Floor Statements

I can probably do it in less than 10 minutes or around that.

Mr. President, I believe my amendment No. 4755 is at the desk. I call it up and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues have spoken about the tremendous service America's public safety employees give to the public. I could not agree more. Any given day one of these officers may be asked to put his or her life on the line, and they will do so willingly and courageously. I agree with my colleagues that individuals who choose these careers deserve respect, gratitude, and special treatment. But the bill we are considering today would actually result in diminishing the rights of public safety employees who are not currently unionized.

Once a workforce is unionized, even employees who don't wish to be part of a union will have pay deducted from their paychecks, spent in a manner outside of their control, and they will have very little ability to question or alter the legal representation that has been established with or without their support.

My amendment seeks merely to balance that diminution of self- determination by establishing a Public Employee Bill of Rights.

This amendment would do three things: Guarantee the right to vote by

secret ballot, limit the right of public unions' dues collection authority to nonpolitical uses, and allow financial transparency.

By ensuring that public safety employees in all States have the right to vote on whether to unionize by secret ballot, my amendment guarantees for public safety employees that same right private employees now have. In a democratic society, nothing is more sacred than the right to vote, and it is undeniable that nothing ensures truly free choice more than the use of a private ballot.

The possibility of coercive or threatening behavior toward employees who may not wish to form a union is even more concerning in the context of public safety employees who rely on coworkers to reduce the deadly risks they face routinely in the course of their important work.

The amendment would also limit the right of public unions' dues collection authority to nonpolitical uses. Those who choose public service often accept lower pay than they might make in the private sector because they are dedicated to public service. Let's not insult that choice by allowing labor bosses to take money from that paycheck and spend it on purely political causes the employee does not support.

I believe public employees should have the same protections from fraud and abuse as private employees. My amendment would empower public employees by allowing them to observe how their dues are being spent and the other financial dealings of their unions. It does this by bringing public unions under the requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, a 1959 law enacted with bipartisan support, including then-Senator John F. Kennedy.

Public employees who pay union dues, especially those who are compelled to do so against their wishes, are no less entitled to financial transparency and fraud protections than the private sector employees covered under the law today.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a simple amendment. It provides for protections that ought to be there. If this bill should pass, these protections, at a minimum, ought to be part of this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be granted the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 2313, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance, or STAAR Act. I am proud to have introduced this legislation with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown. Similar legislation is being championed in the House of Representatives by Representatives Mike Ferguson and my dear colleague and fellow Utahn, Representative Jim Matheson.

For more than 60 years since their discovery, antibiotics have saved millions of lives and helped patients of all populations cope with suffering related to infection. But as we have seen, our country increasingly faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. While antibiotic resistance is an elevated problem for those with compromised immune systems--individuals with HIV and patients in intensive or critical care units, for instance--these infections can strike anyone. Further, this alarming trend continues to worsen and treatment options are sorely lacking.

Antibiotic resistance is not a new development. The news is this: Infections that were once easily cured with antibiotics are now becoming difficult--in some cases, impossible--to treat. National surveillance data and studies show antibiotic-resistant bacteria have multiplied and spread at disquieting rates in recent years.

For example, consider a common bacterial cause of hospital infections--Staphylococcus aureus, also called staph--which can spread to the bloodstream, heart, lungs and bones with potentially fatal results. In the early 1940s, penicillin effectively combated staph infections. However, penicillin-resistant staph bacteria were identified as early as 1942. Subsequently, methicillin was introduced in the 1960s to fight staph-resistant infections, and shortly thereafter methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus--or MRSA--was discovered. In 1974, 2 percent of staph bacteria found in our country's hospitals were methicillin-resistant. By 2002 the number had jumped to 57.1 percent, according to CDC data.

And it is not just happening in hospitals. Public health experts are increasingly finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Thus, infections in both settings are increasing and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.

The recent problems with MRSA are but one striking example; we are also seeing increases, in extensively-drug resistant--XDR-- tuberculosis. There are also numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobacter--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.

While recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.

In its 2004 report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs,'' the Infectious Diseases Society of America, or IDSA, said: Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic may harm millions. Unless Congress and the administration move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in the future.

Resistant infections lead to higher health care costs because they require more expensive treatment and care. According to estimates from the Institutes of Medicine--IOM--and the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the economic burden placed on our national health care system as a result of resistant bacteria totals billions of dollars annually.

IDSA, which represents more than 7,500 physicians, scientists, and other health professionals who specialize in infectious diseases, has issued a stern warning and recommendations. The I0M, CDC, NIH and the FDA have also warned that drug-resistant bacteria are a serious public health threat.

It is time to act.

That is why my good friend Senator Brown and I introduced S. 2313, the STAAR Act. Our bill is not the sole answer to the complex problem of antibiotic resistance. There are several avenues to address the problem. But our bill focuses on just one: providing adequate infrastructure within the government to collect the data, coordinate the research and conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drugresistant infections in their tracks.

We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our government and scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops. The STAAR Act lays out the framework by which we can begin to take action against this serious public health threat. At a minimum, we need better testing, hospital controls, medications and funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to create this organizational focus, the STAAR Act establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance at HHS in the Secretary's office. This will give the issue the prominence and the focus it deserves.

Our bill also renews the interagency Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force which expired in 2006. It creates an advisory board of experts to advise the new office and the task force, which was created in 1999, to coordinate Federal efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance and was comprised of representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and also includes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Health Care Financing Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

That task force developed a public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance; however, implementation of the plan fell by the wayside. There were no personnel specifically dedicated for executing the plan because all task force members already had full-time responsibilities at their respective Federal agencies. In short, this very important job was assigned to people who already had very important jobs. So our bill recharges that effort. These new bodies will work together to develop a plan to combat antimicrobial resistance, to keep that plan updated and to advise the Secretary on research that should be conducted.

The distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, and I have found that it is difficult to understand the magnitude of the problem because data are sorely lacking. Spotty data exists from many States--for example, from a hospital or a hospital chain--but not data statewide or nationwide. We need to change that. Our bill addresses that problem. The STAAR Act directs drug sponsors and appropriate government agencies to collect data and share them with the Office of Antimicrobial Resistance as the main depot for such data to facilitate interagency planning on antimicrobial resistance. That will provide us with the information we need to begin addressing the real problem of drug- resistant infections.

Finally, we authorize grants for at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites to strengthen our national capacity to develop the information necessary to assess the extent of the problem and look at effective ways to address it. Currently, there is very little capacity to quickly monitor, assess and address the spread of new or particularly resistant microbes. These network sites will work with the CDC to establish a surveillance system to allow tracking and confirmation of resistant microbes in almost real time. Also, with support from the CDC and the NIH, these sites will conduct research to study the development of antimicrobial resistance. With data from this research, we can better prevent and control and, ultimately, treat the threat of antimicrobial resistance.

I wish to take a moment to stress the real importance of this issue. I mentioned earlier that drug-resistant infections can affect anyone at any age--the young, the old, the healthy or ill, I have read stories about newborns, high school and college athletes and NFL football players who have battled with these resistant infections, and many of them lost the fight.

I would like to read a short excerpt from one of these stories, which I think really stresses the need for attention to this issue. This was written by a woman from New Jersey named Linda Lohsen, who lost her daughter Rebecca to MRSA in August 2006. Ms. Lohsen writes:

Why do I want to share all of this with you? Because for 15

years I was a public health nurse--I heard all about the

diseases that might happen. And, perhaps like some of you, I

became jaded. I felt that public health was all about

sounding the alarm for things that never come to pass. I'm

here to tell you this is real, this does happen and it

destroys lives.

Rebecca's death has changed me, and has changed all of us.

Once I believed that the dangers that were out there would

stay out there. That modern medicine can avert these dangers.

I no longer have the confidence in medicine that I did. I

believe we have made great advances, that there are cures to

be had, but I've watched the dismay in the faces of doctors

who are supposed to be the best in their field as they told

me they didn't have any more `cures in their bag.' And I know

that it truly is a practice of medicine, not a finished

product.

Mr. President, Federal agencies, physicians and scientists who specialize in infectious diseases, and public health nurses like Linda Lohsen, are telling us there is a pressing need to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance. We do not have time to wait, and we cannot quickly fix something that we do not yet understand. As Mrs. Lohsen wrote, the dangers that are out there will not simply stay out there. We need to be aggressive in creating a strategy to prevent loss of life or a serious public health epidemic, and lift the economic burden on our health care system caused by antimicrobial resistance.

The STAAR Act is not the whole answer, but it is a good bill and an important step in the right direction. In addition to IDSA, the STAAR Act has been endorsed by more than a dozen highly regarded professional healthcare associations.

I am very pleased to sponsor this bill with Senator Brown, and I commend him for his work on this bill, for his interest in national health care, and for the hard work he performs in the Senate. It is a privilege to work with him on this matter.

Of course, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is long overdue, and we should do everything in our power to make sure we solve these particular problems.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 7th Annual ``National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week,'' which is celebrated in conjunction with Teacher Appreciation Week. This is a national effort to recognize the approximately 270,000 men and women that fill in for absent permanent teachers every day in the United States.

According to research performed by the Substitute Teaching Institute--STI--at Utah State University, as much as 1 full year of a child's elementary and secondary education is taught by substitute teachers. More often than not, these are talented individuals who are willing to take on the challenge of providing quality education when permanent teachers are out of the classroom. I believe it is only appropriate that we do something to recognize the efforts of these members of our communities who fill a void in the education of our children and play a vital role in maintaining continuity of instruction and a positive learning environment for students throughout our country.

I would also like to recognize and commend the work and dedication of the Substitute Teaching Institute. Established in 1995, STI provides substitute teachers with training materials to improve the quality of their contribution to classroom activities. Over the last 12 years, STI has evolved and grown to become one of our Nation's leaders in the effort to improve substitute teaching, providing training materials and services along with recruitment and retention assistance to school districts and substitute teachers around the world. Having expanded its work over the years, the STI continually works to revolutionize the role of substitute teachers into opportunities for educational excellence.

I am joined by Senators Clinton and Cochran in submitting a resolution designating May 5-9, 2008 as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week, and I urge all my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, introduced at the close of last week by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. This piece of legislation is a product of years of hard work and collaboration.

I want to start off by thanking Chairman Leahy for his willingness to name this bill in honor of my long-time staffer and former colleague, Shawn Bentley, whose untimely death, at 41, greatly saddened many in this body.

Shawn worked for the Judiciary Committee for a decade, from 1993- 2003. Starting as my counsel, he rose through the ranks, ending his Senate tenure as the majority's Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and Deputy Chief Counsel to the committee. He worked on many important pieces of landmark intellectual property legislation, and he initiated what we have now introduced as an orphan works bill.

Thousands of artistic creations around the country are effectively locked away in a proverbial attic and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the copyright for the work is unknown. These are generally referred to as ``orphan works.'' It is not always easy to identify an owner of a copyrighted work, and in many cases, information about the copyright holder is not publicly known. To make matters worse, many are discouraged from using these so-called ``orphan works'' for fear of being sued should the owner eventually step forward.

In an effort make orphan works more accessible, Chairman Leahy and I have been working together for years to craft meaningful legislation to address concerns that have been identified through public discussions on this issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing entitled ``Orphan Works: Proposals for a Legislative Solution,'' at which representatives from the photography, museum, documentary film, and technology communities testified. And a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held two hearings in the 109th Congress and one in the 110th.

Under S. 2913, potential users may use an orphan work if they conduct and document a diligent search but were unable to locate the copyright owner of the work for permission. While the bill outlines the criteria for a search, and the copyright office will disclose best practices for finding a copyright owner, the court makes the final determination as to whether a search is diligent and in good faith.

The proposed legislation also has a ``safe harbor'' for uses of orphan works that are educational, charitable, or religious in nature, and which are used without commercial advantage. We anticipate that many institutions such as museums, libraries, archives, nonprofit educational organizations, as well as public broadcasting entities will greatly benefit from this legislation since they would be qualified users.

S. 2913 represents a commitment from Congress to move forward in creating a way to identify copyright owners of orphan works and unlock access to thousands of artistic works so the general public may once again enjoy them. I am hopeful that further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process. I am confident

that Chairman Leahy and I will continue to, with outside input, perfect this bill, and am confident in our House counterparts to do the same.

I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that we can join efforts to refine and enact this bill.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I support this resolution designating the 30th day of April 2008 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Over the years, the Senate has passed seven similar resolutions in recognition of the young people throughout our country.

Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos every April 30th, in recognition and celebration of their country's future, their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes.

The designation of April 30 as a day to honor the children of our Nation will continue to affirm for the people of the United States the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide them with an opportunity to reflect on their future aspirations and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

I am joined in introducing this resolution by a bipartisan group of Senators that includes Senators Menendez, Craig, Lugar, Cochran, Brown, Durbin, and Crapo. I urge the remainder of my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted up to 15 minutes for my remarks today.

Mr. President, I have a great deal of appreciation for the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I know how sincere she is, and I know she feels very deeply about what she has just spoken. But this business of 68 clotures is hitting below the belt.

Time after time, the majority leader has filed bills--many of which have not even gone through committee, have not had 1 day of hearing, some of which have been filed for political purposes just to create tough votes--and then filed cloture immediately.

In the old days--I have been here almost 32 years--nobody did that. Then they call it a filibuster when they are the ones who filed cloture just for the purpose of being able to say there is a filibuster.

Almost invariably the bills that are good go through. Republicans will object sometimes because we want to be able to offer at least germane amendments. In this body, we have, in the past, even been able to offer nongermane amendments. But that is a no-no right now because the majority is concerned some will bring up amendments that might be embarrassing to the majority.

Well, having talked about ``embarrassing to the majority,'' why do you think the Ledbetter case was brought up through this statute? First of all, it did not have 1 day of hearings, as far as I know. It certainly was not put through a committee. It was brought up under rule XIV--which is a right to do--and then the bill itself was classically poorly written.

The fact is, this bill would have done away with the statute of limitations and made it almost impossible for any business to defend itself even in class action lawsuits. But it was brought primarily because the friends in some areas of the plaintiffs' bar wanted it brought so they could bring more suits in our society.

But to basically do away with the statute of limitations so that you could bring suits 10, 15, 25 years later, when all of the documentation is gone, the witnesses are gone, there is no way the company can defend itself, and it is an automatic slam dunk for plaintiffs' lawyers--some plaintiffs' lawyers, because most great plaintiffs' lawyers are not going to play this game--and then call that a good bill, there is something wrong with it.

With regard to the veterans bill--my goodness gracious. Let's think about this. With regard to the veterans bill, we are all for veterans-- every last one of us. But, again, cloture was immediately filed. We were not able to bring up amendments. Finally, in the end, what did we do? We spent all day yesterday doing nothing in order to accommodate two Presidential candidates on the Democratic side. Now, I

have no problem with that, with that accommodation, but we could have worked all day yesterday on the veterans bill and scheduled that vote the same time at the end of the day, as we did. But it was basically a wasted day in the Senate, other than hearings that might have gone on. To waste a whole day and then blame us for it, that is not right.

We all know why the Ledbetter bill was brought up. In many respects, it is just to score political points or it would have gone through the committee. Had it gone through the committee, had we done a good statute of limitations change, had we made some other changes that make sense in the law, I think we would have passed a bill that would have made Lilly Ledbetter at least realize that her actions were not in vain. But the way it was done looks to me as if it was done for political purposes and to score political points. We could have worked it out. At least I think we could have worked it out. But there was not even a chance to do that.

Let me just say this: I believe we have too much of this business that every time the majority files a bill and then files a cloture motion, they then call us filibusterers. That is not right, and it is not true. Frankly, we all know it is not true.

(Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)

Madam President, we live in cynical times, and today I want to address that cynicism; namely, a small number of media reports that, some have suggested, call into question the command abilities of the senior leadership of the U.S. Air Force.

In addition, I was dismayed to learn that a Member of the Senate has compounded these misrepresentations by recently authoring a letter that makes inaccurate assertions about matters that have already been dealt with by the proper military authorities and investigated by the inspector general of the Department of Defense.

Let me address the underlying matter directly. It has been my privilege and honor to represent the people of Utah in this august body for now more than 31 years. During that time, I have had the pleasure to meet many of our Nation's military leaders, their families, and, of course, military period. However, I can say without reservation the current generation of Air Force leaders is among the finest I have ever known in all my years in the Senate.

Under the steadfast and capable leadership of Secretary Michael Wynne and GEN Michael Moseley, the leaders of our Air Force are resolute in the defense of this country, tenacious in their support and care for the young men and women who serve under them, and dedicated to modernizing the ancient--or should I say aging--equipment of their force.

These are leaders to be proud of, not criticized the way they have been. They are leaders to have confidence in. They exemplify the Air Force's unofficial motto: ``Nothing Comes Close.'' They are the rightful heirs to the title: ``The Right Stuff.''

This does not mean errors do not occur. In any organization, especially one with more than 350,000 servicemembers, some will make mistakes, a few will veer from the straight and narrow; and, sadly, a tiny minority might even betray the public trust. That said, I believe the true measure of military leadership is not to wipe away every possible temptation and sin of mankind; it is to create a culture where malfeasance, once identified, is dealt with firmly, swiftly, and justly.

For example, the current Air Force leadership met this standard when it was recently tested by the wrongdoing of a civilian official during an initial attempt to replace our Nation's aerial tankers that are, on average, 47 years old. Once Senator McCain brought this malfeasance to the attention of the Air Force, the service responded by holding accountable those responsible. These individuals were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Yet from that troubled time, the current Air Force leadership rallied and conducted one of the most transparent, open, and fair procurement competitions in recent memory. That is stuff of which real leaders are made.

I was also disappointed to read the characterizations of some press reports regarding the speech given by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during his trip on Monday to the Air War College. When one reads some of these reports, one could only conclude that Secretary Gates was issuing a rebuke to the Air Force's leadership. This is most perplexing. Although I have not spoken to Secretary Gates about his speech, I have read the official transcript. My impression of his address was that Secretary Gates was not issuing an admonishment--not at all. In fact, I believe the Secretary was seeking to do what all good Secretaries of Defense strive to obtain: a more effective and efficient force through new and creative thinking.

Now, this conclusion is ironically bolstered by later reports from the same news service that published the initial reports I find so puzzling. These later reports quote the Pentagon press secretary as saying one of the major alleged reproaches was not directed at the Air Force as a service, but to ``the military as a whole.''

As I said earlier, we live in cynical times. Unfortunately, it has become customary for many in political circles to hurl unfair and even untrue criticisms at one another. One could argue this is the price of a vibrant democracy. However, this sort of behavior is unbecoming when it wrongly distracts our military leaders, especially during a time of war.

The Air Force leadership, under Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, has done an extraordinary job of protecting our Nation and supporting our other armed services in this war on terror. I, for one, am thankful we have such leaders in positions with such heavy responsibility. So today I rise to thank them. I thank Secretary Wynne. I thank General Moseley. They are thanks I believe they deserve from the entire Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withdraw that.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the bill that would overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. At the outset, let me be perfectly clear about the basis for my opposition to the so-called Fair Pay Restoration Act. I know of no one on either side of the aisle in this Senate who condones any form of unlawful employment discrimination, including pay discrimination.

Indeed, all forms of unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including pay discrimination, should be confronted promptly, efficiently, fairly and forthrightly, consistent with the enforcement scheme provided for by the Congress which enacted that law.

Yet, once again we open debate on another of the magnificently misnamed and misleading bills--the so-called Fair Pay Act which its proponents claim will ``restore'' the intent of Congress in enacting the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In fact, this bill does not restore anything, certainly not the rights of individuals under the Civil Rights Act and clearly not the statute of limitations set by Congress for the timely filing of unlawful employment discrimination charges, including pay discrimination charges, with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, or similar State agencies.

In fact, Congress fully intended the charge-filing period to be 180 days, or 300 days where there are similar State agencies, so as to encourage prompt, effective investigation, conciliation, and resolution of pay discrimination charges and charges of other forms of unlawful employment discrimination.

It was for that reason that Congress carefully chose and designed the current enforcement scheme, which has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court for over 40 years.

Over that time, Congress and the courts have wisely and consistently encouraged cooperation and voluntary

compliance, in the first instance, by the parties themselves and with the timely assistance of the EEOC or similar State agencies, as the preferred method for addressing alleged unlawful employment discrimination.

Where voluntary compliance and conciliation are unsuccessful, title VII provides for vigorous enforcement by the private parties and the EEOC through litigation.

In other words, voluntary compliance and conciliation first, litigation thereafter whenever necessary.

So, in fact, the so-called Fair Pay Act does not restore the intent of Congress or the original statute of limitations for the filing of pay discrimination charges, and neither does it restore lost rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In fact, this bill dramatically expands the charge filing beyond all recognition and expectations of the Congress which passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If this bill were to become law there would be no statute of limitations, no time limit for the filing of alleged pay discrimination charges. Not 180 days, not 300 days, not years or even decades, as in the Ledbetter case, or even after the employee has long since retired and is receiving pension checks.

This bill not only expands the statute of limitations for filing charges of alleged unlawful pay discrimination, it also expands the class of individuals who can file such charges. And, beyond reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision, which was an intentional discrimination case, this bill expands the time for filing the type of unintentional, disparate impact, or adverse impact, charges involving pay practices which are facially neutral but could have some type of unintended consequences adverse to women or other protected groups.

As to the expansion of charge filing under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to individuals outside the protected groups, the so-called Fair Pay Act would eliminate the existing requirement that to have standing there must be an employer-employee or employer-applicant relationship. This bill expands the standing to sue requirements to include individuals affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice. This language would appear to include spouse and other relatives, as well as anyone else affected indirectly.

I am not imagining this. In fact, when questioned about whether such a radical expansion of the law's standing requirements was intended by the bill's proponents, they responded that it was their intention to do so.

Thus, under this bill, not only could employees and retirees file charges of pay discrimination at any time, years or decades after the current statute of limitations, but so too could anyone affected by alleged pay discrimination file charges, presumably even after the employee is dead since the relatives or others were affected.

Let's also be candid about the type of pay discrimination alleged. The Ledbetter case involved only claims of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment of individuals in a protected group. This bill would apply also to unintentional discrimination--so-called disparate impact, or adverse impact, discrimination. Those are cases where the pay practices are neural and non-discriminatory on their face, but through statistical analysis such pay practices may have an unintended, attenuated disparate impact on a protected group, such as women. Indeed, the challenged pay practices may not have been intentionally discriminatory treatment, or even have had a disparate impact at the time of their enactment, but sometime later a social scientist or statistician may assert that the pay practices subsequently may have had an adverse impact on one group or another.

Thus, in fact this bill goes well beyond simply reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter as its proponents claim.

I am also convinced that the so-called Fair Pay Act which we are debating today would turn the system of enforcement established by Congress in 1964 on its head in a way that is most unfair.

At the heart of title VII and every other employment nondiscrimination statute--indeed, at the heart of every civil law enacted in this country--there is a statute of limitations within which claims and charges must be brought. Actions brought outside those statutory time periods are time barred.

The Supreme Court has consistently held in a long line of well- settled and well-recognized case law that under title VII the statutory period for filing a charge begins to run when the alleged discriminatory decision is made and communicated, not when the complaining party feels the consequences of that decision.

Proponents of this act are, in essence, permitting an open-ended period for filing charges of pay discrimination with every paycheck and every decision that contributed to current pay, or even with receipt of pension or other retirement checks. The so-called Fair Pay Act would result in a litigation ``gotcha'' strategy, or a ``litigation first and ask questions later'' enforcement scheme which is directly contrary to congressional intent in enacting title VII.

The current statutory charge-filing period for allegations of employment discrimination, including pay discrimination, did not suddenly pop up under the current Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision.

In fact, the Supreme Court has long upheld that the current statute of limitations for filing charges under title VII. In an often quoted passage from the 1974 Supreme Court decision American Pipe v. Utah, the title VII statutory limitation on the filing of charges beyond the 180- or 300-day period ``promote(s) justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.''

In its 1979 decision in United States v. Kubrick, the Supreme Court said that the charge-filing period under title VII is ``balanced'' and ``fair'' to both employers and employees.

The current 180- or 300-day charge filing period allows the employer and the EEOC (1) to investigate the pay discrimination charge: (2) to seek compromise, conciliation, settlement and fair resolution of the charge; and (3) to allow both parties to prepare for litigation, if necessary, by gathering and preserving evidence for trial where resolution is not possible outside of litigation.

Now let's look at how the current system would change under the so- called Fair Pay Act.

The plaintiff's charges of pay discrimination could be brought years, decades, or even after the plaintiff's retirement from the company, or as I have stated earlier, by charges filed by relatives or other affected parties even after the employee's death. The employer's ability to defend its actions or decisions will have dissipated. Managers and decision-makers may no longer be available. Business units may have been reorganized, dissolved, or sold, and operations may have changed or been eliminated. Relevant documents and records which are not required to be preserved by law might have been disposed of, or are otherwise unavailable. In effect, as the Supreme Court stated in defending the current charge-filing period under title VII, unless an employer receives prompt notice of allegations of employment discrimination it will have no ``opportunity to gather and preserve the evidence with which to sustain (itself). . . .''

I am convinced that the only beneficiaries of the so-called Fair Pay Act--the only ones who will see an increase in pay--are the trial lawyers.

So, if the so-called Fair Pay Act:

(1) does not restore lost rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other employment non-discrimination statutes it amends, but greatly expands them;

(2) does not restore the statute of limitations under title VII but eliminates any statute of limitations creating open-ended, unlimited liability;

(3) does not further the intent of Congress in title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to encourage prompt investigation, conciliation and resolution of unlawful discriminatory pay practices; and

(4) does not result in increased pay except for the plaintiff's trial lawyers who will gain an unfair advantage when the employer's witnesses are unavailable, memories have faded, records are long gone, and the jury trial becomes a ``he said, she said'' based solely on the word of a corporation against that of an individual plaintiff;

Then what does the bill do?

I believe this bill undermines one of the bedrock principles of all Judeo-Christian jurisprudence--the statute of limitations. Frankly, I may be mistaken, but I know of no other civil statute that allows an unlimited, open-ended time for filing an action. Criminal statutes, of course, may be open-ended in bringing indictments for such felony crimes as murder, but even criminal misdemeanors generally have a statutory period within which prosecutions must be brought.

For all these reasons, I suggest that this largely political vote on this misnamed and misunderstood bill is one that is designed to place opponents of the bill in a false light of being unsympathetic to victims of pay discrimination. That is simply untrue.

I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.

Mr. President, I object.

I happened to be here for the vote. You know, this is a game that has been played by both sides, last year and this year too. The majority calls up a bill, they generally file cloture. And, frankly, that does not mean there is a filibuster. As you can easily see, the vote was basically unanimous to going ahead with the bill.

What bothers me is that time after time we have had situations where we were not able to even offer amendments, even a limited number of amendments. But generally we get to that point around here because we have to. And it is the only right the minority has. So that is one reason that occasionally the minority will require cloture.

But there is also too much of this filing cloture by the majority the minute the bill comes up. That, of course, is a game, frankly, with no intention on our side to filibuster the bill or stop the bill.

So these high numbers that are said are mythical, to be honest with you. And, frankly, I hope someday we can realize that this is a legislative body where both sides have certain rights and that one side cannot roll over the other side without at least giving them an opportunity to file amendments.

Frankly, the other side, the majority side, has been able to win on amendments anyway in many cases. I think to stand and say that the Republicans are causing all of this mixup is not quite as accurate, as I think the record will show.

Mr. President, last week an event occurred that was a long time coming.

I am not talking about the grand opening of the Newseum a few blocks from here down Pennsylvania Avenue.

No, last week the Senate finally voted on and confirmed a few nominees to the Federal bench.

This event is of historical proportions because not since 1848 had the Senate taken this long to confirm a Federal judge in a Presidential election year.

You heard me right.

The first judicial confirmation of 2004 was on January 28, the first one in 2000 was on February 10, and the first one in 1996 was on January 2.

One of my Democratic colleagues was here on the floor last week trying to shuffle the historical chairs on the judicial confirmation deck by talking about the 1996 session rather than 1996 itself because the second session of the 104th Congress began on January 3.

By dicing and splicing the calendar that way, he tried to avoid counting all of the judges we confirmed that year.

I am not going to play that game.

I am comparing apples with apples, years with years.

In 33 of the 40 Presidential election years since 1848, the Senate confirmed the first Federal judge by the end of February.

Not mid-April, not mid-March, but the end of February.

This is the latest start to judicial confirmations in a presidential election year in 160 years.

Now I realize that the Senate cannot vote on nominations that have not been reported to the floor from the Judiciary Committee.

And the Judiciary Committee generally does not report out nominees who have not had a hearing.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee has simply not been holding hearings for nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

There was no judicial confirmation hearing at all last month, and the hearing 2 weeks ago was yet another one with no appeals court nominee.

This graph shows the number of appeals court nominees receiving a Judiciary Committee hearing in each of the 16 Congresses since I was first elected to the Senate.

These are the 95th Congress in 1977-78 to the current 110th Congress.

You can see there is some variation here and there from Congress to Congress, but without a doubt the 110th Congress is the lowest of them all.

Appeals court nominees are simply not getting hearings.

This graph helps us better evaluate what is going on today.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing for an average of 23 appeals court nominees in the previous 15 Congresses during which I have served in this body.

One of my Democratic colleagues last week actually mocked using such an average as a comparison.

This average is over many years and includes periods when Democrats as well as Republicans ran the Senate and occupied the White House.

It is a much better, much more reliable standard than pulling out the single year or, worse yet, only the portion of a single year that makes a predetermined partisan point.

Today, 15 months into the 110th Congress, only five appeals court nominees have received a hearing.

That is less than one-fourth the average over the previous 30 years.

Now some might say that Presidential election years, and therefore Presidential election Congresses, are different, that everything slows down.

OK, fair enough, perhaps that would be a better comparison.

Comparing the current Congress with the previous seven Presidential election Congresses, however, only widens the contrast between what the Senate has done in the past and what the Senate is not doing today.

It turns out that the Judiciary Committee held a hearing for an even higher average of 25 appeals court nominees during those Presidential election seasons.

In the current Presidential election season, however, only five appeals court nominees have had hearings.

If the partisan roles were reversed and the pace of hearings for appeals court nominees had slowed to perhaps one-half or one-third of the historic average, I can guarantee you that my friends across the aisle would be down here raising the roof about how we were failing to do our confirmation duty.

In fact, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee under the previous President and the hearing pace was much faster than it is today, my colleagues

on the other side did complain early, loudly, and often.

But the pace today is worse than one-half, worse than one-third, worse even than one-fourth of the historic average.

The current Judiciary Committee hearing pace for appeals court nominees is the worst in decades.

In fact, there is virtually no current pace at all.

It has not been this way in the past, and it does not have to be this way today.

I am pleased that last night the distinguished majority and minority leaders spoke about this here on the floor and the majority leader acknowledged that ``we need to make more progress on judges.''

The majority leader said he would do his very best, his utmost as he put it, to confirm three more appeals court nominees by Memorial Day, which is coming in less than 6 weeks.

I would like to point out a few highly qualified nominees who have been waiting a long time and who I hope will be included in this effort.

Yesterday, this editorial appeared in the Washington Post.

It opens with these words: ``It is time to stop playing games with judicial nominees.''

The editorial correctly notes that the Senate confirmed more than twice as many appeals court nominees in the final 2 years of the Clinton administration than the Senate has confirmed so far in the 110th Congress.

Even with the three additional appeals court nominees the majority leader has pledged to confirm, we have a lot of ground to make up.

The editorial suggests beginning to make up that ground by confirming Peter Keisler to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Rod Rosenstein to the Fourth Circuit.

Unlike some other languishing appeals court nominees, Mr. Keisler has at least had a hearing.

But it was 624 days ago.

Mr. Rosenstein has not been waiting that long but is fully as qualified. As the Post editorial points out, he has admirers on both sides of the aisle and is an excellent and principled lawyer.

Two other Fourth Circuit nominees whose consideration by the Judiciary Committee is long overdue are Steven Matthews of South Carolina and Robert Conrad of North Carolina.

My colleagues from those States are speaking in more detail on the floor today, but I want to highlight that these fine nominees have the strong support of their home-State Senators.

Lack of such support can be a reason why a nominee does not get a hearing.

I know, because that is the reason I could not give a hearing to some Clinton judicial nominees when I chaired the Judiciary Committee.

But that is not the case with these nominees.

And in Judge Conrad's case, this body confirmed him just a few years ago to the U.S. District Court without even a rollcall vote.

I hope that this pledge by the majority to make some much-needed confirmation progress is not just a temporary flash in the pan.

The majority leader last night suggested that there is some kind of rule that the Senate does not confirm judicial nominees after June.

He actually referred to this as the Thurmond doctrine.

I want to say to my colleagues that there is no such thing as a Thurmond doctrine, a Thurmond rule, or even a Thurmond guideline for judicial confirmations in a Presidential election year.

In 2000, the current Judiciary Committee chairman said that while things might, he said might, slow down ``within a couple months of a presidential election,'' that the best judicial confirmation standard was set in 1992.

Like today, his party was in the majority.

Like today, a President Bush was in the White House.

Senator Thurmond himself was ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

In that Presidential election year, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on appeals court nominees until September 24 and the Senate confirmed appeals court nominees until October 8.

The Senate confirmed 66 judges, including 11 appeals court judges, in 1992.

So I want to dispel this judicial confirmation myth that there is any kind of rule, let alone a doctrine, that justifies shutting down the confirmation activity which I hope and trust is finally about to begin.

There is no doubt that we are way behind where we should be in the judicial confirmation process.

But it does not have to stay that way, not if we are serious about doing our duty.

As the Washington Post editorial said, the Senate ``should at least give every current nominee an up-or-down vote and expeditiously process the nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.''

That would be a great place to start.

Mr. President, tomorrow is April 15, the day tax returns are due to the IRS for most citizens. It is a day most Americans meet with fear and loathing. Even though most taxpayers will not file their returns tomorrow because they have already done so or because they have filed for an extension, April 15 remains a symbol of a burdensome tax liability and an even more burdensome tax compliance system for millions of Americans.

April 15 is met with apprehension and dread for many reasons. The primary one is understandable. People do not like paying taxes. Who can blame them? Under the best of circumstances, if you owe Uncle Sam, a day spent with your tax return is worse than a day spent with the dentist. Yes, the IRS has become one of the most despised institutions in American life. However, a good share of this agency's reputation is undeserved. In fact, considering all we require the Internal Revenue Service to do and the resources we give them, the folks who work there do a pretty darn good job.

Paying taxes is never going to be popular, nor is it ever going to be fun. However, we all know it does not have to be as bad as it is. A great deal of the aggravation, a good share of the complexity, and much of the confusion is probably unnecessary.

I could spend many hours speaking about what is wrong with our tax system. It is, in military parlance, a target-rich environment. In fact, I expect we will hear a fair number of our colleagues speaking today and tomorrow on the Senate floor deploring the tax system. But amid all this denouncement of the IRS and the Tax Code, we in Congress should recognize an ugly truth; that is, a great deal of the blame for our far less than first-rate tax system lies right here with us, the Members of Congress who created it and who have the power to improve it.

I wish to focus on a disturbing trend we have seen growing much worse in recent years that is adding a great deal of stress to our already troubled tax system. This is the increasing tendency of the Congress to create temporary tax provisions and then allow them to expire while leaving taxpayers in limbo as to what the rules are going to be.

If we take a look at over the past dozen or so years, we see a growing proclivity on the part of Congress to enact tax provisions on a temporary basis rather than permanently. This has mostly been done to satisfy the often perverse demands of our budget rules.

But whatever the reasons, the effect of not extending these provisions before they expire has been greatly damaging to the tax system and to taxpayers' ability to understand and rely on the law. The effect has been to weaken this country economically and competitively.

Let us consider the research credit as an example. This is an important provision that has been in the law since the early 1980s, and it enjoys wide and bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

The research credit provides a strong incentive for businesses to increase their research and development activities in the United States. It probably is universally accepted that R&D investment is the lifeblood of high technology and is vital to the future of our economic leadership.

We all know this, and almost to a person, the Members in this body would say they support a strong, vibrant, effective, and permanent research system. Why then have we allowed this credit to expire 13 times?

Here we are, once again, in mid-April and our research credit has been expired since the end of last year. The worst part is, while we all believe it will be extended eventually, everyone knows the credit will not be made permanent, and the likelihood it will be allowed to expire again is very high.

In the meantime, many of our global trading partners have developed stronger and more permanent research incentives in an attempt to lure away research from our shores. They perceive a weakness in our incentive system, and they are moving to capitalize on this very weakness. It appears these actions are working because we are seeing the amount of research activity in the United States growing much more slowly than it is overseas. We simply cannot afford to lose to other countries our research and the jobs that research brings.

Unfortunately, this problem goes way beyond the research credit. Each year, the Joint Committee on Taxation releases a list of expired and expiring tax provisions. The list for 2008 was 28 pages long and included an unbelievable 145 provisions. By contrast, the list released in 2003 was 13 pages and featured 71 provisions. Fifteen years ago, there would not have been much of a list at all.

Our habit of adding new expiring provisions in the tax law is out of control and, worse, our refusal to deal with extending these provisions on a timely basis well before they expire is inexcusable.

It is the obligation of the majority party in Congress to operate the legislative trains so they run on time and produce laws on which our people can at least rely, if not be proud of. While there is blame to spread between both parties in this area of expired tax provisions, which have such a degenerating effect on our already shaky tax system, we all know who is at fault for the current fiasco.

I do not think anyone in this body will have trouble recalling the weeks-long standoff that occurred late last year over the so-called AMT patch. All of us, though, would probably prefer to forget it if we could.

Instead of addressing the issue of alternative minimum tax and its expired thresholds early on, which would have lent a degree of certainty to an already obnoxious and insidious tax, the Democrats last year dithered on both the AMT patch and on the other soon-to-expire provisions.

The result was a last-minute agreement on the AMT patch that put this year's tax filing season in jeopardy, greatly confused the American taxpayers, and left behind the other now-expired tax provisions. Perhaps most stunningly irresponsible was the fact that we took care of the AMT patch for 2007 only, and now we are facing the same scenario for this year. It must have been so much fun last year that we want to do it again in 2008.

I am very aware of the arguments surrounding the question of whether extending these provisions should be offset, and I will address those on another day.

Today, however, on the eve of America's most hated day, I call on my colleagues, and especially those on the other side of the aisle, to consider why this is so and what it is we are not doing that is the reason why the words ``April 15,'' ``IRS,'' and ``Congress'' are among the least popular in the lexicon.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge the passage of S. 793, the reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, Program. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have passed this bill and it will now be sent to the President's desk to be signed into law.

I thank my colleague and coauthor of the Senate bill, Senator Kennedy, and his staff for their hard work over the past few years. I also extend my gratitude to Senator Enzi and his staff for their diligent efforts in helping to reauthorize this important program.

I also must thank the leaders of this effort in the House, Representatives Bill Pascrell, Jr., Frank Pallone, Jr., and their staffs who have been so dedicated to helping individuals with TBI.

Also, this bill would not have been possible without the cooperation and input from involved organizations, such as the Brain Injury Association of America, BIAA; the National Association of State Head Injury Administrators, NASHIA; the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment and Training Foundation, NBIRTT; and the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN; and I thank them all for their contributions.

It means a lot to the 5.3 million Americans living with TBI, and their families, to reauthorize the only Federal program that helps them. The Federal TBI Program comprises prevention and surveillance activities at the Center for Disease Control, CDC, research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and grants to States from the Health Resources and Services Administrations, HRSA. This reauthorization bill expands and improves those activities, and includes provisions to look at the reintegration of war vets returning to their communities.

Each year, 1.4 million people sustain a TBI and face long-term or lifelong need for help to perform activities of daily living as a result. Direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost productivity of TBI totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in 2000. We can help truncate those costs and ensure that people are connected to the services they need by continuing this important program.

It has been a labor of love to draft and enact legislation to reauthorize this important program. On behalf of individuals living with TBI, and their families, I thank my colleagues in Congress for passing this legislation and reaffirming our commitment to helping those with who suffer from traumatic brain injuries.

Mr. President, one of my colleagues was recently quoted as saying that facts are stubborn things.

The facts are that the majority has virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process.

Some say that the process always shuts down in a Presidential election year, so I checked every one since I was first elected.

By today, April 10, in each of those Presidential election years, the Judiciary Committee had held hearings for multiple appeals court nominees.

But this year, only one appeals court nominee has had a hearing, and there is not another one on the schedule.

The Judiciary Committee held no confirmation hearing at all last month, and last week's hearing was yet another one with no appeals court nominee.

The facts are just as stubborn when we look at the entire 110th Congress.

Since I was first elected, there have been seven Congresses like this one that included a Presidential election year.

During each of these Presidential election Congresses, the Judiciary Committee held hearings for an average of 25 appeals court nominees.

But today, more than 15 months into the 110th Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing for only five appeals court nominees.

This amounts to just one-fifth of the average for previous Presidential election seasons.

If the partisan roles were reversed and the pace of hearings for appeals court nominees had slowed to perhaps one-half or one-third of the historic average, I can guarantee you that my friends across the aisle would be down here raising the roof about how we were failing to do our confirmation duty.

In fact, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee under the previous President and the hearing pace was actually much faster than it is today, they did complain early, loudly, and often.

But the pace today is worse than one-half, worse than one-third, worse even than one-fourth of the historic average.

The current Judiciary Committee hearing pace for appeals court nominees is the worst in decades.

In fact, there is no current pace at all.

Or look at what is going on or I should say what is not going on, here on the Senate floor.

The current Judiciary Committee chairman in the past often insisted that 1992 provides the standard for judicial confirmation progress.

Like today, his party controlled the Senate and a President Bush was in the White House.

By this time that year, by April 10, 1992, the Senate had already confirmed 25 nominees to the Federal bench.

It does not look like the Senate will confirm 25 judicial nominees for the entire rest of the year.

This afternoon we will finally have the opportunity, the first opportunity of the year, to vote on a few nominees to the Federal bench.

The majority has stalled judicial confirmation votes longer this year than in any Presidential election year since 1848.

Yes, you heard me right.

This is the latest start to judicial confirmations of any Presidential election year in 160 years.

That was the century before last. That was before Utah even became a territory, let alone a State.

The last time the Senate waited this long in a Presidential election year to confirm Federal judges, James Polk, the 11th President, was in the White House.

What could possibly explain such abject confirmation failure?

I might have missed it, but I am not aware of any domestic armed conflict today that is disrupting the Senate's business.

Yet the Civil War did not stop the Senate in 1864 from confirming seven judges before April 10.

Senators today do not have to use horses or carriages or travel on dirt roads.

Yet slow, burdensome travel did not stop the Senate in 1884 from confirming five judges before April 10.

The Great Depression did not stop the Senate in 1932 from confirming 14 judges before April 10.

The possibility of the Senate majority party capturing the White House did not stop Republicans in 2000 from confirming seven judges, including five appeals court judges, before April 10.

Today is April 10, 2008, and we will not confirm a single nominee to the Federal bench until this afternoon and even this late start was noticed only yesterday.

Facts are indeed very stubborn things.

The majority has already virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process.

The Senate has not always operated this way.

The majority is refusing to do what the American people sent us here to do because--I guess, simply--they can.

That may be the reason, but it certainly is no excuse.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a little over a year ago, I stood before the Senate and recited the words of Thomas Paine--who in his essay titled ``Chaos''--spoke about commitment and sacrifice to a noble cause when it appeared that all hope was lost. His words still resonate today:

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer

soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink

from the service of his country; but he that stands it now

deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Paine wrote those words when it seemed the American Revolution was lost. However, their effect was to rally what remained of the Continental Army and ensure the success of Washington's raids on Trenton and Princeton.

When I recited Paine's words, our Nation faced a dilemma. Despite the great heroism and noble sacrifice of our servicemembers, large portions of Iraq were under the control of al-Qaida. The mainstream media had concluded that, at best, our forces were locked in a stalemate. Many advocated that the only recourse was to bring the troops home and allow Iraq to fall in the abyss of an implosion.

For some, including the senior Senator from Arizona and me, that was never an option. The knowledge, experience and, hopefully, wisdom that I have accumulated over the years in this august body allowed me to make only one conclusion: If we are not successful in this war the result will be catastrophic for our Nation, the Western world, and the Middle East. This enemy--and despite what some in the media would lead us to believe, our main adversary in Iraq is al-Qaida--will pursue us home. Imagine the horrors that will follow if al-Qaida, with reinvigorated resources provided by Iraq's oil wealth, were to defeat us in Iraq.

However, one of the great historical truths of our Nation is that in our most dire hours, our military has continually provided us with leaders of great resolve and strategic brilliance. General David Petraeus amply fits that mold.

The new strategy that General Petraeus proposed--in which he has so ably been assisted by Ambassador Crocker--is based on the classical counterinsurgency tenet of providing security to the population of a nation under attack.

Why is this critical? By providing security to the Iraqi people, that Nation's citizens will develop a vested interest in the creation of institutions that will ensure their security for the future. Simply put, only in a secure environment can the majority of Iraqis earn a living, put food on the table, and provide a better life for their families.

What once was theory is now becoming reality. The Iraqi people are seeing considerable results from General Petraeus's strategy and their actions and plans for the future increasingly reflect this new reality.

How do we know this? Since the beginning of 2007, well over 100,000 individuals have joined the Iraqi Army and security forces. This means that a total of 540,000 Iraqis now serve in that Nation's security forces. This includes the 91,641 individuals, who in little over a year, have joined the Sons of Iraq, the coalition of citizens that are tasked with providing security to their local communities. One should remember that 80 percent of the Sons of Iraq are Sunni Muslims. In addition, it should be noted that al-Qaida receives most of its support from the Sunni. Frankly, this alone is a major triumph.

The Iraqi people are also providing us intelligence. One of the methods by which we find weapons and explosive caches is through tips from the local population. In 2006, Coalition forces found and cleared 2,660 such weapons caches. In 2007, after the Petraeus strategy was implemented, that number increased to 6,963. What is even more impressive is that though we have just entered the fourth month of this year, Coalition forces have already seized more weapons caches than in all of 2006. Clearly, this increase in seizures would not be possible without greater support from the Iraqi population.

In the area of ethno-sectarian violence, we have seen a dramatic reduction in deaths. When our new strategy was first implemented, there were more than 2,000 ethno-sectarian deaths a month in Iraq and over 1,500 in Baghdad alone. Today, there are fewer than 250 ethno-sectarian deaths a month in all of Iraq.

All of these events have occurred during the period of enhanced security brought about by General Petraeus's strategy. For example, shortly after the implementation of this strategy, there were greater then 1,400 weekly security incidents in Iraq. Today that number has dropped to less than half.

In addition, the number of high profile attacks, which include car bombs, suicide car bombs and suicide vests--the preferred means of murder by al-Qaida--has also decreased by more than half from March 2007 to the present day.

Enhanced security has strengthened the foundations of political institutions and economic ventures. This is evidenced by a poll conducted by the Center for International Private Enterprise which was summarized by Ambassador Crocker in his testimony. That poll, which was conducted last month, concluded that 78 percent of Iraq's business owners ``expect the Iraqi economy to grow significantly in the next 2 years.''

Equally as impressive is the International Monetary Fund estimate that Iraq's gross domestic product will grow by 7 percent in real terms this year--7 percent. That rate of growth will only be matched by some Asian tiger economies and it is a level that I wish that the United States could enjoy.

This economic growth and strengthening of political institutions is also evidenced by the fact that the United States will no longer fund major infrastructure projects. Ambassador Crocker reports the reason for this fundamental shift is that Iraq's economy is now earning sufficient funds for the Iraqi Government to independently build their own infrastructure.

This does not mean that we should view this conflict through rose- colored glasses. As evidenced by the events in Basra last week, there remain many challenges ahead. The fact is that the Iraqi operations in Basra were not properly planned. However, as General Petraeus said: ``. . . in the wake of recent operations, there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases . . . Nonetheless, the performance of many [Iraqi] units was solid, especially once they got their footing and gained a degree of confidence, and certain Iraqi elements proved quite capable . . .''

In addition, it should be noted that in previous years no one would have dreamed that the Iraqi Government would have launched such an operation. Remember, the Prime Minister gave an order to the security forces. Those orders were executed. In Basra, the results were mixed. Some units did well; some did not. However, the fact that the Government thought they could execute this major operation independently is a positive development. As General Petraeus testified ``operations in Basra highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi Security Forces to deploy substantial number of units, supplies and replacements on very short notice; they certainty could not have deployed a division's worth of Army and Police units a year ago.''

Further progress is also being made by Iraq's political institutions. When our new strategy was first being implemented, there seemed to be an inextricable stalemate in Iraq's parliament. During my trip to Iraq in May 2007, Senator Smith and I spoke to senior members of the Iraqi Parliament and strongly urged them to pass legislation vital to the reconstruction and the establishment of effective political institutions. As with any democratic political process, it has been slow going. However, the Iraqi Parliament has recently passed important laws. These include a new pension law, de-Ba'athification reform, and a new Provincial Powers Law, that sets elections for this fall and defines the structure of power between the Iraqi Federal Government and its provinces. These are great strides forward, and all Americans should recognize our accomplishments in Iraq.

I believe that Ambassador Crocker summed up the situation best when he said yesterday:

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 world ultimately will judge us far more on the

basis of what will happen than what has happened. In the end,

how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important

than how we came. Our current course is hard, but it is

working. Progress is real, although still fragile. We need to

stay with it.

Mr. President, the road has been long and hard. However, as I said 1 year ago, the words of Thomas Paine remind us that great causes require sacrifice, that in any conflict there will be dark days, but if our cause is just and our will is strong, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish as a people. I suggest very strongly that our cause is just and our will is stronger than some in this body believe it to be.

Mr. President, our forces have accomplished much. It is now our responsibility to sustain them until they achieve the victory which they deserve, and for which they are fighting.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.