Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have access to care provided by podiatrists.

This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.

The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. Currently, most State Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budget States may choose to cut back on these optional services. There are now 7 States where access to a podiatrist is limited or nearly impossible for someone who receives Medicaid. Even though podiatrist services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I want to make sure the over 750,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland continue to have access to the services provided by over 400 podiatrists in Maryland.

Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Nearly 21 million Americans are now living with diabetes, a 14 percent increase from the 18 million in 2003. Another 41 million have pre-diabetes, the condition that indicates an increased risk for developing both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Both the CDC and the American Diabetes Association recommend that podiatric physicians be part of the care term for people with diabetes.

Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists will save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. This alone could have saved $1.3 billion in savings for Medicare and $386 million in savings for Medicaid. Podiatrists are important providers of this care.

This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the American Podiatric Medical Association and gained broad bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate last Congress. 29 Senators co- sponsored S. 440, including nearly half the members of the Finance Committee. The House companion bill, HR 699 had 210 co-cosponsors, including 68 percent of the committee with primary jurisdiction, Energy and Commerce. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have access to care provided by podiatrists.

This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.

The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. Currently, most State Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budget States may choose to cut back on these optional services. There are now 7 States where access to a podiatrist is limited or nearly impossible for someone who receives Medicaid. Even though podiatrist services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I want to make sure the over 750,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland continue to have access to the services provided by over 400 podiatrists in Maryland.

Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Nearly 21 million Americans are now living with diabetes, a 14 percent increase from the 18 million in 2003. Another 41 million have pre-diabetes, the condition that indicates an increased risk for developing both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Both the CDC and the American Diabetes Association recommend that podiatric physicians be part of the care term for people with diabetes.

Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists will save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. This alone could have saved $1.3 billion in savings for Medicare and $386 million in savings for Medicaid. Podiatrists are important providers of this care.

This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the American Podiatric Medical Association and gained broad bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate last Congress. 29 Senators co- sponsored S. 440, including nearly half the members of the Finance Committee. The House companion bill, HR 699 had 210 co-cosponsors, including 68 percent of the committee with primary jurisdiction, Energy and Commerce. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

For 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of

the Appropriations Committee for so courteously yielding me these 5 minutes. I know he is eager to bring his own thoughts to the Senate floor, and we, of course, are always mesmerized when Senator Byrd speaks.

I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of the fair minimum wage legislation. Right now, it pays $5.15 an hour. If you add that all up, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that comes out to $10,700 a year. That is $6,000 below the national poverty line. That is a phrase we throw around glibly, easily, and in a very facile way. When we use the term poverty line--I remember when it was invented by a wonderful woman at the Social Security Administration, Molly Orshansky. When we were truly fighting a war against poverty, she said: What is the line between being able to live a decent, sufficient life? She set it at that time, 40 years ago, at $3,000. Now the national poverty line is $16,060 for a family of three. That means bare minimum necessities to live in the United States of America. It doesn't allow for school trips. It doesn't allow for vacations. It is certainly not a latte- drinking, Volvo-driving minimum wage.

On top of asking the people who work at this, we are now saying: It is OK if a full-time job in the United States of America means full- time poverty. Where are our guts? Where is our grit? Where is our reward for saying that hard work is worth it? That is what we are saying now. Hard work should be worth it.

Now we are raising the minimum wage, and I salute the Senator from Massachusetts for his steadfast advocacy on this issue and for speaking up on how this is a woman's issue. There is a lot of hand-wringing over this raise, and I don't know why, because even when we raise it to what the Senate is proposing, to $7.25 an hour over a 2-year period, it still means workers will earn $15,080 a year. We are still going to be below the national poverty line. I would raise it more.

There are those who say: Let the market forces work. You bet, let the market forces work. But at the same time know that this has to be a minimum fair wage.

I am very distressed about the fact of the impact this has on women. If ever there was a woman's issue, wow, it is the minimum wage. Women are especially hurt by Congress's failure to raise the minimum wage. Forget that we don't increase equal pay for equal work, and we still make 75 cents for every dollar men make. Forget that we don't even enforce the wage laws that are on the books. But if we do recall, what my colleagues need to know is two-thirds of all of the minimum wage workers in America are women--two-thirds--meaning a full-time job, full-time poverty. Women account for full-time workers in the lowest paid jobs: maids and housekeepers, food servers and, most of all, childcare workers. What does that mean?

Of course, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, other Senate women will be coming to the Senate today on this issue.

The Senator is absolutely right, raising the minimum wage will impact women. Our data analysis says 7 million women will benefit from the proposed increase in the minimum wage; 7 million women will take one more step out of poverty. We need to remember that many of these women are also single moms and get a double whammy. Not only are they working in a full-time job that guarantees full-time poverty, but often they don't get their child support.

We are asking them to raise their children below the poverty line in the United States of America. Then we diddle and dawdle and ditz around in terms of helping them collect their child support, yet we want them to give full-time energy to being a mom. We ask them for more parental involvement. These mothers want to have more parental involvement, but there has to be more Senate involvement getting these women out of poverty. Getting these women out of poverty will not come only from raising the minimum wage, but it is a very important step forward.

We want to ensure that if you work in the United States of America, it should be worth it. No. 2, when you do work and get paid, again, you were not below the poverty line.

The impact on families is astounding. If a family is poor, they will not have enough to eat. Nutrition plays a big role in child development and learning ability. You are not going to feel warm, you will not feel safe, you are not going to feel secure, and you also are going to wonder about this country regarding rewarding work.

The women of the United States of America deserve better. For those women doing well, we want to do right by those who aren't. A childcare worker right now working in Baltimore, working on the Eastern Shore, in the western Maryland mountains, or in Bethesda is working as hard as those working in the Senate or those downtown at law firms. We want to say to the women of the United States of America, we are on your side.

We want to make sure we pass this minimum wage. And to 7 million women, we hope you will sleep better and be able to live better because of what we are doing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor to this Senate ethics reform legislation. The American people sent a clear message in the last election. No more scandals. No more bribes. No more dirty politics. They wanted real ethics reform. The American people want to know that Congress is working in their interest--not for special interests. The American people deserve a government which is honest and open. They want a government which will fight for their values not for corporate values. Democrats have made it our top priority to clean up Washington and clean up politics.

What does this bill do? This bill bans all gifts and travel from lobbyists. It closes the revolving door by extending the lobbying ban for former Members of Congress from one to two years. It improves lobbying disclosure requirements and brings transparency to the Senate. Finally, it requires that all Senators and their staff attend ethics training.

The American people wanted to clean up Washington. They wanted real ethics reform. They wanted to know that lawmakers are fighting for the people they represent--not the special interest lobbyists. This bill holds lawmakers and lobbyists accountable by creating real penalties for those who break the law--by punishing them with jail time not just fines. This bill sets the tone for this Congress--dirty politics will not be tolerated.

The American people demanded change in the last election. They wanted a government they could trust. They wanted a government that would protect everyday, hardworking Americans. This bill is a step in the right direction. We are listening to what American people are telling us. We here in the U.S. Senate are taking their concerns seriously. We are making changes in Washington.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in the spirit of comity and accommodation, to clarify with the Senator, how much time does the Senator from Texas and the Republican minority have?

Is the Senator saying another 15 minutes after that 12 minutes?

Mr. President, may I offer an accommodating suggestion, that after the Senator from Texas speaks, I be allowed to speak--I need about 10 minutes--and then the Senator from Colorado can speak. But if you have your 12 and another 15, it really will cause havoc over here.

I have no objection to that.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time controlled by the majority.

Last night, President Bush asked the American people to support a surge of military troops in Iraq. Many are using the term ``surge,'' though the President didn't. Make no mistake, this is a dramatic escalation of our troop presence in Iraq. In the debate leading into the President's speech, the term ``surge'' was used, which implied something that was limited and temporary. An escalation is where we are heading, which means a long-term commitment with no end in sight.

We are in a hole in Iraq, and the President says the way to dig out of this hole is to dig deeper. Does that make sense? When you are in a hole, do you get out by digging deeper? This is a reckless plan; it is about saving the Bush Presidency, it is not about saving Iraq.

Before Congress can act on this plan--and act we must--there are several questions that need to be answered. I need those answers, you need those answers, the American people need those answers and, more importantly, our troops and their families need those answers. Is this policy achievable? Is it sustainable? What is the President's objective in calling for this escalation of troops? Who is the enemy? Does the Bush administration even know anymore? When our troops are embedded with Iraqi forces, are they going to shoot Sunnis or Shiites? Are we taking sides in a civil war? I don't think we know. What is the Iraqi Government going to do for itself? We suddenly have something called benchmarks. Where have those benchmarks been for the last several years? What is going to be the political solution that only the Iraqis can do to resolve the power sharing with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds? Where are the oil revenues that were talked about to pay for this war? When is the Iraqi Government going to end the corruption in their own ministries so that they can come to grips with services, security, and power sharing and oil revenue sharing?

Who is going to disarm the militias and insurgents and, more importantly, who is going to keep them disarmed? Are we going to be in those neighborhoods forever? Where are the troops going to come from for this escalation? Our military, our wonderful military is worn thin. Also, how are we going to pay for it? While China builds up its reserves, we build up our debt.

Make no mistake, though. U.S. troops cannot do what the Iraqi Government will not do for itself. Iraq needs a functioning government that produces security and services for its own people. It needs a government of reconciliation that will function on behalf of the Iraqi people. Iraq needs its own security forces up and running. No matter what training we give them, they have to have the will to fight. They need to put an end to the sectarian violence, and they need to end

this corruption in their own ministries to get oil production moving and a way to share those oil revenues.

There are those who say: Well, what about supporting our troops? I absolutely do support our troops. And for those troops who are in Iraq, let me say this: Your Congress will not abandon you.

But the best way to support the troops is not to send them on this reckless mission. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home safely and swiftly. That is why I voted against this preemptive war in the first place. In my speech when I was 1 of the 23, I said: We don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. I said: We shouldn't go to Iraq on our own. We need to go with the world if, in fact, the weapons are there.

Well, from the very beginning, everything the Congress and the American people have been told by this administration has proven not to be so. It has either been an outright lie or dangerously incompetent. The President asked the Congress to vote for a preemptive war because Iraq was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger to the United States. Well, the Congress gave the preemptive authority. However, the weapons of mass destruction were not there.

I say to my colleagues, after all of those troops we sent, weren't you filled with shock and awe to find out there were no weapons?

Then, the administration sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to make the case for war. He is one of the most esteemed Americans in the world, and the Bush administration set him up. Then--CIA Director Tenet said it was going to be a slam dunk. To this day, Colin Powell cries foul about what happened to him at the U.N. How can we trust the data or judgment of an administration that continually gives us this fiasco?

Now, what about President Bush's good friend, Prime Minister Maliki? I listened to my colleague from Texas. He said: Are we giving up on Maliki? The question is, is Maliki giving up on Iraq. Are we cutting the legs out from Maliki? I say no, Maliki's government has no legs. They are not involved in dealing with the corruption, with power sharing. It is the same Maliki who told our U.S. marines they couldn't go into a neighborhood to go after a Shiite cleric called al-Sadr, who bankrolls attacks on American soldiers. Is Maliki an honest broker in Iraq or is he someone who represents the Shiites?

I don't have confidence in what we have been told by this administration, and I have very serious doubts about the will of the administration of Prime Minister Maliki. Make no mistake--and I feel so deeply about this--a great American military cannot be a substitute for a weak Iraqi Government. The stronger we are, the more permission we give the Iraqis to be weak.

We were challenged a few minutes ago to say: Well, what is the alternative? I say let's use the ideas that have come from our commanders, which have now been put aside, the Iraq Study Group, and others within the region. Let's use Baker-Hamilton as a starting point. Let's send in the diplomats before we send in the troops. I don't embrace all of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but it is a bipartisan way of going forward. It was not reckless. Once we send in those troops, it is irrevocable. I think we need a new policy, and I think we need a new direction. I think Baker-Hamilton gave us a good direction to pull us together to go in, and I think that is where we need to go.

Let me conclude by saying this: To our outstanding men and women in uniform who are already in Iraq, you have a tough job, and we are proud of you. Neither the Congress nor the American people will ever abandon you. But to those troops who are waiting to head to Iraq, the best way to support you is to say no to the President's reckless, flawed escalation of this war in Iraq.

Again, let's send in the diplomats, not the troops.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, too, want to join in the chorus of colleagues by thanking Senator Sarbanes for all he has meant to Maryland, all he has meant to the Senate and all he has meant to the country and all that he has meant to me.

I knew Senator Sarbanes 20 years ago, but I knew Paul Sarbanes long before that. I knew him when he was a young lawyer starting out to run for the House of Delegates. I was also, at that time, a young social worker. We were working to stop a highway in the neighborhood. We were the young reformers. Baltimore was dominated by political bosses, by the political machine. And Paul Sarbanes was the first one to buck the machine, to kind of go directly door-to-door to represent the people. Baltimore has not seen for years someone who would actually go out and knock on doors asking people for their vote, bypass the existing establishment and empower the people.

Senator Sarbanes won that House of Delegates seat and did a great job.

Then he had a hard-fought, again, door-to-door battle--bucking the big boys and big bucks, door-to-door going right through, going directly to the people who brought him to the House--and

In 1976, that wonderful Washington centennial year, we in Baltimore, the home of the Star Spangled Banner, celebrated by sending Paul Sarbanes to the Senate. And, by the way, that young social worker went to the House of Representatives.

Senator Sarbanes and I have been side by side for those years. All of my colleagues have talked about the enormous trust and respect they have for him.

Much has been said and there is much to be respected about Senator Sarbanes--his integrity, but trust is really the word. You can trust Senator Sarbanes. You can count on Senator Sarbanes. You always knew he would be there when you needed him. The people of Maryland knew that when they needed him to be able to stand up for those who didn't have a voice, people with dirt under their fingernails, the people who worked in those kinds of jobs where at the end of the day you have a bad back, you earned the minimum wage, you didn't have a health benefit, and you wondered who really cared about you, Paul Sarbanes would do that.

When people invested their life savings and their pension and saw corporate greed eating all of that, they wondered who would speak for honesty and integrity. They knew they could trust Paul Sarbanes.

On issue after issue, people knew they could trust him--and they certainly could.

You could also count on his wonderful staff. The Mikulski staff has such great admiration for the Sarbanes staff. It is so outstanding. Similar to the man they work for, they bring great intellectual vigor, great integrity, and a great ethic of hard work.

We often laugh that we are the ``diner Democrat.'' Senators have heard about Senator Sarbanes' mom and dad running a diner, my mom and dad owned a grocery store. We were kind of the grassroots retail people. So we feel very close to the people.

But again, a tribute to him would be incomplete without recognizing the dynamic duo of Christine, who has been an outstanding partner for Paul Sarbanes and quite a force in the community in her own right. Whether it has been working for the U.N. and for UNICEF in their own community, to be on the library board to expand literacy opportunities, Christine has been a force in and of herself and for their wonderful children--John who now joins us in the staff.

I could talk at length about Paul Sarbanes, but I will tell you he has been my friend. We have sat next to each other on the Senate floor. We have actually voted in the Senate precincts. When I came to the Senate, I was the only Democratic woman to serve here. But I had a saying as I traveled Maryland and traveled throughout the country. When people said: How does it feel to be the only Democratic woman in the Senate, I said: You know, I might be all by myself, but I am never alone. I have Paul Sarbanes. And that is true for the people of Maryland.

We wish him well. I know I am going to be seeing him. Wherever there is a good bagel or a good political event, I know that Paul Sarbanes will be there.

Paul, Godspeed and God bless.

Mr. President, I want to say something about my departing colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Lincoln Chafee

To my colleague from Rhode Island, I thank the Senator. In all actions it has been a tone of civility. We have always sought common ground. I express my gratitude for the Senator's service to Rhode Island.

Mike DeWine

And the departing Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, said some very kind things about his work with me. I, too, want to comment that working with the Senator when moving important legislation in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was an outstanding opportunity, again, of bipartisanship. Mike DeWine and Barbara Mikulski passed the Older Americans Act twice when it previously had not passed or been reauthorized in 5 years. We did work so constructively with the Committee on Finance in terms of the recent pension bill.

Again, we worked on many projects related to national security together.

I thank Senator DeWine not only for his kind words but, again, his ongoing efforts, always with the tone of utmost collegiality when he worked with me, and his staff.

Conrad Burns

And to the departing Senator from Montana, who has a voice about the same decibel level of my own, I wish him well. Again, on the Committee on Commerce and on the Committee on Appropriations we worked very well, particularly on those issues that were important to science and technology, new ideas, new thinking, but old-fashioned values.

A lot is said about changing the tone, but when we hit the right tone we also hit some pretty high notes. I thank my colleagues and wish them well and Godspeed until we meet again.

Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from Washington State for commenting on the law enforcement aspects that are going to be lost under the way we are proceeding because she is absolutely right. I say to the Senator before she leaves the floor, that is in the Commerce, Justice, Science Committee, on which I am currently ranking member. We worked on a bipartisan basis--Senator Shelby and I--to produce the bill that would have given the financial tools to local enforcement to fight the meth epidemic, the gangs that are coming, all with the most grim and ghoulish approaches in our local communities.

But we are saying, you know what, we are cutting and running. So we are cutting their budget, and we are running out of here. That phrase ``cut and run'' has been used so cavalierly, but I am telling you that is exactly what we are doing now. We are cutting and running from our responsibility to fund the programs that meet compelling human needs in our own States, in our own country, as well as those things that help with the national security, such as funding the FBI and to the security in our own communities. We are talking about meth and gangs, but I know the Senator feels as strongly as I do about sexual predators. We worked with Mr. Gonzales, the Attorney General, in terms of a very good antisexual predator approach, with listing and watch lists and those things that, again, empower the local law enforcement. We have a program that helps sheriffs.

So if we want to bring in the posse, we have to bring in the bucks. What I like about the sheriff initiative is it is in every community, not only urban

areas but also out in the rural areas. But, oh, no, we have to get home. Well, I think we have abdicated our responsibility. I thank the Senator for what she has said.

Mr. President, we are abdicating our responsibility, and in abdicating our responsibility to pass the outstanding appropriations bills, we are having a very dire impact on our own country. Of the 12 appropriations bills, only 2 have passed. One is Defense and one is Homeland Security. I am so glad that we did pass those and we did them in a responsible way and in a timely manner. But one can say, then, we met our national security responsibilities. Well, not the way this Senator sees it. The national responsibility for national security also comes to our own FBI, comes to local law enforcement, comes to our U.S. Attorney's Offices, and we are walking away from this.

The voters have said they want us to change the tone and they want us to change the tempo. I can honestly say that working in Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations, we have had an outstanding tone. I compliment my current chairman, Senator Shelby from Alabama. Gosh, we worked so well in producing our appropriations bill. The Senator from Alabama made sure I was consulted, along with my staff. We worked on the compelling needs that must be funded but in a fiscally responsible way. That subcommittee doesn't need to change the tone, but, wow, do we need to change the tempo. Not because of what Shelby and Mikulski did. We did our bill; we finished it. We have moved it out of the committee. It is now ready to go to the Senate floor. We did it on a bipartisan basis, and we feel confident, each of us and our members, of the bill we produced. So we are ready to go. We are similar to a plane circling the airport, but we are running out of fuel.

I am concerned particularly about those programs affecting the FBI and Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as the locals. The FBI to the sheriffs are going to be shortchanged, resulting in, I think, very serious consequences. We use budget-speak, Senate-speak with words such as ``CR'' and ``omnibus,'' but whatever we are talking about, the fact is we are not finishing our job, when we could have done it if there was a willingness from both the House and the Republican leadership to move these bills. Many of them have been worked out--again, on a bipartisan basis.

I come to you today with my great concern about the global war against terrorism. I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am on the Appropriations Committee and I am also a member of Defense Appropriations, Homeland Security and also currently ranking--and soon to be chair--of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that funds particularly the FBI. I live, along with my constituents, in the national capital region. We are a high-risk area. So we are committed to national security--whether it is the Port of Baltimore or whether it is Bethesda, whether it is the Naval Academy and looking out for them, but we need these resources. Sure, we need to fund defense and homeland security, but don't we need to fund the FBI? The CIA can spy around the world, but ultimately any information to come back and protect us against predators here comes through the FBI. The National Security Agency--hopefully, completely within the law with reforms that need to be made--can pull out these ``cyber snitches,'' with the Internet, that is going on somewhere in the Middle East and prevent those attacks. We are proud of what they did in working with our British counterparts in London. No matter what happens over there, when it comes back here, the FBI needs to protect us. But, oh, no, we have to get home. That is what I mean about cutting and running. We are cutting and running.

When we do what we are about to do soon, the FBI will be short $100 million. What does that mean? Well, it means that the FBI will not be able to maintain the operations tempo that they have achieved since September 11. It means that they will not be able to hire and keep the agents that they have, including the important linguists. We have had to recruit people who can speak Farsi and a whole variety of other languages that are not well known and available in our universities. But Director Miller went out and found them. They are ready to go. They are already being trained. But we are saying: Oh, no, we cannot hire you now because the Congress had to go home. They have to cut and they have to run. Let me tell you, linguists, even though the private sector will hire you for more money, at an easier lifestyle, we know you were ready to join the FBI, but we have to go fa-la-la, fa-la-la somewhere. This is outrageous.

That is the basic kind of thing that will directly impact on our ability to fight terrorism here at home. It is what we said during the 9/11 Commission about the famous watch list and emerging technology. We have been working on the integration of the fingerprint systems between the FBI, DHS, and also Immigration, to make sure that we truly are stopping the people we need to stop who are trying to get into this country. But, oh, no, we are going to delay that and other technological improvements that the FBI so desperately needs. We are shortchanging the FBI.

Then, when we look at the global war against terrorism and how it is acted out in our own communities, I salute the U.S. Attorney's Office. For them, this CR and this cutting and running we are doing will essentially mean that the U.S. attorneys will be again shortchanged. In my own State, they run something called the Joint Terrorism Task Force. It is the U.S. attorney who gets all of the stakeholders in the same room, providing important legal guidance to all of the police chiefs, certainly, in the Baltimore area, and those involved in port security and local law enforcement. The people from the Governor's office run that. Whether it is in the national Capitol region, that we are in, or L.A. or New York, our U.S. attorneys run these forces. The local people love it, and they are part of the global war against terrorism because we don't have enough FBI agents, but with enough cops on the beat, we can do that. So we are shortchanging the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Let's go to the Bureau of Prisons. We are going to lose correctional officers. We might say that they are just thugs anyway. Let's talk about those ``just thugs anyway.'' Right this minute, we are very concerned and have significant flashing yellow lights about the fact that right now in our Federal prisons there could be underground recruitment efforts going on to recruit people for terrorism or for these Latin American gangs, such as M-13. Talk to the head of the Bureau of Prisons and to the Attorney General. We have to stand centrally with own Federal prisons that we do not become the incubators not only of thugs but of terrorists and terrorizing gangs in our local communities.

When I talk about grim and ghoulish, I am going to use an example that is difficult to bring to the Senate floor. In my own State, there was a gang attack, where they cut off the arms and legs of a victim, using a machete. I could describe more ghoulish things, but I will not offend civilized people to give those examples.

We have to get serious. Are we going to fight the global war against terrorism or are we going to cut and run from the appropriations? Are we going to stand up for our FBI or cut and run from our duty? Are we going to stand up for Federal law enforcement, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who are working here and helped us catch the snipers and are working over there so we can deal with the IEDs that are killing our troops? Are we going to stand up for the DEA that is fighting drugs on the street corners of our communities and dealing with the drug problems in Afghanistan, with Mr. Karzai, that is now funding the Taliban? Oh, no, we have to cut and run.

Well, I am opposed to this strategy. I oppose this do-nothing Congress. We could do the job. I worked with my Republican colleague and, I must say, he worked with me. We don't have to worry about changing the tone, but we sure have to change the tempo. That is why the voters made a change in the Congress. So we are going to have to swallow this, but I will tell you that they can count on Barb Mikulski not to cut and run from her duty, her responsibility in fighting the global war against terrorism and the thugs and bums on our streets in America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise before you today to discuss the nomination of Andrew Von Eschenbach as Commissioner of the FDA.

I first want to say that I love the FDA. FDA is in my home state of Maryland. It employs over 10,000 of my constituents. It is right down the road from the NIH. I am proud to have all that research at NIH and then have FDA in Maryland standing up for the food safety of the American people, looking out to make sure that the drugs and the technologies that we use are safe.

Over the years, I have fought for the right facilities, the right resources, and now the right leadership at the FDA. Dr. Von Eschenbach is an experienced clinician and researcher and as the former Director of National Cancer Institute, NCI, I presume he is committed to the mission of FDA. However, I have concerns. I have yellow flashing light about his commitment to reform over drug safety, to not politicize science, and to establish a channel where employees can speak truth to power.

This is important. As we consider the nomination of Dr. Von Eschenbach, we must address one of the most important issues facing our Nation: the loss of confidence in our Government's ability to ensure the safety of our food, our drugs, and our medical devices. The FDA has always been the gold standard in maintaining the safety and efficacy of our drugs and medical devices.

Yet today the Agency is being politicized and degraded. The current administration has shown a persistent pattern of placing politics before science; making appointments based on ideology instead of competency; stifling scientists whose findings do not meet political objectives; making decisions based on politics, rather than sound science.

Nowhere is this more evident than at the FDA. Today, FDA is facing a crisis: There is a crisis of morale. There is a crisis of confidence in the reliability of FDA decisions. There is a crisis about whether there are scientists operating under a gag rule, putting politics above science. There is a crisis ensuring the reliability and safety of our drugs.

This summer, Union of Concerned Scientists released its survey of the scientists at the FDA. These scientists are my constituents. They found the morale of trusted and respected employees has been battered by years of weak leadership. This survey is important because it gives a public voice to scientists who aren't in a position to place their jobs on the line to suffer retaliation for speaking the truth and to potentially jeopardize their families.

The FDA needs a major overhaul and a culture change at the highest levels in order to continue to meet its mission. The FDA needs to reestablish its relationship with its own scientists. The FDA's focus should be only on science and the public good. And I am hoping that Dr. Von Eschenbach will be the strong leader the FDA needs to accomplish this overhaul.

My criterion for looking at every nomination are competence, integrity,

commitment to the mission of the Agency.

Competence: Management expertise is essential to effectively run FDA without redtape and bureaucracy. The FDA has over 10,000 dedicated employees and has a budget of nearly $2 billion. Strong management skills and leadership are essential to ensure that FDA can efficiently and effectively carry out its many responsibilities.

Integrity: The individual must be well-respected by patient/consumer groups and the industry so that FDA commands the respect of the public and the industry it regulates. The FDA Commissioner must also be an honest broker and listener who can make tough calls on contentious issues.

Commitment to the mission of the Agency: Decisions must be made based on sound science and public health, not ideology. The nominee must maintain the FDA gold standard of safety and efficacy, ensuring timely approval of new therapies to save lives, help patients live longer and improve their quality of life and ensuring safety of our food supply.

The FDA needs strong leadership. Dr. Von Eschenbach is an experienced and respected scientist. We need his leadership to help Congress establish the legislative framework needed to reform FDA: We need to restore the morale at FDA; we need to restore confidence in the FDA for all Americans; and we need to restore FDA to the world's premier food and safety regulatory agency.

We need his commitment to ensure that the best possible science informs the decisions the FDA makes every day. We need him to ensure a culture of openness so that management listens to and addresses the concerns of your employees. We need him to make significant changes to transform the Agency to the gold standard it once was.

FDA sets the gold standard. Yet today we have ideology over science, ideology over competence. I strongly believe the FDA needs a strong permanent Director. I will therefore vote for Andrew Von Eschenbach in the hopes that he can become that strong leader FDA needs and the American public deserves.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life and legacy of Enolia P. McMillan. She was a revered and beloved civil rights leader, community leader, and educator.

Mrs. McMillan was an amazing woman with a fantastic story. She had both grace and grit, as well as a personality that would not accept the word ``no'' for an answer.

When they said: ``You can't,'' she said: ``I can!''

When they said: ``You won't,'' she said: ``I will!''

When they said: ``Wait,'' she said: ``Now!''

Enolia P. McMillan was born to a loving family of modest means. She fought hard for her education, while attending schools that were separate and far from equal.

She wanted to be a doctor--a pediatrician. Although she would never attend medical school, she was certainly a healer. In fact, her thesis was entitled: ``The Factors Affecting Secondary Education for Negroes in Maryland Counties,'' which laid the groundwork for changes in education and the Supreme Court.

She cared not only about her own education but the education of others. That is why Mrs. McMillan was so at home at the NAACP. The NAACP is about empowerment and it is about equality. Mrs. McMillan understood this and focused on the grassroots, which turned the Baltimore branch into a powerhouse.

As national president, she strengthened the NAACP and brought it here to Baltimore. She didn't throw bricks--she sold bricks--to build the NAACP headquarters in Baltimore, and she always supported young leaders, like Kweisi Mfume. Always, she fought for equality and fairness, whether it was for equal pay for teachers in Maryland or for the freedom of the South African people living under apartheid.

On a personal note, I met Mrs. McMillan when I was on the Baltimore City Council. She was the president of the Baltimore Branch of the NAACP and attended every critical meeting and hearing. She also came to my office on occasion. We didn't know each other well, having come from different sides of Baltimore, but I so admired her. She took a keen interest in this spunky, chunky, feisty Baltimorean.

Her greatest passions were schools. We were ending segregation in our schools--not only tearing down old ways but building new ones. To her, the word ``public'' meant a lot: public schools, public libraries, and the public interest.

Mrs. McMillan was always so supportive and encouraging toward me. I would win some and I would lose some; but she always said: Keep speaking up--keep speaking out. If you were doing well, she told you. If she thought you could do better, she told you; and we did.

She had a passion for young people and spotting new leaders. She thought all young people had value and always believed in the freedom to achieve--to follow the American dream.

She would say: Barbara, fight for more books and less bombs. Fight for more libraries and fewer jails. Make sure people have drugs to fight cancer, while at the same time fighting the cancer of drugs. Fight for more jobs and make sure people turn the corner. Don't leave them standing at the corner. Most of all, she would say, Barbara, fight for the freedom to achieve.

I marvel at how mysteriously God works. I marvel that he should call Enolia McMillan in the same year as he has called four other great mothers of the civil rights movement: Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Victorine Adams, and Roberta March. I so admired Mrs. McMillan's passion and her activism. I am so grateful for her friendship. I will miss her leadership, her vision, and her political savvy.

The best of her lives on in all of us, as we seek to live up to her courage, conviction, and tenacity.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senate passage of the bipartisan, bicameral Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, H.R. 6197. This bill passed the House unanimously yesterday and is a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reauthorize this important act until 2011.

H.R. 6197 retains and strengthens current programs, as well as establishes new innovative programs. This bipartisan bill also honors the agreement that I made with Senators Enzi, DeWine, and Kennedy to members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to address the current funding formula for title III OAA dollars before moving the bill to the senate floor. The bill includes a compromise that addresses States that have both increasing and decreasing populations. Updating the ``hold harmless'' to the fiscal year 2006 funding level helps States with steady populations, while phasing out the guaranteed growth provision over 5 years helps States with increasing aging populations.

This past December, the congressionally mandated White House Conference on Aging convened 1,200 bipartisan delegates from all 50 States to discuss issues that affect the lives of older individuals across the country. The No. 1 resolution adopted at the conference was reauthorization of the OAA this year. We have heeded their call and are pleased that H.R. 6197 has the strong support of the aging community.

There are three principles that I used to guide this reauthorization process. First, to continue to improve the core services of this act to meet the vital needs of America's seniors. We need a national program with national standards that ensure consistency but allow for sufficient flexibility and creativity. Second, to modernize the act, to meet the changing needs of America's senior population, including the growing number of seniors over 85. We must be ready for the impending senior boom and look for ways to help seniors live more independent and active lives. And finally, to ensure these critical national, State, and local programs have the resources they need to get the job done.

This bill keeps our promise to older Americans to retain and strengthen current OAA programs, as well as provide new innovative programs to further improve the act. It will ensure that the OAA continues to meet the day-to-day needs of our country's older Americans and the long-range needs of our aging population.

The reauthorization bill maintains tried and true programs, including information and referral services that are the backbone of OAA programs, providing seniors and their family members information about supportive services, nutrition programs like Meals on Wheels that provide meals to 2.75 million people every year, and transportation services which are critically important to seniors in our rural areas. At the same time, we recognize the need to strengthen certain programs in the act and establish new innovative initiatives that are fiscally responsible.

The bill strengthens the National Family Caregiver Support Program by providing respite services to older adults who care for their children who are disabled and lowering the age eligibility of grandparents caring for a child from 60 to 55. The bill also extends caregiver services to individuals with Alzheimer's disease of any age to address the increasing number of people who are being diagnosed with Alzheimer's at an earlier age and increases the authorization for the program to meet the growing needs of family caregivers.

The bill strengthens aging and disability resource centers, expanding the important role resource centers across the country provide. These centers are visible, trusted sources of information on long-term care options and health insurance and provide seniors and their family members with important information on benefits including the Medicare prescription drug program.

The bill strengthens the title V Senior Community Service Employment Program by maintaining the strong community service aspect of the program, an integral component since the beginning. This program helps seniors find jobs at Meals on Wheels programs, senior centers, and public libraries.

H.R. 6197 authorizes new innovative programs including a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community--NORC--Aging in Place Program that will support and enhance the ability of seniors to remain in their homes and communities by providing seniors necessary supporting services including transportation, social work services, and health programs. The new grant program builds on the success of Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities Programs that have developed at the local level and have a proven record of success.

A Civic Engagement Demonstration Program is authorized that encourages older adults to become actively involved in their communities. The program will capitalize on the talent and experience of older adults to meet critical needs in our communities. The bill also creates an elder abuse program that will support State and a community effort against elder abuse by conducting research related to elder abuse and neglect and creates a nationally coordinated system to collect data about elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

The bill also establishes an Interagency Coordination Committee based on S. 705, Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005, introduced by the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. The interagency committee will address the housing and social service needs of seniors and enhance working relationships and coordination among Federal entities including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation.

This bill addresses the issue of emergency preparedness for seniors by requiring States and Area Agencies on Aging to coordinate, develop plans, and establish guidelines for addressing the senior population during disasters/emergencies. During Hurricane Katrina and Rita, we all saw that many times the people who were left behind were the elderly. We must plan accordingly for seniors and use the successful senior network that exists in our country to make sure that they are not forgotten.

I thank Senator DeWine, chairman of the Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee, for his sincere dedication to reauthorizing the OAA this year and his willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish this. This is our second time reauthorizing this act together, and we produced a bipartisan bill once again. I also thank Senator Enzi for his strong leadership in moving this bill through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and all the way up to this point. Thank you also to Senator Kennedy for his leadership and his tireless advocacy for OAA programs and the people it serves.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Port Security Improvement Act because our country's ports are vital to our national security, military capability, and economy. Our economy depends on moving goods via our ports and rail. Our security depends on ports that are safe and protected from attacks. We must pass this bill to keep our ports and America safe.

Since 9/11, we have a new world order. We are fighting a global war on terror. Ports are now a high-threat target for terrorism. We need to keep our ports safe from those with predatory intent. Approximately 11 million containers come into the United States each year and 19,000 containers daily. Shippers declare what is inside, but who really knows what is in there. It could be weapons or explosives.

We need to improve our port infrastructure. This means providing personnel training and installing better gates and security cameras. We must also upgrade our technology. We need tamper-proof latches on containers to prevent terrorists from slipping bombs or weapons into a container. Yet Federal aid for port security is Spartan and skimpy. The President provided no funding for port security grants in his budget.

The Port of Baltimore just celebrated its 300th anniversary. The port is a part of me. My great-grandmother came to American through the port of Baltimore. Growing up, the port was part of my life. The longshoremen, truckdrivers and Merchant Marines who worked at the port were my neighbors. They were hard working, patriotic Americans. They shopped at my father's grocery store. I knew the history of the port because it was the history of my community.

The Port of Baltimore is an economic engine for Maryland and America. It creates jobs, including 42,000 maritime-related jobs in Maryland and almost 20,000 direct jobs. The port generates nearly $6 billion a year in salaries and revenues.

I have been fighting to upgrade and protect our Port of Baltimore for more than 20 years. In the beginning, it was fixing the twists and turns in our channels that were a safety risk. Today, it is threats that were unthinkable years ago. Keeping our port and our people safe from terrorism is one of my top priorities. I have fought for more port security funding in Baltimore to upgrade entry gates and perimeter fencing, install new surveillance equipment, and purchase new patrol boats. The Coast Guard estimates that $8 billion is needed to address port security nationwide. Congress needs to listen to the Coast Guard and provide the needed funding to protect our ports.

This bill is good for the Port of Baltimore and America. It would provide $400 million in port security grants when President Bush provided no funds for these grants. Last year, the Port of Baltimore received $1 million in port security grants, but they need $7 million. It needs these funds for surveillance and explosive detection equipment, perimeter security, and computer equipment to collect cargo information. This bill would also install radiation detection equipment at the 22 largest ports in the United States, including Baltimore. It is the 14th largest port for foreign cargo. This equipment is vital to detect dirty bombs and to protect the people of Maryland and the country.

We need to make sure the Port of Baltimore and all ports across America are safe, secure, and growing. The Port of Baltimore is vital to Maryland's future because an investment in the port is an investment in the State's economy. I am proud that this is the 300th anniversary of the port, but we need to make sure that the next generation celebrates the 400th anniversary. Mr. President, it is time to make port security a priority in the Federal law books and the Federal checkbook. I urge passage of this critical and long overdue legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a truly remarkable woman--Governor Ann Richards. She will long be remembered and loved for her tireless activism, her charisma and compassion, and her excellence in governance. I will also remember her as a friend and a trailblazer. Ann Richards showed women that anything and everything was possible.

Ann Richards was an original. Yet her life was the American dream. She was born in Lacy-Lakeview, TX, to her loving parents Robert Cecil Willis and Mildred Iona Warren. As a young woman, she took an early interest in politics and participated in Girls State, a youth leadership and citizenship program for high school students. She later studied at Baylor University on a debate scholarship. After earning her teaching certificate at the University of Texas, she began her remarkable career of public service as a junior high school teacher.

Governor Richards became known as an effective advocate and an accomplished political leader. In 1976, Governor Richards successfully ran for commissioner of Travis County, the same year I won my seat in the House of Representatives. She held this post until 1982, when she was elected State Treasurer--the first woman elected to a statewide office in Texas in over 50 years. In 1991, when I was the only female Democratic Senator, Ann Richards became one of the few female Governors in the country. We showed that--together--women can make change.

As Governor of Texas, Ann Richards spearheaded an economic revitalization program that expanded Texas' economy during a nationwide recession, and also led an effort to expand State funding of public schools. In 1988, she charmed the Nation with her witty, passionate remarks as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

People have called Ann quick-witted and feisty. Well, I happen to like feisty people. She stood up for what she believed in. She fought for what she felt was right. And she made a difference. She served her Nation and she served her State.

Governor Richards' death is a tragedy but her life was a triumph. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Governor Richards' children, who were at her bedside when she passed, to her friends, and to all those whose lives she touched. She and her family are in my thoughts and prayers at this very sad time.

Mr. President, next week we will be commemorating an event that none of us can forget and none of us wants to relive.

We mark September 11, 2001, as a day of national tragedy. But out of the ashes rose a determination to bring the sponsors of this terrorism to justice and to reform the intelligence system that that we depend on to prevent such predatory attacks in the future.

In those first weeks and months after the attacks, we were united as a nation and enjoyed the sympathy and support of the world. We went after Osama bin Ladin and the government that hosted him, with some of America's best and bravest. We assembled some of our wisest and most experienced leaders to investigate the events leading up to the attack and to recommend a path of reform.

Since 2001 when I joined the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have worked to bring about intelligence reform. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was an important milestone on this journey. Important structural changes were made to our intelligence community and barriers removed to information sharing between agencies.

But where are we now?

The operational failure of 9/11 was followed by an analytical failure in Iraq. The hidden agenda of the White House and the President's lack of interest in objective analysis compounded the consequences of flawed intelligence. The President did not level with the public before the war. He did not keep his eye on hunting down al-Qaida. Instead, he led us into an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq.

Instead of providing oversight of the executive branch, congressional leadership has provided a rubberstamp. Instead of providing an independent voice, it has offered an echo chamber. Instead of helping the Senate Intelligence Committee investigate the Iraq intelligence failure, it has helped the White House push roadblocks in our path. And instead of taking care to safeguard liberty as we enhance security, it has closed its eyes on violations of the law and betrayal of our values.

In spite of some strong disagreements on specific issues, the Senate Intelligence Committee has come together on a bipartisan basis to implement the reforms already adopted and advance additional reform measures.

But last year, the leadership in the Senate did not allow the committee's authorization bill to be debated and voted on by the full Senate. For the first time in 28 years, the committee was blocked from carrying out its most basic function--the authorization of U.S. intelligence programs.

This month, we have learned that the majority leader does not intend to bring the fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill to the floor before the Senate's fall recess. Again we face the prospect of the leadership preventing the Intelligence Committee from doing its job.

This is irresponsible and unacceptable. The authorizing committee should be the congressional vehicle for intelligence reform. The members of the committee spend the time needed to understand the issues. And we operate under special rules to keep our Nation's most sensitive secrets.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will do my best to make sure the intelligence community is adequately and appropriately funded. But providing direction and guidance for intelligence activities is the job of the Intelligence Committee.

Senator Rockefeller, the distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, elaborated from the floor this week about what is at stake. The fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill, passed unanimously by the committee, included provisions: to enhance or clarify the authority of the Director of National Intelligence; to encourage information sharing and access; to establish a statutory inspector general of the intelligence community; to elevate the heads of the technical intelligence agencies by requiring them to be appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent; to improve the timeliness and completeness of information provided to the committee, and; to streamline the security clearance process for National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency employees and contractors.

These measures are not trivial. If enacted, they will save lives and they will save money. They will help restore congressional oversight where it is lacking. They will help prevent abuses in intelligence operations, which bring dishonor to our nation.

In short, these measures are critical to our national security. They should not be casually discarded.

Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly raised his concerns with the lack of congressional oversight of the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. I join him in expressing those concerns from the perspective of a member whose state proudly hosts the headquarters of that invaluable agency.

After a long struggle against White House foot-dragging, members of congressional intelligence committees are finally being briefed on this 5-year-old program.

But as Senator Rockefeller points out, we have still not received the information necessary to adequately understand and evaluate the program. Nor have we been allowed to use the Intelligence Committee's specialized staff--such as the minority counsel and the NSA monitor-- who are best qualified to help us with this task.

Under these conditions, the Senate cannot evaluate the need for the warrantless surveillance program and cannot propose legislative remedies for the alleged deficiencies of the current law. These circumstances must change.

Mr. President, intelligence is at the forefront in our fight against terrorism, just as it was in our long Cold War struggle against communism. Congress has a duty under the Constitution to be a critical and coequal partner in this fight. I join Senator Rockefeller in urging the leadership of the Senate to let us get on with it.