Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg to reintroduce Danielle's Act, an important piece of legislation that I know will save countless lives. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush Holt, who has championed the bill in the House and has been a tireless advocate for individuals with disabilities. This bill is named in memory of a young woman from New Jersey, Danielle Gruskowski, whose life was cut tragically short by a failure to call 9-1-1. The great State of New Jersey has already passed Danielle's Law, and it is time for Congress to act as well.

In order to understand the importance of this legislation, I would like to share Danielle's story. She was born December 6, 1969, to Diane and Doug Gruskowski and raised in Carteret, NJ. Danielle was developmentally disabled and diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes a delay or regression in development, including speech, hand skills, and coordination. While Danielle needed help with daily activities, she managed to lead a full and active life. As a young adult, Danielle moved to a group home to experience the positive benefits of independent living. Tragically, on November 5, 2002, Danielle passed away at the age of 32 because no one in the group home called 9-1-1 when she was clearly in need of emergency medical attention.

So that no other mother would lose her child in such a tragic circumstance, Danielle's mother and her aunt, Robin Turner, developed a strong coalition of supporters and worked with their State representatives to develop and pass what we know as Danielle's Law. Like the New Jersey law, my bill will require staff working with individuals who have a developmental disability or traumatic brain injury to call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. The legislation would raise the standard of care by improving staff training and ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities get emergency care when they need it.

All Americans deserve an advocate, and today I am speaking for those who often cannot speak for themselves. I am proud to be an advocate for individuals with disabilities, and I am proud to be an advocate for the families in New Jersey who are counting on safe, secure, and healthy independent living environments for their loved ones with disabilities. I also would like to recognize the hard-working caregivers and staff who help provide for the needs of those with disabilities. They show their compassion every day when they show up for work, performing one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in our society--caring for someone's mother, father, son, or daughter. These caregivers play such a critical role in our society and their contributions are to be commended. By raising awareness and education about Danielle's Law, my hope is that more caregivers will realize how important it is to call 9-1-1 for all life-threatening situations and that better training and support will be provided to staff across the country.

I am reintroducing this legislation to remember Danielle and to make sure no other family or community experiences the pain and suffering of losing a loved one to an avoidable death. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg to reintroduce Danielle's Act, an important piece of legislation that I know will save countless lives. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush Holt, who has championed the bill in the House and has been a tireless advocate for individuals with disabilities. This bill is named in memory of a young woman from New Jersey, Danielle Gruskowski, whose life was cut tragically short by a failure to call 9-1-1. The great State of New Jersey has already passed Danielle's Law, and it is time for Congress to act as well.

In order to understand the importance of this legislation, I would like to share Danielle's story. She was born December 6, 1969, to Diane and Doug Gruskowski and raised in Carteret, NJ. Danielle was developmentally disabled and diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes a delay or regression in development, including speech, hand skills, and coordination. While Danielle needed help with daily activities, she managed to lead a full and active life. As a young adult, Danielle moved to a group home to experience the positive benefits of independent living. Tragically, on November 5, 2002, Danielle passed away at the age of 32 because no one in the group home called 9-1-1 when she was clearly in need of emergency medical attention.

So that no other mother would lose her child in such a tragic circumstance, Danielle's mother and her aunt, Robin Turner, developed a strong coalition of supporters and worked with their State representatives to develop and pass what we know as Danielle's Law. Like the New Jersey law, my bill will require staff working with individuals who have a developmental disability or traumatic brain injury to call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. The legislation would raise the standard of care by improving staff training and ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities get emergency care when they need it.

All Americans deserve an advocate, and today I am speaking for those who often cannot speak for themselves. I am proud to be an advocate for individuals with disabilities, and I am proud to be an advocate for the families in New Jersey who are counting on safe, secure, and healthy independent living environments for their loved ones with disabilities. I also would like to recognize the hard-working caregivers and staff who help provide for the needs of those with disabilities. They show their compassion every day when they show up for work, performing one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in our society--caring for someone's mother, father, son, or daughter. These caregivers play such a critical role in our society and their contributions are to be commended. By raising awareness and education about Danielle's Law, my hope is that more caregivers will realize how important it is to call 9-1-1 for all life-threatening situations and that better training and support will be provided to staff across the country.

I am reintroducing this legislation to remember Danielle and to make sure no other family or community experiences the pain and suffering of losing a loved one to an avoidable death. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, as I rise today to talk about the genocide in Darfur, I ask myself: How long will we wait until we invoke real sanctions on the Sudan? How long will we wait until a hybrid African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force is in place? And how many more reports must we read about how the African Union troops are overstretched, underfunded, and ill-equipped before the international community provides them with the support they need to be effective?

How many more people from Darfur must be driven from their homes and forced to give up their livelihoods before the world says enough is enough? How many more hundreds of thousands of people must die before we do everything--everything--in our power to stop the atrocities? When will we give real meaning to our commitment to the phrase ``never again?''

After 4 years, hundreds of thousands of Darfurians killed, more than 2.5 million people displaced, and some 80,000 people in Darfur who have spilled into refugee camps this year alone, it is time that we act more strategically and effectively to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Despite our efforts thus far, it is clear that we have seen no real change for the people of Darfur who continue to be attacked and killed. It is time to stop wringing our hands. We must take a hard look at our current policy and ask ourselves: Why, after years of international engagement, has the genocide not stopped in Darfur, and what can we do differently now?

The simple answer is: We must deal with Darfur's economic lifeline, China. Right now, China has unique ties, influence, and leverage over the Sudanese Government. Here we see the Chinese Prime Minister meeting with the Sudanese President in Beijing, the capital of China.

China has unique ties, influence, and leverage over the Sudanese Government. Because of China's close economic relationship with Khartoum, Sudan is able to expand its infrastructure, increase its defense budget, and profit from its oil exports. It is time to diminish the strength of this lifeline.

Over the last decade we have watched China and Sudan forge a strong economic partnership. We have here, as I said, a picture of the Chinese Premiere meeting with the Sudanese President last November. China currently has at least $3 billion invested in the Sudanese energy sector for a total of $10 billion since the 1990s.

China reportedly buys as much as 70 percent of Sudan's oil. They recently canceled over $100 million in Sudanese debt, and they are building vast infrastructure and new government offices for Sudan.

China has even committed to providing funds so that Khartoum can build a new $20 million Presidential palace. A Presidential palace.

The fact is, with China as their friend, the impact of international action against the Sudanese Government has been diluted, and the genocide has continued. Because of China's investment and attention, Sudan has reportedly been able to double--double--its defense budget. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, Sudan is spending between 60 percent to 80 percent of its oil revenue, its national treasure, on what? On weapons.

A report by Amnesty International released last week concluded that these weapons come from--guess where--China, which has continued its arms sales to the Sudanese Government despite the March 2005 arms embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

Simply put, Chinese investment fuels the atrocities taking place in Darfur. It is time that China uses its power and influence over Khartoum to do more than fill its own pocketbook. China is an emerging power on the world stage, and it is time they act accordingly with this responsibility.

Because of their close economic ties with the Sudan, China is in the position to significantly influence Khartoum, and it must use its clout to convince President Bashir to allow a hybrid African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur.

This is one of the most pressing actions to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Last year, Chinese President Hu mentioned the peacekeeping with Sudan's President when the two met in Khartoum. But talk is cheap. It is time for real action.

As John Prendergast, the senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, said a few weeks ago in testimony before Congress, ``Barking without biting is the diplomatic equivalent of giving comfort to the enemy.''

Now is the time to bite. Now is the time for China to use the full weight of its economic influence to change Khartoum's policies. Now, I know China has taken some positive steps in the past to address the crisis in Darfur. They helped facilitate the Addis Ababa framework in November of 2006; they have pledged to provide military engineers to support African Union peacekeepers in Darfur; and they have appointed a special Africa envoy to focus on Darfur.

While we are certainly happy to see those positive measures, I am still concerned that China will continue its habit of taking small steps each time the international community turns up the heat but will not take major steps that will affect Darfur in the long run.

The simple fact is, China needs to do more to be actively involved in the solution. Next year, we will see China take center stage when it hosts the 2008 Olympic games. Frankly, I find it shocking that China is going to host an Olympics under the theme ``One World and One Dream'' while they help fuel the economy of a nation that has allowed genocide to ravage its country for some 4 years.

This is certainly not the ``One World One Dream'' we share. That is why today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with Senator Brownback, Senator Feingold, and others, a version of which is also being introduced in the House, to let China know that as much as it cherishes its Olympic moment, the country should be held accountable to act consistently with the Olympic standard of preserving human dignity around the world, including in Darfur.

The resolution recognizes that the spirit of the Olympics, which is to bring nations and people from all over the world in peace, is incompatible with any actions to support acts of genocide. This legislation specifically calls on China to use its full influence to urge the President of Sudan to allow a robust peacekeeping force into Darfur; to comply with past United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Darfur Peace Agreement, which demand that the Government of the Sudan disarm militias in Darfur; and to improve the conditions for humanitarian organizations.

It also calls on all parties involved in the conflict to adhere to the 2004 ceasefire agreement and to work toward a legitimate peace deal.

This resolution I am submitting is only a first step. It is an invitation to the Chinese Government to take more of an initiative to set President Bashir on a straight path and allow a hybrid African Union/United Nations force into the country. I hope China takes this opportunity to act now, and that they understand Congress will be watching very closely to see what they actually do.

Our message for today is clear. We need to see real progress from China on this issue. We need to see it now. Along with stronger measures by the Chinese Government, the United States must continue in its efforts to end the genocide in Darfur.

After threatening more punitive measures for months, the administration must stop talking about what they define as plan B, which is more significant sanctions, and start enacting plan B. If we were stuck in the refugee camps in Darfur in the Sudan, being attacked by the jinjaweit, with our children slaughtered, seeing women raped, who among us would be content with those who counsel patience and delay?

Plan B's tightening sanctions against Sudan, targeting individuals responsible for the atrocious acts, and negotiating a new United Nation's Security Council resolution is the right thing to do now.

Finally, the fact is, the situation in Darfur is a timebomb that could explode at any moment. The humanitarian crisis has become ever more perilous. As we speak today, the number of dead and displaced persons continues to grow, and women and young girls continue to be raped. The refugee crisis continues to worsen. This year alone, at least 80,000 people in Darfur have spilled into refugee camps. The atrocities against these innocent refugees are no longer contained within Sudan, as refugees spill across borders into eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. The lives of these millions of displaced persons hang in a delicate balance between life and death. The world's largest humanitarian effort has been keeping that balance from tipping completely toward death.

The new United Nations Humanitarian chief, John Holmes, has warned that if the situation does not get better or if there are more serious incidents involving humanitarian workers, some organizations could start to withdraw and the humanitarian operation could start to unravel. I am deeply concerned we could soon begin to witness a catastrophic collapse of the humanitarian aid effort. Several international aid agencies, including the British group Oxfam, Save the Children Spain, and the United States-based Mercy Corps, reported in April that they were temporarily suspending their work in Darfur because of attacks. They reported attacks on their operations had increased over the past 3 weeks. Soon only a small number of aid workers may be left in this region, which could result in unimaginable destruction and death. Who would be there to protect these innocent victims? The overstretched and inadequately funded African Union Mission in Sudan?

Recently, chairperson of the African Union Commission said that if the current trend continues, the peacekeeping operation in Darfur will be in serious jeopardy. In reality, the African Union Mission may already be in deep jeopardy. According to a Washington Post article published last Sunday:

The African Union's first major peacekeeping mission--once

considered the last line of defense for Darfur civilians--has

been crippled by funding and equipment shortages, government

harassment and an upsurge in armed attacks by rebel forces

that last month left seven African troops dead.

The setbacks have sapped morale among peacekeepers, many of

whom have not been paid for months. It has also compelled the

force--which numbered 7,000 troops at its peak--to scale back

its patrols and has diminished its capacity to protect

civilians, aid workers and its own peacekeepers.

Simply put, the African Union force alone cannot end the violence in Darfur.

That is why it is imperative that the international community, with the explicit help of the Chinese Government, convince Sudan to allow a hybrid African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur. Unfortunately, Khartoum continues to be complicit in allowing the destruction to continue. A recent United Nations report, described in the New York Times, detailed how the Government of Sudan is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in clear violation of Security Council resolutions. Even more egregious, the report describes how the Sudanese Government is painting their military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft. President Bashir has toyed with the international community for long enough. Time and time again he has balked at agreements and promises. Time and time again he has manipulated the international community with last-minute agreements that he reneges on only a minute later. It is time for the games to end.

Because in this respect, silence in the face of genocide is complicity, we must continue to speak out. ``Never again'' is an empty promise if we do not take action to stop the murder of innocent people when we know it is happening. Once again, we find ourselves in a position to make that choice. We must choose to exhaust all options until our collective voices are heard and murder ends. We must convince China to use its power and influence over Khartoum to do more than fill its own pocketbook. We must ensure that rather than standing here a year from now talking about ending genocide in Darfur, we are celebrating a peaceful solution to the 21st century's first, and hopefully last, genocide.

We must choose--I urge members of the Senate to join us in this regard--to make sure that when we say ``never again,'' we mean never again.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senators Durbin and Snowe to reintroduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act.

Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who has been a champion for women battling

postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same goals as the MOTHERS Act.

Mr. President, in the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.

Last year, the great State of New Jersey passed a first of its kind law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The attention of Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey, who personally battled postpartum depression, have brought to the issue is remarkable. Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum depression affects women all across the country, not just in New Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.

In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000 women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves. People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues'', but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate help.

The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their families must be educated so that they understand what might occur after the birth of their child and when to get help. This legislation will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check up visits. It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families, will be able to recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve.

The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression, the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking condition.

We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education, screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senators Durbin and Snowe to reintroduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act.

Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who has been a champion for women battling

postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same goals as the MOTHERS Act.

Mr. President, in the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.

Last year, the great State of New Jersey passed a first of its kind law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The attention of Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey, who personally battled postpartum depression, have brought to the issue is remarkable. Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum depression affects women all across the country, not just in New Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.

In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000 women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves. People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues'', but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate help.

The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their families must be educated so that they understand what might occur after the birth of their child and when to get help. This legislation will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check up visits. It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families, will be able to recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve.

The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression, the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking condition.

We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education, screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.

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

Madam President, I rise today to talk about an issue of great importance but also of great concern: the importation of prescription drugs.

In their search for more affordable prescription drugs, many Americans have turned to pharmacies in other countries, either via the Internet or trips across the border. While I certainly understand their need for affordable drugs, I do have concerns about this particular solution. We must find a way to ensure that the drugs Americans are buying are safe.

I believe the Cochran amendment will do just that. Senator Cochran's amendment allows importation to take effect only if the Health and Human Services Secretary can ensure that it will pose no additional risk to the public health and result in a significant reduction in the cost of prescription drugs. So with this amendment, we get safe drugs at a reduced price, and our ultimate objective is achieved.

Looking closely at the issue of safety, I am also concerned about the importation of counterfeit drugs. Americans deserve to know the label on the bottle--we have seen colleagues put bottles up and show differences. Well, Americans deserve to know the label on the bottle matches the pills inside they are taking. The only way to ensure that is to provide strong protections. We have all heard horror stories about innocent Americans, starved for cheaper prescription drugs, going online or getting in their cars to go to foreign pharmacies to buy their medications. They are coming back home with what they think is their usual medication, but the reality might be quite different.

A recent New York Times article talked about the increasing number of counterfeit drugs. While in the past we may have noticed a misspelled label or off-color pill, today's counterfeit drugs are largely undetectable. The pills look correct, the cardboard boxes are the same, even the blister packaging and foil backing are all normal. But this is not your grandmother's forged medication. These are modern, scary, life-threatening tactics that place American lives in great danger.

While the supporters of the underlying amendment believe their proposal addresses some of these concerns, there are a number of safety concerns that I believe must be addressed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and that is why the Cochran amendment is so important.

The underlying proposal would undo current safety protections that ensure Americans are getting products that are essentially the same substance and quantity as what their doctor has prescribed.

While the proposal requires an importer to retain samples of products, it does not require that those be tested to ensure the drugs are the same as what the doctor ordered.

The proposal does not require that imported drugs be approved in their country of origin. It relies only on a paper trail to enforce chain-of-custody requirements, leaving consumers susceptible to unscrupulous dealers who can simply forge documents or copy anticounterfeit technology.

While supporters of the proposal claim that they give FDA the authority to conduct inspections of foreign manufacturing plants, the reality is that the United States would actually have to get permission for those inspections from foreign countries, and that is assuming we can even trace the purchase of those products to their country of origin in the first place.

Importers are not required to disclose the origin of the products they sell, so consumers would have no way to opt out if they wanted to ensure they were getting Food and Drug Administration-approved products.

Finally, the underlying amendment allows importation from far more than just Canada. Written into the proposal is permission to import from Canada and other countries, including certain countries in the EU, even if the drugs leave the chain of custody of the manufacturer or fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration's jurisdiction. Because of the EU structure, we would actually be opening ourselves to drugs from countries such as Latvia, Estonia, and other recent additions to the EU. Some of these countries from the former Soviet Union have counterfeit rates up to 20 percent.

The Cochran amendment would ensure these safety concerns are resolved and that the Government provides for the protection of the public's health and safety.

Now, in my mind, as we have this debate, the real problem is affordability of prescription drugs, and the real solution to that problem is expanding access to affordable drugs in the United States. In that effort, I take a back seat to no one. But at the same time, I strongly believe we must also protect the health and safety of those we represent.

These two goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both. I believe this amendment--the Cochran amendment--accomplishes what we all want, which is expanding access to safe, affordable drugs. I encourage my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment.

amendment no. 1011

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security/Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 150, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 3; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1082 and there be an hour of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dorgan amendment No. 990, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senator Dorgan and the Republican leader or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on that motion to invoke cloture; and that Members have until 10 a.m. to file any second-degree amendments.

Madam President, if there is no further business today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, 4 years ago today, President Bush landed on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in his flight suit. The banner behind him proudly said, ``Mission accomplished.'' President Bush announced to the world, and to the American people, that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.''

I can think of almost no greater act of hubris, arrogance, and denial than the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq 4 years ago. It is truly stunning how false that statement was.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet, since that time, 3,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. Over 104 American troops died in April alone, making it the deadliest month since last December.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet we have now spent over $450 billion on the war in Iraq. This war is costing us almost 10 times what the Bush administration initially said it would.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet we have now been in Iraq for nearly 50 months, longer than the United States was in World War II.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet U.S. troop fatalities are up 33 percent since the President's escalation of the war in January.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet today, Iraqi civilian casualties are estimated to be in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. It is impossible to know how many have been killed in Iraq, but the United Nations estimates that 35,000 civilians have been killed.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet today oil production in Iraq is still 15 percent lower than it was before the war.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet Baghdad is only getting 6 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared mission accomplished. Yet the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction just put out a new report detailing how projects the administration declared a ``success'' are actually failing and no longer operating.

Frankly, it reminds me of all the other ways we were misled by this administration. Let us remember what this administration told us about this war. Let us remember the Iraq myths. Remember the unfound weapons of mass destruction; remember the missing mobile weapons labs; remember the yellowcake uranium in Africa; remember Saddam's nonexistent vast stockpiles of chemical weapons; remember when Secretary Rumsfeld told us that ``we know where the weapons of mass destruction are;'' remember the nonexistent link between al-Qaida and Saddam; remember the claims that Iraqi oil and other countries, not the United States taxpayer, would pay for the cost of reconstruction; remember when the administration told us the war would cost only between $50 billion and $60 billion; remember when Paul Wolfowitz said ``it seems outlandish'' to think we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq; and remember when President Bush told us on May 1, 2003, that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''

This is the same administration that now comes to this Congress and says: Trust us. This is the same administration that says: Trust us, our new escalation plan will work. This is the same administration that tells this Congress and the American people to be patient, to give their ``new'' plan to escalate the war time to work.

Yet their new plan is more of the same. To quote one of the witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

This plan is just stay-the-course plus 20,000 troops.

That is what they thought then when the witness testified, but eventually it has been a lot more than 20,000 troops.

Well, the American people and this Congress have run out of patience. This administration has run out of credibility to ask for more time or another chance, when all we are largely doing is staying the course. Frankly, I find it insulting that this administration thinks this Congress would simply go along with their escalation plan without question.

Why should we support President Bush's escalation--a plan with benchmarks but no real consequences? As I have said time and time again, benchmarks without consequences are simply aspirations. We have seen countless misguided plans from this administration, but the Iraqis have never been held accountable.

We were told by the end of 2006 a provincial election law would be approved. But that benchmark has not been met. We were told that Iraqis would approve a law for de-Baathification. But that benchmark has not been met.

We were told that Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. But that benchmark, too, has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues, which is one of the critical elements to be able to achieve reconciliation in Iraq, the sharing of the nation's national resources. But that benchmark has not been met.

We were told that, by March, the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. But that benchmark has not been met.

Time and again, the Iraqi Government has fallen short; and time and again, this administration has looked the other way--basing their plans on the hope that the Iraqis will step up. Continuing this failed policy in Iraq based on the mere hope that things will improve is not good enough. The broken promises must stop.

It also seems to me the President is once again out of touch about our progress on the ground and his escalation plan. The President said last week:

The direction of the fight is beginning to shift . . . and

so far the operation is meeting expectations.

This is very much like ``mission accomplished.'' Yet, last Monday, an attack carried out by a suicide bomber near Baqubah killed 9 soldiers and wounded 20 others. The explosion was one of the deadliest single ground attacks on American forces since the start of the war.

Two weeks ago, five different bombs exploded in Baghdad, killing at least 171 people. These attacks mark the deadliest day in the capital city since the new security plan was implemented 2 months ago.

In fact, almost four coalition soldiers have been killed per day in the past month--the highest rate since January of 2005. As I pointed out before, over 100 soldiers were killed in April, including 9 killed over the weekend, 1 of only 6 times that more than 100 servicemembers were killed in 1 month since the start of the war.

Violence outside of Baghdad is on the rise, with more than twice the number of American troops killed in the past 5 months in Diyala Province than were killed all of last year.

In terms of civilians, over 1,500 Iraqis were killed between February 14 and April 12. That is almost 500 more people than were killed during the previous 2 months.

Frankly, I don't believe the President's escalation plan is working. So I say to the President: The era of blank checks is over and the time of congressional oversight has begun.

The President would largely want us to send him a blank check. We have spent 10 times more than we were told we would spend on this war, and there is no end in sight in terms of lives and national treasure. That is why this Senate and the House sent the President an Iraq spending bill with a responsible timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. I believe the President is making a serious mistake with his plan to veto the bill.

Some on the other side of the aisle like to point out that the President is the Commander in Chief. I remind my friends the Constitution puts the Congress in charge of appropriating funds. The Constitution, in article I, section 8, provides what scholars call the power of the purse, and it says: ``The Congress''--the Congress-- ``shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.'' Congress has the power and the right and the obligation to make sure we spend the taxpayers' money wisely.

In a recent editorial, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, reminded us the President has stated the goal of our involvement is for Iraq to be able to ``govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself.''

In order for us to get to that point, we need to hold Iraqis accountable for meeting the benchmarks they helped set. The emergency supplemental bill that passed the House and the Senate does just that, by including a plan to redeploy U.S. forces in relation to progress made by the Iraqi Government in achieving security and diplomatic benchmarks.

Leon Panetta also said:

The worst mistake now would be to provide money for the war

without sending the Iraqis any message at all about their

responsibility for reforms. Both the President and the

Congress at the very least must make the Iraqi Government

understand that future financial and military support is

going to depend on Baghdad's making substantial progress

toward the milestones Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has

publicly committed to.

The Iraq supplemental sends a strong message to the Iraqis that it is their responsibility to take control of their own country and that our involvement in Iraq is not indefinite.

Vetoing the supplemental sends the message to the Iraqis that they do not have to take responsibility and that our troops will be in Iraq indefinitely. But staying in Iraq isn't in the national interest or national security of the United States.

Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war they cannot solve. Keeping more troops there will only put them directly in the middle of an Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there is trying to solve a political problem with a military solution. Staying in Iraq actually keeps the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their actions.

Frankly, what we hear from the other side doesn't make sense. They talk about victory, but what is the definition of ``victory''? Is that the victory we have heard is around the corner? They talk about benchmarks for the Iraqis, but they set no consequences.

Four years after the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' 4 years and over 3,000 Americans lives later, 4 years and over $450 billion later, 4 years with no new plan for Iraq, just more of the same, 4 years after the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' I ask: How many more lives must we lose and how much more money must we spend?

I close by asking: When will this administration finally understand that ``mission accomplished'' was a myth of their own imagination, born of delusion and denial, yet another terrible mistake in a series of tragic errors? When will we finally hear the words ``major combat in Iraq has ended'' and know they are true?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a lot has been said about this bill. Let's get the facts straight before we cast a vote. This administration has said: If you vote for this bill, you don't support the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is the ultimate definition of supporting the troops. The truth is, a ``yes'' vote ensures our troops are equipped and prepared to defend themselves, moves them out of another country's civil war, and provides health care that has been lacking for those who return home injured. This is not about surrender, this is about our best chance for success.

A vote against this $124 billion spending bill is a vote against the $100 billion for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. A vote against this bill is a vote against a billion-dollar increase to get desperately needed equipment to our National Guard and Reserve who fight abroad and protect us at home. A vote against this bill is a vote against $3 billion for the purchase of 8,500 mine-resistant, ambush- protected vehicles to protect our soldiers from deadly roadside bombs. A vote against this bill is a vote against nearly $3 billion to help reform an overburdened veterans health system struggling to take care of our returning wounded. A vote against this bill is a vote against $900 million to research and treat posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries, two of the most critical issues facing wounded soldiers. A vote against this bill is a vote against more than $650 million in emergency funding for children's health care coverage. Without this funding, we are closing our doctors' doors to our Nation's children. A vote against this bill is a vote against $6.9 billion for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who are still struggling to rebuild their homes and their lives more than a year after the storms hit.

A vote against this bill is a vote against allowing States to have stronger standards to protect chemical security plants. A vote against this bill is a vote against over $2 billion in homeland security initiatives, including mass transit, port security, and other measures that passed in the 9/11 bill in the Senate.

Quite frankly, I don't have faith in President Bush's escalation, a plan with benchmarks but no real consequences. I have said again and again, benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. We have seen countless misguided plans from this administration, but the Iraqis have never been held accountable.

We were told that by the end of 2006 a provincial election law would be approved. That benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification, but that benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. That benchmark has not been met. We were told that Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues, but that benchmark has not been met. We were told that by March the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments, but that benchmark has not been met.

Time and time again, the Iraqi Government has fallen short, and time and

again this administration has looked the other way, basing their plans on the hope that the Iraqi Government will step up.

Continuing this failed policy in Iraq based on the mere hope that things will improve is not good enough. The broken promises must stop.

Some on the other side of the aisle point out that the President is the Commander in Chief. I remind my friends that the Constitution puts the Congress in charge of appropriating funds. Congress has the power, the right, and the obligation to make sure we spend the taxpayers' money wisely. What we are saying today with this bill is no more blank check for the Iraq war.

This bill sends a strong message to the Iraqis that it is their responsibility to take control of their own country and that our involvement in Iraq is not indefinite. As Thomas Friedman has written: It is time to decide ``we will no longer play host to a war where we are everyone's protector and target.''

We must put in motion a plan to bring a responsible end to this war. I urge all colleagues to vote for the supplemental, a vote that takes care of our troops, a vote to responsibly bring our troops home, and a vote for a new direction in Iraq and here at home.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 761, the America COMPETES Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which takes important steps to make sure we are preparing our young people to be competitive and working to secure our Nation's future in a global economy.

That need has never been more urgent than today, when globalization and technology are tearing down the walls of geography, language, and income. Globalization has brought increased educational, technological, and societal advances to regions that only once dreamed of innovation. Today, as nations abroad are gaining a competitive edge, our younger generations are at risk of falling behind.

For a nation with endless resources at its fingertips, it is inexplicable that the United States continues to fall far below other nations when it comes to higher achievement. Yet this is the reality. On international assessments, our young people score below the average compared to other developed nations on math tests. Even when we just look at the highest achieving students, the United States still ranks near the bottom.

In the global race to have the most trained, highly-skilled, best prepared workforce, we are losing ground. And we are especially losing ground in fields that are the source of innovation and technology, which will increasingly become a key sector of the global economy.

Fewer of our college students are pursuing degrees in math, science and engineering, and if those trends continue, by 2010 more than 90 percent of all our world's scientists and engineers would be living outside the United States.

We cannot sit back and expect that we will continue to be at the top when it comes to global achievement. Where other countries are strengthening their education systems, we are not keeping up. We must regain that ground by investing in our younger generations. We must provide quality opportunities for young people now so that they can gain the science, math, and technological skills they need in an emerging global marketplace. We stand at a critical juncture, and how we proceed will determine the future for generations to come.

That is why this legislation is so critical--it is a commitment that we will do what is necessary to strengthen our Nation's future. This legislation will both bolster our research and development capabilities and better equip our young people to become the future leaders that this Nation needs. The America COMPETES Act will strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school. It will create grants for master's degrees in math, science, and foreign language and establish programs to improve math instruction for elementary and secondary students. This legislation also calls for substantially increasing funding for the National Science Foundation, doubling basic research funding over the next decade, and the creation of a national science and technology summit.

I am pleased this bill includes provisions I introduced last year to increase the participation of women and minorities in science. Specifically, this bill directs the Energy Department to increase the numbers of women and minorities in science and technology fields at all education levels--from kindergarten through the graduate level--and establishes a new outreach program for underrepresented minorities in grades K-12 to encourage careers in science and technology. While opportunities in these fields are becoming more accessible to all students, women and minorities are still sorely underrepresented in the sciences. It is my hope this legislation will help us to close that gap and ensure that young people of all backgrounds have the opportunities they deserve.

This bill also contains an initiative that would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. This will help schools purchase scientific equipment, renovate laboratory space, design new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and provide professional development for high school lab teachers. This provision--which I introduced last year as a separate bill--will improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural schools across the country.

As someone who was raised to believe there were no boundaries to what I could achieve, I know first hand that a strong education is the key to success. I was not constricted by the income my parents made, or by the neighborhood I lived in, but only my ability and my determination. With the assistance of the Federal Government, I graduated from college and law school, and had a world of opportunity open to me. I want every young person to have the

chance to achieve their dreams an fulfill their God-given potential. This bill will undoubtedly help countless young people reach that goal.

The time has come to make a robust, national commitment to the education of our youth at all levels, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. We cannot expect our country to be adequately prepared unless we are making the necessary investments in all of our students.

Our Nation faces great challenges to meeting the demands of global innovation and competition. A nation that is united in its purpose can answer that challenge, as we have so many times throughout our history. Just as an entire generation was once inspired to dream new dreams of reaching space, and a nation launched a bold investment in science and technology that put a man on the Moon, so can we lead a generation to be the next great leaders and innovators. This legislation will help achieve that goal. It will strengthen not only the competitive future of our young people but of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

The Senator from Michigan is recognized.