A bill to extend the provisions of the Protect America Act of 2007 for an additional 30 days.

Mr. President, when we looked back at the work of this Chamber at the end of 2007, we saw this Chamber coming together in a bipartisan way to garner what was 82 votes for the passage of the 2007 farm bill. It is an example of Republicans and Democrats working together to address a fundamental need of America, and that is the issue of food security.

Last night, we heard the President of the United States address the Nation on the state of the Union, in which one of the things he talked about was the importance of moving forward with an economic stimulus package. That economic stimulus package, which has been negotiated at least with the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis, is another example of when people are willing to work together, we can actually get some business done.

That is what we should be doing in this Chamber today. We should be working through amendments with respect to improving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order for us to get that legislation finally approved. What we are up against, frankly, is an unwillingness on the part of the Republican minority to allow us to move forward to get to final passage of this bill in a way that would consider relevant and germane amendments that would make it better, in a way that would address the absolute need to protect the cherished civil liberties of Americans.

Those are the kinds of amendments with which we ought to be dealing. But instead, we are faced with a filibuster.

I hope we can act on this legislation and then move on to the urgent needs the people of America have brought us here to work on, on their behalf. We heard the President last night talk about the economic issues that face America.

In my view, when I look at my State of Colorado, I believe the economy is skating on very thin ice. We see it in a lot of different ways. We see it in rising gas prices. We see it in the extraordinary health care costs people have to pay. We see it with respect to the housing crisis we are facing in my State and across America.

When I think about my State, maybe it is a small State in comparison to the great States of New Jersey, New York, and others, but there are 5 million people in my State who I believe are very concerned with what is happening with housing in Colorado. That is because 1 out of every 376 homes today in the State of Colorado is in foreclosure. If 1 out of 376 homes is in foreclosure today, I would venture that probably 90 percent of the homes in Colorado have seen a very significant decline in their value over the last 2 years.

So, yes, the people of America are very nervous about what is happening with the economy, and it is our responsibility, therefore, to move forward with an economic stimulus package that will address that economic uncertainty. I am hopeful that with the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and my colleagues on the Finance Committee, we will be able to get to a markup of legislation that can reach the floor of the Senate tomorrow evening, perhaps the next day, that will be that jump-start to the economy we need.

There is broad agreement on what that legislation will do. It will put money into the pockets of the consumers of America so it can help stimulate the economy. It will create initiatives for small businesses, which are so much of the economic engine of America, to go out and invest in equipment and growth so we can create jobs for people of this country.

We will move forward with a package that will also include extending unemployment benefits and also include in that making sure 20 million seniors who were left out of the House stimulus package are also included.

There will be other provisions that will come forward. So it is important we get beyond the legislation we are dealing with now with respect to FISA so we can work on those short-term economic issues. And having worked on those economic issues, which I hope we are able to do in a bipartisan fashion, then we will have the opportunity, hopefully, to work on the other legislation that addresses the longer term security needs of America.

In that long-term economic set of issues I believe we have to address, we have to, first of all, get the farm bill which garnered, I believe, 82 votes in the Senate, across the finish line so we can guarantee the food security of America for generations to come. It is the best farm bill, in my view, that has come out of this Senate Chamber, out of Congress for a long time. I think my Republican and Democratic colleagues would agree with that characterization of the farm bill.

We need to move beyond the farm bill to also address other long-term economic issues that face us. We must address the issue of the clean energy future for America. Yes, we can celebrate the fact that we came together in a bipartisan way to pass the Energy bill which the President signed in December, that we did a lot to move forward with efficiency and transportation and how we use electricity and other energy in our homes and buildings, a very significant step forward in embracing the new future with biofuels for America with the quintupling of the renewable fuel standards, and we took some steps to start dealing with the issue of global warming by putting carbon sequestration in that bill. But there is a lot more to be done on energy because what is missing in that bill, and still missing today, is a jet engine that will power us into the 21st century clean energy economy, because the legislation we passed out of the Finance Committee was one vote short to get to the 60 votes to stop the filibuster that was underway.

We need to turn back to the energy legislation so we can build that long-term economic security for America.

We also have to deal with the housing crisis. We will deal perhaps with it in some minor ways when we deal with the stimulus package, but there are other pieces of legislation which a number of committees have been working on to try to deal with the housing crisis. So we need to deal with both the short-term and the long-term economic challenges we face here in America, and yet we are wrapped around the axle in terms of moving forward on this FISA bill because the Republican minority has taken the view that we can simply stall, stall, stall until the time runs out.

I think we ought to be working in good faith, consider the amendments that many of my colleagues have brought to this floor and which are being prevented from being considered so we can then get a FISA bill passed

and we can move forward with the economic issues that we need to so urgently address.

I will continue to speak more specifically about FISA and some of the very important work that both Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have put together in this legislation, as well as the work of Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter on the Judiciary Committee, and I probably have another 10 minutes or so to go on the general legislation in support of the bill and moving forward with it, but because we are at this impasse, because we are wrapped around the axle, it seems to me a timeout is what would make sense for us then to be able to turn our attention, to pivot over to the economic issues which we have to address and which the President asked us to address last night.

In that regard, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 564, S. 2556; the bill be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I thank my friend from Missouri, and I look forward to the leadership that was shown by the Intelligence Committee in terms of Senators Rockefeller and Bond bringing Republicans and Democrats together to fashion the legislation that is before us.

In addition to that, I think we have an opportunity to work with Senator Leahy and the members of the Judiciary Committee to figure out the best way of moving forward to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to make sure we are protecting America. So I very much look forward to working with my good friend from Missouri and getting that done.

I don't think any Member in this Chamber would argue the fact that we need to update and extend FISA. The technologies available, surveillance methods that are now being used, and the threats that we face have changed dramatically since Congress first enacted FISA a long time ago--in 1978. Think of the attacks of the last years. September 11 illustrated in the most tragic and bloody and horrible way the great threat that extremist groups can pose to the United States. The attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania brought the spectre of terrorism to our front door. In many ways, the innocence of America was lost on that day.

But September 11 is not the only terrorist attack that we or our allies have endured in recent years. In 2002, a bombing in Bali killed 202 people and wounded 209. In 2004--this is after 9/11--the bombs on the trains in Madrid killed 191 people and wounded over 2,000 people. And in 2005, we saw the attacks on London's underground commuter train, killing 52 and injuring 700.

I could go on with a list of violent incidents that have been caused because of terrorism around the world. The State Department reports that the number of incidents of terrorism worldwide has grown dramatically in recent years. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of incidents rose from 11,153 to 14,338. Three-fourths of those incidents--that is three-fourths of 14,338 incidents--resulted in death, injury, or kidnapping. All told, terrorism has claimed the lives of more than 74,000 people around the world in only the year 2006. That is 74,000 people, most of them innocent members of our human race, who have been killed by the scourge of terrorism around the world.

Americans understand that our intelligence and surveillance capabilities are absolutely essential to preventing these types of attacks. Our Government needs to have the power and the tools to listen in on those who are plotting an attack on the United States and our interests. They need to be able to monitor the e-mails of a terrorist suspect. They need to be able to track people, and they need to be able to track those vital networks. They need to be able to respond quickly and decisively on information that is collected to make sure that we protect the innocent from harm.

Americans want a government that can and will fulfill its primary responsibility--the responsibility of keeping its citizens safe from attack. But we also want to make sure we have a government that will not abuse the power entrusted in it. We want a government that honors the rule of law and upholds the cherished values of our Constitution. We want a government that protects the privacy of law-abiding citizens, and we want a government that is worthy of respect, not fear.

Without a doubt, the events of September 11 demanded an expansion of our intelligence-gathering capabilities. We needed to take emergency action to ensure the security of Americans over the short term. But rather than work within the authorities provided by Congress, the President and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft built their own program--the terrorist surveillance program--out of the view of Congress, out of the view of the public, in the darkness, and without oversight of the courts. They built it on their own based on some assumed authority.

The administration hid the fact that it was implementing its program in a manner that overstepped the authorities that Congress had provided under law. It hid the fact that it could target Americans for surveillance without a warrant. There was no mention to the American people that their communications could be spied upon without a warrant or without any other kind of protection from the courts. It hid the fact that it was grabbing more power for the executive branch than our Founding Fathers would have ever thought wise in their quest to protect the civil liberties and freedoms of America.

We need to move, in my view, beyond the thinking that characterized the formation of this unlawful terrorist surveillance program within the executive branch, and we have indeed made some progress together in moving forward in a new direction. We have consolidated the information that our intelligence agencies collect, we have implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in this Congress, we have created the Department of Homeland Security, and we are now ready to bring FISA up to date with our technology in the threats we face.

Over the last few days, the administration has presented the American people with a false dichotomy. They claim we have to choose between protecting our national security on the one hand and protecting our civil liberties. That is a false dichotomy. As a former attorney general, I can tell you that we can do both. We can have a surveillance program that gives our law enforcement the tools it needs to protect America and at the same time we can make sure that we are protecting the civil liberties of the citizens of our country.

The bill before us places some simple but highly effective safeguards on the Government's surveillance program, and we should be thankful for this legislation in that regard. These safeguards will in no way impede our efforts to defeat the terrorist networks and prevent attacks on Americans. If an intelligence agency gets actionable information, it can establish surveillance immediately; no waiting for a warrant, no redtape, no delay. The agency will simply have to seek a retroactive warrant once surveillance has begun.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue as in morning business for an additional 5 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

The bill before us places some simple but highly effective safeguards on the Government's surveillance program. These safeguards will in no way impede our efforts to defeat the terrorist networks and prevent attacks on Americans. I want to highlight a few provisions of the bill that the Intelligence Committee reported, and which are at the center of our debate this week. These provisions require the FISA Court and Congress to play a greater

role in overseeing the Nation's surveillance program. I should say a greater role and an appropriate role in overseeing the Nation's surveillance program.

First, the FISA reauthorization will require the FISA Court to review the administration's procedures for determining that the targeted surveillance is reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Second, the FISA Court must review the procedures for minimizing the identities of and information about Americans incidentally detected during the surveillance of foreign targets. Third, the court must approve or disapprove the targeting of Americans overseas under this new authority on an individual basis, based on its review of whether there is probable cause to believe the person is an agent of a foreign power. Fourth, the bill includes a 6-year sunset to allow Congress to evaluate how the new authorities are carried out, and to ensure abuses do not occur before authorities are extended further. The threats and technologies are changing so fast that Congress will need to update the legislation during that time.

Finally, the bill requires the intelligence community to conduct an annual review and requires detailed semiannual reports to be submitted to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees concerning collections authorized under the bill, including instances of noncompliance.

These provisions represent a dramatic improvement to our Nation's international surveillance program, and I am pleased they are the foundation of the bill. But we can do more to strengthen the bill and do better to enforce the rule of law.

I support Senator Cardin's amendment, which I cosponsored, to have a 4-year sunset for the bill rather than 6 years. If we learn of problems in the program, if the technologies continue to change or if the threat changes, we should have the opportunity to change the law.

Over the coming days, we will also debate how to handle the question of immunity for companies that participated in the warrantless surveillance program from 2001 until 2007.

In my view, if a company was knowingly acting in violation of existing law, the courts should review their actions to determine if there was wrongdoing. If, however, the Attorney General or an intelligence agency approached that company, and the company clearly tried to follow the law and act in good faith, it should not be held liable.

That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Feinstein's amendment which establishes an independent process for reviewing whether a company should receive immunity. Under this amendment, the FISA Court would follow a three-step process for determining whether a lawsuit has merit.

Senator Feinstein has proposed a smart and fair solution to this very difficult problem. The FISA reauthorization has become unnecessarily politicized, in my view. We are fully able to strengthen our Nation's international surveillance capabilities while protecting the privacy of Americans. I hope the Members of this Chamber can put the rhetoric and threats aside and move forward to assure that America is, in fact, protected, both in terms of threats against them in violence from terrorists and at the same time that we protect their civil liberties.

I hope we can pass the FISA bill soon. I hope the President will do what is right and sign it.

The Senator from Alaska.

(The remarks of Senator Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2570 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.

I have said many times on this Senate floor that we do have a crisis in energy and that we need all of the following: We need nuclear energy, but we also need clean coal technology, we need oil and gas, we need renewables. We need all of the above. I feel very strongly about this, and I know there is a disagreement on that issue, even within our committee. But I am concerned about the continued delays in opening our Nation's repository at Yucca Mountain, that it would hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. It seems as though right now we are making a major breakthrough. People who were objecting to nuclear energy just a few years ago are now realizing that it is clean, it is safe, it is abundant. Not that I use France as our model very often, but in this case, they are between 80 and 90 percent nuclear, and they have done the right thing.

A bit of history on this. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a program to locate and develop a repository for nuclear waste, including both Defense waste, a legacy from the Cold War, and civilian spent fuel. In 2002, after 20 years of research, the President recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain should be developed as the repository. The State of Nevada objected. I wasn't surprised to see that happen, and it did. It certainly is their right to do so under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, Congress passed a joint resolution affirming or reaffirming the administration's recommendation of Yucca Mountain with strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses.

The location has been decided. The debate is no longer in existence of whether a repository should be built at Yucca Mountain. That decision was made in 2002. The task that remains is to develop a repository that protects public health and safety and the environment, a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is high time we accomplish these tasks now. This is very serious. We passed laws and resolutions to do it. We have collected over $27 billion--that is with a ``b''--$27 billion for electricity from consumers to pay for it. The courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that we have the obligation--not the legal right to do it, the legal obligation.

Now, I am frustrated that the Department of Energy is 20 years behind schedule. However, I am pleased that DOE appears to have made significant progress in the past few years and will hopefully file a license application this year, despite the persistent assault on program funding.

I understand that opposition to Yucca Mountain remains, advocating that we abandon it in favor of interim storage. There have been many proposals on interim storage, and I expect there will be more in the future, but we have interim storage right now at 121 locations in 39 States. Make no mistake, interim storage is a temporary fix. It forces future generations to solve a problem that we ought to be resolving today. It is time to move forward with a permanent solution at Yucca Mountain.

I have visited the site. I have a question for those who would want to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?

Let's think about this for a minute. The logical first step to finding a new repository site is to begin by reevaluating sites that have been considered before. I have a map--which is not here, but it will be here before I finish talking--showing the 37 States that DOE and its predecessor, the Energy Research Development Administration, have evaluated in the past based on the presence of favorable geologic formations. Those States are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and it goes on and on, including my State of Oklahoma--37 of the 50 States. Now, 37 States have been considered as possible candidates for developing a repository. Does it really make sense to abandon a site where we have already invested 25 years and $8 billion before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even considers it, only to turn around and start from scratch, reevaluating sites in 37 States? I don't think so.

As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and generations to come, and the bill I am introducing now will do just that.

DOE has indicated there are legislative provisions they need to complete the licensing process and begin construction of the repository our electricity consumers have paid some $27 billion for already. Senators Domenici and Craig introduced their NU-WAY bill, S. 37, which includes those provisions within the jurisdiction of Environment and Public Works. My bill includes the remaining DOE provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. My bill goes beyond that. My bill will incorporate a flexible framework for future generations to apply their knowledge and innovations to improve the repository.

The task at hand is to develop a safe repository using state-of-the- art technology and cutting-edge science. The trouble is technology that is state of the art now won't be 50 years from now, much less 100 years from now. When you are making decisions on how to develop a facility that will be safe for up to a million years, we should not limit ourselves to science and technology that is available today. We should establish a flexible framework that incorporates technological advances into the facility design over time, one that allows our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to improve on the project we have started. In other words, we know that even though we are using the million-year benchmark, things are going to happen next year and the year after and the year after where we can have dramatic improvements. But the one thing we have to do is make the decision today--or keep the decision that has already been made.

Several international bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, have advocated repository development in stages that will incorporate technological advances over time--just what

we are talking about. The reformed licensing process in this bill integrates that concept into the current licensing process. My bill reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, operation, and closure of the repository.

I have to say we have come a long way already on this. When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air within this committee, we had not had an oversight committee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 12 years. I don't care what the bureaucracy is, you have to have oversight. Well, we have come a long way.

The threshold for approval of construction of a repository is based on a determination that the facility could be safely operated for 300 years. During this time, a long-term science and technology program will be established to monitor and analyze the repository's performance and to conduct research into technologies that would improve the facility. The repository license will be amended every 50 years at a minimum to incorporate these improvements. During this phase, waste would remain retrievable so that future generations may recover valuable material or upgrade disposal systems, for example.

When the DOE applies to permanently close the repository, it must then demonstrate compliance with EPA's radiation standard before ceasing operations at the site. Until then, the facility will be subject to the strict NRC regulation and oversight as an operating facility.

Today, this program has been litigated into a corner. After several lawsuits, the EPA has responded by drafting a radiation standard for 1 million years. That is right, based on what we know today, DOE must prove a reasonable expectation that Yucca Mountain will be safe for 1 million years before DOE can even begin building a repository. This is a ridiculous and arrogant requirement that assumes we know right now all that will ever be known about the management of spent nuclear fuel and its impact on public health and safety. That compliance decision only makes sense when DOE decides to close the repository and cease operations. Until that time, repository enhancements reflecting 300 years of scientific innovation will improve its protection of public health and safety and, I might add, the environment.

Now, my approach is not about kicking the can down the road and forcing future generations to solve the problem. That is what concerns me about a lot of the things we do around here. My wife and I have 20 kids and grandkids, and they are the ones who are going to be doing a lot of the things we should be doing today. My approach is about meeting a legal and moral obligation to build the best facility we can now, laying a solid foundation for future generations to improve it based on what they learn.

I am confident we can build a repository that will protect public health and safety and the environment, but I am equally confident that 50 years from now our grandchildren could build a better one. Fifty years from now, they will have learned a lot about the actual performance of repositories; something we can only predict right now, they will know by that time. Fifty years from now, the waste placed in the repository may require isolation for a few hundred years instead of a million.

Lastly, my bill includes provisions necessary to support new nuclear plant construction. Before receiving a license, nuclear plants must meet two requirements. The first is that companies must sign a contract with DOE to provide for the disposal of spent fuel. My bill modifies those provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to make them current. The second is known as waste confidence. Nuclear plants must demonstrate there is confidence that the spent fuel will be managed and disposed of in a manner that protects health and safety. My bill clarifies that the repository program meets this requirement for disposal.

So when a society takes on the task of building a complex, first-of- a-kind facility envisioned to remain robust for a million years, it immediately raises questions about generational equity. As Senators, we must balance fairness to the future generations that haven't been born yet with fairness to the generations we currently represent. Finding that balance must be based on several principles, including protecting the health and safety of current generations; protecting the health and safety of future generations; minimizing the impact on the environment; meeting the need for reliable, cost-effective energy; meeting legal obligations; minimizing taxpayer liability; and the costs are covered by those who benefit from the waste. My bill adheres to these principles and strikes that balance.

Rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise have been highly exaggerated. It is time we focus on developing the safest state-of-the-art repository we can, one step at a time. We owe it to our generation and to the generations that follow.

I have to say, regarding all of the emphasis recently on the concern we have for the environment, nothing is cleaner, nothing has been shown better for the environment than this type of energy, which we have to have in our mix.

Mr. President, our great Nation was founded on the fundamental principle that all persons are created equal. We have long committed, and recommitted, ourselves to ensuring that all persons have the

right to prosper through hard work and ingenuity. However, for many Americans, those rights still remain illusory. Today, we introduce a comprehensive bill to vindicate our founding principles and make the promise of equal opportunity in the workplace a reality for all Americans.

I am proud to cosponsor the Civil Rights Act of 2008, and I thank Senator Ted Kennedy for his leadership in the Senate on this issue, and Representative John Lewis for his leadership in the House. I have been a long-time supporter of efforts to rid the workplace of unlawful discrimination, and I believe the Civil Rights Act of 2008 is critical to achieving that important goal. We must continue to fight to end all workplace discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This legislation we are introducing today responds to several disappointing decisions by conservative courts. These court rulings have misconstrued congressional intent, and have had the effect of limiting important civil rights protections provided by Congress.

A 2000 decision from the Supreme Court of the United States greatly restricted the capacity of workers who suffer age discrimination to sue for full relief. In Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to Congress's original intent, State employers do not have to provide back pay or other monetary damages when workers are discriminated against based on age. As a result, millions of State workers who are 40 or over lost the right to back pay. This bill would restore Congress's original intent that State employers give workers full relief for age discrimination, including back pay.

The bill would clarify the standard for challenging employment practices that have an unjustified discriminatory impact on older workers. It would make clear that the standard of proof in cases alleging a disparate impact based on age is the same as in cases alleging a disparate impact based on race, color, gender, national origin, or religion.

The bill would also restore the rights of victims of discrimination-- in the workplace or otherwise--to challenge practices that have a disparate impact on certain communities based on race, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Since the Supreme Court's decision 7 years ago in Alexander v. Sandoval, individuals can no longer challenge discrimination by entities that receive Federal funding without facing the high burden of proving purposeful discrimination.

Currently, only the Federal Government has the right to challenge sophisticated forms of discrimination--by federally funded entities-- that fall disproportionately on certain minority groups. So if a State decided to administer a driver's license exam only in English, rather than administering the exam in multiple languages, a non-English speaker would be denied his or her right to have their day in court. This measure returns the Federal law to our original intentions by allowing individuals a right to challenge such practices:

These added protections provide a significant step forward in the fulfillment of our goal to eliminate the footprint of unlawful discrimination from the workplace and broader society. Civil rights legislation over the last 44 years--including antidiscrimination in the workplace laws--represents some of Congress's greatest achievements. With the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Congress gave victims of discrimination a way to address the wrongs that they have suffered and put teeth into the sanctions faced by those who unlawfully discriminate against their victims.

Despite these gains, efforts to eliminate bias from the workplace and larger society have been largely eroded by decisions from conservative jurists on the Supreme Court and other Federal courts. Year after year, conservative courts have rolled back rights by denying certain types of relief and taking certain tools--designed to fight intentional and sophisticated forms of workplace discrimination--from individual workers. This bill would reverse that rollback, and restore the rights of victims to have their day in court and to have meaningful remedies when those rights are violated.

Discrimination on the basis of certain personal characteristics has no place in any workplace or in any State in America. It is long overdue for Congress to reinforce Americans' protections against bias in the workplace and eradicate barriers to full and equal participation in our society.

The time for this bill is now. It is particularly important that, on the week our Nation observes and honors the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress has introduced this bill. We must remain vigilant in ensuring our precious civil rights, which generations of Americans fought and bled to protect, remain available for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. President, I would say that S. 2663 is a bipartisan piece of legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Act. We have been working for months to get this going. It is my understanding now that Senators Pryor and Stevens asked that this matter move forward.

The other matter related to the FISA bill, we are trying to work something out with the House, and hopefully we can get something done on that soon.

Mr. President, tonight I am introducing and beginning the rule XIV process on two bills related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. One bill would extend the Protect America Act, the PAA, for 30 days, while the other would extend that law until July 1, 2009.

Earlier this year I introduced S. 2556 which would have extended the PAA for 30 days, and S. 2257, which would have extended the PAA until July 1, 2009. The bills I am introducing tonight would extend the PAA for the same periods of time, but they are drafted to take account of the fact that the PAA has expired. In addition, they contain a post hoc effective date that is intended to eliminate any potentially adverse legal effect resulting from the expiration of the PAA.

My purpose in introducing bills with two different extension lengths is to demonstrate once again that I am willing to extend the PAA for as long a time, or as short a time, as is needed to finalize a strong final bill.

Now that the House and Senate have both passed bills--H.R. 3773 and S. 2248--to strengthen the PAA, the right way to get to a final bill is through bipartisan negotiations. Unfortunately, my Republican friends appear unwilling to negotiate. We convened two negotiating sessions last week, but Republican staff members and administration lawyers declined to attend.

Meanwhile, President Bush says that the expiration of the Protect America Act has made America less safe, but he threatened to veto a bill extending that law while negotiators work on a final bill. The President's position is inexplicable and reckless.

The bottom line for Senate Democrats is clear: We want to give our intelligence professionals all needed tools while protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans. We are willing to extend the Protect America Act for as long as it takes to get a final bill.

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues Senators Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Lautenberg, Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown in introducing the Civil Rights Act of 2008. This legislation is vital to realizing the full promise of our civil rights laws and labor laws to protect all of America's people.

Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. Prejudice, discrimination, and outright bigotry continue to limit the lives of large numbers of our people. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Supreme Court has rolled back some of the core statutory protections for civil rights and workers' rights. The Civil Rights Act of 2008 will strengthen existing civil rights protections and restore the bedrock principle that individuals may challenge all forms of discrimination in public services.

It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are able to seek relief in court. Our legislation will strengthen existing protections in cases where the courts have let us down by narrowing individuals' right to demand accountability for discrimination.

Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. Our bill enhances protections against discrimination in federally funded services, and enacts needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their national origin, gender, race, or disability.

We make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our legislation will also enable members of our Armed Forces to enforce their Federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of their military status.

In addition, our legislation will ensure that older workers who suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief because they work for a State government. It will also prevent employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination claims and fair labor claims in court, in order to obtain a job or keep a job.

This bill is a needed step in restoring the effective remedies that our civil rights laws and fair labor laws must have in order to ensure accountability for discrimination. America will never be America until we do.