Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Senate Resolution 646, also known as Feed America Day.

Feed America Day began in 2002 as a small effort in Provo, UT. From that small beginning, the campaign has received support from over 1,100 large and small cities. This includes over 60 cities that have responded with proclamations, covering a population exceeding seven million.

This eighth year of promoting Feed America Day is held on the Thursday immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day. On that day, each person is encouraged to fast two meals and then to contribute to a food bank, church, or charity the equivalent dollar amount saved.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported that 35 million Americans, including 12 million children, live in homes that do not have an adequate supply of food. This resolution recalls that selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society. In that spirit, I encourage individuals and families to remember to help those in need one week before Thanksgiving.

Madam President, I thank both my colleagues.

It has become customary to expect pendulum swings in labor law each time the White House changes hands and appoints new government officials to lead the Federal executive branch and independent agencies. Sometimes the law changes every 4 years, depending on who is sitting at the NLRB, Department of Labor, OSHA, EEOC, and so on. One year a particular issue might favor labor, and 4 years later the very same issue might favor management.

By analogy, at the NLRB, for example, 1 year graduate school teaching assistants are students not covered by the National Labor Relations Act. The next year they are deemed to be employees covered by the act. Then shortly thereafter, they are once again deemed to be students. Soon we may learn they will once again be employees.

The same is true with regard to the definition of ``supervisors'' excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. One would think that after 75 years, the NLRB would be able to define who is and who is not a supervisor. Instead, the law changes as the political pendulum swings.

What has actually changed other than the people confirmed by the Senate to make the decisions, to call the shots? Without any evidence of changed circumstances in the workplace or relieving the agency's own administrative burden--in fact, without any evident rationale--the only apparent reason for the changes in the NMB's representation election process is in the people who call the shots.

Obviously, this is not the way to promote stability in labor relations and employment law. It makes it difficult for employers, employees, unions, and the lawyers counseling them to ever be assured what the law is in any given area or any given time.

Mercifully, for some issues and at some agencies, it does not work that way. Until recently, that could be said for the National Mediation Board and the process by which it conducted union representation elections.

For 75 years, the procedure which has been applied consistently by the NMB for conducting union representation elections has been the same.

Boards appointed by Democratic Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton have agreed that the process through which labor organizations obtain certification as the representative of a majority of the craft or class is the cornerstone of stable labor relations in the air and rail industries. That has been the law for 75 years.

In fact, the NMB appointed by President Carter unanimously ruled that it did not have authority to administratively change the form of the NMB's ballot used in representation elections and that such a change, if appropriate, could only be made by Congress. That is until now.

The new members of the NMB, after assuring this Senate under oath at their confirmation hearings that they had no plans to reverse precedent, after only months on the job, reversed the NMB's longest standing precedent.

By rule, the NMB now certifies representatives elected by a minority of the craft or class so long as they constitute a majority of those voting. This is not just a minor change, this change destabilizes the cornerstone of stable labor relations under the Railway Labor Act and 75 years of NMB precedent which was consistent with the plain statutory language and congressional intent.

Here is how it is destabilizing. First, the former law which required election of a representative by a majority of the craft or class quelled any doubts about the authority of the selected representative. The new procedure will do nothing but foment dissent.

Second, the former certification procedure facilitated the process for employees and their representative to work cohesively toward negotiating and maintaining agreements with an air or rail carrier. The carrier knew the majority of the entire craft or class supported the union, not simply a majority of those voting. This gave the representative more standing. The new procedure will undermine the representative's authority.

Third, the former certification procedure discouraged raids by rival unions and interunion conflicts. The new procedure will encourage such raids.

Fourth, the former certification process recognized the reality in the air and rail industries that, unlike the National Labor Relations Act, negotiations for collective bargaining agreements cover a broad craft or class of employees spread over multiple, geographic locations. Therefore, there is a strong need to demonstrate majority support across those geographic locations, not as the current procedure, smaller units of employees.

So, if anything, the new rules are destabilizing rather than promoting greater stability. The result ignores the clear congressional statutory mandate to maintain stability in the air and rail industries.

I repeat, after assuring us they would not do so, the new NMB members overruled 75 years of precedent which had been consistent through both Democratic and Republican administrations. And how did they do it? It certainly speaks volumes that the rule was developed without the input or participation of the sole Republican member of the three-member NMB, former Chair Elizabeth Dougherty, who was notified of the existence of a proposed rule late one morning and given 24 hours to review the rule and draft a dissent--24 hours to comment on a rule that scraps a precedent which had existed for 75 years and which is likely to discombobulate two great industries. I thought this form of arrogant, rushed, exclusionary rulemaking only exists in Congress when the majority wants to steamroll legislation.

Finally, while changing the rules for certification of a labor representative, the NMB flatly refused to even consider the democratic procedure of decertifying the labor representative should the employees so freely and independently choose. Now, I have heard of ``one man, one vote,'' but ignoring the right of the employees to decertify a union is more like ``one man, one vote, one time.'' How can you have a democratic process where a minority of employees can vote a union in without having a mirror process allowing the majority of employees to be able to vote the union out if a majority of employees become dissatisfied with their representation?

Today, we should stand up and say no--no, you cannot tell us one thing in confirmation hearings and courtesy visits and then do exactly the opposite on the job. We should exercise our voting rights in the Senate under the Congressional Review Act to review this outrageous NMB rule which benefits only one group--labor unions--not employees, certainly not employers, and not the public.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, as introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Over the years, Senator Leahy and I have tackled some of the most complex issues related to intellectual property enforcement. With the introduction of today's bill, we narrow our focus on the pervasive practice of online piracy and counterfeiting.

In our global economy the Internet has become the glue of international commerce--connecting consumers with a wide-array of products and services worldwide. But it has also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods. These online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by luring consumers to what appear to be legitimate websites, where unauthorized downloads, streaming or downloaded copyrighted content and counterfeit goods are sold. Not only do these websites facilitate massive theft of American IP, but they undermine legitimate commerce.

We cannot afford to not act, especially when, by some estimates, IP accounts for a third of the market value of all U.S. stocks-- approximately five trillion dollars or more. That accounts for more than 40 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and is greater than the entire GDP of any other nation in the world.

Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Not to mention Utah's workforce is one of the most highly educated and hardworking around. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for over 6,930 direct jobs and $180.8 million in wages in Utah. That is why we must combat online piracy and counterfeiting, for they threaten the vitality of the U.S. economy and its workforce.

Just recently the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, on which I serve as cochairman, introduced the 2010 International Piracy Watch List, a report of those nations where copyright piracy has reached alarming levels. For the first time the Caucus also highlighted the problem of websites that provide unauthorized access to copyrighted works made by U.S. creators. The websites singled out were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U. This is a sobering reminder of just how organized and sophisticated these websites have become in perpetrating online criminal activity.

There is no quick fix to this problem, unfortunately. But one thing is for certain: doing nothing is not an option. We must explore ways, albeit in incremental steps, to take down offending websites. For this reason, I believe the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act is a critical step forward in our ongoing fight against online piracy and counterfeiting.

If enacted, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act would provide the Department of Justice, DOJ, an expedited process for cracking down on websites that traffic in pirated goods or services.

The bill would also authorize the DOJ to file an in rem civil action against a domain name, and seek a preliminary order from the court that the domain name is being used to sell infringing material.

If this legislation is enacted, the DOJ will be required to publish notice of the action promptly after filing, and it would have to demonstrate that the owners of the site engaged in substantial and repeated online piracy or counterfeiting. The bill also includes substantial safeguards to prevent abuse by the DOJ. For example, a Federal court would have the final say as to whether a particular site would be cut off from supportive services. In addition, the bill would allow owners or site operators to petition the court to lift the order.

I am pleased with the progress that we have made so far on this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process. We must take steps to combat those websites that are profiting from stolen American intellectual property.

I thank my colleague from Iowa. I appreciate his leadership on the Finance Committee and the good work he has done over all of these years.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following motion to commit, which is at the desk with instructions to H.R. 5297. I move to commit H.R. 5297 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the research tax credit.

This motion is a simple one. It is a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the consideration of the motion to commit the bill before us to the Finance Committee, from which both Senator Grassley and I sit, with the specific instruction to add to the bill a permanent research tax credit.

It is a simple motion, but I believe it is a significant moment. The American people understand that there is a desperate need for jobs and growth, and they have heard that Washington is partisan, broken, and unable to respond to their genuine needs. Just last week they heard that President Obama proposed a permanent research credit as an additional step ``to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring.''

Well, we can address all three with my simple motion: Make the research credit permanent, do it in a bipartisan spirit, and give job creation the jump start it badly needs. It seems like a pretty good idea to me, but the track record so far is very disappointing. Making the credit permanent is exactly what Senator Baucus, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and I proposed to do in the bill we introduced last year.

We have been introducing this same idea for many years now. Yet the Senate does not seem to be able to do anything more than extend the credit on a very temporary basis. In recent weeks, I have been trying to add a research credit extension to the small business lending bill that is before us today. Unfortunately, my efforts have been in vain because the leader has filled the amendment tree, and I have not had the opportunity to offer such an amendment to this bill.

Frankly, the way this Senate has been run, there has been very much to criticize. This is supposed to be the most important deliberative body in the world. Yet almost every bill that has any controversy to it at all, they bring it to the floor, fill up the tree, forbid the minority to have any chance to have any amendments, and in the process stultify the legislation.

It is easy to see why adding a research tax credit incentive to this bill is a high priority. Obviously, President Obama thinks it should have a high priority. He was very specific last week in making it clear that this is a step we should take to grow the economy and to help businesses spur hiring, bringing people onboard to work. Here we have a small business tax bill that has been proposed by the majority party. Yet it does not include a very important provision that has long enjoyed bipartisan support by most Members of the Senate. Now we have the President of the United States specifically calling for this provision to be enacted to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring, for which I give him great credit.

This, too, I believe is the underlying purpose of this small business bill. What is strange is my pleadings for this provision to be added to this bill have so far fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, I have had to resort to this procedural motion to suspend the rules in order for this provision to be added to the bill.

Since the parliamentary tree is tied up and we do not even have a chance for amendments, I could not bring it up as an amendment other than this way. I would have thought this would have been unnecessary. After last week's proposal by the President, I would have expected that Members of his own party might have acted to include the research credit extension on the first possible legislative vehicle. This bill is that vehicle.

But, no, this bill is moving forward toward passage in the Senate with nary a word from the majority about the provision the President proposed last week. He said it was important. He wants it. It is something we ought to do. Above all, it would be bipartisan, one of the few things we have been able to do in a bipartisan way since this administration took over.

Perhaps most of my colleagues on the other side were on the beach and away from the television and the newspapers and did not see or know about the President's call for a permanent research credit. For those of my colleagues who might not have heard about the President's call for a permanent research credit, let me share a couple of facts that he, our President, put forward.

He said a permanent extension of the research credit is ``a win-win-- encouraging job growth and investment now that will pay off with stronger economic growth in the future.'' Again, I could not agree more with the President.

President Obama also said economic growth is the single best way to bring down the deficit. There are some things our President says that make a terrific amount of sense. This is one of them because this bill before us today is supposed to be all about job creation and growing the economy. Because the President has renewed his call for a permanent extension of the very important research credit, it seems to me this motion would be unnecessary. I would have thought, as I said before, that the leadership would have taken care of adding this item to this bill.

I think most everyone will agree that this might very well be the only tax bill that even has a remote chance of passage and enactment before the election next month. Surely the majority leader does not plan to simply ignore

the President's call for passing a permanent extension of the research credit.

Well, since he either forgot to add this priority or decided to ignore the President, I am offering this motion as a way to remind him and a way to allow it to happen before this bill comes up for a final vote. I urge all of my colleagues to consider the implications of this country dropping to a second tier industrial power.

Our economy has been, both short term and long term, filled with problems. In the short run, we are not producing the number of new jobs we need. Our economy is not growing nearly as rapidly as we would all like. It is not generating nearly enough moneys or enough revenue to the Treasury. In the longer run, we are facing some severe competitiveness issues with our U.S. firms in competition with foreign firms. The Federal Government has, unfortunately, saddled them with the high taxation, more onerous regulations, and an unfriendly business climate. We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world.

In the high-technology area, along with other sectors of our economy that are even more global in nature, we have even more difficult challenges. Our international tax rules are very inhospitable to U.S.- based firms. This is one of the reasons the United States no longer dominates the list of having the largest companies in the world. In fact, in 1980, of the 50 largest companies in the world, we had 39 of them headquartered in the United States. Today we have just 16. It is because of these stupid rules that have been put in place, these stupid tax approaches that we must change if we want to do something about jobs in our society today.

One particular danger is that many of our trading partners have enacted very generous tax incentives in an attempt to lure away research and development from our country to theirs. There was a time not very long ago when the United States was considered the only real place in the world where companies wanted to conduct their research and development.

We had the best research scientists and the best facilities in the world. That time is no more. We can no longer make this boast. Many other places offer world-class facilities and scientists just as well trained and experienced as ours, many of whom have been trained right here, and we push them out of our country because we will not expand our H1B immigration rules. Talk about stupidity.

Now they also offer tax incentives to companies that are far superior to our country's tax incentives for our companies and for companies overseas. In fact, at this time we can offer no tax incentives for U.S. research and development because the credit expired last December. The research tax credit is a provision that has been in the tax law since 1981. It has been extended by Congress more than a dozen times.

This credit has wide and deep bipartisan support in this body as has been demonstrated numerous times. More importantly, however, is the fact that the research tax credit is a vital incentive to business enterprises of all sizes in this Nation.

In my home State of Utah, there are hundreds of small high-technology companies, companies and firms, that spend a high percentage of their revenue on research and development. In fact, Utah has more than 5,000 technology companies. Every State wants to attract companies such as these because their jobs are generally better paying private sector jobs than most private sector jobs.

On average, high-tech jobs pay 69 percent more. This R&D is vital to the future survival of these firms. No high-tech company can afford to ignore research that wants to be around next year or maybe even in the next quarter. The research credit is, in my thinking, the most urgent and important to our economy, our competitiveness, and to those hundreds of smaller high-technology companies in Utah.

We have before us on the Senate floor a small business bill. This bill is designed to strengthen our small businesses, which most of us acknowledge comprise the strongest component of our job creation engine in this economy to help them to do what they obviously are not doing very well at this time, and that is to grow and bring on more new workers. The tax portion of this small business lending bill is a good package that I support.

I think we do need to pass the tax provisions in the bill before us. However, it would be a grave mistake for us to think this is all we need to do to solve job-creation problems in our economy--far from it. We should be adding many provisions to this small business tax bill. These include the extension of the tax relief provisions passed in 2001 and 2003. That tax relief is important. However, since that is the subject of an intense partisan debate in the Senate right now, it does not seem possible. It seems reasonable, however, that we could all agree to add the most prominent tax provision the President is calling for--a bipartisan provision, the research and development tax credit-- and make it permanent. It has wide and deep support on both sides of the aisle, here and in the House. Republicans are saying yes to the President on this. It is the members of his own party who seem to be saying no, even though I think most of them will vote for this if it has a chance to be heard and voted upon.

As Congress tries to address the job situation, we need to keep in mind that one of the best things we can do to retain and create good jobs in the United States is to incentivize research activities. One of the best ways of doing this is to ensure we have an effective tax policy to keep research here in our own country. Unfortunately, many of our trading partners now have strong tax inducements for companies to perform research overseas. Research and development jobs are high- paying, and they are very desirable jobs.

Moreover, R&D very often leads to other kinds of economic development and the creation of even more jobs. We simply cannot afford to lose our lead in research by not keeping the United States as the premier location in the world for research and development. Having a robust research credit is key to this. The President understands it is the key. I surely hope my colleagues will wake up and help make this happen before it is too late and we have to work to get back what once was ours.

My understanding is that some might go along with this, but they want to increase taxes on oil and gas. They also want to do some other very obnoxious things that would be difficult for which to get bipartisan support.

We know that business in this country is having a very difficult time right now. My understanding is that they may want to add a carried interest provision, which would probably put a lot of venture capital funds out of business and would drive a lot of people out of business and maybe into bankruptcy. We simply cannot support that. We can support--and I think we would have almost 100 percent of the votes here in the Senate--the research tax credit. I believe it would show great bipartisanship at a time when it is needed. I think it would even benefit our Democratic colleagues to work with us on this.

But there are things in this underlying bill that really are very difficult to vote for--one part of it is, in the eyes of many, a new mini-TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We have seen how bad the last one worked. I hate to see us go further down that path when we could, in a bipartisan way, resolve these problems.

Last spring, four of us on the Finance Committee worked out an extenders package. We worked diligently together. We agreed on how it should be done. It was bipartisan in nature. I believe my friends on the other side initially agreed to it because it would have gotten at least 95 votes in the Senate. It could have been done early enough to create a lot of jobs this year. Then all of a sudden it became a partisan exercise again.

Time after time, if the Democrats can get one Republican to go with them, they call it bipartisan. I guess one could say that, but that is really stretching the term bipartisanship, especially when I think we could have had virtually 100 percent, or at least 95 votes for the extenders package we had worked out.

It is amazing to me how difficult it is to work together around here, especially when we want to and especially when we can come up with programs and legislation to which virtually everybody in this body would agree. It is almost like an arrogance of power: We are just going to teach those Republicans that we are not going to do what

they think is good. I hesitate to say it, but I think that had we had more bipartisanship around here over the last year and a half, we would be a lot further along. This economy would be back in a much stronger way, and there would have been a lot of jobs created.

If we are just going to keep playing partisan games on these very important bills on which we should all agree, then it stultifies jobs and the economy. I think it makes this administration look bad. In the process, it creates a lot of angst and anger throughout the whole country.

We would have had this done; it would have been done early this year had it not been for partisanship, in my opinion. There are things to be partisan about. There are things on which both sides disagree vociferously. That is the way this body works. We should go after each other on these matters. But there are some things on which we can all agree.

When the President comes out and says we need a permanent research tax credit, after all of the difficulties we have had, one would think our colleagues on the other side would grab Republicans and run with it. We could get it done, as we have always done in the past. There is no certainty with the current research tax credit, or the one that expired last year. Companies cannot plan for the future because we have to reinstate this all the time. Sometimes it is late, and even if we make it retroactive, it is not as helpful as it would be. Making it permanent would be a tremendous boost to scientific companies in this country and all other companies where innovation can occur. We have seen great results from the research and development tax credit.

Madam President, this is a motion to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to commit.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object, and I will object, because this side wants an open amendment process. We are tired of every time a bill comes to the floor in the greatest deliberative body in the world, they tie up the parliamentary tree so we can't have honest amendments.

Secondly, the approach of my dear friend and colleague, whom I have worked with all of these years on the research tax credit, is not permanent and would not make it permanent, which is what the President has asked for.

I object to the unanimous consent request.

Madam President, last week President Obama called for a permanent research tax credit. We have always extended this tax credit. We failed last December to do it on time. Therefore, we are without it. We are without the jobs that would be created by it. I think it was a terrific move by the President to come out for a permanent research tax credit, and we ought to swiftly move to add it to this particular bill.

The only way I can do that, because of the tying up of the tree-- which is happening all too often around here--is by a motion to suspend the rules.

This bill is a bill to create jobs. At least that is what it is supposed to be. But the research tax credit would do the most to instantaneously create jobs, and these are high-paying jobs. The only way we can get it is to vote for this motion to suspend. If we do, I think we would have 95 votes--a bipartisan vote--for this particular amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following:

Mr. Hatch moves to commit H.R. 5297 to the Committee on

Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate with changes to make permanent the

research credit under section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the enactment of legislation that created real estate investment trusts, REITs. The development of real estate investment trusts is among the true success stories of American business. Moreover, REITs legislation enacted over the past 50 years presents a remarkable example of how Congress can create the legal framework to liberate entrepreneurs, small investors, and men and women across the country to do what they do best--create wealth and, more importantly, build thriving communities.

When REITs were first created in 1960, small investors had almost no role in commercial real estate ventures. At that time, private partnerships and other groups closed to ordinary investors directed real estate investments, typically using debt, not equity, to finance their ventures. That model not only served small investors poorly, it resulted in the misallocation of capital, and contributed to significant market volatility.

Since that time, REITs have permitted small investors to participate in one of our country's greatest generators of wealth--income-producing real estate--and REITs have greatly improved real estate markets by promoting transparency, liquidity, and stability. The growth in REITs has been particularly dramatic and beneficial in the past 15 years, as capital markets responded to a series of changes in the tax rules that modernized the original 1960 REIT legislation to adjust it to new realities of the marketplace.

Equity REITs have outperformed the major U.S. equity market benchmarks for all multi-year periods over the past 35 years, as well as over the entire 38-year period since the inception of the U.S. REIT indexes.

I am proud of my role in sponsoring legislation that included many of these changes that modernized the REIT rules, and I remain committed to making every effort to ensure that the people of Utah and across our Nation continue to benefit from a dynamic and innovative REIT sector.

I have seen firsthand what REITs have done for communities across my State of Utah. It is very much in Utah's interests, and in our country's interests, to make sure that REITs continue to work effectively and efficiently to carry out the mission which Congress intended.

Madam President, I speak today, along with my colleague, Senator Bob Bennett, in recognition of ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week''. Senator Herb Kohl and I introduced S. Res. 592 on July 22 to designate September 13-19, 2010, as the National PKD Awareness Week for 2010, and Senator Bennett was a cosponsor of the resolution. S. Res. 592 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 29, 2010. I thank my colleagues for their support.

Polycystic kidney disease, also known as PKD, is a life-threatening, genetic disease affecting more than 600,000 adults and children in the United States and 12.5 million people worldwide. In fact, PKD is one of the top three most prevalent life-threatening genetic diseases in the world. It is, in fact, one of the most deadly diseases of which you have likely never heard. To help put it into perspective, more people have been diagnosed with PKD than have been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, and Huntington's disease combined. However, these diseases are much more well-known than PKD. I take particular interest in PKD because so many Utahns suffer from the disease. According to the PKD Foundation, approximately 5,000 Utahns have been diagnosed with PKD and end stage renal disease--ESRD--instances in Utah are almost three times the national average.

Polycystic kidney disease often goes unnoticed due to the fact there are no telltale symptoms in the early stages of the disease. Many people who have PKD are not diagnosed until the disease has already affected other organs. More than half of individuals diagnosed will reach end-stage renal failure and require dialysis or a kidney transplant in order to survive. When a kidney has been affected by PKD, fluid-filled cysts develop on the kidney. These cysts can range in size from that of a pinhead to the size of a grapefruit. The size and weight of each cystic kidney can grow to that of a football or basketball and weigh as much as 38 pounds. Other diseases and symptoms may show up as the disease progresses and, unfortunately, this is often how PKD is diagnosed. Examples of such symptoms are urinary tract infections, hypertension, kidney stones, high blood pressure, potentially fatal heart diseases, and aneurysms.

There are two forms of polycystic kidney disease: autosomal dominant PKD and autosomal recessive PKD. Autosomal dominant PKD is more serious and it affects one in every 500 people and is commonly diagnosed in adulthood. Every child born to an affected parent has a 50 percent chance of inheriting the disease themselves. The other form, autosomal recessive PKD, also called ARPKD, is diagnosed in children. Approximately 30 percent of the infants diagnosed with ARPKD will die within the first month of life; and of the 70 percent who survive infancy, one-third will require a kidney transplant by the very young age of 10.

As of today, there is no cure or treatment for PKD. There are ways to alleviate pain, and a healthy lifestyle

can delay kidney failure; however, the only way to effectively stop the symptoms is by kidney transplant. Unfortunately, many who are waiting for a transplant will not survive long enough to receive it.

Aside from the debilitating nature of the disease, the costs associated with PKD are staggering. The current estimation of what PKD costs Federal health care programs annually is at least $2 billion. This can be broken down as: $78,000 per year, per patient, for dialysis; $100,000-$150,000 per kidney transplant; and $15,000-$20,000 per year, per patient, for post-transplant immunosuppressive drugs.

It is clear that PKD is a very serious disease that should be receiving more attention. As we increase our understanding and awareness of PKD, we also increase our ability to find treatments and eventually, a cure for this disease; and that is why I am proud to have helped designate this week as ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week''.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. For years I have been supportive of moving this legislation forward. It not only underscores the importance of the fashion design industry to our economy but will ensure that new and innovative fashion designs are afforded proper copyright protection.

Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked on a whole host of intellectual property-related initiatives. There is no doubt that legislating in this area is difficult. It is necessary, however, to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and to continue our country's leadership in global innovation.

Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. These crimes are the very antitheses of creativity--crippling growth and stifling innovation in their wake.

Last Congress I worked closely with my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues and others in passing the PRO-IP Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. There is no doubt the PRO-IP bill will ensure that resources are available to enforce intellectual property laws and coordinate the government's intellectual property policies.

Yet there are no laws prohibiting design piracy.

Currently, original designs are copied and the apparel is manufactured in countries with cheap labor, typically in mainland China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Singapore. The garments are then shipped into the U.S. to directly compete with the garments of the original designer, sometimes before the originals have even hit the market. As a result, the U.S. apparel industry continues to lose billions of dollars to counterfeiting each year.

We must ensure that all property rights, including fashion designs, are protected both here and abroad. Counterfeiting and piracy sap our country's economic strength. Plain and simple, when a company loses revenues to piracy or counterfeited goods, it does not have those resources to reinvest into making more of its goods. And that means lost jobs. This domino effect ensnares all within its reach.

These crimes not only affect the individual company, but they also adversely affect the companies that would have contributed to or benefitted from the unmade goods. Suppliers of raw materials and components as well as shippers, distributors, and retailers, all take the hit.

In my home State of Utah, I am mindful of the designers who make a meaningful contribution to the fashion industry. Utah designers like Nappi, Modurrn, and CherellaUSA are committed to quality and original clothing lines. These designers, and many more across the Nation, must know that after spending their time and money in developing new and unique fashion designs, their works are protected from infringers. They should be able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act represents a true compromise. The proposed legislation is the product of an intensive year of negotiations with interested stakeholders. Among other things, the compromise language provides protection to truly unique fashion designs. In order to be considered an infringing design, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a design copy is ``substantially identical.''

I am pleased with the progress that has already been made on the bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reduce and Cap the Federal Workforce Act. This is a simple straightforward bill that would reduce the number of civilian federal employees--excluding those serving in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--to the pre-2009 numbers in each government agency through attrition. Once this reduced number is reached, then each agency would cap the number of employees at that level. Each hire would then have to be offset by another employee leaving that agency.

It is not hard to locate illustrations where the Federal Government is growing at an exceptionally fast pace. Looking at the number of Government employees as a percentage of America's population, one easily sees how we have increased the size of the government.

In 1815, the total population in America was 8.3 million people, yet there were only 4,837 Federal Government employees. That represents nearly \1/20\ of 1 percent of Americans who were Federal employees. From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million.

The Obama administration says the Government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year serving roughly 310 million Americans. That is nearly 1 percent of the population, or put another way, is 20 times the number of government employees than there were in 1815 and almost a 50 percent increase since 2008. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher.

Some have estimated the newly enacted health care bill could add many thousands of Federal employees--as many as 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service employees alone. It has been reported that the recently enacted financial regulatory bill will result in the hiring of at least one thousand new federal government employees. It has been reported the SEC will need to hire an additional 800 employees alone.

I am introducing this legislation in order to ensure that the size of our federal government is reduced to the pre-2009 size and does not expand thereafter. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, and Americans for Limited Government.

I believe we need a limited federal government and this legislation is one way we can limit the size of the Government while decreasing Government spending. Our Nation, children, and grandchildren cannot be buried in debt created by an agenda to exponentially grow the size of the Government. Enough is enough.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, P.L. 109-129, through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign and Franken have joined me as sponsors of this bipartisan bill.

Over the past few months, we have worked with the National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP, and cord blood transplantation experts, specifically Dr. Linda Kelley of the University of Utah and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University. It is my strong hope that our bill is considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions when the Congress returns in mid-September and is signed into law before the end of the year.

Our legislation makes several small but important additions to the existing program.

First, the bill reauthorizes both the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, which is commonly referred to as the Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory program, which is often called the NCBI, for an additional 5 years through 2015.

The total authorization levels for both programs combined would be $53 million in each of the 5 years, thus staying consistent with the authorization level established in the original statute. Specifically, the authorization level for the program would be $30 million in fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $33 million in fiscal year 2015. The authorization levels for NCBI would be $23 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $20 million in fiscal year 2015.

Second, the original statute intended for cord blood banks to become self-sufficient in the future. Five years ago, it was our intent that cord blood banks would eventually be able to function and operate without federal funding. In fact, the HELP Committee's August 31, 2005 report states the following on this important issue: ``The committee anticipated that the funding authorized for establishing and strengthening the cord blood unit inventory will be devoted primarily to defraying the start-up expenses, including developing the expanded inventory in an optimal fashion. While we feel that such activities clearly have the potential to be self-supporting in time, we also recognize that sufficient funding over an adequate period of time will be necessary for these activities to realize their full potential. It is the committee's expectation that the Secretary will closely scrutinize all costs related to this legislation, so that tax dollars are spent judiciously to achieve the maximum effect.''

Almost 5 years have passed since the original statute was signed into law and cord blood banks are still dependent on Federal funding due to the many obstacles surrounding cord blood collection and cord blood storage. Therefore, our bill includes language to the contracting section requiring qualified cord blood banks to develop an annual plan and demonstrate ongoing measurable progress toward achieving self- sufficiency. While I recognize and understand that cord blood donation and collection is a new, challenging field of research, this modification was extremely important to me to ensure that taxpayers' precious dollars are spent prudently and that public cord blood banks are actually doing what the drafters of the original law intended.

The contracting provisions of our bill also require cord blood banks to provide a plan on how to increase cord blood collection, assist with the establishment of new collection sites or contract with new collection sites. Both the self-sufficiency requirements and the cord blood collection requirements would apply to both new cord blood bank applicants and existing cord blood banks extending their contracts.

Third, our bill also calls for the collection and maintenance of at least 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The original statute called for the collection of 150,000 new units, and we believed that there needed to be some flexibility on the total number of units collected.

Fourth, in order to ensure that the appropriate science is reflected in this bill, the legislation modifies the definition of a first degree relative as the sibling of an individual in need of a transplant. According to scientists and researchers who specialize in cord blood transplantation, the only immediate family members able to donate cord blood are the siblings of a person in need of a transplant. The original statute defined first degree relatives as parents and siblings.

Fifth, the Program would support studies and demonstration projects that would study increasing cord blood donation and collection from a genetically diverse population, including exploring novel approaches or incentives to expand the number of cord blood collection sites partnering with federal cord blood banks.

Sixth, our bill extends the privacy protections included in the original statute for cord blood transplant patients and donors to bone marrow transplant patients and donors.

Finally, the legislation includes a study on cord blood donation and collection by the General Accountability Office. The final report would be submitted to the appropriate House and Senate Committees one year after enactment of our bill.

I am proud of this legislation because it proves that bipartisanship still exists in the United States Senate. This subject is near and dear to my heart. When this legislation was signed into law in 2005, it offered us a rare opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those suffering from a serious illness or those who have family members with illnesses requiring cord blood or bone marrow transplants. Back then, our goal was to increase the number of bone marrow and cord blood donors. Today, our goal continues to be increasing the number of bone marrow and cord blood donations and passage of this legislation will make it easier to do just that.

I will continue to do everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. Patients in need of a transplant deserve nothing less and passing this legislation is the pathway to being successful in that endeavor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. For years I have been supportive of moving this legislation forward. It not only underscores the importance of the fashion design industry to our economy but will ensure that new and innovative fashion designs are afforded proper copyright protection.

Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked on a whole host of intellectual property-related initiatives. There is no doubt that legislating in this area is difficult. It is necessary, however, to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and to continue our country's leadership in global innovation.

Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. These crimes are the very antitheses of creativity--crippling growth and stifling innovation in their wake.

Last Congress I worked closely with my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues and others in passing the PRO-IP Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. There is no doubt the PRO-IP bill will ensure that resources are available to enforce intellectual property laws and coordinate the government's intellectual property policies.

Yet there are no laws prohibiting design piracy.

Currently, original designs are copied and the apparel is manufactured in countries with cheap labor, typically in mainland China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Singapore. The garments are then shipped into the U.S. to directly compete with the garments of the original designer, sometimes before the originals have even hit the market. As a result, the U.S. apparel industry continues to lose billions of dollars to counterfeiting each year.

We must ensure that all property rights, including fashion designs, are protected both here and abroad. Counterfeiting and piracy sap our country's economic strength. Plain and simple, when a company loses revenues to piracy or counterfeited goods, it does not have those resources to reinvest into making more of its goods. And that means lost jobs. This domino effect ensnares all within its reach.

These crimes not only affect the individual company, but they also adversely affect the companies that would have contributed to or benefitted from the unmade goods. Suppliers of raw materials and components as well as shippers, distributors, and retailers, all take the hit.

In my home State of Utah, I am mindful of the designers who make a meaningful contribution to the fashion industry. Utah designers like Nappi, Modurrn, and CherellaUSA are committed to quality and original clothing lines. These designers, and many more across the Nation, must know that after spending their time and money in developing new and unique fashion designs, their works are protected from infringers. They should be able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act represents a true compromise. The proposed legislation is the product of an intensive year of negotiations with interested stakeholders. Among other things, the compromise language provides protection to truly unique fashion designs. In order to be considered an infringing design, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a design copy is ``substantially identical.''

I am pleased with the progress that has already been made on the bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reduce and Cap the Federal Workforce Act. This is a simple straightforward bill that would reduce the number of civilian federal employees--excluding those serving in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--to the pre-2009 numbers in each government agency through attrition. Once this reduced number is reached, then each agency would cap the number of employees at that level. Each hire would then have to be offset by another employee leaving that agency.

It is not hard to locate illustrations where the Federal Government is growing at an exceptionally fast pace. Looking at the number of Government employees as a percentage of America's population, one easily sees how we have increased the size of the government.

In 1815, the total population in America was 8.3 million people, yet there were only 4,837 Federal Government employees. That represents nearly \1/20\ of 1 percent of Americans who were Federal employees. From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million.

The Obama administration says the Government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year serving roughly 310 million Americans. That is nearly 1 percent of the population, or put another way, is 20 times the number of government employees than there were in 1815 and almost a 50 percent increase since 2008. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher.

Some have estimated the newly enacted health care bill could add many thousands of Federal employees--as many as 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service employees alone. It has been reported that the recently enacted financial regulatory bill will result in the hiring of at least one thousand new federal government employees. It has been reported the SEC will need to hire an additional 800 employees alone.

I am introducing this legislation in order to ensure that the size of our federal government is reduced to the pre-2009 size and does not expand thereafter. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, and Americans for Limited Government.

I believe we need a limited federal government and this legislation is one way we can limit the size of the Government while decreasing Government spending. Our Nation, children, and grandchildren cannot be buried in debt created by an agenda to exponentially grow the size of the Government. Enough is enough.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, P.L. 109-129, through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign and Franken have joined me as sponsors of this bipartisan bill.

Over the past few months, we have worked with the National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP, and cord blood transplantation experts, specifically Dr. Linda Kelley of the University of Utah and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University. It is my strong hope that our bill is considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions when the Congress returns in mid-September and is signed into law before the end of the year.

Our legislation makes several small but important additions to the existing program.

First, the bill reauthorizes both the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, which is commonly referred to as the Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory program, which is often called the NCBI, for an additional 5 years through 2015.

The total authorization levels for both programs combined would be $53 million in each of the 5 years, thus staying consistent with the authorization level established in the original statute. Specifically, the authorization level for the program would be $30 million in fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $33 million in fiscal year 2015. The authorization levels for NCBI would be $23 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $20 million in fiscal year 2015.

Second, the original statute intended for cord blood banks to become self-sufficient in the future. Five years ago, it was our intent that cord blood banks would eventually be able to function and operate without federal funding. In fact, the HELP Committee's August 31, 2005 report states the following on this important issue: ``The committee anticipated that the funding authorized for establishing and strengthening the cord blood unit inventory will be devoted primarily to defraying the start-up expenses, including developing the expanded inventory in an optimal fashion. While we feel that such activities clearly have the potential to be self-supporting in time, we also recognize that sufficient funding over an adequate period of time will be necessary for these activities to realize their full potential. It is the committee's expectation that the Secretary will closely scrutinize all costs related to this legislation, so that tax dollars are spent judiciously to achieve the maximum effect.''

Almost 5 years have passed since the original statute was signed into law and cord blood banks are still dependent on Federal funding due to the many obstacles surrounding cord blood collection and cord blood storage. Therefore, our bill includes language to the contracting section requiring qualified cord blood banks to develop an annual plan and demonstrate ongoing measurable progress toward achieving self- sufficiency. While I recognize and understand that cord blood donation and collection is a new, challenging field of research, this modification was extremely important to me to ensure that taxpayers' precious dollars are spent prudently and that public cord blood banks are actually doing what the drafters of the original law intended.

The contracting provisions of our bill also require cord blood banks to provide a plan on how to increase cord blood collection, assist with the establishment of new collection sites or contract with new collection sites. Both the self-sufficiency requirements and the cord blood collection requirements would apply to both new cord blood bank applicants and existing cord blood banks extending their contracts.

Third, our bill also calls for the collection and maintenance of at least 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The original statute called for the collection of 150,000 new units, and we believed that there needed to be some flexibility on the total number of units collected.

Fourth, in order to ensure that the appropriate science is reflected in this bill, the legislation modifies the definition of a first degree relative as the sibling of an individual in need of a transplant. According to scientists and researchers who specialize in cord blood transplantation, the only immediate family members able to donate cord blood are the siblings of a person in need of a transplant. The original statute defined first degree relatives as parents and siblings.

Fifth, the Program would support studies and demonstration projects that would study increasing cord blood donation and collection from a genetically diverse population, including exploring novel approaches or incentives to expand the number of cord blood collection sites partnering with federal cord blood banks.

Sixth, our bill extends the privacy protections included in the original statute for cord blood transplant patients and donors to bone marrow transplant patients and donors.

Finally, the legislation includes a study on cord blood donation and collection by the General Accountability Office. The final report would be submitted to the appropriate House and Senate Committees one year after enactment of our bill.

I am proud of this legislation because it proves that bipartisanship still exists in the United States Senate. This subject is near and dear to my heart. When this legislation was signed into law in 2005, it offered us a rare opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those suffering from a serious illness or those who have family members with illnesses requiring cord blood or bone marrow transplants. Back then, our goal was to increase the number of bone marrow and cord blood donors. Today, our goal continues to be increasing the number of bone marrow and cord blood donations and passage of this legislation will make it easier to do just that.

I will continue to do everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. Patients in need of a transplant deserve nothing less and passing this legislation is the pathway to being successful in that endeavor.

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

Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Texas. There is hardly anybody in this body who can equal the expertise and experience he has, not only as an attorney general in his State but also as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. With that experience, he is someone we should all listen to. I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments.

I rise today to discuss the appointment of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate's role of advice and consent is a check on the President's power to appoint--not a substitute for it. At the same time, the Senate's role must be more than an empty formality or a mere rubberstamp.

I have examined Ms. Kagan's record, I participated in her entire hearing before the Judiciary Committee, and I have listened to supporters and opponents both in Utah and across the country.

I can say this: I lectured at Harvard when she was dean at Harvard. I appreciated the way I was treated while I was there. It was clear she probably did not agree with some of the things I was saying, but she was courteous and decent. I like her personally. But if I apply the standard I have consistently used for judicial nominees, that standard leads me to conclude that I just cannot support her appointment.

Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience, which summarizes the past, and judicial philosophy, which describes the future. Two categories of legal experience stand out among the 111 men and women who have served on the U.S. Supreme Court. Two-thirds of them, including every current Justice and the

Justice Ms. Kagan has been nominated to replace, had previously been a judge. The 39 previous Justices who lacked judicial experience had an average of 21 years of legal practice. In other words, Supreme Court Justices have had experience behind the bench as a judge, before the bench as a lawyer, or both.

Ms. Kagan has neither. She was a junior associate in a large law firm for only 2 years. She has never tried a case, never argued before any appellate court before becoming Solicitor General just last year. I am sure the reason they made her Solicitor General was to give her some experience so they could do what they have now done and nominate her to the Supreme Court. Although Harvard law students must contribute at least 40 hours of law-related pro bono service as a condition of graduation, Harvard's former Dean Kagan appears to have done none at all.

Ms. Kagan's experience is, instead, academic and political. One of my Democratic colleagues said here on the floor that Ms. Kagan's best qualifications for the Supreme Court are her experience making policy and her ability to build consensus. I, for one, believe that the line between the political and the judicial is already too blurred. While the political or policy mindset focuses on achieving desirable results, judges must focus on following the right process.

Without any real experience or grounding in the actual practice of law, Ms. Kagan's experience makes me more, not less, skeptical of her suitability for the Supreme Court. It puts even more emphasis on her judicial philosophy, which is the second and more important qualification for judicial service.

As I said at the confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, there must be clear and convincing evidence that a nominee understands the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government. What is the proper role of judges in our system of government? One of my predecessors as Senator from Utah, George Sutherland, served on the Supreme Court for 16 years. He distinguished between interpreting the Constitution and amending it in the guise of interpretation. Confusing the two, he wrote, converts ``what was intended as inescapable and enduring mandates into mere moral reflections.'' These are fundamentally different judicial philosophies that identify inherently different relationships between the judge and the law.

The central confirmation question before us today is what kind of a Justice Ms. Kagan would be. The answer begins with the President who nominated Ms. Kagan. When he was a Senator, President Obama said judges decide cases based on their deepest values, their core concerns, and what is in their heart. As a Presidential candidate, he said he would appoint judges who have empathy for certain groups. As President, he has nominated judges who believe they may find the Constitution's meaning in such things as social practices, evolving norms, practical consequences, and even foreign law. President Obama has clearly taken sides in the judicial philosophy debate.

Ms. Kagan has identified a general and a specific source of evidence for us to examine. She told the Judiciary Committee generally that ``you can look to my whole life for indications of what kind of judge or justice I would be.'' And she told one of my Judiciary Committee colleagues specifically that we can learn a lot about her ``by seeing how I did when I worked at the White House.''

In graduate school, Ms. Kagan wrote that the Supreme Court may overturn previous decisions because, as she put it, ``new times and circumstances demand a different interpretation of the Constitution.'' She wrote that judges may ``mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends.'' Ms. Kagan was describing a judicial philosophy guided by moral reflections rather than by enduring mandates.

When asked about this thesis at her hearing, Ms. Kagan said, ``Let us just throw that piece of work in the trash, why don't we?'' I cannot do that. While every piece of a nominee's record must be viewed in its proper context, I cannot simply ignore whatever may raise questions or doubts about Ms. Kagan's judicial philosophy. It was Ms. Kagan, after all, who told us to examine her whole life for evidence of the kind of Justice she would be. This obviously includes writings such as her Oxford graduate thesis.

Writing as a law professor several years later, Ms. Kagan agreed that in most cases that come before the Supreme Court, the Justice's own experience and values are the most important elements in the decision. If that is too results-oriented, Ms. Kagan wrote, so be it. Well, to be candid about it, it is indeed too results-oriented and echoes the same activist approach Ms Kagan embraced in her graduate thesis.

While Ms. Kagan has not herself been a judge, she has singled out for particular praise judges who share this activist judicial philosophy. In a tribute she wrote for her mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, for example, she described his belief that the Supreme Court today has a mission to ``safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.'' Ms. Kagan did more than simply describe Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy but wrote: ``And however much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.''

Justice Marshall was a pioneering leader in the civil rights movement. He blazed trails, he empowered generations, he led crusades. But he was also an activist Supreme Court Justice. He proudly took the activist side in the judicial philosophy debate. Some on the other side have suggested that honestly identifying Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy for what it is somehow disparages Justice Marshall himself. I assume that this ridiculous and offensive notion is their way of changing the subject because they cannot defend an activist, politicized role for judges.

In 2006, when she was dean of the Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan praised as her judicial hero Aharon Barak, who served for many years on the Supreme Court of Israel. Aharon Barak has been described by U.S. circuit judge Richard Posner, one of the leading lights on the judiciary in this country, as an aggressively interventionist judge who has ``created a degree of judicial power undreamt of by our most aggressive Supreme Court Justices'' and for whom ``the judiciary is a law unto itself.'' Ms. Kagan did not simply describe Justice Barak's judicial philosophy or praise him as a person; she called him ``the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law, and of justice.''

My friends on the other side of the aisle try to spin away Ms. Kagan's praise of Justice Barak by noting that Justice Antonin Scalia once warmly introduced him. But while Justice Scalia said he had ``respect for the man,'' he made clear that he and Justice Barak had ``fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements.'' Ms. Kagan, in contrast, said that Justice Barak was her judicial hero and represented the rule of law better than any other judge. It appears that the very first time she distanced herself from his judicial philosophy was at her confirmation hearing.

When she was dean, Ms. Kagan had opportunities to choose between her personal views and the law. Federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment, requires that military recruiters have equal access to students as other employers. Harvard protested the don't ask, don't tell law regarding military service by homosexuals by allowing military recruiters access not through its Office of Career Services but through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a private group with no office, no staff, and no budget. The Defense Department told Harvard in 2002 that this policy did not comply with the Solomon Amendment.

Ms. Kagan, who had very publicly denounced the military service law, joined a lawsuit challenging the Solomon Amendment. Within 24 hours of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit enjoining it, she again banned military recruiters from the career office even though the ruling did not apply to Harvard, which is in the First Circuit. In other words, she reinstated a policy that she knew violated Federal law and even kept that policy in place when the Third Circuit stayed its own injunction. Ms. Kagan could have opposed the law in various ways but chose to do so in a

way that undermined the military and defied Federal law. Her personal views drove her legal views.

Ms. Kagan also told us to examine her service in the Clinton administration, a period during which she has said she acted as a policy adviser rather than as a lawyer. She was, for example, a key player behind the Clinton administration's extreme abortion policy, including its defense of the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. In a 1996 legislative strategy memo, she labeled as a disaster a proposed statement by a key medical group that there exists no circumstances in which partial-birth abortion is the only option for doctors to take. That was the organization representing the obstetricians and gynecologists. She drafted and persuaded that group to adopt language with a much different political spin. At her hearing, Ms. Kagan offered the implausible claim that she was merely trying to ensure that the medical group accurately expressed its own medical opinion. In other words, the disaster she identified was a PR disaster for the medical group, not a political disaster for the Clinton administration. That is too hard to believe, especially in light of evidence that Ms. Kagan also sought to persuade the American Medical Association to change its similar conclusion that partial-birth abortion is not medically necessary. Political objectives appear to have trumped medical science.

Let's understand what partial-birth abortion is, this barbaric practice. It is where they turn the child around, even a child capable of living on its own outside the womb, until its head is coming first. Then they ram scissors or some other sharp instrument into the back of the skull, suck out the brains, then pull the baby out and say it is not a human being. I don't know anybody who should not consider that tremendously offensive and barbaric.

In May 1997, after President Clinton had vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Ms. Kagan wrote a memo recommending that he support a sham ban offered by Democratic Senators. Everybody here knew it was a sham. She argued that this step might attract votes from Senators who otherwise would vote to override President Clinton's veto. Since the substitutes would not pass--she knew they would not--partial-birth abortion would remain legal. Whether you are for or against abortion, most people find that practice barbaric.

Significantly, however, Ms. Kagan noted that the Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that these substitute bans were unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. There is no indication that she disagreed with this conclusion. The point is that Ms. Kagan urged a purely political position on abortion that was at odds with what the Clinton administration then believed the Constitution required. That is something that really bothered me and I do not think she was forthcoming about it at the hearing. It especially bothered me because it looked once again like politics trumped the law.

Ms. Kagan's hearing did nothing to temper the activist picture that emerges from her record. She chose an approach to answering questions that was far different from what she once argued was necessary for the Senate properly to evaluate nominees and educate the public. I asked three times, for example, if she had written the 1996 memo I discussed a minute ago. Mind you, the memo has her name on it and includes a page of her own handwritten notes. After three tries, Ms. Kagan would say only that it was in her handwriting which I suppose leaves open the possibility that it was forged. It was certainly her prerogative not to give Senators anything meaningful during her hearing, but it leaves the rest of her record as the basis for determining what kind of Justice she would be.

Other Senators will discuss in more depth additional troubling issues raised by her record. These certainly include positions she has taken and arguments she has made that signal a sweeping, unprecedented view of Federal Government power. At the hearing, for example, I questioned her about the troubling position she took before the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. FEC case. She argued that the first amendment allows the Federal Government to determine who may say what, when, and in what manner about political candidates. She argued that the government may ban certain print or electronic books, movies, and pamphlets that mention candidates close to an election. Political speech is the speech perhaps most protected by the Constitution. Yet she argued that the government may silence unions, for-profit corporations, nonprofit groups and even tiny mom-and-pop businesses, if they organize legally as a corporation. Thankfully the Supreme Court sided with freedom of speech.

As if that breathtaking degree of Federal power were not bad enough, Ms. Kagan also worked in the Clinton administration to weaken and limit other individual rights such as the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. In her hearing, Ms. Kagan refused to acknowledge any real limits on the Federal Government's power, which the Supreme Court has already expanded far beyond anything America's Founders intended, to regulate everything imaginable in the name of interstate commerce.

I will summarize. Ms. Kagan's academic and primarily political experience make critical the need for clear and convincing evidence that she is committed to the proper role of judges in our system of government. The critical confirmation question is the kind of Justice Ms. Kagan would be. Will the Constitution control her, or does she believe she may control the Constitution? Looking where she directed me to look, I believe the evidence shows she embraces an essentially activist view of judicial power.

This is a grave decision and it is about more than simply one person. The liberty we enjoy in America requires that the people govern themselves and that, in turn, depends upon the kind of Justices who sit on the highest Court in the land.

George Washington said in his Farewell Address:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the

people to make and to alter their constitutions of

government. But the Constitution which at any time exists,

till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole

people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

Judges who bend the Constitution to their own values, who use the Constitution to pursue their own vision for society, take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself.

As my colleagues can see, I am very worried about this nomination. I never voted against a Supreme Court nominee before when I voted against now Justice Sonia Sotomayor but I think I have been proven right in a number of instances. Let me mention one. She basically said that the Heller case on the right to keep and bear arms was settled law. Yet within a year or so, she voted that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right.

I hope that soon-to-be Justice Kagan proves me wrong. I hope that she will use her legal mind and the abilities she has to uphold rather than tear down the Constitution. I hope she will do what the Founding Fathers expected all Justices on the Court to do. But like Justice Sotomayor, I think the evidence about her judicial philosophy shows that I am right.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe I was next.

Madam President, I rise to express my frustration and disappointment with the decision of the majority leader yesterday that seems to have effectively precluded Republicans from offering amendments to the small business lending bill that is before us today.

Let's understand one thing. Since the health care bill, we have not marked up one bill in the Finance Committee. That is just not right. These bills have been brought to the floor through a rule XIV parliamentary procedure without the impetus and agreement of all of us who are on the Finance Committee. I am not going to blame anybody for that other than to say I don't think that is the proper way to do things. Then we get here on the Senate floor and the majority leader fills up the amendment tree so that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a chance to amend this bill.

Having said that, let me say that the majority leader has put forward this small business lending bill in an ostensible effort to help the economy create more jobs. Of course, this is what every Senator on both sides of the aisle wants to see happen. This is what every American wants to see happen. Yet once again we are faced with an ``it is my way or the highway'' attitude in dealing with this legislation.

Let me be clear. The small business lending bill before us includes many positive provisions. I commend those who have put them in there. It has a number of tax provisions that I fully support and that Republicans and Democrats alike believe would be helpful to small business growth.

Yet, I do not believe that any Member in this Chamber truly believes that this bill would do enough to solve our job creation problem. This is because it ignores the main problems that are afflicting the economy and preventing the kind of job creation that we need right now.

This is exactly why Republicans want to improve this bill. Many parts

of the bill are fine as far as they go. But, again, they do not go nearly far enough.

One of the amendments the Republican leader was trying to get permission to offer to this bill is a motion I would like to make to commit this bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report it back to the Senate with an amendment to address the biggest problem facing small businesses at this time. And that problem is the threat of the largest tax increase in history that is due to hit this country like a monster tsunami in just 155 days.

In just over 5 months from now, on January 1, a good share of America's most prolific potential job creators--small businesses that generally employ between 20 and 500 workers--are going to face large tax increases unless Congress acts to stop them. The problem is that President Obama and many of his allies in Congress have already made it clear that they have no intention of stopping these increases.

The President called on the Senate yesterday to pass this legislation to help small businesses so they can create jobs. But, ironically, he and his supporters just cannot seem to see that their support for allowing these massive tax increases to hit these fastest growing small businesses will do far more harm than the good that could come from this bill as it now stands.

The bill before us, while well intentioned, misses the boat.

The real problem that this bill does not address is that the threat of these tax increases, combined with the other business unfriendly changes this Congress has recently passed, have created such an atmosphere of uncertainty in this country, that no one wants to take the jump and risk their capital on new business ventures or expansions. These other changes include the recently enacted financial regulation bill, the tragically misguided health care bill from earlier this year, and the menace of a monstrous climate bill that still hangs over our heads.

Let us briefly review what it takes to create a private sector job in our economy. First, we need an entrepreneur--a risk taker. Second, we need an idea. Third, we need some capital. Finally, we need some certainty so that the risk the entrepreneur is facing is manageable.

We have plenty of entrepreneurs in our economy. America has always had these, and they are a big part of what has made this country great. We also have lots of good ideas for new businesses. This is another area in which our Nation has never lacked.

We also have lots of capital in our economy. Studies indicate that banks are flush with money and corporations have more cash on their balance sheets that at any time in the past 50 years. Investors have money too and are just waiting for the last ingredient.

And that last ingredient is what is missing. A degree of certainty that the business climate will begin to improve, or at least not get any worse. This means stable tax rates, a manageable level of regulation, and customers who are not worried about the future.

But if we have a situation, as we have now, where the investors and entrepreneurs cannot see any real stability, risk taking freezes up. Everyone decides to stand on the sidelines and wait it out and see how things look in a few months, or next year.

The result of this inaction is that the new expansion to the manufacturing plant is put on hold, the bank loan is not extended, and the new equipment is not ordered. The result, of course, is that the new job is not created, and everyone stands and waits.

Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the administration seem to be puzzled as to why the economy has not yet started to create the jobs we so desperately need. After all, the huge stimulus bill that they pushed through last year was supposed to solve these problems.

A very big part of the reason for this lack of jobs is this terrible uncertainty, which has a corrosive effect on the economy. We need to add the lubricating oil of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and certainty to the engine of economic growth.

Instead, we have been adding the acid of uncertainty to the engine-- uncertainty about higher taxes, uncertainty about a worse regulatory climate, and uncertainty of what might come next. It is small wonder that the engine is not working as it should.

What little certainty that might have existed in the recent past has surely been evaporating because of the President's broken pledge to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year and the Democratic leadership's obvious willingness to allow these huge tax increases to go into effect for millions of Americans.

This attitude is often excused by the misguided belief that the ``rich'' are not paying their fair share of taxes and need to contribute much more to the Treasury.

Many of our colleagues forget that a high percentage of new and small businesses, where most of the new jobs are created in a recession, pay their taxes as individuals. This means that attempts to make the so- called rich pay more will backfire and harm the very people our liberal colleagues are trying to help--those who desperately need employment.

This is not so much a question of fairness as it is of economic reality. If we raise the top rates on individuals, we raise tax rates on small and growing businesses and stifle them from fulfilling their job-creation potential.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, tax increases on those making more than the limits the President has pledged to protect will attack one-half of all small business income. Owners of these small businesses, as well as those who want to invest and start new enterprises, are frozen on the sidelines. They are not going to take the risk as long as these tax increases are hovering on the horizon. As long as they do not act, they will not create those jobs.

Let us look at the calendar. We simply do not have the time to pass small Band-Aid bills when the patient--our underperforming economy-- needs a blood transfusion. We need to address the real problems facing our economy, not play around at the edges. Our first job should be to reduce the uncertainty that is throwing sand into the cylinders of the job creation engine of small businesses, and the first step of this is to remove the threat of these huge tax hikes.

Let us assure investors, entrepreneurs, lenders, and other players in the job creation machine that we will not raise taxes in 5 months. Let us dispel these clouds of uncertainty and let the private sector do what it does best--innovate and create and put America to work.

Having said all that, it is important for me to add to this discussion a few other points.

Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, in last month's issue of the ``American Economic Review'' said this:

. . . tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained,

and highly negative impact on output.

. . . [T]he more intuitive way to express this result is

that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output

effects.

Senator Kent Conrad, our great Budget Committee chairman--and he is also on the Finance Committee--had this to say:

As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or

raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.

That was in the Wall Street Journal on the 23rd of this month.

He also said:

In a perfect world, I would not be cutting spending or

raising taxes for the next 18 months to 2 years. This

downturn is still very much with us, unfortunately.

He said that on CNN on the 26th of this month.

Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska ``supports extending the expiring tax cuts at least until the economy is clearly recovering and supports addressing them before the fall elections.''

Senator Evan Bayh had this to say:

And so raising taxes right now--

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 more minute.

Senator Evan Bayh said:

And so raising taxes right now would be the wrong thing to

do because it would dampen consumer demand and lessen

business investment.

`` `We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea,' Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this week.''

This is a quote from the Wall Street Journal on July 21:

Martin Vaughan and John McKinnon: ``Bush Tax Cuts Split

Democrats.''

``Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest families, could imperil the recovery.''

This is a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22:

Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts

for wealthy from expiring.''

`` `I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to leave tax rates where they are,' said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a freshman Democrat from Virginia. Connolly said Democrats should not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody.''

Again, a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22:

Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts

for wealthy from expiring.''

The leader of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Ben Bernanke, said: ``In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy . . . There are many ways to do that. This is one way.''

I do not blame the distinguished chairman of the committee because we have not marked up these bills. I blame the leadership here for not realizing that is why we have a Finance Committee, to mark up these bills and let both sides have a chance to make them better if they can.

We all have an interest in spurring small businesses and getting the economy going. Bringing these important bills right to the floor and bypassing the Finance Committee, and then doing what has been done on every bill since the health care bill and even before--locking up the parliamentary tree so we cannot have a reasonable shot at even putting up some amendments--is not the way to do business. It is not what creates the bipartisanship we need right now in our Senate.

I wanted to make that point and hope we can change our ways so the Senate will be what it ought to be--the greatest deliberative body in the world.

I thank my colleague from Montana for granting me additional time. I appreciate him as leader of the Finance Committee. I enjoy working with him, and I enjoy working with my colleagues on the other side. But my gosh, let's stop this business of locking up the tree on everything and not debating the way we should, not giving people half a reasonable shot of bringing up their amendments, and, above all, let's start marking up these very important bills in the Finance Committee.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my dear colleague for his kind remarks. I remember those days we spent on this floor, and the days before that, when we had to convince people throughout the Congress that this was the right thing to do; that civil rights for persons with disabilities were absolutely necessary if we were going to be a gracious and understanding country, setting an example for all the rest of the world.

I remember when Senator Harkin and I, after the vote, walked out into the anteroom out there, and there were hundreds of persons with disabilities in their wheelchairs and crutches, with various forms of disability, and both of us stood there and broke down and cried--two tough guys. You know that Senator Harkin was a pilot and went through the war and has a tremendous reputation. I have been tough--too tough for some people around here--from time to time. But we both broke down and cried. And they cried. It was such a wonderful day, as far as I am concerned.

I thank my dear colleague from Iowa for his leadership in this matter. He mentioned all of the others we both want to recognize today. I will not repeat those. I will incorporate that in my remarks today.

This is a very special anniversary. Twenty years ago last week, we stood on the floor of the Senate and voted 91 to 6 to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. Twenty years ago next Monday, President George H.W. Bush signed it into law.

The ADA is landmark civil rights legislation that represents our ongoing commitment to equality and opportunity for our fellow citizens who suffer with disabilities. The ADA is a special type of civil rights statute. On the negative side, it prohibits discrimination and provides for remedies when wrongs occur. But more important, on the positive side, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities in the areas covered by the statute, such as employment. This accommodation obligation is what quite literally opens doors and keeps them open, improving lives in innumerable practical ways on a daily basis.

The original ADA in 1990 and the revision enacted 2 years ago are examples of both how hard legislating can be and the results sticking with it can produce. I know of few policy areas in which--on the surface, at least--political or ideological interests appear to be more at odds. I also know of few policy areas in which the objectives are more important and for which a deep and broad consensus is more crucial to achieve those objectives. Keeping our eyes on the goal helped keep everybody willing to listen, to compromise, and to do what had never been done before. The result has been a transformation in attitudes, perceptions, and actions throughout our society that have helped make countless lives better.

These two statutes, ADA and the ADA Amendments Act, also demonstrate that it is Congress that is responsible for national disability policy. Lawsuits, of course, bring the courts into the picture, and the Supreme Court was called upon to construe and apply the ADA on some questions the ADA itself did not clearly or directly address. I, for one, believe the courts must take statutes as they are and may not make or change them in order to achieve certain results. But whether or not the Court did its part properly, the Constitution gives the power to legislate to Congress. That is why, even if the Court had not had any such cases at all, we have the authority and the ongoing responsibility to establish, revise, and refine laws that help Americans with disabilities. That responsibility will never end.

I am pleased with my role in developing and passing both the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act. I am pleased to have been able to partner with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa. I am proud to stand here today with that friend, Senator Harkin, without whom these statutes would not have been possible. I know these are more than simply statutes, more than pieces of legislation; it is what they represent--our ongoing commitment to making sure individuals with disabilities can participate in the American dream--that makes these statutes so important and this anniversary so very special.

I have seen those who are blind now taken care of, in many cases. I have seen those with various disabilities who are able to get jobs and show they are capable--not only capable but better than capable--of doing some things people never thought they could do. I have seen persons with serious disabilities who have become productive members of our society because they

have been given a chance. I have seen persons of courage in this area that I have never seen before, who literally live with their disabilities every day with smiles on their face, with an ability to be able to encourage others, and with an exemplary approach to life that makes all of us better people. I think these things have been magnified and blessed by these two acts that my colleague and I and others have been able to put through. I am proud of what we have done. I believe millions of people are better off because of what we have done.

This is a very appropriate thing to do--to recognize the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the other statute as well, so that everybody in this country realizes they are part of making these statutes work. I am so pleased with all of our American citizens who have pitched in and done what they could, from architects, to engineers, to skilled tradesmen, as I used to be, who have really made it possible for people to not only embrace life but to be a part of life and to be able to have the accessibility they never had before, and we are a better nation for it. Our people are better for it. Above all, these folks who have suffered with disabilities, who are so courageous, are better for it.

I will never forget, I mentioned when we passed the original ADA that I carried my brother-in-law, who was afflicted with both types of polio and, of course, lived in an iron lung but went on to get his college degree in engineering and a master's degree in electrical engineering-- he worked for Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier in Las Vegas, went to work every day and at night got into an iron lung at home. He was a member of my Mormon faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I can remember carrying him, with his very light weight, through the Los Angeles Temple for church. It was meaningful to both him and me. I carried him in my arms all the way through that temple. It was a spiritual experience for both of us.

I have seen so many others who have suffered from disabilities whose lives have been improved and are better because of what has been done in the Congress of the United States. Again, I pay tribute to my friend Senator Harkin. He understands this as well as anybody and has played a significant and perfect role in helping to bring these things to pass. I have nothing but respect and great love for my colleague and for the others who voted for this particular bill. I am glad to be able to support this resolution, to cosponsor it, and I hope and pray that all of us will continue to help those who may not be as fortunate as are we, who suffer from disabilities, and realize that they are just as productive in our society, in most ways, as we are.

I am grateful to be able to stand here today and make these comments.

I yield the floor.

It was.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for his kind remarks, but I also recognize his great leadership. This is a complex set of issues. We had complexities among the groups. We had to bring them all together and work with them. We had to try to resolve conflicts between liberals and conservatives, as usual. We also had to work very carefully with various personalities. But we were able to get it done. In large measure, it was due to the work of my friend from Iowa. I think people in the disability community and really throughout the country ought to be very grateful for what he has done. I am grateful to have been able to have played a small role in helping him to do it.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Herb Kohl, in introducing a resolution to designate September 13-19, 2010, as National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week.

Polycystic kidney disease, also known as PKD, is a life-threatening, genetic disease which affects more than 12.5 million adults and children worldwide. PKD is of significant interest to me because many Utahns suffer from this illness. The PKD Foundation estimates that roughly 5,000 Utahns have PKD; and ESRD instances in Utah are almost three times the national average.

A kidney affected by PKD will develop cysts ranging in size from that of a pinhead to the size of a grapefruit. These fluid-filled cysts increase the size and weight of the kidney from what is normally the size of a human fist to as large as a football. This condition causes great pain and is extremely dangerous to kidney function. As PKD progresses a person may acquire other diseases and disorders such as urinary tract infections, hypertension, and kidney stones. In its most progressive stage, PKD results in kidney failure, or end-stage renal disease, ESRD, for which the only help available is dialysis or a kidney transplant.

Autosomal dominant PKD is the most common form of the disease and affects one in every 500 people. This type of PKD is commonly diagnosed in adulthood. Children born to an affected parent have a 50 percent chance of inheriting the disease themselves. In less prevalent cases, a child may be diagnosed with autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease, ARPKD. ARPKD kills approximately 30 percent of infants diagnosed within the first month of life--and of the 70 percent who survive infancy, one-third will require a kidney transplant by the age of 10.

There is no cure for PKD. Although minimal treatments can alleviate pain, and a healthy lifestyle can delay kidney failure, currently the only way to truly stop the symptoms is by transplantation. Yet, there is hope in science, awareness, and education.

To cure PKD could mean billions of dollars in savings to Medicare and Medicaid. Greater yet, it would offer relief to the suffering endured by the millions of people living with this dreadful disease.

With improved awareness and education comes a greater ability to find a cure. That is why Senator Kohl and I have introduced this resolution every year since 2007 to designate a National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this important measure.