Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate John Podhoretz, who next week will reach one of life's momentous, and too often dreaded, milestones: turning 50 years of age. John is today best known for his work as editor of Commentary magazine and for his regular column in the New York Post, but these activities only scratch the surface of his career. While, God willing, John has many more years ahead of him and much left to do here, I believe this milestone is an opportune moment to reflect upon his many unique and influential contributions to publishing, punditry, political thought, and pop culture.

Given his iconic lineage, it comes as no surprise to me that John has accomplished so much in his first five decades. He was born of two intellectual giants, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, and grew up on Manhattan's Upper West Side. He studied at the University of Chicago, graduated from there in 1981, and then settled in Washington, DC, to begin his promising career.

He served as speechwriter to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and as special assistant to White House drug czar, William Bennett. An accomplished journalist and writer, John has contributed to the Washington Times, the New York Post, US News & World Report, and the American Spectator. He is a refreshing critic of film and popular culture, and he once dabbled in entertainment as a consultant to the popular political fiction show ``The West Wing.'' He is even a five- time champion of the hit trivia game show ``Jeopardy!''

John is what I would call an ``idea entrepreneur.'' He understands that ideas have consequences and knows how to spread those ideas near and far. In 1995, together with Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, John cofounded the Weekly Standard, a conservative opinion journal which he still writes for today as a movie critic. Over the years, the Standard has become more than just required reading for conservative thinkers-- it is read by policy and opinion makers of all political stripes, and it has enormous reach inside the Beltway and well beyond. Thanks to John's contributions, the Standard has become, Well, a standard of political thought leadership.

John followed in his father's footsteps by becoming editor of Commentary magazine, a profoundly influential journal that seamlessly tackles the most pressing questions on political, social and cultural issues. In 2007, he launched the magazine's widely read and respected blog, Contentions, bringing Commentary into the new age of media. Just as he did with the Standard, John continues to prove at Commentary that ideas are powerful.

John is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom and he is an unabashed defender of the values that make our country great: freedom, democracy, human dignity, and economic opportunity. On top of all that, based on watching and listening to him on that great day in August 2006 when his dear friend, Jacob Wisse, married my daughter, Becca Lieberman, John Podhoretz is a surprisingly impressive dancer and singer!

So, Mr. President, I congratulate John on 50 years well done. He has enormous personality, a great sense of humor, and a lovely family. I wish them happiness on this occasion. John, Happy Birthday!

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bennet, to introduce the Race to the Top Act of 2011. The Race to the Top Act will authorize the continuation of the highly successful Race to the Top program that was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill also expands this successful program to school districts and authorizes the program for 2012 and the succeeding 5 years. Race to the Top calls for competitive grants for States and school districts that invest in bold educational reforms designed to bring about significant improvement in academic outcomes for all students and significant reductions in achievement gaps.

When No Child Left Behind was signed into law nine years ago, we made a national commitment to fix our educational system--a system in which low-income minority students were performing significantly below their higher-income peers. We made a commitment to bring an end to unacceptable achievement gaps and to ensure that each and every child-- regardless of race, nationality or family income--could succeed in our public schools and graduate with the skills necessary for success in college or the workforce. Despite the commitments we made, unacceptable achievement gaps persist. Still today our public schools are not preparing our students to succeed in college and the workforce. Each year, 30 percent of American students fail to receive their high school diploma on time and graduation rates are consistently lower for minority students. One-third of our students who do graduate from high school are not ready for college. In international standardized tests involving students from 65 nations, fifteen year olds in the United States rank 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 15th in reading. Improving public education and closing student achievement gaps remains one of the most important issues of our time.

We have made some progress, but until we have equal and excellent educational opportunities for all of our children, regardless of ethnicity or income, we have not done our job. While, in many ways, No Child Left Behind moved us in the right direction, it needs to be updated, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be reauthorized. The continuation of the Race to the Top program should be part of that update.

The positive impact of Race to the Top has been impressive. The competition for Race to the Top money has incentivized States to implement high, internationally benchmarked, core standards and to create a positive climate for public charter schools. Race to the Top recognizes the essential role teachers play in education and has prompted States to get serious about teacher effectiveness, distribution, evaluation, and accountability. And Race to the Top has prompted states to improve policies aimed at turning around America's lowest performing schools.

Under Race to the Top 46 States and the District of Columbia have developed statewide reform plans; States changed laws to increase their ability to intervene in their lowest performing schools; 22 States enacted laws to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, effectiveness and evaluation systems; 42 States and the District of Columbia have moved forward to adopt high college- and career- ready standards; 16 States have altered laws or policies to create or expand the number of charter schools.

Race to the Top is working. We know it is benefiting States that were successful in receiving funds but it is also working for States that did not receive funds, simply because those States have already enacted changes that will improve education. Many States remain committed to their new educational reforms regardless of their success in securing Race to the Top funding.

Race to the Top can also play a unique role in local reforms. As I indicated earlier, this new bill would support districts that are committed to leading the way with bold comprehensive reform. I know some officials in my home State, Connecticut, were disappointed about not being selected as a Race to the Top winner. But I do believe the children in Connecticut were winners because we have strengthened our State laws, policies, and curriculum to lift our charter school caps, improve Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics education, and strengthen our teacher evaluation process. I commend our State and local leaders that collaborated in making all of that possible. If we continue the Race to the Top program, as our bill would do, more States, and now districts, will be winners and we can continue this movement towards important educational reform.

Race to the Top has been an effective catalyst for educational reform and has encouraged all stakeholders to come together and work together to improve state agendas. It is essential that we keep the momentum of the first two waves of Race to the Top moving forward. Other States and now districts deserve the opportunity to engage in comprehensive educational reform. Since our goal is to make all schools high quality schools, the real winner in the Race to the Top competition will be students across America.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bennet, to introduce the Race to the Top Act of 2011. The Race to the Top Act will authorize the continuation of the highly successful Race to the Top program that was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill also expands this successful program to school districts and authorizes the program for 2012 and the succeeding 5 years. Race to the Top calls for competitive grants for States and school districts that invest in bold educational reforms designed to bring about significant improvement in academic outcomes for all students and significant reductions in achievement gaps.

When No Child Left Behind was signed into law nine years ago, we made a national commitment to fix our educational system--a system in which low-income minority students were performing significantly below their higher-income peers. We made a commitment to bring an end to unacceptable achievement gaps and to ensure that each and every child-- regardless of race, nationality or family income--could succeed in our public schools and graduate with the skills necessary for success in college or the workforce. Despite the commitments we made, unacceptable achievement gaps persist. Still today our public schools are not preparing our students to succeed in college and the workforce. Each year, 30 percent of American students fail to receive their high school diploma on time and graduation rates are consistently lower for minority students. One-third of our students who do graduate from high school are not ready for college. In international standardized tests involving students from 65 nations, fifteen year olds in the United States rank 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 15th in reading. Improving public education and closing student achievement gaps remains one of the most important issues of our time.

We have made some progress, but until we have equal and excellent educational opportunities for all of our children, regardless of ethnicity or income, we have not done our job. While, in many ways, No Child Left Behind moved us in the right direction, it needs to be updated, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be reauthorized. The continuation of the Race to the Top program should be part of that update.

The positive impact of Race to the Top has been impressive. The competition for Race to the Top money has incentivized States to implement high, internationally benchmarked, core standards and to create a positive climate for public charter schools. Race to the Top recognizes the essential role teachers play in education and has prompted States to get serious about teacher effectiveness, distribution, evaluation, and accountability. And Race to the Top has prompted states to improve policies aimed at turning around America's lowest performing schools.

Under Race to the Top 46 States and the District of Columbia have developed statewide reform plans; States changed laws to increase their ability to intervene in their lowest performing schools; 22 States enacted laws to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, effectiveness and evaluation systems; 42 States and the District of Columbia have moved forward to adopt high college- and career- ready standards; 16 States have altered laws or policies to create or expand the number of charter schools.

Race to the Top is working. We know it is benefiting States that were successful in receiving funds but it is also working for States that did not receive funds, simply because those States have already enacted changes that will improve education. Many States remain committed to their new educational reforms regardless of their success in securing Race to the Top funding.

Race to the Top can also play a unique role in local reforms. As I indicated earlier, this new bill would support districts that are committed to leading the way with bold comprehensive reform. I know some officials in my home State, Connecticut, were disappointed about not being selected as a Race to the Top winner. But I do believe the children in Connecticut were winners because we have strengthened our State laws, policies, and curriculum to lift our charter school caps, improve Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics education, and strengthen our teacher evaluation process. I commend our State and local leaders that collaborated in making all of that possible. If we continue the Race to the Top program, as our bill would do, more States, and now districts, will be winners and we can continue this movement towards important educational reform.

Race to the Top has been an effective catalyst for educational reform and has encouraged all stakeholders to come together and work together to improve state agendas. It is essential that we keep the momentum of the first two waves of Race to the Top moving forward. Other States and now districts deserve the opportunity to engage in comprehensive educational reform. Since our goal is to make all schools high quality schools, the real winner in the Race to the Top competition will be students across America.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Akaka today to introduce the bipartisan SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 to modernize and transform an important but often overlooked agency within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, responsible for protecting 9,000 Federal buildings across the country.

The agency I refer to is the Federal Protective Service, FPS, where 1,200 full time employees and about 15,000 contract guards safeguard not just the buildings, but the one million people who work at and visit these buildings each year.

Unfortunately, the threat to government workers and property is all too real. In 1995, a massive bomb decimated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. The Pentagon was one of the targets of the 9/11 terrorists. A wing of the building was leveled and 184 people died. Last year, a man flew a small plane into a building in Austin, TX, that housed an IRS and other government offices. An IRS manager was killed. Earlier this year, our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically shot at a public forum. Most recently, a man planted an improvised explosive device outside the McNamara Federal building in Detroit. A dozen or so other violent incidents have occurred at federal buildings in the last 3 years. Protecting the people who work and visit federal buildings is critical to maintaining the integrity of our democracy.

Security at these buildings, however, is not where it should be. Poor management, serious budget shortfalls, and operational challenges have diminished FPS' effectiveness and undermined public trust. FPS guards were famously caught sleeping on the job, putting an infant in its carrier through an X-ray machine, and failing to detect bomb-making materials on investigators who passed through security.

The Federal Protective Service must be turned around, which is why we are introducing this legislation to strengthen the agency's management, provide it with the necessary resources to fulfill its mission, and help it function at a higher level.

I want to single out for praise the Government Accountability Office, GAO, whose excellent work has significantly informed our legislation.

At a July 8, 2009, hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, GAO unveiled the results of a year-long investigation conducted at the Committee's request. GAO visited 6 of 11 FPS regions throughout the country and observed the guard inspection process; interviewed managers, inspectors, and guards; analyzed guard contracts, training and certification requirements, and instruction documents. GAO's special investigations unit conducted its own covert tests at 10 high security Federal facilities in several different cities, some of which house district offices of our House and Senate colleagues.

What did GAO find? A seriously dysfunctional agency. FPS lacks focus and strategies for accomplishing its mission; contract guards don't have adequate training; FPS personnel suffer from low morale; oversight of contract guards is poor; and many standards that guide federal building security are outdated.

GAO revealed that some guards lacked basic security or x-ray machine training. The FPS was hard pressed to identify which guards were qualified or effective. One guard used a government computer to run an adult website during his shift, while another allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine. A third guard was photographed asleep at his station.

GAO investigators smuggled through security at one building readily available components to make a liquid-based improvised explosive device. The investigators then made a bomb in a public restroom and moved throughout the federal building undetected. I note that while the components of the IED were real, the actual explosive liquids were diluted to ensure the bomb was not functional.

FPS didn't come to this point overnight. In fact, its problems multiplied when it was folded into DHS in 2003. At that point, the agency lost access to supplemental funding from its previous parent agency--the General Services Administration, GSA, and because of that, immediately ran into trouble. FPS fell behind in paying its bills, budget cuts hurt employee training and other functions, and personnel cuts diminished the agency's overall performance. At the same time, FPS was given more responsibilities, and the previous administration was working to downsize the agency workforce by 1/3.

Reform legislation is very clearly needed, and the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 addresses many of the shortcomings detailed by GAO.

In particular, our legislation addresses four major challenges:

First, the bill would help the FPS carry out its mission by adding almost 150 law enforcements and support personnel. The agency has assumed increased responsibilities since it joined DHS but has done so with fewer personnel, and that is unsustainable.

Second, our legislation would tackle deficiencies within the contract guard program. FPS contract guards are the first line of defense at Federal facilities, so we must ensure they are held to high standards and are prepared and equipped to face the varied threats to which federal buildings are vulnerable.

Third, the bill would ensure the FPS is prepared to address the threat of explosives. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred 16 years ago, but FPS has been slow to deploy sufficient countermeasures to detect and deter that type of attack.

Fourth, our bill would recognize the delicate balance between public access and security. We have worked to put the emphasis on securing Federal facilities but we also support avenues of appeal if a building tenant believes a security measure unduly hinders public access. If the Federal Protective Service is to be held accountable--by Congress, the administration, and the American people--it should no longer be forced to defend federal agencies that choose less costly and potentially less effective security for their buildings.

On the question of resources, our bill, for the first time, would formally authorize the FPS and the interagency government body responsible for establishing security standards for all federal facilities, the Interagency Security Committee. We would provide additional funding for the agency by directing OMB to increase the building security fees paid by other agencies. We would provide resources for FPS to hire 146 full time employees. We would ensure that FPS employs 1,200 full time employees or more at all times--a conservative number that may require future increases.

Many of the additional employees would be law enforcement officers, but FPS would also have the flexibility to hire administrative and support personnel to improve its overall management, strengthen its oversight of contract guards, monitor contractor performance, and share contract assessments throughout the agency. The legislation also would provide retirement benefits to FPS officers to help the agency recruit and retain quality personnel.

Recognizing that the nation's fiscal health and our unsustainable deficits demand budget tightening, it is especially critical that we make wise budget decisions. I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates the need for additional spending for FPS.

With regard to improved standards, our legislation would require FPS to conduct overt and covert testing to assess guard training, test the security of Federal facilities, and establish procedures for retraining or terminating poor performing guards. The bill would also require that basic documents and manuals describing the responsibilities of security guards are up to date and periodically reviewed.

On explosives, we would require DHS to establish performance-based standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at Federal facilities. Our bill would also allow FPS officers to carry firearms off duty, as most other Federal law enforcement officers can, allowing them to respond to incidents more quickly. And, finally, the bill includes several reporting requirements--on agency personnel needs, retention rates of contract guards, the feasibility of federalizing the contract guard workforce, and additional methods for preventing and detecting explosives in federal facilities.

Based on the Committee's and GAO's oversight work over the past several years, it is clear that Congress must move quickly to address the remaining security vulnerabilities associated with our Federal buildings.

I am confident that this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will foster meaningful reform, modernize the Federal Protective Service, and improve the security of our Federal facilities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I thank Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, former Senator Voinovich, and their dedicated staffs for helping to get this bill introduced today.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Akaka today to introduce the bipartisan SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 to modernize and transform an important but often overlooked agency within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, responsible for protecting 9,000 Federal buildings across the country.

The agency I refer to is the Federal Protective Service, FPS, where 1,200 full time employees and about 15,000 contract guards safeguard not just the buildings, but the one million people who work at and visit these buildings each year.

Unfortunately, the threat to government workers and property is all too real. In 1995, a massive bomb decimated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. The Pentagon was one of the targets of the 9/11 terrorists. A wing of the building was leveled and 184 people died. Last year, a man flew a small plane into a building in Austin, TX, that housed an IRS and other government offices. An IRS manager was killed. Earlier this year, our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically shot at a public forum. Most recently, a man planted an improvised explosive device outside the McNamara Federal building in Detroit. A dozen or so other violent incidents have occurred at federal buildings in the last 3 years. Protecting the people who work and visit federal buildings is critical to maintaining the integrity of our democracy.

Security at these buildings, however, is not where it should be. Poor management, serious budget shortfalls, and operational challenges have diminished FPS' effectiveness and undermined public trust. FPS guards were famously caught sleeping on the job, putting an infant in its carrier through an X-ray machine, and failing to detect bomb-making materials on investigators who passed through security.

The Federal Protective Service must be turned around, which is why we are introducing this legislation to strengthen the agency's management, provide it with the necessary resources to fulfill its mission, and help it function at a higher level.

I want to single out for praise the Government Accountability Office, GAO, whose excellent work has significantly informed our legislation.

At a July 8, 2009, hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, GAO unveiled the results of a year-long investigation conducted at the Committee's request. GAO visited 6 of 11 FPS regions throughout the country and observed the guard inspection process; interviewed managers, inspectors, and guards; analyzed guard contracts, training and certification requirements, and instruction documents. GAO's special investigations unit conducted its own covert tests at 10 high security Federal facilities in several different cities, some of which house district offices of our House and Senate colleagues.

What did GAO find? A seriously dysfunctional agency. FPS lacks focus and strategies for accomplishing its mission; contract guards don't have adequate training; FPS personnel suffer from low morale; oversight of contract guards is poor; and many standards that guide federal building security are outdated.

GAO revealed that some guards lacked basic security or x-ray machine training. The FPS was hard pressed to identify which guards were qualified or effective. One guard used a government computer to run an adult website during his shift, while another allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine. A third guard was photographed asleep at his station.

GAO investigators smuggled through security at one building readily available components to make a liquid-based improvised explosive device. The investigators then made a bomb in a public restroom and moved throughout the federal building undetected. I note that while the components of the IED were real, the actual explosive liquids were diluted to ensure the bomb was not functional.

FPS didn't come to this point overnight. In fact, its problems multiplied when it was folded into DHS in 2003. At that point, the agency lost access to supplemental funding from its previous parent agency--the General Services Administration, GSA, and because of that, immediately ran into trouble. FPS fell behind in paying its bills, budget cuts hurt employee training and other functions, and personnel cuts diminished the agency's overall performance. At the same time, FPS was given more responsibilities, and the previous administration was working to downsize the agency workforce by 1/3.

Reform legislation is very clearly needed, and the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 addresses many of the shortcomings detailed by GAO.

In particular, our legislation addresses four major challenges:

First, the bill would help the FPS carry out its mission by adding almost 150 law enforcements and support personnel. The agency has assumed increased responsibilities since it joined DHS but has done so with fewer personnel, and that is unsustainable.

Second, our legislation would tackle deficiencies within the contract guard program. FPS contract guards are the first line of defense at Federal facilities, so we must ensure they are held to high standards and are prepared and equipped to face the varied threats to which federal buildings are vulnerable.

Third, the bill would ensure the FPS is prepared to address the threat of explosives. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred 16 years ago, but FPS has been slow to deploy sufficient countermeasures to detect and deter that type of attack.

Fourth, our bill would recognize the delicate balance between public access and security. We have worked to put the emphasis on securing Federal facilities but we also support avenues of appeal if a building tenant believes a security measure unduly hinders public access. If the Federal Protective Service is to be held accountable--by Congress, the administration, and the American people--it should no longer be forced to defend federal agencies that choose less costly and potentially less effective security for their buildings.

On the question of resources, our bill, for the first time, would formally authorize the FPS and the interagency government body responsible for establishing security standards for all federal facilities, the Interagency Security Committee. We would provide additional funding for the agency by directing OMB to increase the building security fees paid by other agencies. We would provide resources for FPS to hire 146 full time employees. We would ensure that FPS employs 1,200 full time employees or more at all times--a conservative number that may require future increases.

Many of the additional employees would be law enforcement officers, but FPS would also have the flexibility to hire administrative and support personnel to improve its overall management, strengthen its oversight of contract guards, monitor contractor performance, and share contract assessments throughout the agency. The legislation also would provide retirement benefits to FPS officers to help the agency recruit and retain quality personnel.

Recognizing that the nation's fiscal health and our unsustainable deficits demand budget tightening, it is especially critical that we make wise budget decisions. I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates the need for additional spending for FPS.

With regard to improved standards, our legislation would require FPS to conduct overt and covert testing to assess guard training, test the security of Federal facilities, and establish procedures for retraining or terminating poor performing guards. The bill would also require that basic documents and manuals describing the responsibilities of security guards are up to date and periodically reviewed.

On explosives, we would require DHS to establish performance-based standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at Federal facilities. Our bill would also allow FPS officers to carry firearms off duty, as most other Federal law enforcement officers can, allowing them to respond to incidents more quickly. And, finally, the bill includes several reporting requirements--on agency personnel needs, retention rates of contract guards, the feasibility of federalizing the contract guard workforce, and additional methods for preventing and detecting explosives in federal facilities.

Based on the Committee's and GAO's oversight work over the past several years, it is clear that Congress must move quickly to address the remaining security vulnerabilities associated with our Federal buildings.

I am confident that this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will foster meaningful reform, modernize the Federal Protective Service, and improve the security of our Federal facilities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I thank Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, former Senator Voinovich, and their dedicated staffs for helping to get this bill introduced today.

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 Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leaders, Learning, And Results Act of 2011--the STELLAR Student Act, and I am honored to be joined in this bipartisan effort by my colleagues Senator Scott Brown and Senator Mary Landrieu. The STELLAR Student Act will ensure that all students are taught by effective teachers and that all teachers are supported by effective principals.

Teacher and principal effectiveness are critical factors in improving student learning and achievement. Research shows that increasing teacher quality is one of the most effective and promising strategies for improving education in the United States. Some studies show that the differences in achievement gains for students who had the most effective teachers versus those who had the least effective teachers were greater than any single influence of class-size, race, socio- economic status, or parent education. Estimates suggest that the difference between having a highly effective teacher versus a highly ineffective teacher can be as much as a full year's learning growth.

Imagine the dire situation for a student who has a highly ineffective teacher for multiple years in a row. It is a situation that many students experience and potentially never recover from. There are far too many ineffective teachers, especially in less affluent urban districts. In many cases, due to antiquated hiring and firing protocols and policies, those ineffective teachers are keeping innovative young teachers from teaching where they are needed most. It is essential that we begin to differentiate between those highly effective and highly ineffective teachers and principals, especially when it comes to making personnel decisions in these challenging economic times.

The STELLAR Student Act of 2011 aims to encourage States to do just that by directing States to develop evaluation systems that consider student achievement and classroom observation, and to use those evaluations for key personnel decisions including pay, tenure, lay- offs, and retention.

To further these goals, the STELLAR Student Act of 2011 would specifically direct States to implement a teacher assessment system that bases teacher effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth and other measures including classroom observations; direct States to implement a principal assessment system that bases effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth as well as improvement in graduation rates, leadership, and successful hiring, development, evaluation, and retention of teachers; tie Title 1 funding to teacher and principal evaluations that incorporate multiple measures, relying predominantly on measures of student academic growth and achievement, as well as classroom performance; require that evaluations be used to inform key personnel decisions including tenure, compensation, and layoffs in the event of any reduction in force; encourage input from teachers and principals in the development and improvement of evaluations; and encourage improved targeting of professional development based on these evaluations.

The STELLAR Student Act addresses the fact that current teacher and principal evaluation systems are inadequate. Evaluation measures for teachers are not strongly linked to their ability to teach. In fact, seniority, not effectiveness, is often the single indicator used for making teacher personnel decisions. Some studies show that less than 1 percent of teachers are identified as unsatisfactory even though we know many more than 1 percent falls into this category. This also means that our most effective teachers are lumped together with less effective teachers and are not recognized for their exceptional work.

It is time to rethink conventional measures of teacher qualifications such as advanced degrees, traditional

credentialing, and years of experience as measures of teacher quality, and focus instead on actual measures of teacher effectiveness, such as student academic growth. Indeed, many States are looking for ways to tie teacher performance to student achievement and then use this information to inform personnel decisions. The STELLAR Student Act will help States do just that.

Although we believe it is important to hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, teachers and principals are certainly not the problem--they are an essential part of the solution. This bill asks for input from teachers and principals in designing and improving assessment systems, recognizes the importance of observation and other ongoing formative assessments, highlights the need for meaningful professional development, and asks States to duly recognize those effective teachers and leaders. The STELLAR Student Act also encourages school districts to assist low performing teachers by setting up targeted remediation and improvement plans.

Many teachers and parents also recognize and support the need for effective teacher evaluation linked to student performance. In a recent survey, 69 percent of teachers and 92 percent of parents support measuring teacher effectiveness based on student growth. In addition, most teachers--approximately 80 percent--and parents--approximately 96 percent--also believe that giving schools more ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well should be another priority. From the same survey, teachers in schools with high proportions of low- income students, high proportions of minority students, and those in urban or rural schools are more likely than other teachers to say that using measurements of teacher effectiveness that are based in significant part on student growth is something that must be done. Those same teachers are also more likely to say that giving schools greater ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well is something that must be done.

The Administration and many States are already moving in the direction of increased accountability and effective teacher and principal assessments. As the President said in the State of the Union ``we do want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for the bad ones.'' A number of States, many of which are leaders in education reform, are exploring ways to hold teachers and principals more accountable along with rethinking ideas around tenure and the long standing last-in-first-out policies.

Whether your concern is that our students rank behind 30 other countries in math, that 1.2 million students drop out of school each year, or that an unacceptable achievement gap still persists for our low income and minority students, all of us must act on the urgent need to put forth a strong bipartisan effort to fix our education system. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, long overdue, affords us the opportunity. We must work across the aisle to fix what is broken in the current education law. We hope the STELLAR Student Act will be considered in the context of the ESEA rewrite, to ensure effective teachers and principals for every child and every school. Our colleagues in the House have introduced a similar bill, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the STELLAR Student Act of 2011.

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 Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leaders, Learning, And Results Act of 2011--the STELLAR Student Act, and I am honored to be joined in this bipartisan effort by my colleagues Senator Scott Brown and Senator Mary Landrieu. The STELLAR Student Act will ensure that all students are taught by effective teachers and that all teachers are supported by effective principals.

Teacher and principal effectiveness are critical factors in improving student learning and achievement. Research shows that increasing teacher quality is one of the most effective and promising strategies for improving education in the United States. Some studies show that the differences in achievement gains for students who had the most effective teachers versus those who had the least effective teachers were greater than any single influence of class-size, race, socio- economic status, or parent education. Estimates suggest that the difference between having a highly effective teacher versus a highly ineffective teacher can be as much as a full year's learning growth.

Imagine the dire situation for a student who has a highly ineffective teacher for multiple years in a row. It is a situation that many students experience and potentially never recover from. There are far too many ineffective teachers, especially in less affluent urban districts. In many cases, due to antiquated hiring and firing protocols and policies, those ineffective teachers are keeping innovative young teachers from teaching where they are needed most. It is essential that we begin to differentiate between those highly effective and highly ineffective teachers and principals, especially when it comes to making personnel decisions in these challenging economic times.

The STELLAR Student Act of 2011 aims to encourage States to do just that by directing States to develop evaluation systems that consider student achievement and classroom observation, and to use those evaluations for key personnel decisions including pay, tenure, lay- offs, and retention.

To further these goals, the STELLAR Student Act of 2011 would specifically direct States to implement a teacher assessment system that bases teacher effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth and other measures including classroom observations; direct States to implement a principal assessment system that bases effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth as well as improvement in graduation rates, leadership, and successful hiring, development, evaluation, and retention of teachers; tie Title 1 funding to teacher and principal evaluations that incorporate multiple measures, relying predominantly on measures of student academic growth and achievement, as well as classroom performance; require that evaluations be used to inform key personnel decisions including tenure, compensation, and layoffs in the event of any reduction in force; encourage input from teachers and principals in the development and improvement of evaluations; and encourage improved targeting of professional development based on these evaluations.

The STELLAR Student Act addresses the fact that current teacher and principal evaluation systems are inadequate. Evaluation measures for teachers are not strongly linked to their ability to teach. In fact, seniority, not effectiveness, is often the single indicator used for making teacher personnel decisions. Some studies show that less than 1 percent of teachers are identified as unsatisfactory even though we know many more than 1 percent falls into this category. This also means that our most effective teachers are lumped together with less effective teachers and are not recognized for their exceptional work.

It is time to rethink conventional measures of teacher qualifications such as advanced degrees, traditional

credentialing, and years of experience as measures of teacher quality, and focus instead on actual measures of teacher effectiveness, such as student academic growth. Indeed, many States are looking for ways to tie teacher performance to student achievement and then use this information to inform personnel decisions. The STELLAR Student Act will help States do just that.

Although we believe it is important to hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, teachers and principals are certainly not the problem--they are an essential part of the solution. This bill asks for input from teachers and principals in designing and improving assessment systems, recognizes the importance of observation and other ongoing formative assessments, highlights the need for meaningful professional development, and asks States to duly recognize those effective teachers and leaders. The STELLAR Student Act also encourages school districts to assist low performing teachers by setting up targeted remediation and improvement plans.

Many teachers and parents also recognize and support the need for effective teacher evaluation linked to student performance. In a recent survey, 69 percent of teachers and 92 percent of parents support measuring teacher effectiveness based on student growth. In addition, most teachers--approximately 80 percent--and parents--approximately 96 percent--also believe that giving schools more ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well should be another priority. From the same survey, teachers in schools with high proportions of low- income students, high proportions of minority students, and those in urban or rural schools are more likely than other teachers to say that using measurements of teacher effectiveness that are based in significant part on student growth is something that must be done. Those same teachers are also more likely to say that giving schools greater ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well is something that must be done.

The Administration and many States are already moving in the direction of increased accountability and effective teacher and principal assessments. As the President said in the State of the Union ``we do want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for the bad ones.'' A number of States, many of which are leaders in education reform, are exploring ways to hold teachers and principals more accountable along with rethinking ideas around tenure and the long standing last-in-first-out policies.

Whether your concern is that our students rank behind 30 other countries in math, that 1.2 million students drop out of school each year, or that an unacceptable achievement gap still persists for our low income and minority students, all of us must act on the urgent need to put forth a strong bipartisan effort to fix our education system. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, long overdue, affords us the opportunity. We must work across the aisle to fix what is broken in the current education law. We hope the STELLAR Student Act will be considered in the context of the ESEA rewrite, to ensure effective teachers and principals for every child and every school. Our colleagues in the House have introduced a similar bill, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the STELLAR Student Act of 2011.

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

Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from California. One might say, in the context of the debates going on in Congress now, that Senator Blumenthal and I have come to the floor of the Senate to talk about a governmental program that really works, that has inspired an entire State, perhaps a nation. I speak, of course, of the University of Connecticut baseball program.

It is with great joy that I come to the floor of the Senate today to congratulate the University of Connecticut men's basketball team and their great coach, Jim Calhoun, on winning the NCAA championship last night. This has been a remarkable season. A team that started unranked, a young team in a year that was supposed to be a rebuilding year came together in a magical way. They had their ups early in the season, they had their downs as time went on, but the run that began with the Big East tournament a few weeks ago has, for our State and I think anybody who follows and loves college basketball, really been inspirational.

I do want to say, in terms of inspiration and I suppose I might say in the spirit of bipartisanship or at least good sportsmanship, that I offer congratulations to the Butler Bulldogs on their great run in the tournament, which also was inspirational. I thank my Indiana colleagues for their good sportsmanship and for what they described as the best popcorn in America, made in Indiana--that is part of a friendly wager they made, Senators Lugar and Coats, with Senator Blumenthal and me-- which we will be pleased to accept and devour.

This has been quite a year. Led by their floor leader, Kemba Walker, and assisted by an extraordinary group of young athletes, this group of student athletes demonstrated to all of us what a combination of hard work, dedication, commitment, and teamwork can achieve. Honestly, I tip my hat to these ``top dogs'' today of college basketball.

Of course, in my opinion, no matter how good and how much potential the players on this UConn men's basketball team had, they simply could not have done it without their great coach and a great man, Jim Calhoun. This is not the first time I have had the honor to come to the Senate floor to commend the performance of Coach Calhoun and the UConn Huskies. In fact, with last night's victory, Jim has etched his name in basketball glory by winning his third national title. He becomes only the fifth coach in history to win three national championships, and he joins the ranks of other greats such as John Wooden and Coach K, Mike Krzyzewski. He is only one of 8 coaches to run up over 800 career wins.

Over the years, I have watched Jim build upon the athletic program at UConn, transforming it from an occasionally regional contender to a regular national powerhouse. His three national championships and seven Big East championships have put our team, the State team of a relatively small State, on the college basketball map and set a high standard of excellence. I think none of this would have happened without Coach Calhoun's vision, his drive, his caring for players, and his extraordinary basketball brains.

There is a larger lesson, as there often is in sports. But this was a team that came into the Big East tournament with most people thinking the season would end quickly for them. They had will, which is a word Coach Calhoun uses a lot. They always had the potential and the ability, but they had the will. I am looking at the Senate pages now, young people.

There are a lot of people who read these UConn Huskies out at different times of the season, but they didn't read themselves out of the competition, and their coach never did. He kept telling them they had what it took to be champions. They pulled together. They worked together. They developed their potential to the fullest. They played and lived like a family. And you might say Coach Calhoun is the loving father who employs a lot of tough love but draws greatness out of these players and gives all of us in Connecticut a tremendous sense of pride.

I do not want to finish my statement without also telling Coach Geno Auriemma and the great players on the UConn women's basketball team how proud we are of them and how much we thank them for another remarkable season that was also filled with historic accomplishments, including an impressive run to the Final Four and a recordbreaking 90-consecutive- wins streak. The Lady Huskies were led by the all-impressive Maya Moore, who achieved AP All American honors in each of her 4 seasons at UConn and scored over 3,000 career points. So I give my congratulations to Coach Geno Auriemma and to the players on the UConn Lady Huskies, who also made us proud.

I am going to yield the floor in a minute to my colleague, Senator Blumenthal. It strikes me that this is the first time I have had the chance to celebrate here when my former colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, is not here. The first time we celebrated together on the floor, I ended my remarks with the UConn cheer. Afterward, Senator Dodd, then the senior Senator, gave me a hard time as to whether I would make a good cheerleader and whether it was a decorous thing to do on the floor of the Senate. I told him at the time that it could have been worse--I could have just done the UConn Huskies' ``woof.''

But now I am the senior Senator, and may I conclude by simply saying U-C-O-N-N, UConn, UConn, UConn. National champs. I know my ending needs a little work, and I will be working on that from now until next year when we hopefully secure another championship.

I yield the floor to Senator Blumenthal.

Today I wish to note the retirement of Daniel P. Mulhollan as Director of the Congressional Research Service and to thank him for his service to Congress over the past 42 years. CRS, an institution with roots going back to 1914, provides essential support for Congress. Dan Mulhollan has been a part of CRS since September 1969; and he has led CRS since January 24, 1994, when Librarian of Congress James Billington named him CRS Director.

As Director, Mulhollan's accomplishments have been impressive. He worked to ensure that the analytical services of CRS are explicitly and clearly pertinent to the legislative, oversight, and representational responsibilities of Congress and to the current congressional agenda. He expanded the ability of CRS to bring interdisciplinary scholarship to bear on matters important to Congress. His efforts to develop and implement a personnel succession plan ensure that professional talent will continue to be available to Congress in the years to come.

Following graduate work in political science at Georgetown University, Mulhollan came to what was then known as the Legislative Reference Service. His first division chief recognized the restless energy of this new analyst in American national government and put him to work on inquiries about the institutional dimensions of Congress. In 1973 Mulhollan was named section head and subsequently served as head of three sections in the CRS Government Division. He and the teams he led worked with committees and Members of Congress on such matters as lobbying disclosure, the Watergate investigation, and subsequent impeachment investigation, congressional reorganization, and congressional ethics. In 1981 Mulhollan became assistant chief of the CRS Government Division, and in that position he managed research for Congress on a wide range of issues, among which were the organization and administration of the executive and legislative branches, legislative process, voting and elections, lobbying, and political parties and processes.

In 1991 Mulhollan received the Library's Distinguished Service Award for his career achievements, and in 1992 James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, appointed Mulhollan as Acting Deputy Librarian of Congress for a period of 2 years and commissioned him to head the Library's effort to enhance its service to Congress. Subsequently, Mulhollan was named chief of the CRS Government Division; and then in 1994, Dr. Billington named Mulhollan to be Director of the Congressional Research Service. In making the appointment, Dr. Billington said, ``Daniel Mulhollan brings to this position comprehensive knowledge of Congress, an understanding of its research needs, a strong commitment to diversity, and a record of effective and energetic administration.'' The Librarian chose well: under Mulhollan's energetic leadership over the past 17 years, CRS has consolidated its analytic abilities and has continually demonstrated its worth to the United States Congress.

I am confident that my Senate colleagues join me in wishing Daniel Mulhollan well in his retirement, commending his leadership of CRS, and thanking him for a job well done.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation offered by Senators Schumer and Alexander to streamline the nomination process so incoming Presidents can get their teams in place more quickly and put them to work doing the people's business.

On August 5, 1789, the Senate took up and confirmed 102 executive nominations that had been sent up by President Washington just 2 days earlier--rejecting only one nominee.

Our first President, in a letter to the Senate, complained about the one he didn't get. If the Senate ever doubted the fitness of one of his nominees it should--and I quote ``communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail yourselves of the information which led me to make them and which I would with pleasure lay before you.''

Modern Presidents of both parties would sigh over this bit of history because nowadays the process by which a person is selected, vetted, nominated, and then considered and confirmed by the Senate has become-- in the words of one scholar--``nasty and brutish, without being short.''

One hundred days into President Obama's administration, only 14 percent of the Senate-confirmed positions in his administration had been filled. After 18 months, 25 percent of these positions were still vacant. This is not an aberration or anomaly. The timetables for putting in place a leadership team across the government has been pretty much the same each of the last three times there has been a change of occupant in the White House.

We have known about this problem a long time, but failed to act.

In 2001, the then Governmental Affairs Committee under former Chairman Fred Thompson, held hearings titled the State of the Presidential Appointment Process and recommended legislation, which did not pass.

In 2003, a bipartisan commission headed by Paul Volker recommended ways to speed up the nominations process. That got nowhere.

In 2004, the 9-11 Commission said the delays in getting a new government up and running actually pose a threat to our national security and in its report it also recommended ways to speed up the process.

Well after years of talk, it may be that we now finally have bipartisan support for change, although as the saying goes: ``It ain't over til it's over.''

In January, Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell established a working group on executive nominations and appointed Senators Schumer and Alexander--chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Rules Committee--to lead it.

Senator Collins and I--as chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--have been part of this working group and the bill being introduced today has my full support.

In fact, we held a hearing earlier this month on the need for nomination reform and the numbers showed just how compelling the case for reform is.

A study by the Congressional Research Service says that delay occurs not so much at the Cabinet level positions. Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama all were able to get the vast majority of their nominees for Cabinet Secretaries in place on or shortly after Inauguration Day.

Where the delay is most pronounced, according to CRS, is in the sub- cabinet level positions. Under President Reagan, nominees averaged 114 days from the President's election to final confirmation. Under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama those numbers jumped to 185, 198, and 195 respectively.

Part of the problem is that the number of positions requiring confirmation has grown over time.

When President Reagan took office, he had 295 key policy positions requiring confirmation. By the time President Obama was inaugurated, that number had grown to 422 key positions, plus another nearly 800 lesser positions that also required Senate confirmation.

These numbers do not include foreign service officers, or public health officials who also require Senate confirmation.

The legislation Senators Schumer and Alexander are introducing recommends eliminating Senate confirmation for approximately 200 presidential appointments to positions in the Executive Branch, including for legislative and public affairs positions, chief information officers, and internal management positions at or below the Assistant Secretary level.

This will free the Senate to concentrate on the more important policy-making nominees.

The bill also calls for a working group to simplify, standardize and centralize the forms and documentation required by both the White House and Senate so a nominee isn't burdened with duplicative paperwork and information requests.

Senators Schumer and Alexander are also introducing a standing order this morning that would streamline the confirmation process for approximately 200 other Presidential appointments that receive Senate confirmation. Under the standing order, some nominees to part-time boards and commissions could have their nominations expedited by being held at the desk for a certain number of days and then placed directly onto the Executive Calendar rather than being referred to a Senate committee. I would also like to express my support for the standing order.

In the past, nominations reform legislation has stalled because of the perceived fears of some of our colleagues, particularly committee chairs and ranking members, that they would be giving up some of their jurisdiction and authority. But the simple truth is that some of these nominations shouldn't require Senate confirmation and, frankly, take up valuable time that should be used for more important work.

Nothing in the legislation we offer today will weaken in any way the Senate's important Constitutional role of ``advice and consent'' or our delicate system of checks and balances.

But if we don't fix what is broken in this system, I fear we risk discouraging some of our nation's most talented individuals from accepting nominations, thus leaving important positions unfilled.

If I may end with a little history, as Governeur Morris, one of the architects of the Constitution, said when speaking in favor of the ``advice and consent'' clause: ``As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility. As the Senate was to concur, there would be security.''

Those founding principals will be unaffected by the kinds of modest changes this bill calls for, and I believe and hope we can get it done this year.

I call on my fellow chairmen, ranking members, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on addressing this challenge so the next new administration, regardless of party, can recruit the best candidates and then put them to work quickly addressing the many challenges our Nation faces.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation offered by Senators Schumer and Alexander to streamline the nomination process so incoming Presidents can get their teams in place more quickly and put them to work doing the people's business.

On August 5, 1789, the Senate took up and confirmed 102 executive nominations that had been sent up by President Washington just 2 days earlier--rejecting only one nominee.

Our first President, in a letter to the Senate, complained about the one he didn't get. If the Senate ever doubted the fitness of one of his nominees it should--and I quote ``communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail yourselves of the information which led me to make them and which I would with pleasure lay before you.''

Modern Presidents of both parties would sigh over this bit of history because nowadays the process by which a person is selected, vetted, nominated, and then considered and confirmed by the Senate has become-- in the words of one scholar--``nasty and brutish, without being short.''

One hundred days into President Obama's administration, only 14 percent of the Senate-confirmed positions in his administration had been filled. After 18 months, 25 percent of these positions were still vacant. This is not an aberration or anomaly. The timetables for putting in place a leadership team across the government has been pretty much the same each of the last three times there has been a change of occupant in the White House.

We have known about this problem a long time, but failed to act.

In 2001, the then Governmental Affairs Committee under former Chairman Fred Thompson, held hearings titled the State of the Presidential Appointment Process and recommended legislation, which did not pass.

In 2003, a bipartisan commission headed by Paul Volker recommended ways to speed up the nominations process. That got nowhere.

In 2004, the 9-11 Commission said the delays in getting a new government up and running actually pose a threat to our national security and in its report it also recommended ways to speed up the process.

Well after years of talk, it may be that we now finally have bipartisan support for change, although as the saying goes: ``It ain't over til it's over.''

In January, Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell established a working group on executive nominations and appointed Senators Schumer and Alexander--chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Rules Committee--to lead it.

Senator Collins and I--as chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--have been part of this working group and the bill being introduced today has my full support.

In fact, we held a hearing earlier this month on the need for nomination reform and the numbers showed just how compelling the case for reform is.

A study by the Congressional Research Service says that delay occurs not so much at the Cabinet level positions. Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama all were able to get the vast majority of their nominees for Cabinet Secretaries in place on or shortly after Inauguration Day.

Where the delay is most pronounced, according to CRS, is in the sub- cabinet level positions. Under President Reagan, nominees averaged 114 days from the President's election to final confirmation. Under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama those numbers jumped to 185, 198, and 195 respectively.

Part of the problem is that the number of positions requiring confirmation has grown over time.

When President Reagan took office, he had 295 key policy positions requiring confirmation. By the time President Obama was inaugurated, that number had grown to 422 key positions, plus another nearly 800 lesser positions that also required Senate confirmation.

These numbers do not include foreign service officers, or public health officials who also require Senate confirmation.

The legislation Senators Schumer and Alexander are introducing recommends eliminating Senate confirmation for approximately 200 presidential appointments to positions in the Executive Branch, including for legislative and public affairs positions, chief information officers, and internal management positions at or below the Assistant Secretary level.

This will free the Senate to concentrate on the more important policy-making nominees.

The bill also calls for a working group to simplify, standardize and centralize the forms and documentation required by both the White House and Senate so a nominee isn't burdened with duplicative paperwork and information requests.

Senators Schumer and Alexander are also introducing a standing order this morning that would streamline the confirmation process for approximately 200 other Presidential appointments that receive Senate confirmation. Under the standing order, some nominees to part-time boards and commissions could have their nominations expedited by being held at the desk for a certain number of days and then placed directly onto the Executive Calendar rather than being referred to a Senate committee. I would also like to express my support for the standing order.

In the past, nominations reform legislation has stalled because of the perceived fears of some of our colleagues, particularly committee chairs and ranking members, that they would be giving up some of their jurisdiction and authority. But the simple truth is that some of these nominations shouldn't require Senate confirmation and, frankly, take up valuable time that should be used for more important work.

Nothing in the legislation we offer today will weaken in any way the Senate's important Constitutional role of ``advice and consent'' or our delicate system of checks and balances.

But if we don't fix what is broken in this system, I fear we risk discouraging some of our nation's most talented individuals from accepting nominations, thus leaving important positions unfilled.

If I may end with a little history, as Governeur Morris, one of the architects of the Constitution, said when speaking in favor of the ``advice and consent'' clause: ``As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility. As the Senate was to concur, there would be security.''

Those founding principals will be unaffected by the kinds of modest changes this bill calls for, and I believe and hope we can get it done this year.

I call on my fellow chairmen, ranking members, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on addressing this challenge so the next new administration, regardless of party, can recruit the best candidates and then put them to work quickly addressing the many challenges our Nation faces.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona. It is my honor to join with him in submitting this resolution. I hope in time that we will gather the support of Members on both sides of the political aisle and that we will make a statement, an urgent statement, that the Members of the U.S. Senate are ready, across party lines, to take a stand because we understand we are at a turning point in history and we cannot stand back and hope it goes in the right direction. In fact, today, as we watch events unfolding in Libya, I think we have reason to believe it is going in exactly the wrong direction.

Let me read the first two paragraphs of this resolution Senator McCain and I are submitting because I think it sets what is happening in Libya in a context and also explains why we think America has a national interest in how the conflict in Libya ends.

The first paragraph of the resolution we are submitting reads:

Whereas peaceful demonstrations, inspired by similar

peaceful demonstrations in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in

the Middle East, began in Libya with calls for greater

political reform, opportunity, justice and the rule of law

and quickly spread to cities around the country.

The second paragraph:

Whereas Muammar Qaddafi, his sons, and forces loyal to them

have responded to the peaceful demonstrations by authorizing

and initiating violence against civilian non-combatants in

Libya, including the use of airpower, foreign mercenaries,

helicopters, mortar and artillery fire, naval assets, snipers

and soldiers.

I read those two paragraphs because they set exactly in context what is happening in Libya. The fact is that Libya is occurring in the context of these extraordinary, peaceful, democratic uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that have been described--and I think correctly--as the Arab spring.

For too long, we accepted an argument that there were only two choices for the United States and most of the rest of the world in the Arab world. There was a choice between secular dictatorships that were cordial to us on one side and on the other side radical Islamist regimes that despised us and were threatening to us. We made our peace with those secular dictatorships, but it was inherently uncomfortable and inconsistent with our basic democratic values going back to the Declaration of Independence.

Beginning in Tunisia and spreading to Egypt and then to Libya and other

countries, the Arab people themselves rose up and said: No, there is a third way. And the third way is democracy. We want political freedom. We want economic opportunity. We want into the modern world. We don't want extremism of any kind.

Those revolutions, those uprisings resulted in the end of the rule of two longstanding rulers, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, and they happened peacefully for a lot of reasons. Part of it was that those two leaders did not order their militaries to turn on their own people, and the militaries, perhaps, in those two cases would not have done it in any case. So that is the Arab spring.

But now, in Libya, because Qadhafi has taken exactly the opposite position and turned his guns and his military power on his own people as they peacefully demonstrate for change, for universal human rights, there is a danger that what is happening in Libya is essentially a wall being put up which says: This peaceful democratic revolution in the Arab world ends here. To put it another way, the Arab spring may be going the way of the Prague spring of 1968 when the people of then- Czechoslovakia rose up and Soviet tanks and armaments suppressed their revolution. We simply cannot let that happen.

Senator McCain and I were in Tunisia and Egypt a couple of weeks ago, and one of the messages we got, particularly from the young people who have been at the head of this remarkable uprising in these two countries, was: Don't stand by. Please, America, don't stand by and let Qadhafi bludgeon his own people who are asking for the same rights and opportunity and freedoms we have been asking for. If you do, it will end the movement of freedom and opportunity across the Arab world. In some sense, the Tunisians and Egyptians said to us: It may set back our own cause, even though we have been successful thus far. That is why it has been so frustrating, really infuriating, to watch as Qadhafi has moved with increasing brutality and force against his own people, pushing his opponents back, threatening to totally suppress their uprising.

I have been struck as I have watched that the world community--most of it--is spending so much time discussing and debating, and as the world discusses and debates what to do in Libya, Libya descends back into Qadhafi's darkness. We simply cannot let that happen.

The Libyan people are not asking us to come in and fight for them. The Libyan people don't want our troops on the ground. That is not what this resolution would authorize. The Libyan people want us to come to their aid in the sense of enabling them to fight Qadhafi's forces and Qadhafi to carry on as freedom fighters. They want recognition as the established and legal authority, sovereignty for their country. They would like some military assistance. They would like weapons. They would like the kind of intelligence and electronic assistance we can give, and they would like us in some way--a no-fly zone or using our capacity to fire missiles from offshore--to protect them from what has turned the tide in their struggle for freedom against Qadhafi and Libya, which is the brutal use of Libyan air power against the Libyan people. If we don't do this, I fear this Arab spring will turn to winter--a winter of darkness and suppression--again, too quickly, and the world will regret it.

People have said to Senator McCain and me: What is the American national interest in getting involved in Libya? Let me just give a few reasons I think we do have an interest.

First, we have a clear national interest--a humanitarian interest--in not standing idly by and watching tens of thousands of people slaughtered by their own government. As I have said, if we stand by and do nothing, if this happens, it will be devastating to America's image in the Arab world and to our moral leadership throughout the world. Some people have argued: Why would we want to get involved in yet a third Arab or Muslim country, thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan before that. But this is more like 1990 and 1991 and the first gulf war when the Arab world itself was calling out to us: Please help us get Saddam out of Kuwait. The Arab world, as Senator McCain said, is pleading with us: Help stop Qadhafi from slaughtering his own people, the blood of our brothers and sisters in Libya.

Second, we have a clear national interest in preventing Libya from becoming a failed state that al-Qaida and other Islamist groups will exploit, and that is precisely what will happen if this becomes a bloody and protracted civil war and then descends into chaos.

Third, if Qadhafi is able to defeat this uprising, it will send a message, as Senator McCain has said, to every dictator in the world that the way to stop peaceful democratic protest is through brutal violence.

Fourth, I don't mean this quote literally, but remember the old phrase from earlier times in history: If you go after the king, make sure you eliminate him. Don't leave him wounded. If Qadhafi survives this, he is going to cause no end of trouble for the United States and anyone else in the world who stood with the freedom fighters. So let's not think we can stand idly by and that we will not pay ourselves the consequences of Qadhafi surviving.

Finally, there is a relationship between what is happening in Libya today and the instability it has caused throughout that region of the world and the skyrocketing price of gasoline at the pump that does concern the American people every day. In fact, with all that has been discussed, I think the best we can do to stabilize the price of gasoline in America is to stabilize Libya and to enable the Libyan opposition to Qadhafi to fight the fair fight they want to fight.

So that is the intention of this resolution. It is, as the French would say, a ``cris de coeur.'' It is a cry from our hearts because I fear we have let so much time go by that it may be impossible to enable the freedom fighters in Libya to wage a fair fight.

I hope their cause is not lost because it is our cause, and the least we can do is help them fight for that cause against the man who has suppressed that cause under his rule.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona. I fear that is exactly the message we would be sending if the United States and our allies stand back and let Qadhafi, through the force of his arms, suppress political dissent from his own people.

One of the inspiring qualities to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt was that they were peaceful. Incidentally, they were not anti-American. They were pro-Tunisia, pro-Egypt. The people of Tunisia and Egypt were pleading for a better life. So the model there and one of the most powerful examples of peaceful protests, which is part of American history, was established. It changed those two governments, Tunisia and Egypt.

Now we have another model being set; that is, when your people rise up and peacefully protest, you don't respond, you don't negotiate, you don't listen to them, you don't react. You turn your firepower on them. You kill them wantonly, and you keep doing that until that dissent ends. One, in a world that is increasingly dangerous, that is a terrible message to send.

Two, in a world in which--well, let's just go back a little bit to what were false choices in the Arab world. But in the uprisings in Tunisia and in Egypt, there has been expressed the strongest possible repudiation of al-Qaida on the one hand, and Iran on the other--that is the Government of Iran--both of which have followed an Islamist extremist ideology and used violence to achieve their ends.

So we have the Tunisia-Egypt model of peaceful protest, democracy, economic opportunity, and now we have the other model of Qadhafi, which is violence, which will beget more violence and will cost us dearly.

I say to my friend from Arizona, as we say in our resolution, President Obama has made clear that he believes Qadhafi must go. If, after that clear statement of American policy by our Commander in Chief, Qadhafi does not go, and it is seen not just in the Arab world but throughout the wider world that the United States was not able to mobilize action in the world community to make sure Qadhafi went, but in fact he stayed, it inevitably has an effect on the credibility of American leadership in the world.

None of us want that to happen, including President Obama. So it is not too late. The actions we have taken, significant as they are-- sanctions on Qadhafi and some people close to him, the threat or the plan to refer others close to him to the International Court of Justice--all are important. But, unfortunately, what is more important now is what is happening on the ground in Libya. On the ground in Libya, the power of the forces of Qadhafi are winning in a fight that is not fair.

Mr. President, I just want to conclude by saying this: In our history in this country we have, again, been quite fortunate, and it may be that--as a friend of mine said to me, it is hard for people to imagine themselves in a position where they would need to be rescued from danger, from death. Senator McCain cited some of the episodes, dark times in recent history, where people needed that help from outside--the Holocaust, Srebenica, the Balkans, Rwanda. We acted. This is of that same type.

But when we think about Japan, there is this parallel to the United States. There have been natural disasters in this country--earthquakes, hurricanes. Katrina is an example. When the people of the gulf coast region pleaded with us, the central government, the National Government, the Federal Government, for help, we gave it to them. I will never forget what the Coast Guard did in rescuing lives on the gulf coast after Katrina. In some ways I think we have to perhaps see it as a manmade disaster, as a natural disaster. It is a basic rescue. In this case they are not asking us to fight their fight. They are asking us to leave them the weapons, the cover, so that they can fight their fight. That is the

intention of this resolution--bottom line--to recognize the opposition to Qadhafi in Benghazi as the government and legitimate suffering government of Libya, and then work with our allies in the world community, including not only our NATO allies but in the Arab League and the Gulf Council to protect the Libyan people from Qadhafi's air force.

I join with Senator McCain in saying that I hope Senators Reid and McConnell can agree on a way to bring forth this resolution quickly. Every moment that passes without us helping the Libyan opposition to make it a fair fight is a moment in which darkness descends over Libya.

Again, Senator McCain said we are willing to discuss changes to the resolution because we would like this to be a resolution that has the broadest possible bipartisan support in the Senate.

Mr. President, I want to take a minute to say what came to my mind over the weekend about Japan. Prime Minister Kan of Japan described this earthquake and tsunami as the worst thing to happen to Japan since World War II.

I suppose what struck me and struck probably a lot of other Americans was, of course, Japan and the United States were at war with each other in World War II. Today, the U.S.-Japanese relationship is extremely close. I believe

we don't have a better, more steadfast ally in Asia than the Japanese people. It is part of why I hope the people of Japan understand that the people of the United States are with them at this moment in which they suffer so from this natural disaster, and we will do everything we can to help them.

They are a proud people, but now they can't handle this all alone. We want to help them. We are a proud people. I want to share with my colleagues a conversation I had with the gentleman who was serving in the American Embassy in Tokyo at the time of Hurricane Katrina. He told me yesterday the Japanese people lined up outside our embassy in Tokyo after they heard about, watched films of Hurricane Katrina, to offer help, whatever they could offer. One private citizen of Japan, unannounced, arrived at the embassy and wrote out a private check for $1 million for Hurricane Katrina relief. This is the closeness of the relationship.

I hope and I am confident we will be as supportive of the Japanese people as they respond to this earthquake and tsunami and rebuild as they were to the people of the gulf coast in America in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bipartisan resolution that has been submitted by our colleague, Senator Durbin, and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, which concerns the situation in the country of Belarus.

As the winds of democratic change have been sweeping now across North Africa and the Middle East ousting autocratic rulers who have been long entrenched there, it is important for us to remember there is still one remaining dictatorship in Europe, and that is in the country of Belarus.

In the 20 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, Belarus's neighbors to the north and west have become successful, prosperous democracies. But, tragically, while Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia have broken the chains of tyranny and joined the flagship institutions of the Euro-Atlantic world, NATO, and the European Union, Belarus and its people have been left behind--held back by its despot ruler Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled his country through repression and rigged elections for nearly two decades.

Some in the United States and Europe had hoped in recent years that Lukashenko might be prepared to open up Belarus and change his ways. These hopes, however, came to an abrupt end on December 19 of last year when Belarus held Presidential elections. As it quickly became clear that the votes in those elections were neither free nor fair, thousands of Belarusian people took to the streets of Minsk in protest, and the Lukashenko regime responded with violence and brutality.

This resolution would put the Senate on record in response to the crackdown launched in Belarus on December 19--a crackdown, I add, that continues in significant ways to this day.

More than 600 people were swept up by Belarusian security forces on election day and its immediate aftermath--among them journalists, civil society representatives, political activists, and several opposition Presidential candidates. It is hard to believe this kind of behavior still exists in this world today. The detained continue to be denied access to family, lawyers, medical treatment, and open legal proceedings, while their relatives and attorneys endure harassment by Lukashenko's security forces.

This resolution will do several significant things. First, it will send a strong and clear message to Lukashenko that his actions are unacceptable and will carry significant costs. It tells him we do not consider the December 19 election to be legitimate and that he is, therefore, not the legitimately elected leader of Belarus, and that there should be new elections that are free, fair, and meet international standards. I would add that the European Parliament passed a resolution not long ago that says precisely the same thing that I have just said here in the Senate.

Perhaps even more important, this resolution will send a message to the people of Belarus who were struggling to secure their fundamental freedoms.

It tells the dissidents there that we have not and will not forget them or their cause; that we remember their names, in fact, and we will stand in solidarity with them until they achieve their goal, which is a free and democratic Belarus.

Last month, Senator McCain and I and others traveled to Vilnius, Lithuania, where we met with Belarusian students and opposition military leaders. This was an extremely powerful experience for all of us. We heard directly from them about the repression taking place in their home country. The substance of the resolution Senator Durbin has written and submitted, with cosponsorship by several of us, reflects what the Belarusians we met with in Vilnius told us, as well as what we heard here in Washington from other dissidents from that country.

The resolution specifically calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Belarus. It also urges a tightening of the sanctions against Lukashenko, and we are urging the Obama administration to offer the strongest possible material and technical support for Belarusian civil society, and that includes, of course, the political opposition.

This resolution is broadly bipartisan in its sponsorship and reflects what I think is a wide consensus in the Senate about the situation in Belarus today. I know there are some who may look at the resolution and say it is merely symbolic, who say there is nothing we can do to help the people who are living such repressed and unfree lives in Belarus, and that we should simply accept the reality of Lukashenko's dictatorship after all these years. But if the historic events in Tunisia and Egypt have taught us anything about our foreign policies, it is that the United States does best when we stand with our values and with the people who share them--and that what appear to be even the most impregnable regimes can fall with remarkable speed.

Obviously, I cannot say exactly when Belarus will be free, but I have no doubt that someday it will be free. I am confident the future of Belarus belongs not to Lukashenko and his cronies but to the people of that great country--to the dissidents who are in jail, to the students we met in Vilnius last month, to the civil society activists who are being harassed by the KGB as we speak. It belongs to the people in Belarus who want a future of democracy and economic opportunity, not Soviet-style repression.

This resolution--put together, again I say with thanks, by Senator Durbin--puts the Senate on the side of the people of Belarus and against the Lukashenko regime that is oppressing them. I hope we can come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan measure.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Brown, and I are pleased to introduce the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2011 to ensure that firefighters and emergency medical service personnel serving communities across the nation are repaid for the sacrifices they make every day with the best possible training and equipment--particularly given the budget cuts many communities have been forced to make in these economically uncertain times.

The bill we present to the Senate reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters, AFG, program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program, SAFER, two highly successful programs I worked to establish in 2000 and 2003. This is bipartisan legislation that has won overwhelming Senate support in previous years. As we all know, our first responders make great sacrifices for us. Firefighters in communities of all shapes and sizes have assumed a greater role in overall national emergency preparedness since September 11 and the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. They now serve as the frontline of defense in many communities for disasters of all types. More than ever, firefighters need the training and equipment to deal not only with fires but also with hazardous materials; nuclear, radioactive, and explosive devices; and other potential threats.

The responsibilities placed on firefighters have only grown more demanding. Firefighters respond more and more to medical emergencies-- 15.8 million in 2008, a 213 percent increase from 1980. Right here in Washington, D.C., at Fire Engine Company 10--known as the ``House of Pain'' for its grueling schedule--80 percent of the calls are for medical emergencies. Our nation's firefighters--like other first responders--are the first to arrive and the last to leave whenever trouble hits. They deserve all the support we can give them.

Unfortunately, they do not always get it. Firefighters often lack the equipment and vehicles they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. In 2006 the U.S. Fire Administration reported that 60 percent of fire departments did not have enough breathing apparatuses to equip all firefighters on a shift, 65 percent did not have enough portable radios, and 49 percent of all fire engines were at least 15 years old.

We can and must do more for these brave men and women. We must make sure they have what they need to protect their communities and themselves as they perform a very dangerous job. Our bill takes much- needed steps to ensure that they do.

To start with, because career, volunteer, and combination fire departments all suffer from shortages in equipment, vehicles, and training, our bill requires that each type receives at least 25 percent of the available AFG grant funding. The remaining funds will be allocated based on factors such as risk and the needs of individual communities and the country as a whole. This creates an appropriate balance, ensuring that funds are directed at departments facing the most significant risks while guaranteeing that no department is left out.

We have also taken a number of steps in our bill to help fire departments in communities struggling with economic difficulties. In many cases, local governments have reduced spending on vital services, including fire departments. Among other things, these cuts have prevented many departments from replacing old equipment and forced them to lay off needed firefighters. To help departments rebuild, we have lowered the matching requirements for AFG and SAFER. Departments are still required to match some of their grant awards with funds of their own--ensuring they have some skin in the game--but the reduced amount will make it easier for them to accept awards.

We have similarly created an economic hardship waiver for both grant programs that will allow FEMA to waive certain requirements, such as requiring that grantees provide matching funds, for departments in communities that have been especially hard hit by tough economic times.

Our bill contains a number of other important provisions. It raises the maximum grant amounts available under AFG. As commonsense would suggest, large communities often require a substantial amount of equipment, and they will now be able to apply for funding in amounts more in line with what they need.

Our bill would provide funding for national fire safety organizations and institutions of higher education that wish to create joint programs establishing fire safety research centers. There is a great need for research devoted to fire safety and prevention and improved technology. The work these centers do will help us reduce fire casualties among firefighters and civilians and make communities safer.

But as important as it is to help our firefighters, we must also demand accountability when we spend taxpayer dollars. For this reason, we require that FEMA create performance management systems for these programs, complete with quantifiable metrics that will allow us to see how well they perform. Going forward, this will allow us to see what works in these programs and what does not so that we can make needed improvements when required.

We have also included provisions to prevent earmarks from being attached to these programs. AFG and SAFER have never been earmarked--an impressive accomplishment--and we want to keep it that way. The funding for these programs needs to go to firefighters, not pet projects.

Finally, this legislation authorizes $950 million each for these vital programs. This is actually less than what was authorized in the past. We believe that supporting our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical service responders ought to be a priority, but we recognize that these tough fiscal times require some belt-tightening. Authorizing funding for AFG and SAFER at these amounts sends the message that Congress can direct funding where it is needed while also showing discipline.

This legislation ensures that fire departments get the support they need to protect their communities while also protecting taxpayer dollars. It addresses a vital national need while increasing accountability to the public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of these important programs.

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