Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 13, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 13, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

What is the pending order, Mr. President?

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

As the dean of the Democratic Women in the Senate, we wish to tell our colleagues and the American people that we want to join together as women of the Senate today to talk about the compelling issues facing the American people in terms of the need for health care reform. We are going to be speaking out and speaking up about the need for reform. I will be the wrap-up speaker.

In order to kick it off, I am going to yield--how much time does the Senator from Minnesota need?

We have nine speakers.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, we thank the Senator for her advocacy to end this driveby delivery and other punitive practices.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining in morning business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for another 15 minutes.

I withhold that unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes and that it be equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that morning business on our side be extended for 15 minutes and that 15 minutes also be added to the Republican side.

Mr. President, I assure my colleagues on the other side that all time will be protected. I think there is a little confusion. I have not been briefed on the order. I can assure everyone's time agreement will be protected at the time they were assured they could speak.

I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I now yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Washington State.

Mr. President, as we wrap up our discussion on health insurance reform, I want to say as the senior Democratic woman that I am very proud of my colleagues today and how they have spoken up about the terrible practices of the insurance companies discriminating against women.

What you heard loudly and clearly today is that health care is a women's issue, health care reform is a must-do women's issue, and health insurance reform is a must-change women's issue because what we demonstrated is that when it comes to health insurance, we women pay more and get less.

We stand today on the Senate floor to say we want equal access and equal benefits for equal premiums. We women pay more and get less when we do pay our premiums. A 25-year-old woman is charged more than a 25- year-old man of equal or similar health status. And at age 40, it is often up to almost 50 percent. And when we do pay our benefits, when we are able to cross that barrier of getting health insurance, we get less coverage because insurance companies have certain punitive practices.

No. 1, we are often denied coverage because of something called a preexisting condition. These preexisting conditions are not catastrophic. We hear horror story after horror story that a woman who has had a baby by a C section which was medically mandated is then denied subsequent coverage because she had that. We have heard horror story after horror story in some States that victims of domestic violence are denied health insurance because they have been battered by a spouse and then they are battered by the insurance company.

This has to change. Coverage for women is often skimpy and spartan. I think people would find it shocking, good men would find it shocking that maternity care is often denied as a basic coverage or we have to pay more to get coverage for maternity care. Often on basic preventive care, such as mammograms and cervical screenings, we have to pay significant copays in order to get them.

So we the women are fighting for health care reform. We have very basic things we support. No. 1, we want to make sure that Medicare is strengthened and saved. We know that Medicare is a woman's issue and a family issue not only because there are more women on Medicare than there are men, but we know that with Medicare, often without it or if it is curtailed or shrunk, it would mean disaster.

Mr. President, you see that I am speaking from a wheelchair. It is because I had a fall coming out of 4 o'clock mass a couple of weeks ago. When going through the ER, the OR, the rehab room, if I did not have Medicare and my health care benefit, I would be bankrupt today.

If health care is good enough for a U.S. Senator, it is good enough to make sure we have health care for U.S. citizens. So we want to save Medicare.

We also want to close that doughnut hole. The doughnut hole for prescription drugs has been very difficult to swallow. It is time to change that. We want to end the punitive insurance practices of discriminating on the basis of gender--so whether you have had a C section or whether you need mental health benefits after you have been raped, you can get your coverage.

Later on this weekend, there will be many in my State who will be ``Racing for the Cure.'' I think it is great that we are looking for a cure for breast cancer, and we salute the Komen Foundation. But we not only want to do the research to find the cure, we want to make sure women have access to the preventive screening for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer. We are fighting to make sure that access is provided for these important screenings and there are no barriers for payment.

In a nutshell, we, the women of the Senate, have fought for equal pay for equal work. Now we are fighting for equal benefits for equal premiums. We hope that when the insurance debate comes to the Senate, we will be able to elaborate. But today, we wanted to say: Let's get rid of the mob scene that is going around the debate on health care. Let's focus on the important human needs.

I now conclude my remarks, and I believe this concludes morning business. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike the funding in the bill for the Department of Commerce Public Telecommunications Facilities. His amendment would eliminate from the bill $20 million. That $20 million goes for competitive grants for public radio and TV stations around the Nation to upgrade their infrastructure and technology. His amendment would terminate the grant program in fiscal year 2010.

He argues that President Obama's budget proposed to eliminate the program, so Congress should too. We are a separate and coequal branch of government. In this case, the CJS Committee respectfully disagrees with the President's budget. We know our President inherited a terrible mess. We know the previous administration ran up debts and deficits and now, as we try to clean it out, our President is looking for modest cuts to the budget. But here, with public telecommunications facilities, this is exactly what we need during these troubled economic times to provide access to quality TV to ordinary people who might not be able to afford cable TV, satellite TV, or dish TV.

I am ready to dish on the McCain amendment. We need jobs in this country, and we need to let people know their government is on their side and that they can have access to public television--public television.

Sure it is a public option. We like the public option on TV.

But we know for our local stations, where donations are down and their revenues starved, you cannot put up the necessary antenna and other technology by doing it on bake sales and dialing for dollars. They need help from their government. This is what this does: A modest $20 million that will help replace equipment such as antennas, power, and telephone hookups, generators and other kinds of things.

It will improve technology to keep up with changing requirements. Grants are competitive. There are no porkbarrel projects in this, no earmarks. The grants are competitive. The Commerce Department selects what are the ones that meet the compelling needs in communities. By the way, the local community has to provide 25 percent of local cost share so it is not a free ride.

The President's budget and the amendment sponsor argue that this technology program is no longer needed because all radio, public radio and TV stations are already going from analog to digital, so we do not need it.

This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, digital conversion has never been nor ever will be the sole purpose of the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program was intended to help public radio and TV upgrade their infrastructure and buy new equipment. Digital conversion equipment is eligible, but that is not all.

I am saying this because not only do we provide public TV. It is great to have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is about content. About content. But you need to have an infrastructure to deliver the content. In many of our communities, the infrastructure is worn. It is dated. It is 20, 22 years old. So they are looking to replace it. Guess what. When they do replace it, it creates jobs, jobs, jobs in those local communities. It takes talented men and women to put that antenna or that tower up, to install that very important new digital equipment.

For $20 million, we can broadcast to people, we can broadcast quality, and we have people going to work putting up and replacing dated equipment. Last year this program received almost $50 million in applications but had only $20 million to award. This funding is important in rural and underserved areas.

Last year, the technology program received 57 applications from Native American communities alone. The President and the Senator from Arizona argue it is not needed because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will pick up the slack. I will repeat: I love Orszag, but maybe he did not read the fine print, which is the Corporation is for ongoing operations and programming. It does not provide funding for new infrastructure.

It is about infrastructure; just like we want to have money to build our highways, we need to have superinformation highways. This helps the public facilities be able to do it. The local communities depend on the Commerce Department to do this.

The program has built the Public Broadcasting System. It ensures that the American public has access across the Nation. This is not Senator Mikulski talking because she is the chair of the CJS and she wants to hold onto every program. I got a letter, as did my ranking member, from 21 Members of the Senate, including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, asking us to put $44 million into the Appropriations Committee to fund this. We could only afford to do $20 million, the same as last year.

Why? Let me read from their letter: For some four decades, PTFP has served as a critical infrastructure program for building public broadcasting systems of radio and TV stations that reach 95 percent of the American people.

What does this do? It maintains infrastructure for transmitters, translators for the deaf, power, and antennas.

It has been drastically underfunded in the past several years since suffering an 18-percent cut in 2002 and 2003. Over the years, PTFP has foregone $270 million in Federal funds over the authorized level during the last 8 years.

I am not going to sound like an accountant here. I want to sound like I have accountability to my communities. I want them to have access to public TV and public radio and the technology to transmit it. ``PTFP's preservation role has always been most important,'' says the letter from the 20 Senators, ``because it is the only source of Federal emergency funds for public radio and television in the event of an emergency.''

After Katrina and Rita, several stations in the gulf region were awarded these emergency grants so they could start rebroadcasting. Without those funds, many communities would have been vulnerable to the compounded effects of losing local news and the kinds of programs they needed as they were struggling to rebuild.

On average, according to the letter from my 21 colleagues, including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, stations leverage these PTF funds by an additional 50 percent. So this is a Federal-local partnership.

PTF funding is about providing access to quality TV. In my own community, it has meant access to educational programs. It has meant a way to link up to community colleges and the way they have done distance learning. Many of the early children's programs, many of those early children's programs often help get children learning ready. Again, yes, that is about content. But content cannot be delivered without infrastructure.

During several weeks this summer as I lived in a rehabilitation facility getting physical therapy, many of my constituents said: Well, is it not great to watch public TV? We can see what is going on in the world. They loved the MacNeil/Lehrer show, even though it is not called that anymore, to get news about what was going on in the country.

They loved hearing public debate in a civil way, thrilled and enjoyed ``Mystery Theater,'' and at the same time were excited that their grandchildren were able to get learning ready, either at the preschool level or the work it was doing in the community college.

There are a lot of things government does that is unpopular with people. But one of the things it does that is very popular with the American people is public TV and public radio. We have to maintain quality content. We have to maintain quality infrastructure.

Because of that, I urge the defeat of the McCain amendment eliminating $20 million and essentially zapping those much-needed antenna and monitoring and transmission facilities we need. There are other things we can zap. Let's not zap public TV and public radio.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 2626; with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further that prior to the vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on the McCain amendment. We look forward to closing that debate. But before we do, I wish to comment that we are going to dispose of as many amendments as we can today and we are also going to arrive at a finite list of amendments. So for those Senators who do have amendments on both sides of the aisle, Senator Shelby and I ask our colleagues to come and offer them so we can dispose of them, as we did with the Senator from Arizona. He offered his amendment, we had a good debate, and we are going to vote on it. So please, colleagues, if you have amendments, come to the Senate floor and offer them.

Second, if you have amendments that you wish to file, this is the day to file them. We are trying very hard to see if we can finish today, but that seems to be a bit of an exuberant wish on my part and on the part of Senator Shelby. But if we can't finish today, we would at least like to get a sense of the amendments colleagues wish to bring over today. Then when we get to the Columbus Day weekend, we can work to either come to an agreement to take them, or a way of disposing of them when we come back from commemorating when America was discovered by Columbus.

Again, I ask my colleagues to come forward and either offer amendments or file amendments.

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

Mr. President, as the manager of the bill, I oppose the McCain amendment. This $20 million is competitive funding that helps local public TV and radio stations with equipment, things such as antennas, generators, fire-suppression equipment, and transmission. It improves technology. It enables our very important public TV stations to modernize.

This is a competitive grant program--no earmarks but big footprints. It does require local cost sharing of 25 percent. It also creates jobs in local communities by actually installing this equipment, while we move out the very wonderful content of public TV and public radio.

We, too, are stewards of the purse. The Commerce Department----

Mr. President, I do like to know that. I like to follow the regular order. If the Chair would have notified me, I would have stopped sooner.

I call for the vote.

Mr. President, unless the distinguished Democratic leader is ready to speak, I ask unanimous consent that the Bunning amendment, No. 2653, be the pending business.

Mr. President, I also make a point of order against the amendment that it violates rule XVI, paragraph 4--legislation on an appropriations bill.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I vigorously oppose the motion.

First, the bill is consistent with the budget resolution and the CJS subcommittee 302(b) allocation.

Second, the bill is a product of bipartisan cooperation reported out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously.

Third, the consequences of cutting the CJS bill to 2009 levels by excluding the census would be devastating. If you take out the census and do a cut, guess whom you are cutting. First of all, you are cutting Federal law enforcement. If you think this is a simple resolution, tell that to the FBI. If you think it is simple, tell it to the marshals who are chasing sexual predators. If you think it is simple, tell it to the astronauts, who are waiting to make sure we put the money in the budget to keep them safe as they go into space.

There is nothing simple about this motion to recommit. I simply ask you to reject the Ensign motion.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined today by my distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby. We wish to present the Commerce-Justice appropriations bill to the Senate. What I wish to say to my colleagues is that as we do this, everyone should know this bill is a product of bipartisan cooperation. At times, when one views the Senate through the lens of the media, one would think that everything we do here is very prickly and very partisan. But that is not true, certainly of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations.

Senator Shelby and I worked together on this bill. Yes, I do chair it, but it has been with maximum consultation with others on the other side of the aisle. It was the same way when Senator Shelby chaired this committee.

We are pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 2010 bill to fund the Departments of Commerce and Justice and air science agencies. I thank Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for allowing to us to bring the CJS bill to the floor.

The CJS bill is a product of cooperation between Senator Shelby and me and our excellent staff. We have worked hand in hand. I thank Senators Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran for their allocation.

We were able to write a very good bill, but the stringent budget environment required the subcommittee to make difficult decisions. The CJS bill totals $64.9 billion in discretionary spending, consistent with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. So any amendments to the bill will need to be offset.

The purpose of the CJS bill is to fund the Department of Commerce and its bureaus and administration. Many people do not know what the Department of Commerce truly does. It is an array of complex agencies that is important to our economy: The Bureau of Industry and Security gives licenses for exports; the Economic Development Administration creates economic growth in our communities, particularly midsized to small towns; the Census Bureau, preparing now, somewhat unevenly, for the 2010 census; the Patent and Trade Office which protects our intellectual property; along with the International Trade Administration which enforces our trade laws.

We are particularly proud of the Commerce Department, of the National Institutes for Standards and Technology. It sets the standards for technology which allows our country and our companies to be able to compete in the global marketplace.

This subcommittee also funds the Department of Justice which keeps us safe from violent crime and terrorism. It prosecutes criminals of all kind--white collar, blue collar or no collar. It also has a vigorous approach to the despicable practice of being a sexual predator.

This subcommittee through the Department of Justice funds our State and local police departments which are so important as well from not only the enforcement end but the prosecution end through the U.S. Attorney's Office.

NASA is also funded through this subcommittee. It explores our planets and our universe and inspires our Nation and next generation to be scientists and engineers.

We also fund the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, protecting our marine resources and the jobs that depend on them.

It also protects our weather to save lives. Many people don't realize that the wonderful weather reports they get in their communities comes because of the NOAA weather administration. They think it comes from the Weather Channel. We all love the Weather Channel, but the Weather Channel depends on NOAA.

The National Science Foundation is also funded, providing basic research at our universities to advance science and support teacher training and development.

We also fund several independent commissions and agencies, including the Commission on Civil Rights, the EEOC, the Legal Services Commission, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Trade Representative.

Senator Shelby's and my No. 1 priority is making sure that 300 million Americans who work hard and play by the rules are safe from terrorism and violent crime. We also want to protect jobs in our country. So we are the basic investors in innovation through education and through promoting an innovation-friendly government, making strategic investments in research and education in science and technology, keeping America No. 1 in science and also No. 1 in the space exploration program.

We want to create jobs in America that will stay in America. However, we, too, are fiscal stewards of the public purse and, therefore, accountability has been a hallmark of our bipartisan relationship. We do stand sentry against waste, fraud, and abuse with strong fiscal accountability and stewardship of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about keeping America safe. The CJS bill provides $27.4 billion for the Justice Department. We actually went above the President's request by $300 million because we wanted to make an extra effort to protect our homeland and protect our hometowns.

This bill is one of the most important sources of Federal funds for State and local law enforcement, for our frontline men and women of our State and local police forces. It is the cops on the beat who protect our families and at the same time they are asked to do more.

We are providing $3.2 billion to support that thin blue line to make sure the police are safe with equipment they need, such as bulletproof vests and also new technologies.

``CSI'' is not only a great TV show, but we think CSI should be funded in the Federal budget to use the best of science to catch the worst of the criminals.

We also fund Byrne formula grants, and this bill will provide $510 million for State and local police operations to do their job.

We are funding important programs in juvenile justice, which are very key programs of intervention and mentoring, but also very strong programs for antigang efforts--$407 million.

We also want to prevent, protect, and prosecute when it comes to violence against women, whether it is domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, or stalking--over $435 million--the highest level of funding ever.

We also have very important Federal law enforcement. All of us know and love the FBI. This bill will provide $7.9 billion to keep us safe from violent crime and also white collar crime, investigating financial and mortgage fraud.

I want to acknowledge the role of Senator Shelby, who is an authorizer on the Banking Committee and a member of this Appropriations Committee. He has taken on the issue of mortgage fraud and wanted it to be thoroughly investigated. We have done that through the FBI.

Many people don't realize, though, that after 9/11, when everyone was clamoring for something like the MI-5, such as the British have, we said: Three cheers for the British way, but we want a USA way, so we created an agency within an agency where the FBI is part of our most significant fight against terrorism.

We also fund the Drug Enforcement Agency to fight international narcoterrorists and drug kingpins. This bill provides $2 billion to do it.

I am very proud of the FBI because in the last few weeks their work has led to the arrest of two terrorism suspects who planned to blow up buildings in Texas and in Illinois. While they were working hard, the efforts of the DEA led to the arrest of drug kingpins who were shipping 95 kilograms into New York City.

We also have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Marshals Service, each of which has been funded at $1 billion-plus.

Our U.S. attorneys, who are the prosecutors of Federal crimes, have been provided $1.9 billion, a significant increase.

Once we catch and prosecute these criminals, there has to be Federal prisons, and we want to make sure our communities are secure and our prison guards are safe. This is one of the tattered areas of neglect, and we are very concerned about the safety of our prison guards. This bill provides $6.1 billion to upgrade, where necessary, the protective devices to ensure criminals are held securely--acknowledging their rights, but also the rights of those who guard them need to be kept too. Their first right is the right to security, guaranteed by their own government.

We look to protecting our children and our communities, and when it comes to protecting our children, crimes have gotten more sophisticated in terms of the Internet and other things that are used to lure children into terrible criminal situations. We have provided over $265 billion to deal with the issue of sexual predators, and we will continue that fight.

While we are busy fighting crime and protecting our children, we also need to protect America's jobs, and this is where science and innovation come in with an amazing race to keep America competitive.

This bill provides $880 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and, particularly, $70 million for the new Technology Innovation Program and $125 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, so that we can keep manufacturing in our country. We also want to do the basic research that is needed for the new ideas that will come up with the new products for the new jobs.

This bill provides $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation, and for NOAA we provide $4.7 billion, including $980 million for our weather service and $870 million for our fisheries.

This bill also funds our space program: $18.7 billion for NASA. In the space program, we don't agree with the House strategy; we agree with the White House strategy. The House strategy includes $500 million for the NASA exploration program. We believe we need to meet our obligations to fully fund the space shuttle and the space station. For the space shuttle, we need to make sure we keep our astronauts safe and our space station is able to continue the work we have begun. We also need to invest in the next generation of space vehicles at $3.6 billion.

It is very important we meet our obligations, our international obligations, as well as our obligations to our astronauts and to our Earth-bound scientists. However, if you meet those scientists, they are not bound by Earth very much. They are continually breaking barriers.

We know the House withheld money while waiting for the Augustine report. Well, we have the Augustine report. We know where the President wants to go. We know what the key advisers in the astronaut community have recommended to us--the gallant leaders from the past, such as Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn, to the most contemporary right now. I might add we have a space Senator in Senator Bill Nelson, one of our authorizers. So we have worked hand-in-hand with our authorizers.

We are also working very hard in terms of protecting our intellectual property. We have been concerned through the Bush administration--well, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and now we want to deal with this during the Barack Obama administration--that we have too many backlogs at our Patent and Trademark Office. We want to reduce those. American ingenuity should not have to stand in long lines to get their patents to protect their intellectual property and to come up with the products that will go into the global marketplace and at the same time create jobs here.

We are also very proud of what we do to protect our planet, and what we have done through NASA Earth science--$1.4 billion--and also what we are doing in weather satellites--$1.2 billion--which are very important global warming tools. If we can better protect and warn, we can save lives and save money.

The CJS bill ensures our constitutional obligation to do the 2010 census. We provide $7 billion to the Census. We are working hand-in- glove with Secretary Locke to make sure the Census Bureau is well organized to be able to do this very important job.

There are many more things we can talk about, but I know my colleague, Senator Shelby, wants to discuss the bill, and our good friend from Arizona has an amendment. So, Mr. President, I will amplify these other parts of the bill as we move forward.

I know Senator Shelby will return in a moment or two, so with deference and the usual courtesy and comity, if the Senator from Arizona wishes to offer his amendment, and then when Senator Shelby returns he can make his statement, we will just keep the business of the Senate moving as promptly and as well as we can.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this is a new amendment for us. We had not anticipated that this amendment--that a debate on immigration and the value of one person over another was going to become a subject of discussion in an appropriations bill. We would hope this type of conversation would be taken up on comprehensive immigration. I know my colleague from Utah, who is on the Appropriations Committee--and both are important to me, that he is from Utah and that he is on the Appropriations Committee--has thought this through greatly. He raises some very important points. I have discussed this amendment with my leadership. I know they want to take a more careful look at this and also consult on its full ramifications.

We are now talking about questions being asked through the census and the objective to be accomplished for that, which the census was originally for counting people for tax purposes, ironically. This is an apportionment question. So what we would like to do is go into a quorum while we look at how we may proceed on this amendment.

Having said that, I want to reiterate the importance of the census being taken every 10 years. The census must be taken for the reasons that our colleague from Utah outlined. No. 1, it determines the use of Federal funds, and that is why we count persons, because regardless of your status, you are a user of services--in some instances, maybe even more than a user of services. The second thing is with apportionment. I think that is a delicate matter that the Senator from Utah is raising. This gets us into constitutional questions. I am apprehensive about it. Again, we are going to consult with the leadership.

Also, as we move forward on the issue of the census, we have to make sure we do have a head count. The Census Department itself, right now, is under very serious duress. They were late getting started on some of their issues. There has been an enormous technological boondoggle with the hand-held technology, the enumerator, with which I believe the Senator from Utah is familiar. We have been working with the previous administration, this administration, and the Secretary of Commerce to get the census straightened out. My colleague said: Why don't they just print one more piece of paper? One more piece of paper sounds

simple. But everything we do that affects the census at this point presents a logistical and financial challenge that borders on a challenge to a nightmare. Again, we have calls in to the census that say, what will it take to do it?

I have reservations about adding this question, because I believe it will add to the logistics and costs. And No. 2, it could be a deterrent to people answering those questions because of who else is in their household. The other thing is that we have many people in our country who are green card people, who are here absolutely legally and justifiably. Some are in our own community at some of our community hospitals and are working as nurses. And asking this question and that question--I don't want to raise the issue of a deterrence and the ability to cooperate.

I want to take a closer look at this amendment. While we do that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I know we are debating here the nature of the questions that should be asked on the census. Our colleague, Senator Carper of Delaware, in a matter of minutes is holding a hearing on the census. At that hearing, he is going to seek some clarification on this and report back to us.

As we continue the debate on that amendment, I also want to bring to the attention of the Senate some of the very important things that are in this bill. We want to move this bill forward. I want to move this bill forward. We will dispose of, in an orderly, civil, rational way, the pending amendment of Senators Vitter and Bennett on the census. But we also want to move this bill forward. We want to do everything we can so that this bill passes by the end of this week so we can go to conference and be ready to move very important funding forward, particularly in the area of law enforcement.

This is absolutely a very compelling need. When we think about law enforcement, yes, we can think about law enforcement with illegal aliens. Yes, we can also think about law enforcement with violent criminals. We do deal with that in our bill. But we are also very much focused on white-collar crime. One of the areas on which we have worked on a bipartisan basis on this bill is the issue of mortgage and financial fraud. So, as we are debating amendments that are controversial, I want the people of America to know we are on their side and we can do it on a bipartisan basis.

One of the great pleasures of being on the committee is my ranking member--or the vice chairman, some people might call him--Senator Shelby is the ranking member on the Banking Committee. We put our heads together on how we can fight mortgage and financial fraud. He brought great expertise from his work on the Banking Committee. We now are looking at what we can do, by putting the money in the Federal checkbook, to go after those engaged in predatory practices, deceptive marketing and lending schemes.

Mr. President, you know from your background as a legislator and community leader that where there is need, there is often greed and often scams and scum doing it. We see it in the mortgage business. There are so many unsuspecting people who want just a piece of the American dream who were lured into some of the most deceptive practices that we have not seen in our country for several decades. They do have names. They are antiseptic names, but they mean a lot: predatory practices, deceptive marketing, lending schemes, flipping. The consequences have been enormous. During the past year, financial institutions have written off $500 billion in losses because of fraud in the subprime mortgage industry--$500 billion in losses. That is a lot when you think about what we have had to do to try to stabilize housing, to try to stabilize our mortgage industry. Numerous publicly traded financial institutions have declared bankruptcy or have been taken over by the Federal Government. I don't mean to imply that being taken over by the Feds was all due to the fact that they had been involved in fraudulent schemes, but it is time to say: No more.

What we want to be able to do is to go after the scammers who caused Americans to lose their homes, their life savings, and their dignity. Yes, I worry about the financial institutions, but I worry about people who put their money in the bank or took these loans that caused them, through balloon payments, excessive interest rates, two, three, four, five mortgages, all of which were unable to be sustained, to lose their homes. We on this committee say and we want our Senate colleagues to say: No more scamming and scheming. No more preying on hard-working American families.

What did the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee do? Senator Mikulski, you don't have to use a lot of rhetoric, but will it take a lot of money? We are going to do it. We are going to put $437 million in the Justice Department to combat financial fraud and be able to do what we need to do. This is a $63 million increase over fiscal year 2009. We are going to hire new agents, new attorneys, and new special support staff--people who will be skilled in an exciting new field called forensic accounting.

Our FBI is going to play a major role in this. I talked personally with Director Miller about it, as has Senator Shelby. We have gotten the FBI's commitment to really beef this up. In our own hometown of Baltimore, the U.S. attorney has put together a special task force to be able to deal with this.

What does it mean? First of all, in the Federal checkbook, we put in $75 million. This is going to increase the number of these mortgage fraud task forces around the country. We have a very excellent one under Rod Rosenstein, working in Baltimore, in our State, right this minute. But we also wanted to be able to go into States with large rural populations and others that right now do not have them.

Specifically, the funding will be used for the FBI to hire, as I said, new agents and forensic accountants. This is highly specialized, but there are people with backgrounds in accounting with special training in forensics. It is like the CSI not only says ``hi'' to a test tube but says ``hi'' to the kind of accounting that will go after these crooks. It is amazing how they can look at the books and know how people have been cheating.

We want the agents to be able to detect and investigate and capture these white-collar criminals, but we also want our U.S. attorneys to prosecute complex financial fraud. We want to be able to increase prosecutions by adding U.S. attorneys. We are adding several U.S. attorneys and support staff around the country to be able to establish the task force and work in the task force. We are very proud of our U.S. attorneys, and I believe our Attorney General, Eric Holder, is helping to restore the integrity of our U.S. attorneys around the country.

We believe in Maryland we have a very high-value functioning U.S. Attorney's Office, but they are swamped. They are going after everything from drug dealers to other violent criminals, and we also want them to have the resources to go after the white-collar crime. This is a crime. It is not as if just because it is white collar we often don't equate it as a crime, but for the Criminal Division at Justice, we are also encouraging them to step up their activity. Again, we are adding attorneys and support staff and putting the money behind it to be able to do it.

We are also doing increased work in the Civil Division to fund initiatives and to also litigate these cases and make sure we not only detect them, we not only prosecute them, but we have the lawyers and the support staff to do it. Support staff are paralegals, clerical people. But again, it is a unique kind of crime. You have to come with multiple skills. You have to come being a great lawyer or a great person who is part of the legal team. You have to have strong litigating skills, but you also have to be well versed in financial services and accounting practices. So we want to be able to bring them on and be able to keep them as we go through many of these other cases.

These are the kinds of skills we need to not only go after white- collar crime but also violent crime. Remember, we got Al Capone, not in the act of robbing a bank but cheating on his taxes.

It was that brilliant FBI generation where you had to be either a lawyer or accountant to work for the FBI. Now, again, lawyers and accountants are welcome at the FBI. But they caught Al Capone cheating on his income tax. It was one of the ways we could nail him.

I am not saying we are going to be nailing people for cheating on their income tax, but we are going to nail people who cheated and schemed and gouged against innocent people who wanted to buy a home-- through acting like loan sharks, having phony ads, having fine print so that you bought a home in the large print and you lost it in the fine print. We want to make sure those people know how to read the fine print and know what it means.

While we are debating this bill and we are looking at those things that are going to focus on topics outside the scope of this bill, we want people to know we are on their side. For everybody who is stretched very thin financially, trying to keep their head above water, and trying to buy their home, we want them, at least when they go to get a loan or to refinance it, to be dealing with honest, reputable dealers. Let's foreclose on the bad guys and stop the foreclosure on homes.

I yield the floor.

Sorry I cannot stand. As the Senator from Ohio knows, of course, from the chair I am sitting in I have become an expert on health care from the wheelchair up. I broke my ankle coming out of church a couple weeks ago.

But I would like to ask the Senator from Ohio to yield for a few questions. I was taken by the three vignettes he just told. They are fairly representative of what I get from Maryland. I would like to talk about the young girl who had graduated and was deluged now with the debt of medical bills and the public option.

Is the Senator familiar with the fact that there are 47 million uninsured in our country? Does the Senator from Ohio know how many of those are between the ages of 18 and 30?

Well, again, for background in continuing the discussion. That is 35 percent of the uninsured. So is the Senator aware that if we followed through with the HELP Committee bill and the public option and also private sector competing with the public option offer, a reasonably no frills, reasonable cost health insurance bill for young people, especially young people's benefit, that we would cover 35 percent of the uninsured?

Can I go to the man who sands floors for a living, the small businessperson whom we worry about who is a self-employed person. Under the Senator's concept of a public option, is it true then that whether it is he or a florist, maybe a real estate agent, that one of the reasons they could afford it is they could go into the health exchange or the public option--would the public option not only offer insurance but offer bargaining power for better prices on insurance? They could bargain for better prices from hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceuticals?

In other words, why would a little guy or gal not only want to be able to buy in, not only would the price be exorbitant, or is it that it would be an Uncle Sam's club that is buying things at bulk rate that enables them to afford the services?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Utah for his remarks. We have essentially three space Senators on the floor--the distinguished Senator from Florida, our Presiding Officer, who has actually been an astronaut, and you can ask him if he wants to go into space with the lowest bidder. I think there are certain things that one can't pick who the lowest bidder will be.

I think there is much to be debated. We have the Augustine report, on which there has been a hearing, and our bill, the CJS bill, we fully fund the reliable transportation system that would be developed by our government. If the President were to change that, that would be a new direction and a new appropriation on which there would be tremendous debate and discussion.

So I wish to assure the Senator from Utah and the Presiding Officer, who often speaks for the brave men and women who go into space, that what the CJS bill does is fully fund, No. 1, what we need now to make sure our space shuttle is safe and fit for duty as it comes to the end in this decade of its usable service. Our No. 1 priority will always be the safety of the astronauts, not the bottom line.

The second thing is that in our appropriations we disagreed with the House. We actually put money in the Federal checkbook to develop the new programs, the new technologies for the next generation of reliable space transportation vehicles, and it follows very much the framework that the Senator from Utah has outlined.

So we look forward, once again, to working on our space program in a bipartisan way. One of the joys of chairing this committee is that when it comes to our National Space and Aeronautics Agency, we work on a bipartisan basis.

The Senator from Utah might be interested to know, when I first came to the Senate and went on the then VA-HUD Committee that funded NASA, the ranking member was Jake Garn, your colleague. As we all recall with fondness, Senator Garn was himself also a Senator astronaut. I must say it was Senator Garn who--I was a Goddard gal; Goddard is in Maryland. But space is about space, not about an individual State. Through his excellent workmanship, his patience, his guidance, I came to know the space program. Within 2 years, I happened to, with the retirement of Senator Proxmire, take over the committee. I could not have been an effective Senator had it not been for the wise guidance I received from Jake Garn. We did it because we worked together.

So this Senator has a real fondness for the Senator from Utah speaking about the space program. But I only want to reiterate how, when we work together, it is bipartisan, it is in the interests of our country, it is about the stars and the galaxies and the planets, but it is also about developing that new technology that creates the new jobs.

I am here sitting in a wheelchair wearing a space boot. I look like I am Sally Ride's advance woman. But it is a special device. Many materials were developed through our space program. It is an innovative technology, where you go beyond the outdated casts that neither expanded nor contracted during the day that this one can do. So this technology externally protects me from, quite frankly, anybody treading on me, if you can believe it, but it protects me. Internally, it has the genius devices that can deal with either the contraction or the expansion of your leg in the course of a day. All of that came out of our space program. So it is not only about Senator Barbara Mikulski and her space boot but all over we have been able to develop new medical devices because of our space program: digital mammography, saving the lives of women; a space boot that makes sure that after you have had the services of a talented and gifted surgeon, your leg is also protected. So you better believe I am going to protect the space program as much as the space program helped protect my leg today. So I wanted to let the Senator know that.

We are going to be voting in about 5 minutes on a Vitter amendment. I know there is another one that the Senator from Utah has cosponsored, which is going to be tomorrow. Right now, we are going to vote in a few minutes on sanctuary cities. I am going to yield the floor to the Senator from New Jersey, who is very knowledgeable on this topic.

I yield to Senator Menendez.

Madam President, I am so proud the Senate will confirm Maryland's own Thomas Perez to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. I commend the Senate for its action. The Civil Rights Division has gone far too long without leadership that achieves its goals.

Secretary Perez is well suited for this crucial position. As Maryland's secretary of labor, Mr. Perez inherited a department that had been neglected and minimized. He quickly took control by reenergizing and reinvigorating the Department and I have no doubt that he will do the same for the Civil Rights Division.

The Civil Rights Division was created in 1957 and was a key force in desegregation. The division was charged with protecting minority rights including the right to vote. However, a division that was once a source of pride at the Department of Justice was decimated and caught up in political hiring under the previous administration. Civil rights enforcement was put on the back bench and productivity plummeted. Now more than ever the Department of Justice needs someone to restore morale to hardworking career employees and public confidence in Department. Thomas Perez is the right man for the job.

Thomas Perez meets my criteria for nominees: competence, commitment to the mission of the agency, and integrity. His competence to serve in this position is unquestionable. Mr. Perez graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, and has amassed extensive experience in civil rights laws as a chief of the Civil Rights Division and Director of Civil Rights Office for Health and Human Services. His commitment to the agency was demonstrated by his work as a civil rights attorney at the Department, where he secured convictions in a high profile race- motivated hate crime in Lubbock, TX, involving defendants who went on a killing spree directed at African Americans. Lastly, his integrity stems from his upbringing in a hard-working

immigrant family. It was demonstrated as he prosecuted public officials for corruption and violators of our Nation's laws.

I am confident that Mr. Perez will get the Civil Rights Division back on track with enforcing this country's civil rights laws. I have no doubt that he will combat discrimination, protect minorities, and hold violators accountable. Today we restored our reputation of embodying this country's values of tolerance and equal rights and protection for all. I thank my colleagues for their strong support of his confirmation.

Mr. President, today I honor a group of women who have made a lasting contribution to American history. They are the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASP.

Who are the WASP?

They were the first women trained in American military aircraft. They were trailblazers and true patriots. They are women like Virginia Scotty Gough. They came from all walks of life. They were students, secretaries, nurses, daughters, wives. One was a nun. They shared the same goal: to contribute to the American war effort.

Between 1942 and 1944, the 1,102 WASP trained in Texas, then went on to fly noncombat military missions so that all their male counterparts could be deployed to combat. These women piloted every kind of military aircraft, and logged 60 million miles flying missions across the United States. Thirty-eight of them died in the line of duty.

These intrepid women served their country with courage and valor. But for too long, their country did not serve them. They were never awarded full military status and were ineligible for officer status. They faced strong cultural and gender bias and received unequal pay. Following the war, they were told to pay their own way home. It was not until 1977-- more than 30 years later--that the WASP were granted veterans' status.

Thirteen of these brave women hail from Maryland. Four are still alive today: Virginia Scotty Gough, Florence Marston, Elaine Harmon, and Nancy Magruder. I am proud to honor them today.

Virginia Bradley Gough, known as Scotty, grew up in California. She learned to fly at age 16 and has avidly pursed that dream for many years. In 1943, when she learned about the WASP program, she was eager to join. But her young age prevented her from immediately enrolling in the training. As is so indicative of the WASP, she didn't waste the year. Instead, she earned money to continue flying by making parachute jumps to attract people to the airport.

After completing her WASP training as part of the class of 44-7, Scotty was stationed in the engineering department at Williams Army Air Base in Chandler, AZ. There she served as an engineering test pilot, testing aircraft after major engine overhauls and other major repairs. She served as a check pilot to the aircraft, ensuring repairs and fixes were safe before an aircraft was released to combat. It was dangerous work, requiring a devoted and precise pilot.

After the WASP were unceremoniously disbanded in December 1944, Scotty Gough returned to Los Angeles and flew Luscombe aircraft from the factory to west coast distributors, making the most of her well- honed piloting skills.

Many years later, Scotty Gough and another WASP established the WASP exhibit at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. I am proud that Virginia ``Scotty'' Gough now calls Maryland home.

Like the other WASP, Scotty Gough was a trailblazer and true patriot. She paved the way for the armed services to lift the ban on women attending military flight training in the 1970s, and eventually led to women being fully integrated as pilots in the U.S. military. We owe her our ``thank you''--not in words, but in deeds. Her story should have never been a forgotten chapter in American history. It will no longer be.

I was proud to fight for legislation to award the WASP the most distinguished honor Congress can give: the Congressional Gold Medal. I am proud the bill passed quickly and has now been signed into law. The process of designing, casting, and presenting these medals has begun. I look forward to the day, very soon, when I can present Scotty Gough and all the other WASP this medal they have earned and so long deserved.

Mr. President, today I honor a group of women who have made a lasting contribution to American history. They are the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASP.

Who are the WASP?

They were the first women trained in American military aircraft. They were trailblazers and true patriots. They are women like Elaine Harmon, from Baltimore. They came from all walks of life. They were students, secretaries, nurses, daughters, wives. One was a nun. They shared the same goal: to contribute to the American war effort.

Between 1942 and 1944, the 1,102 WASP trained in Texas, then went on to fly noncombat military missions so that all their male counterparts could be deployed to combat. These women piloted every kind of military aircraft, and logged 60 million miles flying missions across the United States. Thirty-eight of them died in the line of duty.

These intrepid women served their country with courage and valor. But for too long, their country did not serve them. They were never awarded full military status and were ineligible for officer status. They faced strong cultural and gender bias and received unequal pay. Following the war, they were told to pay their own way home. It was not until 1977-- more than 30 years later--that the WASP were granted veterans' status.

Thirteen of these brave women hail from Maryland. Four are still alive today: Elaine Harmon, Nancy Magruder, Florence Marston, and V. Scotty Gough. I am proud to honor them today.

Born in Baltimore, Elaine Harmon began flying at College Park Airport while attending University of Maryland. An ad in the local college newspaper for the Civilian Pilot Training Program piqued her interest. The program required a parent's consent. Knowing her mother would never agree to it, she sent the form to her father instead. He signed it and mailed it back to her with the $40 tuition fee. The family never spoke of it again.

After Pearl Harbor, Elaine and her husband supported the war efforts in ways they could. Her husband desperately wanted to join the Army Air Force, but wasn't able to due to a constriction in his aorta. He learned to repair aircraft instruments and moved to Biak Island, West Papua, to locally repair the instruments, thus saving several weeks in repair for transit.

Nearly 5 years after learning to fly, Elaine's husband suggested she join the WASP. She earned her wings as a WASP in the class of 44-9. After completing her WASP training, Elaine was stationed at Nellis Air Force Base, near Las Vegas, NV. There she flew BT-13s and B-17s. BT-13s were used to allow pilots to practice instrument flying. Elaine would pilot the aircraft, freeing her male counterparts to practice their instrument flying.

It was a daunting task. The technology was different then. The men had to sit in the backseat, under a dark hood which obscured their view of everything but the instruments in front of them. They could only do it because they had a great pilot in the front ensuring their safety.

After the WASP were disbanded in December 1944, Elaine made her way back to Baltimore. She didn't stay long. Her mother was embarrassed, ashamed that Elaine would participate in what was seen at the time as an unlady-like endeavor. So Elaine scraped together what skimpy savings she had and bought a one-way ticket to California. With her husband still overseas and with less than $30 in her pocket, she eventually found a job as an air traffic controller in Oakland.

Thirty years passed before Elaine Harmon was offered veterans' status. Thirty years before her service to the nation was recognized. But like the other WASP, Elaine Harmon believed in the cause she served. She knew the obstacles, but chose her own way. In the end, she paved the way for the armed services to lift the ban on women attending military flight training in the 1970s, and eventually led to women being fully integrated as pilots in the U.S. military. Today women can fly every type of aircraft and mission, from fighter jets in combat to the shuttle in space flight. Women like Elaine Harmon made this possible.

The WASP were trailblazers and true patriots. We owe them our ``thank you''--not in words, but in deeds. For their courage, service and dedication to our nation, the WASP have earned the most distinguished honor Congress can give: the Congressional Gold Medal.

Now the bill to give WASP Congress' top award has been passed and signed into law. The process of designing, casting, and presenting these medals had begun. I look forward to the day, very soon, when I can present Elaine Harmon and all the other WASP this medal they have earned and so long deserved.

Mr. President, today I honor a group of women who have made a lasting contribution to American history. They are the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASP.

Who are the WASP?

They were the first women trained in American military aircraft. They were trailblazers and true patriots. They are women like Nancy Magruder. They came from all walks of life. They were students, secretaries, nurses, daughters, wives. One was a nun. They shared the same goal: to contribute to the American war effort.

Between 1942 and 1944, the 1,102 WASP trained in Texas, then went on to fly noncombat military missions so that all their male counterparts could be deployed to combat. These women piloted every kind of military aircraft, and logged 60 million miles flying missions across the United States. Thirty-eight of them died in the line of duty.

These intrepid women served their county with courage and valor. But for too long, their country did not serve them. They were never awarded full military status and were ineligible for officer status. They faced strong cultural and gender bias and received unequal pay. Following the war, they were told to pay their own way home. It was not until 1977-- more than 30 years later--that the WASP were granted veterans' status.

Thirteen of these brave women hail from Maryland. Four are still alive today: Nancy Magruder, Florence Marston, Elaine Harmon, and V. Scotty Gough. I am proud to honor them today.

Iola ``Nancy'' Clay Magruder earned her wings as part of class 44-7. After graduation, she was stationed at Enid Army Air Base in Oklahoma. Her mission was to train aviation cadets to become pilots and commissioned officers, an honor that would not be extended to the WASP during WWII. While at Enid Army Air Base, Nancy flew utility missions, or testing missions, to ensure the aircraft were safe for the cadets. She also flew ferrying missions of the BT-13s and BT-15s. In all, Nancy would fly five different aircraft variants: the BT-13; BT-15; PT-17; and the B-18 ``Bolo,'' the most numerous long range bomber of WWII.

Like the other WASP, Nancy was unceremoniously disbanded in December 1944. The promise that she would be militarized and become part of the Army was not kept. Still, Nancy wanted to serve. She would join the U.S. Air Force Reserve and earned the rank of second lieutenant.

Nancy's story is a story of dedication to this county. She risked her life in service to our nation so that the rest of us may live in freedom. She did so without the promise of recognition or pay. And she paved the way for the armed services to lift the ban on women attending military flight training in the 1970s, and eventually led to women being fully integrated as pilots in the U.S. military. We owe her our ``thank you''--not in words, but in deeds.

For too long, the WASP story of service and sacrifice has been left untold. I'm proud to have fought to right this wrong by sponsoring legislation to award Nancy Magruder and her fellow WASP the most distinguished honor Congress can give: the Congressional Gold Medal.

Now the bill has been passed and signed into law. The process of designing, casting, and presenting these medals has begun. And I look forward to the day, very soon, when I can present Nancy Magruder and all the other WASP this medal they have earned and so long deserved.

Mr. President, today I honor a group of women who have made a lasting contribution to American history. They are the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASP.

Who are the WASP?

They were the first women trained in American military aircraft. They were trailblazers and true patriots. They are women like Florence Marston. They came from all walks of life. They were students, secretaries, nurses, daughters, wives. One was a nun. They shared the same goal: to contribute to the American war effort.

Between 1942 and 1944, the 1,102 WASP trained in Texas, then went on to fly noncombat military missions so that all their male counterparts could be deployed to combat. These women piloted every kind of military aircraft, and logged 60 million miles flying missions across the United States. Thirty-eight of them died in the line of duty.

These intrepid women served their county with courage and valor. But for too long, their country did not serve them. They were never awarded full military status and were ineligible for officer status. They faced strong cultural and gender bias and received unequal pay. Following the war, they were told to pay their own way home. It was not until 1977-- more than 30 years later--that the WASP were granted veterans' status.

Thirteen of these brave women hail from Maryland. Four are still alive today: Florence Marston, Elaine Harmon, Nancy Magruder, and V. Scotty Gough. I am proud to honor them today.

Florence Niemiec Marston, born in Buffalo, NY, volunteered to enter WASP training at an early age. She paid her own way to get to the training site in Texas, and earned her wings as part of the class of 43-6. After graduation, her talents and bravery were needed in several duty locations: South Plains Army Air Base, Dodge City Army Air Base, and Pueblo Army Air Base.

At South Plains, Florence flew B-25s and C-60s, and trained to tow CG-4 gliders mostly at low altitude and at night. It was a risky and arduous mission. Later, Florence was selected to transfer to Dodge City Army Air Base and fly the B-26.

The B-26 was a difficult aircraft to fly. It was called the ``widowmaker,'' for it was notorious for its number of early accidents. Only about 100 WASP would learn to fly this aircraft. Florence Marston was one of them.

While stationed at Dodge City, Florence Marston flew B-26s on tow- target

missions. This intense mission meant towing a target behind the aircraft, a target that training aerial gunners would practice shooting using live ammunition. It was one of the most dangerous missions the WASP would be asked to perform. Florence mastered it with courage, skill and dedication.

Later, after being transferred to Pueblo Army Air Base, Florence would pilot B-24s, B-25s, UC-78s, and L-5s, primarily in administrative piloting duties. In all, Florence Marston piloted ten different aircraft types as a WASP.

Like the other WASP, Florence Marston was a trailblazer and true patriot. She paved the way for the armed services to lift the ban on women attending military flight training in the 1970s, and eventually led to women being fully integrated as pilots in the U.S. military. We owe her our ``thank you''--not in words, but in deeds. Her story should have never been a forgotten chapter in American history. It will no longer be.

I was proud to fight for legislation to award the WASP the most distinguished honor Congress can give: the Congressional Gold Medal. Now the bill has been passed and signed into law. The process of designing, casting, and presenting these medals has begun. And I look forward to the day, very soon, when I can present Florence Marston and all the other WASP this medal they have earned and so long deserved.

Mr. President, today I honor and congratulate three outstanding Federal employees from Maryland--Thomas Alexander Waldmann, Patricia Guerry and Deborah Jin--who have recently been awarded Service to America medals in recognition for their great work.

Our Federal employees are on the front lines every day, working hard for America. Their commitment to public service makes life better for us all. I am proud to honor these three terrific Federal employees from Maryland today.

For the past five decades, Dr. Thomas Alexander Waldmann has devoted himself to performing cutting-edge

science at the National Institutes of Health. His work has resulted in great advances in treatment for patients with multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer and AIDS. Dr. Waldmann's commitment to transforming scientific research to save and improve lives has earned him the nickname ``renaissance scientist'' by his peers. His seminal research extends from the study of the immune system to clinical trials of immunotherapeutic agents, which help your immune system perform better. His innovative use of clinical trials has helped transform the way trials are used to treat patients, and has led to the development of treatments for fatal forms of leukemia and lymphoma and for multiple sclerosis.

Dr. Patricia Guerry of the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center is an innovator in combating food-borne illnesses throughout the world. After the discovery of the most common cause of food-borne illnesses, the Campylobacter microbe, in the late 1970s, researchers struggled to understand it and develop vaccines to combat it. But Dr. Guerry was unwavering in her quest to study the Campylobacter microbe, overcoming many barriers and working with limited resources to develop a promising new vaccine that may be only a couple years away from human trials. Over the past 3 years, Dr. Guerry and her group have had impressive success in advancing a vaccine, working at a breakneck pace. Dr. Guerry's success is especially promising for American troops abroad, who are particularly vulnerable to food poisoning.

Dr. Deborah Jin is another pioneering researcher. A research team leader at the JILA-National Institute of Standards and Technology joint institute in Boulder, CO, Deborah and her team have made great advances in the field of physics, including the creation of a new form of matter, a major discovery in the race toward superconductivity. Superconductivity--using extremely low temperatures to move electrons through a magnetic field--can potentially lead to breakthroughs in energy efficiency and computing. Deborah's team raced against six other teams worldwide to be the first to make this discovery.

These three Marylanders exemplify the very best that our Federal employees have to offer. But don't think that there aren't thousands of stories like this across the country, from Atlanta to Silver Spring. They work hard so that the American people have a government they can count on. I will continue to stand sentry so that Federal employees get the pay and benefits they have earned and the job security they deserve.

Madam President, had I been present, I would have voted in favor of amendment No. 2355 offered by Senator Johanns.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about Senator Ted Kennedy. Clearly, I would have been proud to be on my feet to give such a testimonial, but as many of my colleagues know, I had a fall a few weeks ago coming out of church. I am ready to be at my duty station, but I can't quite stand to be 4 foot 11 and give these remarks.

I do wish to speak and speak from my heart, speak from my memory, and speak with my affection. I have known Ted Kennedy a very long time. He has been my friend, my pal, my comrade in arms. I have enjoyed everything from working with him on big policy issues to sailing off the coast of Hyannis. I have been with him in his hideaway while we strategized on how to move an agenda of empowerment, and I have danced at his famous birthday parties. We have had a good time together.

I remember one of the first parties was the theme from the 1960s, and I came with a big wig, hoping I would look like Jackie Kennedy. Ted was a chunky Rhett Butler because Vicki and he were coming as Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara. As we jitterbugged, I said: Do you think I look like Jackie? He said: Well, nice try.

The last party we went to was a movie theme, and I came with one of those big bouffants. It was to be a movie theme, as I say, and I looked like something out of ``Hair Spray.'' I will not tell you his comments, but, again, he said: Your hair gets bigger with every one. I can't wait until my 80th.

Well, unfortunately, there will not be an 80th birthday party, but we will always carry with us the joy of friendship with Ted Kennedy.

It is with a heavy heart that I give this salute to him. I first met him as a young social worker. I testified before his committee. As a young social worker, I was there to talk about a brandnew program called Medicare, about what was working, what were the lessons learned--once again from being on the ground; what was happening in the streets and neighborhoods--and how to help people get the medical and social services they needed. He listened, he was intent, and he asked many questions. Little did I know I would join him in the Senate to fight for Medicare, to fight for health care, and to fight for those senior citizens.

Similar to so many others of my generation, I was inspired by the Kennedys to pursue a life in public service. I chose the field of social work and then went into politics because I saw politics as social work with power. As a Congresswoman, I was on the Energy and Commerce Committee. That was a counterpart to what Ted was doing in the Senate. We got to know each other at conferences working together. Those were the great days of bipartisanship. As we would come in from the Energy and Commerce Committee, there would be Ted Kennedy and Jacob Javits working to make sure we could pass good legislation. I saw there that good legislation came from good ideas that could be pursued with good humor in an atmosphere of civility.

As we got to know each other, I admired his verve, his tenacity, and he admired me because I could dish it out with the best of them as well. When he ran for President in 1980, he asked me to nominate him at the Democratic Convention. I was thrilled and honored to do so. Remember the drama of that. Jimmy Carter was an incumbent President. Ted Kennedy was an upstart. I backed Kennedy. Well, it didn't work out and Ted called me and said: I am withdrawing from the race. We are going to support President Carter 100 percent. But though you are not going to nominate me for President, I hope you will still introduce me at the convention. I said: Absolutely. But one day I hope to be able to nominate you.

That night, as I took the podium, it was the famous speech that everyone remembers Ted Kennedy giving about the work going on, the cause enduring, the hope still living, and the dream never dying. What was amazing about that speech was the way Ted Kennedy used a moment in his life--which some viewed as a defeat--as a time to redefine himself in public service and to claim the mantle of being one of the best Senators America has ever seen. He used that speech not as a retreat but as a reaffirmation and a recommitment of what he would do.

That night I did introduce him. While all my colleagues were in Boston, and I watched the funeral from my rehabilitation room, mourning his death and feeling sad that I could not join with my colleagues there, I had that speech and I read it then and, as I looked at it, I realized I could give it again and again. Because when I took the floor of the 1980 convention, I first said: I am not here for Barb Mikulski. And I am here today for all those people who would like to say what they knew about Teddy Kennedy, and I am going to say some of those words I said then that would be appropriate for now.

I said:

I am here on behalf of a lot of people who want to be here

but can't: Old women desperately trying to use their Social

Security checks to pay for food and medicine and yet

frightened about their energy bills. Students whose tuition

has gone up so much they are going to have to work two jobs

just to stay in school.

I spoke of small businesspeople trying to just keep their doors open and the returning war vet who is unemployed, and that while his brother has signed up for a tour of duty, he is standing in the unemployment line.

I said during that speech that, day after day, Edward Kennedy has spoken out for those people; that he has been there talking about the economy, energy policy, and jobs, long before many

others. I talked about how Edward Kennedy said that when Black freedom riders were being attacked and beaten, he was the one who fought for racial justice and helped to get the Voting Rights Act through. I said that as a young social worker, working in the neighborhoods during the dark Nixon years, and wondering how old people were going to get the services they needed, Ted Kennedy introduced the first nutrition program for the elderly--a program that guaranteed senior citizens at least one hot meal a day. It was Ted Kennedy, I said, who won the passage of programs such as neighborhood health centers, who fought the war on cancer, who led the fight to save nurses' scholarships and save them he did. In his fight for legislation, he was always there.

In my fight to help battered women, Senator Kennedy was one of the first to be a strong and active ally. He said he knew very early on that all American women work but that too many women work for too little or are paid unequal pay for their work. I said then, and I say again, Ted Kennedy wanted to change Social Security to make it fairer for women and to extend the Equal Rights Amendment so we would be included in the Constitution.

It was amazing the issues he fought for then and that he continued to fight for all his life. In the time I knew him, I knew him not just as a news clip, but I found him to be truly gallant in public and in private--caring about others and modest about himself, always about grace, courage, and valor.

When I came to the Senate, I was the only Democratic woman, and he was there for me, but I saw how he was there for so many other people. In 2004, when we were in Boston, Ted Kennedy and I had lunch in the North End. It was one of our favorite things, to get together for a meal and for conversation. What I realized then--as we enjoyed ourselves with big plates of antipasto; always vowing that we would eat more of the salad and less of the pasta--as we got up and left and walked around the North End, is that his best ideas came from the people. It was his passion for people. I knew he represented those brainy people in Cambridge who went to Harvard and who often came up through the Kennedy School with those great ideas. But as I walked around the neighborhoods with him, I saw he actually listened to people, trailed by a staff person who was actually taking notes.

As we walked down the street, there was the man who came up and who talked about his mother's problem with Social Security. Take it down, he said. Let's see what we can do. We walked down a few feet more. Oh, my grandson wants to go to West Point; how does he apply? He said: He is going to love it and he is going to love my process. Let's see how we can do that. A few feet on down, the small business guy said: Keep on fighting, Ted. You know I can't buy this health insurance. Can I call you? Always call me, he said. And by the way, don't forget to call Barbara--the legendary Barbara Souliotis. And all of us know Ted Kennedy had an outstanding staff, whether it was the staff in Massachusetts, who took care of casework and projects and day-to-day needs, or the staff in Washington who helped Ted Kennedy take the ideas that came from the people, their day-to-day struggles, and converted them into national policy. That is what it was--people, people, people.

When I came to the Senate, it was only Nancy Kassebaum and I. We were the only two women. He was a great friend, along with Senator Sarbanes. They were people I called my Galahads--people who helped me get on the right committees, show me the inner workings of the Senate. Ted was determined I would be on his Committee on Health and Education to get the ideas passed, but he also was determined I would get on the Appropriations Committee to make sure we put those ideas into the Federal checkbook. He was my advocate.

One of the things that was clear is, he was the champion for women. He was a champion for this woman in helping me get on those committees. And during those sometimes rough days getting started, he would take me to La Colline with Senator Dodd, and while he drank orange juice with a little vodka--so no one would know he had a little vodka--he was giving me shooters of Chardonnay to boost my spirits. He and Chris would give me a pep talk, and I felt like I was Rocky. They would say: Get out there, fight; don't let it get you down. Pick yourself up. I felt like I was going to spit in the bucket and get back on the floor. He lifted my spirits, just like he lifted the spirits of so many.

The story I wish to conclude with--because there are so many issues we worked on together--is when I went to him and said: Ted, did you know that women are not included in the protocols at NIH? He said: What do you mean? I said: In all the research we do, women are not included in the protocols. They just finished a famous study which said to take an aspirin a day, keep a heart attack away. It included 10,000 male medical students and not one woman. I said: I want to change that. Teaming up with Nancy and Pat Schroeder and Olympia Snowe and Connie Morella, who were in the House, he helped me create the Office of Women's Health at NIH so women would always be included in those protocols.

Then we spoke out and said: Ted, the health care research for breast cancer is low. That is why they are racing for the cure. He helped us, working with Tom Harkin, to boost the money for research and to also get mammogram quality standards through so that when a woman would get her mammogram, it would be safe.

But here is one of the most profound things we did, again working on a bipartisan basis. Dr. Bernadine Healy, who was the head of NIH, wanted to do a study on the consequences of hormone therapy. Ted and I and Tom did not believe we should earmark NIH--and I believe that today--but we made sure we put money and a legislative framework in place so Dr. Healy could institute the famous hormone therapy study. Well, let me tell you the consequences of that. That study has changed medical practice. That study has resulted in breast cancer rates going down 15 percent.

So when someone says: What did Ted Kennedy do to help women? What did Teddy Kennedy do to work with Barbara Mikulski? Tell them we worked together and we worked to save the lives of women, one million at a time. This is my final salute to Senator Kennedy on the floor, but I will always salute him every day in the Senate to make sure we continue what he said about how the dream will continue on.

I ended my speech at the Democratic Convention in 1980 when I said this--and I end my remarks today by saying this: Edward Kennedy has kept his faith with the American people. He hasn't waited for a crisis to emerge or a constituency to develop. He always led, he always acted, he always inspires.

God bless you, Ted. And God bless the United States of America.