Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

As a member of the HELP Committee and someone who was an active participant in shaping this legislation, I rise to let everyone know it is very important that we pass this bill. This legislation is perhaps one of the most important bills in more than a decade to improve drug safety. I am very distressed that for a variety of ideological reasons, this bill is being impeded. Yet drug safety should not be impeded. Drug safety is one of the most important issues we face. The recent testimony of two former FDA commissioners--one appointed by a Republican, Dr. Mark McClellan, and the other appointed by a Democrat, Dr. David Kessler--discussed the need for this legislation as one of the most important items to come before the Senate.

Congress has a unique opportunity to change the way we monitor the safety of drugs. We can't afford to miss this chance. We owe it to consumers, physicians, and patients, who rely on FDA to be the gold standard, to pass this legislation. This is about protecting the American people. There are countries all over the world that can't afford an FDA so they look to us to see what drugs are approved.

I have long been a supporter of the Food and Drug Administration. It is in my State, and I am very proud of it. I have fought hard for the employees at the FDA; for the resources to maintain the mission of the FDA. Through the years we have done a variety of things to improve FDA but nothing as important as this bill.

When we began to work on this legislation, I wanted to know what impact I could make. I was concerned about the fact that FDA seemed to have lost its way. It seemed not to have the right leadership, and it certainly didn't have the right monitoring for drug safety-- particularly post-market surveillance. So we ended up with the Vioxx situation. We ended up with drugs to treat young adolescents triggering suicidal thoughts and worse. The issue of drug safety is paramount in America. When I looked at this legislation before the HELP Committee, I wanted to find a way to strengthen the FDA but not create a whole set of regulations that were bureaucratic and technocratic but without efficacy. So where did I turn? I turned to the Institute of Medicine. The Institute of Medicine is the premier agency that often gives advice and direction to the larger community.

They published a report called ``The Future of Drug Safety.'' It had been commissioned by the FDA itself. As I read this report, I was struck by its commonsense provisions. I was also struck by the fact that we have endless reports. We have lots of commissions that Congress asks to be created, but we never act upon them. Just yesterday, the Journal of the American Medical Association ran an editorial about how the Institute of Medicine developed the right prescription for FDA, but no one is going to act on it.

Well, I acted on it. I took the prescription to help the ailing FDA. While our leadership, through Senators Kennedy and Enzi, was working a comprehensive bill, I brought to their attention these recommendations. By working in a civilized, collegial way, my amendments were adopted. It is not about my amendments. It is about the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Isn't it great when we can take the best thinking, work on a bipartisan basis, and put it into action to protect the American people. To me, that is what it is all about.

Today when I look at this bill, I am so proud of the provisions we included. It strengthens science. It increases transparency. It improves drug safety. Yet it doesn't shackle the FDA.

Let me share the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. In terms of strengthening science, they were very clear and said that science must be strong to protect the public and to keep the best and brightest scientists at FDA. What did we do? No. 1, we created the Office of Chief Scientist at the

FDA. A single scientist will now oversee all of the offices to be sure they have strong scientific guidance from the very top of the agency. This Chief Scientist will work with a strengthened Scientific Advisory Board who will make sure the Commissioner and the Center Directors are getting the best scientific advice. Imagine, the FDA didn't have a chief scientist. We have a chief scientist at the National Space Agency. We should certainly have a chief scientist at the Nation's drug safety agency.

Then we made sure that all new drugs would be reviewed by an Advisory Committee. That means all new drugs will receive a comprehensive review. You might ask: Don't they now? No. Most got an advisory committee review, but under this legislation, there will be an advisory committee review of ALL new drugs to help assure that as a drug moves into clinical practice, it will be as safe as it can be. Remember, the FDA has a job to make sure drugs do two things: are safe and effective. These Advisory Committees will help make sure the drugs do no harm but also make sure they do good.

We also reinforced the ability of scientists at the FDA to publish their scientific papers. One might ask: Can't they now? No. If you work at the FDA, you often can't publish articles unless your boss says it is OK. Imagine that. We are talking about allowing scientists to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This might sound kind of wonky, but it is important to morale. Its important for Scientists who now work at the FDA and important for recruiting new scientists that the FDA desperately needs.

The other actions we took were to improve transparency. Transparency at the FDA is critical, especially throughout the drug approval process where all scientific views, even dissenting ones, should be made public. I added provisions to make sure this will happen. Through language I had incorporated in the bill, we will make summaries of the drug approval process available to the public on the Internet. A summary will be available 48 hours after the drug is approved and the whole drug review package will be publically available within 30 days. If there are dissenting scientific views, they will also be made available as well. If you are a scientist, a researcher, even if you are a consumer, you will be able to know the history of a particular drug and review its approval process. You can learn if there were there flashing lights raised during the approval process about which you can talk to your doctor.

This is big. I know the distinguished presiding Senator was the attorney general for the great State of Colorado. I know he would also be very concerned about protecting proprietary information. This is not going to be about that. It is about safety issues, and they will be made public. We are also going to make sure patients and consumers help to make sure the FDA is communicating well with the public by creating an Advisory Committee on Risk Communication. This is modeled after two committees at the NIH and will facilitate getting FDA's message out to the public.

We also made additional changes that will directly improve drug safety. Throughout the approval process, it is important to include scientists who know how to follow drugs after they are approved. This takes me to one of my most important considerations. This legislation will strengthen the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology to make sure it is part of the drug process from the beginning and all the way through.

This legislation will also generate additional money for drug safety. Provisions in this bill would add $29 million in PDUFA fees and up to an additional $65 million specifically for monitoring drug safety.

In sum, there are about 15 IOM drug safety recommendations we added to this bill. By working together, we have improved safety, we have improved transparency, we have improved morale, and we have improved resources. This is a good bill.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I don't know what you are cranky about. I don't know why you are holding up this bill. I will tell you what I am cranky about. I am real cranky when a drug goes out into clinical practice, and all of a sudden kids have problems. Kids have problems because they are trying to be like other kids. They are taking medication and it triggers something biomedical in their brain and gives them very dark thoughts. We don't want them to do dark things to each other. I am cranky when we have a doctor working in a rural part of my State, who doesn't have the time to read every medical journal but is relying on the fact that the drug he is prescribing to a patient for a heart condition has been approved by the FDA. He relies on the FDA to make sure that drug is as safe and as reliable as that doctor is in his own clinical practice.

I get cranky, real cranky, when we cannot improve drug safety. If we want to talk about that, we have to get back to mission and to purpose. It is the mission of the FDA to stand sentry over our food and drug supply to ensure safety and efficacy. It is incumbent upon us to give them the right policy framework and the right resources. I think we ought to get into action and pass this bill. Let's work together to make sure that when we talk about defending America, we defend Americans by passing this bill.

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

Mr President, this morning I had the honor of saluting members of the Maryland Army National Guard as they departed to begin training for their upcoming deployment to Iraq. The 58th Brigade Combat Team, including the Headquarters Company from Pikesville, MD, the 1st Battalion of the 175th Infantry from Dundalk, MD, and the 1st Squadron of the 158th Cavalry Regiment, are leaving their families and communities to answer our Nation's call. As the Senator from Maryland and the Senator for Maryland, I have promised them that I will do everything I can to support them while they are on the battlefield, help care for their families while they are gone, and ensure they have the medical care, education, and job training benefits they need when they return.

I support the conference report on the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill because it will help us keep our promises to America's citizen soldiers and their families. Unfortunately, President Bush continues to threaten to veto this bill. I hope it will not come to that. I

urge the President to work with this Congress to meet the pressing needs of our men and women in uniform.

I support this emergency supplemental bill because it: Fully funds the needs of our warfighters on the battlefield; adds $466 million to ensure veterans get health care they need when they come home; and requires the President to immediately change our mission in Iraq; and sets the goal of bringing our troops home by no later than April 1, 2008.

This bill states clearly that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect our troops. Our troops must understand that Congress will never abandon them, not while they are fighting on the battlefield and not when they come home. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home--swiftly and safely.

I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war, 4 years ago, on October 11, 2002. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the United Nations U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the threat from Saddam. The day of the vote, I said, we don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know: When we got to Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.

The United States went to war with Iraq, but today, we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there, mired in a civil war. No one could ask more of our troops. They are brave and courageous and have fought valiantly. And it is time to bring them home.

We need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gives us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward, but the President has completely ignored this report. Surely out of 79 recommendations, there are 50 we can agree on. The Iraq Study Group report calls for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to enable the United States to begin to move our forces out of Iraq responsibly. It provides a direction for the U.S. and Iraqi Governments to follow that could lead to withdrawal of American forces by the first quarter of 2008.

This is exactly the approach called for by this supplemental bill, which will have most of our troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What are we voting for? This bill contains a binding resolution that directs the President to promptly transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and begin a phased redeployment within 120 days. It sets a goal of bringing U.S. combat forces home by April 1, 2008, except for a limited number of troops essential for force protection, training, and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter terror operations.

This resolution also says success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi Government's ability to meet important benchmarks, including the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces so they can control the capitol city of Baghdad; giving Iraqi military commanders the authority to conduct operations without political interference; disarming sectarian militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are loyal to Iraq's Government; drafting and implementing legislation to ensure the equal division of Iraqi oil revenues; drafting and implementing legislation to reform the debaathification process; implementing a fair process for amending the Iraqi constitution to ensure minority rights are protected; and implementing new rules to protect minority rights in the Iraqi Parliament.

I support this Iraq resolution. It says what the Iraq Study Group has already told us: the problems in Iraq cannot be solved by the U.S. military--they require a political solution by the Iraqis and diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It says Congress and the American people will not only support the troops but continue to protect them as well.

I want to end this war, and the resolution in this bill will do just that. Yet in ending the war, it is my responsibility as a Senator to ensure that our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. I will not vote to end funding for the pay that supports military spouses and children, body armor and armored humvees our troops need for survival, tourniquets and surgical hospitals on the battlefield, jet fuel for the airplanes that take injured troops from Baghdad to Germany and then home, or the medical care they need when they get here.

In the last few weeks, we have all been shocked and awed by the conditions facing our wounded warriors. We know that more than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. Yet our troops are being twice wounded. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding, with historic rates of survival from even the most brutal battlefield injuries. Yet, while we have saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system is dysfunctional.

This supplemental includes an additional $20 million to improve conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and an additional $900 million for research and treatment of traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorder, and other physical and mental trauma. It also adds $466 million for veterans' health care, including $53 million for new polytrauma facilities and services, $10 million for 100 additional caseworkers to aid troops and their families as they transition from active duty, $25 million for prosthetic research and $120 million for mental health treatment.

We know this is only a downpayment for our troops and veterans. We need to overhaul the disability benefits system that is outdated and adversarial. We need a better system for transitioning our troops from active duty to the Veterans' Administration, to ensure they get the health care, job training, and educational benefits they deserve. We need to hear the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on how to fix the problems in our military and veterans hospitals. And I look forward to working with Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and Senator Inouye on a comprehensive reform package that will ensure our troops have the medical care they will need for the rest of their lives.

This supplemental supports our troops, follows the will of the American people, and follows the advice of the Iraq Study Group. It is time to change our direction in Iraq and bring our forces home. Let's send in the diplomats and bring our troops home safely and soon.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Lamar Alexander, and Majority Leader Harry Reid for their efforts to move this issue. I am so proud of this great bipartisan team of 54 Senators working to pass this bill. I can't say enough about the appreciation that many of us in the Senate feel about my colleagues' initiation of the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which is the basis for this legislation, the America COMPETES Act.

America must remain an innovation economy. This legislation creates the building blocks that we need for a smarter America. Our Nation is in an amazing race--the race for discovery and new knowledge, the race to remain competitive and to foster an innovation society, to create new ideas that lead to new breakthroughs, new products, and new jobs, the innovations that have the power to save lives, create prosperity and protect the homeland, the innovation to make America safer, stronger, and smarter.

This legislation is called the America COMPETES Act or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science. It is divided into three sections: research, education and innovation. It calls for getting new ideas by doubling Federal funding for research at the National Science Foundation and establishing the Innovation Acceleration Research Program to fund frontier research like testing new theories and using new research methods; getting the best minds with scholarships for future math and science teachers, including $10,000 scholarships from the National Science Foundation for undergraduate students majoring in math or science along with teacher certification; and establishing a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation and competitiveness in the public and private sectors.

Why is this so important? Because a country that doesn't innovate, stagnates. The whole foundation of American culture and economy is based on the concept of discovery and innovation. That is part of our culture. When you look at what has made America a superpower, it is our innovation and our technology. We have to look at where the new ideas are going to come from that are going to generate the new products and workforce for the 21st century.

I want America to win the Nobel Prizes and the markets. This legislation will help to set the framework. It will make sure that we're helping our young people with scholarships and helping our science teachers and those working in science with funding and research opportunities. We also are forming partnerships with the private sector and building an innovation-friendly Government.

The very essence of our culture is innovation and discovery. Remember we got here because someone wanted to discover. When Lewis and Clark set out on their expedition, it wasn't the National Geographic Society, to find a trail to the Pacific--it was called the Corps of Discovery. That is who we are. That is what our culture is, and that is what we need to maintain.

We are a nation of explorers and pioneers always searching for new frontiers. The next generation of pioneers, engineers, and scientists is out there. They will help us create jobs and win the markets. Most importantly, they will help us win the amazing race. I will use my position as chair of the subcommittee that funds science to make sure that there is money in the Federal checkbook to support these proposals, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak with some great urgency on the need to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, S. 5.

We must pass this bill because if we do not, the American people will continue to suffer, our brilliant researchers will be discouraged and think about leaving the field of scientific research and, No. 3, we are also outsourcing our intellectual capital because other research is going overseas.

We have to have a sense of urgency because stem cell research takes a long time. We cannot have science on demand or scientists on demand. If we do not act now, we are going to be discouraging very important research and wonderful young people from going into this field.

Every year we wait, we fall 3 years behind in our research--another time where a patient might have been saved, a family might not have had to watch a loved one suffer, and also where we would not have to watch our great ideas going somewhere else.

Stem cell research is very important to the American people. It is very important to Maryland. It is very important to me. I am a firm, clear, unabashed supporter of expanded stem cell research and, at the same time, that this research be conducted under the strictest bioethical standards. That is why I like S. 5. This legislation is based on sound cellular biology science and also good, sound ethical principles.

This legislation is so important not because legislation is important but because it opens more opportunity to do stem cell research. What does that mean? It means that currently the existing law under President Bush restricts stem cell research to adult cells, to some vague 21 lines that are becoming tired and toxic. But under our legislation, it would open it up to embryonic stem cell research where embryos are garnered that are discarded in in vitro processes in which the donors themselves have to make that informed choice.

What does this do, though? Well, I will tell you, stem cell research is the kind of research that could find a cure for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, diseases of the brain and the immune system, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injury. Imagine if scientists could find a cure for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or if they cannot find a cure, to be able to regenerate new kinds of brain cells to give people a cognitive or functioning stretchout. Think about the impact on families, but also think about the impact on our nursing home budget.

Think about research in juvenile diabetes, type 1 diabetes, where little children, every day--whether they are 5 or 9 or 11--have to be testing their blood sugar. They cannot eat the way other kids do. They have to watch how they pace themselves when they play ball or do other things so they do not induce hypoglycemia. As they get older and their cells get even more tired, they fear they could lose a kidney or lose their eyesight.

If we could find more breakthroughs in juvenile diabetes, we would give them their childhood back. We would give them a life that has a future full of promise. That is why we are fighting here. It is not about ideology. It is not about party. It is about our American people. And what we invent here could help save lives everywhere.

Yesterday, I went to Johns Hopkins University to discuss this stem cell research. I wanted to be sure I was on the right track: sound science, good, solid ethical frameworks. I said to the scientists: Tell me what you are doing and tell me what impedes you now working under the Bush framework?

Well, they gave me an earful. First, it is inspirational-- inspirational--in what they are doing in pediatric leukemia, in juvenile diabetes, in multiple sclerosis. Also, to give an example, in talking to Dr. Doug Kerr, he is working now through stem cells--yes, it is with paralyzed rats--to not only regenerate the spinal cord but to have those cells connect to muscle so not only for whether you are regenerating spinal cords that have been injured or severed, but also to connect the muscle so you could walk again. That was the dream of Christopher Reeve. But that is the dream of every paraplegic right now--whether it has come from a diving accident, if you are an athlete, or whether you have been injured in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Don't we want Dr. Kerr to do what he is doing now and to be able to extend that? But they do not get the clinical

trials because they are restricted in the types of cells they can use.

So we saw a cornucopia, again, of opportunity there. But I said to the docs at Hopkins: Why can't we do this with private or State funds? They said: Senator Mikulski, you have to have a national framework. First, that is where you get your bioethical guidelines. It is done not while there is one set of guidelines for States that can afford research and that there is another set of guidelines for those States that can't. Also, there is not enough in private philanthropic funds to be able to do this.

Private funds function like venture capital. But at the same time, what happens with States? Maryland is now in a bidding war with our $25 million against California. We have scientists who are leaving Maryland to go to California. Hats off to them. But also, then, we have scientists in Maryland and California who are leaving the country because they can do work in Sweden or Singapore that they cannot do in their own country. These are American scientists who want to do their own work in their own country. But we are driving them out with our narrow-minded ideological sense of politicizing science.

So we cannot do this with State funds, and we cannot do it with private funds. As I said, right now we are outsourcing this to China, to Singapore, to Australia, to Germany. I am not saying there are good countries or not good countries, but what are we doing? We are losing our intellectual capital. We are also losing our young scientists.

Yesterday, I talked to a young doctor. I knew him as a resident. His wife was a friend of a friend of mine. I knew him through his residency. Now he is a young doctor, married, with three children. His whole field is diabetes. He is so eager to do this juvenile diabetic research. He has already started it. He is already good at it. Gosh, maybe he could win the Nobel prize one day. But guess what. There is not the money for the young scientist. Also, with the very shackling of what goes on now in these so-called Bush lines, with these ideological guidelines, they cannot do the research. He has to think hard about whether he wants to continue his life dream of finding a cure for juvenile diabetes.

You see, this man has devoted his life to getting ready to do this, and now his own Government is stopping him--not because he is not smart, not because we do not have the will, but because we have too much ideology and too little money in the wallet.

We have a President who has given us a framework where research has one hand behind its back. Scientists have been prohibited from doing new stem cell research.

Six years ago, the President restricted Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. What did it do? It created an unregulated atmosphere. The result was federally funded stem cell research was halted almost entirely. Stem cell research was done by private entities. A private entity has no Federal bioethical standards.

Mr. President, like you, I am a sunshine person. I believe you should have research conducted in the sunshine. That is where you have compliance with bioethical standards. That is why we need to have the kind of national framework where everybody goes by the same rules, at the same time, in the same way. Without national standards, research will be done by the well-heeled, outside of the public eye, with no national scrutiny. This is where I fear dark and ghoulish things can occur.

I acknowledge the validity of some of the concerns raised by colleagues. But as long as you shove it underground, as long as you shove it behind closed doors, then you are going to get either faulty research or very bad ethics.

I believe the legislation pending will remove the restrictions imposed by the President. It will provide the ethical and medical framework we need for federally funded stem cell research. It will create strong ethical guidelines. Most of all, it will ensure that we now open the opportunity for even greater and more expanded stem cell research so scientists will now have access to new, fresh stem cell lines which they now do not.

What does it mean? Well, I can tell you what it means. It means for the United States of America we have heard what the voters said in November. They said: Change the direction of the country. Change the priorities. Come back home, America. Remember what America is. We are the land of the free, the home of the brave, and of discovery. Let's go for it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the passage of H.R. 1132, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Reauthorization Act of 2007, a program that the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and I have worked closely to reauthorize. H.R. 1132, like our companion bill S. 624, reauthorizes the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The legislation authorizes increased funding for this program to $275 million over 5 years and provides States with greater flexibility to reach priority, hard to reach populations including women living in rural areas and racial and ethnic minorities.

Senator Hutchison and I would like to clarify with the chairman and ranking member the intent of the new waiver demonstration project. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a waiver demonstration project that will allow States to leverage nonFederal funds for breast and cervical cancer screening and follow-up services, reduce barriers to screening, and increase the number of women served. Non-Federal funds for breast and cervical cancer services/activities are available in some States through State or local government sources and private sources. Leveraging these non-Federal funds will augment limited available Federal funding and thus enable the efficient and effective utilization of resources to provide education and outreach to screen more women. It is Congress's intent that the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, will administer the described demonstration project as part of its overall management of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Program.

Mr. President, during the last election, the American people spoke loud and clear: they want a new direction in Iraq. In my own state of Maryland, I have heard from a strong grassroots movement-- they want Congress to act now to end this war. I will vote for this emergency supplemental bill because it: fully funds the needs of our warfighters on the battlefield; adds $454 million to ensure veterans get the health care they need when they come home; requires the President to immediately change our mission in Iraq; and sets the goal of bringing our troops home by March 31, 2008.

This bill states clearly that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect our troops. Our troops must understand that Congress will never abandon them: not while they are fighting on the battlefield and not when they come home. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home--swiftly and safely.

I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war, 4 years ago, on October 11, 2002. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the United Nations, U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the threat from Saddam. The day of the vote, I said, we don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know: when we got to Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.

The United States went to war with Iraq, but today we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there, mired in a civil war. No one could ask more of our troops. They are brave and courageous and have fought valiantly. And it is time to bring them home.

We need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward, but the President has completely ignored this report. Surely out of 79 recommendations, there are 50 we can agree on. The Iraq Study Group report calls for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to enable the United States to begin to move our forces out of Iraq responsibly. It provides a direction for the U.S. and Iraqi governments to follow that could lead to withdrawal of American forces by first quarter of 2008.

This is exactly the approach called for by this supplemental bill, which will have most of our troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What are we voting for? This bill contains a binding resolution that directs the President to promptly transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and begin a phased redeployment within 120 days. It sets a goal of bringing U.S. combat forces home by March 31, 2008, except for a limited number of troops essential for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterror operations. It also requires the President to develop a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy for Iraq, including greater U.S. engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to work together to bring stability to Iraq.

This resolution also says success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi Government's ability to meet important benchmarks, including: the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces so they can control the capital city of Baghdad; giving Iraqi military commanders the authority to conduct operations without political interference; disarming sectarian militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are loyal to Iraq's Government; drafting and implementing

legislation to ensure the equal division of Iraqi oil revenues; drafting and implementing legislation to reform the de-Ba'athification process; implementing a fair process for amending the Iraqi Constitution to ensure minority rights are protected; and implementing new rules to protect minority rights in the Iraqi Parliament.

I support this Iraq resolution. It says what the Iraq Study Group has already told us: the problems in Iraq cannot be solved by the U.S. military--they require a political solution by the Iraqis and diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It says Congress and the American people will not only support the troops but continue to protect them as well.

I want to end this war, and the resolution in this bill will do just that. Yet in ending the war, it is my responsibility as a Senator to ensure that our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. I will not vote to end funding for the pay that supports military spouses and children; body armor and armored humvee's our troops need for survival; tourniquets and surgical hospitals on the battlefield; jet fuel for the airplanes that take injured troops from Baghdad to Germany and then home; or the medical care they need when they get here.

In the last few weeks, we have all been shocked and awed by the conditions facing our wounded warriors. We know that more than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. Yet our troops are being twice wounded. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding, with historic rates of survival from even the most brutal battlefield injuries. Yet while we have saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system is dysfunctional.

I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd for their leadership in providing funding in this bill for military and veterans' health care. This supplemental includes an additional $20 million to improve conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and an additional $100 million for research and treatment of traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other physical and mental trauma. It also adds $454 million for veterans health care, including $73 million for new polytrauma facilities and services and $100 million for mental health treatment.

We know this is only a downpayment for our troops and veterans. We need to overhaul the disability benefits system that is outdated and adversarial. We need a better system for transitioning our troops from active duty to the Veterans Administration to ensure they get the health care, job training, and educational benefits they deserve. We need to hear the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on how to fix the problems in our military and veterans' hospitals. And I look forward to working with Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and Senator Inouye on a comprehensive reform package that will ensure our troops have the medical care they will need for the rest of their lives.

This supplemental supports our troops, follows the will of the American people, and follows the advice of the Iraq Study Group. It is time to change our direction in Iraq and bring our forces home. Let's send in the diplomats and bring our troops home safely and soon.

Mr. President, what is the floor situation?

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself approximately 10 minutes.

First, I wish to respond for a few minutes to my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, the Republican whip. We have been in session less than 70 days. We have already been spending more time on legislation than the Congress led by the other party last year. Last year, we were in session less time than the Maryland General Assembly. We only voted 108 days.

Now we have been in session 70 days. We have had a robust work schedule. Our colleagues in the House have passed significant legislation. What takes them 1 day takes us 2 weeks. It takes us 2 weeks not only because parliamentarily and constitutionally we are the more deliberative body, but at the same time it has been the obstructionist tactics of the other party that has prevented us from being able to move our legislation.

Nevertheless, thanks to the determination of our majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, we have been able to pass ethics reform. The American people wanted us to clean up our own act before we cleaned up Government and, man, have the Republicans left us a lot to clean up: the Walter Reed scandal, the Attorney General scandal, the national security letter scandal--scandal after scandal after scandal. We came saying we weren't going to be seeking investigations, but now their reckless incompetency is forcing us to do that.

Then we pushed to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It has been 5\1/2\ years since the dastardly attack on the World Trade Center, and it has taken us forever to implement these recommendations.

So when the other party criticizes us for not doing the people's business, maybe if they get out of the way with their obstructionist tactics and let us move ahead with an agenda that is bipartisan, we can get the job done.

Too often, when all is said and done within the Senate, more gets said than gets done. So before people throw rocks, remember those who live in a glass house might end up being shattered to bits themselves.

Let us do our work. Every time we turn around, Harry Reid has to file another cloture motion. Why? Because they threaten filibuster. So, hello, don't criticize us.

Mr. President, let's get on with this micromanaging the war business. Maybe if the administration was micromanaging the war, we wouldn't be here today. They said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe if they had micromanaged the intelligence community, we wouldn't even have gone into Iraq in the first place.

No. 2, they said, We are ready to go. If Mr. Rumsfeld had micromanaged the U.S. military, maybe we would have had enough troops. Maybe if they had micromanaged the war, they would have had enough body armor. Maybe if they had micromanaged the system, we wouldn't have the scandal at Walter Reed. Maybe if they had micromanaged, we wouldn't have this horrific backlog at VA. They are the ones who should have been micromanaging the war, and if they can't do it, they need to get out of the way and let us pass our resolution.

The distinguished whip from the other party said he wants us to finish by sundown. We would like to sunset the war. That is what we would like to do. It is time for our troops to come home, and it is time for us to bring them home swiftly. But we have a moral obligation and a constitutional obligation to bring them home safely. This is why I support the Reid resolution. This resolution states clearly that the Congress and the American people support our troops. Yet, at the same time, we are saying bring the troops home by March 31, 2008. Unlike the reckless incompetency that got us into the war, we are following the guidelines of the Iraq Study Group, wise heads who pondered some of the best ways to a new way forward.

The Reid resolution sets a framework and a time line for doing what needs to be done and assuring our troops that we honor their service, and we are

going to protect them on the battlefield. We are going to make sure they have the resources to do the job, and when they come back home, we want to be sure they have health care and they have jobs and they have job training.

I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been a leader in making sure that when our troops come home, they have job training, and I thank him for that.

I am not new to this position on the war. I never wanted to go to war in the first place, not because I am a pacifist--and I respect those who are--but I read that national intelligence report; I am on the Intelligence Committee. I had very grave suspicions about the level of weapons of mass destruction Saddam had. But I also believed it was the U.N.'s job to go to Iraq and do the work that the U.N. was supposed to do.

I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to engage in a preemptive attack just because he said we were in imminent danger. I wish he had micromanaged that a bit. Maybe we wouldn't have had to go. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options, and I encouraged the administration at that time: Please, stick with the U.N. so the U.N. can meet its responsibility to deal with the Saddam threat. I said we shouldn't go on our own and we should work with the U.N. and the international community.

The day of the vote when I spoke, I said I didn't know what lies ahead. I didn't know if our troops would be greeted with flowers or with landmines. Go to Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital and talk to those coming home from Iraq. You know what we got. When we got there, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but destruction sure happened.

After 4 years of fighting, are we better off in Iraq? The United States went to war with Iraq, now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, we are still there, and now we are in a civil war. It is time for us to come home, and it is time for us to come home following the Iraq Study Group recommendations.

We need a new way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 recommendations. Surely, we could agree on 50. If the administration wasn't being so isolated and so rigid, they would know it is time to engage in the international community, that it is always better to send in the diplomats before we send in the troops. Let's send in the diplomats so we can bring our troops back home.

The Iraq Study Group calls for enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and outside Iraq. It provides a direction for the U.S. Government and the Iraqi Government to follow that would bring our forces home by the first quarter of 2008. That is what the Reid resolution calls for.

The Reid resolution sets a goal of bringing all U.S. combat forces home by March 31, 2008, except for limited numbers of troops for force protection, training of the Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism operations. It would begin a phased redeployment within 4 months after the passage of this legislation. But it also develops a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy. Finally, this resolution requires the President to report to Congress within 60 days.

That is why we support this resolution. Are we micromanaging? No, but I wish the administration, as I said, had micromanaged the war. We wouldn't be in the debacle we are in now.

I support the Reid resolution because I believe what the Iraq Study Group said, that the Iraq problems cannot now be solved with a military solution, no matter how brave, no matter how smart. It requires a political solution by the Iraqis and a diplomatic solution with Iraq's neighbors. It says the Congress and the American people will not just support the troops, but protect them.

I want this war to end, and I believe this Reid resolution will do that. Yet, in ending the war, it is my responsibility to ensure our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely.

Mr. President, I have had sit-ins in my office four times during the last 3 weeks. Four times, people have come to my office to sit in. Some come to protest, some come to get arrested, but all have a right to speak out. They want me to vote against the spending for the war. Well, there is no way a responsible Senator can vote against spending. There is no one line item that says: War, yes or no. That is not the way the supplemental works. That is not the way the defense budget works. That is not the way our entire budget works. There is no vote that says: War, yes or no.

So I won't vote for defunding the war. I say to the protestors--I say to those well-intentioned liberal activists--know that we are on your side, but what are you asking us to vote against? Do you want us to vote against the pay for the soldiers and for their spouses and for their children? I won't vote against their benefits. What do you want us to vote against--the bullets and what they need to fight? I won't vote against that. Do you want us to vote against the body armor and the armored humvees they need for survival? I won't vote against that.

What if they are injured? One of the things that save their lives on the battlefields is the tourniquet. I won't cut off the money for the tourniquets. I want them to have the tourniquets to cut off the hemorrhaging on the battlefields. When they come out of there, there is the jet fuel that gets them on the medevac from Baghdad to Germany to Walter Reed and Bethesda. We will clean up Walter Reed, and we will fix Bethesda Naval Hospital, but they have to get here. When they get here, they need medical care. Hats off to acute medical care.

Now we need outpatient care. Now we need long-term care for the 50 years or so these men and women will have the need for it. We have had 22,000 people receive Purple Hearts in Iraq, and more have been injured than we will ever know or we will know years from now. So I can't vote against funding.

I tell all who are listening that you can sit in every single day, you can follow me throughout my Senate career, you can follow me to my grave--I will not vote to in any way harm the U.S. men and women in the military, nor will I cut off the support for help to their families. If you want to picket, you want to protest, you want to disrupt my life, better my life is disrupted than the lives of these men and women in uniform.

I am going to support this Reid resolution because I believe it helps bring the war to an honorable end, but at the same time, we are going to support our troops. It is time to stop the finger-pointing, and it is time to pinpoint a new way forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to one of Baltimore's great civic leaders, Walter Sondheim, Jr. If ever there was a statesman from Baltimore, it was Walter Sondheim. From the time I entered public life in 1971, his name was synonymous with integrity, public purpose and civic leadership, and he was the most self-effacing public figure I ever met.

Perhaps Walter Sondheim's most unique talent was his ability to manage transitions. Whether in business, in the community or in his own personal life, Walter knew when to hold them and when to fold them. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Walter recognized the evolution in Baltimore's economic base from heavy industry and manufacturing to tourism, service and technology. He championed a new vision of public land use and architectural excellence when he shepherded the Renaissance of Baltimore and the creation of the present day Inner Harbor. He challenged the business community to look forward and prepare for the service economy and the explosion of technology related businesses that was being driven by our major universities and federal scientific facilities.

In the larger community, Walter Sondheim led us from the darkness of

segregation and into the vision illuminated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Where other communities hesitated or procrastinated, as president of the Board of School Commissioners for Baltimore City, he forged ahead to implement this milestone ruling long before other cities around the Nation. The result was a speedy, thoughtful, considered integration of the public schools.

In his own personal life, Walter Sondheim transitioned from his early life as a businessman with one of Baltimore's premiere department stores to the leader of a number of influential civic and business organizations. With grace and purpose, he carefully released himself from old roles and embraced new opportunities. He never looked backward, only forward. He did not fear new ideas. Whatever challenge he chose to address, he was always the right man in the right place at the right time.

Finally, Walter Sondheim was never threatened by other talented people. Indeed, he encouraged young leadership and new faces in the crowd. For this young protestor, who found herself in an elected position inside City Hall, he had nothing but words of encouragement and offers of assistance. He knew that civic leadership was comprised not only of traditional groups, but also of the sweat equity crowd that desired change. He always welcomed new energy and new points of view. Walter remained unburdened by convention and the status quo his entire life long.

I ask that a Baltimore Sun article on the life and contributions of Walter Sondheim be printed in the Record.

The material follows:

[From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 15, 2007]

Walter Sondheim Jr.: 1908-2007--He Was Sage Adviser, Key Figure in

City's Growth

Through 6 decades, they called upon Walter Sondheim Jr.

When Baltimore mayors, Maryland governors and other civic

leaders needed sage advice, inevitably they sought it from a

man widely admired for integrity and uncommon warmth and

graciousness.

Mr. Sondheim died at 10 a.m. Thursday of pneumonia at Mercy

Medical Center. He was 98, and until last week he worked

every day at his office at the Greater Baltimore Committee.

Mr. Sondheim had a gift for nudging people toward grand

accomplishments, often to the surpassing benefit of Baltimore

and the state beyond. He earned his livelihood as a

department store executive, but his legacy can be found in

sweeping civic movements.

As president of the Baltimore school board in 1954, Mr.

Sondheim insisted--though other cities stalled--on the speedy

desegregation of Baltimore schools after the U.S. Supreme

Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. As a leader of

the city's downtown development agency, he coaxed his

colleagues into carefully controlled planning of the Inner

Harbor. He headed the state panel that promoted regular

testing of students. He disdained anything but the highest

ethical standards in business and government.

``It's hard to imagine God having created a better person

than Walter Sondheim,'' said Robert C. Embry Jr., the city's

former housing commissioner and now president of the Abell

Foundation.

Accolades poured in from the many leaders Mr. Sondheim

counseled throughout the decades.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, who ordered state flags to be flown

at half-staff, said Mr. Sondheim ``wasn't shy about reaching

out'' to him with advice when Mr. O'Malley was mayor.

``If there was one enduring quality about Walter Sondheim,

it was he had an unrelenting optimism about human nature,''

Mr. O'Malley said Thursday night.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin said, ``Whether it was integration

of the city schools or the redevelopment of Baltimore, he was

certainly well ahead of his time.''

William Donald Schaefer, the former governor and mayor who

worked closely with Mr. Sondheim on many civic improvement

efforts, called his death ``a tremendous loss,'' describing

Mr. Sondheim as one of the smartest and kindest men he knew.

``Integrity. I've never known a man with so much integrity

in my life,'' Mr. Schaefer said. ``He would not sanction

anything that was not right.''

During nearly a century of life, Mr. Sondheim crossed paths

with many celebrated personages of his day. His favorite

portrait of his late wife, Janet, was taken by the famed

photographer Dorothea Lange. His children were delivered by

Dr. Alan Guttmacher, a Johns Hopkins obstetrician-

gynecologist who was one of the pioneers in the field of

reproductive health. His brother-in-law was Richard Neustadt,

a Harvard political scientist and the founder of the

university's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Linked to history

His life was also intimately entwined with the history of

Baltimore. He knew H.L. Mencken, who was a friend of Mr.

Sondheim's father. His parents were married a week before the

Great Baltimore Fire of 1904, which destroyed much of the

downtown business district.

A droll and charming raconteur, Mr. Sondheim would recount

for friends that when his parents returned from their

honeymoon to the still-smoking Baltimore, his father told his

mother that the fire of their love had engulfed the city.

But beyond the stories was a remarkable record of

achievement in reshaping the city. Mr. Schaefer said the

Science Center, Harborplace and Charles Center--among other

projects--are ``all monuments to Walter.''

Through it all, Mr. Sondheim was self-effacing, often

protesting his aversion to the spotlight. ``I'm not sure how

I've gotten involved in the variety of things referred to

here today,'' he said in 1975 when the Advertising Club of

Baltimore gave him its Man of the Year Award. ``One

factor, of course, is just being around for so many years.

My good, long-suffering, strangely faithful wife is clear

about the fact that I'm just weak-kneed and haven't the

courage to say `no.'

``Personally, I lean to the theory, expressed by a friend

of mine, that there are some jobs only a damned fool will do,

and if you're one, you have an obligation to accept such an

assignment when it's offered to you.''

People who knew Mr. Sondheim dismissed such talk.

He was a man of great affability who, until the end,

delighted in juicy gossip and laughter.''

Everybody wanted him at their parties,'' Mr. Cardin said.

``You don't get many people in their late 90s that everybody

wants to be around. He was one of a kind.''

Freeman A. Hrabowski III, president of the University of

Maryland, Baltimore County and a longtime close friend, said

he was thinking back Thursday to something Mr. Sondheim told

him 20 years ago.

``He said, `Freeman , live life seriously, but don't take

it seriously. You do your best, and then you laugh,' and that

was Walter,'' Mr. Hrabowski said.

Mr. Sondheim performed a vital role as a link between the

region's businessmen and William Donald Schaefer when he was

a city councilman, mayor, governor and later state

comptroller.

The two men met when a young Mr. Schaefer chaired a City

Council committee on urban renewal.

``He would walk into the City Council, and it was like the

Lord walked in,'' Mr. Schaefer said. ``You would never think

of challenging Walter.''

State Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp said that while Mr. Sondheim

deeply admired Mr. Schaefer, he never hesitated to speak his

mind to the mercurial politician.

``He was never reluctant to tell Schaefer he was making

mistakes,'' Ms. Kopp said.

C. Fraser Smith, a former Sun reporter who wrote a

biography of Mr. Schaefer, described an incident in which the

two men were flying to Germany to receive an honor on behalf

of the city.

Mr. Sondheim, the story goes, took advantage of the

opportunity to admonish the mayor over his gruff treatment of

people. Why are you so mean to people? Mr. Sondheim asked.

After stewing a long time, Mr. Schaefer demanded to know whom

he had treated badly.

``Why don't you look in the phone book?'' Mr. Sondheim

replied.

Once pressed to explain his skills in dealing with people,

Mr. Sondheim allowed that he possessed an ability to listen

to others, the patience to find a workable compromise when

confronted with controversial points of view, and the gift of

being able to put himself in someone else's position.

He then added: ``Liking people is not as important as

understanding people. This is a skill that is not born; it's

trained. You can't be judgmental about somebody with whom you

don't agree.''

Mr. Sondheim was born in his father's house on Bolton

Street on July 25, 1908, an era of gaslights and streetcars.

He recalled for a 2003 Sun article that the family passed

summers in the cooler climate of a rented home in Pikesville.

One summer, his father said he couldn't join the family; when

they returned to Bolton Hill, they found that the elder Mr.

Sondheim had spent the time having electric power installed.

Barred from some of the city's elite schools because he was

Jewish, Mr. Sondheim attended Park School, becoming a member

of one of its first classes. He went on to Haverford College

in Pennsylvania, from which he graduated in 1929, and went to

work for the Hochschild, Kohn department store, where his

father worked. Mr. Sondheim would later chalk up his job to

``nepotism.''

In 1934, he married Janet Blum of Berkeley, Calif., who had

been a dancer with the Denishawn Company. He had proposed to

her in a speakeasy. They had two children, John W. Sondheim

and Ellen Dankert, both of Baltimore.

Mrs. Sondheim, who later became a teacher, died in 1992.

Mr. Sondheim's death came on what would have been their 73rd

wedding anniversary.

Even at a young age, Mr. Sondheim was interested in race

relations at a time when few white Baltimoreans questioned

segregation as a bedrock principle. He served on the board of

the Baltimore Urban League during the 1930s.

``It was really a segregated city,'' Mr. Sondheim recalled

in a 1995 interview. ``I

worked at Hochschild, Kohn's. We waited on African-Americans

but on an all-sales-final basis. People couldn't return

things, they couldn't eat in the restaurants, and they were

only employed in menial capacities. The fact that blacks were

not treated as full citizens as customers was a major issue

with both the Urban League and the NAACP.''

Mr. Sondheim said he worked within the company to change

the practice. ``I was terribly unhappy and embarrassed,'' he

said during a 2003 trial in which he testified about the

history of discrimination in Baltimore.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sondheim rose to the position of store

manager at Hochschild's and held that post for five years

until, in 1942, he was appointed director of the United

States Employment Service for Maryland, an agency

responsible for transferring people from nonessential jobs

to war work.

The following year, he joined the Navy and was commissioned

a lieutenant. He was stationed in Cleveland and, when asked

about his war service, loved to say he had protected the

Great Lakes from Axis invasion. He served until 1946. With

the war over, he returned to Hochschild, Kohn.

Mr. Sondheim's name and reputation came to the attention of

Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. in 1948 when he was looking for

someone to fill a vacancy in what was then considered ``the

Jewish seat'' on the school board. Mr. Sondheim accepted the

job and served on the board for the next nine years.

Though Mr. Sondheim seldom dwelled on the discrimination he

personally encountered, he took the appointment at a time

when anti-Semitism was pervasive in the United States in

general and Baltimore in particular.

In the 2003 discrimination trial at which he testified, Mr.

Sondheim recounted that his family was once blocked from

buying a house in Roland Park when the seller found out the

Sondheims were Jewish. He also testified that the elite

downtown clubs that served the business establishment also

barred Jews--a barrier that led to the formation of the

Center Club. But when some organizers of that club proposed

that it exclude blacks, Mr. Sondheim and several others

withdrew their applications. The rule was dropped.

Fateful decision

It was while Mr. Sondheim was president of the school board

that the city decided in May 1954 to desegregate its schools

in response to the Supreme Court's decision.

Baltimore became the first school district south of the

Mason-Dixon line to respond to the Supreme Court's unanimous,

landmark ruling outlawing ``separate but equal'' education

for blacks and whites.

Integration here was accomplished with relatively little

tension compared with events in other cities, and the process

was hailed as a signal achievement at the time.

But it did not come entirely without resistance. On one

occasion, an opponent of desegregation burned a cross on Mr.

Sondheim's Windsor Hills lawn. But Mr. Sondheim would play

down the incident, telling friends that the cross was puny

and the fire hardly got started.

``He wouldn't back off,'' Mr. Schaefer said. ``He wouldn't

step aside. He wouldn't do anything except what was right.''

In 1958, Morgan State awarded Mr. Sondheim an honorary

degree. He accepted his honor alongside the Rev. Martin

Luther King Jr., who received the same honor from the school

that day, according to state archivist Edward C. Papenfuse

Jr.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sondheim declined to count school

desegregation as one of his achievements--noting that 50

years later most African-American students attend schools

that are almost entirely black. He would tell listeners that

while he and others desegregated the schools, they didn't

succeed in integrating them.

Mr. Sondheim's next major task in the life of the city came

in 1957 when he was named head of the newly created Baltimore

Urban Renewal and Housing Authority, which brought together a

number of agencies charged with handling the city's public

housing program.

He said he had no advanced knowledge of public housing--

other than having lived with Mrs. Sondheim and their children

in a Cleveland public housing project when he was in the

Navy--but he started to learn.

The learning process coincided with the city's initial

commitment to downtown renewal, spurred by the GBC, an

organization of prominent citizens determined to prevent the

area from deteriorating. In his role as housing authority

chief and as a member of the GBC, he helped launch the first

renewal project, Charles Center.

The year was 1963. His civic responsibilities, added to his

work at the department store, overwhelmed him. He resigned as

head of the housing authority to devote more time to

retailing but remained involved in less demanding civic

enterprises.

In 1970, Mr. Sondheim decided to take early retirement from

the department store, where he had risen to the post of

senior vice president and treasurer, and started a second

career with the quasi-public Charles Center-Inner Harbor

Management organization that was transforming the city's

skyline and attracting national attention from urban

planners.

The new post became a full-time job, but he also was called

upon to serve as director of the Baltimore Urban Coalition,

chairman of the board of Goucher College and a member,

trustee or director of such organizations as Mercy and Sinai

hospitals, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. and the

Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

However, Mr. Sondheim decided in May 1989 to shed some of

these responsibilities.

After 15 years as chairman of Charles Center-Inner Harbor

Management, where he worked for $1 a year, he announced his

resignation. At the same time, he stepped down as president

of Charles Street Management Corp. and Market Center

Development Corp., two agencies that helped direct

development of other parts of downtown.

``I think that people can stay too long on some jobs,'' he

said when announcing his retirement.

Soon he settled into an office at the GBC, where he took

the title of senior adviser. His work ethic never flagged.

When snow prompted other staff members to leave the office

early, Mr. Sondheim, who lived nearby in a condominium at

Harbor View, would take over the job of answering phones.

Asked once why he never joined in the white flight out of

the city, Mr. Sondheim replied: ``What I learned early on is

cutting grass is not as good as walking pavement.''

Two years after taking senior status at the GBC, Mr.

Sondheim was appointed by Mr. Schaefer to chair a

gubernatorial panel on school performance--a group that would

become known as the Sondheim Commission. The group produced a

report that became the blueprint for what would become known

as the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program, or

Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to the South River Ruritan Club in Edgewater, MD, on their 50th anniversary.

The South River Ruritan Club, a community service organization, was chartered on March 13, 1957, and for 50 years has been providing much needed services to the citizens of Edgewater, Annapolis, and southern Maryland.

The Club, whose members are all volunteers, have contributed well in excess of half a million dollars in direct financial aid and countless hours of time, to numerous community service projects.

The club awards local students scholastic and vocational scholarships and provides assistance to local Scout troops, youth athletics, and other youth-related programs. They conduct an annual essay contest for fifth grade students and have sponsored students to the National Association of Student Council Conference and Exchange Student programs.

They contribute annually to the local fire and rescue departments, the Maryland and Anne Arundel County police departments, and support environmental programs, including efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay.

Our Active Duty military, retired and disabled military, and veterans organizations also benefit from the volunteer efforts of the club. They have sent direct aid to our troops in Iraq and provide additional financial assistance through their military's morale and welfare assistance programs.

Their work also includes assistance in such areas as financial aid to needy families, victims of violent crimes, families displaced by catastrophes such as fires, and hurricanes, and assistance through Habitat for Humanity. They contribute annually to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and Johns Hopkins Hospital Children's Center and they loan wheelchairs, walkers, and other medical assistance equipment to members of the community.

I congratulate the South River Ruritan Club on their wonderful record of community service over the last 50 years and wish them enormous success as they continue their commitment to improving their communities and supporting the families who live in and around them. This club and their membership, both past and present, have every reason to be proud of what they have accomplished.

Madam President, this joint funding resolution is not what anyone wanted. We are in this position because the last Congress failed to do its job. We had no choice. We were determined to stay within strict spending limits while trying to address compelling needs. I believe we have done the best we can do. We were able to take care of the most important priorities facing the nation without going over our spending limits.

In the Commerce, Justice, Science chapter of this resolution, we were able to increase funding for the Department of Justice by $1.4 billion over last year to ensure there were no cuts to the FBI and the war against terror. We provided the FBI with a $333 million increase over the old CR which fully funds the FBI, U.S. attorneys and the Bureau of Prisons. More importantly, the additional $1.4 billion eliminates the cuts to State and local law enforcement proposed in the President's budget. At a time when crime rates are going back up according to the most recent FBI crime statistics, we fully fund the COPS program, as well as programs to fight gangs and sexual predators. Protecting our neighborhoods and communities remains our No. 1 priority and this extra funding is proof of our commitment to make America safer.

We were also able to make a down payment on our innovation and competitiveness agenda. We added $335 million to the National Science Foundation's research account to increase our commitment to basic research that will lead to new breakthroughs in science, technology and future innovation to keep America competitive in the global economy. In addition, we added $38 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to increase research grants and an additional $12 million to modernize their laboratory facilities. Finally, we gave the Patent and Trademark Office the full $1.7 billion called for in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request and ensured that all patent fees stay with the Patent Office.

While I would have liked to have increased funding for NASA, there was simply not enough extra funding available for us to do so. Within the limits of NASA's fiscal year 2006 operating plan, we added an extra $460 million to exploration while protecting other critical NASA programs in science and aeronautics. With only 7 months left in this fiscal year, I believe NASA will be able to manage their programs in exploration with minimal impact to the overall schedule.

This bill cuts $3.3 billion in Military Constructions funds required to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. By putting the entire year's BRAC Military Construction program on hold, the current situation has caused adverse disruptions to important military planning. In Maryland alone, the Defense Department is unable to execute over $300 million worth of projects, preventing the construction of badly needed facilities that directly support our warfighters. This delay also has a huge impact on the economy of the State of Maryland, in the construction industry and other key support industries. Finally, the continuing resolution blocks critical projects required to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, recommendations, jeopardizing the ability of our military installations to complete required BRAC actions on time.

I, along with the other members of the Maryland congressional delegation, have sent a letter to the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, urging them to fully fund BRAC Military Construction in the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill. Both the House and Senate majority leaders have pledged their support for our effort. I will fight to add this vital funding to the emergency supplemental when it comes before the Senate in March.

So while this bill is not what anyone wanted, it is the best we could do considering what we were left with. I will support this continuing resolution and I will fight to do better next year.

Madam President, I join my colleagues in saluting Richard H. Shapiro, the executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation. As Rick moves on to new challenges, I want to thank him for his remarkable service to the U.S. Senate.

Rick Shapiro is responsible for bringing 21st century management skills to an institution build on 18th century rules and practices. We still have spittoons in the Senate--yet we also have blackberries.

Rick Shapiro helped us wrestle with issues that our Founding Fathers didn't even dream about. How do you answer thousands of e-mails a week? How do you hire, train, and retain excellent staff? How do you set goals and measure progress--so that promises made can be promises kept? How do you ensure that state and Washington offices communicate, coordinate and cooperate? Whenever I had a question about managing my office, I turned to Rick Shapiro--and my staff did the same.

Under Rick Shapiro's leadership, the Congressional Management Foundation has helped Members to set up their offices, upgrade office systems, and adjust to new ways of connecting with constituents. His book ``Setting Course'' is a must-read for all new Members of Congress. He was the first to compile and analyze information from individual offices--to enable Senators to learn from the best practices of others.

Rick Shapiro is a part of our Senate family. In fact, he met his wife Trudy Vincent when she was my legislative director. Their daughter Abby has been spotted selling Girl Scout cookies around the Capitol.

Rick Shapiro has made a lasting impact on the U.S. Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his service. While he is stepping down from the Congressional Management Foundation, I look forward to great things from Rick in the years ahead.

Mr. President, to my colleagues, my constituents, and the American people, I rise today to absolutely say without any equivocation that I do support the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution on Iraq opposing the escalation of our troops. I also stand in the Senate to say: We were robbed! We were robbed of our ability to be able to vote on this resolution!

The American people, on November 7, sent a message to Congress and to the President of the United States: Change the tone in Washington, change the direction in Iraq, and change the priorities of this Nation. We, on this side of the aisle, got the message. The other side does not seem to have. This parliamentary maneuver to block a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution, to allow us to vote up or down on approving the escalation, shows that it is the same old tone. Please, let's give the process a chance.

Second, it also robs us of the ability to begin to express our vocal support for changing the direction.

This bipartisan resolution is a first step. It is not going to be the last word in bringing our troops home safely and swiftly. The Warner- Biden-Levin resolution affirms clearly and unequivocally a commitment to our men and women in uniform: Congress will not abandon you while you are in Iraq and when you come home. We stand by our troops. However, this resolution says ``no'' to the President's reckless plan to escalate troop presence in Iraq. The bipartisan resolution insists that the Iraqi Government stand up for its own people to provide security, services, and an agreement on oil revenue sharing.

I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was 1 of the 23 who voted against this war on October 11, 2002--4 years ago. I will never forget it. I didn't believe the administration's arguments then, and I

don't believe them now. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust its diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the Saddam threat. I said we should not go on our own.

The day of the vote, I was so filled with apprehension about the course of the war, about the course we were embarking on, I said in this Senate that we don't know whether our troops will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know. That mission did not get accomplished. I called the 72 families in Maryland who gave their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice. I know what is going on out there with the families. I also know when we got to Iraq there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.

No one can ask more of our troops. They are brave. They are courageous. They have fought valiantly. But after 4 years of fighting, where are we in Iraq? Well, the United States, went to war with Iraq, but right now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there. And we are mired in a civil war between different ethnic and sectarian groups.

I have stated what I am against, but let me state what I am for. I am for the Warner-Levin-Biden resolution. I salute the leadership who produced it: John Warner, a decorated war hero, former Secretary of the Navy, chairman of the Committee on Armed Services when the Republicans were in control, a distinguished person, and a man of great comity and civility--no one more compassionate about America's security than John Warner; Joe Biden, chair of our Foreign Relations Committee; Carl Levin, an expert on the Committee on Armed Services and now the chairman. They put their heads together and they came up with this resolution, and to a man--and this woman supports them--the Senate opposes the President's plan because we think it is reckless.

The bipartisan resolution says the objective of overall U.S. strategy in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises, to foster reconciliation, and strengthen the unity government. This is what I consider essential.

The resolution says the primary objective of our military strategy should be to maintain Iraq's territorial integrity--fancy words for protecting the border; deny the terrorists a safe haven--yes, but they weren't there in the first place; promote regional stability; promote counterterrorism; train and equip the Iraqi forces. We have been doing it for 3 years. Guess what? They have not been showing up! And the other day when they were supposed to show up for a battle, 55 percent of them showed up in Baghdad. Gates, our new Secretary of Defense, said: Isn't this improvement? Last year, they didn't show up at all. It is their war and they are not showing up. Why should we show up for their war when they have a 50-percent attendance rate? What is wrong with this thinking?

As much as possible, the current U.S. military operations should be confined to these goals. We show up, they don't. Something is really wrong with this picture.

The bipartisan resolution calls for the United States to engage the nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally and internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process. That is what we should be doing. The resolution says it should not be an open-ended commitment or unconditional. Sure, there should be benchmarks, but benchmarks with enforcement capability.

I do support this resolution because it makes clear to our men and women in uniform that Congress will not abandon them. It explicitly says that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S. military forces in the field. Whether on the battlefield or on the homefront, our troops deserve the best.

Also, the latest intelligence shows that Iraqi leadership has to make difficult changes. The solution in Iraq requires a political solution from the Iraqis--not military muscle--from the Americans.

There are parts of this resolution with which I don't agree. They call it an augmentation; I call it escalation. I oppose the calls for the vigorous operations at Anbar until there is greater clarification. There is no doubt that al-Qaida is operating in Iraq. But when I voted 4 years ago, al-Qaida was not there; they were in Afghanistan. Why didn't we stick with Afghanistan and really clean their clock? Now the President wants to send more Marines to Anbar to fight al-Qaida when we should have been in Afghanistan, catching Osama bin Laden.

We do need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward. Surely the President of the United States could have found 50 for us to sit down at a table, talk, and work together for the good of our country, the good of our troops, and the good of peace in the Middle East. Seventy-nine recommendations and they have all been cast aside. The Iraq Study Group calls for diplomatic and political efforts, a change in their primary mission to move our troops out of Iraq responsibly. They gave us a way forward that they believe could have gotten our troops out by the first quarter of 2008. Let's give those 79 recommendations at least a forum to be debated and discussed and acted on.

Where do we go from here? I will tell you where I think we ought to go. First of all, we ought to have a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution. If they do not want to give us that, give us a vote on the McCain resolution to vote to approve this escalation. One way or the other, that is our constitutional duty.

The President says he does not need congressional consent to be able to do this reckless escalation. But he sure does need congressional advice. And my advice is, let's send in the diplomats before we send in more troops. We need a robust diplomatic strategy to match our robust military strategy. We need to make it clear that the Congress will not abandon our troops in the field, and we will not abandon them when they come home. Look at this President's budget; we are abandoning our troops. This whole escalation--sure, they talk about money for the 21,000, but it takes another 20,000 to support them. They don't walk their talk. They don't put the money in the budget.

Then we have our troops coming home. You look at the President's budget on Veterans Affairs--not only have they lost the records, they have lost their way at VA. We are not equipped to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans coming home. They have horrific, permanent wounds of war, and we have a weak, unreliable funding system. You can't just support the troops with yellow ribbons. You have to put the money behind it. How about putting the money behind it when they come home? They need us. And they need us not only with words; they need us with deeds in the budget process. And I don't see it.

Now, we also need to make it clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that he has to start to act. Speaking of showing up, I saw they could not get a quorum in the Iraqi Parliament. Only 50 percent of the troops show up, their own Parliament doesn't show up, but we show up with 21,000 more troops? The Prime Minister must meet benchmarks.

Let me conclude by saying that a great American military should not be a substitute for a weak Iraqi Government. Neither Congress nor the American people will abandon our troops, but the best way to support our troops is not to send more in harm's way.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for Senator Kennedy be reserved.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I note the Senate is not in order.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise today to talk about a bill I introduced last week. It is called the Cloned Food Labeling Act.

My colleagues would be shocked to realize that the FDA has announced that meat and milk products from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. My bill will require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal or its progeny. My colleagues need to know I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from cloned animals entering into our food supply, and I am not the only one. Most Americans actively oppose it, and scientists say we should monitor it. But the FDA decided food from cloned animals is safe to eat. And since the FDA decided it is safe, the FDA will not require it to be labeled as coming from a cloned animal or its progeny.

Now, the American people don't want it. They find it repugnant. Gallup polls report over 60 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals, and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk. But what troubles me is not only what public opinion says but what the National Academy of Sciences says. They reported that--so far--studies show no problems with food from cloned animals. But they also admit it is a brand-new science. What about the unintended consequences? They caution the

Federal Government and recommend this technology be monitored for potential health effects and urge diligent post-market surveillance. Well, you can't do post-market surveillance if the food is not labeled. How do you know where the cloned food is?

So the FDA tells us once they determine it is safe, they will allow the food to enter the market, unidentified, unlabeled, and unbeknownst to us, and I find it unacceptable. Consumers would not be able to tell which food came from a cloned animal. So, here we have a picture of Dolly--the first cloned animal. Hello, Dolly! We say: Hello, Dolly. You have been approved for our food supply. Hello, Dolly. Welcome to the world of the Dolly burger. Hello, Dolly. Welcome home to Dolly in a glass. Hello, Dolly. Welcome to this plate of special cloned lamb chops when you are celebrating the 25th anniversary for your wife. I say: Goodbye, Dolly, the FDA's approval was baa, baa, baa.

I can't stop this from being approved by FDA, but I want an informed public to know what they have before them. Most Americans do not want this. They should not be required to eat it. I don't think they should be required to eat it without knowing what it is. Therefore, my legislation says any cloned food or its progeny would have to be labeled at the wholesale level, at the retail level, and at the restaurant level. This would ensure informed consent. To help the American public make this informed decision, I introduced a bill to require that all food which comes from a cloned animal or its progeny be labeled. This legislation will require the FDA and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that comes from a cloned animal. The label simply would read, ``THIS PRODUCT IS FROM A CLONED ANIMAL OR ITS PROGENY.'' The public would be able to decide which food they want to buy--and I mean all food, not just packages in a supermarket but also the meals they choose from a menu.

Now, the FDA has responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. Although many aspects of food safety are beyond their control, this is not. Scientists and the American people have the right to know. Consumers need to know which food is cloned and the scientists need to be able to monitor it. We don't know the long-term effect of cloned animals in our food supply.

What factors influenced the decision to deem food from cloned animals safe? Are they allowing an eager industry to force questionable science on an unknowing public? I am not so sure.

The FDA used to be the gold standard, but we have heard ``it is safe'' for too long. What if they are wrong? We were told asbestos was safe. Do you want asbestos in your home? We were told DDT was safe. Do you want to be sprayed with DDT? We were told thalidomide was safe. No pregnant woman today would take it. We were told Vioxx was safe. Does anyone with a heart condition or high cholesterol want to take it? I don't think so. We have been down this road before regarding the safety of products.

When it is so unclear and so uncertain, I am saying let's take our time. If America doesn't keep track of this from the very beginning with clear and dependable labeling, our entire food supply could be contaminated. I worry about what happens to the consumer. I worry about it being eaten by ordinary folks. I worry about it being in our school lunch program. I worry about it because we do not know enough.

In Europe, they call this type of stuff ``Frankenfood.'' I worry, then, that because it will be unlabeled, more of our exports will be banned. My State depends on the export of food--whether it is seafood or chicken or other products. I don't want to hear one more thing coming out of the EU about not wanting to buy our beef or our lamb because they are worried that it is Frankenfood. We need to be able to export our food. If it is labeled, we will be able to do that.

At the end of the day, I want our consumers to have informed consent, scientists to be able to monitor this, and Congress to be able to provide FDA oversight. I reject the notion that FDA or anyone else should allow this to go forward without some type of declaration about what it really is.

Please, when we see this creature, Dolly, in this photograph--I don't know its purpose; I don't know what it accomplishes. We do not have a shortage of food in our country; we don't have a shortage of milk in our country. For those people who want to produce Dolly, we can't stop it, but I do think we should stop the FDA from putting this into our food supply without labeling and without an informed consent.

I say bah, bah, bah to those who want to bring this into our food supply.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal.

I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from cloned animals. No one needs cloned milk and meat. Most Americans actively oppose it.

But the Food and Drug Administration has decided that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. And, since they have decided this is ``safe,'' they will not require that it be labeled as coming from a cloned animal.

The American people don't want this. Gallup Polls report over 65 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk.

The National Academies of Science reported that so far, studies show no problems with food from cloned animals but they also admit that this is brand new science. What about the possibility of unintended consequences a few years from now? They cautioned the Federal Government to monitor for potential health effects and urged diligent post-market surveillance.

So even if we agreed the science appears safe, we need to follow it closely. But, once the FDA determines this is safe they said they will allow the food to enter the market unidentified, unlabeled, unbeknownst to all of us and completely indistinguishable from all other food. We won't be able to tell which foods were made the good old fashioned way and which came from a cloned animal

Must we be compelled to eat anything a scientist can produce in the laboratory? Just because they can make it, should Americans be required to eat it? Of course not. The public deserves to know if their food comes from a cloned animal.

To help the American public make an informed decision on this, today I will introduce a bill to require all food that comes from a cloned animal to be labeled. This legislation will require the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that comes from a cloned animal or their offspring. We need to know and we must be able to decide for ourselves. And I mean all food--not just the packages we buy in the supermarket but the meals we choose from a menu.

The FDA has a responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. Though many aspects of food safety are beyond their control--this is not. We do not know enough about the long term effects of introducing cloned animals, or their offspring, into our food supply to guarantee this is safe. Is this decision to allow cloned animals into our food supply influenced by factors other than keeping the public safe? Are they allowing an eager industry to force a questionably scientific process on an unknowing public?

We simply don't have the same trust in the FDA as we once had. Recently the Wall Street Journal found that over half of Americans feel the FDA does not do a good job keeping our drug supply safe. We want to trust them with the safety of our food supply but what if they are wrong?

What if the FDA has made a mistake and finds out a few years from now that there was a problem with this. If we do not keep track of it from the very beginning--by clear and dependable labeling--we could contaminate our entire food supply. If the food is not properly labeled we can't remove it from the shelves like we did with problematic drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex. We must be proactive. We must label these foods.

I reject the notion that the FDA or anyone else should force Americans to accept and consume any product that can be manufactured in a lab--no matter how offensive the product is. We need to insist that the FDA treat the public fairly. If cloned food is safe, let it onto the market, but give consumers the information they need to avoid these products. We need to let Americans speak with their dollars and choose the food they have confidence is safe.