Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for what I think is a very appropriate underscoring of the unprecedented nature of not working with the Senators from the State which the judge has been nominated. I concur with the Senator from New Mexico. In New Jersey's case, we are 5 for 5 on district court judges because there has been strong cooperation back and forth between the White House and Senators from New Jersey. We are one for one on the circuit court judges where people work together to try to move things. That is how we ended up, frankly, in general with 168 to 4 because this process has worked a lot more smoothly than I think this 30-hour talkathon has indicated. I want to use the last few minutes of my time this morning to talk about priorities. One hundred sixty-eight to four--scratch that and make that six, if you want. The fact is that is about 97\1/2\ percent if it were 6 of all of the judges who come up have been approved. When there is an outreach toward cooperation, things work pretty well around here. For some reason that has worked pretty well in most instances, and we are trying to look at a very narrow segment of something I think reasonable people can have differences of view about--the qualifications of the individuals. That is exactly why the rules are being used the way they are. I want to place this in context. It is really more important in how it plays off of what the Senator from New Mexico said. We have real issues in this country right now. The fact is we have 9 million Americans unemployed. We can spend 30 hours here talking about four or six judges when we have 9 million people unemployed. By the way, the statistics going down in national terms don't seem to fit New Jersey. The latest statistics we have show we have had 11,800 jobs lost in the last reported period. Unemployment has grown by about 258,000 since the year 2000. New Jersey has brought 55,000 manufacturing jobs in the Nation. These are real people. At least when I go back to the streets of communities I represent, people are more interested in what is going on with their jobs and what is going on with the economy than whether we have a difference of opinion about four judges or five judges when we have confirmed 168. It seems to me we have our priorities all messed up here when there are 9 million Americans left out of the economic system. It is hard for me to understand why poverty is growing in this country. The number is up almost 1 percent--from 11.3 to 12.1 percent. In New Jersey, that is 69,000 people who have gone onto the poverty rolls who weren't there before the current administration's economic policies were put in place, and 148,000 New Jerseyans have gone off the rolls of those who have health care. These are real issues. These are the things that impact people's lives. These 4 judges out of 172--it is pretty hard to understand why we are spending all night and all day talking about that when we ought to be doing something about health care in this country; when we ought to be doing something about prescription drugs, while we have been waiting for somebody in the dark of night to try to put together a bill. It doesn't make sense that we have the focus on something that is so narrow and is not even in the context of actual reality because we are actually filling those jobs. But we are not doing anything about the 9 million Americans who are losing jobs. We can't get, by the way, an increase in the minimum wage. It has been 7 years since we increased the minimum wage around here. We can't get a debate on that. Unanimous Consent Request I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session to proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CORZINE. Yes.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the Senator from Rhode Island helping me respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania's question: 18 months, not 2 months; no hearing; no floor vote; someone who at least some folks who look at legal capacity and qualifications thought enough of, after she was not reviewed by the Senate either with a hearing or floor vote, to become the dean of the Harvard Law School. Again, my point is, we seem to be talking out of a sort of surreal context. One hundred sixty-eight to four is on the face of it an important statement of how there has been cooperation. I went through in New Jersey five for five on district court judges and one circuit court judge. When people work together, you can get the positive results in this whole process. The 168 to 4 shows we can have a positive result. Ninety-five percent of all judicial positions are filled. That, by the way, is in contrast with only 75 percent at the end of the Clinton administration, because there had been such a limited number of folks who had been able to actually get a hearing and ultimately a floor vote. There is also the statement that we are somehow or another being far more restrictive. I do want to review that it is 10 times the number of nominees blocked by the technique of not giving hearings or allowing for nominations to be reported to the floor that occurred in the Clinton administration. It was 63 nominees blocked in the 1995-to-2000 period, against 2 percent so far in the 2001-to-2003 period of Bush nominees. There is something about the raw numbers of this that don't make sense and wouldn't to anyone if they actually focused on them in a commonsensical way. I want to get to the circuit court judge issue. If you look back to the Carter administration on through, we heard it is roughly 10 circuit court judges a year per individual. This is sort of like figuring out when the best rate of return in the market is over the last 50 years. You can pick certain sections and everything looks wonderful. I would just like to look in this 1995-to-2000 period when Clinton nominees were languishing in the hearing room. Hearings held for judicial nominees averaged for the Clinton administration 9 versus 22 with respect to what is going on in the current situation. Judicial nominees given hearings, 43 versus 81. Circuit court judges, nominees given hearings, 9 under President Clinton, 19 circuit court. That is on average. The confirmation is 68 judges confirmed on an annual basis versus 38 in the Clinton years. That is 1995 to 2000. Circuit court judges, it was only 7, not 10 as we heard before, if you look at that 1995-to-2000 period. It is 12 judges under the current administration. We can pick these numbers, any number you want, to try to make cases. But the fact is, we are approving more judges, we are dealing with the situation on a much more legitimate basis, on an ongoing basis than what occurred in the previous administration. I just happen to have the yearbook of those folks who were left out in 1995 to 2000. There could be four we would have here supposedly under the current situation. By the way, I happen to know one of these judges, Stephen Orlofsky, a district judge in New Jersey who was unanimously confirmed for district court judge and then never got a hearing. I happened to know the specifics of that because it was closer to home. Ultimately we just filled this position with Michael Chertoff who seems to me to be a fine appointment, one I recommended, stood by and pushed very hard for because people worked together. They cooperated, the White House, the folks in the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators from the area. I think this can be done. I think 168 to 4 shows it is being done. I would contrast that with the over 50 nominees, 1995 to 2000, who never got a hearing. I am just going to point out two of these. Judge Helene White of Michigan was nominated to the Sixth Circuit, waited in vain 4 years, 1,454 days for a hearing. It may not be a filibuster on the floor, but for 1,454 days she couldn't get a hearing. I think it gets to the same result. We are not dealing with Presidential nominations. The fact is, there were 55 of these folks. In fact, we have only identified four who seemed to be so far out of the mainstream that a number of us are concerned about how that fits. I could go through this. There is a James Beatty from North Carolina nominated to the Fourth Circuit. He didn't get a hearing either, waited 3 years, 1,033 days, never got a hearing. This went on. You could get on down into the weeds on a whole series of these folks. But these people never got a hearing. It is just a different technique. We are talking about four people. There is a legitimate view that their actions were outside the mainstream. Maybe they got votes once they got to the floor, but they never got out of committee. I think that is a major issue. The other thing I will segue off into is the issue the Senator from Rhode Island talked about. What is really hard about this is there is an incredible agenda for America to be discussing. I think we could afford to spend 30 hours talking about how we put 9 million Americans back to work. I think it is pretty hard to understand how we got the priorities. We have 168 positive elements with regard to our judicial nominations accepted and only 4 turned down, but we have had 3 million lost jobs, 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs. We have had the deficit go from a $236 billion surplus to a $304 billion deficit. We have seen a $500 billion plus negative cashflow because we are managing the economy poorly. We have seen it hurt and bite real individuals, 9 million. Two million people have been unemployed longer than their unemployment benefits would allow; 4 million people have dropped off the rolls. It is an incredible misprioritization, in my view, that we are talking about four judges when there are 9 million people that we ought to be figuring out how to get back to work.

Mr. CORZINE. As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, I was just inquiring myself to try to find out more about this. This is not one of those I was aware of. I have a whole list of folks who waited 1,454 days, 1,000 days for a hearing, 602 days. If somebody looked at one of those nominees who was not allowed to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote, at least a broad group of folks who review the qualifications of an individual, you are qualified enough to be the dean of Harvard Law School but somehow not qualified to have a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. We will be back.

Mr. CORZINE. If the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania would allow, I don't know what elections have to do with confirming nominees, if they have gone before the Judiciary Committee and they are qualified. That seems disingenuous in the context of, we have qualified folks. They ought to be dealing with the circumstance of having an opportunity to be reviewed and brought to the floor. What we are debating is what is the technique that has been used at different times in our history--by the way, the pretty immediate history--to deal with a very simple question that some people want to understand the judicial philosophy and actions, how an individual will deal on the court. Sometimes when Republicans are not controlling the White House, they are willing to use the committee system to make that happen. Some of us on our side of the aisle sort of wouldn't mind debating folks on the floor, using the rules to make sure we bring out extremists' points of view. I point out, 168 to 4. I will go through the circuit courts in a minutes.

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the discussion my colleague from Rhode Island brought up. I wanted to clarify one point of questions about an individual. Did you suggest Elena Kagan is now the dean of the Harvard Law School?

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CORZINE. So she suffered from what you were suggesting, a pocket veto.

Mr. CORZINE. Was she unable to get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee when President Clinton nominated her for circuit court?

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Missouri maybe has reviewed all of the transcripts from those committees. I have not. I do know the President of the United States sent nominations here and in most instances they were. The 55 that I have, and there are a number of them I haven't reviewed, there was an attempt to try to get a number of those before the committee, and they were not allowed to be debated. It never got started. I can't speak to all 55. I have not reviewed all of the transcripts.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to start with a little bit of perspective on the judiciary, and I would like to respond a bit to the economic arguments I heard discussed over the last 30 minutes which are sort of not in touch with reality, certainly not in touch with the reality of those folks who live and work in New Jersey and those across the country. Let's start with a simple proposition that there are 172 nominations before the Senate. The commonsense reality is, 168 have been confirmed, 4 have been held up. I hear this view that people should not have the ability to express their point of view about judicial philosophy, temperament, the perspective of the individual judges. But I don't know what we are here for if we are not supposed to exercise our judgment and work within the rules as established. One hundred sixty-eight to four seems to be a pretty favorable ratio by most human standards anywhere across America, when you look at judgments about the quality of folks you would interview for a job. It is sort of common sense. In my own State of New Jersey, we are six for six, including a circuit court judge. We worked very carefully with the folks at the White House about background, worked in a cooperative sense. That has not happened across all of America. That is what people are arguing is now the case with the four who are on this board. There is a legitimate right to debate one's judicial philosophy. The rules of the Senate are very clear and have been used many other times. This idea that there have been no filibusters is blatantly false. We can go back to the Abe Fortas situation, and there are other situations where it may not have been the end game but it was certainly the starting point for holding back, going forward with judicial nominations. There are a number of them. I am sure these have been identified here on the floor, whether it was the Fortas nomination for chief justice; Rosemary Barkett, a judicial nominee, had a similar situation; Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer, Judge Paez, Lee Sarokin, and Marsha Berzon. It has been argued and researched that 63 judicial nominees of the committee and 6 judicial nominees on the floor have been filibustered in the past. It is not something that is new. But what is really hypocritical, in my view, is we are focused on a technique that has been used to stop four judges many of us on this side of the aisle find extreme, when 55 Clinton nominees were not given hearings to be even discussed, 55. I could read the list of them. That is about, if my mathematics are correct, relative to the number, 30 percent stopped, cold dead stopped, without even having an opportunity to be reviewed, 55 Clinton nominees against 4 Bush nominees. I don't know that it serves a useful purpose to say, we did this and we did that. The fact is we need to have a serious review of judges, and people ought to be able to express their opinions within the rules about whether they think they are qualified on the basis of standards that are generally accepted: Judicial philosophy, whether they will uphold the Constitution, settled law, all those kinds of issues. The fact is in another time or another place, people primarily used the committee process to keep judicial nominees from even being reviewed. What is the result? I want to reconfirm that 98 percent of those nominees President Bush has put forward have been confirmed. Only 2 percent have not. Again, that is an overwhelming commitment to moving judges through this process and significantly better than has occurred in previous administrations. Again, the filibuster has been used as well. I just don't think we are reciting facts properly and history right. There is another very fundamental situation here. Contrary to the claims we hear, we think there is some kind of vacancy crisis in our Federal courts. I would like to have 100 percent myself, but 95 percent of Federal judicial appointments are now filled. When we had a change of administration, because of that 55 and the process that went through, it was only 75 percent. There was a distinct process of holding back, pushing back with regard to what the folks on the other side were prepared to do when working with another President. That is why when people talk about 168 to 4, that perspective is not being brought to the discussion. It is very simple: 55 folks stopped in the last 4 years, and there has been 4. People can argue that somehow from their perspective those 55 were outside the mainstream. Some were not brought up for discussion in the committee. But the process we are using here is to make sure the debate on the floor brings out these extreme views, operating within the rules. I think we have facilitated a significant improvement in the ability of the courts to fulfill their function. That is what is the practical element. Those 168 are real because they are dealing with the issues the American public has to deal with. Our court system is actually functioning better than it has because we have been very facile in making sure judicial appointments have gone through. It is just a matter of perspective.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the discussion with the Senator from Missouri. What we have here, in my view, at 20 minutes of 4 on a Thursday morning, is a view that there were different techniques used by the folks on the other side of the aisle to restrict a President from having the kinds of judges and the number of judges they wanted to put into the courts which actually led to something that wasn't good for the American people; that is, a much higher vacancy rate in the Federal district courts than is the case today. I know in my own case and in the State of New Jersey, we are five for five on district judges and one for one on circuit judges, because we are working in a cooperative manner to try to get to a result that will allow the courts to have the judges to be able to deal with the cases. I think 168 is showing that happened across this country. So because there are three or four judges people believe are outside the mainstream--the special-interest stuff I have a hard time understanding. I am not a lawyer, but I read some of these cases where people don't believe in the incorporation of businesses and want to take away fundamental purposes of how that works in this world. That is outside the mainstream. That is difficult for me to understand. Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question whether that is an appropriate appointment to one of our most important appeals courts. So, again, one of those four--or maybe it will be six, as the Senator talks about, by the time we get to whatever hour in the morning we vote on this stuff on Friday; maybe that will be the case. But I think it is important we as Senators review the record and, within the rules, use our judgment to decide whether someone is in the mainstream of judicial philosophy. Apparently, that was happening in previous administrations for 55 folks; they were just using a different technique as opposed to this particular one. Again, I go back to the fundamental issue. It left a gaping hole in the ability of our courts to deal with the American public's needs in the Federal courts--the 75 percent fill ratio, or 25 percent vacancy ratio. Now we have a 4.8 percent vacancy ratio. I think, ultimately, somebody is going to say what is going on here? Are we actually dealing with the issues the American people need, which is having the judicial system that actually works. I have to talk a little bit about the economy because I heard some other questions, and we talked about payroll employment versus other measures. Frankly, I don't know a single serious economist in America who doesn't say we measure the standard job performance of this economy, this country, by looking at payroll employment. It is accepted as the base standard by economists across the country. The kinds of comparisons to other standards, those are all well and good. I think they reflect, frankly, the growth in the population. We are not creating jobs rapidly enough to actually reduce the level of unemployment. That is why payrolls have always been used as a basic issue, because it takes into account the growth of the population as well, which, by the way, we are at about the lowest--I think we had a little uptick, a minor uptick in the last 2 months in the percentage of Americans who are working out of the total population. The fact is we have lost something approaching 3 million payroll jobs under this administration. What is more important is to get to the basic fact, which is 9 million Americans are unemployed. That is the real deal. It is not whether it is growing--certainly, it is a painful experience for those who lost jobs, but there are 9 million Americans who want to work and cannot do it. It is up by 3 million since this administration took hold. Nobody is pulling that number out of the air. That is why we are trying to talk about those jobs versus the four judicial jobs within the perspective I tried to relate. When you have 95 percent of the positions filled in the judiciary, I think somebody is doing their job filling those holes. But we are not doing the right things about creating jobs for Americans. That is just fact. It is not hyperventilation. Nine million Americans are looking for work and they don't have it. By the way, 2 million of them have been unemployed longer than 6 months. One could ask what are we doing about that. You know, we have not passed a minimum wage, we have not extended unemployment insurance for people who are now coming on the rolls of the long-term unemployed. We are not really creating a jobs program in a serious sense. We have certainly cut taxes and I guess--to go back to Econ 101, at some point if you throw enough money into the system, we will create some jobs. We have about a $300 billion budget deficit and a 1 percent interest rate, and we have had them for a very long period of time, at these stimulative levels. At some point, you are going to get job growth. Was it an efficient way to do it? I wonder, when we have created about $5,000 in debt for every individual in America. That doesn't seem to jibe with an efficient use of resources. It certainly is not a rampage of growth or a booming economy that we have for most Americans. The latest economic statistics came out and everybody said how wonderful they were. They weren't too good in New Jersey. We lost another 11,800 jobs--11,800 manufacturing jobs in the month of August. We have a little bit of lag between when the State numbers come out and the Federal numbers. We are about to close our last two auto plants in New Jersey. We are closing the Ford plant for sure, in Edison, and we have the GM plant, which they are going to extend at about half production for the next 2 years, and they are going to look at shutting it down. Every week, we get another major employer laying off manufacturing jobs in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey probably has had as strong an economy as anyplace because we have the pharmaceutical industry, which is growing. But our manufacturing base is out the window. We don't talk about those 9 million jobs. We are talking about four jobs here, and I don't get it. I don't see what our priorities are. We are trying to talk about minimum wage and about transportation and we are trying to talk about a whole host of things that would allow us to have the opportunity to get this economy going and create jobs for those 9 million people--not these 4 folks, where we have already approved 98 percent of those interviewing for those jobs. I don't know. I am sort of simple, but I think a 98 percent positive conclusion out of 172 folks interviewing for these jobs is pretty good. We have actually filled in the holes in the Federal judiciary, and we have a major problem with 9 million Americans who are looking for work. We don't spend any time talking about how we are going to create jobs here, except we are going to have tax cuts every hour on the hour between now and the next decade, which will put debt on my kids and then their kids to follow. We may get some job growth as a function of doing this, but was it efficiently provided to the American people? I think that is very hard to say. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 3, S. 224, a bill to increase the minimum wage, that it be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CORZINE. Yes.

Mr. CORZINE. Again, I think we have our priorities mixed up here. There are a whole bunch of folks in this country who benefit enormously from the minimum wage. When they go out and buy things, that will stimulate the economy. One of the great opportunities for us is to deal with some of these economic issues that we have, instead of haranguing. I think, unfortunately, about these four folks, about whom I think there is legitimate reason to have a debate--where they stand on judicial philosophy, and how their history is, or how their writings fit with settled law and from a constitutional perspective. Again, we have put 98 percent of the nominees to work. We have not done anything about the 9 million Americans who don't have a job, who want to work. There are a whole bunch more who have dropped out of the system--I think about 4 million, if memory serves me correctly. It strikes me we have our priorities mixed up. I don't understand it. By the way, I will go through some other statistics. It is actually mind- boggling to me that we are spending so much time on four people, when the unemployment rate is 6 percent, and 9 million folks are without jobs. That is up from 4.1 percent 3 years ago. The poverty rate is up from 11.3 percent to 12.1 percent; I think that is 4 million people. The percentage of uninsured has gone up from 14.2 percent to 15.2 percent. About 2 million people have lost their health insurance in the last 3 years. The deficit has gone from a $236 billion surplus to a $304 billion deficit. If somebody was running my company and they had a negative cash flow of 500 some odd billion dollars, I think I would find a new CEO. The national debt went from $5.6 trillion to $6.8 trillion. I guess that is for my grandkids to worry about, and it will be explosive. And judicial vacancies have gone down from about 10 percent to 4.6 percent. What is this picture? I just don't know where our priorities are in the scheme of things. We are talking about four people and we have 9 million Americans and a whole bunch who haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 7 years. We cannot even get a vote on it and haven't been able to get a vote on it. They are not interested. Does that make any sense? I don't get it. This is not the right priority where I come from, or for most Americans. I would rather fight like crazy for the 9 million people who want to work than just four judicial nominees out of the 168 judges who have already been approved. It is very important, in my view, that we have a proper prioritization and perspective on what is going on here, particularly when you look at it in the context of other techniques being used to hold up a whole bunch of judges at another period of time. We are talking about four here. I am no great legal constitutional scholar, but 168 to 4 is a pretty real number, and 55 folks left out by the other side is a real number. I see my very good friend from Arkansas. It looks like he is chomping to go to work here. I would very much appreciate it if he has a comment on either of the things I have said, or I am sure he has more brilliant remarks to make. I yield the floor to my friend from Arkansas.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New York for making sure the fundamental issue is understood by the American public. The fact is, 172 nominations have come to the floor; 168 have been approved. Four have not been sustained under the rules of cloture. And 98 percent--you can talk about it any way you want. The numbers fit the commonsense judgment of the American people that something positive is going on here with regard to how we are dealing with the confirmation of judges. I go back to the practical reality that 95 percent of the judicial positions in the Federal courts, district and circuit and Supreme Court, are filled; 95 percent of them are filled. In 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration, only 75 percent of those positions were filled. This is the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. The reason is very simple--168 to 4. It is not a complicated issue. It is not a complicated issue. Then you have to look at the four. The Senator from New York read this statement about the judge we will be looking at tomorrow, talking about ``when government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' I don't think that is what the American people would think--those people who believe in Social Security, those people who might think we ought to have a prescription drug benefit for all Americans, people who believe we ought to pull together an army to protect the American people from terrorism, the folks who think we ought to build highways, bridges, schools, and other things, which are generally done by the public. When the government advances--what is this? I want to say this right. ``When the government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' There is one out of the four. One wonders whether that is the mainstream of American thought. A couple of judges in this four have serious issues some people think approach or have gone over the line of ethical violations. I have heard almost everybody say at some level they believe integrity is an issue. There are serious concerns about actions of several of the people who are involved--aside from their views. I will not even mention the judge. One judge said, in talking about the role of Congress: Congress, for example, should not be in the business of public education, nor in the control of street crime. That may be a view that is mainstream for some in this body, but I have a hard time understanding where many of us believe the role of Congress would prohibit us from being involved in the business of public education or the control of street crime. It doesn't sound to me like a mainstream thought. That is one of the judges. Then another judge we will be considering tomorrow talked about privacy rights, threw out a case where someone was performing an operation on a patient, and it happened to be a female. The doctor had a male drug salesman attend without asking for that right of the individual. Then the judge said that wasn't a violation of privacy rights. That kind of thing--I am not a lawyer and I don't know all the details of this precedent, but it is kind of like 168 to 4. You would think if somebody is undergoing surgery and somebody asks you a question about who the person was who was observing you going through surgery, if you had a drug salesman overseeing that, you might think that was an invasion of privacy. That is sort of common sense to me. I think there are reasons to debate these four and maybe the two, if we are going to get people who are not necessarily following precedent, settled law--I hear a lot of arguments about activism on the court. It sounds to me like there is an active view that is different than settled law with regard to privacy. There is a view that is outside settled law and precedent with regard to the role of Government, with regard to schools and crime in our streets. I think there is a reason to question some of these four. Therefore, it is not inappropriate, when you think people are going to be out of the mainstream and may have ethical issues that are legitimate questions that people raise, that somebody ought to exercise that judgment here on the floor of the Senate when we are asked to vote on it. From my perspective, that is what guides my vote and one of the reasons I have helped make this 168 to 4 happen. By the way, I am proud of the 168 and while we now have the highest percentage of occupancy of judicial positions in the last 13 years-- that looks to me like a pretty good track record. In most walks of life, it would be a pretty reasonable statement of cooperation and effort to make things happen. That is certainly, again, the perspective I want to start with, 168 to 4, filling up the judiciary. Then we heard the argument raised that somehow we are trying to change the subject. This is changing the subject. We are talking about four folks, while we have 9 million people unemployed, 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost in America, and we have the rampaging trade deficit, budget deficit, a rise in the poverty rate, declining insured and health insurance coverage in America, no prescription drug benefit for seniors, no passage of the Transportation bill, no consideration of a minimum wage increase for 7 years. We cannot get it to the floor. We don't want to talk about four judges when we have a war going on and all these economic issues before the country. They say we are changing the subject? I think we ought to change the subject. I would imagine the people watching this debate are changing the channel because they want to know what the heck is going on in the fundamental parts of their lives, their jobs, what their kids are doing in Iraq, what is going on with regard to jobs that are going to be created for the rest of their families. They want to know what is happening to their health insurance. They would like to know whether school class size is going to be 18 or 26. Those are things that matter, and we are debating four judges who, as I read some of the most extreme comments here--again, we are debating whether it is appropriate to have a filibuster about somebody who says ``where government advances''--it says ``advances relentlessly''--``freedom is imperiled.'' We are debating that, as opposed to worrying about whether 9 million people can get extended unemployment benefits, whether we can get a jobs bill to build highways and bridges and other things in this country, whether we can have an honest debate over intelligence operations in this country. It strikes me we have our priorities out of place. It just makes no sense in the world we are living in that we are debating 4 judges out of 172 and they have views like ``where government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' I don't think the American people--anyone you sat down around the kitchen table with and you talked about this issue, with this language, and this perspective on judicial philosophy--would say I would rather you be focusing your time on the floor of the Senate at 5 minutes to 12, 29 hours and 55 minutes into a debate, saying it is more important that we are talking about that judge than we are talking about what is happening with our men and women in Iraq, or whether we have appropriate investment in our intelligence operations that protect them, or the 9 million people are getting the proper attention on their unemployment benefits. I don't get it. There is no comparison of the importance. It is not changing the subject. It is getting to the subject the American people want us to do. At least that is the way it is in New Jersey. I have not had one single person ask me about a judge, until today when we got a call-athon calling in--the first time we got a call with regard to whether the filibuster was holding up these rights. I had my people read back this: ``When government advances, freedom is imperiled.'' About half of the people said I don't know whether that is somebody I want to stand with because I don't know that that is a position that really fits with the American Constitution, in my view, of what the American democracy is about. It is very hard for me to understand where we have our priorities. Lastly, I want to bring up a point that filibusters weren't only used to stand in the way of civil rights acts by Democrats back in the 1930s or 1940s. On February 3, 1991, a filibuster was executed on this floor on the Family and Medical Leave Act. There were no Democrats who voted for that cloture. Let's see. Handgun violence prevention on November 19, 1993. I think that is the Brady bill. Let's see. Goals 2000, to educate America on March 24. I have a list of about--something that approaches about 50--maybe a little more than that--60 filibusters that were executed, including a couple with regard to judges, where judges withdrew their nominations that were executed by the other side of the aisle. Filibusters have been used. No one was calling them unconstitutional when you were trying to deal with family and medical leave, or nobody was calling them unconstitutional when we were talking about the Hatch Act. Funny how that comes up. No one was calling them unconstitutional when we were dealing with judges at an earlier time when they withdrew their names. I want to make sure we keep the right perspective here because we are making all kinds of statements. Frankly, I think all of it is irrelevant. It makes no sense when we should be talking about the 9 million Americans who don't have jobs and we are talking about the 2 million people who have lost health insurance in the last 2\1/2\ years, when we are talking about the 1.7 million people who slipped into poverty in the last 2\1/2\ years, when we have gone from a $250 billion budget surplus to a $375 billion budget deficit, a $550 billion negative cashflow swing in this country because we are not handling our finances right, and we have a war going on and the generals are saying we are having unrealistic views about it back here. I don't know, maybe we should not change the subject. We should just talk about these four judges. I wonder if the Senator thinks that is the right prioritization. It strikes me it is out of touch with America, and we are now 29 hours and 59 minutes talking about 4 judges. The Senator from New York is right; 168 to 4 actually expresses what the debate about judges is all about. But one could think we ought to be talking about the 9 million Americans or, by the way, the 130,000 troops we have on the ground who are in harm's way. It strikes me, the discussion we have had for these 30 hours is missing a very major point to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the importance of the Veterans Day commemoration ceremonies and private remembrances, both formal and informal, being observed today by Americans around the Nation and across the world. Given the many demands on this body and the hectic pace of modern life, it is all too easy for the Senate, as well as for all Americans, to fail to give this day--Veterans' Day the attention it demands. It is all too easy to let the date on the calendar pass without stopping and reflecting. But, as citizens, as well as public servants, we must never fail to commemorate, honor, and remember in our hearts our veterans and their sacrifices and what those sacrifices have meant to our country. A mere once a year we are called to publicly applaud and honor the many Americans, living and deceased, men and women of every ethnic group and walk of life, who have given of themselves, their time, their youth, their sweat, and, all too frequently, their blood, and their lives. Their sacrifices have kept us free and enabled us to remain the last best hope of the world. About this nation's revolution, Thomas Paine wrote: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. In observing Veterans Day today, we offer our love and thanks to those Americans, over the course of our history, who did not shrink from the service of their country. Most came to military service willingly, even eagerly, many with good humor and high hopes, some more reluctantly, and more than a few who, frankly, would rather have been elsewhere. I can remember myself some years ago, as a young marine humping an 81-millimeter mortar tube across the California desert, wishing very sincerely to be elsewhere at that moment. What they all have in common, and what we all honor today, is that they did not shrink from the service to their country, and still don't. As they did not shrink from service during World War II in the Pacific and in Europe, in long and bitter wars in Korea and Vietnam, in Lebanon and Grenada, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and, today, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, on hundreds of ships in every ocean of the world; in Minot, ND; and in Fort Dix, NJ; on Diego Garcia and in Misawa, Japan; at Ft. Benning, GA; on Paris Island, SC; and at Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital here in Washington. They responded to a sense of duty, obligation, and a desire to belong to or strive for something separate and apart from personal ambition. They may not even see or clearly understand at the time their own motivations, but they do not shrink from service all the same, and our country is the better for it. A simple choice on the face of it--the willingness to serve--but one that, given the unparalleled abundance of choices that Americans today enjoy--we must recognize, honor and support. As we stop to honor our veterans, we must go beyond rhetorical support. We must provide for those who have served the rest of us so well, and we need to do so in practical and concrete terms, for our debt to our veterans' demands that we respond to their needs and their concerns, and demands that we deliver the benefits they have earned through their service and sacrifice. First, full accountability for all MIA/POW's, without exception. There is no higher obligation for a country than to keep faith with those of its fighting men and women who may still be in enemy hands. We must not turn away. In this regard, I urge the administration and the Defense Department to continue their search for CAPT Michael Scott Speicher, United States Navy, whose family is from New Jersey and whose aircraft was shot down over Iraq in 1991. Then-Commander Speicher was reported as the first American service member killed in action in Desert Storm. His status, however, was changed by the Department of Defense from killed in action to MIA and then, in 2002, to POW. More indications suggesting Captain Speicher may have survived his 1991 shoot-down came to light after our liberation of Iraq. The Defense Department's search for him, with the urging of my Senate colleagues and me, must continue until Captain Speicher's fate is fully accounted for. Turning to the VA health care system, tens of thousands of veterans now must wait six months and more for appointments. Some find they have to wait as long as one to two years to be seen. This kind of delay and lack of access to healthcare is unacceptable and yet is all too common. It is also completely unnecessary. The difficulties faced by our veterans are caused by chronic underfunding of the VA health system. The VA system relies on the annual appropriations process, a process which is contentious and unpredictable and which makes it all too tempting to slash current year funding regardless of how this affects our veterans. This year, for example, veterans organizations estimate that the VA health system needs $1.8 billion more than the President requested. As a result, veterans advocates have once again found themselves playing catch-up. The solution is mandatory funding of VA health needs so that veteran's benefits are no longer subject to the politics of the annual appropriations process. Without such a mechanism, the VA system will remain chronically underfunded, and veterans needing care will continue to have to wait disgracefully long periods of time. I also wish to note that today I am introducing the Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, to provide increased testing and care for veterans at risk of or infection with hepatitis C. Most veterans who have hepatitis C don't even know it, and often don't get treatment until it's too late. Yet despite recent advances in care, the VA still lacks a comprehensive approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. The legislation I am introducing would improve access to hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and set new, national policies for hepatitis C care. I have also introduced and will continue to push for a measure to lower the retirement age for reservists to 55. This measure is a way to ensure fairer treatment for reservists in their career planning and to make a reserve career more attractive to military members who might otherwise opt out of further service. We need to think about equity for reservists, and about the attractiveness of Reserve careers as our global strategy comes to rely ever more heavily on reservist citizen-soldiers. We also owe our veterans full concurrent receipts. There should be no conflict between a veteran's right to receive his or her retirement benefits and a disabled veteran's right to disability income. And yet, incredibly enough, disabled veterans continue to pay what is, in effect, a tax on their disability payments. It is time-- once and for all--to eliminate this tax. Ensuring that all veterans have access to quality healthcare is a small repayment for the contributions veterans have made in service to this Nation. Unfortunately, the current Veterans Administration healthcare funding formula--VERA--puts veterans in high-cost areas, such as New Jersey, at a severe disadvantage in getting adequate medical care. Vets shouldn't be forced to wait months for an appointment at a veterans medical clinic or to shoulder excessive fees because of a quirk in the formula that funds VA health care. That is why I introduced legislation to make VA healthcare funding fairer by accounting for the distinct financial challenges confronting veterans and healthcare providers in different parts of the country. This legislation, S. 1014, would replace the national income threshold for classification as a low-income veteran--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This adjustment would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and help ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISN's, receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations. In thinking about our veterans, we must also consider the brave men and women fighting for us now in Iraq and in Afghanistan and elsewhere. As we honor their service, we must never forget what we owe them--now and when they return. With so many Guard men and women and Reservists serving, it is critical that we extend to them the benefits they deserve. One benefit for which we have had to fight is the extension of TRICARE coverage to all reservists. We have succeeded in getting this critical benefit for a year. We will, therefore, be revisiting this issue next year. I and like-minded colleagues remain advocates of extending such coverage to reservists. As we asked our young citizens in the past, we are again today asking them to do extraordinary things, and we need to see that they have the proper care and assistance when they come home. There is no excuse for failing them. We all remember that Veterans Day began as a commemoration of the Armistice which ended World War I, a catastrophic event which this body described as ``the most destructive, sanguinary and far reaching war in human annals'' to that point. We pause and remember, and we again commit ourselves to honor and to stand by the veterans of the Great War and of all America's wars, past and present.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and yet fewer U.S. sanctions apply to Syria than to any other country on the list. This Act will authorize a range of sanctions against Syria, prohibiting exports to Syria of dual-use items and requiring the President to choose from a set of other sanctions, including prohibitions on exports of most U.S. goods to Syria and on American investment in Syria, restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the United States and on U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, prohibitions on Syrian aircraft in the United States, and blocking of transactions in Syrian government property. These sanctions are appropriate, and, in my view, long overdue. Despite recent U.S. efforts to engage in dialogue with Syria, Damascus has refused to renounce its support for terrorism. It provides terrorist organizations with political and material support. It has turned away from negotiations with Israel. And it continues to occupy southern Lebanon, where its forces destabilize the Middle East by supporting Hezbollah and undermining Lebanese sovereignty. Syria acts as the safe haven for a broad array of terrorist organizations and Palestinian groups committed to the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command are all active in Damascus. The Syrian government has not only refused to sever ties with these organizations; it has defended their use of Syrian territory to disseminate propaganda that attacks Israel, thereby undermining efforts to bring peace to the region. Worse, the offices maintained by these groups provide operational support for terrorist activities, notwithstanding the Syrian government's claims that they are engaged only in political and informational activities. These activities include the deadly and despicable suicide bombings, conducted by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against civilians in Israel. Syria is also a supporter of Hezbollah, which is responsible for the killing of hundreds of Americans and is one of the biggest obstacles to our efforts to combat global terrorism. Throughout much of southern Lebanon, occupying Syrian forces support and protect Hezbollah, allowing it to deploy thousands of rockets that threaten Israel and destabilize the region, and to launch attacks against civilian targets in Israel civilian areas. Syria also permits Hezbollah to receive assistance from Iran. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon represents a long-standing threat to stability in the Middle East. While Syria has reduced its forces in recent years, it still maintains as many as 20,000 troops and security personnel in Lebanon. In addition to harboring Hezbollah, those forces exert undue influence in Lebanon and prevent the Lebanese government from deploying its own troops to southern Lebanon, as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. It is long past time for Syrian forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to cease to be a refuge for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah. Syria has not moderated its unrelenting hostility to Israel, nor has it demonstrated a commitment to negotiations. Moreover, it has used its position on the world stage and within the Arab world to undermine efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. As a frequent sponsor of U.N. resolutions related to the conflict in the Middle East, Syria has consistently promoted a perspective that castigates Israeli security measures without condemning the terrorist threat faced by Israel. While I have long supported this act and welcome its passage, I believe that our ability to influence Syria's behavior and deter its support for terrorism also requires a multilateral strategy. The effect of this act will unfortunately be limited by the lack of support for sanctions against Syria among our friends and allies. It is critical that the administration demonstrate global leadership on this issue as well as other aspects of the war on terrorism. By reaching out to the international community and by appealing to our common interest in curtailing global terrorism and achieving peace in the Middle East, we can ensure that the sanctions we are imposing today are truly effective. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today on Veterans Day to introduce the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans with the virus. Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam-era veterans are considered to be at greater risk because many were exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat-related surgical care during the Vietnam War. In fact, data from the Veterans Administration suggests that as many as 18 percent of all veterans and 64 percent of Vietnam veterans are infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death. And yet, most veterans who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Despite recent advances in treating Hepatitis C, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. Only a fraction of the 3.5 million veterans enrolled nationally with the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans may not have. To address this growing problem, I am introducing the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This legislation will improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and sets new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen from New Jersey has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA system, and providing annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the VA system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease. This bill would also increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY04, Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and would be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus. In addition, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C throughout the nation. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop an outreach program to notify veterans who have not been tested for the Hepatitis C virus of the need for such testing and the availability of such testing through the VA. And finally, this legislation would establish Hepatitis C Centers of Excellence in geographic areas with high incidence of Hepatitis C infection. As I've said, many veterans do not even realize that they may be infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and the VA is doing little to encourage them to get the critical testing they need. The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. With the passage of the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, veterans will finally be provided with the access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. Additionally, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders. The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C among veterans since 1992, but they have not acted. We must address this critical issue for the brave men and women who have placed their lives in danger to protect the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today on Veterans Day to introduce the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans with the virus. Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam-era veterans are considered to be at greater risk because many were exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat-related surgical care during the Vietnam War. In fact, data from the Veterans Administration suggests that as many as 18 percent of all veterans and 64 percent of Vietnam veterans are infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death. And yet, most veterans who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Despite recent advances in treating Hepatitis C, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. Only a fraction of the 3.5 million veterans enrolled nationally with the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans may not have. To address this growing problem, I am introducing the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This legislation will improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and sets new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen from New Jersey has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA system, and providing annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the VA system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease. This bill would also increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY04, Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and would be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus. In addition, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C throughout the nation. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop an outreach program to notify veterans who have not been tested for the Hepatitis C virus of the need for such testing and the availability of such testing through the VA. And finally, this legislation would establish Hepatitis C Centers of Excellence in geographic areas with high incidence of Hepatitis C infection. As I've said, many veterans do not even realize that they may be infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and the VA is doing little to encourage them to get the critical testing they need. The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. With the passage of the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, veterans will finally be provided with the access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. Additionally, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders. The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C among veterans since 1992, but they have not acted. We must address this critical issue for the brave men and women who have placed their lives in danger to protect the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that in Title III of this bill, a new program in renewable energy has been added to the bill. the Senate committee report accompanying this bill identified a number of worthy projects under this program. I hope that the conferees to this bill will consider adding to this list a promising project from my State. The State of New Jersey has entered a partnership with Garden State Ethanol, a consortium of farmers that wants to provide the farmers of New Jersey and surrounding States with an alternative market for their field corn, while generating a profit for its investors and producing a domestic, renewable transportation fuel. They plan to create an ethanol plant in order to provide a new opportunity for area producers to sell their grain, and to employ directly significant numbers of farmers and laborers. In addition, this project will create jobs related to the construction/renovation of the plant, generate an increase in wages, and increase the output of the regional economy. With a strong commitment to agriculture combined with its close proximity to high-value markets, New Jersey makes an excellent location for an ethanol production plant.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators Bennett and Kohl for their leadership on this appropriations bill for Agriculture and related agencies for fiscal year 2004. I would also like to take a moment to engage my colleagues Mr. Kohl and Mr. Bennett in a colloquy.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for their interest in this project and for their outstanding leadership on this essential appropriations bill. tree assistance program

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from Michigan, particularly in informing the Senate that the charge of the Intelligence Committee includes the use of intelligence as part of its mission. Frankly, this whole discussion of this leaked memo today only reinforces my own view that we need an independent, bipartisan commission because it is now becoming a political debate about whether there is politics inside the Intelligence Committee. I listened to the earlier discussion on the floor. People are talking about Presidential politics and talking about how inappropriate it is for people to talk in a thoughtful manner about how processes may occur over a period of time. We are missing the point. There are men and women who are dying in Iraq because either the development or the use of our intelligence is not at a level where we are protecting the people of America and the men and women in uniform. The issue is not whether this is a political debate. The issue is whether Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. It is whether Iraq had links to al-Qaida or whether Iraq attempted to acquire uranium. It is an issue of whether we are going to turn loose the names of our intelligence operatives because there is political use of the need or want to discredit someone who might challenge some of the answers to the questions I just raised. We have a fundamental question right here and now of whether we are going to have an intelligence operation that informs policymakers so they can make good decisions or whether we are going to have an intelligence operation that is used to justify policy decisions already taken. The idea that we are going to debate whether this is a political issue or not really does argue in the strongest terms that we need to have an independent, bipartisan approach to understanding whether the development of our intelligence was appropriate and whether the use of that was even consistent or whether it was designed to justify as opposed to inform. When men and women are dying, I don't understand why we are even thinking about this in the context of politics on either side of the aisle. The real issue is, we ought to get to the bottom of it. What led to decisions that don't match the reality we have come to find on the ground in Iraq? I have over and over again--and will again--asked for an independent investigation, a bipartisan investigation, a commission to understand why we don't know what we should have known when we entered into this. It seems to me that is the essence and the most important issue we ought to be discussing, not some memo that wasn't seen by anybody else in the committee, developed by a staffer as a concept memo. That really diverts from the fundamental issue of protecting our men and women, protecting the people of the United States. By the way, there is some reason to believe we are not getting all the information, whether it is in the Intelligence Committee. We know the independent commission studying 9/11 has said they have been stonewalled. People from both sides of the commission, as far as political background, have said that. They had to subpoena information from the FAA to be able to get information to move forward to investigate. We are missing the point. One of the reasons I do believe we need an independent, bipartisan commission is so we don't have the kind of discussion we had on the floor today, so we can get to the facts that actually will protect the American men and women in uniform. It is high time we put our priorities right, which is understanding how our intelligence operations develop and how they are used, not whether we have a political issue that can be talked about on the talk shows at night. I find it very hard when senior people in the State Department, who have worked there 25 or 30 years, say, speaking about folks, that we have a faith-based approach to intelligence, that we are developing intelligence to show what we want to conclude.