Floor Statements

Madam President, I won't take much time about SCHIP, only to say I hope our colleagues will vote for the SCHIP bill. It is a real bipartisan effort made by Democrats and Republicans over a long period of time with a lot of give by House Democrats and House Democratic leadership because they wanted a bill. I hope we pass that bill. I will identify my remarks to a large degree with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Iowa who spoke earlier.

Amendment No. 3047

Madam President, I wish to discuss an amendment addressing the subject of hate crimes that I have filed on this national defense bill. I do not think that hate crimes legislation should be attached to this defense bill. The issue of hate crimes has nothing to do with the matter before us, our national defense.

Frankly, this Kennedy amendment has no relationship, as far as I am concerned, to this very important bill intended to help our military, and it should not be included on this legislation. Yet, as long as my colleagues insisted on filing a politically problematic hate crimes amendment to this legislation, it was important that we have a balanced debate.

My amendment would provide Federal assistance to the States and localities in the prosecution and investigation of bias motivated violence. That is what we are talking about here: bias motivated violence.

I want to be absolutely clear. No one--nobody in this entire body or institution--believes for one second that such crimes are ever acceptable. Nobody in this body believes that. So those who want to make political points by suggesting that are plain wrong, and they should stop.

The question is: What is the proper role of the Federal Government in the prosecution of these crimes? This needs to be a matter that we keep in careful balance. Our States are the primary guarantors of our rights and liberties. As far as I can see, having watched it for years, the States have handled these crimes very well. In every case I can think of--there may be some exceptions, but I don't know of any--the State has handled these matters adequately and well and people have been prosecuted and convicted. Some have been put to death; others have been sentenced for life.

The States are the primary guarantors of our rights and liberties. I think we must respect the hard and decent work of the States as they secure equal justice under the law for all of our citizens in the respective States.

With due respect to my colleagues and good friends, Senators Kennedy and Smith, I do not think this amendment strikes the right balance. In fact, I think this amendment is not needed. It has plenty of difficulties. It is constitutionally very questionable.

And frankly, it should not be on this bill. If they want to bring it up, they can do it separately. It should not be on the bill because the President indicated that he is not going to put up with this type of legislation on this bill. This is not because of a lack of dedication on his part in prohibiting hate crimes. He is as dedicated as anybody in this body to targeting these crimes, and that includes the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

So I rise to oppose both hate crimes and the Kennedy hate crimes amendment. A conviction against bias-motivated violence does not justify supporting a proposal that is unwise, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.

This amendment would create a new Federal criminal felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for willfully causing bodily injury because of a person's perceived race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or--get this--gender identity.

Senator Kennedy made a specific point earlier today that this new felony is not related to Federal jurisdiction. He said such a requirement would be ``outdated, unwise, and unnecessary,'' but that requirement is grounded in the Constitution itself. With all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts, the Constitution is not outdated, unwise or unnecessary.

Not only does Congress lack authority to create such a freestanding hate crimes felony, the States are already handling this issue.

The Kennedy proposal would end up treating the less serious bias crimes too harshly, putting people who committed misdemeanors under State law in Federal prison, and treating the most serious bias crimes too harshly, with no death penalty even for the most heinous murders as in the case of James Byrd in Texas.

This bill goes further even than the Kennedy proposals of the past.

Let me mention a number of problems that I perceive with Senator Kennedy's hate crimes amendment. First, as noted yesterday, the Kennedy amendment is different from the hate crimes bill offered in past Congresses. This amendment adds ``perceived . . . gender identity'' as a protected class. What does this concept mean? The Senate has held no hearings on the meaning of this phrase or how far this phrase would allow the courts to go. How far would some of the courts interpret this phrase? The bill's definition is vague; it raises more questions than it answers. Would this include wearing an earring? Would it include an assault of a man with long hair or a woman with short hair? What about a woman wearing long hair? Are all protected the same under Federal law? What about different kinds of clothing?

Clearly, there would be cases that fall safely within the drafters' intent, but can Senators be confident of what this language means? I do not think so. Do they want to pass a law to put judges or juries in charge of interpreting the meaning of clothing and personal style? Again, there have been no hearings in the Senate to give any guidance to Senators for this vote.

When the House passed this bill, the White House released a SAP promising a veto. To pass the Kennedy amendment is to jeopardize the Defense authorization bill altogether.

The Justice Department has also indicated it supports the concepts found in my alternative proposal.

There is no evidence that hate crimes go unprosecuted in the States. For example, as Dr. Coburn recently pointed out on the floor, the killers of Matthew Shepard--for whom this bill is named--were successfully prosecuted under State law. And recall that the killers of James Byrd in Texas several years ago were sentenced to death under State law. But there is no death penalty provided for in the Kennedy amendment. By the way, Senator Kennedy cannot make the case that the States are inadequate in their handling of these crimes. I don't think he can

make the case the States are not doing a good job of handling these crimes. These kind of crimes are intra-State crimes. I do not think he can make the case there is a sufficient nexus of interstate commerce to justify what I consider to be the unconstitutional Kennedy amendment.

The Senator from Massachusetts stated earlier that ``all hate crimes will face a Federal prosecution.''

If that is true, then prepare for a massive federalization of basic criminal law, which is handled well by the States. Maybe 100 years ago you could find States not enforcing hate crime laws, but I do not think you will find that today in any State in this Union. There is not a person in the Senate who wants those crimes to go unpunished. But the States are handling them well. Why would we bring the almighty arm of the Federal Government into these matters?

There are also several reasons this bill is unconstitutional. Consider one: The Supreme Court held that certain of the criminal provisions of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional because most crimes of violence against women were not interstate in nature. I have to admit I was a prime cosponsor, along with Senator Biden, of VAWA. I was somewhat disappointed in that decision, but that is the decision. That is our constitutional law. The Kennedy amendment would criminalize many physical and sexual assaults. The same constitutional issues are at stake.

Again, I decry hate crimes. I do not believe there should be evil discrimination, bias discrimination, in any way, shape or form. I have always stood up for the rights of those who have been discriminated against. I may have differed on some bills, as I do on this one. But I decry these types of acts. But to federalize hate crimes legislation and to make it not only burdensome but very intrusive on the State's work in this area, I think, is the wrong thing to do.

I hope my colleagues will consider some of these thoughts. I will speak in more detail tomorrow. But the fact of the matter is I think it is a real mistake, when the States are doing as good a job as they have been doing, when the very crimes they use to justify this bill were handled by the States and people were sentenced to long terms, or even to death, I think it is inadvisable for us to proceed on this amendment.

Last but not least, the President said he is going to veto the bill if Senator Kennedy's amendment makes it in. I think it is wrong to put this amendment into this Defense Authorization Act. It has been wrong, as far as I am concerned, to have a lot of these amendments that have been brought up on the floor that have nothing to do with Defense authorization, or have everything to do with trying to score political points, at a time when we should have passed this bill 2 weeks ago and gotten it on its way to the House of Representatives and then to the President, so our soldiers will have the benefits this bill provides for.

Adding hate crimes to it may lead to a veto of the whole bill. That would be just plain tragic, especially since we know of the President's suggestion that he will veto the hate crimes bill. So I am concerned about it. I understand Senator Kennedy's motivation on this. He wants to get it on a bill that has to pass both Houses of Congress. But it ought to be on a bill related to hate crimes or related to criminal law, not something that can scuttle this important Defense authorization bill. I personally feel badly that so many of these days have gone by with amendments that have nothing to do with the defense of our country or our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator for his kind remarks, which come from somebody who I know takes health care very seriously and has proven himself to be one of the leaders in health care. I personally pay tribute to the other Members who have also worked so hard on the SCHIP bill; in particular, Senator Kennedy. I remember back in the early days, when it was a lonely thing for Senator Kennedy and I to go around the country talking about helping the poor kids, the only ones left out of the health care system. It took a leading liberal such as Senator Kennedy and this poor, old beaten-up conservative to be able to do that.

I am grateful we were able to come up with a bipartisan bill that the House was kind enough to work with us on. That was one of the rare bipartisan efforts this year that I would like to see more of in the Congress.

I sure hope somehow or another we can get the CHIP bill not only authorized but passed and signed into law so these 10 million kids have a future from a health care standpoint.

In any event, I did not mean to take so much of the Senator's time, but I wanted to thank him for his very kind and thoughtful remarks. His friendship is important to me. I personally congratulate him for his sensitive and very professional work on health care, not only in the House of Representatives but here as well.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak, and then the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, be able to speak.

Mr. President, I want to address my colleagues for just a few minutes on the subject of nominations to the Department of Justice and to the Federal judiciary.

Our obligation is the same for each, to focus on the qualifications of nominees through a process that respects the separation of powers.

First, let me say that the President has made a first-rate nomination by choosing Judge Michael Mukasey as the next Attorney General of the United States. He will bring to this vital leadership post 16 years of private legal practice, 4 years as a Federal prosecutor, and 19 years as a Federal judge.

He headed the Official Corruption Unit during his service as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. And he served as Chief Judge during his last 6 years on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

By any reasonable or objective measure, Judge Mukasey is clearly qualified to lead the Justice Department.

I want also to draw attention to an aspect of Judge Mukasey's experience and record that makes him particularly qualified to lead the Justice Department at this challenging time in our history.

The U.S. District Court is divided into 94 geographical districts. These districts' caseloads vary widely, reflecting the characteristics, demographics, and realities in those districts.

The Southern District of New York, where Judge Mukasey served for 19 years and which he led for 6 years, is no different.

Serving in that key judicial district led Judge Mukasey to confront the terrorist threat to America long before the 9/11 attacks. He presided over the prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman and sentenced him to life in prison for his role in the 1993 plot to blow up the World Trade Center.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Mukasey's decision, it took the unusual step of commenting specifically on how he had handled the trial. The appeals court said Judge Mukasey ``presided with extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant and helpfulness to the jury. His was an outstanding achievement in the face of challenges far beyond those normally endured by a trial judge.''

That is a remarkable statement. Appeals courts review lower court decisions, but very rarely do they comment in this manner on lower court judges.

That case occurred before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Ten years later, after those attacks, Judge Mukasey ruled that the President had authority to designate Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant against the United States and that, even as an enemy combatant, he must have access to his lawyers. Padilla was eventually convicted of providing material assistance to terrorists.

Legal analyst Benjamin Wittes wrote about this case in the journal Policy Review and said that Judge Mukasey's decision was ``the single most compelling judicial opinion yet written on the

due process rights of citizens held as enemy combatants.'' That is high praise indeed.

This background and experience with national security and terrorism cases make Judge Mukasey especially qualified to lead the Department of Justice at this time in America's history.

The Justice Department is being retooled and redirected in light of the war on terror, including creation of its new National Security Division.

Many of the issues in this area may begin with legislation, but end up in the courts. Having someone at the helm with experience not only as a prosecutor but as a judge evaluating these very issues will be invaluable.

In addition to these qualifications are important personal and character qualities which I believe we need in our leaders.

A Federal judge's law clerks probably know better than anyone how the judge thinks, how he approaches the law, how he handles tough issues, and how he treats others.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by 43 of Judge Mukasey's former law clerks.

This letter describes his decisiveness and mastery of the law, as well as his fairness, humility, and commitment to public service.

We must evaluate Judge Mukasey's qualifications and character through a process that respects the separation of powers.

The Constitution gives the President authority to appoint members of his Cabinet, including the Attorney General. While the Senate has a role in checking that authority, ours is not a coequal role with the President, and we may not use our confirmation role to undermine the President's appointment authority.

Some of my colleagues may want to use these nominations to fight policy or political battles. Those fights are for the legislative process or the oversight process, but not the confirmation process.

Some of my colleagues have even hinted that they may manipulate the confirmation process for Judge Mukasey in an attempt to force compliance by the Bush administration with certain demands on other issues.

That kind of political extortion would be wrong.

The Justice Department needs leadership now, and Judge Michael Mukasey is qualified and ready for duty now.

During my 31 years in this body, we have taken an average of 3 weeks to move an Attorney General nominee from nomination to confirmation. There is no reason we cannot meet that standard with the excellent and well-qualified nominee now before us.

The same two obligations apply to nominations to the Federal bench.

Let me repeat, we must focus on a nominee's qualifications through a process that respects the separation of powers.

It is a curious fact of recent American history that, like the situation today, the last three Presidents each faced a Senate controlled by the other political party during his last 2 years in office. Two of those presidents were Republicans, one was a Democrat.

During those last 2 years of a President's tenure, the Senate confirmed an average of 91 judges, 74 to the U.S. District Court and 17 to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

This is only one way of measuring confirmation progress, and I realize some may not care a bit about what has happened in the past. But for those who do, I simply offer this as a yardstick, a gauge of the progress we are making today.

The last 2 years of those previous Presidents' tenures are an obviously parallel measure for us today, since we are in the last 2 years of President Bush's tenure.

We are nearing the end of September and have confirmed just three judges this year to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The last one was nearly 5 months ago.

At the same point in this same year during those last three administrations, the Senate had confirmed an average of six appeals court nominees, twice as many.

Meanwhile, the vacancy rate on the U.S. Court of Appeals continues to rise, and is nearly 10 percent higher than when President Bush was reelected.

By raising this issue, I run the risk of some talking about what they like to call pocket filibusters of Clinton nominees. This cute but profoundly misleading phrase is intended to suggest that the Republican Senate blocked Clinton judicial nominees, the number they use varies all the time, who all could have been confirmed.

I will say just two things about this well-worn mantra.

First, a certain number of nominees of every President remain unconfirmed for a variety of reasons. Anyone who pretends otherwise is trying to mislead the American people about how the confirmation process actually works.

Some Clinton nominees were withdrawn, others were opposed by home- State Senators, others were nominated too late to be evaluated. Honestly taking these and other factors into account shows that the margin of error by these critics tops an astonishing 400 percent.

The second response is simpler. President Clinton appointed 377 Federal judges with a Senate controlled by the other party for 6 of his 8 years in office.

This is second only to President Reagan's 383 judicial appointees with a Senate controlled by his own party for 6 of his 8 years in office.

We need to make more progress confirming judicial nominees. The needs of the judiciary and the yardstick of history indicate that we are not doing our duty.

President Bush has the lowest judicial confirmation rate, overall, and for appeals court judges in particular, of any President during my three decades in this body.

Instead of making the confirmation progress that we should, we see a series of steadily changing standards, whatever it takes to defeat the nominations of good men and women.

I have spoken here on the floor several times about the attack on Judge Leslie Southwick, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Opponents urge his defeat on the basis of just two of the 7,000 cases in which he participated, on the basis of two concurring opinions he did not write--not because he applied the law incorrectly, but because the opponents do not like the result of him applying the law correctly.

That standard is wrong and I hope it does not succeed.

I have here the Washington Post editorial from last month and I agree with its title. Judge Southwick is indeed qualified to serve.

The editorial says that while the Post does not like the results in the two cases that opponents highlight, they cannot find fault with Judge Southwick's legitimate interpretation of the law.

Judges are not supposed to deliver results that please this or that political constituency. Judges are supposed to correctly interpret and apply the law.

Judge Southwick is committed to that judicial role and he should be confirmed.

Now we see an attack on another nominee to the same court, Judge Jennifer Elrod.

When the Judiciary Committee reported her nomination to the floor yesterday, one of my Democratic colleagues questioned her qualifications for the position.

Judge Elrod, who currently serves on the State court trial bench in Texas, graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and joined the State trial court bench after 8 years of private practice. For a dozen years, she served on the board and eventually chaired the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, one of the largest legal aid organizations helping the poor in southeastern Texas.

Judge Elrod has as much judicial experience as did Sandra Day O'Connor when she was unanimously confirmed to the Supreme Court of United States. In fact, when you include Judge Elrod's 2 years clerking for U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, Judge Elrod has more judicial experience, and more Federal court experience, than did Justice O'Connor.

I voted for Justice O'Connor, I certainly believed she was qualified for the Supreme Court, and I know that Judge Elrod is qualified for the Fifth Circuit.

But Democratic colleagues in the Judiciary Committee also questioned

Judge Elrod's fitness for the Fifth Circuit because of her race. One colleague said that we must consider the race of sitting judges as well as judicial nominees as we proceed through the confirmation process.

The implications of this view are troubling, to say the least. This means that no matter what a nominee's qualifications, no matter what her experience or background, no matter what she would bring to the bench, a nominee's race can, and some apparently believe even should, trump her merit.

Appointing judges based on race is an inappropriate standard that I cannot accept.

Like Judge Southwick, Judge Elrod has been nominated to a vacancy open so long that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has designated it a judicial emergency.

Like Judge Southwick, Judge Elrod should be confirmed without further delay.

Evaluating nominees and deciding whether to consent to their appointment is a unique and profound responsibility of this body. As we examine the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be Attorney General or the nominations of Judge Southwick and Judge Elrod to the Fifth Circuit, I urge my colleagues to focus on their qualifications. I urge my colleagues to fulfill our responsibility through a process that respects the separation of powers. I urge my colleagues to reject inappropriate standards such as political litmus tests or race.

Our judiciary is the best and most independent in the world, and I hope we will preserve this tradition in our confirmation actions and decisions in the weeks and months ahead.

Exhibit 1

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Arlen Specter,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell,

Chairman Leahy, and Ranking Member Specter: We served as law

clerks for the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, former Chief

Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York and the President's nominee for Attorney

General of the United States. Each of us had the privilege of

working closely with Judge Mukasey and observing this man of

great intellect, integrity, honor, and judgment. We write to

express our enthusiastic support for Judge Mukasey's

nomination.

Judge Mukasey's reputation as a careful and wise jurist is

well deserved. In each of his cases, Judge Mukasey based his

decisions--always thoughtful, carefully crafted, and well-

reasoned--on the application of governing laws and legal

principles to the facts. As a trial judge, he controlled the

courtroom through his decisiveness and mastery of the rules

of evidence. In the performance of his judicial duties, the

Judge taught us the importance of modesty and humility, for

he recognized that with his position came great

responsibility that had to be exercised prudently and with

care. All who appeared before him were treated with fairness

and respect. And as Chief Judge of the district for six

years, he managed one of the nation's busiest and most

respected courthouses, all the while attending to a full

docket of cases.

Because of the close relationship between law clerk and

judge, we came to know Judge Mukasey not only as a jurist,

but also as a person. The Judge is kind, caring, loyal,

ethical, and modest, with a disarming wit and robust sense of

humor. He was a wonderful teacher, sharing with us his

insights into life, law, and lawyering. Even after leaving

our clerkships, the Judge has joined in our significant life

events and provided invaluable advice--from attending our

weddings, to visiting us following the births of our

children, to assisting us with career choices. He remains a

true friend and mentor.

Finally, Judge Mukasey is deeply patriotic and has spent

most of his career in public service, first as an Assistant

United States Attorney--a job he speaks of with great pride

even years later--and then as a judge. Notwithstanding the

immense imposition on him and his family that resulted from

the terrorism cases over which he presided, the Judge

proceeded without complaint or hesitation, seeing it as part

of his duty to the country he loves.

The President has now asked Judge Mukasey to serve our

country again, this time as Attorney General of the United

States. We are certain that he will make an outstanding

Attorney General. Judge Mukasey's keen intelligence,

independence and judgment will bring to the country as a

whole and to the Department of Justice in particular strong

leadership and integrity.

We urge you to confirm him as Attorney General without

delay.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Abramowitz, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1990-91;

Laura Adams, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1992-93; David

Altschuler, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2005-06; Elisabeth

Bassin, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1989-90; Matthew Beltramo,

Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1997-98; Heana H. Kutler, Clerk for

Judge Mukasey, 1995-96; David Leinwand, Clerk for Judge

Mukasey, 1991-92; Justin D. Lerer, Clerk for Judge Mukasey,

2002-03; Russell L. Lippman, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2001-

02; and Nicole Mariani, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2005-06.

Babette Boliek, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1998-99; William

A. Braverman, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1994-95; Gidon M.

Caine, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1988-89; Andrew J. Ceresney,

Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1996-97; Daniel Park Chung, Clerk

for Judge Mukasey, 2004-05; David Cross, Clerk for Judge

Mukasey, 2003-04; Thomas Dahdouh, Clerk for Judge Mukasey,

1988-89; Inayat Delawala, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2004-05;

Anne Osborne Martinson, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1990-91; and

Zachary S. McGee, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1997-98.

Sanjay Mody, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2003-04; Shawn

Morehead, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2000-01; Florence Pan,

Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1993-94; Frank Partnoy, Clerk for

Judge Mukasey, 1992-93; Mickey Rathbun, Clerk for Judge

Mukasey, 1987-88; Katherine J. Roberts, Clerk for Judge

Mukasey, 2001-02; Jenny C. Ellickson, Clerk for Judge

Mukasey, 2003-04; Michael Farbiarz, Clerk for Judge Mukasey,

1999-00; Jesse M. Furman, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1998-99;

and Bruce Goldner, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1993-94.

Nola Breglio Heller, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2004-05; Mary

Holland, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1989-90; Michael Jacobsohn,

Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2005-06; Emil A. Kleinhaus, Clerk

for Judge Mukasey, 2002-03; Ilissa Rothschild, Clerk for

Judge Mukasey, 1987-88; Andrew A. Ruffino, Clerk for Judge

Mukasey, 1995-96; Sarah Russell, Clerk for Judge Mukasey,

2002-03; Hattie Ruttenberg, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1991-92;

Eli Schulman, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1999-00; and Ian

Shapiro, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2000-01.

Paul Spagnoletti, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 2001-01; Debra

Squires-Lee, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1996-97; Alisa Jancu

Kohn, Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1994-95; and David B. Toscano,

Clerk for Judge Mukasey, 1994.

I personally thank my colleague from Alaska for allowing me to go forth and to make these comments. I am grateful to her.

I yield the floor.

I rise today to congratulate my fellow Senators on the passage of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. This vital legislation makes important changes to the federal criminal code which will allow a more effective response to the ever growing threat that violent street gangs present to our society.

Americans are acutely aware of the myriad problems brought about by the influence and prevalence of criminal gangs in this country. I have long shared this concern, and introduced legislation over 10 years ago that attempted to address the problem. Senator Feinstein joined me in that effort, and since that time has pursued this matter with a vigor and tenacity that should make the residents of California proud. I want to offer my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to Senator Feinstein for her tireless efforts in sponsoring this bill, and am pleased that our combined efforts over the

years have brought us one step closer to having this legislation signed into law.

I believe that all members of the Senate share their constituents' desire to see a diminished role of gangs and associated violence in our communities. The question is very simple: How do we achieve this goal?

The prevailing thought is to either modify the criminal code or provide financial assistance that enhances procedures and programs that have been proven to effectively reduce gang participation. The bill that passed today does both of these things, and it is my hope that the vital tools in this initiative can be utilized by state and local personnel to provide for a greatly diminished threat from criminal street gangs.

One thing I want to make perfectly clear is that my involvement with this issue does not diminish my concerns with the federalization of crimes. I want to read a few sentences I said on the Senate Floor in 1996 when introducing the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1996: ``Our problem is severe. Moreover, there is a significant role the Federal Government can play in fighting this battle. I am not one to advocate the unbridled extension of Federal jurisdiction. Indeed, I often think that we have federalized too many crimes. However, in the case of criminal street gangs, which increasingly are moving interstate to commit crimes, there is a very proper role for the Federal Government to play.''

I said this in 1996, and my thoughts have not changed. The federal government too many times hands out money like a broken ATM, subsidizing projects that are more appropriately left to the states. However, the fact that Gangs have operations which spread throughout our country necessitates a federal law enforcement response. I am confident that Americans would approve of their tax dollars being effectively utilized in attempts to reduce gangs and criminal activity, and provide a safer environment for their families.

The young people who join criminal gangs have made an unfortunate choice to squander all of the opportunities available in their life, opportunities which are abundant in our great nation. But even worse, their choice to participate in violent gang crimes put the lives of innocent Americans in danger. The same innocent people who have rightly chosen to live their life in a productive manner benefiting fellow citizens.

Numerous cities in my home state of Utah, such as Orem, St. George, and Provo are facing an increase in gang activity. National gangs, like MS-13, are expanding their presence in Utah. Law enforcement is also reporting an increase in gang members relocating from areas of Southern California. It is vital that we provide immediate assistance to cities that are in the beginning stages of a battle with highly sophisticated national gangs. If a city can't deal with this problem swiftly and severely, then the gangs will fester like a disease, amplifying to an unmanageable level. We have seen this throughout the country, and I am dedicated to ensure that the cities in Utah and other states receive appropriate and necessary assistance from Congress to increase community prevention efforts.

I applaud the efforts of lawmakers whose tireless efforts produced this bill, and am hopeful that the funds provided for prevention and mentoring can be utilized to help negate the persistent efforts of gangs to augment their ranks with additional kids. Life provides many choices, and I hope that our youth will find the strength and courage to resist the gang lifestyle.

I recognize that there is no mechanism which can easily remove the scourge of criminal gangs, but am confident that this bill will provide resources which can enhance and amplify the efforts of dedicated personnel who endeavor to bestow positive influence to our communities.

As the Senate completes its consideration of H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, I want to take this opportunity to commend publicly the Food and Drug Administration and especially to express support and appreciation to the dedicated FDA employees who work so hard to ensure the safety of our drug and food supply. They are led by a very capable and hard-working Commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach.

In our race to legislate and regulate, we often forget the impact of our actions on agency employees and their ability to safeguard American consumers. And so I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their work.

While I will not belabor the point here, as the legislation makes clear, the agency is operating under severe funding constraints. That is a pressing public health issue of great priority and the Congress must work to address it in a meaningful way.

With passage of this legislation today, we will end the protracted game of ``chicken'' that threatened the jobs of hundreds of FDA employees, the stability of the agency, and indeed the integrity of Congress, an institution which has been under public criticism for not doing its job.

I am proud to support the passage of H.R. 3580. I want to applaud the efforts of HELP Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Republican Member Enzi. They have worked tirelessly to ensure this bill would be completed before the expiration of the user fee programs at the end of this month. They have worked in a bipartisan way and they have worked very hard to embrace the views of each and every member of our committee.

Let me highlight some of the important components of the FDARA bill.

First, it is imperative that we continue the drug and device user fee programs. This is true for one simple fact--the agency relies greatly on the funding from these programs, and without it there would be unconscionable delays in drug and device reviews.

This is particularly important for Utah, a State with the hallmark of innovation, a State which is the home to countless drug and device manufacturers.

And while there are some problems with how these programs have worked--problems I have been pursuing, and will continue to pursue, with the FDA--all in all it must be recognized that there is no alternative to the user fee programs being continued.

The drug safety provisions that Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Minority Member Enzi developed will be seen as an important hallmark in our Nation efforts to improve the safety of pharmaceuticals that Americans rely on.

The food safety legislation that our colleague Senator Durbin developed--again, that is a vital component. I am supportive of that language, and especially appreciative to my colleagues for including the three pieces of language Senator Harkin and I authored to make certain that the new food reporting system did not override the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act's regulatory structure and that it did not supersede the serious adverse event reporting system for dietary supplements enacted last year--the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.

This legislation also includes many other laudable provisions. One particular provision in this legislation establishes a new and enhanced mechanism for the prompt consideration of new safety-related information and sets forth strict timelines for the evaluation of such new data. That provision is designed to ensure that all potential safety-related labeling changes are promptly raised and duly considered by the agency in carrying out its statutory duty to oversee the appropriate and accurate content of a drug's labeling.

This new procedure is designed to implement a more thorough and regularized methodology for the consideration and implementation of safety-related labeling changes and to ensure that FDA is the ultimate authority in making certain that drug labels convey safety information in a clear and consistent way.

This provision, which adds a new section 505(o) to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, is designed to ensure that both the agency and pharmaceutical companies are able to modify quickly with the agency's approval drug labels so that physicians are alerted promptly to new or increased risks associated with a drug. The provision does not affect the agency's general policy on labeling or its current labeling rules and policy.

Also, the legislation promotes pharmaceutical and medical device advancements in pediatric therapies. The bill reauthorizes the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research and Equity Act which have been vital for important research used by doctors and parents. The final language on both these provisions is a good compromise between the House and Senate bills.

Finally, it is my profound regret that the bill we consider now does not contain the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, legislation that Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Clinton, Schumer, and I have authored. This bill is intended to offer consumers access to lower cost biosimilar products, copies of such important medications as insulin or human growth hormone, while preserving the incentives for researchers, universities and manufacturers to develop and market the innovator biologics.

I am extremely disappointed that the bill could not be contained in H.R. 3580, but I recognize the importance of allowing the House to develop its version in regular order.

It remains my high priority, and I believe the priority of my colleagues as well, that this legislation be enacted in 2007.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to clarify one issue related to the language on citizens' petitions and petitions for stay of agency action which is included in FDARA. As my colleagues are aware, I was a cosponsor of the citizens' petition amendment included in the Senate-passed bill, and I was pleased to work closely with my colleagues in the Senate--Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Brown, Stabenow, Lott and Thune to develop an acceptable compromise with the House. I understand the importance of making certain that generic drug approvals are not delayed unnecessarily, which is the intent of this amendment.

As my colleagues are aware, we had a number of discussions about this provision, and one issue we worked hard to balance was the need for the Food and Drug Administration to have adequate time to review any meritorious issues raised by a petitioner against the importance of not holding up the Abbreviated New Drug Applications--or ANDAs--or applications submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Our colleagues, Senators Brown and Stabenow, were particularly forceful in their arguments that there should be a deadline for FDA action on a petition, but that the agency could have the ability to delay review of an application if it found that the petition raised a legitimate public health issue.

My concern, which I want to discuss with the chairman, goes to the discussions we had about the operation of that language. In particular, I want to discuss the ability of the agency to conserve its resources and not waste time acting on petitions that do not merit review. Indeed, the concept we discussed over the course of many days was that the agency would have the ability to deny a petition or a supplement if the petition were based on meritless or frivolous issues. We all recognized, however, that defining ``meritless'' and ``frivolous'' is imprecise at best. So, the final language contained in the bill we consider today says that the agency may deny a petition at any point if the Secretary determines that it was submitted ``with the primary purpose of delaying the approval of an application and the petition does not on its face raise valid scientific or regulatory issues . . .''

MR. KENNEDY. The Senator from Utah is correct.

One concern that I raised, which we all agreed would have been included in the conference report language had we filed such a report was a clarification about the meaning of ``scientific or regulatory issues.'' It was our agreement during negotiations on FDARA about what is perhaps an obvious point: if the law requires a delay in approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, for example because of a patent or an exclusivity, this new provision will not change that required legal result. The law is the law, and its effect should not depend on whether or not it was brought up in a petition to FDA. I would appreciate the chairman clarifying if that was the agreement we had.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2007. This bill would restore some balance to the way education is funded in many of the western States, where a large proportion of public land is owned by the Government. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a small portion of these Federal lands to the states so they can generate the much needed education revenue.

I wonder how many of my colleagues know that 10 of the 12 States with the largest pupil-per-teacher ratios are in the West? These 10 western States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures. And these ratios will only grow worse as growth in the West continues to out-pace the rest of the country. In fact, three of the fastest growing counties are in Utah.

I would like to take a moment to discuss how the west has gotten into this situation. Let us take a look at Utah's history, which began when in July of 1894, the State Enabling Act was approved. This act allowed ``the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union.''

However, Section 9 of the enabling act sets forth that ``five percent of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union . . . shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.''

The Federal Government never followed through on its promise. Our bill, the APPLE Act, S. 2072, would direct the Government to deliver on that promise.

The Government's lack of follow-through on its promise is only exacerbated by the lack of a sales tax base in the west. Sales tax revenue, as we all know is generated on private lands. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land ownership. Federal ownership in Utah is about 65 percent, second only to Nevada.

The problem is that sales tax is not being collected on these Federal lands, and public education is funded largely through sales tax revenues.

Some may say that the west's education funding deficit is due to a lack of commitment or effort by the States. This is not true.

The fact is that allocations to public education, by percentage, in the West matches or exceeds the rest of the Nation. In fact, western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal income to State and local taxes, whereas residents of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to addressing the west's education funding shortfall by helping me to pass the Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Clinton and Senator Reid, in introducing today the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act.

In modern society, we often take for granted the advances in public health measures made during the last century. Initiatives like drinking water protections and food safety programs have helped to counterattack infectious disease and add up to 25 years to the average human life expectancy.

Yet America today is faced by new public health challenges along with recurrence of chronic and infectious diseases. Chronic diseases account for approximately 70 percent of all deaths every year, most of which are preventable. These diseases also cause major limitations in daily living for about 25 million Americans and contribute more than $750 million to annual health care costs.

As an example of a new health threat, the West Nile virus had never before been detected in this hemisphere before the 2000 outbreak in New York. In 2007 alone, 1,982 human cases have been reported in almost every State and the District of Columbia.

Food-borne illnesses are estimated to cause 5,000 deaths a year; and asthma, a chronic condition, is the number one reason children miss school and is also expected to affect 29 million Americans within the next decade--more than twice the current number of people with asthma.

We know that the environment plays an important role in health and human development; but we do not know to what extent. Scientific researchers have linked specific diseases and health effects to certain environmental causes--for instance, infected mosquito bites and the West Nile virus, or asbestos and lung cancer--but many other links remain unproven, such as those between aluminum and Alzheimer's disease, or exposure to disinfectant byproducts and bladder cancer.

The bottom line is that, if we are going to prevent disease, researchers need more complete information about environmental factors, their effect on people, and the resulting health outcomes.

The environmental exposure, biomonitoring, and incidence of chronic and infectious diseases data that do exist are not readily accessible by all the appropriate systems. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, has begun efforts in this area through its National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program--in which my home State of Utah is a participant--currently, no network exists to track environmental health data full-scale at the national level. Furthermore, at the state and local levels, environmental quality programs and classic public health programs are almost always based in different agencies.

This disconnection among environmental health projects at local, state, and Federal levels jeopardizes our protection against environmental health threats. The threat of terrorist attacks with biological or chemical weapons has most certainly become a major public health concern; but it is important to keep in mind that weaknesses in the environmental public health infrastructure have led to large-scale vector-, water-, and food-borne outbreaks of infectious disease.

In the 1998 Institute of Medicine, IOM, Report ``The Future of Public Health'', and the Pew Environmental Health Commission report ``America's Environmental Health Gap: Why the Country Needs a Nationwide Health Tracking Network'', this fragmentation is clearly outlined as contributing to disjointed policy development, imbalanced service delivery and a generally weakened public health effort.

The IOM report recommended that state and local health agencies strengthen their capacities for identification, understanding and control of environmental problems as health hazards.

The Pew Commission report concluded that the environmental health gap results from the lack of basic information that could document possible links between environmental hazards and chronic disease, as well as information that our communities and health professionals need to reduce and prevent such health problems. In response to this problem, the Pew Commission proposed a nationwide health tracking network.

Thirteen top public health groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Public Health Association endorsed the Pew report. This endorsement makes clear the message that the complexity of today's environmental public health problems requires coordinated responses from multiple agencies and organizations.

The scientific community has also been asking for the ability to bridge this environmental health gap. In a 2004 Environmental Health Perspectives article, a consortium of public health researchers wrote:

The ``building blocks'' of knowledge provided by a

nationwide environmental public health tracking network will

enable scientists to answer many of the troubling questions

we are asking today about what is making us sick. The result

will be new prevention strategies aimed at reducing and

ultimately preventing many of the chronic diseases and

disabling conditions that afflict millions of Americans.

The common theme from these reports, and the message received from top public health organizations and researchers, is that there is a pressing need to establish environmental public health leadership at the Federal level.

This legislation will help provide that leadership by establishing a Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network. It will make available the infrastructure by which local, state, and Federal agencies can share environmental public health information.

This bill is designed to build upon the recommendations from the scientific and public health communities, as well as the program that the CDC has already begun to carry out.

The Coordinated Environmental Health Network will connect state systems that are tracking chronic diseases, environmental exposures, and other risk factors so that the causes of priority chronic diseases can be identified, addressed, and ultimately prevented. Public health officials, scientific researchers, and the general public will have the information they need to fight against chronic disease.

The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act will provide states with grants to help develop the infrastructure they need in order to participate in the Nationwide Network.

In order to educate the public and provide the information needed to fight chronic disease, this bill calls for a National Environmental Health Report that will provide annual findings of the Nationwide Health Tracking Network.

This bill also aims to expand our environmental health infrastructure through the establishment and operation of regional biomonitoring labs, Environmental Health Centers of Excellence, applied epidemiology fellowships, and the John. H. Chafee Environmental Health Scholarship Program.

A survey of registered voters conducted for the Pew Environmental Health Commission indicated that most Americans say that taking a national approach to tracking environmental health should be a priority of government at all levels.

Without comprehensive environmental health tracking, policymakers and public health practitioners lack information that is critical to establishing sound environmental health priorities. In addition, the public is indirectly denied its right to know about environmental hazards, exposure levels and health outcomes in their communities-- information they want and have every reason to expect.

Our country has one of the best health care systems in the world. Doctors are now successfully treating illnesses that were once considered debilitating or even terminal because we have made great investments in researching cures and finding treatments. It is time to make the same investment in preventing people from becoming sick in the first place. This bill is an important step forward in making that investment in the health of America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2007. This bill would restore some balance to the way education is funded in many of the western States, where a large proportion of public land is owned by the Government. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a small portion of these Federal lands to the states so they can generate the much needed education revenue.

I wonder how many of my colleagues know that 10 of the 12 States with the largest pupil-per-teacher ratios are in the West? These 10 western States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures. And these ratios will only grow worse as growth in the West continues to out-pace the rest of the country. In fact, three of the fastest growing counties are in Utah.

I would like to take a moment to discuss how the west has gotten into this situation. Let us take a look at Utah's history, which began when in July of 1894, the State Enabling Act was approved. This act allowed ``the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union.''

However, Section 9 of the enabling act sets forth that ``five percent of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union . . . shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.''

The Federal Government never followed through on its promise. Our bill, the APPLE Act, S. 2072, would direct the Government to deliver on that promise.

The Government's lack of follow-through on its promise is only exacerbated by the lack of a sales tax base in the west. Sales tax revenue, as we all know is generated on private lands. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land ownership. Federal ownership in Utah is about 65 percent, second only to Nevada.

The problem is that sales tax is not being collected on these Federal lands, and public education is funded largely through sales tax revenues.

Some may say that the west's education funding deficit is due to a lack of commitment or effort by the States. This is not true.

The fact is that allocations to public education, by percentage, in the West matches or exceeds the rest of the Nation. In fact, western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal income to State and local taxes, whereas residents of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to addressing the west's education funding shortfall by helping me to pass the Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Clinton and Senator Reid, in introducing today the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act.

In modern society, we often take for granted the advances in public health measures made during the last century. Initiatives like drinking water protections and food safety programs have helped to counterattack infectious disease and add up to 25 years to the average human life expectancy.

Yet America today is faced by new public health challenges along with recurrence of chronic and infectious diseases. Chronic diseases account for approximately 70 percent of all deaths every year, most of which are preventable. These diseases also cause major limitations in daily living for about 25 million Americans and contribute more than $750 million to annual health care costs.

As an example of a new health threat, the West Nile virus had never before been detected in this hemisphere before the 2000 outbreak in New York. In 2007 alone, 1,982 human cases have been reported in almost every State and the District of Columbia.

Food-borne illnesses are estimated to cause 5,000 deaths a year; and asthma, a chronic condition, is the number one reason children miss school and is also expected to affect 29 million Americans within the next decade--more than twice the current number of people with asthma.

We know that the environment plays an important role in health and human development; but we do not know to what extent. Scientific researchers have linked specific diseases and health effects to certain environmental causes--for instance, infected mosquito bites and the West Nile virus, or asbestos and lung cancer--but many other links remain unproven, such as those between aluminum and Alzheimer's disease, or exposure to disinfectant byproducts and bladder cancer.

The bottom line is that, if we are going to prevent disease, researchers need more complete information about environmental factors, their effect on people, and the resulting health outcomes.

The environmental exposure, biomonitoring, and incidence of chronic and infectious diseases data that do exist are not readily accessible by all the appropriate systems. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, has begun efforts in this area through its National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program--in which my home State of Utah is a participant--currently, no network exists to track environmental health data full-scale at the national level. Furthermore, at the state and local levels, environmental quality programs and classic public health programs are almost always based in different agencies.

This disconnection among environmental health projects at local, state, and Federal levels jeopardizes our protection against environmental health threats. The threat of terrorist attacks with biological or chemical weapons has most certainly become a major public health concern; but it is important to keep in mind that weaknesses in the environmental public health infrastructure have led to large-scale vector-, water-, and food-borne outbreaks of infectious disease.

In the 1998 Institute of Medicine, IOM, Report ``The Future of Public Health'', and the Pew Environmental Health Commission report ``America's Environmental Health Gap: Why the Country Needs a Nationwide Health Tracking Network'', this fragmentation is clearly outlined as contributing to disjointed policy development, imbalanced service delivery and a generally weakened public health effort.

The IOM report recommended that state and local health agencies strengthen their capacities for identification, understanding and control of environmental problems as health hazards.

The Pew Commission report concluded that the environmental health gap results from the lack of basic information that could document possible links between environmental hazards and chronic disease, as well as information that our communities and health professionals need to reduce and prevent such health problems. In response to this problem, the Pew Commission proposed a nationwide health tracking network.

Thirteen top public health groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Public Health Association endorsed the Pew report. This endorsement makes clear the message that the complexity of today's environmental public health problems requires coordinated responses from multiple agencies and organizations.

The scientific community has also been asking for the ability to bridge this environmental health gap. In a 2004 Environmental Health Perspectives article, a consortium of public health researchers wrote:

The ``building blocks'' of knowledge provided by a

nationwide environmental public health tracking network will

enable scientists to answer many of the troubling questions

we are asking today about what is making us sick. The result

will be new prevention strategies aimed at reducing and

ultimately preventing many of the chronic diseases and

disabling conditions that afflict millions of Americans.

The common theme from these reports, and the message received from top public health organizations and researchers, is that there is a pressing need to establish environmental public health leadership at the Federal level.

This legislation will help provide that leadership by establishing a Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network. It will make available the infrastructure by which local, state, and Federal agencies can share environmental public health information.

This bill is designed to build upon the recommendations from the scientific and public health communities, as well as the program that the CDC has already begun to carry out.

The Coordinated Environmental Health Network will connect state systems that are tracking chronic diseases, environmental exposures, and other risk factors so that the causes of priority chronic diseases can be identified, addressed, and ultimately prevented. Public health officials, scientific researchers, and the general public will have the information they need to fight against chronic disease.

The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act will provide states with grants to help develop the infrastructure they need in order to participate in the Nationwide Network.

In order to educate the public and provide the information needed to fight chronic disease, this bill calls for a National Environmental Health Report that will provide annual findings of the Nationwide Health Tracking Network.

This bill also aims to expand our environmental health infrastructure through the establishment and operation of regional biomonitoring labs, Environmental Health Centers of Excellence, applied epidemiology fellowships, and the John. H. Chafee Environmental Health Scholarship Program.

A survey of registered voters conducted for the Pew Environmental Health Commission indicated that most Americans say that taking a national approach to tracking environmental health should be a priority of government at all levels.

Without comprehensive environmental health tracking, policymakers and public health practitioners lack information that is critical to establishing sound environmental health priorities. In addition, the public is indirectly denied its right to know about environmental hazards, exposure levels and health outcomes in their communities-- information they want and have every reason to expect.

Our country has one of the best health care systems in the world. Doctors are now successfully treating illnesses that were once considered debilitating or even terminal because we have made great investments in researching cures and finding treatments. It is time to make the same investment in preventing people from becoming sick in the first place. This bill is an important step forward in making that investment in the health of America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, we have had a lot of people talking about, oh, let's not do this because it is unconstitutional. I want everybody to know there are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue with regard to the District of Columbia and, I might add, I think most people will know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. Naturally, Senator Bennett and I are for adding a seat in Utah.

Let's go back to that point. There are good people on both sides of this issue, Democrats and Republicans on each side. There are decent arguments on each side of this issue, although I think our side has been given short shrift by some. And those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, that which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I have been advocating, then why do they fear the expedited provision in this bill that will get us to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in what would be a very appropriate decision on who is right and who is wrong in this matter?

We all know the argument that we should do this as a constitutional amendment is not a valid argument. It is a good argument, but the fact is it will never pass that way. There are 600,000 people in the District of Columbia, never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House of Representatives. This bill would remedy that situation.

Those who argue it would be a presage to getting two Senators don't know the people in America or in this body. The fact is that Senators are elected by States with equal rights of suffrage. This representative, should this bill pass both Houses of Congress, would represent 600,000 people as the people's representative in the House of Representatives, which is what that is supposed to be.

I might add, Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has said the Congress has plenary power in this area, unique power in this area. It says Congress has authority over the District of Columbia. If Congress wants to give the District of Columbia a representative, Congress has the power to do so, and I believe the Supreme Court would uphold it. I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold an attempt to try and get two Senators for something that is clearly not a State requiring equal rights of suffrage.

I compliment my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for the hard battle he waged and for those in the House who worked so hard on this issue. I hope we can at least debate this matter. All we are doing today is deciding whether we are even going to allow a debate to occur. My gosh, when has the Senate been afraid to debate a constitutional issue as important as this one? This is an important issue. We are prepared to debate. We are prepared to see what happens.

We know if it passes, it is going to have expedited review by the Supreme Court. We are prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court decides to do, and those who say this is unconstitutional, per se, should not be afraid then. I am willing to go to the Supreme Court, and I will abide by whatever the Supreme Court says. I believe the Supreme Court would uphold this legislation because there are 600,000 people without a right to vote for their own representative.

I used to be opposed to this issue. The more I studied it, the more I agreed with the conservative and liberal constitutional proponents and the more I have become an advocate for it, and I am going to continue to do so. I hope we can at least debate this matter and then, hopefully, get it out of this body and go to the Supreme Court and have them finally decide what should be done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a revered Utahn who was taken from us a little more than a month ago during our summer recess: President James Esdras Faust, second counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On August 10, President Faust peacefully passed away, called home by the God whom he had served for 87 years. He left behind a legacy of faith and service, an example to which we should all strive for in our own lives.

President Faust was a wonderful leader for the LDS Church and a tremendous counselor to its President, Gordon B. Hinckley. He was a great friend and guide to Elaine and me, and our entire family, and to millions of others around the world. He was a person of great dimension, wide-ranging abilities, and deeply spiritual capacities. He was the consummate gentleman and treated both Elaine and me with kindness unfeigned. We pray that everyone in the Faust family will be comforted in the days and months ahead with peace through their memories of this great man.

Beyond his day-to-day duties as a church leader, President Faust led opposition to gambling initiatives in Utah, oversaw construction of the BYU Jerusalem Center, managed an improved public relations strategy for the church, and enhanced relationships with foreign officials. During his ministry, he saw the Latter-day Saint faith move from primarily one of the western United States to a truly worldwide religion.

His kindness was not limited to those of his own faith, nor was his service limited to that which he performed inside his church. Before President Hinckley extended him a call to serve 35 years ago as a senior, full-time

church leader, Faust served his country in the military, served his community as an attorney, served his State as a legislator, and served his family as a devoted husband and father.

A native of a small town in Utah's west desert, Delta, President Faust studied at the University of Utah, eventually receiving both a bachelor's degree and a law degree. But he interrupted his studies when he was called to his country's defense in World War II, honorably serving in the U.S. Army Air Force and earning the rank of first lieutenant while opposing the tyranny of the Axis.

Beyond his service to America, President Faust also gave 2 years of his youth in service to his church as a missionary in Brazil. He was one of the first Mormon missionaries to that nation and by sharing his testimony of the Lord gently moved the first pebbles of what has become a mighty avalanche of faith--today Brazil is home to nearly 1 million Latter-day Saints. Later in life, anytime his church service took him to Brazil he was extremely happy to be reunited with his friends there. In 1998, Faust was named an honorary citizen of Sao Paulo in honor of his lifelong ties to the city and the nation. Only two other men have received this recognition--Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama--which puts President Faust in very good company.

During a short period of leave from the Air Force in the spring of 1943, President Faust married his high school sweetheart, Ruth Wright, in the Salt Lake Temple. The sunrise and the sunset to all his happiness, Ruth walked hand in hand with him for almost 65 years. Together they raised five children: James H. Faust, Janna R. Coombs, Marcus G. Faust, Lisa A. Smith, and Robert P. Faust. They were the proud grandparents of 25 grandchildren and 28 great-grandchildren.

While practicing law, President Faust made time to serve as a member of the Utah legislature, an adviser to the American Bar Journal, and as president of the Utah Bar Association. Fellow church leader Elder M. Russell Ballard said of Faust that he ``loved America, the state of Utah and Salt Lake City.'' He was always examining issues and events ``for what was right and what needed to be done to see that we were working for the benefit and blessing of the people.''

We have lost a friend, we have lost a leader. But we look forward to a time when we can see his smiling, optimistic face again and hear his soothing, uplifting voice. To President James Esdras Faust the people of Utah would like to say, ``Thank you for your time among us. It was not nearly long enough. God be with you, till we meet again.''

Mr. President, I share some of the feelings of the distinguished Senator from Washington about our veterans. There is no question about it, we need to do more for them, and we will.

Mr. President, we live in a cynical age where the truth is often discarded because it does not meet the goals of an election campaign strategy or it is not what the core constituencies of certain political movements wish to hear.

One does not need to look any further to prove this point than the media's portrayal of General Petraeus's testimony before Congress this week.

Lost in the coverage were the hard facts and the veracity of the personal assessments of a remarkable leader. He has spent years in Iraq, first, as the commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the initial race to Baghdad and then as the officer in charge of training the Iraqi Army. This was followed by his authorship of the ``Army- Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual'' that was used as the basis for our current strategy, and now in his role as the commander of Multi- National Forces--Iraq.

This man deserves the plaudits and credit from all of us. Think about it. How many of us would spend years away from our wives, our families. The sacrifices of our men and women over there is remarkable. This man is one of the most remarkable.

So let us lay aside the rhetoric and learn the truth outlined by this seasoned commander.

Here are General Petraeus's own words:

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the

surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in

the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq,

Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in

the security arena. Though improvements have been uneven

across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq

has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number

of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen

since June 2006. One reason for the decline in incidents is

that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows

to al-Qaida-Iraq.

The general goes on to point out:

Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-

sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of

ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across

Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last

December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also

declined during this period, although the numbers in each of

the areas are still at troubling levels. Iraqi Security

Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of

the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about

the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In

general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and

fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the

lead in operations in many areas.

These are the words of a trusted and very capable commander who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. They are insightful, and they show that at long last, we are beginning to make significant progress in Iraq.

I believe Churchill could have been talking about our current prospects in Iraq when he said:

This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Yet even before General Petraeus gave us his professional military opinion on the status of the war, some attempted to undermine the veracity of his analysis and, worse, the character of the General himself.

Of course, I am speaking of the disgraceful actions of MoveOn.org and their now infamous advertisement. Before even having the opportunity to hear General Petraeus's analysis, this group stated that General Petraeus is a ``military man constantly at war with the facts.'' It claimed he was ``cooking the books.'' It asserted that his action is a betrayal of the American people.

This is shameful.

There is no need to read between the lines.

There is no subtext here.

The text is clear.

MoveOn.org has called General Petraeus a liar.

That is disgusting. It is beneath the dignity of decent and honorable people.

According to this group, General Petraeus is injuring his country and endangering those under his command by lying about the progress in Iraq.

Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General and anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits knows these are disgraceful and unwarranted allegations. However, there might be a silver lining to this libel. Now, all of America understands why MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots. These people are nuts. They don't care who they hurt. They don't care whom they smear. They don't care whom they libel. To them, politics is more important than anything else, and the accumulation of power is most important of all. Perhaps if they rejoined the reality-based policy community, they would have actually waited to hear the General's analysis before criticizing it.

Here is the reality.

General Petraeus is a consummate professional. He is a man who has dedicated his life to our country.

And I would note that when you put on a uniform, dedicating your life to your country has the potential to mean a good deal more than running for Congress.

But to Moveon.org, which has sadly become a core participant in the Democratic party's policymaking, General Petraeus is a disgrace to the uniform.

Let me be clear. It is MoveOn.org that is the disgrace. And I think it is important that the entire Congress publicly repudiate these absurd charges. I hope those in this body who are fond of listening to and following MoveOn.org's misguided policies see this group for what it is--an American embarrassment.

I have been very interested in watching the debates both on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. I have been impressed with the candidates for President. There is no question. They are decent and honorable people. But they ought to decry this. They should start by demanding that people within their party start acting responsibly. The same applies to Republicans. If we have people who are doing disgraceful, offensive things such as MoveOn.org, we ought to rise out of our seats and condemn them. I believe good people in both parties will do that. But thus far, there has been a silence on these issues, especially when it comes to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

What was particularly galling about the inaccuracies of MoveOn.org's comments is that many Members of Congress have been to Iraq in the previous few months and have seen with their own eyes the progress that is being made. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some of the experiences I had during a trip I made to Iraq a few months ago with Senator Smith and one of the great Congresswomen in the House, Congresswoman Harman.

As part of my preparation for this trip, I read with great interest the articles written by Michael Fumento and published in the Weekly Standard about the time he was embedded with U.S. forces in Ramadi.

Mr. Fumento wrote as recently as eight months ago that our forces in Ramadi, described the time between when they went out on patrol and when they were attacked as the 45-minute rule. Under this rule, our forces hypothesized that it took the enemy 15 minutes to determine where an American patrol was and then 30 minutes to

organize an attack. Unfortunately, those attacks occurred with great frequency and severity.

However, during my recent trip to Ramadi, I walked--admittedly in body armor and with a reasonably sized military escort--in one of its major markets in the heart of the city downtown. There, I saw what would be unimaginable a few months ago: shopkeepers selling their goods, children playing, and urban life beginning to reemerge.

How did this happen? First, the local tribal leaders made a decision that they would no longer tolerate the yoke of tyranny that had been placed upon them by al-Qaida--and make no mistake, al-Qaida is whom we are fighting in Ramadi. These leaders saw firsthand their fellow Sunni Muslims murdered and tortured under al-Qaida's false exploitation of a noble and peaceable religion. Not surprisingly, these sheiks began assisting coalition forces and, most importantly, their own Iraqi security forces in rooting out the terrorists. For example, once the local leaders decided to support the Coalition, 1,000 citizens of Ramadi joined the Iraqi security forces almost over night.

The success I witnessed was attained due to the implementation of the new tactics articulated in General Petraeus's innovative counterinsurgency strategy. Under this plan, large areas of Ramadi were encircled and then, led by Iraqi security forces, a thorough search was conducted in each area. Once these searches were completed and al-Qaida rooted out, the progress was made permanent by placing Joint Security Stations throughout the newly cleared territory.

These Joint Security Stations are one of the major reasons we have seen such advancement in Ramadi and other locations in Iraq. Joint Security Stations are manned by Iraqi Army and police forces as well as American forces who live in these installations in order to provide a permanent security presence for cleared neighborhoods.

Joint Security Stations accomplish three vital goals. First, much like the local police officer in any city, the U.S. forces become intimately involved in the security of the enjoining population. Second, our soldiers also learn about the environment in which they are living and, therefore, can more readily adapt their operations to better achieve the goal of providing security for the local population. Third, our forces help to train and support the Iraqi units assigned to the Joint Security Stations. Ensuring the Iraqi forces have sufficient capabilities to independently provide security to their own population is, of course, one of the primary goals of General Petraeus's strategy.

The implementation of the Joint Security Stations is radically different from previous tactics. In the past, U.S. forces would clear an area and then return to bases on the periphery of town and then move on to their next assignment. The predictable result was that shortly after the U.S. operation concluded, the insurgents would return to the area.

No longer.

Joint Security Stations provide continuous security to the local population. That is why the additional troops that were sent to Iraq as part of the surge are so important. It is not more for more's sake but to have sufficient forces to implement effective counterinsurgency strategies such as the Joint Security Stations.

Fortunately, the success we are seeing in Al Anbar is being replicated in other locations throughout Iraq. In Baghdad, I was briefed by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as to the situation in that city. Here, too, I found that through the implementation of new strategies and tactics such as the Joint Security Stations, progress has been made.

One of the early criticisms of the new strategy was the contention that, even if you secure Baghdad, the terrorists will move to the provinces such as Diyala in the north. In fact, the then-leader of al- Qaida, Abu Zarqawi, was killed in Diyala in 2006. However, just as in Ramadi, the Iraqi local leaders decided they did not want to live under the tyranny of al-Qaida, and they joined with us in the effort to throw the terrorists out of the major Diyala city of Baqubah.

However, what also made a lasting impression was the way in which General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker worked together. There are no bureaucratic fiefdoms here. Far from it. In fact, as one watched the General and Ambassador finish one another's sentences, one was struck as to not only how integrated our new strategy is, but how each leader was searching to incorporate the other's department's strengths in order to achieve the well-defined goal of defeating the insurgency and creating an Iraq that could independently secure its own future.

Now, does this mean victory in Iraq is imminent? Hardly.

If one looks to history, counterinsurgency operations are successful only after a significant period of time. We have only recently developed and implemented our new strategy.

So what are the other possible strategies?

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle recently supported the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would start the reduction of our forces in 120 days. Their legislation would only permit the forces to remain in Iraq that are necessary to protect U.S. and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip, and provide logistics support to the Iraqi security forces; and engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations.

Let's consider that strategy for a moment. Would that not mean that U.S. forces would be confined to large operating bases in order to protect Coalition infrastructure and support Iraqi forces--only venturing out to conduct raids against terrorists?

Does this strategy sound familiar? It certainly does to me.

The Levin-Reed plan reminds me of the failed Rumsfeld plan. Remember, under Rumsfeld's plan our forces were concentrated in large bases on the periphery of urban areas, only venturing into town to conduct raids and, as my colleague from Delaware often reminded us, conducting patrols where our forces would only speed through areas.

That was a failed policy, not because it was not well implemented; it just did not work.

Yet my colleagues on the other side are determined to repeat it. But this time we would proceed with even fewer troops, which we all know, and many of my Democratic friends continue to point out, was one of the reasons our initial strategy failed in the first place.

Then there is the cost in human lives if the Democrats plan is implemented.

As General Petraeus's testimony articulated, elements of the Iraqi security forces are making progress, but they continue to require strong support from Coalition forces. That training and support are, in part, being provided by the Joint Security Stations.

But, if we are to leave precipitously, how many innocent people will be killed? Remember, it is al-Qaida that is a major instigator of the sectarian violence in Iraq. According to their adherents, their goal is simple: Join us, live by our strict rules, or be slaughtered.

I understand the American people are discouraged by this war--but how will history judge us if we permit the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians?

If these arguments do not sway you, then let me ask a question about our own self-interest.

What happens if Iraq becomes a failed state? Does anyone really believe al-Qaida would not use Iraq as a base of operations to conduct terrorist attacks against our homeland?

Does anyone really believe that al-Qaida would not exploit the petroleum wealth of Iraq to further their objectives? Remember, in Afghanistan--a country of few natural resources--there were reports after the fall of Kabul that al-Qaida was working on chemical and biological weapons.

I wonder what al-Qaida would buy with the billions of dollars it would accumulate if it controlled even a fraction of Iraq's oil wealth.

Mr. President, we as Americans are known for asking ``what is the bottom line?''

Here it is:

We have made enormous mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq. So what do we do? Do we concede defeat, which is really what the Levin- Reed amendment offers? Do we hope for the best, that al-Qaida will leave us in peace. Or do we follow the only sensible strategy that

is beginning to show some signs of success?

I believe we all know the sensible answer to that question.

We must not yield.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007, which is cosponsored by Senator Bennett. Currently, our land-based strategic forces are in the process of completing a vital and important modernization program.

However, I am unaware of any Department of Defense plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base once this modernization is completed in the next 2 to 3 years. Therefore, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report detailing how our Nation will maintain an industrial base to replace the Minuteman III missile with a follow-on land-based strategic deterrent after 2030. 2030, is of course, the date in which the Minuteman III system is scheduled to be replaced. The Secretary, under this legislation, will also be required to outline how our Nation will maintain, modernize and sustain the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system until at least 2030.

To put this in context, in 2002, the administration wisely committed the U.S. to a policy of modernizing our land-based intercontinental ballistic missile force. Under this policy, the Peacemaker ICBM has been retired and that system's warheads are being retrofitted and placed into the Minuteman III fleet. In addition to the new warheads, 500 Minuteman III systems are being completely rebuilt and thoroughly modernized.

Unfortunately, after this work is completed, no other work on land- based strategic missile systems is planned. As we all know, building an intercontinental ballistic missile is extremely complex and a great feat of engineering. It requires engineers with years of experience and highly trained and professional manufacturing specialists to successfully and safely build a missile system. Clearly, if there are not any additional systems to build, then these sought after engineers and specialists will merely find employment elsewhere. In addition, if a replacement system will not be built

until 2030, it is very likely that much of our Nation's knowledge on how to design and build a land-based strategic missile system will be lost.

As an example, one can point to the British who recently decided to modernize their nuclear deterrent. Since the British nuclear warhead industrial base all but ceased to exist years ago, that nation will now have to allocate billions of additional pounds to reconstitute their design and production capability.

What would be the cost of our Nation to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base? Well I understand, the propulsion portion of the industrial base can be maintained for the relatively modest sum of under $50 million a year. In fact, such a program already exists for our submarine launched ballistic missile systems. Under this industrial base sustainment plan, 12 Trident missiles are manufactured each year.

Should a plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base closely follow our submarine launched strategic missile industrial plans? Well under this legislation, the Secretary of Defense will have the opportunity to make that determination.

In conclusion, during this period of uncertainty we must keep our Nation's defense industrial options open in order to meet the threats of the future. The Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007 affords us that opportunity and I hope that it will receive from my colleagues the support it deserves.

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

There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007, which is cosponsored by Senator Bennett. Currently, our land-based strategic forces are in the process of completing a vital and important modernization program.

However, I am unaware of any Department of Defense plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base once this modernization is completed in the next 2 to 3 years. Therefore, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report detailing how our Nation will maintain an industrial base to replace the Minuteman III missile with a follow-on land-based strategic deterrent after 2030. 2030, is of course, the date in which the Minuteman III system is scheduled to be replaced. The Secretary, under this legislation, will also be required to outline how our Nation will maintain, modernize and sustain the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system until at least 2030.

To put this in context, in 2002, the administration wisely committed the U.S. to a policy of modernizing our land-based intercontinental ballistic missile force. Under this policy, the Peacemaker ICBM has been retired and that system's warheads are being retrofitted and placed into the Minuteman III fleet. In addition to the new warheads, 500 Minuteman III systems are being completely rebuilt and thoroughly modernized.

Unfortunately, after this work is completed, no other work on land- based strategic missile systems is planned. As we all know, building an intercontinental ballistic missile is extremely complex and a great feat of engineering. It requires engineers with years of experience and highly trained and professional manufacturing specialists to successfully and safely build a missile system. Clearly, if there are not any additional systems to build, then these sought after engineers and specialists will merely find employment elsewhere. In addition, if a replacement system will not be built

until 2030, it is very likely that much of our Nation's knowledge on how to design and build a land-based strategic missile system will be lost.

As an example, one can point to the British who recently decided to modernize their nuclear deterrent. Since the British nuclear warhead industrial base all but ceased to exist years ago, that nation will now have to allocate billions of additional pounds to reconstitute their design and production capability.

What would be the cost of our Nation to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base? Well I understand, the propulsion portion of the industrial base can be maintained for the relatively modest sum of under $50 million a year. In fact, such a program already exists for our submarine launched ballistic missile systems. Under this industrial base sustainment plan, 12 Trident missiles are manufactured each year.

Should a plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base closely follow our submarine launched strategic missile industrial plans? Well under this legislation, the Secretary of Defense will have the opportunity to make that determination.

In conclusion, during this period of uncertainty we must keep our Nation's defense industrial options open in order to meet the threats of the future. The Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007 affords us that opportunity and I hope that it will receive from my colleagues the support it deserves.

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

There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be