Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to the Baucus Medicare bill, and there is reason to oppose at this time.

I will keep my comments brief, but I wish to make one point perfectly clear. I have said, time and time again, I am willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get a bipartisan Medicare bill through the Senate. I have always prided myself on being someone who is fair, honest, and who wants to get the job done. Unfortunately, others in this body don't seem to want to get the job done, and that disappoints me more than most of you will ever know.

My biggest frustration is we are not that far apart. Both sides wish to restore physician Medicare payments so doctors are not cut by 10 percent on July 1. We also agree we need to implement the provisions on e-prescribing, electronic health records--where my home State of Utah is the leader--and value-based purchasing for Medicare providers and beneficiaries. We both believe a strong, robust rural health care package is necessary and, therefore, should be included in the Medicare package. Both the Democratic and Republican Medicare bills include marketing reforms for Medicare Advantage plans in order to ensure beneficiaries are treated with respect and are given truthful and helpful information so they may choose the Medicare Advantage plan that best suits their personal needs. Medicare Advantage has worked amazingly well. Democrats want to take the ``pay for'' out of the Medicare Advantage plans, and 90 percent of the people in this country who are on Medicare Advantage want to continue on it because they believe they are better treated. They are, as a matter of fact. It is a system that works. Why change it?

We include provisions that would allow both hospital-based renal dialysis centers and skilled nursing facilities to be sites for telehealth services. As a strong supporter of telehealth services, I am very supportive of this provision, and both bills have it in.

Finally, both bills extend the Special Diabetes Program for 2 more years. This program is very important to me. So as you can see, we agree on a lot. Unfortunately, the two outstanding issues, in my opinion, are Medicare beneficiary protections and offsets.

The Baucus Medicare provisions include provisions that would increase Medicare beneficiary protections in the Medicare Program. It would increase the low-income subsidies for beneficiaries, extend the availability of the ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical examination from 6 months to 1 year.

I wish to make it clear our side could support these beneficiary changes, but we are very concerned about the impact these changes would have on long-term entitlement spending. The prices are going to continue to ramp up all the time, and our friends on the other side don't ever seem to worry about that. With 76 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, the Medicare Program is already headed for serious fiscal disaster. So we need to be thoughtful about these provisions and not just do what our colleagues on the other side want to do.

Therefore, we believe it makes sense to means test the Medicare Part D beneficiary premiums for higher income beneficiaries. Although my friends on the other side are constantly arguing that the rich don't pay their fair share, unfortunately, when we suggested this, colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and, in fairness, some on our side as well--objected to means testing Part D premiums. I do not understand their objections.

We already means test Medicare Part B premiums, and that had bipartisan support. Making that change would not only have wealthier beneficiaries shouldering a greater share of their Part D premiums, it could also pay for some of the beneficiary protections included in the Baucus Medicare bill.

It is greatly disappointing to me that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not willing to accept this offset. In fact, we have been told pointblank that they cannot support increasing Part D premiums for rich Medicare beneficiaries in order to provide more assistance and benefits to lower income seniors. That is despite the fact that they have cut some very serious programs for the poor in order to find offsets for some of the things they want to do. I am going to say it again. I do not understand it. Especially since both sides supported means-tested Medicare Part B premiums.

Hopefully, we will be able to change their minds when we begin our work to improve the Medicare Program so it will be more efficient for both beneficiaries and providers. That is the reason why we should vote against cloture, so our friends on the other side have to come together with us to have a better bill, and I believe we can.

The second major issue concerns the offset used in the Baucus bill to pay for its provisions. The White House has told us, time and time again, the President will only be able to accept very minimal reductions to the Medicare Advantage Program. Time and time again he has said that. Otherwise, he is going to veto the bill.

That is why Senator Grassley and I have insisted the White House be included in the Senate Medicare negotiations. We do not want to send a Medicare bill to the White House that is going to be vetoed and, therefore, put the physicians' Medicare payments in jeopardy. It is another reason to vote against cloture, so we don't go through the charade we will have to go through if we don't.

But that is exactly what is going to happen if the Baucus Medicare gets cloture today. It will probably pass the Senate and then be considered by the House of Representatives. The House will make changes to the bill, too, that will probably not be acceptable to the White House. Then the Senate will have to consider the Medicare bill with the House's changes before it is sent to the White House for a certain veto. It is ridiculous. Why do they have to do a partisan bill? Why not work with us, since we want to work with them?

We will not have the votes to override the President's veto of the Medicare bill, so we will be back to square one and we will have wasted a lot of time and maybe even have done some very bad damage.

I believe the Grassley Medicare legislation, which I strongly support, would not suffer the same fate as the Baucus legislation. That is why I believe this bill should be considered by the Senate instead of the Baucus Medicare bill. We are so close together on almost all these provisions, except for these few I have mentioned. The Grassley bill is a better bill. The President will sign it into law.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the major differences between the Grassley Medicare bill and the Baucus Medicare legislation.

On this chart, first, as you can see the Grassley Medicare bill encourages e-prescribing sooner rather than later.

The Grassley bill requires physicians to e-prescribe by 2010, while the Baucus bill delays mandatory e-prescribing until 2011.

In addition, the Grassley Medicare bill repeals the Deficit Reduction Act provision on the transfer of ownership of oxygen equipment to Medicare beneficiaries. The Baucus bill cuts Medicare payments for oxygen and oxygen equipment. It is somewhat shocking to me, but that is what they do.

On durable medical equipment for competitive bidding, the Grassley bill includes a sense of the Senate to delay competitive bidding for durable medical equipment for 18 months. The Baucus Medicare proposal as filed does not even address competitive bidding.

Let's go to chart No. 2.

The Grassley bill also has provisions on hospital value-based purchasing. The Baucus Medicare bill does not include a similar provision. You would think we would want to go to hospital value-based purchasing.

The Baucus Medicare bill reduces the Medicare reimbursement rates for power wheelchairs, of all things. The Grassley Medicare bill does not cut Medicare payments for power wheelchairs. You would think we could get together on that.

The Grassley Medicare bill provides continued relief for hospitals with high numbers of undocumented individuals. The Baucus bill does not include a similar provision. Again, as anybody can plainly see, the Grassley bill is a better option.

I am going to conclude with one very valid and important point. My colleagues need to vote against cloture today so we can begin work on a bipartisan bill that will be signed by the President. We do not need to be wasting our time going back and forth on a bill that does not have a chance of becoming law. In fact, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work immediately so we can get this legislation to the White House before the July 1 deadline. Otherwise, our Medicare beneficiaries and doctors participating in the Medicare Program will lose. But you know who the biggest loser will be in this process. That is the Senate, because we have failed to do our job, therefore letting down both Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare providers.

I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture to avoid this terrible situation and to take the more appropriate, better designed, and more compassionate bill. Frankly, that is what our bill is. I just hope our colleagues will see this and vote against cloture.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator, my friend from California. She is an excellent Senator and a very good person. She certainly tries to bring both sides of the aisle together. Over the years we have had a number of disagreements, but that is part of the legislative process. However, that has never diminished the respect that I have for her.

Yet the fact is, I disagree with her regarding the Supreme Court's decision. This decision, written by Justice Kennedy, gives terrorists one of the most important rights enjoyed by the people of the United States.

We face difficult times ahead. Many have legitimate concerns about the prospect of closing Guantanamo Bay and then housing these alleged terrorists somewhere within the continental United States.

These are not easy questions. However, I do not believe that the Supreme Court has provided the correct answer.

Our government has publicly stated that there have been three instances in which waterboarding has been used. In one of those instances, it was used against a leading terrorist who actually masterminded the terrible incidents that occurred on 9/11.

These are interesting and difficult issues. I certainly appreciate the anguish and the feelings of those who believe, as the distinguished Senator from California does, that we should provide these alleged terrorists every right that the American people have, in spite of the fact that these terrorists do not represent a country, do not wear a uniform, are willing to kill innocent human beings, and are willing to have their own children blow themselves up. We have never before faced these types of events in our society. Yet it is important that we not ignore them. We are dealing with people who do not abide by the norms of the world.

Some concerned people ask, why should the terrorists have the rights that everybody else has? Are we not binding future Presidents who may face even greater terrorist threats? Will the next President be able to get the information we need to protect the American people? We know there are terrorists who would, if they could, not bat an eyelash as they used a nuclear weapon against the innocent.

Sometimes we have to take stern measures to deal with these types of people. It is always nice to be concerned about people's feelings and about people's rights, even those of terrorists, but sometimes we have to be practical and pragmatic and do the things that have to be done to protect the American people, and our citizens overseas.

These are tough issues. We should all work together to try to resolve them. There are many who will believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision and others, such as myself, who believe that the Court made a lousy decision.

However, I uphold the Supreme Court, even though it was a 5-to-4 decision. Nevertheless, it is a decision by one-third of the separated powers of this country, and must be recognized as such.

Having said all that, I admire my friend from California. She knows it. We have worked together on a whole raft of issues through the years. I appreciate her sincere leadership in the Senate and will always appreciate knowing her and having the experience of calling her my friend.

Energy

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to address arguments by my friends on the other side of the aisle related to energy production. Some Democrats are complaining that oil companies own tens of millions of acres of oil and gas leases on Federal lands that they are just sitting on.

Now, that is an interesting way of formulating an argument because some are obviously trying to paint a picture of oil companies holding back production purposely to raise gas prices. Some Democrats have argued that the oil companies are purposefully holding back production to raise gas prices, and others are arguing that this fact makes it totally fine to close off all our good offshore oil and natural gas and all our oil shale and tar sands because there are undeveloped leases on public lands right now. Here we go again with the anti-oil agenda of the more extreme environmentalists, which the Democratic leadership has adopted as their own energy policy--or should I say anti-energy policy, which is what I believe it to be.

Take oil shale alone. We have an estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil in the tristate area of Colorado, Wyoming, and my home State of Utah. There is anywhere from 800 billion at the low end to 1.6 trillion barrels that are recoverable, and recoverable at a much lower price than the $135 we are paying for oil, but we're being told we can't develop it.

It is true that there are tens of millions of acres of leases held by oil companies. But it is also true that they are being developed as fast as possible. Guess what. You cannot develop a lease on Federal land unless you have a permit to drill, and there is a very large backlog in the permitting process on Federal lands. It is the job of the Bureau of Land Management to issue these permits, and I don't blame them for the backlog because they are working as hard and as fast as they can. All of the environmental work has to be done before one of these permits can be given. Our Nation happens to have very stringent environmental laws on oil and gas drilling.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I supported an effort pushed by the senior Senator from New Mexico, who has been one of the most prescient forces in our Senate on energy and who was chairman of the Senate Energy Committee at the time, to put more funds toward the permitting process, and that has helped to a certain degree.

What proof do we have that our oil companies are trying their hardest to develop their leases? Let's look at the numbers. In the year 2000, the BLM gave out 3,413 permits for oil drilling. In 2007, just this last year, the BLM gave out 7,124 permits for oil drilling. In the year 2000, oil companies drilled 2,341 new oil wells. In 2007, again just this last year, they drilled 4,640 new wells. In other words, in the last 7 years, oil companies have more than doubled their effort to develop their leases on Federal lands. I am not sure how an industry that is literally doubling its efforts to supply our energy needs can be painted as ``sitting on their leases.'' I don't blame the liberals in Congress for not understanding this because it seems as if they get almost everything they know about energy from the most extreme environmentalists in our society who have no problem with seeing our people suffer as long as their anti-oil agenda moves forward. That is the best you can call it, an anti-oil agenda.

In Utah, we have leases, and we have a lawsuit every time somebody tries to develop anything. It is ironic because the extreme environmentalists know perfectly well that oil companies are drilling as fast as they can on these leases. How can they be so sure, one may ask. I know for sure because I have watched these groups do everything in their power through protests, lawsuits, and policy changes to slow the oil companies down. The oil companies could do a much greater job if they did not have all of these lawsuits, slowdowns.

The Federal Government spends a large portion of its public land management budget fighting these lawsuits. I have heard estimates that during certain periods, up to 50 percent of the Bureau of Land Management budget has gone to litigation costs. That is pathetic. Can you imagine what could be done for our habitat, our forest lands, BLM lands, and so many other things if we didn't have all of that money being spent on lawsuits?

It is ridiculous for these radical groups to do everything in their power to stop energy production on our public lands and then sell an argument to liberal Members of Congress that oil companies are not trying hard enough to drill on their own leases. They would drill a lot more if they had the leases and no lawsuits in areas where they actually have leases.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Our country simply cannot afford to promote an anti-oil agenda. It is an agenda that will cause the most harm to our poorest citizens. The poorest among us spend 50 percent of their income on energy prices mainly to get to work or to buy groceries. I hope my well-intentioned but sometimes misguided friends in Congress keep that in mind.

We have it within our power to alleviate a lot of pressure on the price of oil. If we just announced tomorrow that we are going to go forward and do more oil and gas exploration offshore and developing our oil shale in that tristate area, the price of oil could drop simply from the announcement. The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the other countries do not have the ability to flood the world with oil and to bring the prices down anymore. There is such an insatiable demand for the current oil that is being developed.

I heard familiar arguments against oil shale during the Clinton administration in 1995: It will take 10 years to develop oil shale, they said. Here we are 13 years later, and now they are saying: It will take 10 years to develop oil shale. What if we had started to do it then in a realistic fashion and we were able to get that 100,000 to 1 million barrels of oil out of each acre of oil shale in the productive areas of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--keep in mind, abiding by very stringent environmental concerns? It is mind-boggling to me.

Yesterday, I was on a radio show in my State, one of the most popular radio shows. The announcer said: Why aren't you for the Democratic Energy bill? I briefly said: Well, it is not an energy bill, it is a regulatory bill that will stifle energy development.

Back in the last years of the Carter administration, they put on a windfall profits tax that cost us 129 million barrels of oil and sent this country into a downward spiral. If you tax something, you get less of it. That is just a simple fact of life. But that is what my colleagues are doing in their ``energy'' bill.

I am the author, along with some other wonderful colleagues on both sides of the aisle, of the CLEAR Act. It took us 5 years to get the CLEAR Act through, if I recall it correctly, something that should be a no-brainer for anybody.

We now have the Freedom Act, which will give economic incentives for the development of plug-in hybrids and other kinds of battery-operated electric cars. I just saw one today that is all electric, it goes more than 200 miles on a charge and goes from zero to sixty in less than 4 seconds. The problem is it costs around $100,000 to buy. But future models will be cheaper, and plug-in hybrids will be affordable for average citizens.

But today, and tomorrow, and for quite a while, we're going to need oil. I cannot believe we in this body cannot acknowledge that for many years from now, we are going to have to use our oil, our coal, our natural gas, and we are not going to be well off if we do not.

I am proud to tell you that I believe we have some 22 natural gas- providing gas stations in Utah for natural gas-driven vehicles. We could do that all over the country. We have 22 of them, and those people are driving their vehicles--mainly Honda Civics--at a rate of 68 cents per equivalent gallon of gas. If we would move into these types of situations--yes, it would take us years to get there, and it takes oil to fill up those intervening years--if we would move that way and acknowledge that this is what we have to do, within 10 to 15 to 20 years, we would become very energy independent.

If we would develop our offshore oil instead of letting China and Cuba and other countries come offshore and take our oil because we will not allow it to be done--let the States have control over it. The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from Florida. If Florida does not want energy development offshore, that is Florida's concern, as far as I am concerned. But we stop it here. There are a number of other places, such as Virginia, that would love to be able to do this and would help alleviate the dependency we have right now in our country.

I wish we could get around these extremists who seem to control the liberal agenda. I wish we would work together to provide a means whereby we can overcome these problems together and keep our country strong.

We are sending upwards of $700 billion every year to other countries for foreign oil, much of which comes from countries that are not all that friendly to us, and it is ridiculous. It is time that we wake up and do something about it.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I am sorry to have gone on. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks regarding the recent actions by the Democratic leadership in Congress with regard to oil prices.

I have no problem with Democrats calling in the oil company executives to make sure they aren't violating antitrust laws. I am convinced oil speculation contributes too much to the price of oil and we need to take a serious look at that, but focusing on those concerns alone is no substitute for a realistic energy policy.

There are a number of environmental groups who just plain oppose oil production. What is worrisome is that it seems Democrats controlling Congress have adopted the anti-oil agenda of the environmental movement as an outlet of their own energy policy.

So far, I have heard proposals to tax successful energy production, to investigate the oil futures markets, to ban Canadian oil imports in favor of oil from Venezuela, Russia, and the Middle East, and to call for delay after delay in the commercial production of oil shale. At times, it almost appears that the anti-oil agenda is the only element of the Democratic energy policy. Their policies would not produce one drop of oil. This so-called Energy bill they have will not produce one drop of oil. In fact, they would definitely have the opposite effect-- their bills.

Is it so hard to see that less oil means higher prices and economic harm and more oil means lower prices and economic benefits? I am not sure the Democratic leadership in Congress really understands this. They seem to be completely immune to the facts when it comes to energy policy.

They especially don't seem to understand that the price of oil is set by a global market. Unlike electricity, which is handled regionally in the United States, oil prices are set globally. About 75 percent of the price of gasoline is set by the global price for crude oil before it is even refined. U.S. taxes make up another 13 percent of

the cost of a gallon of gas. So that explains 88 percent of the cost of the gasoline. All the refining, distribution, and marketing of the oil has to be made up in the remaining 12 percent of the cost of gasoline.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be surprised to learn that the Federal Government already makes more on gasoline taxes than the oil companies do in profits. That is fine with me, except I think people would be astounded to find that actually happened. That is right. I hope our taxpayers remember that when we point to oil company profits. The Government is already raking in more money from oil than the oil companies are getting.

Yet our Government does not explore for oil. It does not produce one drop of oil. It does not refine one drop of oil. It does not build 1 foot of oil pipeline. Yet some of my colleagues want even more money from the oil company portfolio and profits.

This is where the taxpayers should be paying very close attention. If our taxpayers are smart--and I believe they are, although they are not getting the facts--their hands will be reaching to protect their wallets because guess who is paying all this money to the Government in the form of taxes on oil companies. That is right; it is our taxpayers. It is our consumers. It is Joe Smith going to the gas station. It is a pretty nasty game to tell our citizens we are taking profits from big, bad rich oil companies and then forget to tell the taxpayers they will be the ones who ultimately will bear just about every cent of any new taxes.

Let's talk about these big, bad American oil companies for a minute. I wonder if the Democratic leadership in Congress is aware that 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are owned and controlled by foreign government-run corporations. If you put all the big, bad American oil companies together, they only control about 6 percent of the world's oil. That is a fact. They cannot rebut that fact.

We send more than $600 billion--now approaching $700 billion--each year to countries that are a lot smarter about energy than we are because they are willing to explore and develop their own resources, and we are not.

We have the Chinese coming within a few miles of our shore and taking our oil because they are willing to explore for it and reap the benefits of it--and right off our shores. We are not permitted to do that. What kind of energy policy is that? Think about it. That is $600 billion to $700 billion each year that we will never get back. But my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to have a problem with that.

Here we are, one of the biggest energy consumers on Earth, and we send out our small-fry oil companies--with only 6 percent of the world's oil--into the world to compete with these giant national corporations and conglomerates in other countries in a global market controlled by nations that aren't necessarily our friends.

Then we want to stop U.S. companies from developing all the good oil resources available in this country. We try to take away their profits, drag them in front of congressional hearings, and blame them whenever the global price goes up.

I hate to tell you, but Government is one of the biggest reasons why the price of oil is so high right now--our Government.

So far, we don't have actual oil shortages in the world, but we have a very low level of spare capacity. That has done a lot to raise speculation on the futures market. A lack of spare capacity means any serious disruption in the world can lead to real shortages, and the futures markets reflect that fear. Holding hearings on the futures market isn't going to make those fears go away, and it is not going to produce one drop of oil to help us or bring down the price for our consumers or help Joe Smith or Joe Jones to be able to afford gas for their cars.

Investors need to know we are finding a new barrel of oil for every barrel we sell. But that is not what they are seeing. At the same time, they are seeing that ethanol has major limits as a replacement fuel. Ninety-seven percent of transportation fuel is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and it makes up less than 3 percent, as far as liquid fuel goes. I am opposed to mandates for ethanol, but I have been one of the Senate's leading supporters of incentives for ethanol and other alternative transportation fuels. I am the author of the CLEAR Act, which provides economic stimulation to develop hybrid cars, and the author of the Freedom Act, which also leads to economic incentives for plug-in hybrids and other forms of high-mileage vehicles.

I am one of the Senate's leading supporters for ethanol and other transportation fuels. While other folks are just blowing off about it, we have actually put language in law that increased the ability to do these fuels. But even at that, it is only 3 percent of what we need in this country.

I am also a realist about the fact that there is no way ethanol can put a major dent in our need for fossil fuels. So far, it is the only major alternative fuel on which we can currently count.

That may be a fact that liberals and environmentalists wish to ignore, but it is a fact. They can talk all they want about wind, solar, and geothermal, but last time I checked, planes, trucks, and ships don't run on electricity; they run on fossil fuels and so do our cars.

We should be grateful that Canada has now become our largest supplier of energy. They are a friendly, stable partner on whom we can rely. They are our friends, and they are producing more and more oil from oil sands every day. Canada now holds more oil reserves than every country in the world, except Saudi Arabia. They are pumping 1.3 million barrels a day down to us, and what do the liberals in Congress want to do? They pass a law barring the Federal Government from purchasing from the oil sands in Canada. They say it is because oil sands have a big greenhouse gas footprint, but what they forget to say is, shipping fuel all the way from the Middle East also has a big greenhouse gas footprint--and probably more. But liberals would rather be dependent on the Saudis and the Russians and Venezuela than offend environmental groups.

Here in the States, we have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming than the rest of the world combined. We have a Federal law that layers on every available environmental protection but also would allow companies to develop this resource that is 10 times richer in oil than a normal oil well.

So what do the liberals do? They put a 1-year moratorium on the release of commercial leasing regulations. Some on the other side say they don't want it to happen too fast. I do. I sure would like to be able to bring these prices down. This would bring them down.

I congratulate the liberals because the existing law, which I sponsored, makes it abundantly clear that each Governor gets to decide how quickly development should move forward in their respective States, and they know that. The Democrats know that. If a Governor doesn't want to move forward on oil shale, that Governor can say no.

What they are doing is making sure the Governor of Utah or Wyoming never gets a chance to make that decision. So now we have companies that have spent tens of millions of dollars in good faith, and they are just plain getting shut down by what I consider a neanderthal approach to energy in the Senate--and in the House of Representatives; let's not leave them out. They are even worse than we are, in some ways. I am talking about the liberals.

How are they supposed to go out--these companies--and attract investors, when Congress is acting to stop regulations for commercial leases so they can do some of these things?

Environmental elitists tend to point to concerns about water usage, land usage, wildlife habitat, and air quality--all very valid concerns. So let's have a look at them.

Corn needs about 780 barrels of water for a barrel of ethanol, and more than 1,000 barrels for the equivalent of a barrel of oil. Then it needs another three barrels to turn the corn into liquid fuel. That is a crazy amount of water, but it works out all right so far because it is grown in rainy areas. But if we want to increase the amount of ethanol available, we are going to have to move toward irrigation, and then there will be major limits to how much we can afford to grow.

On the other hand, to mine, process, upgrade, and do land restoration, DOE estimates that oil shale will require a total of three barrels of water for every

barrel of oil. In terms of water, oil shale is hundreds of times better for the environment.

Let's talk about land use and wildlife habitat.

One acre of corn produces 7 to 10 barrels of ethanol, or the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil.

One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 barrels to 1 million barrels of oil. Nobody disputes that, that I know. I will repeat that. I hope those concerned about land use and wildlife habitat are listening carefully. One acre of corn produces 7 to 10 barrels of ethanol, or the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 barrels to 1 million barrels of oil. In terms of land use, oil shale is at least 20,000 times better for the environment than ethanol. I am for ethanol, don't get me wrong, but think of those facts.

A couple months ago, an article came out how the city of Aspen in Colorado has been besieged with building applications, equating to about $2 million worth of development a day. If we could stem the growth a little in Aspen and save, let's say, a hundred acres of those beautiful forests from all that development, and instead allow development of 100 acres of much less desirable land where the oil shale in Colorado is, we could produce up to 100 million barrels of oil with no net loss of habitat. Ironically, the local governments in Colorado's oil shale areas support oil shale development, but the liberals in the State are stopping the regulations that would allow it.

Some critics of oil shale and tar sands production have raised air quality concerns. Let's be clear; there is no aspect of oil shale development that would exempt industry from any Federal or State air quality laws or regulations. In fact, these industry members plan to comply and even exceed air quality requirements. These companies also express a readiness to address climate change questions on the same schedule that other industries may be required to control carbon emissions.

One Utah company is now building a pilot plant to demonstrate their ability to produce upgraded syncrude from oil shale with little or no carbon emissions.

The poorest Americans spend about 50 percent of their income on energy, and not enough is being said about that. The sad thing is that the poor look to the liberals to make national policies for them, but in this case, they are being sold out.

It is clear the environmentalists have an anti-oil agenda. The question for this Congress is whether we can afford to adopt that agenda as part of a national energy policy. We should be promoting all forms of alternative fuels, and I am for that. But the fact is that when it comes to transportation fuel, which is where our crisis is, we are dependent on oil, and there is no combination of alternatives that can change that right now. It would be nice to pretend we are not dependent on oil, that we can skip immediately to some yet-to-be identified alternative, 30 years down the line. But we can't. Truckers and farmers need diesel today. Moms need to get to soccer and ballet practice tonight. Americans want to visit national parks this summer. The sooner we understand this, the sooner we can address the energy crisis we are facing today.

This is pathetic. We have it within our means to develop our own oil to solve our own problems, to bring these prices down, to be independent, to do the things that keep America strong, to keep our environment and economy strong, and to do it in an environmentally friendly way that is already on the books. Yet when you look at the energy program the Democrats brought up on the floor, it doesn't produce one drop of this oil that is so critical to all these needs. Yet we have it within our power to solve these problems. I hope we wake up around here and get rid of the doggone partisanship and do what we have to do to provide for the energy needs of this country. We can no longer afford to let the whacko, extreme environmentalists--who are in the game for politics, rather than to help the American people--control this country the way they do. I think it is time for our friends on both sides of the aisle to stand and say enough is enough. Let's become energy independent and energy secure.

I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for allowing me this extra time. I did not have anything to do with what happened this morning, nor did I know it was going to happen. Let me say that my colleague has always been gracious and kind to me. I have a great admiration for him. I am sorry I took the extra 2 minutes.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator for his remarks. I felt particularly bad because I went 4 or 5 minutes over on my questioning, with his agreement, and then he got cut off on his questions. I wanted the Senator to know that. I appreciate his remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the impasse--the completely avoidable impasse--that we face with regard to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, which, if I'm not mistaken, is intended to provide much-needed funds and resources for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'll have to pardon my confusion because, looking over the substance of the bill in front of us, it is difficult to determine exactly what purpose it is meant to serve.

There has been in this and in virtually every recent election year a sensitivity among those on the other side of the aisle whenever anyone questions their support for our Nation's military and their commitment to national security. Indeed, it seems that any time these issues are mentioned, whether it is by the President, those of us in Congress, or by candidates running for office, Republicans are accused of ``questioning their patriotism'' or engaging in the ``politics of fear.''

Certainly, I don't believe that we should question the patriotism of those in the Senate majority. I believe that every one of them loves their country and that there is no one in this chamber who does not honor and respect our nation's military. However, while the majority's patriotism should not be subject to question, their judgment on these issues is fair game.

Frankly, after the recent FISA debacle and now the absurd course being taken on this emergency supplemental, I believe that the Democrats in Congress have given all of us reason to question their judgment.

As I stated, the purpose of this bill is to provide much-needed funding for our troops in harms way. However, it appears that the Democrats see this--not as an opportunity to support our military, but as a vehicle for unrelated, nonemergency funding for a number of their pet programs. In this time when the American people are clamoring for more fiscal discipline in Congress, the majority has decided to tack onto a war supplemental billions of dollars in domestic spending, none of which was requested by the President and all of which is unrelated to supporting the troops.

For example, the bill includes $1.2 billion for a science initiative, $1 billion for government-funded energy assistance, nearly half a billion each for transportation projects and wildfires, and $200 million for the U.S. census--an event that has taken place every 10 years since 1790. They have also added more than $60 billion in mandatory spending relating to unemployment insurance extensions--in a time of very low unemployment, no less--and veterans education benefits.

Now, I am sure that many of these are worthwhile endeavors deserving of the Senate's time and attention. However, they can and should all be debated separately and should not be tied to funding for the troops.

Given these efforts to add such a large number of unrelated and nonemergency provisions, is it really unreasonable for the American people to conclude that supporting the troops is not the majority's highest priority?

Certainly, they'll want all of us to believe otherwise. In fact, I am fairly sure that there is a Democrat somewhere watching me give this speech preparing a response that accuses me of practicing the ``politics of fear.''

But when Members of the Senate majority flatly refuse to provide resources for the troops without unrelated spending, what other conclusion is there for the rest of us to draw?

It gets worse. I wish that the added funding was the worst thing about this bill. Unfortunately, it is the least of our worries.

In addition to the nonemergency spending, the Democrats have once again attempted to use a bill that funds our troops as an opportunity to play armchair quarterback with the conduct of the war.

The majority knows that the inclusion of this provision guarantees that the President will veto the bill. One also has to assume that they know that they do not have the votes to override such a veto. Yet, once again, we are about to send to the President a bill that conditions our support for the troops on his agreement to supplant the judgment of his military commanders with the political whims of the Senate majority.

This comes at a time when even the most strident opponents of the war have begun to acknowledge our military's successes on the ground in Iraq. Even worse, it comes at a time when our men and women in uniform are in desperate need of additional funding.

As we have heard, on May 5, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that it was essential that funds be approved before the Memorial Day recess, which begins in less than 2 days. In his words, the military will ``stop paying soldiers on June 15 '' meaning that they have ``precious little flexibility'' with respect to the funds.

The majority leader, in his own words, believes that not finishing the bill before the recess is ``no big deal.'' Indeed, he admits that sending the bill in its current form to the President guarantees that we will go to recess without having funded the troops. Instead of heeding the warnings of our military leaders, the majority would apparently rather subject emergency military funds to yet another partisan debate and even more election-year political wrangling.

I understand that many in the majority have come to oppose this war. I, for one, do not oppose an honest, straightforward debate about our policies in Iraq and the war on terror. However, that is simply not what is going on here today. This is not a serious debate about our future in Iraq; it is a needless political maneuver aimed at appeasing the more radical elements of the Democrats' political base.

Once again, I can't help but wonder about the majority party's priorities when its members purposefully and dangerously delay funding for our troops in order to make a political statement. As I stated, I will not question their patriotism, but I will continue to question their judgment. Given what has been displayed here, I believe the American people will as well.

Madam President, I was very interested in the distinguished Senator's remarks and her analysis. What is interesting to me is that a number of years ago Boone Pickens came to me and when oil was down around $40 a barrel, he said: Orrin, oil is going to go to 60 bucks a barrel, and it is going to go up from there to $100 a barrel. This was years ago. And I said: That is not true. He said: It is true. Well, he told me a couple of weeks ago, and this is pathetic, and said we are sending $600 billion of our money to purchase non- American oil when we have it within our grasp to create much of the oil the United States of America needs from our own American oil sources.

I will cite with particularity the oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. It is well established that there are 3 trillion potential barrels of oil there, and it is pretty much taken for granted that we can get at least 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil out of that at somewhere between $40 and $60 a barrel. But because of legislative maneuvering by my friends across the aisle, we can't get regulations established to do the work that has to be done.

Now, I am for every form of alternative oil. And, frankly, nobody has a right to say I am not because I am the one who passed, with some very important colleagues, the CLEAR Act. The CLEAR Act created the incentives for alternative fuels, alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel infrastructure that are being used right now.

Yes.

Well, I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments, because she has been central to this effort, especially with regard to plug-in hybrid vehicles. Now, those are a still a distance away yet, but, nevertheless, we can do it. That effort may not completely solve our energy problem, but it certainly would alleviate some of it.

In addition, a number of other measures I put through are the investment tax credits to spur the development of solar, geothermal, wind, and other renewable forms of electricity. No question about it. But that alone still not going to solve our problem, especially not with liquid fuels.

We had testimony yesterday from oil company executives who said if we do everything in our power on alternative fuels by 2025, or around that time, we might be able to get 20 percent of our energy needs. But in the meantime, what are our cars, trucks, trains, and planes going to run on? They have to run on oil. And we have the oil within the confines of the United States, on land and offshore, to resolve a lot of these difficulties. But it will take years even to do that, if we can get past the environmental extremists to be able to do this. In the meantime, we are losing jobs, we are losing our economy, and we are losing with respect to a lot of other problems. In the end, we are going to have to resolve it by drilling for American oil, both conventional and unconventional oil, and we have the ability to do it, and to do it in ways that make sense, that are environmentally sound, and are economical. Some of my colleagues on the other side object to Canadian oil because Canada is putting up a million barrels a day out of their tar sands, and they do not like the fact the tar sands have some carbon in them. But the fact is, Canada is going to go to 3 million barrels a day. So what do we do if we don't take Canadian oil when they are happy to sell it to us? We are going to have to go to Venezuela, Russia, the Middle East, and other places to get our oil, and many of those countries are antithetical to what we believe in and are not particularly happy about United States power in this world.

Now, Mr. Pickens also predicted it is only going to be a matter of time until we are going to be called in and these oil barons from these other foreign lands, who aren't particularly enamored of the United States--in fact, if anything, they are jealous of the United States-- are going to say: You have been consuming 25 percent of the world's oil, but you only have 6 percent of the world's population. We are going to have to cut you back, especially now that they can sell all they want to China, India, and other countries that are voracious in their demands for oil.

We have to wake up and realize we can't sit back and hope ethanol is going to solve this problem. We can produce about 5 billion barrels of ethanol, which is the equivalent to about 3\1/2\ billion gallons of oil. However, we consume 3\1/2\ billion gallons of gas. If we do everything in our power to do ethanol, we are not going to be able to resolve our energy problem without increasing our oil supply, too.

I might add that I see some very important work being done on renewables. I talked to my friend Vinod Khosla. Vinod is building a solar thermal plant, 200 megawatts, in California that should be finished by 2010. He believes we can do that all over the place. Boone Pickens has decided that in the wind corridor from Canada right down through Texas, he could build windmills all up and down that corridor that would provide over one thousand megawatts of power, which would be very beneficial to our country, but that's electricity, not liquid fuel.

We know we can find more and more natural gas on our Federal lands if we want to do it. We know how to do natural gas-driven vehicles right now. We actually have natural gas stations in Utah and we have natural gas drivers, but they are the exception to the rule. We know how to build hydrogen cars that have absolutely zero emissions, but we only have 9 million tons of hydrogen in this country. You would have to have at least 150 million tons of hydrogen to make a dent, and the only feasible way to get that much hydrogen is probably through nuclear. We are about the only major nation in the world that isn't going ahead with nuclear as we should. We know it is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world. I personally believe we will find methodologies and ways of neutralizing nuclear waste.

We can no longer afford to sit back and believe ethanol is going to solve all our problems, or wind power is going to solve all our problems, or solar power is going to solve all our problems, or that geothermal is going to solve all our problems. We have to distinguish between electricity and liquid fuels. Because of the work I have done to promote geothermal, I went out to Utah 2 weeks ago and helped dedicate the ground for the first geothermal power plant in over 20 years. This company, which is a very rare company, is going to build these all up and down Utah, where we have all kinds of geothermal prospects. It's wonderful, but it doesn't solve our liquid fuel problem. It will not get us to where we can continue to keep our economy alive in America.

A lot of this has stopped because of environmental extremism. We all want clean air and clean water, and I don't think any environmentalist should start chewing me up when I am the one who helped put these bills through that have spurred on alternative energy and hybrid technologies, and I will do everything in my power to continue spurring it on. But let us make no mistakes about it, we have to have oil over the next 20, 25 years and beyond that in order to keep America strong.

And to blame the big oil companies--we hear: Big oil companies--one of the Senators yesterday said: How could you do this to America? Now, let's get the facts. The big oil companies are only 6 percent of the world's deliverers

of oil. The vast majority of oil that is delivered is by government- owned entities. Not ours, but foreign government-owned entities. We have made it all but impossible to drill for oil within the continental United States, especially on Federal grounds. And again, it is environmental extremism that is stopping that.

I want people to have jobs. I also want to go full bore in all of these other alternative forms of energy that hopefully will alleviate some of this dependency we have, but we can alleviate a lot of our dependency by doing the oil shale work in Colorado, Wyoming, and in my home State of Utah. That needs to be done. It takes one acre to produce 5 barrels of ethanol. I'm a big fan of ethanol incentives, as I've said. However, Mr. President, do you realize how much oil can be achieved from 1 acre in oil shale in those tri-State areas? It is between 100,000 and 1 million barrels of oil. And we are just letting it sit there because we can't get the leases and my friends on the other side of the aisle are specifically blocking it.

Because of liberal, excessive environmental restraints, we can't get American oil to save America. We can't drill in American waters. China is. They are coming right over to our waters and drilling for oil that we can't drill for because of these extremists. And they blame 6 percent of the world's oil-producing companies and say they are the cause of all these problems? Give me a break. It is about time we wake up. Sure, politically it sounds good, but practically and scientifically it is total bull corn, I think may be my best way of describing it.

I am for all these environmental things too, but I want it to work. I don't want it to be a political exercise so one side can win over the other.

Now, Madam President, I want to change the subject for a minute. I need to make a few remarks on the ongoing effort to conduct something that resembles a fair and productive judicial confirmation process, which is something that is bothering me here today as well. As you can see, I am not in a good mood.

It looks obvious that the commitment by leaders on the other side of the aisle to confirm three more appeals court nominees by the Memorial Day recess is not going to be met. Failure was not inevitable. There was a clear path to keep that commitment with nominees who had long ago been fully vetted, nominees who have been pending for up to 2 years, highly qualified nominees with the highest ratings from the American Bar Association and who have the support of their home State Senators.

My friends on the other side of the aisle knew how to keep their commitment, but instead they chose the path of greatest resistance, the path with the greatest chance of failure. And failure is exactly what is happening. These days, we often make comparisons between how President Bush's nominees are being treated today and how President Clinton's nominees were treated. Now here is one more comparison to consider.

In November 1999, Majority Leader Trent Lott promised to hold a vote by May 15, 2000 on two of President Clinton's most controversial judicial nominees, with my consent as the Judiciary Committee chairman, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit, two very liberal nominees. These nominees were opposed by hundreds of grassroots groups. Their records caused a great deal of angst among many Senators on this side of the aisle. The majority leader did not make his commitment in vague, fuzzy terms. He named names, picked dates, and stated objectives. He made a commitment and he kept it, and they both sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to this day.

They were both competent. Would I have nominated them? No. Would a Republican President have nominated them? No. But they were competent, they did have the approval of the ABA, and they deserved a vote up or down and they got it.

We took a cloture vote to ensure there would be no filibuster, and confirmed those controversial nominees on March 8, 2000, a week earlier than promised. It is a very different situation today.

I wish to address some other issues that highlight the current state of the judicial confirmation process. Talking about numbers, percentages, and comparisons makes some people's eyes glaze over, while others have trouble sorting out the dueling figures. If enough confusion exists, the American people might not fully appreciate what is going on. But as our former colleague from New York, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said--a friend of mine--``You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own set of facts.''

I believe facts matter. I believe the truth matters. Some have claimed the Senate has confirmed 86 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees compared to only 75 percent of President Clinton's. This claim is either true or false. If you believe, as I do, that the truth matters, then it is important to know the answer. What is true? The most recent figures from the Congressional Research Service show the Senate has confirmed 85 percent of President Bush's appeals court nominees compared to 84 percent of President Clinton's nominees. That is about as nonpartisan and objective a source as you can find. It turns out the Senate confirmed, not 75 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees but 84 percent. No matter how you slice, dice or spin it, this claim is not true.

Another claim often repeated on the Senate floor by Democrats is that when I chaired the Judiciary Committee, I blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees by denying them a hearing. Some claims, apparently, need not be true as long as they are useful. In this one, the judicial confirmation version of the urban myth seems useful indeed, based on the number of times it is repeated in various versions and permutations. This claim is no more true than the first one I mentioned. Some Clinton nominees were not confirmed. Some nominees of every President are not confirmed.

In 1992, George Herbert Walker Bush left office, the Senate was controlled by the same party as today, the Democratic Party, and returned more than 50 unconfirmed judicial nominees to President Bush. I don't recall that we stood and moaned and groaned like is going on today, at this time. We didn't. The fact is, that is what happens at the end of a Presidential term. The claim being made today, however, is all those unconfirmed Clinton nominees could have been confirmed but were not, solely because I, as chairman, refused to give them hearings.

This is one of those claims that some apparently hope no one will bother to unpack and sort out. But consider this. A dozen of those nominees were not confirmed because President Clinton withdrew them. He actually withdrew them. That was not my prerogative as chairman. That was his prerogative as President. It continues to baffle me how the Judiciary Committee chairman can be blamed because nominees who no longer exist were not confirmed. Many of those unconfirmed nominees did not have the support of their home State Senators. Judiciary Committee chairmen of both parties, before me and after me, including the current chairman, do not give hearings to nominees without the support of their home State Senators. That is a matter of fact.

We also hear the claim that in Presidential election years, the judicial confirmation process is, to quote the current Judiciary Committee chairman, ``far less productive.''

Once again, this claim is not true. The average number of appeals court nominees given hearings and the number of judicial nominees confirmed goes up, not down, in Presidential election years.

Finally, we hear the astounding claim that Republicans are supposedly obstructing the nomination of Judge Helene White to the Sixth Circuit because we have asked her questions about her record, her qualifications, and her judicial philosophy. Judge White was nominated less than 2 months ago, and the Judiciary Committee was given just 22 days from her nomination until her hearing--a period far shorter, even, than noncontroversial nominees over the years.

We had 70 days before Seventh Circuit Court nominee John Tinder's hearing, for example, and 120 days before Second Circuit nominee Debra Livingston received a hearing. We had only 22

days this time and the chairman close to waive his own rule and hold a hearing without an evaluation from the American Bar Association, something we still do not have today for Judge White.

That is a party that insisted we always have the ABA evaluation in-- for Republican nominees.

So written questions following the hearing were entirely in order. The number of questions asked of Judge White pales in comparison to the number of questions my friends on the other side have asked of President Bush's judicial nominees who had been pending far longer and for whom we had received an ABA--American Bar Association--evaluation.

We had 112 days before Fifth Circuit nominee Jennifer Elrod's hearing, for example, more than five times longer than we had with Judge White. Yet my Democratic friends gave Judge Elrod 108 questions, far more than Judge White has received. After all that, the Senate confirmed Judge Elrod by voice vote.

I might add, to mention a nonjudicial nominee, Grace Becker, who was nominated 189 days ago to head the Civil Rights Division. She has received 250 questions from my Democratic friends. I hear they are not done yet. It is as though no Republican should have the job of heading the Civil Rights Division. Grace is a former counsel on the Judiciary Committee and is well known to all of us as a woman of intellect, character, and compassion. She is a Eurasian woman with whom I think nobody can find one iota of fault.

A few days ago, the current Judiciary Committee chairman said the judicial confirmation process reminded him of the fairytale, ``Goldilocks and the Three Bears.'' Sometimes it reminds me, instead, of the episode of the sitcom ``Seinfeld'' about ``Bizarro World.'' That is the world where everything up is down, left is right, and everything is not as it seems. In the ``Bizarro World'' of today's judicial confirmation process, a plan almost certain to fail is called a commitment; 84 is called 75; a senatorial courtesy see is called a pocket filibuster; being more productive is being called being less productive; and due diligence is being called obstruction. I believe the facts and the truth matter, even in the judicial confirmation process, in spite of some of this rhetoric.

Madam President, In February I addressed the Senate about our progress in Iraq. I categorized the results of General Petraeus' comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy as being remarkable.

When General Petraeus first began to implement his strategy 16 months ago, I was optimistic. However, I must admit that I did not expect to see the level of success that has been accomplished in such a short period of time.

What are those accomplishments?

Al-Qaida has largely been removed from its sanctuaries in Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad and much of the Diyala province. I went there when all those were seemingly under Al-Qaida control. I also went back and walked the streets of Ramadi after the surge. That was the second trip.

Make no mistake, these are major victories.

However, what has largely gone unnoticed by the media, is that even in the less than 2 months since General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came before Congress, these successes have continued and expanded.

Which leads me to ask the obvious question? Why, with all of these accomplishments that were attained through the blood, sweat and tears of our service members and their families, do the members on the other side of the aisle insist upon throwing it all away by setting arbitrary deadlines for the removal of the bulk of our forces from Iraq?

The only logical answer is that instead of attempting to devise a cohesive strategy that achieves victory, the Democrats are more interested in pandering to the appeasement wing of their party in a misguided attempt to curry political favor.

This is a strategy for defeat and national shame.

I repudiate such an approach. My colleague, Senator McCain repudiates such an approach. And I believe the American people will repudiate this approach once they have all of the facts that somehow continue to escape widespread coverage by our media. Why don't they tell the truth? Why don't they tell about the successes?

But before I discuss the most recent accomplishments of U.S. and Iraqi forces, I believe it is important for the American people to understand one of the elements behind our recent success.

General Petraeus' strategy is based upon the classic counterinsurgency tactic of providing security to the local population, thereby enabling the government to restore services to its people. This, in turn, creates in the population a vested interest in the success of government institutions.

One of the ways this is accomplished is through the use of Joint Security Stations. Under this tactic, a portion of a city, such as a neighborhood, is cordoned off then searched for insurgents. Previously, once this was accomplished, our forces would return to large forward- operating bases, usually on the periphery of that city. The result was easy to predict, the insurgents would return once the sweep had concluded.

Under General Petraeus' strategy, our forces remain in the neighborhood and build Joint Security Stations, which then become home to a company-sized unit of American service members, as well as Iraqi army and police units. They live together. These facilities not only help secure the surrounding area, but simultaneously enable our forces to train and evaluate Iraqi forces. Much like the police officer walking a beat in a major city, our forces use the Joint Security Station to learn about the locale where they are assigned and can quickly adapt to meet the unique security needs of the individual community. This, in turn, permits the creation of vital infrastructure projects that provide power, clean water and schools to these newly secured areas. This instills within the people in the area a desire for the security and civil services to continue; which, in turn, strengthens the population's support for an effective government to maintain these improvements. The success of these Joint Security Stations can be seen in their creation throughout Iraq, with more than 50 of them in Baghdad alone.

But, as I previously stated, since General Petraeus' testimony in February, the Coalition has only added to the accomplishments of al Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala.

At the time of General Petraeus' testimony, many lauded these successes. But many also pointed to three major challenges that continued to face the Coalition.

The first major challenge was in this northern city of Mosul. Despite the fact that al-Qaida has largely been thrown out of its former sanctuaries in central Iraq, the terrorists have retreated to and are regrouping their forces in this northern city. It should also be noted that al-Qaida has used Mosul as a key logistics, transportation and financial center. In fact, Reuters has quoted U.S. military officials as saying that Mosul is al-Qaida's last major urban stronghold in Iraq.

Second, the Iraqi government did not have control of the vital southern city of Basra, which was dominated by a number of Shiite factions. As my colleagues well know, Basra is home to Iraq's only seaport and the area surrounding the city is the location of much of the nation's oil wealth.

Third, the Iraqi Government did not have control of a neighborhood in eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City, a predominately Shiite district that is a center of support for Moktada al-Sadr.

However, since General Petraeus' testimony there have been remarkable changes in Mosul, Basra, and Sadr City.

First, I must say that I am increasingly confident about the Coalition's chances for making positive advances in Mosul.

Remember, shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, General Petraeus, then a major general in command of the 101st Airborne Division, was responsible for restoring order in Mosul. It was here that General Petraeus was first able to implement and refine his theories on counterinsurgency warfare and was largely successful in securing the city.

Unfortunately, with the 101st's departure and the sharp reduction in the number of Coalition forces in Mosul--to as few as one American battalion--the city and surrounding area became a haven for al-Qaida.

However, in mid-2007 the Coalition forces began to achieve some success. This occurred in no small part because of the increased effectiveness of the 2nd and 3rd Iraqi divisions that were assigned to the city and surrounding areas. According to the Institute for the Study of War, in May and June positive results quickly became apparent with the capture or killing of 13 al-Qaida leaders, including 6 emirs and 4 terrorist cell leaders. Yet, as al-Qaida members were being pushed out of Baghdad and al Anbar Province, the number of terrorists in Mosul was increasing.

However, our forces, led by the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which replaced the 4th Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division in December, and the Iraqi security forces have kept the pressure on. In mid-December, al-Qaida's security emir for northern Iraq was captured along with al- Qaida's security emir for Mosul. This was followed by the capture of al-Qaida's deputy emir for all of Mosul.

Our successes also have been strengthened with the reinforcement of our forces by additional U.S. and Iraqi forces. This has enabled Coalition and Iraqi forces to implement the counterinsurgency strategy of utilizing Joint Security Stations in the eastern and western portions of Mosul, much like those that were so successful in Baghdad.

The Iraqi Army units in Ninawa Province, of which Mosul is a major city, also have a new commander, LTG Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq. This is an important development since Lieutenant General Tawfiq played a vital role in securing Baghdad.

Despite these promising developments, much remains to be accomplished. On May 10, the Coalition launched Operation Mother of Two Springs. Though it is too early to tell if this operation will have the same successes that our forces are experiencing in Baghdad, MG Mark Hertling, the commander of Multi-National Forces--North stated yesterday that daily attacks are down 85 percent since the operation began. The General also noted that the Coalition has detained more than 1,200 individuals many of whom are self-proclaimed al-Qaida members who describe themselves as ``battalion commanders . . . suicide bomb makers, foreign fighter facilitators, financiers and emirs.'' Moreover, a number of arms caches have been discovered. However, the desperation of al-Qaida appears to have increased due to Saturday's attack by two female suicide bombers.

Mr. President, the battle for Mosul is being fought right now. The final outcome has yet to be decided. However, initial indications point to a successful conclusion because of the implementation of a proven counterinsurgency strategy, improvements in the Iraqi security forces and the bravery and dedication of our fighting men and women.

The second major area of consternation was Basra. Until recently, Shiite groups such as the Mahdi militia--which is associated with Moktada al-Sadr--ruled the streets.

In order to counter this lawlessness, Prime Minister al-Maliki launched Operation Charge of the Knights. This was a bold initiative. First, Prime Minister al-Maliki showed that he is a leader who is willing to make difficult political decisions to secure a better future for his people by traveling to Basra and taking personal charge of this operation. Second, this was a large-scale operation led and planned by Iraqi security forces to restore central government control in Basra.

At first, poor planning seemed to have doomed this operation. Even General Petraeus initially stated, ``The fact is that the Iraqi operations in Basra were not properly planned . . . in the wake of recent operations, there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases . . .''

However, it appears that we all judged this operation too quickly. According to a recent article in the New York Times, ``the oil- saturated city of Basra has been transformed by its own [Iraqi security forces] surge.'' Iraqi forces ``have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias . . . government forces have taken over Islamic militant's headquarters and halted the death squads and vice enforcers.''

It should also be noted that according to the highly respected Jane's Defence Weekly ``in areas occupied by Iraqi army forces, the government has begun a wide ranging set of operations to solidify its long-term presence.''

In fact, due in large part to the success of Operation Charge of the Knights, Jane's Defence Weekly made the following observation: ``Operation Charge of the Knights provides further evidence that the Iraqi army can fight effectively and lead operations when supported by coalition enablers such as air support, logistics, and intelligence. The Basra security operation follows other successful Iraqi army performances in the south, notably the January 2007 defeat of the Jund al-Samaa sect in pitched battles outside Karbala and the January 2008 simultaneous takedown of a dozen cultist cells from the same organization spread across Basra and Nasiriyah.''

Finally, examples of the major strides the Iraqi forces are making can be seen in the operations that were launched this week in Sadr City. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that six battalions of, ``Iraqi troops pushed deep into Sadr City. . . as the Iraqi government sought to establish control over the densely populated Shiite enclave in the Iraqi capital. The long awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces, was the first determined effort by the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki to assert control over the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood, which has been a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr. The operation comes in the wake of the government's offensive in Basra, which for the time being seems to have pacified the southern Iraqi city and restored government control.''

The New York Times goes on to report about the Sadr City operation, ``the Iraqi forces quickly assumed positions at a main thoroughfare and near major hospitals and police stations. Two companies ventured even further north to secure the Iman Ali Hospital. . . No American ground forces accompanied the Iraqi troops, not even military advisers. But the Americans shared intelligence, coached the Iraqis during the planning and provided overhead reconnaissance throughout the operation. Still, the operation was very much an Iraqi plan.''

Madam President, I believe that Ambassador Crocker summed up the situation best when he stated in his testimony: ``Al-Qaida is in retreat in Iraq, but it is not yet defeated. Al-Qaida's leaders are looking for every opportunity they can to hang on. Osama bin Ladin has called Iraq `the perfect base,' and it reminds us that a fundamental aim of al-Qaida is to establish itself in the Arab world. It almost succeeded in Iraq; we cannot allow it a second chance. . .''

The choice is clear. The men and women of our armed forces have made real and sustained progress over the past 16 months. The list of their accomplishments and the accomplishments of the Iraqi security forces grows longer every day.

The balance is changing. Now, more then ever, is the time to stand behind our forces to ensure they achieve the victory of which they so deserve.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Senator Webb on the passage of S.22 the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act. This is an important piece of legislation worthy of serious consideration.

However, despite its noble intent, I voted against the measure for two reasons. First, Senator Webb's legislation was attached to a massive spending amendment which, coupled with the rest of the wartime supplemental bill, exceeds the $108.1 billion expenditure limit set by the President. Therefore, for this reason, and others, I believe that the President will veto this legislation.

The second reason is that I believe that Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain have offered a superior piece of legislation, S.2938 the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment through Education Act. S.2938 will assist our nation's veterans by significantly improving education benefits for both those who have left the services and those who decided to make the military their career.

Specifically, S.2938 will permit Guard and Reservists to more easily qualify for benefits; eliminate the $1,200 fee that servicemembers are currently required to pay in order to qualify for education benefits; and increase the annual stipend for books to $1,000. Most importantly, the Graham, Burr and McCain legislation will increase the level of monthly payments for a college education from $1,100 to $1,500.

I view this as a much simpler and fairer compensation package than S.22. S.22 would provide tuition assistance equal to the sum charged by the program in which the veteran is enrolled. However, this assistance is capped at the amount of in-state tuition imposed by the most expensive public college in the same state as the school where the veteran is enrolled.

Obviously, this is a very complicated funding mechanism which I fear will unnecessarily complicate the future education plans of many servicemembers. I am also concerned that such a funding scheme will adversely affect those veterans who wish to pursue educational opportunities at private and parochial colleges and universities.

However, S.22 is not without its advantages, since it provides a basic housing allowance. But, the Graham, Burr and McCain bill also supports military families by enabling servicemembers and veterans the option of transferring some of those benefits to a spouse or child. This is a provision that S.22 does not contain.

In final analysis these are two serious pieces of legislation that merit close scrutiny. However, in my final analysis, I believe that the Graham, Burr and McCain bill is the superior bill and I look forward to debating that measure and voting for it once the Senate returns from the Memorial Day recess.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my good friend from Minnesota, Senator Amy Klobuchar, S. Res. 576, which would designate August 2008 as Digital Television Transition Awareness Month.

Pursuant to the Digital Television Transmission and Public Safety Act of 2005, starting on February 17, 2009, full-power television stations will shut down their traditional analog signals and will broadcast in digital only. Concentrating efforts to educate consumers well in advance about both the upcoming transition and their options will ensure as smooth a transition as possible. That is why Senator Klobuchar and I, along with dozens of original cosponsors, have introduced this resolution today.

I believe that the month of August is a perfect time to highlight the ongoing educational efforts about the transition to digital television next year. After all, we want to encourage those who will need to take some action to do so now, rather than wait until the last moment.

Several studies indicate that many consumers who will be left without any television service after February 17, 2009, may be unaware of the transition and the Government coupon program created to defray the cost of converter boxes. While 64 percent of consumers know about the transition to digital television, 74 percent of that group has major misconceptions about the impact of the transition on their television services. The transition to digital television is especially significant to vulnerable populations such as senior citizen, low- income, and minority households.

I note that television markets in the West and Midwest have the highest percentage of consumers who rely on over-the-air television signals. In Utah alone, Salt Lake City has the highest percentage of homes in a major metropolitan area, with almost one in four relying on free analog television signals.

The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, recently adopted a proposal to educate consumers about the impending transition. In addition, there are many sources of information on the transition, coupon program and consumer options available on the Internet. These Web sites are comprehensive and provide links to the Government coupon program site where consumers must register to receive the coupons. However, these sites do not reach certain populations, those most likely to be affected by the transition, as effectively.

Congress can and should do more, not only to educate consumers, but also to foster local outreach programs to assist these consumers as they obtain coupons or choose and install converter boxes. Designating August 2008 as Digital Television Transition Awareness Month, timed specifically to take advantage of the congressional recess, will place particular emphasis on educating consumers well in advance of the transition, and will be an integral part of the overall educational program endorsed by the FCC.

I hope that this resolution will be passed and my colleagues will join me in doing all they can to make the transition from analog to digital television easier for those most affected across our Nation.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I am so grateful to the Senator. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and tell him I don't know anybody in the Senate who feels more deeply about Senator Kennedy than I do. We have been adversaries for 32 years. We have also been partners.

I have watched what their family has given to America. I love his sisters. I love the in-laws. I know he raised the children, and they are good kids. I have great faith in Ted Kennedy as a person who will fight back with the faith and prayers of all of us in the Senate and millions of others across the country. I believe Ted will be able to come back, and he will come back, and I believe he will be able to whip this problem. I am going to exert all the faith and prayers I possibly can to help him do it.

I agree with the distinguished Senator, whenever any of us encountered great difficulty, he was always the first to call.

We have worked together on so many pieces of legislation, landmark legislation, that I wish to personally compliment him for being willing to cross the aisle in so many ways and to work out difficulties. One of the last things we worked on was the bio bill. That is a very complex, difficult bill, and we worked along with Senator Enzi, who is a wonderful companion of Senator Kennedy on the HELP Committee. We worked with Senator Clinton, who added a great deal to the work on that bill. Senator Schumer was a great asset on that bill. These are people for whom I have great respect.

Let me say to Ted and Vicki that our prayers and our faith are with both of them and their children and the rest of the extended family, and we will do everything in our power to support Senator Kennedy in this time of difficulty. I personally believe that if we have enough faith and pray hard enough and with the great clinical help he will have, Senator Kennedy will return and continue to do the job he believes in. I know he appreciates everybody who has spoken out for him, who has expressed concern, who has expressed anguish, as I do here, about his present situation. I know he is facing this with a great sense of humor, which is one of the most endearing qualities Ted Kennedy has, among many endearing qualities.

He carries so much weight on the Democrat side and, of course, for those of us who work with him on the Republican side, a lot of weight with us as well. So I want him to know we all love him, appreciate him, and appreciate the leadership he has provided through the years and the quality of the person he is.

If the distinguished Senator would allow me to address another topic, I would be very grateful.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these new sets of remarks be placed in the Record at an appropriate place.

I will have more to say about Senator Kennedy later, but I wanted to make those few remarks here today.

Mr. President, the exploitation of children is a plague. It is a war with many fronts, and we must be engaged in them all. I wish to review some of the ways we are fighting this good fight and encourage my colleagues to be as relentless in protecting children as are those in the world who exploit them.

Just 2 days ago, the Supreme Court upheld our most recent attempt to combat the spread of child pornography. In a 7-to-2 decision--an overwhelming vote by the Supreme Court, by the way--the Court held that the PROTECT Act is consistent with the first amendment. I introduced the PROTECT Act in January 2003. It passed this body unanimously in February, passed the House without objection in March, and was signed into law in April. The PROTECT Act prohibits the pandering or solicitation of child pornography.

Child pornography is perhaps the most egregious form of exploitation. It not only victimizes and brutalizes children directly but makes a permanent record of that abuse that may never be erased. Child pornography is not protected by the first amendment, which means its possession and sale can be banned.

In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act, a bill I introduced in the 104th Congress. So we went back to the drawing board. If the objective is important--and I do not believe any objective is more important than protecting children from exploitation--then we must not take no for an answer. We must not let speed bumps,

roadblocks, or potholes, or Supreme Court decisions stop us.

The PROTECT Act was the result. We studied the Supreme Court's decision and used its guidance to craft a bill that would prohibit the offer to distribute or the request to receive child pornography. When it upheld the PROTECT Act this week, the Court said that the speech this law targets is what literally introduces this destructive material into the distribution network. Now the PROTECT Act can be deployed in our ongoing, never-ending fight to protect children from exploitation, and I am glad it can be deployed.

I thank my colleagues for not giving up, for not throwing up your hands when the Supreme Court initially said no. I thank you for rolling up your sleeves, for joining with me to find some way to protect children.

Let me quote from the closing paragraph of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion this week in United States v. Williams:

Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of

our citizens. This court held unconstitutional Congress'

previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress

responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the

First Amendment problems we identified. As far as the

provision at issue in this case is concerned, that effort was

successful.

While the 108th Congress passed the PROTECT Act, the 109th Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act was a comprehensive child protection bill hailed by agencies and organizations throughout this country for its importance.

This legislation enhanced the Web technology available for tracking convicted sex offenders and replaced outdated and inaccurate Web sites with meaningful tools to protect children.

Today, there are more than half a million registered sex offenders in the United States. Unfortunately, many of them receive limited sentences and roam invisibly through our communities. With too many, we don't know where they are until it is too late. Under this law, offenders are now required to report regularly to the authorities in person and let them know when they move or change jobs. If they do not want to follow the rules, they will go back to jail because failure to provide meaningful information is now a felony. In addition, the law created a searchable national Web site that interacts with State sites. Citizens in every State are able to inform themselves about predators in their communities with accurate information.

Unfortunately, many of the enforcement provisions in the Adam Walsh Act have not been funded, and I am fully aware of the competing demands for funding but have no doubt that Americans throughout this country would approve of Federal tax dollars being utilized to ensure that criminals who blatantly trade in child pornography are made to pay a high price for these crimes. I urge my colleagues to show their dedication and resolve to fully fund the Adam Walsh Act.

In another important development, last night the Senate passed the Protect Our Children First Act. I joined Senator Leahy in introducing this legislation last July, and it is now on its way to the President to be signed into law. This legislation authorizes continued funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a center we helped to create. The collective expertise of the center has been invaluable in efforts to address child exploitation, and this bill will ensure their vital work will continue.

With all of the tremendous advantages brought about by the Internet, it has also provided a means of communication which criminals use to advance their crimes. We are all aware that pedophiles are utilizing the Internet to facilitate distribution of illegal child pornography. Everyone agrees this type of crime is the most heinous imaginable, but many think the people who trade these horrendous videos and pictures must set up elaborate technology to facilitate their illegal activities. Unfortunately, this is not true. Many individuals throughout this country utilize peer-to-peer software to share illegal child porn with as much ease as sharing MP3s. Many criminals don't even bother trying to hide what they are doing. They utilize graphic words and acronyms to describe the horrible pictures and videos which they willingly share with one another. They seem to have no fear of being caught by law enforcement.

To illustrate this point, I want to highlight a graphical representation of the locations where law enforcement determined child pornography videos were hosted on computers and shared via peer-to-peer software. It is as disturbing as it is eye-opening.

This map shows the continental United States and locations where child pornography was electronically traded on May 15, 2008. This is just 1 day in the life of this country--6 days ago, as a matter of fact. And it is not meant to be all-inclusive; these are the ones we know of. You can imagine how many there must be. Just in the DC area, look at the child pornography electronic trades. And those are the ones we know about.

Now, this type of activity has created a market for new child pornography. In order to move into the higher echelons of this criminal activity, individuals need to offer new material, new graphic pictures and videos. Many of these criminals find that the easiest way to get new materials is to make it themselves; thus, a vicious cycle is created. These monsters, in some sick, sadistic goal of obtaining stature, videotape their crimes against children in order to facilitate their twisted version of moving up the ladder.

Congress has done a great deal to address this issue. We have passed numerous statutes in order to ensure those who harm children face the most serious penalties possible.

While many local law enforcement agencies are doing a fantastic job addressing these crimes, they are often limited by a lack of manpower and equipment. One program that has had great success is the Internet Crimes Against Children--the ICAC--Task Force Program, which has utilized State and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to child pornography cases. These ICACs provide forensic and investigative activities, training and technical assistance, victim services, and community education.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation, which I cosponsored with Senator Biden of Delaware, which would take significant steps in highlighting the Federal Government's strategy to address child exploitation and ensuring that each State has an ICAC.

The bill also calls for an annual report from the Attorney General, which will represent the national strategy for child exploitation, prevention, and interdiction. I believe this report will be invaluable for the effective coordination of Government efforts to address this problem.

I have no doubts this legislation will be instrumental in combating child exploitation, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill quickly.

I also wish to mention another extremely valuable organization that is playing a vital role in locating missing children. A Child is Missing is a nonprofit organization assisting the police in the first hours after a child's disappearance. For over 10 years, this organization has provided local law enforcement with technology otherwise unavailable to them.

Here is how the program works. When a child is missing, local law enforcement contacts the organization with details of the disappearance, including the child's description, clothes, and last known location. A Child is Missing records a message on behalf of the police agency, and this message is phoned out to the geographical area where the child was last seen. The organization has the ability to send over 1,000 calls in 60 seconds. This message asks for residents to contact the police if they have any information.

The effect is instantaneous in that this service opens the eyes of the entire neighborhood in search for the missing child. We all know these first few hours are critical in finding missing children, making this service critical. This is the only program of its kind in the country, and law enforcement has credited it with over 300 safe assisted recoveries. This service is available to law enforcement throughout the country and at no charge to the agencies. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

I have joined Senator Menendez in introducing legislation, S. 2667, to ensure that this organization will have the funds to continue to offer law enforcement throughout this country this invaluable service. I am hopeful this bill receives prompt consideration.

In conclusion, Congress has many opportunities to advance the worthy cause of reducing child exploitation. I call on my colleagues to continue this noble cause and pledge my continued support to advance appropriate legislative endeavors.

Finally, I wish to briefly turn to FISA. This Congress has been working on FISA modernization for over 400 days with apparently no end in sight. Should it take this long? The Constitution of the United States was written in about 115 days. That included travel time on horseback for the Founding Fathers.

Congress has had plenty of time to debate this issue. We have to make sure we do not create unnecessary obstacles for intelligence analysts to track terrorists. As has been said, they can't connect the dots if they can't collect the dots.

While negotiations continue, it is important to look at the two bills that have passed the Chambers. Let me paint a picture, a Tale of Two Bills, if you will. One bill was available for the public to review for over 4 months, went through 2 committees, had 2 weeks of floor debate including votes on 13 amendments, and passed the Chamber with a huge bipartisan veto-proof majority.

The other bill was available for review for 2 days before receiving a vote. It went through no committees, had 1 hour of floor debate, allowed no amendments, and failed to receive bipartisan support, while barely passing the Chamber. Any negotiator would say the first bill in this instance would be the basis for negotiation, not the other way around. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that the first one I described is the Senate-passed bill.

Make no mistake, I will not support any compromise that disregards the extensive work of the Senate in order to facilitate a quick political fix.

I appreciate those who are standing tall on the FISA bill in both Houses. I hope we continue to do so because our very country is in jeopardy if we do not.

Also, I wish to personally pay tribute and give my gratitude and thanks to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his kindness in allowing me to make these remarks out of turn because they are important remarks. I would feel badly if I didn't get on the floor and make these remarks. It was a very gracious thing for him to do.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague for his kindness. He has always been very gracious and particularly gracious to me.

Mr. President, yesterday on the Senate floor the distinguished majority leader mentioned my name and repeated a claim about my service as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which I once again am compelled to correct. He said: ``Sixty of President Clinton's nominees were denied hearings.''

In a letter to the distinguished minority leader and the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee dated April 30, 2008, he similarly stated that:

Senator Hatch exercised the chairman's prerogatives freely

during the years in which more than 60 of President Clinton's

nominees were denied hearings or floor consideration.

The claim--and it has been repeated in various forms by others--is that all these nominees could have been confirmed but were not because I simply blocked them.

What is not mentioned is President Clinton came within seven of setting an all-time judicial appointment record while I was chairman. He was treated fairly. I had hearings and moved people to the floor that many on our side had real qualms about. It is true that approximately 60 of his judicial nominees were not confirmed, not in 1 year, as the distinguished majority leader said yesterday, but in all 8 years. They were not confirmed for a host of different reasons, most having nothing to do with the chairman's prerogatives.

President Clinton, for example, withdrew a dozen of those nominees himself--actually withdrew them. That was not my prerogative as chairman; it was his prerogative as President. These withdrawn nominees included a nominee to the U.S. District Court whose record as a State court judge in criminal cases was so troubling that prosecutors in her own State, led by a Democrat, opposed her. Instead of certain defeat on the Senate floor, the Republican leader at the time allowed President Clinton to withdraw her nomination. She was not denied a hearing; she had a hearing and was reported to the floor. She was not denied floor consideration; she was spared floor defeat.

The unconfirmed Clinton nominees included an appeals court nominee who, though he had raised millions for the Democratic Party, admitted in his hearing that he knew virtually nothing about such basic areas as criminal or constitutional law. President Clinton wisely withdrew him. These unconfirmed nominees included an appeals court nominee who had lied about his background, making claims that were politically potent but patently false. President Clinton withdrew him. Was he unconfirmed? Yes. Was he blocked by Republicans? No. These and others like them were not what some on the other side of the aisle have called pocket filibusters. They were not, as the distinguished majority leader has said, simply denied consideration at the chairman's prerogative.

The unconfirmed Clinton nominees include many who did not have the support of their home State Senators. Nominees in this situation did not receive hearings under the chairmen before me as well as those who succeeded me, including the current Democrat chairman who will not call them up if a home State Senator opposes them. That is the policy and tradition of the Judiciary Committee, not simply the chairman's prerogative. Nor is it a pocket filibuster. That is a phony term. Yet, these nominees were unconfirmed and are, therefore, lumped into this category. So are nominees who were not confirmed in the Congress during which they were nominated and President Clinton chose not to renominate. That was his choice, not mine. For these and other reasons, the vast majority of President Clinton's unconfirmed nominees did not make it all the way through the confirmation process for reasons having nothing to do with my chairmanship of the committee.

Now, there are always, at the end of every Presidency, those nominees who are put up too late, where you could not get the FBI work done or you could not get the investigatory work done or you couldn't get the ABA report done or there were nominees who had problems in their FBI reports. There were further reasons nominees could not make it at the end of President Clinton's term. I might add that is true of every Presidential term that I recall in my 32 years in the Senate. It is also true that I put through nominees that my side had a lot of angst over because I believed, as I always did in my chairmanship, the President had the power of nomination. We had the power to vote, up or down, against those nominees. So I brought up people who caused a lot of angst on our side because I believed the President deserved that-- unlike some on our side who have been very badly mistreated. I will cite Peter Keisler as a perfect illustration.

So I had to come here and set the record straight once again. Some judicial nominees of every President are not eventually confirmed. My friends on the other side of the aisle returned more than 50 unconfirmed judicial nominees to President Bush at the

close of the 102nd Congress. But when the reasons nominees are not confirmed are accurately considered, the claim that some 60 Clinton nominees were simply pocket filibustered or were blocked at the chairman's prerogative is simply not true.

I believe it to be a gross misrepresentation. I don't blame the majority leader. He is a personal friend of mine. He read from a staff- prepared speech. Nevertheless, that speech was wrong.

Let me give you an illustration. These are people sitting right now on the calendar. Peter Keisler has been waiting 691 days for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. By any measure, he is highly competent, decent, and honorable. He has the highest rating from the American Bar Association. Judge Robert Conrad has been waiting 308 days for a Judiciary Committee hearing. He also has the highest ABA rating. This body confirmed him just three years, without a dissenting vote, to the district court, where he is now chief judge. Steve Matthews has been waiting 257 days for a hearing. He too has first-rate qualifications and a positive ABA rating. Many others are still awaiting a vote, as we have been sitting in the Senate not doing very much regarding judicial nominees.

Mr. President, since May is a month to honor and recognize older Americans, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about my strong commitment to having the Elder Justice Act, S. 1070, approved by Congress and signed into law before the conclusion of the 110th Congress.

Emily Dickinson once said, old age comes on suddenly, and not gradually as is thought. As someone who just celebrated a birthday a few months ago, this statement has never seemed more accurate!

Approximately 44 million people in this country are age 60 and above which tells me that caring for older Americans must be a high priority of future Congresses.

In fact, U.S. citizens 60 years of age and above will increase dramatically over the next 30 years more than 76 million baby boomers will be approaching retirement and old age over the next three decades. Let me say that one more time--more than 76 million baby boomers will be approaching retirement and old age over the next three decades.

Earlier this Congress, Senators Lincoln, Smith, Kohl and I introduced the Elder Justice Act. Congressmen Rahm Emanuel and Peter King introduced a nearly identical bill in the House. Currently, the Senate bill has 28 cosponsors and the House bill has 113 cosponsors.

One person who really deserves a lot of the credit for this bill is our former colleague from Louisiana, Senator John Breaux. He got the ball rolling over here in the Senate. I will never forget him coming to me way back in the 107th Congress and telling me that I needed to work with him on the Elder Justice Act because it would make a tremendous difference for older Americans throughout the country. He and I introduced the Elder Justice Act back in the 107th Congress and ever since then, the bill has been reintroduced each subsequent Congress.

I also want to acknowledge the fine work of the Elder Justice Coalition, led by Bob Blancato, its national coordinator.

To date, the Elder Justice Coalition has close to 550 members and has done an incredible job advocating for the passage of this legislation.

This Congress, for the first time, the Elder Justice Act has been seriously considered by the House. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee considered the Elder Justice Act and it appears that it will be voted out of that committee this week. In the Senate, the legislation has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee in both the 109th and 108th Congress; however, it has never been approved by the full Senate. As far as I am concerned, this year is going to be different. I will do everything in my power to ensure that this legislation will pass the Senate and be signed into law before the 110th Congress adjourns.

Senator Lincoln and I are going to work with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley to schedule a markup on this bill sometime this summer.

Over the past couple of years, I worked very closely with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt and his staff to address the concerns that the administration has raised regarding our bill. Last Congress, I felt like we had some fruitful discussions and progress was made. Secretary Leavitt is a good friend of mine and he knows how important it is to me, Senator Lincoln and senior citizens across the country to have this legislation signed into law. The Secretary assured me that he and his staff would continue to work with us on this bill.

So I intend to initiate discussions with the administration once again in the hope that we will be able to come to agreement. And I think we are very close.

I have had many ask why does there appear to be such a dramatic increase in elder abuse in the United States. Because there is so little data on elder abuse, it is difficult to know the answer to that question.

Quite honestly, I believe that more and more people are taking notice.

In the past, there has been no data collection of elder abuse--I find that quite disturbing. The purpose of our legislation is to make changes in the law so we have more precise numbers on how many seniors are being exploited financially, being neglected or being physically or mentally abused.

Findings from the often cited National Elder Abuse Incidence Study suggest that more than 500,000 Americans aged 60 and above were victims of domestic abuse in 1996. Studies show the amount of Federal dollars spent on abuse and neglect of elders is substantially smaller than that spent on child and domestic abuse.

Elder abuse is a profoundly personal tragedy for its victims--let me cite a case from my home state of Utah. In Utah and across the country, elderly Americans are being exploited and essentially being swindled out of thousands of dollars. A local news station in Salt Lake recently had a story that discussed check scams and how seniors are typically the target of these questionable operations.

In Utah alone, the money that people have lost due to these types of scams has quadrupled over the last 3 years. And while many of these operations have addresses in the U.S., they typically originate overseas.

For example, a check has been made out to a Salt Lake City senior for close to $4,000. The senior is told that he has been chosen to be a secret shopper and has the chance to win thousands of dollars. He is told that he may keep $500, no strings attached, but he must wire more than $3,000 back to them in order to get the $500. Because this senior sees the chance to win $500, he sends the check for $3,000 and loses all of his money.

According to the postal inspector, once a person responds to these scams, he or she is put on what is called a sucker's list and continues to be promised that hundreds and even thousands of dollars could be gained if a check is sent. In Utah, 6 to 700 checks are reported to be sent to these organizations each month.

The Elder Justice Act would help the Federal Government collect data on how many senior citizens are being financially exploited, mentally and physically abused and neglected.

This chart illustrates the dramatic difference in dollars spent on elder abuse compared to child abuse and domestic abuse.

Ninety-one percent, or $6.7 billion, is spent on child abuse, 7 percent, or $520 million on domestic abuse and only 2 percent, or $153.5 million, is spent on elder abuse. Considering the high numbers of the population above age 60, it astounds me the small percentage the Government is willing to dedicate to ending elder abuse.

The Elder Justice Act aims to address this serious problem.

Our bill would provide Federal resources to support State and community efforts on the front lines dedicated to fighting elder abuse with scarce resources and fragmented systems.

It directs the Federal Government to provide leadership to the States and takes an important first step by calling on the Federal Government to create an appropriate way to collect relevant data on elder abuse so we have a better handle on how prevalent elder abuse is among our neighbors, our friends, and our relatives.

It assures adequate public-private infrastructure and resources to prevent,

detect, treat, understand, intervene in and, where appropriate, prosecute elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.

With more than 76 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, we cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. Older Americans deserve nothing less. I know that it is extremely important to folks back home in Utah.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can provide older Americans the same protections that we provide to our children and victims of domestic violence. Because we are not aging gradually, our response must be immediate--we cannot afford to wait for another Congress to end without approving this legislation.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, men are respectable only as they respect. May we strive to be more respectable people by showing respect to those who deserve it the most: our older Americans.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, today the Senate voted on the farm bill. Leading up to that vote, we had two procedural votes which are required when budget points of order are raised against a legislative provision.

My vote on this farm bill was a difficult one. Certainly, opposition to this bill is justified. There are simply too many subsidies in this bill, there are Davis-Bacon provisions that I strongly oppose, and I believe that some provisions may violate our trade agreements.

To express my frustration with the negative aspects of the bill, I chose to support the procedural obstacles leading up to the vote on the bill itself. However, in response to very strong support for the farm bill from the preponderance of agricultural interests in my State, and to the fact that the farm bill has some provisions that are very important to me, I chose to vote in favor of the legislation.

I would like to say a few words about a provision in the bill which I sponsored and promoted for over a decade. The provision lifts the ban on the interstate distribution of State-inspected meat. I began the effort with Senator Daschle, and more recently worked with Senators Kohl and Baucus, to include it in the farm bill.

Let me give a little background on this issue. With the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was required to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses slaughtered for human consumption. The USDA was also made responsible for setting national standards for meat and poultry inspection. In 1957, the Poultry Products Inspection Act made poultry subject to USDA inspection. Later, these two laws were amended to set up a system of State inspection programs separate from the Federal program. At that time, due to some uncertainty about new State inspection programs, a prohibition on interstate distribution was placed on State-inspected beef, poultry, pork, and lamb.

It is important to note that the prohibition does not apply to other meats such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit, alligator, and others that are typically inspected under the state programs. Neither does the prohibition apply to other perishable products, including milk, other dairy items, fruits, vegetables and fish. All of these products which are inspected under State

programs are shipped freely across State lines and to our trading partners.

If a State can inspect these products sufficiently for international distribution, they can certainly continue to do so for our more standard meat and poultry products. In the nearly 30 years that the USDA has reviewed State programs, the Department has never unilaterally found that a State inspection program should be discontinued due to an inability to meet Federal food safety regulations.

In Utah, we have 32 meat plants under our State inspection program. These establishments, like the nearly 2,000 similar plants nationwide, are mostly small businesses. Generally speaking, they cater to the needs of small, family-run farms and ranches. The outdated ban on interstate shipment of State-inspected meats clearly disrupts the free flow of trade, restricts access to the market, and creates an unfair advantage for big businesses.

Let's not forget that meat inspected in 34 foreign countries can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. because the USDA has certified that the foreign inspection programs are equivalent to the Federal program, yet our domestic products inspected by States cannot. This is a ridiculous situation, and it is well past time to remedy it.

So I am very pleased that the farm bill will remove the outdated and unjust ban that puts our small businesses at such a disadvantage. Removing this prohibition will increase competition and innovation. It will provide farmers and ranchers an increased opportunity to innovate and compete to serve their consumers.

I am also very pleased that the farm bill includes a provision by Senator Max Baucus, which I cosponsored, that will set up a disaster program for the livestock industry. In Utah, we have agricultural disasters almost every year. Farmers in my State never know what Mother Nature may send their way, and my goal is to provide them greater stability. I am grateful that this farm bill will provide our livestock producers the security and certainty they have sought for so long.