Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Addressing the U.S. Postal Service's Financial Crisis.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce at America's Northern Border and Ports of Entry.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight and Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financing 21st Century Infrastructure.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Strategic Implications of Pakistan and the Region.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to offer my full support for Susan Carney of my State of Connecticut, who is the President's nominee, now approved by the Judiciary Committee, to serve on a very important circuit court--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Susan Carney's legal education and long career of public service will make her a valuable addition to the Federal bench. I thank President Obama for his decision to nominate Ms. Carney, and I urge my colleagues across party lines to confirm her nomination when it comes to a vote in a short while today. Ms. Carney, as a matter of record, was quickly reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote of 15 to 3 on February 17 of this year. This, in fact, was the second time her nomination had been reported out of the committee with broad bipartisan support. If confirmed, Susan Carney will fill one of two judicial vacancies on the second circuit--vacancies which the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has declared to be emergency vacancies. As I have said, she has been thoroughly vetted twice by the Judiciary Committee and earned bipartisan support both times. I would like to take a moment to provide some background on the nominee's credentials. Susan Carney has a very diverse background, both in private practice, working for the Peace Corps, and most recently serving as the deputy general counsel at Yale University. For the past 12 years, she has served in that position. As Yale's President Richard Levin put it: Susan Carney has served the University with insight, intelligence, and superb legal skills. He added that she has never failed to be guided by what he referred to as her ``firm ethical compass.'' In her capacity as general counsel, Ms. Carney was the second highest legal officer at Yale--which is of course not just a great educational and research institution but has an operating budget of more than $2 billion annually, more than 12,000 employees, and more than 11,000 students. So there was a lot of legal work to do there. Ms. Carney's portfolio included a lot of complicated areas covered by Federal law, including scientific research, intellectual property, and health care. She also managed other legal elements of Yale's transactions with institutions throughout this country and the world. Ms. Carney served as a law clerk to Judge Levin Hicks Campbell on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit before entering private practice. She has been admitted to practice in seven courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is a member of three different bars: the Massachusetts bar, the District of Columbia bar, and the Connecticut bar, and has also served on the board of directors of the National Association of College & University Attorneys. This is a superbly qualified individual with a broad background in a host of different legal fields which she will bring to the bench. I think most significant of all--and she obviously impressed both parties on the Judiciary Committee--she is balanced, she is openminded, and she will adjudicate according to what President Levin called ``her firm ethical and moral compass.'' Therefore I hope there will be a strong vote of support to send Susan Carney to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where she will serve the cause of justice in America very well indeed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, sometime after nightfall on November 1, 1950, under the cover of a dark sky, there was a firefight north of the town of Unsan, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Unsan lies in the eastern North Pyongan province, on the western half of the peninsula. It sits peripheral to the Kuryong River, which cuts a steep valley through the land as it channels out into the Korea Bay. Unsan also lies north of the 38th parallel and was enemy territory for the U.S. 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, which had taken up position there just days before. The regiment was part of a northward advance toward the Sino-Korean border, in aggressive pursuit of a weakened, retreating North Korean enemy. But as it advanced, it encountered a ferocious counteroffensive lead by Chinese forces, absorbing tragic casualties at the hands of damaging defeat. As the regiment retreated south back across the Kuryong, it was forced to leave behind many brothers in arms. Almost 600 Americans fell that day, many of whom were declared missing in action, MIA, never to be found. Among the regiment was Primo Carnabuci of Essex, CT. Primo came from a family of patriots; his two brothers, Dominic and Louis, also served our country in uniform. Anecdotes about Primo from the battlefield paint the picture of a tenaciously courageous fighter. In one such story, outlined in a military document awarding him a Distinguished Service Cross for heroism, as reported by the Middletown Press, Primo was temporarily sidelined from battle after killing three enemy soldiers and taking grenade shrapnel to the face. As he was being attended to by a medic, Primo, according to the document, ``thrust away the aid man, picked up his rifle, and with utter disregard for his own safety, advanced into the fire of the enemy machine gun with blood streaming down his face.'' His brother Dominic was not surprised to hear that story. And it is safe to say that, as his regiment encountered those Chinese forces on that November night in 1950, Primo did not shy away from danger, but rather took the fight to the enemy, even as it overwhelmed his regiment. He ultimately perished in that battle and was declared MIA, leaving his family back home in Connecticut heartbroken and unsure about where he was, and whether he was alive or dead. Suppressed in history's pages between the Second World War and the Vietnam war, the Korean war is often referred to as the ``Unknown War,'' or as the ``Forgotten War.'' While Primo Carnabuci's whereabouts were unknown to his family, he was certainly not forgotten. Every night since then, his brother Dominic has prayed that his brother would be found, and returned safely and soundly. Miraculously, that prayer was answered, in part, just a few months ago, when Dominic received a phone call from a U.S. Government official. Primo's body had been found in a mass gravesite surrounded by several of his compatriots and identified by DNA. Now, Primo has left Unsan, and he is coming back home to Connecticut. As we gaze across the endless expanse of graves at Arlington Ceremony, or as we mourn the loss of a servicemember during a military burial somewhere across our land today, we must think about those who paid the ultimate sacrifice of not returning home alive but also not returning home at all. This country and its freedoms that we enjoy exist because men and women like Primo Carnabuci have defended it. Many have fallen for it so that we might live in freedom, and unfortunately, some of those who have fallen do not have the solace of having America as their final resting place. On Thursday, Primo Carnabuci will be buried in Clinton, CT, with full military honors. As the crack of rifle fire and the cry of a bugle ripple through the air, and as the colors that Primo wore the uniform for are draped across his coffin, I hope that Dominic and the entire Carnabuci family will feel relief that Primo has come home and pride in his service. America is where he belongs, and America is where he will now forever rest in peace. God bless Primo Carnabuci, God bless his family, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak specifically about the alarming situation in Syria, where the regime of Bashar al Asad is pursuing a barbaric campaign of indiscriminate repression against the Syrian people. Over the past 2 weeks, the crackdown pursued by Asad has markedly escalated. There can no longer be any doubt about his intentions. As a report by a respected nongovernmental organization, the International Crisis Group, warned this week: The regime's hope appears to be that a massive crackdown can bring the protestors to heel. . . . Such a course of action would entail loss of life on a massive scale and it could usher in a period of sectarian fighting with devastating consequences for Syria. It could destabilize its neighbors. And, ultimately, it is highly unlikely to work. Madam President, in the city of Deraa, the Asad regime has deployed tanks against the civilian population. It has cut off phone lines, water, food, and electricity, and deployed snipers--according to human rights groups--who have been firing at anyone who ventures outdoors. That includes young people who are sent outdoors by their families to try to buy food. In short, what we see in Deraa is a broad-based, indiscriminate assault by Asad's military forces against the people of his own country. The evidence is growing that international crimes are being perpetrated by Bashar Asad himself in the city of Deraa in Syria. The attack on Deraa is just one part of a course of a broader crackdown by Syrian security forces across the country--a crackdown that has left several hundred people dead. Tanks and military forces have been reported being deployed in other cities in Syria. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of arbitrary detentions of civilians and enforced disappearances around the country has skyrocketed in recent days as the Asad regime has swept up not only demonstrators but women, minors, and family members of activists. Another Syrian human rights group has documented more than 500 arrests in Deraa alone since last week, and thousands more nationwide have also been detained or disappeared arbitrarily. As the report by the International Crisis Group argued--the report I referenced before that came out earlier this week: The regime is also fanning the flames of sectarianism, spreading rumors of impending acts targeting specific groups. Sectarian tendencies no doubt exist in parts of the country, but the authorities' tactics betray a determined and cynical attempt to exploit and exacerbate them. What is most remarkable of all is that in the face of and despite these outrageous inhumane actions by the Asad regime, the people of Syria refuse to be silenced. They refuse to be intimidated. In the face of tanks and snipers, the people of Syria have continued to cry out and demonstrate for their fundamental human rights, and they have continued to do so peacefully. Moreover, despite the sectarian provocations by President Asad, the message of the protesters has remained steadfastly one of Syrian national unity. Tomorrow, Friday, it is expected that thousands of brave Syrians will once again take to the streets of their cities and towns in protest of the totalitarian dictatorship that currently controls their country. As they do so, I want them to know that the United States and the rest of the civilized world stands unequivocally on the side of the people of Syria in solidarity with them in their courageous struggle for their human rights. They should know also that we are increasingly confident that the people of Syria can and will prevail over the Asad regime. There is much we in the United States can and must do to help the Syrian people in their fight for freedom. Last week, the Obama administration issued an Executive order authorizing targeted sanctions against individuals and organizations responsible for the human rights abuses in Syria. The administration used this newest authority to sanction three Syrian officials, including Maher al Asad, the brother of Bashar al Asad. This was a very important action, and I thank and commend the Obama administration for taking it. There is, however, more that now can and must be done. To begin with, it is clear there are many more individuals in the Syrian Government than the three named so far who are responsible for the human rights abuses and worse that are taking place throughout Syria. It is urgent and essential that the Obama administration expand the sanctions to cover these additional Syrian officials. Members of the Syrian security forces and government must understand they face a choice in the days ahead. If they stick with the Asad regime and participate in the barbaric crackdown against their fellow Syrians, their names are going to be made famous around the world, and they will be held accountable. It is also critical that the United States impose sanctions on Bashar al Asad himself, for he is the head of the regime that is systematically carrying out large-scale human rights abuses. It is he who is directing his military forces to fire on his own people. Surely, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief to think the order to use military force against the Syrian people did not originate with the President of Syria himself--Bashar al Asad. He must be held accountable. I respectfully urge President Obama to speak out as soon as possible, directly and personally, about what is happening in Syria. The moral authority of the President of the United States matters enormously at historic moments such as the one in Syria now. Unfortunately, there are still many in Syria and throughout the Middle East who believe the United States is hedging its bets in Syria. It is time to put those doubts to rest. I have met over the last few weeks, as recently as yesterday, with Syrian dissidents, and I have heard the same question from them again and again: Why has President Obama not spoken out personally about what is happening in Syria? I say: The administration has made statements. They say: We need to hear and see the President and hear his voice-- President Obama--making clear his disdain and refusal to accept what is happening in Syria today. So I respectfully urge the President to answer these appeals by Syrian freedom fighters for support of their cause. I hope the President can make clear once again, as he did so effectively in the cases of Egypt and Libya, that Bashar al Asad has lost the legitimacy to lead Syria, and it is time for Bashar to go. The United States can also work with our allies and partners to increase international pressure on the Asad regime. Press reports indicate, I am pleased to note, that the European Union is preparing to put in place an arms embargo against Syria, and it is also considering targeted human rights sanctions against top Syrian officials. I fervently hope our European friends and allies take these and further steps to increase the pressure on the Asad regime. I am especially encouraged that the French Foreign Minister this week correctly called for Bashar al-Asad to be sanctioned directly himself, to tie up his economic assets, to limit his mobility. In addition to our EU partners, I wish to say I believe Turkey can also play a unique leadership role in the days and weeks ahead to support a successful democratic transition in Syria. No one has worked harder than Prime Minister Erdogan to encourage Bashar al-Asad to reform, to accept the legitimate demands of the Syrian people, and embrace democracy. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, Asad has ignored the wise counsel of the Turkish leader and refused to respond with action. I, therefore, hope President Obama will find a way to partner directly with Prime Minister Erdogan on developing a new strategy toward Syria, one that recognizes that despite our hopes and efforts, there will be no real progress as long as Bashar al-Asad remains in power in Damascus, a policy that aligns our two democracies--America and Turkey--unequivocally with the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. We should also work with our allies on the U.N. Human Rights Council to ensure that the investigative mission to Syria, which was agreed upon by the Council last week, is undertaken immediately. Every day matters. We should work to refer Asad's regime to the International Criminal Court--again, as we did in the case of Libya. What the Asad regime is doing to the people of Syria looks every day more the mirror image of what the Qadhafi regime has done to the people of Libya. For its actions in the city of Deraa and throughout the country, the Asad regime deserves to be investigated by the International Criminal Court. I respectfully urge our own administration to use the diplomatic clout that we have at the United Nations to put what is happening in Syria on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council. I have no illusions about the challenges and obstacles that exist at the Security Council at this time to taking action with regard to what is happening in Syria, but we must try. If the Security Council fails to take up what is happening in Syria, perhaps because of the opposition of the Russians and the Chinese, it does so at the expense of its own international credibility and legitimacy. Finally, I hope President Obama will work together with our international allies to provide the Syrian people with the humanitarian assistance that they urgently need--food, water, and medical supplies-- and to restore communications linkages that the Asad regime has cut among the freedom fighters in various communities in Syria. Asad has cut them in an effort to prevent news and information about what is happening in Syria also from reaching the outside world. The situation in Syria is fast approaching the point of no return. The fact is, several hundred Syrians have been killed by Asad's security forces. This is a regime that I conclude is beyond self- correction. Bashar al-Asad is not a reformer. He is a corrupt dictator and an inhumane thug and his regime has long been one of the worst in the Middle East. It is time for him to go. Let me conclude by adding that nearly a decade after the attacks of September 11, Americans and people throughout the world awoke Monday morning to a safer, better world with Osama bin Laden gone. It is fitting that Osama bin Laden has been killed just as Arab democracies across the Middle East and North Africa are being born, are coming to life. The peaceful, youth-driven democratic revolutions now taking place in Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are the true repudiation of the extreme ideology that I will call bin Ladenism. To rid our world not only of bin Laden but of bin Ladenism, it is critical that we now do everything in our power to help the democratic forces in Syria and across the Middle East succeed, for it will ultimately be quite correctly and powerfully at the hands of his fellow Arabs and Muslims that the hateful and violent ideology of bin Laden and its manifestations of a different sort in dictatorships across the Middle East are finally discredited and abandoned on the ash heap of history where they belong. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on April 7, a pall passed over my hometown of Stamford, CT, when the news began to spread that Mrs. Betty Ruth Hollander, one of its leading citizens and a good friend of mine and my family, had passed away peacefully. A pioneer, entrepreneur, philanthropist, inventor, and a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother, Mrs. Hollander lived a truly remarkable life that touched and inspired almost everyone she met. Her passing is a great loss not just for those of us who were lucky enough to know her personally, but for the entire Stamford community and well beyond. In 1962, while raising four young children, Betty Hollander founded Omega Engineering out of her kitchen in Stamford. At a time when women faced pervasive discrimination in many industries, Betty utilized her steady work ethic and sharp business acumen to grow Omega from a firm focused on manufacturing a single line of thermocouples to a globally recognized business that produces over 100,000 state-of-the-art products for measurement and control. Omega's record of success gave Betty the opportunity to serve on a number of corporate boards, including Target Corporation--then Dayton Hudson Corporation--Peoples United Bank and Southern New England Telephone. She was also deeply involved with many charities, and served on the boards of Yale New Haven Hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital, Bridgeport, CT. among many other corporations and nonprofit organizations. Alongside all her success and busy schedule, Betty remained deeply committed to her family. Even when serving as corporate executive officer of Omega, when asked her occupation Mrs. Hollander would reply that she was ``a wife and mother.'' Later, she was able to add ``grandmother'' to the title. These, she insisted, were the most important roles she ever played. In 1952, she married Milton Bernard Hollander, her best friend since high school, beginning a strong 58- year marriage characterized by extraordinary mutual devotion. Together, they had four children, Eva Lynn, Steven, Aaron, and Joel, and nine grandchildren. To get a sense of the truly exemplary person that Betty Hollander was, all you need to do is look over an online forum set up to honor her memory. Already, over 100 individuals from all walks of life have taken the time to express their condolences and share their favorite memories of Betty. One long-time employee in Omega's shipping department remembers that, no matter how busy she was as CEO, Betty would always take the time out to get to know all of her employees personally. Others fondly recalled how she was never too busy to mentor younger employees and helped inspire them to pursue their dreams and demonstrate their fullest potential. In addition, there are testimonials from those who worked with her on her charitable endeavors, those who were friends, and even those who had never met her, but who were inspired by her success in business and her service to the community. On a personal level, Betty Hollander and my mother were great friends--two great Jewish mothers--and I have always treasured having had the opportunity to know her. If we are to be judged in life by the effect we have on others, than Betty Hollander's life was a sterling success! We honor Betty Hollander's memory and cherish her decency and friendship. I extend my deepest sympathies to Betty's beloved ``Miltie'' Hollander and all of Betty's friends and family on their irreplaceable loss. They will be in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult period.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, it is coincidental, but my remarks follow in a logical path from those of my colleague and friend from Texas, particularly with regard to the thoughtful questions he raised about Syria. I have come to the floor to speak about the historic and extraordinary events that are taking place in Syria where, for the past 3 weeks, the Syrian people have been peacefully and courageously taking to the streets of their cities. I wish to talk particularly about what may happen in Syria over the next 24 hours. What is happening, of course, in Syria is part of a broader story that is unfolding across the Middle East--a democratic awakening in which millions of ordinary people are rising up against corrupt autocratic regimes that have ruled the region and suppressed these people for decades. But the strategic stakes in Syria are among the highest anywhere in the region. In fact, I would say what happens in Syria in the coming days will have far-reaching consequences for the future of the Middle East and for our national security here in the United States. The uprising in Syria began, like those in Tunisia and Egypt, spontaneously and unexpectedly. It rose from the people, not from outside. It began in the city of Dara'a, in southern Syria near the Jordanian border, after the Assad regime arrested a group of schoolchildren there. When the citizens of Dara'a began peacefully assembling to protest this absurd act of repression, the police responded by firing live ammunition into the crowd. Rather than being intimidated by this violence, however, the protest movement persisted and spread. Although the Assad regime was trying desperately to prevent accurate information about what is happening inside Syria from reaching the rest of the world, it is clear that people in many cities around the country are now in open revolt against the Assad regime. From Latakia, to Aleppo, and from the Kurdish northeast to the villages along the Mediterranean coastline, more and more Syrians from diverse backgrounds are rising up and demanding their freedom. What exactly are they asking for? It is the same basic demands we hear throughout the region, and they are very familiar--they should be--to the American people, because they are the very demands that energized and motivated our rebellion and the American Revolution and the founding documents of our country. The people of Syria want greater political freedom and they want economic opportunity. They want into the modern world. They want to be treated with respect by their government, and they want an end to the culture of corruption and impunity that surrounds the Assad regime. How has Bashar al Assad reacted to these legitimate grievances? The answer is he has responded not by offering reform but by unleashing what President Obama has rightly characterized as abhorrent violence and repression against the Syrian people. He has responded with thugs and militias who have attacked peaceful protestors. He has responded by spouting conspiracy theories rather than loosening his autocratic grip. And as we know now, he has responded by calling on his allies, his patrons in Teheran, to help him crush the demonstrations by the Syrian people, just as the Iranian regime--the fanatical, extremist, expansionist regime in Teheran, stamped out the protests that took place in Teheran after the June 2009 election. It is now clear what path Bashar al Assad is on. Rather than pursuing reform, he is taking a page from the Qadhafi model. He is betting that he can beat his people into submission through force and that the world will let him get away with slaughter. Let's be very clear what it means if Bashar succeeds. It will send a most perverse but unmistakable message that leaders such as Mubarak and Ben Ali in Egypt and Tunisia respectively and who are allied with the United States get overthrown, but leaders such as Assad, who are allied with Iran, survive. Is that a message we want to send? What about tomorrow? Why do I focus on the next 24 hours? Tomorrow is likely to be a critical day for the future of Syria as protestors come together after Friday's prayers. There is a significant danger that it will also become a very bloody day if Assad continues on the path of violence and brutality against his own people. This is, therefore, an urgent moment for American leadership, at least for America's voice to be heard. It is important for President Assad in Damascus to know today, before the protests that are likely to take place throughout Syria tomorrow, that his regime will be held accountable for its actions. I hope we will be prepared to act quickly together with the world community if Assad fails to heed the will of the Syrian people and tries to hang on to power through repression and murder. What can we do? Well, to begin with, we can impose tough and targeted sanctions on the Syrian officials responsible for the human rights abuses that are being perpetrated against their own people. We can also work with our allies to summon a special session of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, just as we did in the case of Libya, and we can refer Assad's regime to the international criminal court, just as we did with Qadhafi. We should also embrace the Syrian opposition, the freedom fighters. I hope senior American officials will meet with prominent Syrian dissidents who are here in Washington now. I also urge the administration to speak out clearly in support of the Syrian people who deserve praise for their courage as they risk their lives for freedom and human rights. They must know that the United States, still the beacon of liberty in the world, stands on their side. In the face of attacks by the Syrian regime, Syrian protesters have remained remarkably peaceful, as the protesters in Tunisia and Egypt before them did. In the face of sectarian provocations by Assad, the people of Syria who are protesting have remained together, unified, giving a message of national unity. I know some have suggested that we should hesitate before throwing our support to the Syrian opposition, to the Syrian people as they rise up, and this argument goes like this: Bashar al Assad is the devil we know. We don't know what might replace him if he fails. But we know enough about Bashar al Assad to know, and we know enough about the opposition to know that it cannot be worse than Assad and will be much better. The arguments that we should wait and see are, in my opinion, moral and strategic nonsense when we look at the record of Assad. He is Iran's most important Arab ally and, in some senses, Iran's only real ally and the strategic linchpin between Iran and its terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, whom he sustains with financial and military support. Assad is responsible for a terrible campaign, long standing, of intimidation and destabilization of Lebanon, and the blood of Lebanese leaders--too many of them--is on his hands, including that of the great Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri. As Senator Cornyn said, Assad also has the blood of countless American soldiers on his hands, having allowed Syria to be used for years by foreign extremist fighters affiliated with al-Qaida and their ilk to head to Iraq to attack and kill Americans and Iraqis. Finally, let's not forget Syria's illegal nuclear activities. This is a regime that tried to build a secret nuclear reactor. They did so with help from North Korea. This is a regime that continues to refuse to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation of Syria's illegal nuclear activities. The plain fact is that Bashar al Assad is not a reformer, he is a dictator. He runs a totalitarian regime that has long been one of the worst in the Middle East. This is a regime that has repressed, intimidated, and, in fact, tortured and slaughtered Syrian people. It is a regime that is deeply corrupt, and it is a regime that has been a menace to its neighbors and to the cause of peace throughout the region. We now have an opportunity--and I say a responsibility--to support freedom for the Syrian people as they seek a better future for themselves. It would be a shame if they and we lost this opportunity for the Arab spring to come to Syria. I hope, together with our allies, we will seize this moment and stand in solidarity with the people in Syria who are fighting for the fundamental values on which our own country was built: freedom and opportunity. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate John Podhoretz, who next week will reach one of life's momentous, and too often dreaded, milestones: turning 50 years of age. John is today best known for his work as editor of Commentary magazine and for his regular column in the New York Post, but these activities only scratch the surface of his career. While, God willing, John has many more years ahead of him and much left to do here, I believe this milestone is an opportune moment to reflect upon his many unique and influential contributions to publishing, punditry, political thought, and pop culture. Given his iconic lineage, it comes as no surprise to me that John has accomplished so much in his first five decades. He was born of two intellectual giants, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, and grew up on Manhattan's Upper West Side. He studied at the University of Chicago, graduated from there in 1981, and then settled in Washington, DC, to begin his promising career. He served as speechwriter to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and as special assistant to White House drug czar, William Bennett. An accomplished journalist and writer, John has contributed to the Washington Times, the New York Post, US News & World Report, and the American Spectator. He is a refreshing critic of film and popular culture, and he once dabbled in entertainment as a consultant to the popular political fiction show ``The West Wing.'' He is even a five- time champion of the hit trivia game show ``Jeopardy!'' John is what I would call an ``idea entrepreneur.'' He understands that ideas have consequences and knows how to spread those ideas near and far. In 1995, together with Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, John cofounded the Weekly Standard, a conservative opinion journal which he still writes for today as a movie critic. Over the years, the Standard has become more than just required reading for conservative thinkers-- it is read by policy and opinion makers of all political stripes, and it has enormous reach inside the Beltway and well beyond. Thanks to John's contributions, the Standard has become, Well, a standard of political thought leadership. John followed in his father's footsteps by becoming editor of Commentary magazine, a profoundly influential journal that seamlessly tackles the most pressing questions on political, social and cultural issues. In 2007, he launched the magazine's widely read and respected blog, Contentions, bringing Commentary into the new age of media. Just as he did with the Standard, John continues to prove at Commentary that ideas are powerful. John is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom and he is an unabashed defender of the values that make our country great: freedom, democracy, human dignity, and economic opportunity. On top of all that, based on watching and listening to him on that great day in August 2006 when his dear friend, Jacob Wisse, married my daughter, Becca Lieberman, John Podhoretz is a surprisingly impressive dancer and singer! So, Mr. President, I congratulate John on 50 years well done. He has enormous personality, a great sense of humor, and a lovely family. I wish them happiness on this occasion. John, Happy Birthday!

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bennet, to introduce the Race to the Top Act of 2011. The Race to the Top Act will authorize the continuation of the highly successful Race to the Top program that was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill also expands this successful program to school districts and authorizes the program for 2012 and the succeeding 5 years. Race to the Top calls for competitive grants for States and school districts that invest in bold educational reforms designed to bring about significant improvement in academic outcomes for all students and significant reductions in achievement gaps. When No Child Left Behind was signed into law nine years ago, we made a national commitment to fix our educational system--a system in which low-income minority students were performing significantly below their higher-income peers. We made a commitment to bring an end to unacceptable achievement gaps and to ensure that each and every child-- regardless of race, nationality or family income--could succeed in our public schools and graduate with the skills necessary for success in college or the workforce. Despite the commitments we made, unacceptable achievement gaps persist. Still today our public schools are not preparing our students to succeed in college and the workforce. Each year, 30 percent of American students fail to receive their high school diploma on time and graduation rates are consistently lower for minority students. One-third of our students who do graduate from high school are not ready for college. In international standardized tests involving students from 65 nations, fifteen year olds in the United States rank 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 15th in reading. Improving public education and closing student achievement gaps remains one of the most important issues of our time. We have made some progress, but until we have equal and excellent educational opportunities for all of our children, regardless of ethnicity or income, we have not done our job. While, in many ways, No Child Left Behind moved us in the right direction, it needs to be updated, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be reauthorized. The continuation of the Race to the Top program should be part of that update. The positive impact of Race to the Top has been impressive. The competition for Race to the Top money has incentivized States to implement high, internationally benchmarked, core standards and to create a positive climate for public charter schools. Race to the Top recognizes the essential role teachers play in education and has prompted States to get serious about teacher effectiveness, distribution, evaluation, and accountability. And Race to the Top has prompted states to improve policies aimed at turning around America's lowest performing schools. Under Race to the Top 46 States and the District of Columbia have developed statewide reform plans; States changed laws to increase their ability to intervene in their lowest performing schools; 22 States enacted laws to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, effectiveness and evaluation systems; 42 States and the District of Columbia have moved forward to adopt high college- and career- ready standards; 16 States have altered laws or policies to create or expand the number of charter schools. Race to the Top is working. We know it is benefiting States that were successful in receiving funds but it is also working for States that did not receive funds, simply because those States have already enacted changes that will improve education. Many States remain committed to their new educational reforms regardless of their success in securing Race to the Top funding. Race to the Top can also play a unique role in local reforms. As I indicated earlier, this new bill would support districts that are committed to leading the way with bold comprehensive reform. I know some officials in my home State, Connecticut, were disappointed about not being selected as a Race to the Top winner. But I do believe the children in Connecticut were winners because we have strengthened our State laws, policies, and curriculum to lift our charter school caps, improve Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics education, and strengthen our teacher evaluation process. I commend our State and local leaders that collaborated in making all of that possible. If we continue the Race to the Top program, as our bill would do, more States, and now districts, will be winners and we can continue this movement towards important educational reform. Race to the Top has been an effective catalyst for educational reform and has encouraged all stakeholders to come together and work together to improve state agendas. It is essential that we keep the momentum of the first two waves of Race to the Top moving forward. Other States and now districts deserve the opportunity to engage in comprehensive educational reform. Since our goal is to make all schools high quality schools, the real winner in the Race to the Top competition will be students across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bennet, to introduce the Race to the Top Act of 2011. The Race to the Top Act will authorize the continuation of the highly successful Race to the Top program that was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill also expands this successful program to school districts and authorizes the program for 2012 and the succeeding 5 years. Race to the Top calls for competitive grants for States and school districts that invest in bold educational reforms designed to bring about significant improvement in academic outcomes for all students and significant reductions in achievement gaps. When No Child Left Behind was signed into law nine years ago, we made a national commitment to fix our educational system--a system in which low-income minority students were performing significantly below their higher-income peers. We made a commitment to bring an end to unacceptable achievement gaps and to ensure that each and every child-- regardless of race, nationality or family income--could succeed in our public schools and graduate with the skills necessary for success in college or the workforce. Despite the commitments we made, unacceptable achievement gaps persist. Still today our public schools are not preparing our students to succeed in college and the workforce. Each year, 30 percent of American students fail to receive their high school diploma on time and graduation rates are consistently lower for minority students. One-third of our students who do graduate from high school are not ready for college. In international standardized tests involving students from 65 nations, fifteen year olds in the United States rank 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 15th in reading. Improving public education and closing student achievement gaps remains one of the most important issues of our time. We have made some progress, but until we have equal and excellent educational opportunities for all of our children, regardless of ethnicity or income, we have not done our job. While, in many ways, No Child Left Behind moved us in the right direction, it needs to be updated, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be reauthorized. The continuation of the Race to the Top program should be part of that update. The positive impact of Race to the Top has been impressive. The competition for Race to the Top money has incentivized States to implement high, internationally benchmarked, core standards and to create a positive climate for public charter schools. Race to the Top recognizes the essential role teachers play in education and has prompted States to get serious about teacher effectiveness, distribution, evaluation, and accountability. And Race to the Top has prompted states to improve policies aimed at turning around America's lowest performing schools. Under Race to the Top 46 States and the District of Columbia have developed statewide reform plans; States changed laws to increase their ability to intervene in their lowest performing schools; 22 States enacted laws to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, effectiveness and evaluation systems; 42 States and the District of Columbia have moved forward to adopt high college- and career- ready standards; 16 States have altered laws or policies to create or expand the number of charter schools. Race to the Top is working. We know it is benefiting States that were successful in receiving funds but it is also working for States that did not receive funds, simply because those States have already enacted changes that will improve education. Many States remain committed to their new educational reforms regardless of their success in securing Race to the Top funding. Race to the Top can also play a unique role in local reforms. As I indicated earlier, this new bill would support districts that are committed to leading the way with bold comprehensive reform. I know some officials in my home State, Connecticut, were disappointed about not being selected as a Race to the Top winner. But I do believe the children in Connecticut were winners because we have strengthened our State laws, policies, and curriculum to lift our charter school caps, improve Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics education, and strengthen our teacher evaluation process. I commend our State and local leaders that collaborated in making all of that possible. If we continue the Race to the Top program, as our bill would do, more States, and now districts, will be winners and we can continue this movement towards important educational reform. Race to the Top has been an effective catalyst for educational reform and has encouraged all stakeholders to come together and work together to improve state agendas. It is essential that we keep the momentum of the first two waves of Race to the Top moving forward. Other States and now districts deserve the opportunity to engage in comprehensive educational reform. Since our goal is to make all schools high quality schools, the real winner in the Race to the Top competition will be students across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Akaka today to introduce the bipartisan SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 to modernize and transform an important but often overlooked agency within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, responsible for protecting 9,000 Federal buildings across the country. The agency I refer to is the Federal Protective Service, FPS, where 1,200 full time employees and about 15,000 contract guards safeguard not just the buildings, but the one million people who work at and visit these buildings each year. Unfortunately, the threat to government workers and property is all too real. In 1995, a massive bomb decimated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. The Pentagon was one of the targets of the 9/11 terrorists. A wing of the building was leveled and 184 people died. Last year, a man flew a small plane into a building in Austin, TX, that housed an IRS and other government offices. An IRS manager was killed. Earlier this year, our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically shot at a public forum. Most recently, a man planted an improvised explosive device outside the McNamara Federal building in Detroit. A dozen or so other violent incidents have occurred at federal buildings in the last 3 years. Protecting the people who work and visit federal buildings is critical to maintaining the integrity of our democracy. Security at these buildings, however, is not where it should be. Poor management, serious budget shortfalls, and operational challenges have diminished FPS' effectiveness and undermined public trust. FPS guards were famously caught sleeping on the job, putting an infant in its carrier through an X-ray machine, and failing to detect bomb-making materials on investigators who passed through security. The Federal Protective Service must be turned around, which is why we are introducing this legislation to strengthen the agency's management, provide it with the necessary resources to fulfill its mission, and help it function at a higher level. I want to single out for praise the Government Accountability Office, GAO, whose excellent work has significantly informed our legislation. At a July 8, 2009, hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, GAO unveiled the results of a year-long investigation conducted at the Committee's request. GAO visited 6 of 11 FPS regions throughout the country and observed the guard inspection process; interviewed managers, inspectors, and guards; analyzed guard contracts, training and certification requirements, and instruction documents. GAO's special investigations unit conducted its own covert tests at 10 high security Federal facilities in several different cities, some of which house district offices of our House and Senate colleagues. What did GAO find? A seriously dysfunctional agency. FPS lacks focus and strategies for accomplishing its mission; contract guards don't have adequate training; FPS personnel suffer from low morale; oversight of contract guards is poor; and many standards that guide federal building security are outdated. GAO revealed that some guards lacked basic security or x-ray machine training. The FPS was hard pressed to identify which guards were qualified or effective. One guard used a government computer to run an adult website during his shift, while another allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine. A third guard was photographed asleep at his station. GAO investigators smuggled through security at one building readily available components to make a liquid-based improvised explosive device. The investigators then made a bomb in a public restroom and moved throughout the federal building undetected. I note that while the components of the IED were real, the actual explosive liquids were diluted to ensure the bomb was not functional. FPS didn't come to this point overnight. In fact, its problems multiplied when it was folded into DHS in 2003. At that point, the agency lost access to supplemental funding from its previous parent agency--the General Services Administration, GSA, and because of that, immediately ran into trouble. FPS fell behind in paying its bills, budget cuts hurt employee training and other functions, and personnel cuts diminished the agency's overall performance. At the same time, FPS was given more responsibilities, and the previous administration was working to downsize the agency workforce by 1/3. Reform legislation is very clearly needed, and the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 addresses many of the shortcomings detailed by GAO. In particular, our legislation addresses four major challenges: First, the bill would help the FPS carry out its mission by adding almost 150 law enforcements and support personnel. The agency has assumed increased responsibilities since it joined DHS but has done so with fewer personnel, and that is unsustainable. Second, our legislation would tackle deficiencies within the contract guard program. FPS contract guards are the first line of defense at Federal facilities, so we must ensure they are held to high standards and are prepared and equipped to face the varied threats to which federal buildings are vulnerable. Third, the bill would ensure the FPS is prepared to address the threat of explosives. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred 16 years ago, but FPS has been slow to deploy sufficient countermeasures to detect and deter that type of attack. Fourth, our bill would recognize the delicate balance between public access and security. We have worked to put the emphasis on securing Federal facilities but we also support avenues of appeal if a building tenant believes a security measure unduly hinders public access. If the Federal Protective Service is to be held accountable--by Congress, the administration, and the American people--it should no longer be forced to defend federal agencies that choose less costly and potentially less effective security for their buildings. On the question of resources, our bill, for the first time, would formally authorize the FPS and the interagency government body responsible for establishing security standards for all federal facilities, the Interagency Security Committee. We would provide additional funding for the agency by directing OMB to increase the building security fees paid by other agencies. We would provide resources for FPS to hire 146 full time employees. We would ensure that FPS employs 1,200 full time employees or more at all times--a conservative number that may require future increases. Many of the additional employees would be law enforcement officers, but FPS would also have the flexibility to hire administrative and support personnel to improve its overall management, strengthen its oversight of contract guards, monitor contractor performance, and share contract assessments throughout the agency. The legislation also would provide retirement benefits to FPS officers to help the agency recruit and retain quality personnel. Recognizing that the nation's fiscal health and our unsustainable deficits demand budget tightening, it is especially critical that we make wise budget decisions. I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates the need for additional spending for FPS. With regard to improved standards, our legislation would require FPS to conduct overt and covert testing to assess guard training, test the security of Federal facilities, and establish procedures for retraining or terminating poor performing guards. The bill would also require that basic documents and manuals describing the responsibilities of security guards are up to date and periodically reviewed. On explosives, we would require DHS to establish performance-based standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at Federal facilities. Our bill would also allow FPS officers to carry firearms off duty, as most other Federal law enforcement officers can, allowing them to respond to incidents more quickly. And, finally, the bill includes several reporting requirements--on agency personnel needs, retention rates of contract guards, the feasibility of federalizing the contract guard workforce, and additional methods for preventing and detecting explosives in federal facilities. Based on the Committee's and GAO's oversight work over the past several years, it is clear that Congress must move quickly to address the remaining security vulnerabilities associated with our Federal buildings. I am confident that this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will foster meaningful reform, modernize the Federal Protective Service, and improve the security of our Federal facilities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I thank Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, former Senator Voinovich, and their dedicated staffs for helping to get this bill introduced today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Akaka today to introduce the bipartisan SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 to modernize and transform an important but often overlooked agency within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, responsible for protecting 9,000 Federal buildings across the country. The agency I refer to is the Federal Protective Service, FPS, where 1,200 full time employees and about 15,000 contract guards safeguard not just the buildings, but the one million people who work at and visit these buildings each year. Unfortunately, the threat to government workers and property is all too real. In 1995, a massive bomb decimated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. The Pentagon was one of the targets of the 9/11 terrorists. A wing of the building was leveled and 184 people died. Last year, a man flew a small plane into a building in Austin, TX, that housed an IRS and other government offices. An IRS manager was killed. Earlier this year, our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically shot at a public forum. Most recently, a man planted an improvised explosive device outside the McNamara Federal building in Detroit. A dozen or so other violent incidents have occurred at federal buildings in the last 3 years. Protecting the people who work and visit federal buildings is critical to maintaining the integrity of our democracy. Security at these buildings, however, is not where it should be. Poor management, serious budget shortfalls, and operational challenges have diminished FPS' effectiveness and undermined public trust. FPS guards were famously caught sleeping on the job, putting an infant in its carrier through an X-ray machine, and failing to detect bomb-making materials on investigators who passed through security. The Federal Protective Service must be turned around, which is why we are introducing this legislation to strengthen the agency's management, provide it with the necessary resources to fulfill its mission, and help it function at a higher level. I want to single out for praise the Government Accountability Office, GAO, whose excellent work has significantly informed our legislation. At a July 8, 2009, hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, GAO unveiled the results of a year-long investigation conducted at the Committee's request. GAO visited 6 of 11 FPS regions throughout the country and observed the guard inspection process; interviewed managers, inspectors, and guards; analyzed guard contracts, training and certification requirements, and instruction documents. GAO's special investigations unit conducted its own covert tests at 10 high security Federal facilities in several different cities, some of which house district offices of our House and Senate colleagues. What did GAO find? A seriously dysfunctional agency. FPS lacks focus and strategies for accomplishing its mission; contract guards don't have adequate training; FPS personnel suffer from low morale; oversight of contract guards is poor; and many standards that guide federal building security are outdated. GAO revealed that some guards lacked basic security or x-ray machine training. The FPS was hard pressed to identify which guards were qualified or effective. One guard used a government computer to run an adult website during his shift, while another allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine. A third guard was photographed asleep at his station. GAO investigators smuggled through security at one building readily available components to make a liquid-based improvised explosive device. The investigators then made a bomb in a public restroom and moved throughout the federal building undetected. I note that while the components of the IED were real, the actual explosive liquids were diluted to ensure the bomb was not functional. FPS didn't come to this point overnight. In fact, its problems multiplied when it was folded into DHS in 2003. At that point, the agency lost access to supplemental funding from its previous parent agency--the General Services Administration, GSA, and because of that, immediately ran into trouble. FPS fell behind in paying its bills, budget cuts hurt employee training and other functions, and personnel cuts diminished the agency's overall performance. At the same time, FPS was given more responsibilities, and the previous administration was working to downsize the agency workforce by 1/3. Reform legislation is very clearly needed, and the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011 addresses many of the shortcomings detailed by GAO. In particular, our legislation addresses four major challenges: First, the bill would help the FPS carry out its mission by adding almost 150 law enforcements and support personnel. The agency has assumed increased responsibilities since it joined DHS but has done so with fewer personnel, and that is unsustainable. Second, our legislation would tackle deficiencies within the contract guard program. FPS contract guards are the first line of defense at Federal facilities, so we must ensure they are held to high standards and are prepared and equipped to face the varied threats to which federal buildings are vulnerable. Third, the bill would ensure the FPS is prepared to address the threat of explosives. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred 16 years ago, but FPS has been slow to deploy sufficient countermeasures to detect and deter that type of attack. Fourth, our bill would recognize the delicate balance between public access and security. We have worked to put the emphasis on securing Federal facilities but we also support avenues of appeal if a building tenant believes a security measure unduly hinders public access. If the Federal Protective Service is to be held accountable--by Congress, the administration, and the American people--it should no longer be forced to defend federal agencies that choose less costly and potentially less effective security for their buildings. On the question of resources, our bill, for the first time, would formally authorize the FPS and the interagency government body responsible for establishing security standards for all federal facilities, the Interagency Security Committee. We would provide additional funding for the agency by directing OMB to increase the building security fees paid by other agencies. We would provide resources for FPS to hire 146 full time employees. We would ensure that FPS employs 1,200 full time employees or more at all times--a conservative number that may require future increases. Many of the additional employees would be law enforcement officers, but FPS would also have the flexibility to hire administrative and support personnel to improve its overall management, strengthen its oversight of contract guards, monitor contractor performance, and share contract assessments throughout the agency. The legislation also would provide retirement benefits to FPS officers to help the agency recruit and retain quality personnel. Recognizing that the nation's fiscal health and our unsustainable deficits demand budget tightening, it is especially critical that we make wise budget decisions. I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates the need for additional spending for FPS. With regard to improved standards, our legislation would require FPS to conduct overt and covert testing to assess guard training, test the security of Federal facilities, and establish procedures for retraining or terminating poor performing guards. The bill would also require that basic documents and manuals describing the responsibilities of security guards are up to date and periodically reviewed. On explosives, we would require DHS to establish performance-based standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at Federal facilities. Our bill would also allow FPS officers to carry firearms off duty, as most other Federal law enforcement officers can, allowing them to respond to incidents more quickly. And, finally, the bill includes several reporting requirements--on agency personnel needs, retention rates of contract guards, the feasibility of federalizing the contract guard workforce, and additional methods for preventing and detecting explosives in federal facilities. Based on the Committee's and GAO's oversight work over the past several years, it is clear that Congress must move quickly to address the remaining security vulnerabilities associated with our Federal buildings. I am confident that this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will foster meaningful reform, modernize the Federal Protective Service, and improve the security of our Federal facilities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I thank Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, former Senator Voinovich, and their dedicated staffs for helping to get this bill introduced today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leaders, Learning, And Results Act of 2011--the STELLAR Student Act, and I am honored to be joined in this bipartisan effort by my colleagues Senator Scott Brown and Senator Mary Landrieu. The STELLAR Student Act will ensure that all students are taught by effective teachers and that all teachers are supported by effective principals. Teacher and principal effectiveness are critical factors in improving student learning and achievement. Research shows that increasing teacher quality is one of the most effective and promising strategies for improving education in the United States. Some studies show that the differences in achievement gains for students who had the most effective teachers versus those who had the least effective teachers were greater than any single influence of class-size, race, socio- economic status, or parent education. Estimates suggest that the difference between having a highly effective teacher versus a highly ineffective teacher can be as much as a full year's learning growth. Imagine the dire situation for a student who has a highly ineffective teacher for multiple years in a row. It is a situation that many students experience and potentially never recover from. There are far too many ineffective teachers, especially in less affluent urban districts. In many cases, due to antiquated hiring and firing protocols and policies, those ineffective teachers are keeping innovative young teachers from teaching where they are needed most. It is essential that we begin to differentiate between those highly effective and highly ineffective teachers and principals, especially when it comes to making personnel decisions in these challenging economic times. The STELLAR Student Act of 2011 aims to encourage States to do just that by directing States to develop evaluation systems that consider student achievement and classroom observation, and to use those evaluations for key personnel decisions including pay, tenure, lay- offs, and retention. To further these goals, the STELLAR Student Act of 2011 would specifically direct States to implement a teacher assessment system that bases teacher effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth and other measures including classroom observations; direct States to implement a principal assessment system that bases effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth as well as improvement in graduation rates, leadership, and successful hiring, development, evaluation, and retention of teachers; tie Title 1 funding to teacher and principal evaluations that incorporate multiple measures, relying predominantly on measures of student academic growth and achievement, as well as classroom performance; require that evaluations be used to inform key personnel decisions including tenure, compensation, and layoffs in the event of any reduction in force; encourage input from teachers and principals in the development and improvement of evaluations; and encourage improved targeting of professional development based on these evaluations. The STELLAR Student Act addresses the fact that current teacher and principal evaluation systems are inadequate. Evaluation measures for teachers are not strongly linked to their ability to teach. In fact, seniority, not effectiveness, is often the single indicator used for making teacher personnel decisions. Some studies show that less than 1 percent of teachers are identified as unsatisfactory even though we know many more than 1 percent falls into this category. This also means that our most effective teachers are lumped together with less effective teachers and are not recognized for their exceptional work. It is time to rethink conventional measures of teacher qualifications such as advanced degrees, traditional credentialing, and years of experience as measures of teacher quality, and focus instead on actual measures of teacher effectiveness, such as student academic growth. Indeed, many States are looking for ways to tie teacher performance to student achievement and then use this information to inform personnel decisions. The STELLAR Student Act will help States do just that. Although we believe it is important to hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, teachers and principals are certainly not the problem--they are an essential part of the solution. This bill asks for input from teachers and principals in designing and improving assessment systems, recognizes the importance of observation and other ongoing formative assessments, highlights the need for meaningful professional development, and asks States to duly recognize those effective teachers and leaders. The STELLAR Student Act also encourages school districts to assist low performing teachers by setting up targeted remediation and improvement plans. Many teachers and parents also recognize and support the need for effective teacher evaluation linked to student performance. In a recent survey, 69 percent of teachers and 92 percent of parents support measuring teacher effectiveness based on student growth. In addition, most teachers--approximately 80 percent--and parents--approximately 96 percent--also believe that giving schools more ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well should be another priority. From the same survey, teachers in schools with high proportions of low- income students, high proportions of minority students, and those in urban or rural schools are more likely than other teachers to say that using measurements of teacher effectiveness that are based in significant part on student growth is something that must be done. Those same teachers are also more likely to say that giving schools greater ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well is something that must be done. The Administration and many States are already moving in the direction of increased accountability and effective teacher and principal assessments. As the President said in the State of the Union ``we do want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for the bad ones.'' A number of States, many of which are leaders in education reform, are exploring ways to hold teachers and principals more accountable along with rethinking ideas around tenure and the long standing last-in-first-out policies. Whether your concern is that our students rank behind 30 other countries in math, that 1.2 million students drop out of school each year, or that an unacceptable achievement gap still persists for our low income and minority students, all of us must act on the urgent need to put forth a strong bipartisan effort to fix our education system. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, long overdue, affords us the opportunity. We must work across the aisle to fix what is broken in the current education law. We hope the STELLAR Student Act will be considered in the context of the ESEA rewrite, to ensure effective teachers and principals for every child and every school. Our colleagues in the House have introduced a similar bill, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the STELLAR Student Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leaders, Learning, And Results Act of 2011--the STELLAR Student Act, and I am honored to be joined in this bipartisan effort by my colleagues Senator Scott Brown and Senator Mary Landrieu. The STELLAR Student Act will ensure that all students are taught by effective teachers and that all teachers are supported by effective principals. Teacher and principal effectiveness are critical factors in improving student learning and achievement. Research shows that increasing teacher quality is one of the most effective and promising strategies for improving education in the United States. Some studies show that the differences in achievement gains for students who had the most effective teachers versus those who had the least effective teachers were greater than any single influence of class-size, race, socio- economic status, or parent education. Estimates suggest that the difference between having a highly effective teacher versus a highly ineffective teacher can be as much as a full year's learning growth. Imagine the dire situation for a student who has a highly ineffective teacher for multiple years in a row. It is a situation that many students experience and potentially never recover from. There are far too many ineffective teachers, especially in less affluent urban districts. In many cases, due to antiquated hiring and firing protocols and policies, those ineffective teachers are keeping innovative young teachers from teaching where they are needed most. It is essential that we begin to differentiate between those highly effective and highly ineffective teachers and principals, especially when it comes to making personnel decisions in these challenging economic times. The STELLAR Student Act of 2011 aims to encourage States to do just that by directing States to develop evaluation systems that consider student achievement and classroom observation, and to use those evaluations for key personnel decisions including pay, tenure, lay- offs, and retention. To further these goals, the STELLAR Student Act of 2011 would specifically direct States to implement a teacher assessment system that bases teacher effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth and other measures including classroom observations; direct States to implement a principal assessment system that bases effectiveness predominantly on student academic growth as well as improvement in graduation rates, leadership, and successful hiring, development, evaluation, and retention of teachers; tie Title 1 funding to teacher and principal evaluations that incorporate multiple measures, relying predominantly on measures of student academic growth and achievement, as well as classroom performance; require that evaluations be used to inform key personnel decisions including tenure, compensation, and layoffs in the event of any reduction in force; encourage input from teachers and principals in the development and improvement of evaluations; and encourage improved targeting of professional development based on these evaluations. The STELLAR Student Act addresses the fact that current teacher and principal evaluation systems are inadequate. Evaluation measures for teachers are not strongly linked to their ability to teach. In fact, seniority, not effectiveness, is often the single indicator used for making teacher personnel decisions. Some studies show that less than 1 percent of teachers are identified as unsatisfactory even though we know many more than 1 percent falls into this category. This also means that our most effective teachers are lumped together with less effective teachers and are not recognized for their exceptional work. It is time to rethink conventional measures of teacher qualifications such as advanced degrees, traditional credentialing, and years of experience as measures of teacher quality, and focus instead on actual measures of teacher effectiveness, such as student academic growth. Indeed, many States are looking for ways to tie teacher performance to student achievement and then use this information to inform personnel decisions. The STELLAR Student Act will help States do just that. Although we believe it is important to hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, teachers and principals are certainly not the problem--they are an essential part of the solution. This bill asks for input from teachers and principals in designing and improving assessment systems, recognizes the importance of observation and other ongoing formative assessments, highlights the need for meaningful professional development, and asks States to duly recognize those effective teachers and leaders. The STELLAR Student Act also encourages school districts to assist low performing teachers by setting up targeted remediation and improvement plans. Many teachers and parents also recognize and support the need for effective teacher evaluation linked to student performance. In a recent survey, 69 percent of teachers and 92 percent of parents support measuring teacher effectiveness based on student growth. In addition, most teachers--approximately 80 percent--and parents--approximately 96 percent--also believe that giving schools more ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well should be another priority. From the same survey, teachers in schools with high proportions of low- income students, high proportions of minority students, and those in urban or rural schools are more likely than other teachers to say that using measurements of teacher effectiveness that are based in significant part on student growth is something that must be done. Those same teachers are also more likely to say that giving schools greater ability to remove teachers who are not serving students well is something that must be done. The Administration and many States are already moving in the direction of increased accountability and effective teacher and principal assessments. As the President said in the State of the Union ``we do want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for the bad ones.'' A number of States, many of which are leaders in education reform, are exploring ways to hold teachers and principals more accountable along with rethinking ideas around tenure and the long standing last-in-first-out policies. Whether your concern is that our students rank behind 30 other countries in math, that 1.2 million students drop out of school each year, or that an unacceptable achievement gap still persists for our low income and minority students, all of us must act on the urgent need to put forth a strong bipartisan effort to fix our education system. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, long overdue, affords us the opportunity. We must work across the aisle to fix what is broken in the current education law. We hope the STELLAR Student Act will be considered in the context of the ESEA rewrite, to ensure effective teachers and principals for every child and every school. Our colleagues in the House have introduced a similar bill, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the STELLAR Student Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from California. One might say, in the context of the debates going on in Congress now, that Senator Blumenthal and I have come to the floor of the Senate to talk about a governmental program that really works, that has inspired an entire State, perhaps a nation. I speak, of course, of the University of Connecticut baseball program. It is with great joy that I come to the floor of the Senate today to congratulate the University of Connecticut men's basketball team and their great coach, Jim Calhoun, on winning the NCAA championship last night. This has been a remarkable season. A team that started unranked, a young team in a year that was supposed to be a rebuilding year came together in a magical way. They had their ups early in the season, they had their downs as time went on, but the run that began with the Big East tournament a few weeks ago has, for our State and I think anybody who follows and loves college basketball, really been inspirational. I do want to say, in terms of inspiration and I suppose I might say in the spirit of bipartisanship or at least good sportsmanship, that I offer congratulations to the Butler Bulldogs on their great run in the tournament, which also was inspirational. I thank my Indiana colleagues for their good sportsmanship and for what they described as the best popcorn in America, made in Indiana--that is part of a friendly wager they made, Senators Lugar and Coats, with Senator Blumenthal and me-- which we will be pleased to accept and devour. This has been quite a year. Led by their floor leader, Kemba Walker, and assisted by an extraordinary group of young athletes, this group of student athletes demonstrated to all of us what a combination of hard work, dedication, commitment, and teamwork can achieve. Honestly, I tip my hat to these ``top dogs'' today of college basketball. Of course, in my opinion, no matter how good and how much potential the players on this UConn men's basketball team had, they simply could not have done it without their great coach and a great man, Jim Calhoun. This is not the first time I have had the honor to come to the Senate floor to commend the performance of Coach Calhoun and the UConn Huskies. In fact, with last night's victory, Jim has etched his name in basketball glory by winning his third national title. He becomes only the fifth coach in history to win three national championships, and he joins the ranks of other greats such as John Wooden and Coach K, Mike Krzyzewski. He is only one of 8 coaches to run up over 800 career wins. Over the years, I have watched Jim build upon the athletic program at UConn, transforming it from an occasionally regional contender to a regular national powerhouse. His three national championships and seven Big East championships have put our team, the State team of a relatively small State, on the college basketball map and set a high standard of excellence. I think none of this would have happened without Coach Calhoun's vision, his drive, his caring for players, and his extraordinary basketball brains. There is a larger lesson, as there often is in sports. But this was a team that came into the Big East tournament with most people thinking the season would end quickly for them. They had will, which is a word Coach Calhoun uses a lot. They always had the potential and the ability, but they had the will. I am looking at the Senate pages now, young people. There are a lot of people who read these UConn Huskies out at different times of the season, but they didn't read themselves out of the competition, and their coach never did. He kept telling them they had what it took to be champions. They pulled together. They worked together. They developed their potential to the fullest. They played and lived like a family. And you might say Coach Calhoun is the loving father who employs a lot of tough love but draws greatness out of these players and gives all of us in Connecticut a tremendous sense of pride. I do not want to finish my statement without also telling Coach Geno Auriemma and the great players on the UConn women's basketball team how proud we are of them and how much we thank them for another remarkable season that was also filled with historic accomplishments, including an impressive run to the Final Four and a recordbreaking 90-consecutive- wins streak. The Lady Huskies were led by the all-impressive Maya Moore, who achieved AP All American honors in each of her 4 seasons at UConn and scored over 3,000 career points. So I give my congratulations to Coach Geno Auriemma and to the players on the UConn Lady Huskies, who also made us proud. I am going to yield the floor in a minute to my colleague, Senator Blumenthal. It strikes me that this is the first time I have had the chance to celebrate here when my former colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, is not here. The first time we celebrated together on the floor, I ended my remarks with the UConn cheer. Afterward, Senator Dodd, then the senior Senator, gave me a hard time as to whether I would make a good cheerleader and whether it was a decorous thing to do on the floor of the Senate. I told him at the time that it could have been worse--I could have just done the UConn Huskies' ``woof.'' But now I am the senior Senator, and may I conclude by simply saying U-C-O-N-N, UConn, UConn, UConn. National champs. I know my ending needs a little work, and I will be working on that from now until next year when we hopefully secure another championship. I yield the floor to Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Today I wish to note the retirement of Daniel P. Mulhollan as Director of the Congressional Research Service and to thank him for his service to Congress over the past 42 years. CRS, an institution with roots going back to 1914, provides essential support for Congress. Dan Mulhollan has been a part of CRS since September 1969; and he has led CRS since January 24, 1994, when Librarian of Congress James Billington named him CRS Director. As Director, Mulhollan's accomplishments have been impressive. He worked to ensure that the analytical services of CRS are explicitly and clearly pertinent to the legislative, oversight, and representational responsibilities of Congress and to the current congressional agenda. He expanded the ability of CRS to bring interdisciplinary scholarship to bear on matters important to Congress. His efforts to develop and implement a personnel succession plan ensure that professional talent will continue to be available to Congress in the years to come. Following graduate work in political science at Georgetown University, Mulhollan came to what was then known as the Legislative Reference Service. His first division chief recognized the restless energy of this new analyst in American national government and put him to work on inquiries about the institutional dimensions of Congress. In 1973 Mulhollan was named section head and subsequently served as head of three sections in the CRS Government Division. He and the teams he led worked with committees and Members of Congress on such matters as lobbying disclosure, the Watergate investigation, and subsequent impeachment investigation, congressional reorganization, and congressional ethics. In 1981 Mulhollan became assistant chief of the CRS Government Division, and in that position he managed research for Congress on a wide range of issues, among which were the organization and administration of the executive and legislative branches, legislative process, voting and elections, lobbying, and political parties and processes. In 1991 Mulhollan received the Library's Distinguished Service Award for his career achievements, and in 1992 James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, appointed Mulhollan as Acting Deputy Librarian of Congress for a period of 2 years and commissioned him to head the Library's effort to enhance its service to Congress. Subsequently, Mulhollan was named chief of the CRS Government Division; and then in 1994, Dr. Billington named Mulhollan to be Director of the Congressional Research Service. In making the appointment, Dr. Billington said, ``Daniel Mulhollan brings to this position comprehensive knowledge of Congress, an understanding of its research needs, a strong commitment to diversity, and a record of effective and energetic administration.'' The Librarian chose well: under Mulhollan's energetic leadership over the past 17 years, CRS has consolidated its analytic abilities and has continually demonstrated its worth to the United States Congress. I am confident that my Senate colleagues join me in wishing Daniel Mulhollan well in his retirement, commending his leadership of CRS, and thanking him for a job well done.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation offered by Senators Schumer and Alexander to streamline the nomination process so incoming Presidents can get their teams in place more quickly and put them to work doing the people's business. On August 5, 1789, the Senate took up and confirmed 102 executive nominations that had been sent up by President Washington just 2 days earlier--rejecting only one nominee. Our first President, in a letter to the Senate, complained about the one he didn't get. If the Senate ever doubted the fitness of one of his nominees it should--and I quote ``communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail yourselves of the information which led me to make them and which I would with pleasure lay before you.'' Modern Presidents of both parties would sigh over this bit of history because nowadays the process by which a person is selected, vetted, nominated, and then considered and confirmed by the Senate has become-- in the words of one scholar--``nasty and brutish, without being short.'' One hundred days into President Obama's administration, only 14 percent of the Senate-confirmed positions in his administration had been filled. After 18 months, 25 percent of these positions were still vacant. This is not an aberration or anomaly. The timetables for putting in place a leadership team across the government has been pretty much the same each of the last three times there has been a change of occupant in the White House. We have known about this problem a long time, but failed to act. In 2001, the then Governmental Affairs Committee under former Chairman Fred Thompson, held hearings titled the State of the Presidential Appointment Process and recommended legislation, which did not pass. In 2003, a bipartisan commission headed by Paul Volker recommended ways to speed up the nominations process. That got nowhere. In 2004, the 9-11 Commission said the delays in getting a new government up and running actually pose a threat to our national security and in its report it also recommended ways to speed up the process. Well after years of talk, it may be that we now finally have bipartisan support for change, although as the saying goes: ``It ain't over til it's over.'' In January, Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell established a working group on executive nominations and appointed Senators Schumer and Alexander--chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Rules Committee--to lead it. Senator Collins and I--as chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--have been part of this working group and the bill being introduced today has my full support. In fact, we held a hearing earlier this month on the need for nomination reform and the numbers showed just how compelling the case for reform is. A study by the Congressional Research Service says that delay occurs not so much at the Cabinet level positions. Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama all were able to get the vast majority of their nominees for Cabinet Secretaries in place on or shortly after Inauguration Day. Where the delay is most pronounced, according to CRS, is in the sub- cabinet level positions. Under President Reagan, nominees averaged 114 days from the President's election to final confirmation. Under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama those numbers jumped to 185, 198, and 195 respectively. Part of the problem is that the number of positions requiring confirmation has grown over time. When President Reagan took office, he had 295 key policy positions requiring confirmation. By the time President Obama was inaugurated, that number had grown to 422 key positions, plus another nearly 800 lesser positions that also required Senate confirmation. These numbers do not include foreign service officers, or public health officials who also require Senate confirmation. The legislation Senators Schumer and Alexander are introducing recommends eliminating Senate confirmation for approximately 200 presidential appointments to positions in the Executive Branch, including for legislative and public affairs positions, chief information officers, and internal management positions at or below the Assistant Secretary level. This will free the Senate to concentrate on the more important policy-making nominees. The bill also calls for a working group to simplify, standardize and centralize the forms and documentation required by both the White House and Senate so a nominee isn't burdened with duplicative paperwork and information requests. Senators Schumer and Alexander are also introducing a standing order this morning that would streamline the confirmation process for approximately 200 other Presidential appointments that receive Senate confirmation. Under the standing order, some nominees to part-time boards and commissions could have their nominations expedited by being held at the desk for a certain number of days and then placed directly onto the Executive Calendar rather than being referred to a Senate committee. I would also like to express my support for the standing order. In the past, nominations reform legislation has stalled because of the perceived fears of some of our colleagues, particularly committee chairs and ranking members, that they would be giving up some of their jurisdiction and authority. But the simple truth is that some of these nominations shouldn't require Senate confirmation and, frankly, take up valuable time that should be used for more important work. Nothing in the legislation we offer today will weaken in any way the Senate's important Constitutional role of ``advice and consent'' or our delicate system of checks and balances. But if we don't fix what is broken in this system, I fear we risk discouraging some of our nation's most talented individuals from accepting nominations, thus leaving important positions unfilled. If I may end with a little history, as Governeur Morris, one of the architects of the Constitution, said when speaking in favor of the ``advice and consent'' clause: ``As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility. As the Senate was to concur, there would be security.'' Those founding principals will be unaffected by the kinds of modest changes this bill calls for, and I believe and hope we can get it done this year. I call on my fellow chairmen, ranking members, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on addressing this challenge so the next new administration, regardless of party, can recruit the best candidates and then put them to work quickly addressing the many challenges our Nation faces.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation offered by Senators Schumer and Alexander to streamline the nomination process so incoming Presidents can get their teams in place more quickly and put them to work doing the people's business. On August 5, 1789, the Senate took up and confirmed 102 executive nominations that had been sent up by President Washington just 2 days earlier--rejecting only one nominee. Our first President, in a letter to the Senate, complained about the one he didn't get. If the Senate ever doubted the fitness of one of his nominees it should--and I quote ``communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail yourselves of the information which led me to make them and which I would with pleasure lay before you.'' Modern Presidents of both parties would sigh over this bit of history because nowadays the process by which a person is selected, vetted, nominated, and then considered and confirmed by the Senate has become-- in the words of one scholar--``nasty and brutish, without being short.'' One hundred days into President Obama's administration, only 14 percent of the Senate-confirmed positions in his administration had been filled. After 18 months, 25 percent of these positions were still vacant. This is not an aberration or anomaly. The timetables for putting in place a leadership team across the government has been pretty much the same each of the last three times there has been a change of occupant in the White House. We have known about this problem a long time, but failed to act. In 2001, the then Governmental Affairs Committee under former Chairman Fred Thompson, held hearings titled the State of the Presidential Appointment Process and recommended legislation, which did not pass. In 2003, a bipartisan commission headed by Paul Volker recommended ways to speed up the nominations process. That got nowhere. In 2004, the 9-11 Commission said the delays in getting a new government up and running actually pose a threat to our national security and in its report it also recommended ways to speed up the process. Well after years of talk, it may be that we now finally have bipartisan support for change, although as the saying goes: ``It ain't over til it's over.'' In January, Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell established a working group on executive nominations and appointed Senators Schumer and Alexander--chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Rules Committee--to lead it. Senator Collins and I--as chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--have been part of this working group and the bill being introduced today has my full support. In fact, we held a hearing earlier this month on the need for nomination reform and the numbers showed just how compelling the case for reform is. A study by the Congressional Research Service says that delay occurs not so much at the Cabinet level positions. Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama all were able to get the vast majority of their nominees for Cabinet Secretaries in place on or shortly after Inauguration Day. Where the delay is most pronounced, according to CRS, is in the sub- cabinet level positions. Under President Reagan, nominees averaged 114 days from the President's election to final confirmation. Under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama those numbers jumped to 185, 198, and 195 respectively. Part of the problem is that the number of positions requiring confirmation has grown over time. When President Reagan took office, he had 295 key policy positions requiring confirmation. By the time President Obama was inaugurated, that number had grown to 422 key positions, plus another nearly 800 lesser positions that also required Senate confirmation. These numbers do not include foreign service officers, or public health officials who also require Senate confirmation. The legislation Senators Schumer and Alexander are introducing recommends eliminating Senate confirmation for approximately 200 presidential appointments to positions in the Executive Branch, including for legislative and public affairs positions, chief information officers, and internal management positions at or below the Assistant Secretary level. This will free the Senate to concentrate on the more important policy-making nominees. The bill also calls for a working group to simplify, standardize and centralize the forms and documentation required by both the White House and Senate so a nominee isn't burdened with duplicative paperwork and information requests. Senators Schumer and Alexander are also introducing a standing order this morning that would streamline the confirmation process for approximately 200 other Presidential appointments that receive Senate confirmation. Under the standing order, some nominees to part-time boards and commissions could have their nominations expedited by being held at the desk for a certain number of days and then placed directly onto the Executive Calendar rather than being referred to a Senate committee. I would also like to express my support for the standing order. In the past, nominations reform legislation has stalled because of the perceived fears of some of our colleagues, particularly committee chairs and ranking members, that they would be giving up some of their jurisdiction and authority. But the simple truth is that some of these nominations shouldn't require Senate confirmation and, frankly, take up valuable time that should be used for more important work. Nothing in the legislation we offer today will weaken in any way the Senate's important Constitutional role of ``advice and consent'' or our delicate system of checks and balances. But if we don't fix what is broken in this system, I fear we risk discouraging some of our nation's most talented individuals from accepting nominations, thus leaving important positions unfilled. If I may end with a little history, as Governeur Morris, one of the architects of the Constitution, said when speaking in favor of the ``advice and consent'' clause: ``As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility. As the Senate was to concur, there would be security.'' Those founding principals will be unaffected by the kinds of modest changes this bill calls for, and I believe and hope we can get it done this year. I call on my fellow chairmen, ranking members, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on addressing this challenge so the next new administration, regardless of party, can recruit the best candidates and then put them to work quickly addressing the many challenges our Nation faces.