Floor Statements

Madam President, we have seen 4 years of obfuscation on Iraq from the White House and from previous leadership in this Senate. Those days are over this afternoon. Every Senator is going to have to step to the plate and say where he or she stands. The other side has tried to design resolutions where they can duck, they can avoid, and they don't tell their constituencies how they feel. Those days are over.

That is why this cloture vote is a crucial vote, not just for the moment or the week but for the history of America because today's vote is not on other aspects of what is going on in Iraq or Iran but simply this: Are you for or against the escalation? Plain and simple.

There should be a simple vote, not as an end to this debate but as a beginning of this debate. The minority is tying itself into pretzels so there will not be a vote. They are torn between their President's policy and the wishes of their constituents. But vote they must. If they avoid the vote this afternoon, their constituents will know exactly what they are doing.

On the policy, the President's escalation is misguided, to put it kindly. There is no change in strategy. We are policing a civil war in Iraq--something no one talked about 2 years ago, something no one bargained for. Our brave

young men and women, whom we so support, are standing in the crossfire between Shiites and Sunnis. This is not a fight against terrorism; this is a civil war, and there have been, unfortunately, thousands of them throughout history. American troops should not be in the middle of that war.

The President doesn't change the policy; he simply adds more troops to continue this misguided policy. That is why the majority of this Senate, and the overwhelming majority of the American people, are so opposed to this escalation, and we will vote on it this afternoon. But make no mistake about it, this is just the first step. It is just the first step. This is a process. Some of my friends and colleagues wish-- and maybe we do, too--that there could be a silver bullet, one resolution that could either end the escalation or even end the war. But there is not. The way our Constitution is structured, this Government, you need two-thirds to overcome a certain Presidential veto, when we do our next resolution with teeth.

So our job here, which this resolution begins, is to ratchet up the pressure on the President, on those who are still on his side in terms of this policy until they change. We will be relentless. There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, all forcing this body to do what it has not done in the previous 3 years--debate and discuss Iraq. And we believe that as that debate continues and as this process unfolds, just like in the days of Vietnam, the pressure will mount and the President will find he has no strategy. He will have to change his strategy, and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home.

So, Madam President, today is the beginning of a historic period, where for the first time in a while Congress debates foreign policy in Iraq and Congress tries to do something about foreign policy in Iraq.

To the brave men and women who are defending us today, whom we so support, thank you for your service, thank you for protecting us. We will continue to live by what the Constitution has asked us to do, which is to debate the issues and come up with what is best for our soldiers, for America, and for the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

And I will not object, but I wish to say a word before we proceed further. I just want to urge my colleagues to accept this unanimous consent request by Senator Leahy to move forward legislation on restoring the longtime procedure for appointing interim U.S. attorneys.

I ask unanimous consent that after objection is heard, if it is heard, Senator Leahy be permitted to yield 5 minutes to me and then he immediately regain the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

I will take 5.

Mr. President, first, I thank our leader on the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, for his leadership on this issue, as well as for yielding time. It is unfortunate that the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Vermont was objected to.

Now, I would like to report to my colleagues on both the hearing we had,

which is public record, and, more to the point, the private meeting we had yesterday with the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. McNulty, who was gracious and who is a very fine person. But neither the hearing nor the private meeting we had allayed our fears. In fact, they increased them in a variety of ways.

As we know, at least seven U.S. attorneys were summarily fired in recent weeks. The Attorney General has flatly denied that politics has played a part. But the bottom line is, even at the hearing it was admitted that one U.S. attorney was fired without cause and replaced by somebody who had worked for Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee and did not have much of a record being a prosecutor. Even more troubling was the firing of the U.S. attorney from San Diego, of the Southern District of California, who was in the midst of a very high-level investigation that led to the conviction of Congressman Cunningham and, yesterday, the indictment of two more in that. So it is hardly a concluded investigation.

The bottom line at yesterday's briefing by the Deputy Attorney General did little to alleviate our concerns that politics was involved in several of these firings and, in fact, raised those concerns.

It seems, when you have a preliminary look--we did not get a look-- but a preliminary description of the EER reports, the evaluations, that most of the U.S. attorneys, not all but most of the U.S. attorneys who were fired had very fine recommendations.

There were a few policy disputes, but particularly in the area of the U.S. attorney from the Southern District of California, in the midst of an ongoing investigation, there was some policy disagreement about how to deal with those crossing the border. She was told to change it. And there is no knowledge or observation whether she changed it or not, and yet she was fired in the midst of a much more serious, much more high- profile political investigation.

So the idea that people were fired for no cause, the idea that some may have been--and this is not proven, but certainly the hearing and the private meeting increased rather than decreased my concerns--fired for political reasons because they may have either, in some cases, not done what the Justice Department wanted them to do--particularly, remember, this was right before election time--or may have been going forward with a very serious investigation into local political officials remains a real possibility.

We asked to see the EER reports at the hearing. At the private meeting yesterday, Paul McNulty, Deputy U.S. Attorney General, said some of the information was taken under confidence. These are evaluations, and they ask lawyers, judges, fellow U.S. attorneys how the office is doing and how the U.S. attorney is doing. And if they were to reveal their names, it might jeopardize the confidentiality of future EER reports. That is a reasonable assertion. So we asked, could we get the reports and redact the names of those who were saying this is a good or bad U.S. attorney? Mr. McNulty said he would get back to us on the issue. We await.

But make no mistake about it: We will get those EER reports. Either they will be given to us with the necessary redaction--and I have spoken to my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein--or we will ask Senator Leahy, our leader on this issue, through the Judiciary Committee to subpoena them. We will see them. If they show that the U.S. attorneys were doing a good job, if they show that they were people who should be there, there will be real trouble.

It means two things. First, we will get to the bottom of this. There are still too many troubling questions out there. If we have to have another hearing, we will. Second, it means whatever the investigation finds, there is enough troubling evidence out there now that the legislation Senator Feinstein has authored, and Senator Leahy and myself have cosponsored, should be passed immediately. Therefore, it is regrettable there was objection that we don't move to rectify the situation and do it right now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act with my colleague, Senator Clinton. Recognizing the promise of generic drugs as safe and effective treatments at greatly reduced prices, I have worked for years with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to increase generic drug availability and accessibility, most notably with Senator McCain on a 2003 law. This legislation represents the next step in the availability of generic drugs for American consumers by creating a statutory pathway for generic

versions of biotech drugs to enter the market.

While generic drugs save American consumers an estimated eight to ten billion dollars each year, American consumers have not yet reaped the full potential savings from the generic drug market. Under current law, there is no generic approval process at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, for an entire category of drugs, even once the patents have expired. These biologic drugs, which are an expensive and growing sector of the pharmaceutical market, will obtain monopoly pricing on the market indefinitely without the possibility of generic competitors.

Drug companies that invest in the research and development of life- saving drugs, whether biological or chemical in nature, deserve to be rewarded for their work. At the same time, patients need the ability to access affordable drugs. We have created a statutory framework for chemical drugs that balances incentives for continued innovations with access to affordable drugs for patients. But, this framework has not yet expanded to biotech drugs, which are on the cutting edge of science but for which the laws are hopelessly out of date.

Now is the time to ensure that American consumers have the same access to life-saving biotech drugs that consumers have to well-known, widely used chemical drugs. Patients need to be able to afford and access their medications, and they don't care what kind of drug they have. Patients rely on biotech drugs to treat a wide array of diseases, ranging from diabetes to cancer to AIDS, but with no generic versions of biotech drugs available, these drugs can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year--too expensive for many patients to afford. Introducing fair competition for biotech drugs is essential to make life-saving biotech treatments affordable.

The Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act will allow the FDA to approve generic versions of biologic drugs that have been determined to be both safe and effective. The FDA is not required to approve any generic biologics, but if the data is there, they will now have the ability to do so.

A report released earlier this year by Pharmaceutical Care Management Association estimated that the introduction of generic biotech drugs into the market could save Medicare Part B $14 billion over the next ten years. We need to embrace those potential savings and provide American consumers access to affordable biotech drugs.

Moving this legislation forward and creating a statutory pathway for generic versions of biotech drugs to enter the market is one of my highest priorities in the 110th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues, especially Senator Clinton, to accomplish this goal.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Reduce Wasteful Tax Forms Act of 2007.'' This bill extends the deadline from January 31 to February 15 for certain types of 1099 forms to be sent to taxpayers. 1099 forms are used to report non-wage income, such as income from dividends and capital gains. These forms are distributed by brokerage firms and financial institutions to their investors, who must report the information on their income tax returns.

Due to recent changes in tax laws that govern income from interest and dividends, there has been a significant increase in the number of inaccurate forms sent out by firms in order to meet the January 31 deadline. The problem is that much of the tax data for certain types of investment income cannot be calculated until after the first of the year, resulting in a compressed window for calculating data in compliance with the new laws and mailing the forms. Once accurate data becomes available, financial institutions must send taxpayers an amended form with the correct information.

These amended forms create confusion for taxpayers, and in some cases, those who receive an amended 1099 may have to re-file their taxes. If taxpayers underpaid in their initial return, they could face interest charges and penalties if they do not file again before the April 15 deadline. The January 31 deadline results in tons of wasted paper, confusion for taxpayers, and wasted expenses incurred in sending the amended forms.

This problem affects an increasing number of taxpayers. According to recent press reports in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, prior to 2003, an average of 5 to 8 percent of 1099 forms required correcting. That number has since jumped to an average of 13 percent, translating into millions of amended 1099s being sent to taxpayers each year.

My legislation would extend the deadline for sending 1099 forms to taxpayers to February 15, by which time the vast majority of required data will be available to ensure the accuracy of the forms. The bill extends the deadline only for certain types of 1099 forms used to report investment income; it would not extend the deadline for 1099 forms sent to independent contractors or for statements that only report interest earned on bank deposits. Accordingly, this extension will not delay filing for the vast majority of taxpayers.

This year, the IRS granted several brokerage firms an extension to the January 31 deadline. However, this bill would provide a permanent extension for all firms and financial institutions to remove the uncertainty for taxpayers that arises due to this unnecessarily early deadline. My bill will help taxpayers by reducing confusion, the financial industry by cutting costs and waste, and the environment by eliminating millions of unnecessary mailings.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I look forward to working with other Finance Committee members to have it considered during the 110th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act with my colleague, Senator Clinton. Recognizing the promise of generic drugs as safe and effective treatments at greatly reduced prices, I have worked for years with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to increase generic drug availability and accessibility, most notably with Senator McCain on a 2003 law. This legislation represents the next step in the availability of generic drugs for American consumers by creating a statutory pathway for generic

versions of biotech drugs to enter the market.

While generic drugs save American consumers an estimated eight to ten billion dollars each year, American consumers have not yet reaped the full potential savings from the generic drug market. Under current law, there is no generic approval process at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, for an entire category of drugs, even once the patents have expired. These biologic drugs, which are an expensive and growing sector of the pharmaceutical market, will obtain monopoly pricing on the market indefinitely without the possibility of generic competitors.

Drug companies that invest in the research and development of life- saving drugs, whether biological or chemical in nature, deserve to be rewarded for their work. At the same time, patients need the ability to access affordable drugs. We have created a statutory framework for chemical drugs that balances incentives for continued innovations with access to affordable drugs for patients. But, this framework has not yet expanded to biotech drugs, which are on the cutting edge of science but for which the laws are hopelessly out of date.

Now is the time to ensure that American consumers have the same access to life-saving biotech drugs that consumers have to well-known, widely used chemical drugs. Patients need to be able to afford and access their medications, and they don't care what kind of drug they have. Patients rely on biotech drugs to treat a wide array of diseases, ranging from diabetes to cancer to AIDS, but with no generic versions of biotech drugs available, these drugs can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year--too expensive for many patients to afford. Introducing fair competition for biotech drugs is essential to make life-saving biotech treatments affordable.

The Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act will allow the FDA to approve generic versions of biologic drugs that have been determined to be both safe and effective. The FDA is not required to approve any generic biologics, but if the data is there, they will now have the ability to do so.

A report released earlier this year by Pharmaceutical Care Management Association estimated that the introduction of generic biotech drugs into the market could save Medicare Part B $14 billion over the next ten years. We need to embrace those potential savings and provide American consumers access to affordable biotech drugs.

Moving this legislation forward and creating a statutory pathway for generic versions of biotech drugs to enter the market is one of my highest priorities in the 110th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues, especially Senator Clinton, to accomplish this goal.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Reduce Wasteful Tax Forms Act of 2007.'' This bill extends the deadline from January 31 to February 15 for certain types of 1099 forms to be sent to taxpayers. 1099 forms are used to report non-wage income, such as income from dividends and capital gains. These forms are distributed by brokerage firms and financial institutions to their investors, who must report the information on their income tax returns.

Due to recent changes in tax laws that govern income from interest and dividends, there has been a significant increase in the number of inaccurate forms sent out by firms in order to meet the January 31 deadline. The problem is that much of the tax data for certain types of investment income cannot be calculated until after the first of the year, resulting in a compressed window for calculating data in compliance with the new laws and mailing the forms. Once accurate data becomes available, financial institutions must send taxpayers an amended form with the correct information.

These amended forms create confusion for taxpayers, and in some cases, those who receive an amended 1099 may have to re-file their taxes. If taxpayers underpaid in their initial return, they could face interest charges and penalties if they do not file again before the April 15 deadline. The January 31 deadline results in tons of wasted paper, confusion for taxpayers, and wasted expenses incurred in sending the amended forms.

This problem affects an increasing number of taxpayers. According to recent press reports in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, prior to 2003, an average of 5 to 8 percent of 1099 forms required correcting. That number has since jumped to an average of 13 percent, translating into millions of amended 1099s being sent to taxpayers each year.

My legislation would extend the deadline for sending 1099 forms to taxpayers to February 15, by which time the vast majority of required data will be available to ensure the accuracy of the forms. The bill extends the deadline only for certain types of 1099 forms used to report investment income; it would not extend the deadline for 1099 forms sent to independent contractors or for statements that only report interest earned on bank deposits. Accordingly, this extension will not delay filing for the vast majority of taxpayers.

This year, the IRS granted several brokerage firms an extension to the January 31 deadline. However, this bill would provide a permanent extension for all firms and financial institutions to remove the uncertainty for taxpayers that arises due to this unnecessarily early deadline. My bill will help taxpayers by reducing confusion, the financial industry by cutting costs and waste, and the environment by eliminating millions of unnecessary mailings.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I look forward to working with other Finance Committee members to have it considered during the 110th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act.'' This bill extends the current tax treatment for speedways and race tracks around the country. Just over two years ago, Congress codified the seven-year depreciation classification for motorsports facilities. However, this provision of the tax code expires at the end of 2007. The bill I am introducing today would make the seven-year classification permanent, providing much needed clarity and certainty for facility owners who are planning capital investments.

There are over fifty motorsports facilities in every part of New York State: from Long Island Motorsports Park to Poughkeepsie Speedway to Utica-Rome Speedway to Wyoming County International Speedway. These tracks provide entertainment for thousands of fans and are important engines of local and regional economic development.

The highest profile facility in New York State is Watkins Glen International. This storied road course has played an important role in open wheel and stock car racing since it opened in 1956. The Glen has hosted NASCAR racing since 1986, and this year's schedule will include the Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series, the IndyCar Series and the NASCAR Nextel Cup. With

these high profile events drawing thousands of out-of-state racing fans to Schuyler County it is no surprise that the Glen's economic impact has been estimated at over $200 million a year.

Watkins Glen is also a prime example of the need for continual capital reinvestment at motorsports facilities. Since 2005, the Glen has added new grandstands and spectator suites and upgraded and repaved the track. Planning multi-million dollar capital projects requires a certain and stable tax regime governing these investments. In order to provide this stability and certainty, I am introducing the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Roberts, Bill Nelson, Dole, Stabenow, and Kyl as original cosponsors. Enacting this legislation will be crucial to supporting the economic benefits that motorsports facilities provide across New York State and across the country. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleague from Kansas to have it considered in the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act.'' This bill extends the current tax treatment for speedways and race tracks around the country. Just over two years ago, Congress codified the seven-year depreciation classification for motorsports facilities. However, this provision of the tax code expires at the end of 2007. The bill I am introducing today would make the seven-year classification permanent, providing much needed clarity and certainty for facility owners who are planning capital investments.

There are over fifty motorsports facilities in every part of New York State: from Long Island Motorsports Park to Poughkeepsie Speedway to Utica-Rome Speedway to Wyoming County International Speedway. These tracks provide entertainment for thousands of fans and are important engines of local and regional economic development.

The highest profile facility in New York State is Watkins Glen International. This storied road course has played an important role in open wheel and stock car racing since it opened in 1956. The Glen has hosted NASCAR racing since 1986, and this year's schedule will include the Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series, the IndyCar Series and the NASCAR Nextel Cup. With

these high profile events drawing thousands of out-of-state racing fans to Schuyler County it is no surprise that the Glen's economic impact has been estimated at over $200 million a year.

Watkins Glen is also a prime example of the need for continual capital reinvestment at motorsports facilities. Since 2005, the Glen has added new grandstands and spectator suites and upgraded and repaved the track. Planning multi-million dollar capital projects requires a certain and stable tax regime governing these investments. In order to provide this stability and certainty, I am introducing the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Roberts, Bill Nelson, Dole, Stabenow, and Kyl as original cosponsors. Enacting this legislation will be crucial to supporting the economic benefits that motorsports facilities provide across New York State and across the country. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleague from Kansas to have it considered in the Finance Committee.

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

Madam President, we have heard a debate over the last hour about where we stand on the resolutions and debating the escalation of the war in Iraq. Here is where we are at the end of the day. We can dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and do all of the legalistic parsing that we want. The minority is blocking a vote on the issue that the American people wish to hear us on: Do you support or oppose the escalation? It is that simple.

The minority's action ratifies the President's escalation. And any Senator who voted to prevent the Warner resolution from coming to the floor is saying to his or her constituents: I support that escalation.

We know what is going on. The minority is torn between loyalty to their President and following the will of their voters. I have not seen a single State where, at least from the polling data, the public supports the escalation. There should be a simple vote, and not as an end to this debate but as a beginning to this debate. The minority is tying itself in a pretzel so that there will not be a vote.

Now, the Gregg resolution is missing two words. Look at it. Read it. It doesn't have the word ``surge,'' and it doesn't have the word ``escalation.'' It is ambiguously worded so that it tries to tie support for the troops with the escalation, but without saying so. It is a resolution that is intended to befuddle, perplex, obfuscate, and to hide.

The good news is that the American people don't follow the details of all of this debate. They don't have the time. They are busy with their lives, their families, their jobs, the joys and sorrows of life. But they follow the big picture. The big picture is simple: Senator Reid has labored mightily to have a clear, unobstructed, unobliterated vote on whether you support or oppose the escalation.

The minority leader, backed by all but two of his membership, has said we do not want to vote; we want to let the President go forward with the escalation, without taking responsibility for it. The public is seeing that. The public understands.

My good friend from Mississippi was talking in the hallway. He said the job of the Senate is to take the tough votes. You bet it is. It is not whether we are saying we support the troops--which everybody agrees that we do--in an ambiguously designed amendment to support escalation and get their way, and those against it get their way. The bottom line is simple: the tough vote is ``yes'' or ``no'' on the escalation.

Again, I salute our majority leader. He has done everything to try to bring that vote to the floor. The minority leader has done everything to obstruct that vote. The good news is that we will have plenty of further opportunity to get that vote and, make no mistake about it, this majority, in the belief that the escalation is wrong, in the belief that there is no strategy in Iraq

other than to police a civil war, which no one bargained for, will be resolute and we will find ample opportunities to not only get a sense- of-the-Senate vote on whether you support or oppose the escalation, but to move further and ratchet up the pressure on the President so that he changes his strategy.

The number of people in America who believe that our strategy in Iraq is succeeding gets smaller every day. I think it is below 1 in 4 right now, which means that close to a majority of Republicans don't agree with the strategy. Obviously, if the President came here 3 years ago and said we are going to have our troops on Haifa Street patrolling a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites--how many people would have voted for that? How many Americans would have supported it? But that is exactly what we are doing. The vast majority of the troops that the President is asking for will continue to do just that and only that.

So this debate is coming only to a temporary close. One thing stands out clearly: the Republican minority is allowing the President to go forward with the escalation. It is supporting the escalation but doesn't want to vote to say so. My colleagues, that will not wash. The American people are too smart. They are too concerned. They are too worried about the brave men and women over there risking their lives as Sunnis shoot at Shiites and Shiites shoot at Sunnis. To hold the minority's feet to the fire, we will be resolute in making sure that happens.

The Gregg resolution is obfuscatory. It is designed to give people cover who don't want to say yes or no. But make no mistake about it, the people want a yes or a no. They want us to act on that yes or no as we come forward with the supplementary budget request next month. And this majority, limited as it may be, will endeavor to do just that.

I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Yes, indeed.

Indeed. I thank my colleague for asking the question. Again, the minority says it is our job to take some tough votes. Here, here. We want to take what is a tough vote for some: Are you for the surge? Are you for the escalation or are you against it? They are doing everything they can to avoid it. But as my good friend from Massachusetts has so aptly pointed out, the bottom line is that now is the time to go on record--now, before most of the troops are there; now, when we can ratchet up pressure on the President to change his policy, as the independent study group said, and so many generals have said. I might add, from the press reports, the Prime Minister of Iraq doesn't want them. We are almost in Alice in Wonderland here.

I will say one other thing. The good news is simple: the American people get it. They know that the war in Iraq doesn't have a strategy. They know it is headed toward a dead end. They know that policing a civil war makes no sense, and they know what we are trying to do, which is forcing a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote--get a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote and move forward to change that strategy. No amount of wordsmithing on the other side is going to change that fact.

Today, the Republican minority said: We are for the surge, and we will let the President go forward and do it.

I yield to my colleague for another question.

Madam President, the Senator is exactly right. And I will add one other point to his very prescient comments. Let us say we have this surge and then troops leave after a certain amount of time-- some say the end of the summer, some say it will go on 3, 4, 5 years. What is going to happen then if we don't have a political solution the good Senator asks about? The Sunni and Shia will resume fighting, and we will have accomplished nothing. We will have seen the lives of some of our brave men and women be taken from them, American soldiers. We will have created more havoc in Iraq. And we will have, again, delayed the very political solution my friend from Massachusetts talks about, which is essential.

If there had been a change in Government, if there had been a change in strategy, perhaps--I can't say because I don't know what it would be, given this administration hasn't changed anything--maybe the American people, maybe some on this side of the aisle would say: Give it a chance. But to send more of our brave troops over there when there is no change in strategy, when it is just increasing policing of a civil war, and when, at the end of this so-called surge, this escalation, nothing will have changed, the American people have every right to ask: To what end?

That is what we are asking. That is why we want a simple vote. And that is why today is going to go down in history as a day when this Republican minority in this House said to the President: We are supporting your surge. We don't want to vote on it, but we are allowing it to happen. We are encouraging it to happen. And the very rubberstamp nature, when the minority was in the majority, that brought them to such trouble in November of 2006 is simply continuing.

I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

I thank the Senator. Once again, he is right on the money. He is right on the money.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 more minute to finish my point, and then I will yield the floor.

The Senator is right on the money, and it is, again, a pattern. The experts--intelligence, military, diplomatic--tell the administration what they are doing is wrong, tell the administration that all the signs on the ground point to a policy that is failing, and they keep their head in the sand and just go forward. It is a tragedy. It is a tragedy when truth is not exalted and when there is a desire to stifle debate, as has happened in the administration and is happening on the floor of the Senate today.

We all love this country, everyone in this Chamber, regardless of politics, but at least for me--and I dearly love America--every day we delay hurts us a little more and a little more and a little more. We dig ourselves deeper in a hole from which it will be harder and harder to extricate ourselves.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

If I could suggest, to speed this up, if instead of taking the 5 minutes Senator Durbin was going to yield me, I would be happy to defer and let Senator Lott speak for that 5 minutes, and after Senator Byrd finishes his remarks, I could speak my 5 minutes. That way we would have an order, and Senator Byrd would not have to yield any more time, and all of us would get to say whatever we wanted to say. I make that a unanimous consent request.

I have no problem with that.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding the time. And I thank my good friend from West Virginia. I know he will have a lot to say, and we will all listen to it with eager ears.

I am sorry to delay that a few minutes and look forward to hearing it.

Mr. President, let's make no mistake about what is happening today. The Republican side is afraid to debate even a nonbinding resolution as to whether this Senate supports an escalation. Simply put, this is a filibuster so that we cannot debate the war in Iraq. Some on the other side will say, well, the word ``filibuster'' should not be used. But that is exactly what is going on.

Some on the other side will say, well, Democrats filibustered judges. We did. They said that. We were willing to stand by it. Are they willing to stand by filibustering the war in Iraq? And let me say this--let me say this--the lack of debate on this war in this Senate, in this administration, and in this country has led to the muddle, the debacle we are now in, where 70 percent of the people do not support this war. And most experts you talk to say: What is the strategy? We do not seem to have one.

When General Shinseki, 3 years ago, said we needed more troops, there was

no debate. When CIA agents and others said there were not weapons of mass destruction, they said we do not need debate. When this war devolved from fighting terror and removing Saddam Hussein into a war that was a civil war, with our young men and women policing the age-old hatred between the Shiites and the Sunnis, there was no debate.

That is why we are in the sad state we are right now. I fully support the troops. And I understand the need of a President to lead, but without debate, debate that has been the hallmark of this country, not words but a meeting of ideas, a meeting of disagreements so that the best policy might emerge? That is what America is all about. And when it comes to war, it should be all about it more than any single other issue.

Every one of my colleagues who is willing to block off this debate right now, who will vote against cloture, is saying: I don't wish to debate whether this escalation is the right thing. You can say the commas are in the wrong place or the dots are in the wrong place. Senator Reid has offered both resolutions, the one by the Senator from Arizona and the one by the Senator from Virginia, both Republican resolutions--an equal place under the Sun--yes or no.

The ability to obfuscate, the ability to shade, the ability to hide should not be available here. Yes or no. Do you support this so-called surge, this escalation, or do you not? I believe the election answered that on behalf of the American people. They want their Senate to debate it. They would much rather have their Senator vote yes or no than not vote at all.

And here we are at this sorry moment. We are on the most important issue that has faced this Senate in quite a while. We are saying, at least those on the other side of the aisle: No debate, no discussion.

Again, I remind my colleagues it is that lack of debate and that lack of discussion that led us into the situation we are in now, where this war has dwindling support in this country, in this Senate, and even in Iraq itself.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Obama in introducing landmark legislation to protect the most sacred right of our democracy: the right to vote. The Obama-Schumer Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 will end the deceptive practices that have become far too common in recent elections.

At the outset, I want to commend my colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, for his leadership on this important issue. It has been a great pleasure to work with him to draft this bill. I am also proud that we are joined by Senators Leahy, Cardin, Feingold, Kerry, Feinstein, and Clinton as original cosponsors of this legislation.

We all know that there is an urgent need for this legislation. The right to vote is the wellspring of our democracy. Yet Americans have been profoundly shocked and disgusted in recent elections to see so many cynical attempts to lie to voters in order to keep them from casting their ballots.

Let me give just a few examples. In last year's mid-term election, letters in Spanish were sent to voters in Orange County, CA, stating that it is a crime for an immigrant to vote. In fact, immigrants who are naturalized citizens have the right to vote just as any other American citizen does.

In 2006, as well, fliers were handed out on election day in Maryland that gave the impression that top Republican candidates for office were Democratic candidates and were endorsed by prominent African Americans. These fliers were a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead voters.

In Virginia, registered voters received recorded calls that falsely stated that the recipient of the call was registered in another State and would face criminal charges if they came to the polls.

These dirty tricks are not new. In 2002, fliers were distributed in public housing complexes in Louisiana, telling people that they could cast their votes 3 days after election day if the weather was bad.

These schemes insult the intelligence of those they target, and they insult our democracy. Yet they actually seem to be growing more common. The shameful reality is that today, Federal law does not prohibit wrongdoers from spreading these lies.

It is high time for Congress to do something about this disgraceful state of affairs. The Obama-Schumer bill creates a new offense of voter deception. Under our legislation, anyone who intentionally lies to voters about certain key information will now face both civil penalties and criminal punishment of up to 5 years in prison or a $100,000 fine.

The Obama-Schumer bill covers the facts that are most critical for reaching the polls--facts like where, when,

and how you can vote; whether you are eligible to vote; or whether an organization has actually endorsed a candidate. When voters are being misled about these core facts, the right to vote is nothing more than a hollow promise. It is a real threat to the right to vote when criminal elements are deliberately lying about something as basic--yet as important--as the date of the election. These types of lies are the poll taxes of today. They are being used to build a barrier around polling places and to disenfranchise voters in the most cynical and destructive way.

Even when misinformation campaigns are not successful, because voters are too smart and too determined to reach the polls, these deceptive practices make a mockery out of the great tradition of American democracy. These despicable attempts have gone unpunished for far too long. The Obama-Schumer bill provides strong penalties to deter and punish the offense of voter deception.

The Obama-Schumer bill will also increase the maximum penalty for voter intimidation from 1 year to 5 years in prison. Someone who tries to keep voters away from the polls with threats should not be released with a slap on the wrist, and our bill will create real penalties for this crime.

Finally, our legislation also ensures that lies do not go unanswered and pass for truth. Under the Obama-Schumer bill, the Department of Justice will be responsible for getting the correct information out to voters so that they can get to the polls and cast their vote without undue confusion.

As a check on whether elections are being tainted by these practices, after each election, the Attorney General will have to report to Congress about allegations of voter deception and how they were handled. We want to make sure that the Department of Justice uses the new tools that would be provided under this bill. The Attorney General's reports will give us a foundation for vigorous oversight.

Let me also be clear about what this legislation does not do. Senator Obama and I have taken great care to craft a bill that will not run afoul of the first amendment or prevent Americans from expressing their political opinions. Our bill strikes a balance between the need for political debate and the fundamental right to vote. It is narrowly tailored: it applies only to activities within 60 days prior to an election, and it covers only the key facts that voters need to reach the polls and cast their votes without interference. This bill will not limit legitimate debate, and it will not punish honest mistakes. It is clear from the dirty tricks that America has witnessed in recent elections that the Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the right to vote by regulating false speech that disenfranchises voters. We have a responsibility to act on that interest for the sake of all Americans.

The Obama-Schumer Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 will finally criminalize efforts to keep voters away from the polls with deliberate lies. I hope and trust that the Congress will take up our bill and pass it without delay.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Obama in introducing landmark legislation to protect the most sacred right of our democracy: the right to vote. The Obama-Schumer Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 will end the deceptive practices that have become far too common in recent elections.

At the outset, I want to commend my colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, for his leadership on this important issue. It has been a great pleasure to work with him to draft this bill. I am also proud that we are joined by Senators Leahy, Cardin, Feingold, Kerry, Feinstein, and Clinton as original cosponsors of this legislation.

We all know that there is an urgent need for this legislation. The right to vote is the wellspring of our democracy. Yet Americans have been profoundly shocked and disgusted in recent elections to see so many cynical attempts to lie to voters in order to keep them from casting their ballots.

Let me give just a few examples. In last year's mid-term election, letters in Spanish were sent to voters in Orange County, CA, stating that it is a crime for an immigrant to vote. In fact, immigrants who are naturalized citizens have the right to vote just as any other American citizen does.

In 2006, as well, fliers were handed out on election day in Maryland that gave the impression that top Republican candidates for office were Democratic candidates and were endorsed by prominent African Americans. These fliers were a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead voters.

In Virginia, registered voters received recorded calls that falsely stated that the recipient of the call was registered in another State and would face criminal charges if they came to the polls.

These dirty tricks are not new. In 2002, fliers were distributed in public housing complexes in Louisiana, telling people that they could cast their votes 3 days after election day if the weather was bad.

These schemes insult the intelligence of those they target, and they insult our democracy. Yet they actually seem to be growing more common. The shameful reality is that today, Federal law does not prohibit wrongdoers from spreading these lies.

It is high time for Congress to do something about this disgraceful state of affairs. The Obama-Schumer bill creates a new offense of voter deception. Under our legislation, anyone who intentionally lies to voters about certain key information will now face both civil penalties and criminal punishment of up to 5 years in prison or a $100,000 fine.

The Obama-Schumer bill covers the facts that are most critical for reaching the polls--facts like where, when,

and how you can vote; whether you are eligible to vote; or whether an organization has actually endorsed a candidate. When voters are being misled about these core facts, the right to vote is nothing more than a hollow promise. It is a real threat to the right to vote when criminal elements are deliberately lying about something as basic--yet as important--as the date of the election. These types of lies are the poll taxes of today. They are being used to build a barrier around polling places and to disenfranchise voters in the most cynical and destructive way.

Even when misinformation campaigns are not successful, because voters are too smart and too determined to reach the polls, these deceptive practices make a mockery out of the great tradition of American democracy. These despicable attempts have gone unpunished for far too long. The Obama-Schumer bill provides strong penalties to deter and punish the offense of voter deception.

The Obama-Schumer bill will also increase the maximum penalty for voter intimidation from 1 year to 5 years in prison. Someone who tries to keep voters away from the polls with threats should not be released with a slap on the wrist, and our bill will create real penalties for this crime.

Finally, our legislation also ensures that lies do not go unanswered and pass for truth. Under the Obama-Schumer bill, the Department of Justice will be responsible for getting the correct information out to voters so that they can get to the polls and cast their vote without undue confusion.

As a check on whether elections are being tainted by these practices, after each election, the Attorney General will have to report to Congress about allegations of voter deception and how they were handled. We want to make sure that the Department of Justice uses the new tools that would be provided under this bill. The Attorney General's reports will give us a foundation for vigorous oversight.

Let me also be clear about what this legislation does not do. Senator Obama and I have taken great care to craft a bill that will not run afoul of the first amendment or prevent Americans from expressing their political opinions. Our bill strikes a balance between the need for political debate and the fundamental right to vote. It is narrowly tailored: it applies only to activities within 60 days prior to an election, and it covers only the key facts that voters need to reach the polls and cast their votes without interference. This bill will not limit legitimate debate, and it will not punish honest mistakes. It is clear from the dirty tricks that America has witnessed in recent elections that the Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the right to vote by regulating false speech that disenfranchises voters. We have a responsibility to act on that interest for the sake of all Americans.

The Obama-Schumer Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 will finally criminalize efforts to keep voters away from the polls with deliberate lies. I hope and trust that the Congress will take up our bill and pass it without delay.

Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise to recognize our 32nd President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One hundred and twenty-five years ago today, FDR was born at Hyde Park, NY. During his childhood, Franklin developed a lifelong love for the natural beauty and history of the Hudson River Valley.

Like his famous cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt, FDR enjoyed a rapid rise in politics. A graduate of Harvard College and Columbia Law School, FDR was first elected to the New York State Senate in 1910. Following service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the Woodrow Wilson administration, he was the Democratic Party's unsuccessful nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1920.

Just months later, his personal and political world was upended when polio left him paralyzed below the waist. Most assumed his public life was over. Yet Roosevelt turned aside all thought of retreat. With the help of his wife Eleanor, he maintained his political contacts and was determined to continue serving his State and country.

Roosevelt's resolve was rewarded in 1928 when he triumphantly reentered political office, winning election as Governor of New York. Two years later, with America now in the grip of the Great Depression, he was reelected in a landslide. He set out to make New York a laboratory for aggressive efforts to use government to provide economic relief and put people back to work.

In 1932, the darkest year of the Depression, the Democratic Party turned to FDR as its nominee for President. His resounding victory gave him a mandate for fundamental change. When he took the oath of office on March 4, 1933, our Nation was on the brink of economic collapse, with 13 million Americans unemployed. FDR quickly sprang into action to meet this challenge. Declaring that the only thing the Nation had to fear was ``fear itself,'' he created Federal programs that put millions of people back to work and provided aid for others so that they could feed their families. He reformed banking, aided organized labor, invested in the Nation's infrastructure, and established social programs, including Social Security, that changed the way in which Americans and their government interact. Most important, he restored people's hope and self-respect.

On December 7, 1941--a date that Roosevelt said would live ``in infamy''--America entered the war. During the daunting years that followed, FDR led the Nation as Commander in Chief. He directed a massive effort to convert America's economy to wartime production, encouraged his fellow citizens to sacrifice for the common good, and helped lead an international coalition in a global war to defeat the Axis Powers. Roosevelt envisioned a postwar world shaped by four fundamental human freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. To help achieve this vision, he was a forceful advocate for a postwar United Nations Organization.

In 1944, with the war still underway, FDR faced a decision on whether to run for an unprecedented fourth term as President. ``All that is within me,'' he declared, ``cries out to go back to my home on the Hudson River, to avoid public responsibilities, and to avoid also the publicity which in our democracy follows every step of the Nation's Chief Executive.'' Yet despite his yearning to retire to the quiet of Hyde Park, FDR answered the call of duty to finish the job of winning the war. In November 1944 he was elected President once again.

In March 1945, with the war nearly won, an exhausted Roosevelt made what would be his final visit to Hyde Park. Worn down by heart disease and the stresses of wartime leadership, he then departed for a brief stay in Washington, DC, before heading to his retreat at Warm Springs, GA for a short vacation. Two weeks later, on April 12, 1945, he died there of a cerebral hemorrhage. On April 15, 1945, he came home to his beloved Hyde Park for the last time and was buried in a large rose garden just steps from his home and library.

Today, as we mark the 125th birthday of a great 20th century President, we also remember his special connection to New York State. In the Roosevelt Library, among millions of documents preserved for historians, is the draft of a speech FDR was working on the day before his death. The speech outlined his hopes for the postwar world. The final lines of that speech, handwritten

in pencil by the President, speak eloquently of Franklin Roosevelt's unconquerable optimism and idealism: ``The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.''

So today let us remember our 32nd President, and let us also honor his memory by dedicating ourselves to overcome our own doubts of today in order to realize our visions of tomorrow.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness but great honor that I rise to commemorate the life and actions of Gerald R. Ford, the 38 President of the United States. President Ford led our country through turbulent and uncertain times and did so with a kind of strong modesty that he was known for his entire life. From his days as a star of the University of Michigan football team to serving as minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Gerald Ford's ability to lead was apparent to all. Aside from his leadership qualities, President Ford was a man beyond reproach and respected by all. These qualities made him Richard Nixon's choice to replace his first Vice President, Spiro Agnew. Following President Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford returned honor to the office of the President and restored the country's confidence in our leaders. Gerald Ford exemplified the best of America and served the country in every way. From his heroism in World War II to his Presidency and graceful retirement, he harkens back to a day when love of country and bipartisanship were paramount.