Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

 Not logged in
Log in | Help
 

Senate Record - February 1, 2007

From dKosopedia

Category: 110th Congress

Congressional Record
Senate - February 1, 2007 - week 5
110th - United States Congress
Image:US-SenateRecord.jpg
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Previous Wednesday - January 31, 2007
Next legislative session


These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on February 1, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.

Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.


Contents

On the Floor

Morning Session - Senate - Thursday, February 1, 2007

The Senate met at 10:00 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Barack Obama, a Senator from the State of Illinois.

Schedule (Harry Reid-Majority Leader)

Mr. Harry Reid, Majority Leader - Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:45 a.m. The first 30 minutes will be controlled by the Republicans, and the next 30 minutes will be controlled by the majority. There is additional time for Members to speak in morning business until the hour of 11:45, if they wish. At that time, the Senate will proceed into executive session to consider three judicial nominations. The debate time on the three nominations is limited to 10 minutes; therefore, Members can expect rollcall votes as early as 11:55 this morning.

The distinguished Republican leader and I have had a number of conversations about judicial nominations, which, in the past, have been a real dustup. We are going to try to avoid that this year. We hope to have the first circuit court nomination approved before the Presidents Day recess and will continue to work on district court trial judges and circuit court judges as soon as we can.

I personally want the record to reflect that I appreciate the President not sending back four names that were really controversial, and I think it is better for the body that the President did not send up those names. I think we have to reciprocate in a way that is appropriate, and we are going to try to do that by looking at these nominations as quickly as we can. We are hopeful and somewhat confident the President will send us some good circuit court nominees.

Once we have disposed of the nominations, we will resume debate, postcloture, on H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill. A vote on this matter should occur this afternoon. I will discuss that with the Republican leader so that Members will have notice as to when that vote will occur.

After we complete action on the minimum wage bill, there will be an immediate cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 2, the bipartisan Iraq resolution. Last night, I asked consent that we vitiate that cloture vote. We are still working on that to see if we can work something out with the Republicans as to whether we have that vote. Most Democrats will vote against going forward on that since there is now another matter that will come before the Senate, at the latest on Monday. But we are working on that. I acknowledged last night, as did the Republican leader, that the final language of the new matter, which Senator Levin introduced last night, was just finalized at 8:30 p.m., 9 p.m. last night, so I understand why we can't get anything definitely from the minority leader at this time.

I would also say that we have now in the Senate a continuing resolution which passed the House by approximately 290 votes. We are ready to move forward on that. We have to complete that legislation by February 15, the Presidents Day recess, or the Federal Government is closed, and no one wants that to happen. So we are going to move forward on that. What we would like to do is move forward on it by unanimous consent. I understand that is not something that is going to happen, or at least at this stage, but at least we are ready to move forward as quickly as possible. The more quickly we dispose of that, the more time we can spend on Iraq, if, in fact, we want to spend more time on Iraq. At the least, next week is set aside so that we can debate Iraq. What we hope is that we can have a number of competing resolutions, whether it is two, three, four, whatever it is, and to get consent that we would use these vehicles for debate.

Mr. Reid - Mr. President, before I turn this over to the Republican leader, there are two bills at the desk for a second reading, is my understanding.

The Acting President pro tempore - The Senator is correct.

The clerk will report the measures by title for the second time.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 20) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
A bill (S. 470) to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

Mr. Reid - Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this time with respect to these bills en bloc.

The Acting President pro tempore - Pursuant to rule XIV, the measures will be placed on the calendar.

(Mitch McConnell-Minority Leader)

Mr. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader - Mr. President, I also wish to thank the majority leader for his remarks about circuit court judges. We all know the confirmation of circuit court judges became unnecessarily, it seems to me and I think seems to him, contentious at various times in recent years. I think we are off to a good start this year.

Each of the last three Presidents ended his term with the U.S. Senate in the hands of the opposition party. Each of these last three Presidents received an average of 17 circuit court judicial confirmations during those last 2 years even though the Senate was in the hands of the opposition party.

As Senator Reid has indicated, the President has not forwarded several nominations that were contentious in the last session, and I thank the majority leader for his indication that we will move forward with Randy Smith, who is the nominee for the Ninth Circuit, before the Lincoln recess. That is an indication of good faith on his part, which is greatly appreciated by me and others on our side.

With regard to Iraq, as the majority leader indicated, we continue to be in discussions about how to craft that debate. We certainly agree the debate will occur next week, and we are trying to reach a consent agreement that would allow us to have several different options that would reflect the sentiment of most Members of the Senate about the current situation in Iraq and the decision to go forward and try to quiet the capital city of Baghdad. So those discussions will continue throughout the day.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Morning Business

The Acting President pro tempore - Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of morning business until 11:45 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Republicans and the second 30 minutes under the control of the majority.

The Senator from Kentucky.

Role of American Diplomacy

Jim Bunning-R (KY)

Mr. Bunning-R, Kentucky - Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for their nice words. They might disagree on certain issues, but I am glad they agree on one thing--that I finally made it to the U.S. Senate after spending 12 years in the House and did have a private and professional life prior to service here in the Federal Government. I thank both Senators.

As we prepare to discuss the war in Iraq, I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss the issue of personal responsibility, civility, and the role of American diplomacy.

Since the founding of our great Nation, we have had a long and proud tradition of international diplomacy. Our diplomacy has taken many forms, whether it is through official state visits or through less formal channels, such as congressional delegations traveling to individual countries. What we all need to remember is that when we are on a trip to a foreign country, we act as American diplomats. This is something which I would like my colleagues to remember, especially when they speak on American foreign policy in public international forums and settings. Most of our colleagues take this role seriously and act in a manner that is consistent with the advancements of our Nation's foreign policy. We should not use the international stage as an opportunity to denounce our own country by making irresponsible comments that endanger our foreign policy by sending the wrong messages to our enemies.

We currently face a critical turning point in our Nation's foreign policy.

As representatives of this Government, we need to be responsible with our remarks on foreign soil and to show some form of civility when airing our grievances about our President, our country's stand on diplomatic issues, and the war in Iraq.

While we do have our disagreements on how this country should proceed, I believe we need to iron out these problems at home rather than taking them to an international stage and using that opportunity to make politically offensive comments towards our country.

Saying our country is shameful at an international forum only hurts our standing among world leaders we are trying to negotiate with on important trade deals and other foreign policy issues such as preventing further international conflict.

We need to help build up America on the international stage, not shoot ourselves in the foot by tearing ourselves down with statements used for political gain.

Most Americans do not belong to the "Blame America First" crowd. Most Americans don't support bashing our country on the international stage. Most Americans agree that politics ends at the water's edge.

The "Blame America First" crowd spreads negative sentiment about the United States, and then wonders why the rest of the world has a low opinion of America. They are feeding the very beast they claim they are trying to tame.

Most Americans are proud of what this country stands for.

The United States is one of the largest contributors in economic aid to developing countries.

We continually work as a Nation to extend a helping hand to those in need.

Funding for bilateral and economic assistance has increased consecutively over the past 6 years, reaching unprecedented levels in the international community.

We have also taken the lead in the fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS.

We recognize that this pandemic is destroying lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions.

The President's emergency plan for AIDS relief is the largest commitment ever made by any nation to combat HIV and AIDS.

The number of people benefiting from this program has grown from 50,000 to 800,000 in 3 years.

It is an extremely successful program and continues to grow in support every year.

We also continue to provide lifesaving drugs to fight malaria to those in need in Africa.

Through the President's malaria initiative we have been able to provide millions of lifesaving treatments in order to prevent the spread of this debilitating disease.

These international successes often go largely unnoticed and are overshadowed by the current debate on the war in Iraq.

I ask my colleagues to take a moment this week to reflect upon our foreign policy successes as well as our current challenges.

I believe that we can build upon our mistakes and learn from them.

We must work collectively on advancing our national interests instead of splintering off and playing into the hands of our enemies.

Some of the proposed resolutions on Iraq send a terrible message to both our troops and allies and only hurt our national interests.

Even more importantly, I believe they send a dangerous message to our enemies.

I do not support these kinds of nonbinding resolutions that criticize our plans for Iraq and I plan to oppose them.

They are counterproductive and will not make our problems in Iraq go away now or in the near future.

I support working to find real solutions to the problem at hand, not politically motivated attempts that offer little or no alternative.

I will not participate in this empty political posturing.

My main focus is on providing moral and material support for our troops.

We must not forget our commitment to our troops and in turn the commitment they made to our country and the mission in Iraq.

I believe they deserve our full support, not criticism and idle threats to cut their funding.

Like many of my colleagues, I was initially skeptical of sending additional reinforcement troops to Iraq, but I believe that we must give the President's new strategy a chance to succeed.

Abruptly cutting and running is not a viable option.

This would only further hinder our efforts in the war on terror and endanger our regional allies in the Middle East.

I will support our commander and chief in his new way forward in Iraq and will support General Petraeus, our new commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, in his efforts to carry out this plan.

I believe that General Petraeus is a key component in this new strategy.

He is a friend.

He has spent many years of his fine career stationed at Fort Campbell, KY.

I have the utmost respect for him and confidence in his leadership skills and judgment.

His service in Iraq has equipped him with an expertise in irregular warfare and operations and a true understanding of the enemy we face.

In his 27 months in Iraq, he led a division into battle, oversaw the reconstruction and governance of Iraq's third-largest city, and built up from virtually nothing Iraq's army and police force.

He managed to do this all by earning the respect of the Iraqis--all Iraqis--the Kurds, Sunnis and the Shias.

General Petraeus and I talked, just the two of us, for nearly an hour in my office this week.

I asked tough questions. And he responded with realistic answers about what it takes for us to succeed in Iraq.

He knows that Iraqis have to live up to their end of the bargain.

Now we must show General Petraeus that we will live up to our end of the bargain and give him the opportunity to carry out his mission.

Some of our colleagues support General Petraeus but do not support his mission.

Many of our colleagues that unanimously voted to give General Petraeus his fourth star last week will likely vote in favor of proposed resolutions that question the very mission that General Petraeus testified in support of before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This does not make sense to me. Right now we cannot afford to distinguish between the two.

I am not asking my colleagues for an open-ended commitment, just a little more patience--patience to see if this new strategy works, patience to see if Iraqis will hold up their end of the bargain and meet the benchmarks set by both our countries, and finally, patience to allow our troops to complete their mission.

Our troops are committed to their mission. Now we owe them our commitment.

This is our last best hope for progress in Iraq.

In his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus offered to provide Congress with regular reports on the progress of his mission and on the performance and cooperation of Iraqis.

I plan on taking him up on this offer.

We must keep up to date on the situation in Iraq as it changes so that we can best help our new commander address the situation at hand.

I wish General Petraeus the best of luck in this mission.

It is a daunting task but I have faith in him and his leadership capabilities.

I ask my colleagues for their support.

We must show a united front and give this plan a chance to succeed.

The cost of failure is too great. We cannot afford failure in Iraq and the international community cannot either, so I ask my colleagues to reflect on these serious issues before we begin debating the resolutions concerning the war in Iraq next week.

Let us show both our allies and our enemies that we can be united behind our Nation's foreign policy.

I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore - The Senator from Arizona.

Jon Kyl-R (AZ)

Mr. Kyl-R, Arizona - Mr. President, first let me compliment my colleague, Senator Bunning, for a fine statement. I endorse his call for unity. In a time of war, a country needs to be unified, especially when we send our young men and women into harm's way. They need to know we support the mission that we put them in harm's way to try to achieve.

I remember years ago I used to see bumper stickers that said, "Give peace a chance." Today we need to dust off some of those bumper stickers, write a couple of extra words in, and give the President's plan for peace a chance. We are going to have a debate next week among those who believe the President's plan deserves a chance to succeed and those who disagree. I believe the latter position is dangerous, and it would be dangerous to express that point of view with a vote of the Senate in support of a resolution to that effect, especially since it appears people whom we have relied on in the past for advice are also now saying give the President's plan a chance and because events on the ground are beginning to suggest that his plan is already beginning to work.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the Baker-Hamilton report. Critics of the President's plan have frequently held that report up as evidence that we need to take a different course of action. But yesterday, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Member of the House of Representatives Lee Hamilton both argued that the President's plan should be given a chance to succeed.

Maybe that surprised the chairman, but here is what they testified. Representative Hamilton:

So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the President's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80-to-nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance.

That is Lee Hamilton.

Former Senator and Secretary of State Baker said:

... the study group set no timetables and we set no deadlines. We believe that military commanders must have the flexibility to respond to events on the ground.

And he said, in response to a Senator:

Senator, one of the purposes of the surge, as I'm sure you have heard from General Petraeus, when you confirmed him, is to give the Iraqi government a little more running room in order to help it achieve national reconciliation by tamping down the violence or pacifying, if you will, Baghdad.

That is the purpose of this strategy.

As I said, there is already evidence, even though the strategy has certainly not been implemented in full, that even the prospect of its implementation is beginning to have an effect. It is clear the Iraqi Government, in its pronouncements, has already begun to sound a lot different to these terrorists than they did in the past, when the Iraqi Government didn't always back up the U.S. efforts. When we would go into an area, we would capture these killers, and a couple of days later they would be back on the street because somebody with political influence in Iraq would see that it happened.

The idea is the Iraqis are now going to take charge and not allow that to happen. And in addition to U.S. troops, there will be twice as many new Iraqi troops helping to make sure it does not happen. Here are a few excerpts from the news media.

From the Washington Post, February 1, 2007:

Shiite militia leaders already appear to be leaving their strongholds in Baghdad in anticipation of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to increase the troop presence in the Iraqi capital, according to the top U.S. commander in the country.

He said:

"We have seen numerous indications Shia militia leaders will leave, or already have left, Sadr City to avoid capture by Iraqi and coalition security forces," Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said in a written statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of his confirmation hearing today to be the Army chief of staff.

Already beginning to work. The article continues:

Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his militia not to confront U.S. forces and has endorsed negotiations aimed at easing the deployment of American troops in his strongholds, according to Sadrist and other Shiite officials. This is the idea. In Anbar Province, where the pressure from al-Qaida has been very strong, there is now news that the sheiks in Anbar Province are beginning to work with us.
(Note: the above is not in the article Kyl is quoting)

Just one report from the Washington Post of January 27:

With the help of a confederation of about 50 Sunni Muslim tribal sheiks, the U.S. military recruited more than 800 police officers in December and is on track to do the same this month. Officers credit the sheiks' cooperation for the diminishing violence in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.

We have just mounted a big offensive with the Iraqi military in Najaf, and I quote from a Washington Post story of January 29:

Iraqi soldiers, backed by U.S. helicopters, stormed an encampment of hundreds of insurgents hiding among date palm orchards in southern Iraq in an operation Sunday and set off fierce, day-long gun battles during the holiest week for the country's Shiite Muslims. Iraqi security officials said that the troops killed scores of insurgents while foiling a plot to annihilate the Shiite religious leadership in the revered city of Najaf.

There is also political movement in the country. Let me quote from a story from the Los Angeles Times of February 1:

Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers announced plans Wednesday to form two new blocs in Iraq's parliament they hope will break away from the ethnic and religious mold of current alliances and ease sectarian strife.

There has also been a lot of talk about whether the mission of our forces should be one of which is to help secure the borders. This is something else that the Iraqis have pledged that they need to do, particularly in their relationships with Syria and Iran. Quoting from the same Los Angeles Times story:

Iraq indefinitely halted all flights to and from Syria and closed a border crossing with Iran as the government prepares for a security crackdown, a parliament member and an airport official said Wednesday, the Associated Press reported. The airport official said that flights to and from Syria would be cancelled for at least two weeks and that service had been interrupted on Tuesday. Hassan al-Sunneid, a member of the parliament's defense and security committee, told the AP that "the move was in preparation for the security plan. The State will decide when the flights will resume."
(Note: the above is not in the article Kyl is quoting)

So it is already beginning. No resolution passed here in the Senate is going to stop this new strategy. It appears to already be having some success. My only concern is the disagreement of some of our colleagues that it can't succeed will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, merely because it could embolden our enemies and cause our allies to wonder whether we still have the will to continue until we have achieved our mission in Iraq. But perhaps the message I am most concerned about that these resolutions would send is not only to the enemy and to our allies, but to our own troops and to their families.

There has been quite a bit of discussion of a news report on the NBC Nightly News last Friday, Brian Williams reporting, who specifically called upon Richard Engel, who was in Iraq, to report on what he had found there. I will work through his report, but here is what Engel said:

It's not just the new mission the soldiers are adjusting to. They have something else on their minds: The growing debate at home about the war. Troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they have been fighting for. Twenty-one year-old SP Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it is like firsthand before criticizing.

Here is what SP Tyler Johnson then said on the TV news.

Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may support—'Oh, we support the troops,' but you're not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, and what we die for. It just don't make sense to me.

Richard Engel then said:

Staff SGT Manuel Sahagun has served in Afghanistan and is now on his second tour in Iraq. He says people back home can't have it both ways.

And now Staff SGT Manuel Sahagun is on the camera and says:

One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way.

And then Engel says:

SP Peter Manna thinks people have forgotten the toll the war has taken.

And SP Peter Manna says:

If they don't think what we are doing is a good job, everything that we have done here is all in vain.

Engel concludes:

Apache Company has lost two soldiers and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.

We cannot send that message to our troops and to their families, that we disagree with the mission we are putting them in harm's way to try to achieve. As these three young men, our finest, have said, speaking to the American people: You can't say you support the troops if you don't support what we are trying to do here, what we might die trying to accomplish.

That is why we have to be careful about resolutions in the Senate. Every Senator has an immense capability of expressing his or her point of view. We have all done that. We all continue to do it. We can get before the cameras any time we want to. We can let our folks back home know what we feel. And I dare say there are probably 100 different opinions in this body of 100 people. We all have a little different view of it. And we can tell our constituents what we think.

We certainly can communicate that to the President and people in the military. What we don't have to do is to go the next step and pass a resolution that first of all is nonbinding and has no effect on the implementation of the strategy, which is already beginning and will go forward, but can have a very detrimental effect on our enemies, on our allies, and on our own troops.

When General Petraeus was here testifying before his confirmation, he was asked a question about the resolutions to the effect of would it be helpful, and he said: No, it would not be helpful. Then he went on to talk about the object of war being to break the will of the enemy. He said: This would not help us--it would hurt us--break the will of the enemy, especially in a war like the one we are fighting with terrorists around the globe today--a war of wills.

It is important for us not to send the signal that our will is flagging, that there is great disagreement in our country about the desire to continue. In this war of wills, we should be unified and in support of the mission we are sending our troops to try to accomplish, and in support of the general whom we have confirmed to carry out that mission.

So I hope my colleagues will think very carefully about the words they speak, the actions they take, and reflect on what others will think of what we do here in this body. We are not simply speaking to the President, trying to send him a message. Everyone else in the world will get that message. And as much as we might manipulate the words in a resolution to try to bring 60 Senators all in consensus to what the resolution says, we all know what the headlines the next morning are going to say all around the world if a resolution like this were to pass: "Senate Declares No Confidence in President's Strategy." "U.S. Senate Goes on Record as Opposing Bush Plan." You can write the headline. Those are the words that will resonate around the world.

Let's not make any criticism of the President or his plan become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's be as united as we can in supporting our troops by supporting the mission we are sending them on, hoping it will succeed; if we want, expressing concerns we have about that, but doing so in a way that doesn't undercut the message. We can do both of these things in this great open society. People expect us to have debate about important issues such as matters of war and peace, and we can do that without undercutting the mission here.

I go back to where I started in quoting former Representative Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the Hamilton-Baker commission in his testimony yesterday here in the Senate:

So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the President's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we have heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80 to nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance.

Iraq

Joseph Biden-D (MD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we have a real opportunity for the Senate to speak clearly. Every Senator will have a chance to vote on whether he or she supports or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. If the President does not listen to the majority of the Congress—and I expect the majority of Congress will vote for our resolution—if he does not respond to a majority of the Congress and a majority of the American people, we will have to look for other ways to change his policy. But this is a very important first step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary Kissinger told our committee yesterday:

I'm sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely this will emerge out of the conflict that we are now witnessing.

Former Secretary of State Albright said:

... the idea of the ...constitution of Iraq as written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal of regional autonomy, is appropriate.

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

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

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

Health Care

Patty Murray-D (WA)

Ms. Murray-D, Washington - Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the health care proposals President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union Address last Tuesday. For too long, our working families and our businesses have really struggled with rising costs and shrinking access, and Washington, DC, has virtually ignored that health care crisis.

Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, the President is finally bringing some ideas to the table and saying he wants to be part of the solution. Well, I want to thank him for joining the debate, and I hope he is serious about working with us to address the challenges that have only gotten worse over the past 7 years. There may well be valuable ideas in his proposals. I want to get more details than we heard in just the State of the Union Address because there may be areas on which we can agree.

However, I have to say, from what I have seen of the President's plan so far, I do have some serious concerns that his initiatives will undermine the employer-based health insurance system; may push people into the risky and expensive individual insurance market; may fail to provide coverage for our most vulnerable; and may divert funds for the health care safety net to experimental programs.

My first concern is that the President's proposal will jeopardize the employer-based health insurance system. The most stable form of health insurance for America's working families today is through their employers. Mr. President, 155 million Americans receive health insurance today from their employers.

One of the primary reasons why employers offer health insurance to their workers is because those benefits are excluded from taxable income. But the President's proposal, as I hear it, would take away that incentive by putting all forms of health insurance on an equal playing field. Even if employers choose not to drop health care coverage, they may be forced to do so in the future as the healthiest employees drop out of their employers' plans. If insurance becomes unaffordable, employers may be forced to stop offering health care benefits. I think many of my colleagues agree with me that we should be strengthening the employer-based health insurance system, not taking steps that will jeopardize it.

Secondly, I am very concerned that the President's proposal will push people into the individual insurance market. Today, when workers cannot get coverage through their employer, they need to purchase health insurance in the individual insurance market. But as any small businessman or self-employed woman will tell you, the individual insurance market today is not a good alternative to employer-provided coverage. In many States, insurers can cherry-pick applicants to avoid enrolling those with high health needs, or insurance companies can sell different policies to high- or low-risk individuals. If you have a chronic disease such as diabetes--or even any health problem--good luck getting reasonably priced, comprehensive coverage in the individual market today. Any proposal to increase access to health insurance should support the ability of Americans to receive affordable and comprehensive coverage, not force people into expensive, barebones insurance plans.

Third, I am troubled that the President's proposal will not increase access to health insurance for the uninsured. We have 46 million uninsured men, women, and children in this country today. That is a staggeringly high number, and those people face daily challenges trying to avoid getting sick and going into debt when something unexpected happens. Every day, I hear from people in my home State of Washington who struggle to pay for their health care costs. Unfortunately, the President's proposal will not help those people because they do not pay enough money in taxes to benefit from this tax deduction he is proposing. That really makes me question whether the President's plan will actually reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

Finally, I am very concerned that the President's plan will further chip away at our health care safety net because it would divert critical Medicaid dollars into an experimental grant program. Now, we do not have a lot of details yet, but it appears he is proposing to use Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments to give States the ability to experiment with health care reform. Those DSH payments keep the doors of our public hospitals open. Public hospitals are the foundations of our communities. They not only provide emergency care, but they train our doctors, they support rural health care, and they are the first lines of defense against pandemic flu or bioterror attacks. I am very concerned that his proposal could seriously jeopardize my State's Medicaid funds and, therefore, undermine those critical services.

I want to give an example of how these proposals could exacerbate the worst parts of our health insurance system.

Last week, I received a letter from my constituents Alice and Michael Counts. They live in Vancouver, WA. Their son Wesley was diagnosed with a kidney condition at age 16. Their family's personal health insurance insisted that his kidney disease was preexisting, and the insurer refused to pay for the medical tests that diagnosed his condition. His parents appealed to our insurance commissioner, and they won, but the insurer raised its rates far beyond the reach of a self-employed individual. So later, when Wesley was going through dialysis and a kidney transplant, his employer dropped insurance coverage because it had become too costly.

Throughout all these medical and financial ups and downs, Wesley has worked and has now graduated from Clark College. Thankfully, his parents have been able to help him navigate a health care system that failed him.

Wesley's parents wrote to me, and they said:

We would rather pay higher taxes that give everyone affordable health care than live with the fear of losing everything through catastrophic illness.

Wesley's story shows just how risky the individual market is and how people with serious health problems can be severely affected when an employer is forced to drop coverage. No patient—no one—should have to live in fear that their next dialysis treatment will not be covered by insurance.

What Wesley deserves--and what all Americans deserve—is access to affordable, dependable, comprehensive health care. The President's plan does not guarantee that. It does not even come close. It just makes the health insurance market more unstable and more risky and leaves more people like Wesley vulnerable. He deserves better than that. I think all Americans do.

So, as I said at the beginning of my statement, I welcome the President's attention to the health care crisis we are facing in this country. Last year, on the Senate floor we devoted 3 days—3 days—to health care. The President probably spent even less time talking about health care. So this is an improvement. We desperately need a serious and a very thoughtful debate about how we increase access to health insurance.

My colleagues and I have put forward a number of good ideas about how to increase access to health care. One of the first things we can do is reauthorize and strengthen the State Children's Health Insurance Program—that is the SCHIP program—that provides quality health care to millions of uninsured children. Congress should give States the funding and the flexibility to cover more of our kids.

Secondly, we have to fund community health centers so they can continue to provide quality health care to our uninsured.

Third, I agree with the President, we should help States devise new ways to increase access to health care. My home State of Washington, like a lot of States, is working on innovative initiatives to expand coverage. But we can accomplish this in ways that do not chip away at the foundation of our public hospitals.

Finally, we can expand health insurance for small businesses and the self-employed by creating Federal and State catastrophic cost pools in ways that will help us lower costs and still protect our patients.

I look forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Baucus and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the President on real health care reform. There are people like Wesley across the country in every one of our States who are crying out for change, and we owe it to them, in this body, to finally make the progress that is long overdue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Power of Congress to Impose Conditions on Funding

Arlen Specter-R (PA)

Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the powers of Congress under the Constitution to impose conditions on the funds appropriated by Congress, conditions on the President of the United States in carrying out his responsibilities as Commander in Chief. This, of course, is a major subject confronting the United States at this time as to what our continuing policy should be in Iraq, and there is considerable controversy as to what that policy should be.

The President has come forward with the proposal to add 21,500 troops in Iraq.

That has been questioned in many quarters in the Congress of the United States, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and by the American people. The election results last November were generally regarded as a repudiation of our activities in Iraq. The military personnel who have come forward to testify in recent days before the Armed Services Committee and the witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee have a similar view that major mistakes have been made in Iraq. But there is also a generalized consensus that once there, even though we found no weapons of mass destruction—had we known Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, it is doubtful Congress would have authorized the use of force—we cannot pull out and leave Iraq destabilized. The question is, how to do it.

The day before yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the power of Congress to stop war. The title of the hearing was "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." At that time I raised the question, respectfully, with the President, who has stated that he is the decider—he stated that quite a number of times—I raised the contention that he is not the sole decider, that the Congress of the United States has considerable authority on what will be done in the conduct of the war. There is no doubt that Congress cannot micromanage the war. But it is worth noting historically the many occasions where Congress has appropriated funds or taken action conditioned on the President following the instructions, following the will of the Congress. There was not sufficient time at the hearing the day before yesterday to go into detail on these subjects. That is why I have decided to come to the floor at the present time and amplify the views which I expressed at that time, to review the long line of precedents where the Congress has imposed conditions on how the President spends appropriated funds for military purposes under his Commander in Chief responsibilities and the many situations where the Congress has cut off funding.

When the Congress acceded to the request of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1940, for a peacetime draft, it was on the condition that no draftees be stationed outside of the Western Hemisphere. When the Congress appropriated funds for reconstruction following the Civil War, the Congress limited the Presidential authority saying that the orders of the President and the Secretary of War to the army should be given only through General Grant and that General Grant should not be relieved, removed, or transferred from Washington without the previous approval of the Senate. That is going fairly far in the management of a military operation and might even be characterized as micromanagement, but that is what was done.

During the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, Congress conditioned appropriations on a minimum of 8 percent of the detachments aboard naval vessels, being Marines. There, again, a fairly extensive incursion into what you would call command responsibilities. Again, it might be characterized as micromanagement.

The United States fought what has been characterized as a Quasi-War with France in the latter part of the 18th century. In that war, Congress limited both the kind of force the President could use—only the Navy, nothing more—and the areas in which he could use it, our coastal waters first and then on the high seas. The Congress authorized the seizure of French vessels traveling to French ports, and then the military seized French vessels coming out of French ports. And that case went to the Supreme Court of the United States. And in an 1804 decision in the case captioned Little v. Barreme, the Supreme Court found that Congress had authorized only seizure of vessels traveling to French courts, not from French ports. As I review that 200 years later, it seems like a very curious limitation, that the power would be to seize vessels going to France but not coming from France, but that was the specificity of the authorization of the Congress, which was upheld in the legal challenge by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is unanimity that Congress would not cut off funds which could in any way threaten the security or safety of U.S. troops. No doubt about that. And there has been very careful articulation that where there has been disagreement with administration policy, there has always been unanimous support for our troops. But it is worth noting the many historical precedents where Congress has cut off funding for military operations.

In Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in 1973, at the close of the Vietnam war, Congress, with a veto-proof supermajority, cut off all funds, including preexisting appropriations, for combat activities in Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam after August 15 of 1973. Then in 1974, Congress set a personnel ceiling of 4,000 Americans in Vietnam, 6 months after enactment, and 3,000 Americans within 1 year, which is a precedent for congressional conditions on a reduction in force so that there is advance notice to the administration what the congressional direction is, so many troops out by such-and-such a date, so many by another date, so there is no doubt that the troops which remain will be adequately taken care of in terms of the necessities for carrying out their function in a safe way.

In 1976, Congress, with respect to Angola, provided that there would be no assistance of any kind provided to conduct military or paramilitary actions in Angola unless expressly authorized by Congress. In Nicaragua in 1984, Congress provided that there would be no funds available to support military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua.

In Somalia in 1993, Congress provided that no funds appropriated may be used for the continued presence in Somalia of United States military personnel after September 30, 1994. And in Rwanda in 1994, Congress provided that no funds are available for U.S. military participation in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994 except to protect the lives of U.S. citizens. In 2000, with respect to Colombia, Congress capped at 500 the number of troops in Colombia. During the Barbary wars, Congress enacted legislation authorizing only limited military action against the Barbary powers. In the slave trade in 1819, Congress legislated that even there, there were specific descriptions as to location and mission. In 1878, Congress passed, as part of an appropriations bill, the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricted the President's ability to use the military for police action of the United States, and they went so far as to impose criminal penalties on the troops themselves.

There are substantial limitations present in congressional action with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war powers imposed limitations on the President. It should be noted that the President has never agreed to the limitations, but the reporting requirements under the War Powers Act have been complied with. And both in the first Iraq war in 1991 and the so-called second Iraq war of 2002, and in the authorization as to Afghanistan in 2001, there are restrictions.

It continues to be my hope that there will be an accommodation between the President and the plans he proposes to undertake and the Congress. It has been very healthy to have the kind of analysis and debate which has taken place in committee and on the floor of the Senate and beyond, in the cloakrooms and in the hallways. That is the topic of the day. As we have taken a look at other issues which we are facing, there is very little oxygen in Washington for anything but what we are going to be doing in Iraq. And those who say it is unhealthy or it weakens the United States in the world view or it undercuts the morale of the troops in Iraq, I believe the conventional wisdom is, the consensus is that notwithstanding those kind of concerns, that that is the democratic process. That is the price we pay in a democracy.

At the hearing the day before yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, I cited polls where the military themselves, those participating in Iraq, have substantial questions about the wisdom of what is going on, I think it was 42 percent, disagree with the conduct of the war in Iraq. So it is a healthy sign that it is a part of the price of democracy.

I was interested to note the testimony of former Secretary of State Kissinger yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee, saying he believed a consensus would emerge. And certainly, the United States is stronger when we do have unity between the Congress, under Article I, and the President, under Article II. I have been pleased to see the President consult with the Congress. I attended one meeting a few weeks ago, presided over by the President, which was bipartisan, about a dozen Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, and a second meeting with the National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, 10 Senators, all of whom on that occasion were Republicans.

And the President has scheduled a meeting with Republican Senators tomorrow afternoon, where obviously Iraq will be the topic of the day. I have said publicly that the proposal that makes a lot of sense to me is the one that has been discussed by quite a number of military experts, which would set a time schedule, give notice to the Iraqis that at some point the U.S. forces would retreat to the perimeters of Baghdad, and that the Iraqis would be called upon to meet the two conditions as specified very forcefully by the President in the State of the Union speech: that the Iraqis would be responsible for ending sectarian violence and responsible for securing Baghdad, and that American troops would remain.

My view is that those are the two conditions the President set down. Then the plan which has been considered very broadly would leave the American troops in Iraq to guard the infrastructure, protect the oilfields, and give training and support to the Iraqis. But even the parade of military witnesses who testified before Congress has said that the Iraqis are much more likely to take action to protect themselves when they don't rely upon the United States to do so. It is a matter of human nature. If we are going to undertake the burdens for the Iraqis, why should they undertake those burdens?

In considering the deployment of 21,500 additional personnel, I have been very skeptical and have said on the record that I could not support that because the Iraqis do not appear, from all indications, to have either the capacity or the will to carry out their commitments if those additional forces are to be committed. But I have said, also, that I am going to await the debate on the floor of the Senate. I am not sure we deserve the title of the "world's greatest deliberative body," but that is the standard we strive to meet. Before I am prepared to decide which way to vote, yea or nay, on any of the resolutions, I want to be part of that deliberative process, join in the discussion, and raise questions.

It is my hope that before that time comes, there will be further discussions, such as the one tomorrow afternoon with the President with Republican Senators. There are discussions going on all the time. I would like to see us meet the standard that former Secretary Kissinger talked about yesterday and come to a consensus. But in the meantime, I believe the analysis that is being undertaken is very healthy. If there is a price to pay, it is a small price to pay for a democracy.

I believe in this discussion taking place in the United States we show the world the strength of our institutions, not the weakness in the United States by whatever disagreements there may be between the President and the Congress of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum of law be printed in the Record which details the actions taken in the past by the Congress to limit funding and the actions taken by the Congress to condition funding and limit executive action.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

I. Utilizing the Power of the Purse

Congress has on several occasions used the power of the purse in declining to fund certain military forces (thereby preventing, reducing, or ending the U.S. military presence in a given area) or in otherwise attaching strings to military appropriations. See CRS Report, Congressional Restriction on U.S. Military Operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, and Kosovo: Funding and Non-Funding Approaches (2007); CRS Report, Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces and Overseas Deployments 1-3, 5-6 (2001) (hereafter ``CRS Report 2001). Several examples follow:

These examples represent congressional action to "re-deploy" or to prevent troops from being dispatched in the first place.

II. Non-Spending Methods of Limiting or Defining Involvement

On other occasions, Congress has utilized non-spending means to limit and define U.S. military action—e.g., by authorizing military involvement only for specified purposes or places, by rescinding a prior authorization, or by prospectively curtailing authorization.

Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Nomination of Gregory Frizzell for District Judge

James Inhofe-R (OK)

'Mr. Inhofe-R, Oklahoma - Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate very much the senior Senator from Pennsylvania yielding to me. I know he is interested in getting these quality judges confirmed, and votes are taking place.

We have one coming up in a few minutes that happens to be for a close personal friend of mine, a judge in Oklahoma, Greg Frizzell. I would like to make a couple of comments.

First of all, we thought he would be confirmed before the end of last year, and it didn't work out. There was bickering going on that had nothing to do with him but with other judges. Fortunately, over the last few weeks, I have had a chance to talk to colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I want to single out Senator Pat Leahy for being so generous with me and giving me time to talk about Judge Frizzell and why he should be confirmed. He told me, after listening to this, he would be willing to put him on his top priority list. He didn't have to do it. He is a Democrat and I am a Republican. So, again, I compliment Senator Pat Leahy for doing that for us and for justice in America.

This young man, Greg Frizzell, has a great family background. I remember when his daddy, Kent Frizzell, was in Kansas and served as attorney general for that State. Then he had better judgment and decided to move from Kansas to Oklahoma. We became good friends many years ago. Greg was very young at that time. He was raised in this family of public servants, people who served as his father had for such a long period of time. I think his father is still at the University of Tulsa Law School and has been for about 20 years and is doing great work. That is the environment in which Greg Frizzell was raised. He has been a judge for a long time, and you would think you would hear some negative things about him. But you don't hear negative things about this guy. Even his political adversaries all agree that he is the quality and type of man who should be on the Federal bench.

Robert Sartin, a member of the Board of Governors, said:

Judge Frizzell is a man of extremely good character and high integrity, with a deep sense of personal responsibility toward his fellow man.

A fellow judge, Claire Egan, praised him. She talked about the urgency of this confirmation and that they actually only have three judges now on that bench doing the work of six judges.

One of the most highly respected senior Federal judges, Ralph Thompson, who is in senior status in Oklahoma right now, praised Greg, saying there is nobody out there who could be more qualified than Greg Frizzell for this particular appointment.

So it is neat that we are finally getting around to this. I apologize to Greg and his family for the uncertainty that is always there, even though I never had any uncertainty. I knew he was going to be there.

Getting back again to all these different people, Joe Wolgemuth, a prominent attorney in Tulsa, recalls an incident where Judge Frizzell--he has six kids, by the way--had work to do one night, and he went down and took his six kids with him and did his judicial work. Anybody who can juggle six kids and do his job at the same time I know is qualified for this job. I am thrilled that just in a matter of minutes we will be able to vote to confirm Judge Frizzell to the Northern District of Oklahoma. He will be a great judge.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Arlen Specter-R (PA)

Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for those comments. He may be interested to know that I have been advised that the nominee is the son of Kent Frizzell, who was a high school debater in Kansas in my era. I debated against Kent Frizzell. I also noted that the nominee was born in Wichita, KS, which is a good place to be born, because I was born there, too. It is sometimes the source of some levity.

When I was one of the assistant counsels to the Warren Commission, a man named Frances W. Adams, a prominent Wall Street lawyer, noted on my resume that I was born in Wichita. He said: Where was your mother on her way to at the time? When I say the birth place of Greg Frizzell, the nominee, is Wichita, KS, I recollect my own birth place and recollect the connection I had with his father being my high school debating opponent many years ago.

While I have the floor, I know the time has been reserved to talk about judges in just a few minutes. Having started on Gregory Kent Frizzell, I would like to make a few additional comments. Senator Leahy is due to be here in a few minutes to speak--about three nominees. Votes are scheduled to take place at 11:55.

I would like to supplement what has been said about Gregory Kent Frizzell. He has an outstanding academic record. He graduated from Tulsa University in 1981 and the University of Michigan Law School in 1984. He was an Oklahoma Rhodes Scholar finalist in 1980. He has been rated unanimously "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. I believe there is no opposition to his nomination for U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. I urge my colleagues to support him.

I ask unanimous consent that his résumé be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Gregory Kent Frizzell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Birth: December 13, 1956, Wichita, Kansas.

Legal Residence: Oklahoma.

Education: B.A., University of Tulsa, 1981, Phi Alpha Theta (History Honor Society), Omicron Delta Kappa (National Leadership Honor Society), Oklahoma Rhodes Scholar Finalist, 1980. J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1984, AmJur Award in Legal Research and Writing.

Employment: Law Clerk, the Honorable Thomas R. Brett, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, 1984-1986, Associate, Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C., 1986-1994, Solo Practitioner, Gregory K. Frizzell, 1994-1995, General Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1995-1997, District Judge, 14th Judicial District of the State of Oklahoma, 1997-Present.

Selected Activities: Board of Directors, Tulsa Speech & Hearing Association, 1986-1995 (President, 1994-1995), Director-at-Large, Rotary Club of Tulsa, 2006-2007, Master of the Bench, American Inns of Court, Hudson-Hall-Wheaton Chapter, 1997-2002 (President, 2000-2001), Member, Oklahoma Bar Association, (Vice Chairman, Professionalism Committee, 2006) (House of Delegates, 2001-2002), Member, Tulsa County Bar Association (Board of Directors, 2006) (Chairman, Law School/Mentoring Committee, 2001-2002), Oklahoma Task Force on Judicial Selection, 1999-2000.

Judge Frizzell was nominated during the last Congress and his nomination reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation on September 29, 2006. The Senate, however, did not act on his nomination prior to adjournment of the 109th Congress.

President Bush re-nominated Judge Frizzell in the 110th Congress and the nomination reported out of Committee on January 25, 2007.

Judge Frizzell has had a distinguished career both in private practice and in public service.

In 1981, he earned his B.A. degree from the University of Tulsa. While at Tulsa, Judge Frizzell was inducted into the Phi Alpha Theta and Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Societies. He was also an Oklahoma Rhodes Scholar Finalist in 1980.

Judge Frizzell went on to earn his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1984, where he was awarded the AmJur Award in Legal Research and Writing.

After law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas R. Brett, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

In 1986, Judge Frizzell joined the Oklahoma law firm of Jones, Givens, Gotchers & Bogan, P.C. as an associate and focused on commercial litigation.

In 1994, Judge Frizzell left Jones, Givens and practiced as a solo practitioner. In this capacity he represented individuals and small business entities in civil controversies.

In 1995, Judge Frizzell was appointed General Counsel of the Oklahoma Tax Commission by Governor Frank Keating.

In 1997, Judge Frizzell was appointed district judge for the l4 Judicial District in the State of Oklahoma. He was elected without opposition in 1998 and again in 2002. His term is set to expire in January 2007.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Frizzell "Well Qualified" to serve as a federal district court judge.

Nomination of Lawrence O'Neil for District Judge

Arlen Specter-R (PA)

Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, further, I support the confirmation of Judge Lawrence Joseph O'Neill to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California. He, too, has an excellent academic record, with a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1973, an MBA from Golden Gate University in 1976, and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. He has a distinguished professional record. The American Bar Association rated him unanimously "well qualified."

I ask unanimous consent that his résumé be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Lawrence Joseph O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Birth: September 5, 1952, Oakland, California.

Legal Residence: California.

Education: B.A., University of California at Berkeley, 1973; M.P.A., Golden Gate University, 1976; J.D., University of California, Hastings College of Law, 1979.

Employment: Associate, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte, & Carruth, 1979-1983, Partner, 1984-1990; Adjunct Professor, San Joaquin College of Law, 1986-1992, Professor of the Year Award, Civil Trial Advocacy; California Superior Court Judge, Fresno County Superior Court, 1990-1999; Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, 1999-Present.

Selected Activities: Judicial Member, Federal Bar Association, 1999-Present, Executive Board; Member, Fresno County Bar Association, 1979-1990, Judicial Member, 1990-Present, Recipient, "20 Years of Service" Award for service to the Fresno County Mock Trial Program; Member, Federal Magistrate Judges Association, 1999-Present; Board Member, Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judge Executive Committee, 2003-2006; Board Member, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, 1996-2006; Member, California State Bar, 1979-1990 , Inactive Judicial Member, 1990-Present.

Magistrate Judge Lawrence Joseph O'Neill was nominated during the last Congress and his nomination reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation on August 2, 2006. The Senate, however, did not act on his nomination prior to adjournment of the 109th Congress.

President Bush re-nominated Judge O'Neill in the 110th Congress and the nomination reported out of Committee on January 25, 2006.

He received his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1973, his M.P.A. from Golden Gate University in 1976, and his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1979.

During law school, Judge O'Neill served as a legal clerk to the Honorable Roberts F. Kane of the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals.

Following law school, Judge O'Neill joined the law firm of McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth as an associate. He became a partner with that firm in 1984. His practice focused almost exclusively on civil tort litigation.

While working for McCormick, Barstow, Judge O'Neill also taught classes for six years as an adjunct professor at San Joaquin College of Law. San Joaquin honored Judge O'Neill for his teaching skills by presenting him with the Professor of the Year Award.

In 1990, Judge O'Neill was appointed to the Fresno County Superior Court. He served on that court until 1999 when he was appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Judge O'Niell has received numerous awards for his community service including the annual Judicial Award presented by the Rape Counseling Service of Fresno County and the "20 Years of Service" Award presented by the Fresno County Mock Trial Competition Program.

While serving as the presiding judge of the juvenile courts of Fresno County, Judge O'Neill was recognized for his outstanding efforts to prevent child abuse with the Judy Andreen-Nilson Award. The Fresno County Juvenile Justice Commission also presented him with the Award for Achievement in Juvenile Justice.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge O'Neill "Well Qualified."

The vacancy to which Judge O'Neill is nominated has been designated a ``Judicial Emergency by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the Courts.

Nomination of Valerie Baker for District Judge

Arlen Specter-R (PA)

Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, the third nominee up for a vote at 11:55 is Judge Valerie L. Baker. She is nominated for U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Her academic record, as well, is outstanding: summa cum laude from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1971, with a cum laude master's degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1972, and with a law degree in 1975 from the UCLA School of Law. The American Bar Association unanimously rates Judge Baker "well qualified."

I ask unanimous consent that her résumé be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Valerie L. Baker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Birth: June 25, 1949, Minneapolis, MN. Legal Residence: California. Education: B.A., 1971, University of California, Santa Barbara, summa cum laude; M.A., 1972, University of California, Santa Barbara, cum laude; J.D., 1975, UCLA School of Law.

Employment: Associate, Overton, Lyman & Prince, 1975-1977; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, 1977-1980; Associate, Lillick, McHose & Charles (now Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman) 1980-1982, Partner, 1982-1986; Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, 1986-1987; Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court, 1987-Present.

Selected Activities: Board Member, The Braille Institute, 2001-2003; Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association, 1975-Present; Member, California Judges Association, 1986-present; Board Member, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, 1987-1990, 2001-2004; Board Member, My Friend's Place (homeless shelter for teens), 1993-1995; 1994 Alfred J. McCourtney Trial Judge of the Year Award Recipient, Consumer Lawyers of Los Angeles.

Judge Baker was nominated during the last Congress and her nomination reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation on September 21, 2006. The Senate, however, did not act on her nomination prior to adjournment of the 10 9th Congress. Presid ent Bush re-n ominated Judge Baker in the 110th Congress and her nomination reported out of the Judiciary Committee on January 25, 2006.

Judge Baker received her B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1971 and Masters Degree, cum laude, from the same institution a year later. In 1975, she received her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law.

Upon graduating from law school, she began working as an associate with the firm Overton, Lyman & Prince in Los Angeles. During her two years at Overton, Judge Baker focused on business litiga tion. In 1977, Judge B aker beca me a prosecutor with the United States Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.

In 1980, Judge Baker joined the law firm of Lillick, McHose, & Charles (now Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman) as an associate. Just two years later, the firm granted her partnership. In 1986, Judge Baker was appoin t ed to serve on the Los Angeles Municipal Court, where she presided over civil matters and criminal misdemeano rs. In 1987, she was elevate d to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where she currently serves.

Judge Baker has handled thousands of cases from filing to disposition, and is widely recognized as one of Ca lif ornia' s f in est jurist s. In 1994, she received the Alfred J. McCourtney Trial Judge of the Year Award from the Cons mer Lawy ers of Los Angeles. The American Bar Association has rated Judge Baker unanimously "Well Qualified."

Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for these three distinguished nominees. I thank Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for moving these nominations. It is very important. We have numerous judicial emergencies. We have other nominees awaiting action by the committee and by the full Senate.

Senator Leahy is moving with dispatch, which is appreciated, and it is also appreciated that the majority leader has listed these three nominees for action this morning.

Nomination of Gregory Frizzell for District Judge

Tom Colburn-R (OK)

Mr. Colburn-R, Oklahoma - Mr. President, I come to the floor to follow up on the comments made by my senior Senator, Mr. Inhofe, from Oklahoma, on the qualifications of Judge Gregory Frizzell. He has enumerated many of those. This is a fine young man with impeccable character and integrity. He is a living example of a life of service, not just in what he does as a judge in Oklahoma, but what he does in his community in Oklahoma. It has been a real pleasure to get to know him, to also watch him as he went through the process of getting a unanimous vote out of the Judiciary Committee and having no significant questions raised about his judicial philosophy, integrity, character, background, or his qualifications.

So it is with a great deal of pleasure that I look forward to his vote today.

I might comment for a moment that he was capable of being confirmed in the last Congress, and there was no reason, no good reason why he wasn't, other than the answer: We are not going to approve any more judges in this Congress. That is the reason I was told by the now majority leader that he would not be approved. There is no question as to his qualifications, but it should remind us again of the dangers of partisanship for party instead of partisanship for our country and for future generations.

I am very thankful to the Judiciary Committee chairman, Patrick Leahy from Vermont, for the speed and quickness with which he has brought this to the floor. I thank him for that, and I look forward to working with him with the same speed on any other judges the President might bring up and that the committee would put out.

It is my hope we can get beyond partisanship on judiciary nominees and get to the business of filling the significant number of voids or vacancies that are out there today and that are limiting justice for people in this country. Justice delayed is justice denied. And a lack of available judges is denying justice to hundreds and thousands of Americans every day. So the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has my commitment as a member of the Judiciary Committee to help him in any way I can to move those.

It is a great honor that Greg Frizzell will sit as a Federal judge in the northern district of Oklahoma, and it is my hope we will see many like him fill the spots across this country.

America's Economic Health

Sherrod Brown-D (OH)

Mr. Brown-D, Ohio - Madam President, earlier this week the President traveled to Peoria, IL, and yesterday to Wall Street and delivered speeches that painted a remarkably rosy picture of our economy. He praised current U.S. trade policy, applauding his evidence of success, the increase in global free-trade agreements since taking office. I have to say that I, along with millions of middle-class families in Ohio, in Missouri, all over this country, had to wonder what part of the country he was talking about. In my State of Ohio, in Steubenville, in Youngstown, Toledo, Columbus, and Dayton, more than 180,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs in the time the President has been in the White House.

The President was right about one thing: Productivity is up, and that is a testament to our Nation's hard-working and skilled labor force. Far too often, our Nation's workers do not share in the wealth they create. Our small businesses can't compete against the multinational corporations that exploit cheap labor abroad. Our Nation's history is all about workers. As their productivity increases, they share in the wealth they create for their employers, creating a middle class, creating a rising standard of living.

The President also talked about wage increases for workers, but I am afraid that is where he lost us again. I would invite the President to sit down with a steelworker in Steubenville or a machinist in Toledo or a small tool-and-die shop owner in Dayton. Workers are not seeing their wages increase, nor are they seeing new job opportunities. Employers are not seeing trade policies that level the playing field. Our economic values are skewed toward a very select few in this country.

While it is true the President has pushed 10 free-trade agreements through the negotiation process, he has done so using a fundamentally flawed trade model. More of the same in this case is not such a good thing.

What the President did not say during his speech was that trade negotiations are falling apart. The Central American Free Trade Agreement pushed through the House of Representatives by one vote in the middle of the night still has not been fully implemented. The subsequent Andean Free Trade Agreement fell apart before it even began. Two years ago, thousands of workers in Central America took to the streets protesting this failed trade policy. Last week, tens of thousands of workers in Korea took to the streets protesting a pending free-trade agreement with our country. Why? Again, because the administration continues to use a failed trade model for these agreements. Revamping U.S. trade policy is not just about taking better hold of our economic health; it is about establishing priorities in Washington that reflect family values at home and building strong relationships with trading partners abroad.

While the administration continues to be out of touch with Main Street, I am pleased to say that finally in this Congress there is a bipartisan fair trade effort underway. I am working with Democratic Senator BYRON DORGAN of North Dakota and Republican Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM of South Carolina on a new direction for trade policy.

It is not a question of if we trade but how we trade and who, in fact, benefits from trade.

While discussing the minimum wage this week, Senator Kennedy used these charts to illustrate the development over time of drastic economic inequality in our country. From 1946 to 1973, economic opportunities for poor and working families grew. The lowest 20 percent actually had higher growth, percentagewise, than the top 20 percent in this country. The families who worked hard and played by the rules had a real chance of getting ahead.

From 1973 to 2000, things began to change dramatically. From 1973 to 2000, the lowest 20 percent had the lowest growth in their incomes; the top 20 percent had the fastest growth. It so happened in the year 1973, two things happened: the oil embargo, with the price of oil shooting up; second, 1973 was the year when the United States, historically with trade surpluses, fell into trade deficits, and we have been in trade deficit ever since 1973.

If we look again at this chart, from 1946 to 1973, for 26 years, economic growth was shared equally, with the lowest 20 percent actually growing at the fastest rate and the top 20 percent at the lowest rate. Since 1973, when our country went from persistent trade surpluses to persistent trade deficits, growing more and more and more every year, the lowest 20 percent now have the lowest growth rate, by far. The highest top 20 percent have the fastest growth rate, by far.

We should also look at what has happened to the trade deficit. In 1972, the year I first ran for Congress, our country had a $38 billion trade deficit. In 2006, when the numbers are finalized, our trade deficit will exceed $800 billion. We went from a $38 billion to a $800 billion trade deficit. As President Bush first pointed out, back in 1989-1990, $1 billion in trade deficit or trade surplus translates into 13,000 jobs. So do the math: $1 billion in trade deficit translates into 13,000 lost jobs. Our trade deficit is now $800 billion for the year 2006. Our trade deficit with China in 1992, the year I first ran for the House of Representatives, our trade deficit with China was barely into the double digits. Today our trade deficit with China has reached about $250 billion.

It is clear our trade policy has failed. We have given countries such as China, countries that exploit sweatshop labor and manipulate their currency, an unfair and unnecessary advantage.

If trade agreements can be crafted to protect drug patents and drug companies, those same trade agreements can protect the environment. If trade agreements can be crafted to protect international property rights and Hollywood films, the same trade agreements can protect workers, small American businesses and our communities.

Current U.S. trade policy allows for the inhumane exploitation of foreign workers; it exacerbates job losses in places such as Lima and Zanesville, OH. It puts local businesses--particularly small tool and die, machine shops, small manufacturers--at an unfair disadvantage, forcing thousands of them to close, as large corporations move to Mexico, China, and elsewhere overseas.

In my home State of Ohio, more than 40,000 jobs have been lost to China in the last decade, allowing foreign companies to pay slave wages, to abuse their workers, and to lie about their business practices hurts Americans. It hurts American workers. It hurts American businesses.

This country is already hard at work to change our trade policy to promote fair trade that works for U.S. businesses. We want trade defined differently. We want different trade practices. We want trade that will help small business, that will help workers, and that will stem the exploitation of workers in developing nations.

No longer are Democrats and Republicans in Congress going to stand idly by while businesses and workers in Ohio, businesses and workers in places such as Gallipolis and Springfield and Lima are penalized for playing by the rules.

In the last Congress, we changed the debate on trade. In this Congress, we will change the face of trade.

Iraq

Ken Salazar-D (CO)

Mr. Salazar-D, Colorado - Madam President, as we anticipate the beginning of the discussion and debate with respect to the future of the involvement of the United States in Iraq, it is important for Members always in this Chamber to remember we are all unified in honoring the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and those men and women who continue to fight in Iraq with such bravery and such valor that we cannot forget what they do. Every Member in the Senate honors the sacrifice which our troops and their families have made over the past 4 years. That sacrifice will not, cannot, and will never be forgotten.

It is also important to remember that no matter how contentious the debate might become in the weeks and months ahead, every Senator shares the same basic goals: The goal is simply peace and stability in the Middle East and a safe return of our troops to their homeland.

We may disagree on the best path to the end. It is important to remember what binds us together as America so we will not be torn too far apart and we can help end the divisiveness which has occurred in our country over this issue and move forward in a bipartisan way to restore the greatness of America in the world.

It is my hope the anticipated debate that will occur will be with a spirit of bipartisanship and with a spirit of civility. I am especially pleased we have arrived at a bipartisan resolution which plainly states Congress does, in fact, support a new direction in Iraq. I commend the efforts of the bipartisan group of Senators who worked together to provide a positive framework for protecting our national security, supporting our troops, and defining our mission in Iraq. That compromise resolution reflects the will of the American people that we must, in fact, chart a new course of success in Iraq.

I especially commend the leadership and the great efforts of Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, Senator Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, and others who have been involved in this effort over the last several days.

Until now, the debate over our mission in Iraq has been dominated by essentially what has been a false choice. On the one hand, we have had before Congress and before the American people plan A, which is the President's plan, which essentially has been to say, stay the course, plus, add another 21,500 troops into the fight in Baghdad. This would be a mistake. It would put more American troops into the middle of a civil war and places too much faith in what has been, to us, an incompetent Iraqi Government that has failed to do its work in securing the peace for its people and their country.

On the other hand, we have plan B, which is advocated by some Members of Congress, both in the House and this Senate, which calls for a more or less precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. From my point of view, this, too, is a bad choice. It could open the door to even more bloodshed and to a dangerous regionwide military escalation not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

In my view, what we need is a plan C. That plan C should reflect the bipartisan opposition to the President's proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq and also propose an alternative strategy for success in Iraq. That is exactly what we have accomplished with this compromise resolution which would make clear the following: First, that a bipartisan majority of Senators disagrees with the President's plan to increase the number of United States troops in Iraq as he has proposed; second, that the primary objective of a United States strategy in Iraq should be to encourage the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that are necessary to improve security, foster reconciliation, strengthen the Government, and end the violence; third, that the United States has an important role to play in helping to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, conducting counterterrorism activities, promoting regional stability and training and equipping the Iraqi troops; and, finally, that the United States should engage the nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation diplomatic process and initiative within Iraq and throughout the region.

I will briefly elaborate on some of these points. The President's plan to simply surge or increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 would be a mistake. First, the violence in Iraq is becoming increasingly sectarian, even intrasectarian. I worry that the American troops we are sending there are being placed in what is the midst of a civil war.

Second, I also worry that the larger American military presence will discourage the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own security. As General John Abizaid said in this Capitol last November:

...it's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future.

As we enter the debate over the next several days and weeks in this Senate, we should not forget those words:

I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the plan places too much faith in the present Iraqi Government, which has so far shown little willingness to make the difficult decisions necessary to stop the bloodshed and the violence within their own country.

Finally, we have recent experience where the additional troops who have been sent into Iraq indicate that the results of those operations of the last 7 to 8 months have not been successful. Last year, we tried two separate surges--one was named Operation Together Forward I and the other was Operation Together Forward II--and neither stopped or slowed the violence in Iraq.

In fact, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group found that the violence had escalated during that same time period by 43 percent.

Adding to this is all the additional strain that a troop increase will place on our service men and women and their families.

For these reasons, I oppose the President's plan to increase our troop presence in Iraq. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution that will be before this Senate. This resolution is more than about opposing the President's plan. It proposes a new strategy by calling for an enhanced diplomatic effort, a new focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, so that the weapons that are flowing from Iran and from Syria into that country can, in fact, be stopped. Stopping the flow of weapons and terrorists into that country will be part of bringing about the security that is needed in that country.

It also calls for a renewed focus on helping the Iraqis achieve a political settlement which is, at the end, a precondition to any successful outcome in Iraq.

We need a new direction in Iraq. We need to speak in a bipartisan voice. We, as an institution, need to fulfill our constitutional duty as a coequal branch of Government as we move forward with what is one of the most important questions that today faces the American Nation.

The resolution I hope will be considered in the Senate this next week is a first step in that direction. I am proud to be a sponsor and a supporter of that resolution.

Illegal Gun Trafficking

Carl Levin-D (CO)

Mr. Levin-D, Michigan - Mr. President, there is growing awareness across the country that too little has been done to combat illegal gun trafficking. This awareness was validated by a report released last week by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence which revealed that some licensed gun dealers are complicit in aiding gun traffickers, yet remain largely untouched by the law.

The report, "Shady Dealings: Illegal Gun Trafficking from Licensed Gun Dealers," was released in Philadelphia, a city that is combating a sharp increase in gun violence. In 2002, the city reached a 17-year low in homicides with 288. However, since then, homicide rates have soared. Last year, the city suffered 406 homicides and is on track to exceed that total in 2007. The report documents over two dozen cases of illegal gun trafficking from dealers across the country. In each case, gunrunners were prosecuted; however, the dealers who supplied them received no legal sanctions.

"Shady Dealings" documents several scenarios in which dealers turn a blind eye to clear indications of gunrunning. In-store straw purchases are transactions that violate Federal law in which one individual submits to the required Federal background check for a gun that is clearly intended for use by someone else. Multiple purchases of the same model gun by an individual should be an indication that the guns are not for personal use. Large volume sales of handguns should be a red flag to dealers. In one case, a gun dealer sold 87 pistols to a gun trafficker's straw buyer in a single transaction. Another red flag for trafficking should occur when a single buyer makes repeated purchases from a dealer. In one instance, a trafficker from Ohio made at least 19 visits to a particular gun shop, yet was never turned away. Dealer sales to traffickers at gun shows present special opportunities for trafficking. A single gun dealer in Georgia was recorded selling eight guns to one trafficker and 20 additional pistols to two other traffickers. Several of the weapons were recovered by the New York City police, and one of them was used to shoot a New York City police officer.

Unfortunately, making life easier for gun traffickers presents the opportunity for financial reward with little to no consequence for gun dealers. Not one of the dealers profiled in the Brady Center report has been put out of business by the ATF or prosecuted for selling guns to convicted gun traffickers. As a result, the underground market for guns is fueled the diversion of massive numbers of guns from licensed gun dealers into the hands of criminals. Almost 60 percent of the guns traced to crime by the ATF originated from only about 1 percent of the Nation's gun dealers. Additionally, approximately 30 percent of the guns traced to crime were traced within 3 years of their retail sale. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass sensible gun legislation that will help prevent such egregious acts and help protect the welfare of our communities.

LIHEAP Funding

Debbie Stabenow-D (MI)

Mr. Stabenow-D, Michigan - Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important Federal program that helps hundreds of thousands of Michigan families and millions of Americans across the country. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is critically important for families and seniors who struggle to pay high energy bills to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. Without LIHEAP, many of these households would be forced to make the impossible choice between paying for energy or paying for food and medicine.

Today is the National Fuel Funds Network's Washington Action Day for LIHEAP and folks from many different States will be walking the Halls of Congress to make sure we know how important it is to fully fund LIHEAP.

As winter kicks into high gear, the importance of the LIHEAP program is even more pronounced. According to the Energy Information Administration, American households spent an average of $948 in 2006 on their winter heating needs--an increase of $250 over the 2000-2001 winter season. That might seem like a modest increase, but for most Americans living paycheck to paycheck, it could have disastrous effects on their household budgets. LIHEAP assistance, which emphasizes partnerships between utilities, charitable organizations, and State governments, is a highly effective and cost-efficient way for our country to help the neediest families manage these incremental increases in their home energy costs. It has thus become an important component of our social safety net.

Not surprisingly, LIHEAP assistance historically has been targeted to cold-weather States in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. In the State of Michigan, for instance, more than 470,000 households received LIHEAP aid in 2006. In recent years, however, the program has been retooled in order to recognize the need to provide similar assistance to warm-weather States in the South and Southwest to help their neediest citizens meet their home cooling needs. Last year, more than 6.2 million households received assistance nationwide, including many new families in the warm-weather areas.

Unfortunately, the LIHEAP program has never been funded to its authorized level—which recently was raised to $5 billion as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Even though LIHEAP was funded at $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2006 the highest level ever—many who are eligible remain unable to get help because there are simply not enough funds to help them. We need to take a good, hard look at our funding efforts so that we are not forced to make unfair choices between cold and warm-weather States, much less deny support to eligible recipients.

Increased gas prices, unforeseen medical bills, sudden unemployment, or any other unexpected situation that causes a family's living costs to rise while their income stays fixed, forces families to make some truly hard choices. But no one should have to choose between the need to heat and the need to eat. At its foundation, the LIHEAP program helps these families deal with one of the most basic of their needs—a warm home in wintertime as they work to regain their footing.

Today, the National Fuel Funds Network has mobilized a coalition of charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army and The Heat And Warmth Fund, THAW, utilities such as CMS Energy and DTE Energy of Michigan, State government officials, and low-income constituents to meet with congressional offices to educate Congress about the LIHEAP program and make the case for greater funding. I commend the organizers and participants of today's Washington Action Day for LIHEAP, and I urge my colleagues to support and fully fund the LIHEAP program. By supporting this important program, we are supporting hard-working American families. It is the right thing to do.

Darfur Crisis

Mark Pryor-R (AR)

Mr. Pryor-R, Arkansas - Mr. President, In reflection of the New Year, I have thought about what I wanted my New Year's resolution to be. I had a wonderful holiday that I was fortunate to spend with my family, and I thought about those in the world who did not have that same opportunity. World peace is our ambition, but, today I want to speak about our hope for the people of Darfur, Sudan.

I rise to add my voice, and that of my constituency, on the crisis in Darfur. Everyday I hear from Arkansans concerned about the escalating chaos and destruction happening in Darfur. Whether it is through church groups, schools, the newspaper, Internet, or the television, the reports from Darfur are shocking and disturbing. Darfur, Sudan, is 7,117 miles away from Little Rock, AR, but it is not removed from the thoughts and prayers of our citizens.

The statistics on this crisis are heartbreaking. It has been estimated that between 200,000 and 400,000 people have been killed and thousands of women have been raped. Over 2 million people have been displaced. Their lives have been completely uprooted, and their only chance of survival is refugee camps. These makeshift camps provide little shelter and are subjected to raids by armed militias. Aid workers and organizations have recently pulled out of the region due to safety concerns, and the conflict is spreading to neighboring countries, destabilizing governments that may be ill-equipped to integrate an influx of refugees. Moreover, the Sudanese government has restricted media and diplomatic access to the region.

While the United States has taken considerable actions to support an end to the horrible violence in Darfur, the situation continues to deteriorate. Darfur is the world's crisis, and we must do more to ensure that an effective peacekeeping force is in place to stem the escalating rape, murder, and destruction.

I am hopeful that the United Nations' most recent effort will work. I am encouraged that so many humanitarian organizations have worked tirelessly to find a resolution to this matter. It is my wish that peace and stability will come to Darfur in 2007.

The people of Darfur have been deprived of the most basic of human liberties: the right to live in peace. It is our responsibility as U.S. Senators, as Americans, and as humanitarians to do all that we can to bring about an end to this world crisis.

Legislative Session

The legislative session of the Senate for February 1, 2007 can be found here and begins with continuing consideration of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 which would raise the Federal minimum wage.

Resources

Related areas

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../s/e/n/Senate_Record_-_February_1%2C_2007_22cb.html"

This page was last modified 08:22, 5 February 2007 by dKosopedia user Lestatdelc. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ
View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Bug reports