Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 49, the adjournment resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment, which is at the desk, and the text of the Senate committee-reported bill be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment; and that no points of order be considered waived by this agreement.

Mr. President, I am proud to present to the U.S. Senate the bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and our science agencies. I want to thank Senators Reid and McConnell for agreeing to bring up the CJS bill, and Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for the CJS Subcommittee's robust 302(b) allocation. This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Shelby and I worked hand-in-hand. I thank him and his excellent staff for their partnership.

The CJS bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Did we spend more than the President asked for? You bet we did. We are proud that our bill is $3.2 billion above the President's budget request.

Let's talk about how we spent the money. The subcommittee had three priorities:

Security--keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime.

Innovation--investments in science and technology to create jobs that will stay in the United States.

Accountability--fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars, standing sentry against waste, fraud and abuse.

The subcommittee's first priority is protecting America from terrorism and violent crime. The Justice Department is almost 50 percent of the CJS bill. Funding for Justice totals almost $25 billion, $2.1 billion more than the President's request. The CJS bill funds our major Federal law enforcement agencies, and our State and local cops on the beat.

CJS funds the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. The FBI is our domestic national security agency. It has a dual mission--disrupting terrorism on U.S. soil--tracking and taking down terror cells and dismantling dirty bombs, as well as fighting violent crime in our communities. The CJS bill provides $6.6 billion for the FBI, $150 million more than the President's budget request. This includes almost $4 billion for FBI counterterrorism. Our bill will put 230 new counterterrorism agents on the beat and give agents new tools to collect intelligence to protect Americans here at home. At the same time, the President's budget cut 100 FBI agents dedicated to fighting violent crime. This is outrageous--because for the first time in almost 15 years, violent crime has increased. Robberies are up 7 percent. Homicides are up 2 percent. Nearly every region of the country has been affected--from large cities to small communities. We've heard from our colleagues that the FBI needs more agents fighting violent crime in their communities. The CJS bill rejects the President's irresponsible cut. We provide full funding to retain 100 FBI agents that the President eliminated.

The CJS bill also funds the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. The DEA is an international agency--in over 60 countries, with significant local responsibilities. It's fighting a $330 billion annual drug trade in over 60 countries around the world. Drugs finance over two-thirds of all terrorist activity, including the Taliban. The DEA is in Afghanistan fighting narcoterrorism, working hand-in-hand with our military to disrupt the poppy trade that funds terrorist networks. And the DEA is in our communities, fighting the scourge of illegal drugs like heroin and meth that destroy our neighborhoods. We were horrified to learn that the DEA has a hiring freeze. The DEA can't hire new agents. This is outrageous--so we added $50 million to DEA to lift the hiring freeze so DEA can hire up 200 new agents to fight drugs at home and abroad.

The CJS bill funds the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, which investigates arson and stops illegal firearms trafficking. The ATF is working hand-in-hand with our military to disable the improvised explosive devices, IEDs, that are so perilous to our troops on the battlefield. We provide robust support for our U.S. Marshals Service, keeping our marshals on the beat to track down dangerous fugitives--including sexual predators and drug kingpins-- protect

Federal judges and provide security at terrorist trials here in the U.S. and in Afghanistan.

The CJS bill is also the most important source of Federal funding for the frontline men and women of our State and local police forces, working tirelessly to keep our families and neighborhoods safe. Our cops on the beat are working harder than ever to fight rising violent crime. And our State and local police are often the first to identify suspected terrorist activities in their communities. At the same time, State and local budgets are under increased stress. So we were deeply troubled by the President's draconian cuts of almost $1.5 billion from grant funds for State and local police. The CJS bill rejects these outrageous cuts. Instead we provide a total of $2.7 billion to give our cops the tools they need to fight crime, gangs, drugs, domestic violence, and crimes against children.

Our bill provides $660 million for Byrne formula grants. President Bush eliminated Byrne grants formula grants to States that pay for police and prosecutors, training and technology, and require a 25- percent State match. The first President Bush named these grants for Edward Byrne, a New York City police officer killed in the line of fire. If Byrne grants were good enough for Bush 41, why aren't they good enough for this President Bush?

We also provide $550 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, grants. President Bush only asked for $32 million to terminate COPS grants. COPS is a competitive grant program that pays for police salaries and overtime, police technology, and equipment like surveillance cameras and interoperable communications equipment. The CJS bill makes sure that our cops are not walking the thin blue line drawn through green eyeshades.

The CJS bill provides over $300 million to prevent, investigate and prosecute despicable crimes against children. This includes: $55 million for a new national initiative for grants to State and locals to locate, arrest and prosecute child sexual predators; $65 million to fight child abduction and exploitation and locate missing children; $9 million for the FBI's Innocent Images project--for agents and technology to track the deviants who use the Internet to prey on our children; $8 million for the U.S. Marshals to apprehend fugitive sexual predators and get them off our streets and out of our neighborhoods; $10 million for grants to keep kids safe from violence at school.

Our second priority for the CJS bill is investing in America's future competitiveness. We added $1 billion above the President's request for science, education and economic development to foster job creation--for jobs that will stay in this country and to inspire and train our future scientists and engineers. We based our funding levels on the best ideas from outside experts like the National Academy of Sciences. We took the politics out of science. The CJS bill implements the framework of the recently enacted America COMPETES Act. This bipartisan legislation recommended investments in science and education to improve America's global competitiveness.

We provide $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation, NSF, $125 million above the President's budget request. NSF is important because it funds 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities in many fields such as math and computer science. NSF is the major source of federal support. NSF keeps the U.S. on the leading edge of discovery in areas like astronomy and geology. And NSF supports our college and universities' efforts to educate our next generation of scientists and engineers, including at our historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs.

We provide $860 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. NIST is important because it sets standards that are critical to successful commerce, and transfers technology to American industry. Our recommendations provide $100 million for the Technology Innovation Partnership program, which will replace the Advanced Technology Program to foster the development of the newest technologies, and $110 for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, which helps U.S. manufacturers to be more competitive.

The bill also provides $17.5 billion for NASA, $150 million above the President's budget request. NASA is our No. 1 innovation agency. No other agency has the ability to inspire our future scientists and engineers like NASA does. The bill keeps our commitment to human space flight. It fully funds the space shuttle at $4 billion and the space station at $2.2 billion. And we provide $3.9 billion to Ares and Orion, the next generation vehicle. The space shuttle will be retired in 2010. We must continue to have safe, reliable space transportation.

Later, I will offer an amendment with Senators Hutchison, Shelby and Landrieu to finally begin to pay the bill of returning the space shuttle to flight after the Columbia tragedy. To ensure that we continue to have the premier space agency in the world, NASA must have a balanced portfolio of human space flight, science and aeronautics research.

In the area of Earth science, the bill includes $25 million above the budget request to begin to implement the recommendations of the recent Earth Science Decadal Survey, the top priorities of the scientific community, and missions we need to accomplish to help us better understand and predict the Earth's environment and climate.

For aeronautics research, we provide $554 million. This is so critical because we must rise to the challenge of our international competitors. Aeronautics is an area that we would have liked to do more. As our bill moves to conference with the other body, we hope to be able to add funding for aeronautics.

A strong patent system is critical to an innovation-friendly government. We provide $1.9 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO--this is full access to all fees. We know there have been concerns that the PTO's fees have been used to pay for other priorities. Senator Shelby and I are committed to giving PTO full access to the resources it needs. Our bill will allow the PTO to hire 1,200 new patent examiners to reduce application backlogs and processing times. We are livid that it takes almost 3 years for the PTO to make a decision on a patent application. Through our oversight, we have required PTO to implement management reforms to reduce the backlog of applications, while ensuring quality.

The CJS bill also provides $420 million for the International Trade Administration, ITA, to investigate unfair trade practices and enforce our trade laws. It includes $48 million for the United States Trade Representative, USTR, to negotiate trade agreements that protect our intellectual property.

For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the bill provides $4.2 billion, $400 million above the President's budget request. This includes $795 million to implement the bipartisan recommendations of the Joint Ocean Commission. Seventy percent of the Earth is covered by oceans, but only 5 percent of the oceans are explored. Our Nation's economy depends on the oceans. Oceans contribute $120 billion to our economy and support over 2 million jobs. The bill also provides full funding for the National Weather Service, which is so important to saving lives and livelihoods.

I think my colleagues would be interested in knowing that the CJS bill funds 85 percent of all federal climate change science. That's about $1.6 billion for peer-reviewed basic research at NSF, atmospheric weather and climate research at NOAA, and NASA Earth science missions studying. As we look for solutions to this crisis, the CJS bill will continue to give us sound science to inform our policy decisions.

The CJS bill emphasizes oversight, accountability and fiscal stewardship. Let me tell my colleagues--there's a new sherriff in town. It's a bipartisan posse against cost overruns, ineffective management and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The CJS Subcommittee, through its oversight, has uncovered enormous cost overruns and schedule slippages. NOAA's satellite program was $4 billion over budget. NSF's research equipment was $25 million over budget. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to prevent this mismanagement and get our agencies back to fiscal discipline.

Through our oversight, we also uncovered dramatic backlogs at PTO and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, EEOC. And we required effective, efficient management reform. The CJS bill insists on discipline and vigorous oversight. It requires each agency to notify the committee about cost overruns greater than 10 percent, bans funding for lavish banquets, and requires that inspectors general conduct random audits of grant funding.

Unfortunately, the President threatened to veto the CJS bill. He doesn't support funding for these additional investments I have outlined. The CJS bill reflects bipartisan priorities to make America safer and smarter. I think these investments in fighting terrorism and violent crime, and educating our future scientists and engineers, are wise uses of taxpayer dollars.

Let me be clear--we didn't overspend; the President under funded. It is not lavish to lift the DEA hiring freeze so we starve terrorists of their financing, or to give our men and women in blue the tools they need to keep us safe.

The President should not veto this bill. Instead, together we should veto funding for the Taliban and jobs moving overseas. I believe that, if necessary, the Senate will stand up for our families, neighborhoods and communities by standing up against the President's veto. Let's veto jobs going overseas; let's veto the Taliban.

Again, I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their cooperation and collegiality. This is a fair and balanced bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. For the information of our colleagues, Senator Shelby and I intend to move this bill quickly. We encourage Members with amendments to come to the floor and offer them now. The bill fully complies with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation so any amendments will need offsets. It also fully complies with the recently enacted Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

Mr. President, in a short time, I will be joined by my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama, who is my ranking member. He, too, will be making his opening statement. I thank Senators Reid and McConnell for agreeing to bring up this billand Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for a rather robust 302(b) allocation to let this bill go forward.

First, let me say to my colleagues in the Senate as they watch this debate that this bill is a bipartisan bill. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and I worked hand in hand to craft a bill that is in the best interest of the United States of America and not trying to score partisan political points. That is what we have done.

The Commerce-Justice-Science bill promotes a strong economy, promotes a safer country, and also promotes U.S. competitiveness in the world.

The CJS bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Did we spend more than the President asked for? You bet we did, and we are proud that our bill is $3.2 billion above the President's request because we put the money primarily into security. We spent the money in this bill on security, keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and also fighting violent crime. We also promoted innovation and competitiveness by investing in scientific research and technology and the scientific education of our people. But we were also strong stewards of the taxpayers' money and have promoted accountability, fiscal accountability, and stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. We, working on a bipartisan basis, stood sentry against waste, fraud and abuse and we have put our language also in the checkbook.

The subcommittee's first priority is to protect the American people-- to protect the American people from terrorism, a war without borders, a war without a front. We also want to protect them here at home against violent crime, against murder, mayhem, sexual predators stalking our children, violence against women, looking out for our children, and making sure there are enough cops on the beat.

The Justice Department is almost 50 percent of the CJS bill. Funding for the Justice component totals over $25 billion. But remember what we do: We fund the Federal law enforcement agencies--the FBI, the DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as our Marshals Service. Our major law enforcement count on us. But who else also counts on us? State and local cops on the beat. We have put the money into the Federal checkbook to say: As you go after the bad guys, we are absolutely on your side.

Let us start with our primary responsibility as a Federal government, and that is funding the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is our premier domestic law enforcement agency. It has a dual mission. One is fighting violent crime in our communities, and in that it is well known, well established, and well respected. But after that terrible attack on the United States, we had to decide how we were going to have a domestic agency also focus on terrorism. We didn't create a new Federal agency to do that because we didn't want a new bureaucracy. We wanted a new and fresh effort against terrorism. So we gave it to the FBI. If you read all the British spy novels and so on, the FBI is akin to the MI5 in England.

This bill provides $6.6 billion for the FBI. That is $6.6 billion for the FBI, which is $150 million more than the President's budget. This includes almost $4 billion for their counterterrorism effort. To make sure we are fighting terrorism effectively, our bill also puts 230 new counterterrorism agents out there and gives them new tools to protect Americans at home.

At the same time, we want to make sure we are fighting violent crime. We have been very concerned about some of the budget games going on at Justice and OMB, where they keep moving agents around, out of their job of fighting crime to fight terrorism so those numbers look good; then they eliminate those vacancies, and there we are. We need our FBI doing both. Violent crime in America has increased 2 percent. Homicides are up 2 percent and robberies are up 7 percent. Nearly every region of the country has been affected, from very large cities to small communities.

We have heard from our colleagues the FBI needs more agents and more help fighting violent crime in their communities. The CJS bill rejects the President's cut. We provide funding to retain 100 FBI agents that the President eliminated. Eliminating FBI agents when we are fighting crime and fighting terrorism? I don't think that is a good idea. I don't think that is a good idea at all. On a bipartisan basis, we rejected that foolhardy recommendation. So we will be there for the

Mr. President, on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 83-14, the Senate approved S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The President signed the legislation on September 14, 2007. This ethics reform legislation will significantly improve the transparency and accountability of the legislative process.

Pursuant to new rule XLIV, it is required that the chair of the committee of jurisdiction certify that certain information related to congressionally directed spending be identified and that the required information be available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill. In addition, Members who request such items are required to certify in writing that neither they nor their immediate family have a pecuniary interest in the items they requested and the committee is required to make those certification letters available on the Internet.

The information provided includes identification of the congressionally directed spending and the name of the Senator who requested such spending. This information is contained in the committee report numbered 110-124, dated June 29, 2007, and has been available on the Internet for 3 months. The Member letters concerning pecuniary interest are also available on the Internet.

I am submitting for the Record the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

I want to say this bill complies with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, and Senator Byrd certifies that, under Senate rules, all this information is available on the congressional Web site.

I ask unanimous consent the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this committee now says to our colleagues, if they have any amendments, this is an excellent time to bring them down and offer them. We know we have some amendments we are working now to clear, but if someone wants to talk about our bill, this is a very good time to come and speak on it. If they have amendments they wish to offer that might require a vote, this is a good time to offer them.

It will be the intention of Senator Shelby and myself to try to finish this bill today, so this whole idea of let's hang around until 8 o'clock at night and then come around like little vampires to offer amendments is not a good idea. Frankly, as we move along and as some of the major amendments will be addressed, if there are no amendments, we will move the bill. It is not a threat. It is for people who know the holidays are coming. We are ready.

Colleagues, if you have amendments you think can improve this bill, come down and discuss them.

Mr. President, while we are waiting for the onslaught of Members coming to 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 send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. Remember earlier in my remarks I talked about our accountability and our stewardship? I will be offering two amendments that will deal with those. This is the first of them. It makes sure the Department of Justice is not misusing taxpayer dollars on lavish expenditures and conferences. Conferences are meant for training.

Our amendment simply requires that Justice do two things: Notify the inspector general of any conferences exceeding $20,000 and demonstrate what steps are being taken to implement the inspector general's recommendations that actually uncovered some of these expenditures at lavish conferences.

To elaborate, the Justice IG issued a report and said the 10 most expensive conferences had totaled over $6.9 million. Most conferences are well organized and the money is spent frugally--which I know is a big issue with the Presiding Officer. What we found was that some of those funds were spent on ``networking.'' They had lobster skewers. At one conference, each meatball cost $4. That is a lot of money for a meatball. Literally, we believed because we were working so hard to make sure that law enforcement had the tools they needed, we wanted to make sure the taxpayers got a good deal and that we got law enforcement for our money and not $4 meatballs.

I don't know if my colleague wishes to speak on the amendment.

I move the pending amendment be laid aside subject to the clearance of one of our colleagues.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It stops the cost overruns on NOAA's weather satellites before they get out of control.

The NOAA satellite program is an absolutely crucial program to the United States of America. It gives us major weather satellites, known as NPOESS, polar orbiting, and one called GOES that gives us the geostationary information. They are crucial to our ability to forecast weather, measure climate change, and actually pinpoint where disasters could be threatening a community. It saves lives and saves livelihoods. Thanks to these satellites, we can often get early warnings when a disaster is coming, from a tornado to a hurricane.

What has happened is the satellites have grown far beyond their original estimates. We are concerned that the ideas are good, but they are not being properly managed.

Let me tell you about these overruns. Two years ago, NOAA's polar orbiting satellite grew by 25 percent. That is $4 billion, $4 billion.

Now, because the Defense Department is a partner in the satellite program, the Nunn-McCurdy process was triggered. There was a stand-down and the processes were reassessed. Nunn-McCurdy acts like a circuit breaker, forcing management reforms and program changes to control costs.

But with the next generation of geostationary satellites we are beginning to see early signs of trouble. We have been alerted that the costs may grow substantially. One of our satellite programs has Nunn- McCurdy, but the one that is called GOES does not. Therefore, I am offering a commonsense amendment modeled after Nunn-McCurdy that all NOAA satellite programs follow essentially this kind of oversight.

The amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to certify the satellite program; requires the Secretary to look at alternatives if the cost exceeds 15 percent of the original estimate; makes sure they notify Congress and keep us informed sooner rather than later; requires the Secretary of Commerce to utilize independent cost estimates.

This will act as a circuit breaker to make sure that as these satellites go forward, they are coming up with not only good ideas to protect the Nation but good fiscal stewardship to protect the taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will bring strong management, better and stronger management and fiscal discipline to the satellite program.

Mr. President, I concur with setting aside the amendment.

I also want to say something. I believe I am the bastion of collegiality. I believe conversation avoids confrontation. That is why we have such a great bill. We have a fantastic bill we have arrived at together.

Senator Shelby and I go back a long way, from the House of Representatives where we served, and we have been appropriators during our entire time in the Senate. But in clearing things, we are talking about clearing it with one Senator. That Senator must exercise a lot of fiscal responsibility. I am ready to move my bill along. I would like him or his representative to promptly come to the floor.

If we have this new kind of arrangement where we have to clear it with this Senator rather than clearing it with the ranking member and our leadership, then I would like that Senator to come to the floor. I will be collegial. I will be patient up to a point.

I 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 the Senate return to consideration of amendment No. 3216.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are trying to clear amendments that have been cleared by Senator Shelby and myself. Others are looking at them, so we are proceeding. While those amendments are being cleared, one of the issues I wanted to bring to our colleagues' attention is how we are making America more competitive with this bill.

Earlier in my presentation in which I gave an overview of the bill, I emphasized what we were doing in law enforcement, which I am so proud of, and of course the Presiding Officer himself as a former attorney general knows how important the Federal and local law enforcement agencies are. But this bill is called Commerce-Justice-Science.

We focused, in our subcommittee--myself and my ranking member, Senator Shelby--on three issues this year: security, competitiveness, and accountability--the stewardship of the taxpayers' dollar. We focused on competitiveness because it is our subcommittee that funds the major science agencies that come up with the new ideas that help come up with the new jobs, the research that enables the private sector to take value and add to it to come up with the new products and very high-end technology. That provides jobs right in our own country and enables us to be competitive.

We based a lot of our work on legislation called the America COMPETES Act. I know the Presiding Officer was part of that. This year, it was a bill that was passed by the House and the Senate to ensure our Nation's competitive position in the world through improvements to math and science, both a commitment to research and math and science education. It follows through on a commitment to ensure U.S. students, teachers, businesses, and workers are prepared to continue to lead the world in research and then taking that research to the private sector so it can come up with those products.

In our bill, we don't do anything that picks winners and losers. We are not industrial policy people. What we are, though, is American policy people, to do this.

This America COMPETES Act was based a lot on recommendations that came from the National Academy of Science report called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report was done at the request of three leaders: Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Alexander. Then I, after it was published, became part of the group to implement it.

Well, this is a great day for our colleague from New Mexico. I know last night our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, announced that he is going to retire from the Senate. He is in his home State of New Mexico today sharing his plans for his own future with his constituents. But while he is talking about his own future with his constituents, I want to acknowledge that he worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to ensure the future of the Nation. He and Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander, again, working together, showed that we can do better so that we can compete in the world and that we compete in the world not only to win Nobel prizes--and we will continue to do so--but we will also win the markets, for which we must to have a stronger economy.

So ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which was promoted by those three excellent and wonderful colleagues, led to, with the help of people such as Senator Lieberman and others, the America COMPETES Act. It keeps research programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards, and DOE on a path for doubling the money for research in these key areas.

But, in addition to research, we wanted to make sure we have the scientists, the engineers, and the technology experts to do so. We are falling behind in the number of people who choose science as a career or people with a science education to go into our classrooms. The America COMPETES

Act puts an emphasis on that into action. They wanted to prepare thousands of new teachers and provide current teachers with teaching skills in the area of NSF's Noyce teacher scholarship program. They also wanted to enhance undergraduate education for the future science and engineering workforce. They also wanted to authorize new competitive grants at the Department of Education to increase the number of teachers, so grant programs also help do that.

So we passed the America COMPETES Act. But, as my colleagues know-- what is authorizing legislation? It sets the policy, sets the direction, and puts national goals into the Federal lawbooks, which is a great first step. But now, the legislation we bring before the Senate, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, the Mikulski-Shelby bipartisan bill, following on the tradition that sparked us, we are actually putting money in the Federal checkbook to do that.

One of the areas, of course, where we do that is we increase funding for research. We are going to talk later on today about NASA, on the anniversary of sputnik, where that little round ball weighing 180 pounds shook up the cosmos and even the galaxies. But little known is something called the National Science Foundation. This was an agency which was created during the Eisenhower administration and has now withstood the test of time. President Eisenhower responded, a warrior-- and we all saw the great miniseries of Ken Burns on the war. We are so proud of Senator Inouye, who was featured in it. But Eisenhower, the man who led us in Europe, knew that when sputnik went up, we were in a race for America's future and we could either respond militarily or we could respond in a way that would have many uses.

Eisenhower created two things: One, the National Science Foundation, and two, something called the National Defense Act.

The National Defense Act was to get our young people involved in science and in technology so that they could come up with those new ideas to make sure that we not only beat the Russians in space but that we beat the Russians in everything--an idea with currency today, I might add. And then, the National Science Foundation. His brother was president of Johns Hopkins University, Milton Eisenhower. Later, what did the National Science Foundation do? We could have put a lot of money into the military so we could shoot those satellites down, but we said we were going to develop our own and be better at it. We became the premier country in satellites. Satellites defend the Nation. Satellites also give us information on weather. Satellites give us information and early warnings on things such as solar flares that can take out our power grid. Satellites were one of the greatest inventions ever created. America led the way.

Eisenhower created this, where we would fund--we, the Federal Government, working in a unique partnership with universities, not Government doing the research but the Government putting money out in almost intellectual venture capital to come up with new research in physics, chemistry, biology, and the basic sciences; and then to give stipends so young, smart people, such as the people who wanted to do the ``October surprise,'' could come out of the hollows of West Virginia and the streets of Baltimore, our communities, to go on to do this.

What did we fund? We funded programs that then we're able to do. In our legislation, we have now increased our research to $6.5 billion. In this, we have focused on education, K through 12. We have also funded other important programs in research, our science programs. We help with minority education.

By the way, this is one of the most important agencies that helps historically black colleges, to make sure they have the financial resources they need. An example would be the increased funding for the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation. We provide $75 million for math and science partnerships in education. We estimate that our program will have an impact upon over 140 math and science teachers. We also have a talent expansion program to begin to recruit them. We are bringing teachers into internships. Over at Morgan University and down at the Eastern Shore, we have something called the Chesapeake Consortium, where our young people are getting paid internships to work on rocket ships that go off--small rockets that go off from down on Wallops Island.

If you came with me to the Eastern Shore, to Somerset County, where primarily the lifestyle is that of watermen and agriculture--these people work hard and have dirt under their fingernails and big dreams. One of the largest employers is our prison. This is an area the Senators from Virginia share, where the facility is called Wallops Island. Our young people at the Chesapeake Consortium are working at Wallops to develop these small rockets and also work with UAV research. If you went down there with me to that county that has one of the highest poverty rates, in terms of cash income, in my State, and you saw these young men and women with the Chesapeake Consortium shirts on, where they had worked at historically black colleges with our talented science team instead of flipping hamburgers, they had a paid internship, they are flipping ideas. Each and every one of them is a graduate and they have jobs in major technology agencies in our country. This is what we are doing.

I want my colleagues to know we are increasing funding in research. We are investing in education. We are investing in and implementing the America COMPETES Act, and we are making sure we are truly rising above the gathering storm.

I hope Senator Domenici will be here today. I will personally pay my respects to him for being the leader he is. When he returns, he will find we passed this bill. It is a tribute to what bipartisanship means, finding that sensible Senator, and we are going to build a stronger country because of this. I wished to bring this to our colleagues' attention as we clear these amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I concur. I thank the Senator from Alabama for bringing this to our attention. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3220

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3220 on behalf of Senator Menendez of New Jersey.

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

Mr. President, this amendment provides additional funding of $5 million for juvenile mentoring programs. The Senator from New Jersey has an appropriate offset. We have no objection to the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides. Therefore, I ask for the adoption of the amendment. As I said, it has been cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3227

Mr. President, I continue to ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3227.

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

The amendment provides additional funding for a drug court program. The amendment has appropriate offsets. I ask for the adoption of the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, while we continue to clear our amendments, I say to our colleagues who might have amendments, bring them down. I note that we have hotlined our request.

While we continue to clear amendments, 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 ask unanimous consent that the pending Inouye amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I have an amendment which I wish to send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. What it does is add $10 million to the Office of Violence Against Women.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and we wanted to be sure that, in our legislation, one of the things we were going to be clear about was that there would be enough resources for our local communities to really deal with the growing issue of domestic violence.

It might come as a surprise that many local law enforcement people are injured in the line of duty when responding to domestic violence. You might say: Well, aren't they hurt when they are responding to robberies and burglaries? The answer is yes. But when a police officer responds to a domestic violence call and he walks into a home--or she-- the police officer usually does not have a weapon drawn because they want to de-escalate the situation. This is often happening behind closed doors where someone is being battered, and the perpetrator could very likely feel threatened and, in turn, use the officer's weapon or another lethal object on the police officer. So the police officers are in danger, the spouse or the child being battered is also in danger, and we want to make sure the funding is not also in jeopardy.

I strongly support the Office of Violence Against Women that was established by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. My amendment simply increases the money, for a total of $400 million. It has an appropriate offset, and it will provide more funding for the training of police officers and prosecutors. It would also continue the funding for battered women shelters and at the same time have a very strong effort in reducing rape, and also prosecution of rape.

The amendment is noncontroversial. We have several cosponsors, including my colleague, Senator Shelby, and also Mrs. Murray of Washington State. So I hope my colleagues would accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for supporting this, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his support.

It will not be our intention to adjourn for lunch. We are going to keep on working and keep on hearing our amendments, and then somewhere around 2 p.m. we will be offering an amendment to deal with NASA funding, which we think will take a considerable amount of time. With our colleagues' cooperation in bringing their amendments to the floor and the NASA amendment, we really do believe, with those who are working to clear these amendments, we can finish up late this afternoon. So we are not going to take a break for lunch; we are going to keep on working. To any colleagues who wish to speak on our bill or bring amendments to us, this is the time. With their cooperation, we can cooperate with all those who would like to be able to call it a day today and get back to their districts for the recess period.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

We are making slow but steady progress. I, therefore, call up amendment No. 3215. It is a Mikulski- Shelby amendment.

I also call up a second-degree amendment offered by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, amendment No. 3230.

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

I ask that the second-degree amendment be agreed to.

Parliamentary inquiry: Did we agree to amendment 3215, as amended by Coburn, or did we just agree to the Coburn second degree?

I now ask that amendment 3215, as amended by the Coburn amendment, be agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

How much longer does the Senator intend to talk? We know the Senator from Wisconsin needs to talk, and we need to clear some of our amendments and get ready for a NASA amendment. Of course we want the Senator to finish his third pillar.

If the Senator could contain his remarks, it would be useful to us.

Madam President, I ask that the pending Inouye amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3213, as modified, by Senator Domenici of New Mexico and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle, and as an act of respect for our colleague, I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we are continuing to clear our amendments, and at or about 2 o'clock, we will begin our debate on the NASA amendment, which we expect will take roughly about 2 hours. At the conclusion of that, we want Senators who have amendments to have either brought them over for consideration, to have either worked with us to clear the amendments, to be either offering the amendments or withdrawing the amendments, so that we can meet our goal to be done in the early evening. We believe we can meet that goal with cooperation. We are in the business of clearing amendments. We hope to have several cleared before we begin the NASA debate, which we expect to be extensive.

I note the Senator from Wisconsin wants to speak at this time. I am going to need about 10 or 15 minutes to actually do the work of the bill. I understand both of my colleagues wish to speak. I am more than happy to cooperate, but at about 10 of 2, we have to move to cleared amendments.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Wisconsin on his comments and his compelling defense for the oppressed, and particularly his eloquent and poignant description of what is happening to women there in the Congo, which should motivate us more to action.

I am happy to report we are getting momentum here and are clearing our amendments. We have some right now that I wish to clear. In a few minutes, we will be going to the NASA amendment.

Mr. President, I thank everybody on both sides of the aisle, and especially Senator Shelby and his team for being great in helping us with this. Many Senators are being cooperative.

Amendment No. 3222

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3222 by Senator Landrieu and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3210

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3210 by Senator Bingaman and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3219

Mr. President, the last amendment I have cleared is amendment No. 3219 by Senator Murray. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, many of our colleagues have filed amendments. I want to soon recognize the Senator from North Dakota who, I know, wants to speak on a tribal issue. First, 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 call up an amendment which is at the desk relating to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment has got a rollcall of cosponsors. Of course, it is cosponsored by my very able ranking member, Senator Shelby; Senator Hutchison of Texas, another strong advocate of space and one of the original architects; Senator Landrieu of Louisiana; Nelson and Martinez of Florida--Nelson is an astronaut-- Salazar of Colorado; Lieberman; and strong bipartisan support from Senators Bennett and Vitter. Senator Clinton of New York is included, as well as Senator Brown of Ohio.

This amendment will increase funding for NASA. It is unique and historic

that we offer this amendment right at this minute. This is the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. Fifty years ago, that 180-pound piece of round metal went into space and changed the destiny of mankind. When Sputnik went up, we didn't know what the intent of the Russians was, but a wonderful Republican President by the name of Eisenhower knew we had to get into the space race. We have been in it ever since. But it has never been for predatory purposes or military purposes. Our NASA has always been to go where no man or woman has ever gone before, to be involved in discovery, to also come up with the science to protect our own planet and to further our national agenda in aeronautics.

Joining us today, as we offer this amendment, in the gallery are the astronauts from the space ship Endeavor. They have spent 14 days in space, continuing the work to assemble the International Space Station, which is our lab in the sky, which will also be a gateway to go back to the Moon and stay there when we do, and then on to Mars; after that, who knows where. We welcome them today to watch this debate because, just as we want to keep space free of politics, we want them to see that here on the Senate floor we can work on a bipartisan basis to put the money in the Federal checkbook to do what NASA needs to do to keep this mission.

What this amendment does is adds $1 billion to NASA's budget. It covers the cost of repairing and upgrading the safety of its space shuttle fleet. It comes in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in 2003. The funding was declared an emergency and they received full funding to return to space.

Our amendment follows the precedent set after the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger accident, when Congress made a special appropriation to get the shuttle flying again. So this amendment follows the precedent set in 1986 after the Challenger accident. A one-time amount of $3 billion was given to NASA to get the shuttle flying again--not only to simply get it flying, but to make sure our astronauts were safe when they did fly.

By contrast, after the Columbia accident in 2003, NASA only received $100 million in special appropriations. Let me be clear, our goal is not to increase the NASA space budget but to restore the funding that was forced to get after the Columbia accident.

This funding is necessary for three reasons: First, since 2003, when that terrible melancholy event occurred, it has cost NASA over $2 billion to comply with the recommendations of Admiral Gehman to fix what it would take for the remaining shuttles and to fly them safely. Admiral Gehman was asked by the Nation to chair a commission to see what it would take to restore the shuttle's ability to fly again, but also to protect those astronauts. It had engineering solutions, technological solutions, and management recommendations. It was a great report and it was expensive, and do you know what. It was worth it. Is the shuttle flying safely today? You bet it is, and we are all thankful.

At the same time, though, the shuttle has become more expensive to maintain and fly safely. The shuttle is a bit old. It has been hit by unforeseen events, from a hurricane to damage in space. We need the shuttle to maintain our commitment to the International Space Station, where we have treaty obligations.

Second, another reason to support this amendment is the shuttle will be retired in 2010, and we are faced with the challenge of developing a new, reliable, safe human flight vehicle. But the costs of returning the shuttle to flight have forced NASA to cut funds for the next transportation vehicle by almost $500 million. This cut contributes to the gap of over 5 years between when the shuttle retires in 2010 and when we get a brandnew vehicle in 2015.

This is not acceptable. We cannot let China get to the Moon before the United States does. We also need to make sure we keep our astronauts safe for the remaining time they use the shuttle. Also we have to keep that excellent talent down there of scientists, engineers, and mechanics, to keep our shuttle flying safely.

Third, NASA has had to forage for funds in other programs to pay to fix the shuttles. Since 2003, science and aeronautics have been cut by almost $100 million.

Science on the space station has been drastically cut. This has a ripple effect within the scientific community. It affects our future ability to understand and protect changes in our planet and in other issues. The National Academy of Sciences says we need more space science, not less.

The consequences of not doing this amendment are clear. It contributes to the delay of our next space transportation vehicle. No one wants that. We do not want to be grounded for an extensive period of time. It reduces our commitment to our international treaty obligations on the space station.

The goals of the amendment are clear. It maintains our commitment to safe, reliable, and robust human spaceflight. It keeps us on track for the next reliable space transportation vehicle and maintains our commitment to scientific discovery.

We didn't leave NASA with an unpaid bill 20 years ago, and we shouldn't do it now. Twenty years ago, our colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, provided $2.7 billion out of the defense budget to buy a replacement space shuttle. We did not cut NASA's budget after the Challenger accident. We shouldn't do it after the Columbia accident.

We recommend this amendment because it is $1 billion. It follows the precedent from the Challenger accident. It does not add to the base. It fulfills important national goals which were set by our President to lay the groundwork for space exploration to Mars. But if we are going to do that, I believe we have the national will to do that, I believe we need the national wallet to do that.

So 50 years after the birth of our great Apollo Program, we need to make sure we keep our commitment to exploration and discovery. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, Senator Nelson will be coming out to speak shortly, an astronaut Senator who will speak eloquently about this. We also hope, for those who would like to challenge our thinking, that they will use this as a time to come to the floor so that we can have an ongoing and continuous debate. We would certainly like to vote on this within the hour, in the interest of moving our bill forward. So we would ask our colleagues to come and speak.

Before I yield the floor, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, the proponents of this amendment have had a very thorough discussion of why we support this amendment. We have spoken for about an hour. We certainly want to be sure that those who might have pause or flashing yellow lights about it bring their concerns to the floor so we can engage in a discussion, maybe even a debate, so we could move this debate forward and dispose of the amendment no later than 4:00 and earlier if possible.

I want to give everyone warning, if there is nobody here, we will move the amendment.

Before my three colleagues who have accomplished this significant feat leave the floor, I, too, wish to salute them. Dear colleagues, what an emotional day. First, our good friend Senator Wellstone embarked on that with you, Senator Murray, many years ago. Paul is no longer with us. His legacy lives on. There is a saying I learned in Catholic girls school: exegi aani perrenius. I will build a monument in lasting bronze. And when one thinks about a monument to Paul Wellstone, the kind of wise guy he was, he wouldn't be a marble guy or want some bronze statue. He would want this as a memorial that others might live. As a Senator from Maryland, my State is a manufacturing State. In my shipyards, there was so much asbestos. To this day, the shipyard workers of Baltimore and Fairfield, Bethlehem Steel, people who built the liberty ships, the ones who helped win the battle of the North Atlantic, the ones who every day would go to work with their lunch pail, now go to the senior citizen meetings carrying an oxygen tank, and not only have they suffered but their spouses suffer. Most of the guys in those days would come home and they would wash their clothes and take care of them. The women were exposed to this as well. It is not only secondhand smoke, but it was secondhand asbestos.

For me today to know that when we talked about better things through chemistry, the answer was yes, but what we did without realizing it was subject our American citizens to such unbelievable pain. So for the guys at the shipyards, we say to Murray, to Boxer, and to Isakson: Anchors aweigh, my boys and girls, anchors aweigh.

I yield the floor.

Let me tell you where we are right now, because the pending amendment is the Mikulski-Hutchison-Shelby-Nelson, et al. amendment on expanding funding for NASA. We also understand the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, intends to come over rather shortly to offer his amendment. We have had a lot of talk, a little bit in morning business, but we are making great progress. We invite all who might either want to speak on our amendment or in opposition to the NASA amendment, please come to the floor now because we will be moving toward a vote. We are also waiting for the Senator from Oklahoma to come.

I know a lot of time has been used with morning business, but at the same time we are making a great deal of progress behind the scenes.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, to those who might be watching the actions of the Senate in either the gallery or on C-SPAN--because we do function in an open and transparent way--they might wonder: What is going on there? Well, I will tell you what is going on. We are debating the appropriations subcommittee report that funds all of the Commerce, all Justice, and good, significant aspects of America's science programs--the National Science Foundation, the space agency, the agency that does research on oceans.

In the course of debating this appropriations bill, there have been others who have asked to speak on other matters. When you see the Chamber is empty, what we are doing is clearing amendments offered by our colleagues. We are waiting for another colleague to come to offer an appropriations amendment. For us, we are trying to make sure America remains premier in space.

I will reiterate, the Mikulski-Shelby-Hutchinson-Bill Nelson-Mel Martinez bipartisan amendment is to restore the funding that it took when the Columbia accident occurred to return our astronauts to space safely and swiftly.

I will elaborate on that later, but I note the Senator from Rhode Island is here, who also wishes to speak on the amendment, as does the Senator from Louisiana.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I have been on thin ice, but I didn't skate.

Mr. President, there is no objection to this amendment.

Amendment No. 3223

There is no objection to the Senator's amendment on either side of the aisle.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I said to the Senator, the Senator has every right to bring that amendment up. We are looking at it and trying to come up with a UC. Maybe we can get to your two amendments and we can vote back to back.

If the Senator will withhold, I am still reserving the right to object while I get clarification. Rather than doing it this way and knowing we are in alignment, can we have a quorum call?

Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I admire his tenacity and consistency in being a steward of the taxpayers' purse, as well as being concerned about future generations. Also, he has often raised issues from which I have benefited. I assure him that both my colleague from Alabama and I have stood squarely on the side of reform as well.

When we did our opening statements today, we said that we were for security, which is helping our law enforcement, innovation, and competitiveness, as well as accountability. We had two reform amendments--one on the NOAA satellite programs that are already running $4 billion in overruns--that is ``B'' as in Barb, not ``M'' as in Mikulski. So we are instituting reforms and actually bringing to the civilian side a Nunn-McCurdy framework for early warnings. So that was one.

The other, as the junior Senator from Oklahoma is aware, the IG at the Department of Justice said we have had some conferences, what we call the ``lavish conference situation.'' One conference had meatballs at $4 a meatball, lobster rolls, limousines. That is not about the kind of training that is supposed to go on at law enforcement conferences. We have had two of those amendments.

Then when we come to Congress--so we have come up with some reforms, and there are others in the bill, but

those are two big ones. There are others in the bill related to congressionally designated projects.

I say to my colleague also that we, meaning Senator Shelby and myself, said that any congressionally designated project must meet criteria to even be considered. We were not going to have a bridge to nowhere. We were going to, if you will, have bridges to somewhere. They had to be not only for the political benefit, but they had to be tied to mission. They had to have mission and merit and matching funds, the M&Ms: mission, merit, and matching funds.

Let's take the Department of Justice. We would not even think about a congressionally designated project unless it was for prevention, law enforcement or prosecution. There had to be local funds or nonprofits and no construction money.

In the area of Commerce, we said it had to be related to coastal and marine resources. It had to foster understanding of the Earth's environment. It had to create jobs or keep jobs in America. Or it had to enhance the America COMPETES Act, which means science, technology or education.

I could also go through the NASA criteria which, again, was science and research, education to promote the engagement of science and engineering, as well as aeronautics research, and, again, no private facility construction.

I will not go through justification of each and every one of those projects. I know the Senator from Connecticut will speak to his. I will speak to mine in a moment.

We have buoys--not like boys and girls, but buoys, such as b-u-o-y-s, buoys on the Chesapeake Bay. They are NOAA buoys. We have to have them anyway, and they give important navigation information, as well as readings on temperature, tides, and so on, that is so important to keep our commercial shipping lanes open and are great aids to the commercial and sports fishing industry.

We had the commemoration of Jamestown, and in the commemoration of Jamestown, they celebrated CAPT John Smith's voyage on the Chesapeake Bay by mapping it. What we did, working with the National Geographic Society that actually raised the money for this project, was add items to these buoys that would also tell the history, when you got up close to it, of what occurred in that geographic area. These buoys provide important navigation, and now they add value to history.

Why is that important? It is important, first of all, for navigation reasons. It is important to also help us for weather reasons because if we know our tides and temperatures, it will help.

I will tell my colleagues what gets people interested in science and engineering in my State. It is kids working hands on in science, not reading books about science but hands on, doing the science. That is why they love to come to our aquarium or to our Maryland Science Center. Teachers all over the Delmarva, including the great State of John Warner, whom we salute today and wish him well, they get into science, and that is what promotes their interest in wanting to be scientists and engineers. If they don't want to be scientists or engineers, maybe they want to be doctors, nurses or lab techs. There are so many ways people now come into science in addition to engineering and Ph.D.s, and we need them.

Many of these projects that are listed here--and we know we will hear about planetariums, we will hear about the grand and spectacular work of Dr. Ballard that is exciting so many people, and we salute him because Captain Ballard found the Titanic. We have to make sure science and education is not a sinking ship hit by the iceberg of chilling cuts in our programs.

I know my metaphors are going too far, but what I want my colleagues to know that we were not cavalier and said: Just give us any request and we will fund it. We screened them. We scrutinized them. They had to be mission and merit and have matching funds. We believe we have met this criteria. That is on the earmark reform.

On the issue of civil rights, I salute, again, our colleague from Oklahoma on the issue of wanting to investigate these cold cases but assure him that throughout our bill, we have a vigorous civil rights enforcement. I thank my colleague from Alabama for being such a stalwart ally on this issue.

First of all, we actually have money in the bill, close to $378 million for the EEOC. While we are not only looking at cold cases, we are looking at hot cases right here and now and dealing with a terrible backlog.

We also funded $9 million for the Commission on Civil Rights. But along with that, $116 million went to the Civil Rights Division at Justice to pay for 760 attorneys and support staff. Also, money went to the U.S. attorney to investigate crimes, including hate crimes and civil rights violations.

We also put in $370 million for the FBI for over 270 agents to investigate civil rights violations, those that have occurred now and also those very sad cold cases. So $370 million, $116 million, and it goes on and on. The totals, actually when we count what we fund for U.S. attorneys, my staff tells me it is $3 billion. Those U.S. attorneys do other things as well.

We think we did a good job dealing with the backlog at EEOC, reforming them, getting them refocused, funding the FBI, funding the Civil Rights Division, funding the Commission on Civil Rights, funding the Legal Aid Corporation, and so on. We funded those enforcement and prosecution issues related to cold cases but also current cases where we want to see justice done.

I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I salute the Senator from North Dakota. I have found his comments about those women being raped to be devastating, and I know we are going to continue to work with him.

Amendment No. 3250

I now ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3250 be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 3233, it be modified with changes at the desk.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all first-degree

amendments to H.R. 3093 must be filed at the desk by 2:30 p.m. Monday, October 15.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. We had this pressing amendment we needed to get done, but the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Ohio have been very patient. I will now yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3218 by Senator Murray and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and I urge its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3225

Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 3225 by Senator Reid of Nevada and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is cleared on both sides of the aisle and I urge its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3268

Mr. President, my last request is, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment provides funds for science, engineering, technology, and mathematics-related activities at NASA. It has been cleared on both sides and I urge its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Ohio has been waiting. He has been very cooperative and patient, and I appreciate it. I know he wants to speak on an important issue that has been on his mind and should be on the Senate floor as it relates to trade.

The committee recognizes the importance of aeronautics research and NASA's 10 Healthy Centers effort. We share your concern about the steady decline in budget requests for aeronautics research. We will work with you to ensure this critical and historical strength of NASA is funded at a level sufficient to maintain our country's competitive edge in aeronautics.

Plant Genome Research Program

Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. President, that is my expectation. I appreciate your long standing support of plant genomics and will work to see that these important programs continue to receive support as they have in the past.

Electronic Prescribing

Mr. President, I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Rhode Island that it is my intention to do just that. I agree that a joint report between the DEA and CMS will help us move forward in this crucial area of health information technology and bring down a serious barrier to improved patient care.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts. I am committed to working with the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Michigan, and the chairman of the HELP Committee to solve this problem.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Honorable John J. Young, Jr. to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Douglas A. Brook to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller; and Robert L. Smolen to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.

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 October 4, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Regulation and Supervision of Industrial Loan Companies.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will review the Department of Homeland Security's implementation and administration of several port and cargo security programs authorized in the SAFE Port Act, the Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

At this hearing, the Committee will explore the state of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, examine reforms that are necessary to make the agency more effective to protect children and other consumers from dangerous and defective products, and seek comments on S. 2045, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider favorably reporting an original bill entitled, ``The Heartland, Habitat, Harvest, and Horticulture Act of 2007'' and legislation implementing the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on the Law of the Sea Convention.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Backlogs at the Department of the Interior: Land into Trust Applications; Environmental Impact Statements; Probate; and Appraisals and Lease Approvals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct an Executive Business Meeting on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 2035, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 (Specter, Schumer, Lugar, Dodd, Leahy, Graham) and S. 1640, Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2007 (Leahy, Cornyn, Kohl, Whitehouse).

II. Resolutions: S. Res. 326, Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims (Cornyn, Feinstein, Kyl) and H. Con. Res. 193, Recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety.

III. Nominations: Thomas P. O'Brien to be United States Attorney for the Central District of California.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Justice Denied? Implementation of

the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act'' on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee he authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?'', in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Thursday, October 4, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Managment, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entit1ed, ``Forestalling the Coming Pandemic: Infectious Disease Surveillance Overseas.''

Madam President, I seek recognition in these 2 minutes seeking support on this amendment, joined by my colleagues, Kennedy and Akaka, who spoke Friday about why this amendment is important. It is important that this amendment be on this bill because we all remember the Walter Reed scandal. Remember the Walter Reed scandal, mold in the hotel and all that? I spoke on this floor more than a year and a half ago, with Paul Sarbanes, for an amendment that tried to deal with the contracting out at Walter Reed. I lost that amendment on the floor by two votes.

We went from 300 employees to 50 employees, and we only saved money after they had 6 different attempts to make sure they had contracting out. Let me tell you, if you want no more Walter Reeds, you want the Kennedy-Mikulski-Akaka amendment. This amendment saves taxpayers money. It says that any attempt at contracting out must save $10 million or 10 percent, so we meet the taxpayer mandate. It eliminates privatization quotas. If you are against quotas and OMB bounty hunters, this amendment is for you. If you want to make sure our contractors have healthy retirement benefits as part of the contract, this amendment is for you.

Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I commend my colleague from Maryland for addressing this issue. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee and I, too, understand that the Committee intends to continue EAS funding under the continuing resolution to airports in Maryland, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania that currently receive it.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, as amended by the distinguished majority leader.

I know the hour is late so I will not speak at length, but I will speak with passion about what this amendment is all about.

This is about contracting out. I am here to join in an amendment that protects our Civil Service, protects our taxpayers, and protects Government workers. I think we would all agree that America needs an independent Civil Service and that our Federal employees are on the front lines every day working hard for America. This administration's plan for privatization is a quota-driven plan that costs money, morale, and the integrity of the Civil Service. It forces Federal employees into unfair competition and forces them to spend time and money competing for their jobs instead of doing their jobs. The administration has stacked the deck against Federal employees with their A-76 competitions, but I am here to level the playing field along with my colleagues.

This amendment is simple. It helps Federal employees compete for their jobs and at the same time, makes sure

the Federal Government saves money. My other colleagues who are cosponsors will focus on different pieces of this amendment, but I am here to talk about three specific parts.

First of all, this amendment saves taxpayers money. When the administration passed these new quota-driven bounty-hunting A-76 rules, contractors were not even required to show they would save the Government any money--but we thought that was the point of it--so we had some private contracts that actually cost the Government more money than if Federal employees were doing the work.

Now, the amendment that is pending would require that all contracts save $10 million or 10 percent. You must save money: $10 million or 10 percent. So Federal workers will not be losing their jobs to contractor bids that do not even save the Government or the taxpayers money.

Second, it deals with the issue of health and retirement benefits. Right now, a private contractor can win a bid on Federal work simply because they provide either no health and retirement benefits or skimpy or Spartan benefits, this is bad for Federal employees and bad for the contractors doing the work.

This amendment would prohibit contractors from winning a bid if the only cost savings are from bad or no benefits. This is to prevent bagging benefits in order to win the contract. This helps level the playing field for Federal employees who have to submit their own best bids, but they have to include these health and retiree benefits.

Number 3, really, this is what I think is crucial, and I hope my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will hear this. This amendment eliminates privatization quotas. Remember, the new Bush rules are quota driven. It makes those who are pushing the A-76 in an agency the equivalent of a bounty hunter.

Now, let's deal with the word ``quota.'' I have heard a lot about quotas in my day, usually from the other side in a very pejorative way. Hey, what happened to goals and timetables? I thought we did not go for quotas in this Senate. I thought we were for goals and timetables. Remember discussions on affirmative action? ``We don't want no quotas.'' Well, I do not want quotas in privatization. Quite frankly, I do not even want goals and timetables in privatization. But OMB imposes privatization quotas on all Federal agencies, forcing them to conduct A-76 competitions on as many as 150,000 jobs each year. What a huge waste of money. These quota-driven bounty hunters force these wasteful A-76 reviews, even on agencies that do not want to do them or in categories that give them pause to pursue. It wastes time. It wastes taxpayers' dollars.

This amendment would stop OMB from using quotas to force agencies to conduct these privatization reviews. This would not prevent agencies from contracting out work. It would simply allow Federal agencies to make their own decisions about when to use the A-76 process.

Now let me be very clear. I am not opposed to contracting out. I am not opposed to privatization. In my own State it has worked well. Look at Goddard Space Flight Center. We have 3,000 civil service jobs, but 9,000 private contractor jobs. In this way, we get incredible value for our space dollar. I am proud of them both, and they work well together. They serve the Nation well.

But the way this administration is going about privatization does not work. We need this amendment because the way contracting is being pursued is irresponsible. It even puts our Nation's security at risk.

I want to give one specific issue--contracting out at Walter Reed. Before my dear colleague Senator Paul Sarbanes left, we were on this floor fighting an A-76 contract for contracting out facilities management for people who handle the grounds and so on at Walter Reed. We challenged that A-76 because there had been over three to six appeals. Each time the Federal employees won. However, the administration pushed and pushed and pushed. As we were battling it out on the floor, I read a letter from the colonel who said: If you contract this out, I am concerned there will be a degradation of service at Walter Reed.

Well--guess what--we lost the amendment. Walter Reed contracted out its facilities management. We went from 300 employees, who kept Walter Reed tip top for our wounded warriors, down to 50 people, and we ended up with a national scandal.

Now, you tell me, what did we gain from that contracting out? How could you look in the eyes of a wounded warrior at Walter Reed and at a hospital that was ridden with mold and rot, for which we all had to go out and pound on the table and pound on our chest about the outrage? We could have stopped the scandal at Walter Reed if we had stopped that contracting out--300 people to 50. Why did it take 300 people at Walter Reed? Because it is an older building. It is several buildings. Our wounded warriors were in hospitals that made international headlines because we could not take care of our own.

Well, I am now taking care of this contracting out. So this amendment is the ``remember the Walter Reed scandal'' amendment. I hope my colleagues will join with me. Yes, we will privatize where appropriate. Yes, we will privatize where we will get value for our dollar. But I don't want any kind of privatization that ends up in a national scandal and a national disgrace.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor Senator Biden's amendment calling on the United States to actively support a Federal system of government in Iraq.

The brutal reality is that Iraq today is being torn apart by sectarian violence. The Maliki government in Baghdad is too weak and too corrupt to lead Iraq's Sunni, Shia and Kurdish communities to the political reconciliation they need to end the fighting. Iraq is being torn apart by civil war, and U.S. military forces are caught in the middle.

It is clear to me that President Bush has no strategy for ending the war in Iraq. It is up to Congress to provide the way forward to bring stability to Iraq and to bring our troops home. Our military has done everything we have asked them to do, valiantly and skillfully. But the experts all agree: there is no military solution in Iraq. We need a comprehensive political settlement that gives the Iraqi people control over their own fate and allows our troops to come home.

Senator Biden has proposed a plan to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it. Rather than putting our troops between warring factions, this plan would give the Kurds, Sunni and Shia control over their own land and people, while leaving a central government in Baghdad responsible for protecting common national Iraqi interests. This plan has five major parts.

Step one is establishing three autonomous regions in Iraq with a functional central government in Baghdad. Each region would have authority over its own domestic laws, administration, and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign policy, and oil revenues. This would give Iraq's sectarian groups control over their own destiny and ensure that Iraq does not splinter into pieces, creating regional chaos.

Step two of the Biden plan is to secure the cooperation of Iraq's Sunni minority. The Sunni Arabs in Iraq do not have access to the same oil wealth enjoyed by the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Under this plan, Iraq's central Government would guarantee the Sunni's economic viability

by pledging 20-percent of Iraq's oil revenue. It would address Sunni political concerns by allowing former members of the Baath party to join Iraq's national Government. Iraq's Sunnis must have confidence that they can prosper and thrive in a peaceful Iraq, so they will lay down their arms and end their destructive insurgency.

Step three of this plan is to call on the international community and Iraq's neighbors to help stabilize Iraq by accepting this federal arrangement and respecting Iraq's borders and sovereignty. Iraq will need strong support from the international community to ensure that its neighbors do not try to expand their influence into any of the three autonomous regions created under this federalist system.

Step four calls for the withdrawal of most U.S. military forces from Iraq. We would leave a small but effective residual force behind to help Iraq's security forces combat terrorism and protect Iraq's borders, but most U.S. forces would be out of Iraq before the end of 2008. We know there is no military solution to Iraq's current problems, and we know the armed militias that are tearing Iraq apart will never lay down their arms as long as the U.S. military has a large presence in their country. Withdrawing most U.S. troops will demonstrate to the Iraqi people that they must take responsibility for building a peaceful, stable Iraq. A small but lethal contingent of U.S. forces that remains either in Iraq or nearby can help the Iraqis combat terrorism and deter mischief by Iraq's neighbors.

Finally, the Biden plan calls for robust international support for reconstruction in Iraq. This economic assistance must be conditioned on respect for minority and women's rights. The international community has an interest in seeing a vital, healthy Iraq, but we should use our resources to help Iraq build a society based on equality for all. By providing economic opportunities for every Iraqi, we can help end the violence and build a strong, stable Iraq.

We know that President Bush has no plan for stabilizing Iraq or ending the war. The Biden plan can lead to a lasting political solution in Iraq that stops the violence and allows our military forces to come home. I am proud to support it, and I am proud to cosponsor this amendment.

Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies, I rise today to clarify for the U.S. Senate the sponsorship of several congressionally designated projects included in the report accompanying S. 1745, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, S. Rpt. 110-124. Specifically:

The report should indicate that funding provided through the Department of Justice for the Presidential Candidate Nominating Conventions for 2008 was requested by Senators Allard, Coleman, Klobuchar, and Salazar.

Senator Levin should be listed as having requested funding for Grand Rapids Public Schools, Grand Rapids, MI, for an academic prevention and workforce skills program funded through the Department of Justice.

Senator Stabenow should be listed as having requested funding for the Ruth Ellis Center, Highland Park, MI, for an outreach program funded through the Department of Justice.

Senators Schumer and Bill Nelson should not be listed as having requested funding for Regional Climate Centers funded through the Department of Commerce.

Finally, Senator McCaskill has withdrawn her request for the following activities funded through the Department of Justice: Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, RAINN, Partnership for a Drug Free America Meth360 Program, and Big Brothers, Big Sisters.

Mr. President, I rise as a supporter of the Webb amendment. I want to compliment the Senator from Virginia for offering that amendment. Although he is a freshman Senator, he certainly is no stranger to war a combat veteran, a warrior's warrior, and he

is fully aware of the stresses the men and our military are facing along with their families.

I support the Webb amendment, and I support it for several reasons. One, I want to talk about the surge. I called it an escalation. The escalation was to send more troops to give the Iraqis more time to come up with a political solution.

Well, I wish to salute our troops. For those who are on the ground, the basic number, for those who were part of the escalation, we want to support them for doing their duty, and doing their duty so well. I think by every account, regardless of how one feels about the war, one is very proud of the men and women who are part of our military, who have been on the ground, and have been on the job. They have done their part. And that is what the two reports we got last week are, that if you send in more people, the violence will temporarily come down. But what happens when you do not keep that level? Well, that is a point of discussion.

Let's go back to why they went. They went this summer, in blazing heat, with blazing guns, to give the Iraqis more time. And what did the Iraqis do while our guys and gals were out there in 100-pound armor, trying to avoid IEDs? The Iraqis took a vacation. More time. More time. More time. What is wrong with this picture? So what did more time get us? It got us nowhere. With their 2-month break, they still did not go anywhere near a political solution. Now we are told we have got to keep this up, and we could be there indefinitely because of what? The Iraqis need more time.

Well, I think we are out of time. I think we are genuinely out of time. This is why I support the Webb amendment, because I think we need a different direction. I think we need a different direction in Iraq to do what we can to contain the violence and also to move ahead with a political solution. I am going to support the Webb amendment because I am never going to vote to cut off money. I will vote to protect our troops, and the best way is at least to give them more time while we are giving the Iraqis more time.

How about giving our troops more time to be at home? I am really hot about this. One hundred six degrees in July, they took a break; 110 degrees in Baghdad, our troops are there, they took a break--they, the Iraqis, took a break.

I am also going to be supporting the Biden amendment, because if the Iraqis will not come up with a political solution, now with the so- called soft position, it is time to go to the international community and see if there needs to a hard solution.

I am beginning to explore and believe that perhaps Iraq needs to be partitioned. Part of our solution, though, is while the Iraqis want more time, I want more time for our troops. I want more time for our troops to be at home. That is why I am supporting this brilliant amendment by Senator Jim Webb, for our men and our women in the military.

We know what his amendment says is that they have to be at home for at least as long as the length of their last deployment. So if they were there for 15 months, they should be home for 15 months. Then, for the National Guard and for the Reserves, no one would be redeployed within 3 years of their previous deployment.

Why is that important? It is not only important for the Guard and the Reservists, but as the Presiding Officer knows, when a National Guards person goes to meet their duty, their employer in many instances is required to keep that job open, or they at least have that as a commitment of honor.

That used to be 6 months. Now it is 15 months, and home again, back again, while the Iraqis want more time. Our employers are wondering how they can keep those jobs open because they don't want to turn their backs on the military.

We have to get real here. A $20,000 bonus for a quick fix, quickly trained military doesn't cut it. Jim Webb is really onto something. Our military is overstretched. Our troops are exhausted. Their families are living with tremendous stress. Every day they wonder what is happening. Every day a family that hears a news report about another attack wonders if their loved one was in it. Every time they are at home and they hear: CNN, breaking, 4 U.S. military killed, 10 killed, 4 killed, they first listen; is it in the zone where my husband or my wife or my son or daughter is? Then when they hear that, they think: Is it the Army or the Marines? They want to know because what they are doing is wondering how close to home it is.

Then they hear that news. For some, it is unbearable news. But all of the news is unbearable for the families at home. We are crushing the very spirit these families have to keep them going. It is not that they went once; it is that they go again. And no sooner do they come back and say: Hello, honey, I think your name is Mary Beth, than they have to go back out again. What are we doing to our families?

I want more time for the troops. I want to give them more time the way the Iraqi politicians want more time. When we think about our troops, we know what they are laboring under. You have heard me say it before. I check the temperature every day in Baghdad. Yesterday, it was 102 degrees. For us, it was 73, a beautiful day. What a day to be out on the bay. I know a lot of our National Guard already deployed would love to be there. I think about our troops, carrying 100 pounds of armor in brutal heat, being shot at, being attacked by IEDs, while we have a policy that is going to give the Iraqis more time, while they are there doing their duty. Let's talk about these families.

In World War II, the military would say: If the Army wanted you to have a wife, we would have issued you one. It was primarily a single military. That is not true today. For our families, the stress of maintaining a family during all of this while a spouse is at war is an enormous stress. Not only are they facing traumatic stress, but so is the spouse at home. They are trying to protect their children. They are trying to shield their children. The children wonder: How is daddy doing; how is mommy doing? The children learn e-mail. They e-mail mom. They e-mail dad. I know how they communicate. Mom and dad will communicate by e-mail. The little guys and gals will often read the first paragraph, but the last two paragraphs are spouse-to-spouse talking about what is going on. The tension, the fear, the anxiety and, I might add, the financial stress as well is amazing. We are talking about 19-year-olds, 21-year-olds. We are talking about people with two and three children. But we have to give the Iraqis more time.

Well, we are out of time. I know my time is up on the floor, but I will tell you, I am going to vote for this Webb amendment because I am going to give our troops more time. I am going to vote to give our troops more time at home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life and legacy of Senator Daniel Baugh Brewster. I was a great admirer of Senator Brewster, and I hold the Brewster seat in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Brewster was a true patriot. He was a hero at the age of 19 when he volunteered for the Marine Corps and was sent to the front lines of the war in the Pacific. There he served bravely--leading the 1944 assault on Guam and the 1945 assault on Okinawa. He bore the wounds of war like so many of our heroic veterans. He was wounded seven times and had a permanent scar on his forehead from a bullet that lifted his helmet and grazed his scalp while battling for Sugar Loaf Hill on Okinawa. For his bravery, he was awarded a Purple Heart, two Gold Stars, and two Bronze Stars.

As with many World War II veterans, Senator Brewster came back a changed man. He was disappointed when some of his neighbors in Green Spring Valley voiced outrage at him for inviting African-American friends he had served with during the war to his home. This experience further fueled both his desire to run for office and his lifetime commitment to civil rights.

Senator Brewster graduated from University of Maryland School of Law in 1949, and was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1950. After serving two terms, Senator Brewster ran for and was elected to represent Maryland's Second District in Congress in 1958. In 1962, Mr. Brewster was elected to the Senate. He was just 39 years old.

In the Senate, Brewster was a champion for civil rights. He cosponsored the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and served as the stand-in candidate for President Lyndon Johnson's 1964 Presidential primary campaign in Maryland against segregationist candidate George Wallace of Alabama. The contest was seen as a crucial battle in the fight for civil rights. Despite threats to his family, he campaigned vigorously and won the primary for President Johnson.

Senator Brewster served as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time the war in Vietnam was escalating. Publicly, he took a hawkish position on the war, but privately he expressed concerns about the war and shared those concerns with President Johnson.

After leaving the Senate, Senator Brewster devoted his time to his family, farming, and volunteering. He was an original director and former president of the Maryland State Fair and chaired the Governor's Commission on Alcoholism and the Governor's Commission on AIDS.

Senator Brewster's congressional legacy lives on today as two of his Senate interns from Maryland, Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, went on to prestigious political careers of their own.

I offer my heartfelt condolences to Senator Brewster's family and to his friends and to all those whose lives he touched. Senator Brewster's family is in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, our first goal as members of Congress is to protect and safeguard the American people against terrorist attacks. I take

my oath to do so very seriously. That is why I support reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As we approach the anniversary of September 11, this is a time for more intense vigilance. Real threats to our country remain.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, every day I see how terrorists want to harm the American people. Terrorists still have a predatory intent to harm the United States. Reforming FISA today provides the intelligence community the tools it needs to disrupt ongoing terrorist operations against the United States.

We have two proposals to consider tonight. Both are temporary ways ahead. Each proposal takes important steps to secure the safety of our country by reforming this important law. The Rockefeller-Levin proposal is desirable, while the McConnell proposal is acceptable.

Each proposal provides the intelligence community the key tools it needs to disrupt terrorist plans and intentions, while retaining the legal safeguards that protect the rights of every American.

These proposals are consistent with the principles that the Director of National Intelligence requested to improve the FISA process: enhance intelligence collection against terrorist operatives communicating to each other overseas--foreign to foreign; provide legal safeguards to protect the rights of American citizens--consistent with law, a warrant is still required to monitor communications of American citizens inside the United States--provide prospective liability protection to private- sector companies assisting our efforts in keeping this country safe.

These proposals are time limited. A more comprehensive and permanent solution is necessary. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I will work with my colleagues on a more comprehensive and permanent solution to reforming FISA.

Al-Qaida continues to want to inflict damage on our country. This proposal gives important tools to the intelligence community to disrupt the terrorists' plans and intentions, while safeguarding the rights and civil liberties of American citizens.

When it comes to protecting America, we don't belong to a political party) we belong to the red, white, and blue party. We are Americans first.

Mr. President, I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, and like all Members, I take my oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, very seriously. Real threats to our country remain. As we approach the anniversary of September 11, this is a time for more vigilance.

We have two proposals tonight. The Rockefeller-Levin proposal is the most desirable, while the McConnell proposal is also acceptable. These proposals are consistent with the principles that the DNI requested to improve the FISA process.

It enhances intel collection against terrorist operatives communicating overseas foreign to foreign. At the same time, it does provide legal safeguards to protect the rights of Americans, consistent with law. A warrant is still required. I think it is time to vote. I think it is time to protect America.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Best Buddies Chapter from Walter Johnson High School in Montgomery County, MD, for being named ``Chapter of the Year'' by Best Buddies International. Best Buddies is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for one-to-one friendships and integrated employment. Founded by Anthony K. Shriver in 1989, Best Buddies focuses on the importance of social integration for a group that is often overlooked by society. They achieve their mission by creating ``buddy pairs'' in student-run chapters at middle schools, high schools, and colleges around the world.

Every year, Best Buddies holds its international leadership conference at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN, where over 1,300 high school and college students are trained on how to run an effective Best Buddies chapter--skills that will serve them well throughout their academic and professional lives. During the conference the organization acknowledges certain chapters that have achieved a particular level of excellence throughout the past year. The Chapter of the Year is selected by the board of directors and is based on the quality of the one-to-one friendships, chapter leadership, and activities. For 2007, 75 chapters applied, and Walter Johnson High School was awarded this impressive distinction.

This chapter exemplified the true meaning of team work. As a team they worked together and planned incredibly successful events, fundraisers, and group outings. Their great sense of spirit and enthusiasm showed in every activity they undertook and in the deeply rewarding friendships they created. Through the tireless outreach of the chapter members, the general student population at Walter Johnson learned first hand that the similarities between children with and without intellectual disabilities far outweigh the differences.

I hope that you will join me in recognizing the importance of what these high school students are doing through their participation in the Best Buddies program and the excellence with which they do it.

Mr. President, I, too, rise to comment on the FISA situation in which we find ourselves, because we want to be very clear that patriotism, adherence to the Constitution to defend the Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, is not a partisan issue; that as our distinguished colleague from Missouri has spoken to--and I know the Senator from Georgia will--we are all on the Intelligence Committee, and we know what the real deal is in the sense of a very dangerous time facing our country.

We on this side of the aisle want to assure both our colleagues and the American people that we want to make the reforms in FISA before we go out as intensely as do our colleagues who are speaking tonight. We want to make those reforms so that we, too, give the intelligence community the power to go after and catch the terrorists and to be able to pump for the information they need to protect us, rather than a bureaucracy.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I feel it is my first duty to make sure they have the tools they need to protect the Nation. That means not only the financial resources to hire the best people and have the best technology, but it also means they have the legal framework in which to operate. But, indeed, a legal framework is what we need. We believe that in functioning within a legal framework, we are able to bring to bear all of the very important resources that are needed, both from the private sector as well as from the public sector.

I agree with my colleagues that as we come into August, we have a certain level of anxiety. All of us know, as we look back on 2001, that if in fact we could have done something to protect or stop what happened on that terrible day, September 11, we would have done it. We know that right now, this minute, we have another rendezvous with destiny and we will meet that. In meeting that rendezvous, we will arrive at a legal framework that is constitutionally compliant, that will enable the Intelligence Committee to be able to do what it needs, without being shackled by more bureaucratic mandates. There are many proposals. The details of why we would support them or raise a question are better discussed in a more classified forum.

Should the approach be bipartisan? You bet. I have worked with the Senator from Missouri. I know how he brings pragmatism, common sense, and very sound legal analysis to the discussion. This is not about politics. This is about the people and protecting the people we were sworn to protect. So I believe we will be proceeding. I am prepared, if necessary, to cancel my plans. But I believe if we work hard and are inclusive and approach it with common sense, we will focus on what is the end game here, which is to do the right thing to protect us.

Mr. President, I have fought for children's health care for a very long time, going back to my days as a social worker and also as a young House Member. This bill is what we hoped for and dreamed for--those of us who worked in social work and foster care and child abuse--to make sure kids had eyeglasses and hearing aids and so forth. And for all those adolescents who need to discuss things with doctors, this would be an open door. For all those handicapped children, this is what we need.

I salute the chairman and ranking member on this bipartisan solution. We have done this in a way that we can pay for it. At the end of the day, over an additional 3 million children will have health care. I salute my colleagues.

A few months ago, we had a little boy die in Maryland because he didn't have access to dental care. He had an oral infection that spread through his blood. So tomorrow when I vote, I vote for Deamonte, and for all others like him. I support the bill.

Mr. President, I rise with a great deal of joy and enthusiasm this morning, as the senior Senator from Maryland, to be a part of what all of Maryland is doing today. We are on the road to Cooperstown. We are literally in our cars or renting transportation to be heading to Cooperstown, and we are going to Cooperstown in our hearts, because on Sunday, our beloved all-around Marylander, all- around American hero, Cal Ripken, Jr. will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

We are so excited about this because we want the world to know Cal Ripken as we know Cal Ripken. What a great guy. The world knows him as a fantastic baseball player, and he certainly is. I will go into his record in a minute. But he is also a fantastic human being, a devoted father, a faithful husband, a man of the community, giving his time and energy to philanthropic work. When we call him the ``Iron Man,'' he absolutely is.

Throughout his 21-year career, he has been the epitome of ``Iron Man,'' both on and off the field. I watched Cal going from being unknown to being the best known baseball player from Baltimore since Babe Ruth. I was there that last day at Memorial Stadium, when we closed the stadium down, and I was there on opening day at Camden Yards, and Cal was there, and I will watch him as he is inducted into the Hall of Fame. For we Oriole fans, it was never ``if'' Cal would go into the Hall of Fame, it was simply when.

Now, all baseball fans know about something called ``the streak.'' We remember the victory lap he took around Camden Yards on that very special night. As we were heading into that record-breaking, show-up- at-every-game Cal Ripken event, there was a countdown that was going on all over. At Camden Yards every day, they had the number when Cal would come out on the field. In my own office in the Hart Building, I had a great big banner for our own countdown.

There he was: 2,632 consecutive games. During that time, he hit 431 homeruns. He also started in 19 All-Star games. He won two American League Golden Glove awards, eight Silver Slugger awards, two American League Most Valuable Players, and the statistics go on.

But statistics don't tell the real Ripken story. We remember not the numbers, but we remember the man--the strong, dependable presence of Cal Ripken, Jr. Night after night, day after day, sometimes through injuries, through the wide range of emotions and pressures experienced as a major leaguer, at every game there he was: at third base, at shortstop, smiling at doing his job and doing it well.

I remember that fateful night when Cal broke the Lou Gehrig standing record. To see that banner drop from 2,130 to 2,131 and hear the admiration and the jubilation of the crowd in Baltimore is something I will always remember. The sustained cheers were never ending as Cal, urged by Rafael Palmeiro, took a lap around the field. It was a proud night for the Ripken family, for the Orioles, and for Maryland.

Mr. President, I wish you had been there that night. It was a magical night. Families came from all over to that game. Now, when I walked into Camden Yards, I thought maybe it would be a raucous night. Maybe it would be a spirit of New Year's Eve that we have in the Inner Harbor. But when you walked into Camden Yards, it was a quiet night. It was a respectful night. It had an air of great dignity. People were bringing their children. They had come from all over. They knew that something very special was going to happen because of a very special man. That evening had as much dignity as the player himself.

Cal's accomplishments transcend well beyond the baseball field. His character and demeanor are reflected in the successes he experiences every day on the field and off the field. He shows up and gives his maximum effort in every aspect. He puts his family above all. He is a community philanthropist and is committed to living something called the ``Ripken way.'' The Ripken way was something taught to him by his father, that very well-known baseball manager, Cal Ripken, Sr. Now, this Ripken way is something special. It isn't complex. Did the Ripkens hire a consultant or handlers to tell them about it? How did they do it? It came from their hearts, their experience, and their commitment to values.

The Ripken way is a value-driven leadership way. Its wisdom is to build great players and bind generations together. Here is what it is: No. 1, keep it simple. No. 2, explain the why of what you are doing to the people who are affected. Celebrate the individual. Make it fun and sweat those details and learn the little things so the big things can be done the right way. It emphasizes clarity, simplicity and, most of all, personal integrity.

I think the Ripken way is being used all over Maryland. It is used in our businesses and in our homes. It is in our hospitals, where Cal and his wife Kelly have contributed so much to children, and it is in our hearts today as we salute Cal Ripken and the wonderful honor he is receiving.

He applies the Ripken way on the ballfield and off the ballfield. He has established a foundation in his father's name: The Cal Ripken, Sr. Foundation, which helps young people learn not only baseball but the values of sportsmanship and the values of integrity, honor, and fidelity, the things that do build iron in your character. This is the legacy which shapes Cal's life, and so he wants to pass it on. Cal may be the local boy, but he is now an international hero.

There is no question that Cal has earned his way into the Hall of Fame. We congratulate him on his very stellar career. We so admire his work ethic and his commitment to community, to country, and for the well-deserved honor of being inducted into the Hall of Fame. While Cal has already achieved so much, I cannot help thinking about him that the best is yet to come.

On behalf of Senator Cardin and myself, I will introduce to have referred to the appropriate committee a resolution commemorating Cal on his outstanding career in baseball and for his induction into the Hall of Fame.

Mr. President, these are tough times in the Senate. So when we can talk about something that really does deal with honor, fidelity, a commitment to

community, a commitment to country, and showing up every day and getting the job done, I think the way Cal would want us to tip our hats to him would be to step up to the plate and do our jobs and to do it the Ripken way. That is what I would like to do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.