opportunity to address quickly that looming problem, as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, not long ago, Utahns suffered a long and devastating drought, from which we have not fully recovered. The drought has instilled in us the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce an important bill that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply.

The Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2007 would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The bill would give the Bureau of Reclamation access to the dam to study it and make adjustments as necessary to cater to the ever growing needs of Utah citizens. This is no ordinary dam. It is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water.

Thousands of Utahns rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. In my view, expanding the dam is a simple and inexpensive way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it.

Moreover, last year, the Watkins Dam began to leak slightly. If the dam were to breach, it would flood many hundreds of acres of farm and grazing land, which would spell an agricultural disaster. This legislation would provide the resources and the opportunity to address quickly that looming problem, as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Ronald S. Bowen, who has diligently served as the president of the Utah Dental Association, UDA. As president, Dr. Bowen has devoted his professional and leadership skills to serving Utah's 1,530 member dental organization.

The UDA is committed to the public's oral health, ethics, science, and professional development. I am proud of our dental health professionals who skillfully provide quality health care to thousands of Utahns. I am also proud of Dr. Ron Bowen, who as the president of the UDA has provided outstanding leadership among his colleagues as he represented the association on a national, state, and local level. He has extensively traveled the

State meeting with members to address their concerns and listen to their suggestions. In addition, he has a keen sense of the legislative process and has been able to use this knowledge to accomplish great things for the association.

Throughout his career, Dr. Bowen has garnered deep respect among his colleagues. He has an ability to listen to others, determine a course of action, and implement his ideas in an effective way.

Dr. Bowen is a practicing dentist and has had an established practice in the Salt Lake Valley for the past 22 years. He graduated with honors from the University of the Pacific, UOP, Dental School in San Francisco, CA. While at UOP, Ron served as student body and junior class presidents--demonstrating strong leadership skills at a young age.

During his longtime service to the dental community, Dr. Bowen has served on the UDA board of directors, where he has chaired the Government and Political Action Committees. Dr. Bowen has also served as the president of the Salt Lake District Dental Society and the Great Basin Academy. He was inducted into the International College of Dentists in 2003 and is a member of the Pierre Fuchard Society.

In addition, he is married to Melanie Hamilton Bowen and is the caring father of two daughters, Elysa and Lindsey.

Mr. President, the UDA has been greatly served this past year with Dr. Ron Bowen at the helm. His enthusiasm for the practice of dentistry and good dental health has been felt by many, and his colleagues have appreciated his efforts. I wish him many more happy, successful years of dentistry in Utah and join with many satisfied patients in thanking him for his tremendous service.

Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Wyden, Vitter, Dorgan and Lincoln in introducing legislation to create standards for long-term, acute-care (LTAC) hospitals. My home State of Utah has LTAC hospitals located in Salt Lake City, West Valley City and Bountiful.

Let me explain what LTAC hospitals are to my colleagues, and discuss the need for this legislation. A general hospital stay in the United States is about 6 days. In contrast, the average patient stay in an LTAC hospital is 25 days. LTAC hospitals represent one of four post- acute care facilities. Of the four types of post-acute care, LTAC hospitals are the most expensive. And, the number of LTAC hospitals has grown rapidly from 100 to 400 over a 10-year period. These dynamics have led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to push for having certain LTAC patients treated in less costly facilities such as nursing homes or rehabilitation clinics.

Our legislation is premised on the belief that only truly sick patients should go to LTAC hospitals. Less medically-complex patients should be seen at less intensive facilities. S. 338 limits the type of patients who may be treated in LTAC hospitals and, by doing so, it will generate at least $1 billion in savings over the next 5 years.

LTAC hospitals have a role to play in the American continuum of health care. We all agree that there should be a place for patients who truly need long-term hospital stays. In that sense, LTAC hospitals serve an important role. Today, Medicare spending on LTAC hospitals is little more than one percent of total Medicare spending.

Let me conclude by saying that this bill is just one component of a larger debate that we need to have about Medicare post-acute care. LTAC hospitals are one component. Nursing homes and rehabilitation clinics are other components. All long-term care providers need to do a better job in convincing the Congress and Federal regulators why our health care system needs four different types of post-acute facilities.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Conrad-Hatch legislation--it is a good bill and it addresses an important aspect of the long-term health care debate. As baby boomers continue to retire, long-term care will become more and more important to all Americans.

Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Wyden, Vitter, Dorgan and Lincoln in introducing legislation to create standards for long-term, acute-care (LTAC) hospitals. My home State of Utah has LTAC hospitals located in Salt Lake City, West Valley City and Bountiful.

Let me explain what LTAC hospitals are to my colleagues, and discuss the need for this legislation. A general hospital stay in the United States is about 6 days. In contrast, the average patient stay in an LTAC hospital is 25 days. LTAC hospitals represent one of four post- acute care facilities. Of the four types of post-acute care, LTAC hospitals are the most expensive. And, the number of LTAC hospitals has grown rapidly from 100 to 400 over a 10-year period. These dynamics have led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to push for having certain LTAC patients treated in less costly facilities such as nursing homes or rehabilitation clinics.

Our legislation is premised on the belief that only truly sick patients should go to LTAC hospitals. Less medically-complex patients should be seen at less intensive facilities. S. 338 limits the type of patients who may be treated in LTAC hospitals and, by doing so, it will generate at least $1 billion in savings over the next 5 years.

LTAC hospitals have a role to play in the American continuum of health care. We all agree that there should be a place for patients who truly need long-term hospital stays. In that sense, LTAC hospitals serve an important role. Today, Medicare spending on LTAC hospitals is little more than one percent of total Medicare spending.

Let me conclude by saying that this bill is just one component of a larger debate that we need to have about Medicare post-acute care. LTAC hospitals are one component. Nursing homes and rehabilitation clinics are other components. All long-term care providers need to do a better job in convincing the Congress and Federal regulators why our health care system needs four different types of post-acute facilities.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Conrad-Hatch legislation--it is a good bill and it addresses an important aspect of the long-term health care debate. As baby boomers continue to retire, long-term care will become more and more important to all Americans.

Mr. President, even as we usher in a new Congress, Americans have said farewell to one of our Chief Executives, President Gerald R. Ford. President Ford was a man of character and integrity, a leader of hope and purpose. I hope and pray that the outpouring of support for President Ford in recent days will be a source of comfort and strength for his family and especially for his beloved wife, First Lady Betty Ford.

The people of Michigan's Fifth District loved their Congressman Jerry Ford. They sent him to the House of Representatives 13 times, by large margins. In fact, Congressman Ford's reelection percentages over nearly a quarter century did not vary by more than a few points. His constituents supported him as he served them, consistently and solidly.

It is easy to see why his constituents felt such a connection with him. Jerry Ford grew up in Grand Rapids, MI. He achieved the rank of Eagle Scout and, in high school, joined the honor society and was named to all-city and all-State football teams. At the University of Michigan, he played center on two national championship football teams and was named most valuable player in 1934.

Early in life, Jerry Ford's values and basic good sense helped him see past the excitement of the moment. He passed up opportunities to use his athletic prowess for the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers and instead decided to coach boxing and football at Yale University, where he realized his goal of attending law school. He returned to Grand Rapids to begin practicing law and, after serving in the Navy during World War II, returned again to practice law and seek election to Congress in 1948. Somehow in all that activity, he found time to court Elizabeth Bloomer. She must have been a very understanding woman because he even campaigned on their wedding day. President Ford would later say that his most valued advice was that which came from his wife. They spent 58 years together and had four wonderful children.

The qualities that endeared Congressman Ford to his constituents also inspired trust in his colleagues in the House, who elected him Republican Conference chairman in 1963 and then Republican leader in 1965. In fact, Congressman Ford was so well regarded that President Lyndon Johnson named him to the Warren Commission which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and President Richard Nixon tapped him to replace the resigned Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Gerald Ford loved the House of Representatives, and his personal political goal was to become Speaker of the House. He declined invitations to run for the Senate and for Governor. Ironically, while the Republicans' minority status kept him from leading that Chamber, his appointment as Vice President allowed him to become President of the Senate.

The Ford Presidency was brief, just 29 months long, but broke significant new political ground. He was the only occupant of the Oval Office who was never elected either President or Vice President. Former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller's appointment as Vice President meant that, for the first time in American history, neither of the Nation's two top officers had been elected to either office. The Ford and Rockefeller appointments were the first handled under the procedures established by the 25th amendment to the Constitution, ratified less than a decade earlier. And, of course, President Ford presided over our Nation's bicentennial in 1976.

The passage of even a few years, let alone a few decades, can easily change memories and perspectives. In recent years, the majority party has held either House of Congress by a modest margin. In this body today, the balance of power could rest on one Senator. At one point during Gerald Ford's service in the House, however, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 2-to-1. Even under those difficult circumstances, Congressman Ford found ways of reaching across the aisle, working productively with the other party to find solutions to the Nation's problems.

When Gerald Ford took up residence at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, there were times when he had to stand up to Congress. He issued an astounding 66 vetoes in fewer than 3 years, and Congress was able to override just a few.

President Ford served during one of the most trying times in American history, facing troubles at home and abroad. At home, there was the Watergate scandal that had resulted in the Ford Presidency. In 1975, unemployment reached a level nearly twice what it is today. Inflation was in double digits. Fears of energy shortages persisted. Elsewhere in the world, President Ford faced the war in Vietnam and crises in the Middle East and the continued threat posed by the former Soviet Union. And on top of all of that, he shouldered the burden of restoring Americans' faith in their leaders and in democracy itself. Last week in his eulogy, Dr. Henry Kissinger, President Ford's Secretary of State, put it this way: ``Unassuming and without guile, Gerald Ford undertook to restore the confidence of Americans in their political institutions and purposes.''

He made decisions, some of which were unpopular at the time, that he

felt were necessary for the good of the Nation. Some say that these contributed to his narrow loss to Jimmy Carter. At the same time, from opinion polls after the political conventions showing the incumbent trailing by nearly 30 points, President Ford closed the gap to make the 1976 election one of the closest in American history.

We are all thankful President Ford did not simply retire from public life when he left the White House. For nearly three decades, he remained active as a statesman and involved in important issues. He founded, and for many years chaired, the World Forum conducted by the American Enterprise Institute, and he continued writing about some of the political and social challenges of our day. In 2001, he authored a poignant column which appeared in the Washington Post and endorsed legislation to promote regenerative therapies that can give hope to Americans suffering from chronic diseases. As a cosponsor of that legislation, I was moved and grateful for President Ford's wisdom and support.

For these and so many other activities and contributions, President Ford received the Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian award, in 1999 and the Profiles in Courage Award from the Kennedy Foundation in 2001. In 1999, he and Mrs. Ford received the Congressional Gold Medal for their dedicated public service and humanitarian contributions.

As great as President Ford was, he was always the first to acknowledge his wonderful spouse, and I would be remiss, if I did not say a few words about Betty Ford. She was such a model of grace and dignity, inspiring us with her love and devotion to her family. Betty Ford was a bold First Lady, candidly sharing with the Nation her struggles with cancer and chemical dependency. She did not, however, stop there but turned those struggles into a crusade to help others. She served as cochairman of the Susan G. Komen Foundation when it was founded in 1982. Each year, she presents the Betty Ford Award from that foundation to a champion in the fight against breast cancer. The Betty Ford Center, which she founded in 1982, is today one of the leading treatment facilities in America, perhaps the world, and Mrs. Ford continues to serve as its board chairman.

As recently as last week, Betty and her four children, Steve, Mike, Jack, and Susan, showed us their tremendous devotion and kindness as they stood in the Capitol Rotunda for hours on end greeting every visitor who came to pay their respects to President Ford. Even in the face of tragedy, Betty and her children are gracious.

President Ford believed that most people were mostly good most of the time. That optimistic attitude led him once to say that while he had many adversaries in his political life, he could not remember having a single enemy. When he took the oath of office on August 9, 1974, he offered not an inaugural address but what he called just a little straight talk among friends. He made a commitment, a compact, with his fellow Americans, in which he said:

You have not elected me as your President by your ballots,

he said, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President

with your prayers . . . I have not sought this enormous

responsibility, but I will not shirk it . . . Our

Constitution works; our great republic is a government of

laws and not of men. Here the people rule . . . God helping

me, I will not let you down.

Those words so reflected the character and vision of President Ford that they were printed in the opening pages of the commemorative program distributed when the Gerald R. Ford Museum was dedicated in September 1981 in Grand Rapids. It is there, along the Grand River, that thousands of Americans, many waiting for hours in the cold, paid a final tribute to our 38th President. And it is nearby, in the city he loved and that loved him, that President Ford was laid to rest.

Gerald Ford did not let us down. It is fitting that on the gravestone of this remarkable man, this distinguished public servant, this healer of our Nation, are the simple words: Lives Committed to God, Country, and Love.