Floor Statements

Madam President, I am here to join with my colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes, to offer an amendment, which we have at the desk.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sarbanes be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

If the distinguished Senator will yield, I thought there was an agreement for us to offer this amendment and not ask for a vote on this amendment. Had the Senate followed the regular order, we would have been done with the other business, the pending business on cluster bombs.

I apologize. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the session be extended for 10 additional minutes so that Senator Sarbanes and I may offer an amendment.

No, it has not.

Yes.

We will move briskly. This is to fix a terribly botched competition for Federal jobs at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This competition has wasted taxpayer money. It is unfair to Federal employees, and we urge that it stop. We are opposed to this because it has gone on too long, it is unfair, it has broken the rules, and cost taxpayers an incredible amount of money.

I do wish at this time, though, to pay tribute to the distinguished Senators, the chair and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. We have had no finer, more hard-working champions for Walter Reed and military medicine than those two men. So in raising this amendment, we understand where they are and why they also don't want to get into individual privatization issues, but this was such an egregious, unfair process, we felt we had to do this.

This amendment would privatize 350 jobs at Walter Reed, mostly landscapers and maintenance workers.

Why is this A-76 so flawed? Well, the competition has broken the rules. It has gone on and on and on. It is deeply flawed. It is disastrous. It started in June of 2000. It has lasted more than 6 years, beyond a full Senate term and longer than a President's term. OMB says that it should not have gone on more than 12 months, but this competition has gone on for more than 6 years. Federal employees in 2004 September were declared the winner of this competition, only to have the decision reversed 2 years later--not 2 days, not 2 weeks, but 2 years. Then DOD kept putting out new plans. They announced a new plan where they amended it 16 times. Every time the Federal employees won, the Army came up with a new rule. The last amendment included 1,500 changes. This was the 49th month of this solicitation, and once again they said: Let's start over. They keep changing the rules every time the Federal employees win, and then finally they lost it in 2006 after this chaos.

Now, does contracting out save money? You bet, sometimes, but not this time. It has already cost the military $7 million to conduct this privatization. It is going to cost another $5 million to implement. When the demands on Walter Reed are so high, when we have a war that has no line item, should we be spending tax dollars to implement a program that will not save it? This will not save the taxpayers' money.

Also, I bring to my colleagues' attention that Walter Reed will be closing in just a couple of years. Why privatize now? It is a solution that is wrong. The competition was flawed. It does not save taxpayers' money. Sure, we understand contracting out when it is legal, when it is fair, when it saves taxpayers' money and maintains integrity. This amendment will eliminate the funding to carry this out, and we urge its adoption at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, wish to speak?

While we are waiting, my remarks are 5 minutes. May I proceed?

I thank the Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate all the courtesy.

Mr. President, this is really a sad day for me. It is a very sad day, as we are coming up on the anniversary of September 11, as I remember the fear that gripped the Capitol and gripped the United States of America. I remember us being outside on the steps of the Capitol on the evening of September 11 when we stood together and sang ``God Bless America'' together, when we were one Nation indivisible and when we were united and we were so determined to fight that global war against terrorism.

I joined with all of my colleagues and I voted to give the President the power to use lethal force to pursue the terrorists and pursue the Taliban and take the fight to Afghanistan. And how pleased I was with the victory in Afghanistan and the way, then, that the Afghan people came together in their Loya Jurga to choose Mr. Karzai to be their leader and to lay the groundwork for a democratic Afghanistan. I thought we were going to make Afghanistan the jewel of the Middle East, where the Muslim community could flourish, a democratic community could emerge, and women would be able to exercise their rights. How joyful we were when those little girls were going to school the same way as the little boys. But it was not meant to be. Afghanistan did not get the backing and support it needed, and along the way there was the recommendation to go to war in Iraq.

In 2002, 1 year later, we were debating the war in Iraq. Well, on October 10, 2002, I disagreed with the resolution before the Senate, with the request to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq, using a unilateral approach, and to engage in a preemptive war. I did not agree that the world and the United States of America faced a clear, present, immediate danger from weapons of mass destruction.

That information was coming from our CIA, and it was coming from our Department of Defense, which had cozied up to a dissident named Achmed Chalabi, the guy who hung around London, being paid $300,000 a week from the CIA, eating Dover sole, with no backing, no information. He sold us a bill of goods. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Rumsfeld was one of the ones who made that argument, along with the CIA.

So where am I today? Today, I really do believe we need a fresh approach. One of the ways to get it is through new leadership. Ordinarily, I would not single out a personality. I would agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that this is about policies. But we have gotten nowhere. So I have joined with my colleagues to ask for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.

I have been asking for his resignation since 2004 because I watched us go from being at war with Iraq to being at war within Iraq. Well, this dangerous incompetence has been wrong for America and wrong for our troops and wrong for our allies and wrong for the Iraqi people.

Rumsfeld was wrong about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and he led us into war on inaccurate evidence. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that Rumsfeld skewed, selected, and exaggerated information about weapons of mass destruction. And our men and women in uniform have been paying for this deception ever since.

Rumsfeld was wrong about what it would take to secure Iraq. We sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without armored humvees, and unprotected for the war in Iraq, where they face daily attacks by IEDs and RPGs. It was up to the Congress, and actually the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to add over $1 billion to make sure our troops have the protection they need.

Well, now they need to have new leadership, as well as new protection and new weapons. And along the way, when we hear we are going to listen to our generals in the field--what generals in the field? Those generals who said we need more troops or different strategies, who disagreed with Rumsfeld's rosy projections were muzzled. Warnings about lawlessness and looting were ignored. The State Department's reconstruction plan for Iraq was dismissed and laid aside.

DOD's own report says now sectarian violence is the dominant trend in Iraq. But the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, refuses to admit what our generals can clearly see: Iraq is slipping into a civil war and sectarian violence. And whose side are we going to be on? We have said this must be a year of transition. And the transition must begin with Mr. Rumsfeld resigning.

Now, Mr. Rumsfeld also assured us about the cost of the war. I was in the meetings. I was in the hearings. He said: Don't worry, American taxpayers will not pay for the war. With our shock and awe, and this quick war, we are going to have a mission accomplished, that the war will be over, and the cost of rebuilding will be paid for by Iraqi oil. Well, Iraqi oil--drip, drip, drip. When do we get a chance to see it? There is no Iraqi oil coming to the United States. Why? Because the infrastructure is broken. Because of the corruption. And because we were once again oversold.

Finally, we need to hold Rumsfeld responsible for the prisoner abuse scandals. The abuse at Abu Ghraib is deplorable, despicable and dishonorable. It does not reflect the values of the United States, or the code of conduct that most of our Soldiers live by every day. Rumsfeld's leadership created a command atmosphere where terrible abuse of prisoners was not just tolerated, but encouraged. But only junior enlisted and young officers have been held accountable, while high level military and civilian leaders are let off the hook. This is unacceptable.

Rumsfeld is completely incapable of speaking the truth--or facing the truth--about Iraq. His dismal performance has undermined U.S. credibility in the world, and undermined the President's credibility with the American people. We face serious threats from terrorism and rogue regimes, and our brave troops are risking their lives every day around the world. We need a Secretary of Defense we can trust. Donald Rumsfeld should resign now.

I think I made my point, and I am willing to yield my time. We need new leadership. We need a new Secretary of Defense.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, this is the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment. It is very straightforward. It eliminates funding for the Army to carry out the A-76 effort that eliminates close to 400 jobs at Walter Reed, primarily little people, such as landscapers. Senator Sarbanes and I objected to this contracting out because the process was flawed, unfair, and does not save the taxpayer any money.

Number 1, it started in the year 2000. It went on and cost $7 million to run the process.

The Federal employees won it in 2004. The Army changed the bar, reissued the solicitation, making up to 1,500 changes. After the Federal employees won the contract in September 2004, the Army changed the solicitation.

Having spent $7 million, it will now spend $5 million to implement it. The Army is about to spend $12 million to save $7 million. Even by Army accounting, that is a bad deal.

This process is flawed. It is unfair. It did not go by the rules. It does not save the taxpayers money. We urge the agreement of the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Let's talk about taxpayers, since this is supposed to inherently do something or other, saving money to fight terrorism.

This started in 2000, as Senator Sarbanes said. The Army spent $7 million

to defeat their own Federal employees. They spent $7 million in 6 years. Boy, how about that? These are the little people, the landscapers. Thank God they had the AFGE behind them.

Then, after spending $7 million and changing the rules--and with the last set of specs, they had 1,500 amendments; imagine if we had 1,500 amendments--what we now find is they are going to have to spend another $5 million to implement the savings. So they are going to spend $12 million when the original goal was to save $7 million. Come on. If we are fighting terrorism and saving money, let's leave Walter Reed alone. It is going to be closed in a couple years because of BRAC. Let the landscapers do their job. Let the doctors and nurses do their job. Let's do our job and pass the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. President, I hope Members take the time to listen to what we are saying here. We are about to make history. We are about to pass legislation that is going to make a difference. We are going to make sure that the lives of over 100 million people will be more secure because of what we have done tonight. We are going to make sure that good-guy businesses will have clear, certain rules so that they can continue to provide pensions. We are going to make sure that government, through heavyhandedness or unintended consequences, won't force these businesses into bankruptcy. We are going to protect the taxpayer to make sure that the pensions of hundreds of thousands of people aren't dumped into the Pension Benefit Guarant Corporation, leaving it to the taxpayer to do what the private sector should. And we succeeded because we worked together.

I thank Senator Enzi for his leadership and his collegiality, his inclusion and his civility; Senator Kennedy for the leadership he provided to our side of the aisle and the very competent staff at his disposal; certainly to my colleague Senator DeWine. We chaired the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging and held some of the first hearings out of the box. We tried to go at it with intellectual rigor and with fortitude. We promised we would do no harm to those who relied on a pension, to those who provided a pension, and to the Pension Guaranty.

Do you know what? We did it. Then we moved it through the HELP Committee. The Finance Committee had already started their work, and ultimately we merged those two bills. But Senator DeWine and I come from a manufacturing base, those blue-collar workers with dirt under their fingernails and bad backs who wonder what they are going to have at the end of the workday. We stood up for them. There was a concern that the use of credit ratings in determining whether a pension plan was at risk would force manufacturing companies going through difficult economic times into bankruptcy because of their pensions.

We held up the Senate. We said we wouldn't let the bill go on. But Senators Grassley and Baucus reached out to us and said: Trust us; we can reach a compromise. Will you work with us? We wanted to know what that compromise was. They said: We will have to work it out. Do you know what we did? We trusted our colleagues on the Finance Committee and before long we had a sensible solution that was actuarially sound, fiscally reliable, and also met the needs of the pensions.

Tonight we come before you with something that we truly have done on a bipartisan basis, consulting with experts, working with able staff, trusting and working with each other, long hours, difficult nights, sometimes speed bumps and potholes. But now we have come to the end of the journey. I can't tell you how proud I am to ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. I am proud not only because I believe tonight we truly can make a difference, but also so we can use this as a model of how when we work together, we can do better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I note that the next Democratic speaker after me will be Senator Harkin, and the next Democratic speaker after Senator Harkin will be Senator Schumer.

We are now in the final days and hours of this session of Congress. One of the bills that is circling, waiting for a place to land is the pension bill. We now know the pension bill has been passed by the House, and it is waiting to be taken up in the Senate, but we don't know when it is going to be taken up. It all depends on what we do about the estate tax.

The pension bill--the bipartisan pension bill--must not become a pawn in the debate over other unrelated issues. This bill needs to pass, and it needs to pass this week. There is only one reason it is being held up: politics, politics, politics.

The pension bill is being used as a pawn for reckless tax breaks for a few when the pension bill will help the many. We need to move this pension bill. I urge the Republican leadership to bring up the bill this week and to bring it up before any tax bill. The American people need it. We need to protect the pensions of millions of Americans, we need to provide relief and certainty to good-guy businesses, and we need to protect the taxpayers from having billions of dollars dumped on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Promises made should be promises kept.

America's pension system is in crisis. There are companies that are declaring bankruptcy and then dumping their pension plans on the taxpayers. We have the legislative framework to deal with this.

We have had terrible problems. Bethlehem Steel didn't honor their books and declared bankruptcy. They dumped the pensions of 100,000 workers and retirees on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. United Airlines declared bankruptcy in 2002 and dumped the pensions of 122,000 workers on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.

One might say: What will this bill do? It will help to make sure that history does not repeat itself. I have been fighting alongside my colleagues for a long time to enact comprehensive, bipartisan reform. Senator DeWine and I held hearings over a year ago. The Senate passed its bill 7\1/2\ months ago. There was a HELP Committee bill and a Finance Committee bill.

When we were waiting to pass the bill, Senator DeWine and I had a hold on it because we were concerned that it would place at risk certain come-back companies that were working their way out of bankruptcy and would force their pensions into junk bond status.

We had the assurances of our colleagues, Senators Grassley and Baucus from the Finance Committee, saying: Lift your hold. We need to pass the pension bill. We will work with you.

So Senator DeWine and I trusted Senators Baucus and Grassley, and we did work it out. We were able to agree within the Senate on a bipartisan framework. Then we took it to the House conferees. It was a rocking-and-rolling conference but, again, we were able to get it done.

Now, why can't we get the bill done in the Senate? We worked it out in conference, and it passed the House. Why can't it pass the Senate? It needs to pass the Senate by Thursday or Friday. Now is the time to pass the bill.

The Republican leadership has decided that protecting a few zillionaires' estates after they die is more important than protecting pensions for retirees while they are still alive. Let's get our priorities straight. We are not only talking about the retirees who depend on us, we have workers right now in airlines who are wondering what is going to happen to them. What do you say to somebody who is working for an airline who might lose his pension? Think about that mechanic. Think about what he is concerned about.

What about the stewardesses, the brave people we saluted on flight 93? The last thing we can do is honor their memory and have a pension bill for those who fly every single day.

What about the people who are working right now who are concerned that the rules of the game will be shifted on them? Our pension bill-- our bipartisan pension bill--will protect them.

We really have to pass this bill. I urge the Republican leader to bring up the pension bill after we dispose of this coastal drilling issue. As I said, the time for delay is over, the time for politics is over, and it is time for us to take up and pass the pension bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2005. To compete in this global economy, we need to make sure our students have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. Vocational and technical education is an extremely important part of this effort. The Perkins Act, which provides $1.3 billion to help train more than 10 million Americans across the country, is a vital investment in our Nation's high schools, community colleges, and our students.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical program gives a boost to America's workforce development system by providing funds to schools that teach technical skills ranging from auto shop to computer programming. The Perkins Act also supports practical career programs and links between secondary and postsecondary education, helping students to move up the opportunity ladder and prepare them for high- skill, high-wage jobs. Students who have completed Perkins-supported programs are better prepared not only for higher education but for the workplace.

The President has proposed eliminating funding for all vocational and technical education programs. This is the wrong way to go. If Perkins was eliminated, high schools, technical schools, and community colleges in every State would suffer. In Maryland, our schools would lose almost $19 million. Last year, we had more than 150,000 students enrolled in career and technical programs in Maryland. In the United States, 97 percent of high school students take at least one career and technical education course. One-third of college students are involved in career and technical programs. And almost 40 million adults attend short-term occupational training. If these schools had to close their doors or shut down their vocational programs, where would these students go to learn the skills they need to get good paying jobs?

Vocational and technical education provides students across the country with opportunities to develop academic and technical skills that are critical for economic and workforce development. It is our job in the senate to make sure these opportunities are there for the people who need them and to invest in our human capital to create a world class workforce. That is why I strongly support this bipartisan bill and I oppose any cuts to the Perkins Career and Technical Education programs.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. I oppose this bill for three reasons. The first is that it does nothing to promote the health and safety of our children. The second is that I do not believe it can pass constitutional muster. The third reason I oppose this bill because it is just another example of the continual assault on women's reproductive freedom.

I strongly believe that minors should involve their parents in all important decisions. This includes the decision to have an abortion. Research shows that most women voluntarily involve their parents when making this decision. However, I recognize that there are some young women who cannot talk to their parents about this issue. Some young women may not live with either of their parents, and instead live with a grandparent, aunt, or another adult relative. Some young women may be growing up in households where they experience physical and sexual abuse and may be threatened with further abuse should their parents be aware of a pregnancy. Yet young women facing pregnancy crisis need help and support.

There are no exceptions in this bill which address the realities of women's lives. The reality is that some young women come from abusive homes. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes young women are raped by their fathers, and this results in a pregnancy. And, the reality is that a young woman may need a trusted adult whether it be a grandparent, older sibling, priest or rabbi, to accompany them if they choose to get an abortion.

This bill does not help these young women. In fact, this bill says to women who cannot involve their parents that they have to go it alone. That is why I voted for the Feinstein amendment which would have allowed other trusted adults like grandparents or clergy members to be allowed to step in when a young woman could not go to her parents for help. This amendment was a step in the right direction. It acknowledged that unfortunately some young women cannot talk to their parents about this very important decision.

That is why I also voted for the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment. This amendment addresses the causes of teen pregnancy. The amendment takes positive steps to prevent teenage girls from getting pregnant in the first place. It funds teen pregnancy prevention programs in schools and community settings. The amendment provides funding to keep teens out of trouble and on the road to success. It restores budget cuts to after school programs and physical education classes.

I also oppose this bill because it does not pass constitutional muster. Not only does it totally ignore cases where a young woman's health is threatened. That clearly undermines the major holding in Stenberg v. Carhart which requires any law regulating abortion must contain an exception for a woman's health. Let's be clear: because this bill does not contain an exception to protect the health of young women it will be ruled unconstitutional.

Finally, I oppose this bill because it is yet another assault on women's reproductive freedom. I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have

served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage for contraceptives, or requiring Federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health.

Today, I will oppose S. 403 because it forces young women who are dealing with a crisis pregnancy to go it alone and deprives them of the advice and assistance of a trusted adult. It assumes that every family is safe, stable, and supportive. The bill ignores that some minors cannot go to mom and dad for help. It does not make our children any safer. I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 403.

Mr. President, I rise today to give my strong support of the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this important and needed legislation.

In 2006, there are still places in America where voters are intimidated and turned away from the polls. Americans are being denied the most basic and fundamental right as an American the right to vote. That is why this bill is needed more than ever.

I am proud to be here to speak as the Senator from Maryland. From the dark days of slavery to the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way to end discrimination. The brilliant Frederick Douglass, who was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery; the courageous Harriet Tubman, who delivered 300 slaves to freedom on her Underground Railroad; and the great Thurgood Marshall, from arguing Brown v. Board of Education to serving as a Supreme Court Justice--all were Marylanders.

Not just Marylanders but civil rights leaders and activists from all over this country fought hard to get the right to vote. Over 600 people marched from Selma to Montgomery they were stopped, beaten, but not defeated. These brave men and women continued to march, continued to fight until they got the right to vote.

They had to challenge the establishment and to say ``now'' when others told them to ``wait.'' Holding dear to their hearts the words of Frederick Douglass:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who

profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation are men who

don't want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain

without thunder and lightning. The struggle may be a moral

one, or it may be a physical one, but it must be a struggle.

Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did, and it

never will.

Their fight, their struggle resulted in the Voting Rights Act being passed. This legislation guarantees one of the most important civil rights that every citizen may vote. It is the very foundation of our democracy. It has eliminated discriminatory practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests. It has made it possible for African Americans to vote and hold elective office.

We have come a long way since the original Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Yet we have a long way to go. As recent as 2004, we have seen voters disenfranchised, broken election machines, and problems with people casting their ballots on election day. We saw this in the 2000 Presidential elections, too.

In 2000, we all learned that many ballots, many peoples' votes, were thrown out, lost, misplaced or miscounted. We saw election officials who did not know the rules and some who appeared to ignore the rules. And where did much of this happen? In minority neighborhoods, in cities, economically distressed areas across the Nation. I ask myself, is this just a coincidence? Those communities don't think so. It is critical that we let them know we take their concerns seriously.

This legislation recognizes that election reform is still needed. Voters are scared to come forward and cast their vote in some parts of this country. There are places where voters are not getting assistance at the polls whether it is language access or access to accurate information. This is unacceptable. It is un-American.

Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act will help guarantee the right to vote for all Americans. The bill does four important things. First, it requires States with a history of racial discrimination to have their voting laws precleared by the Department of Justice. This extra layer of oversight is still necessary to protect minority voters. Second, it prohibits all States from imposing any requirements that would deny a U.S. citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or language ability. Third, it requires language assistance at the polls if a U.S. citizen has difficulty speaking or reading English. Finally, it authorizes the Federal Government to send Federal election monitors to minority voter districts to prevent voter intimidation.

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Ensuring that every registered voter who wants to vote can vote is not a partisan issue. It is what America stands for.

We must stand up for what America stands for: opportunity, equality, and empowerment. We must make sure there is no discrimination of any kind, anywhere in America whether it is the old-fashioned kind or the new-fashioned kind. I urge my colleagues to support reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act today.

Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the Senator from Iowa for his real leadership on this issue.

This Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act debate is one of the most important debates the Senate will have in this year and in this decade. I believe this is such a great opportunity to be able to save lives. I believe it is like when we announced the endeavor to map the human genome, like when we announced the national war against cancer. That is how important this issue is.

I am a firm, unabashed supporter of stem cell research. It is a cornucopia of opportunity for new breakthroughs for some of the diseases that are the most devastating and costly conditions facing thousands of Americans, including Alzheimer's disease, from which my father died, diabetes, of which our family faces an inherent propensity, spinal cord injuries, which we see through accidents like Christopher Reeve had, and spina bifida, from which little children suffer.

Stem cell research has the potential for saving lives, and we need to be able to pursue it. I also would urge that this research be done in the sunshine. One of the reasons we need a national framework is so it will not be done in dark corners of the world without the United States of America participating.

We need a national framework to establish bioethical standards based on sound science and ethical principles. I fear that without national standards and national legislation, this could be conducted outside of the public eye, without national and international scrutiny, where dark and ghoulish things could occur.

One of the reasons I came to the Senate was to help save lives. In my home State, we are the home to the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Drug Administration, the University of Maryland, and also Johns Hopkins University. I, every day, know that in my own home State they are working on new ideas for new cures. Whether it is to ensure that women have accurate mammograms to diagnose breast cancer, streamlining the drug approval process so that lifesaving drugs can reach patients more quickly, or fighting to double the budget at NIH, we have consistently fought to improve the lives and health of the American people.

This is why I am such an advocate of stem cell research. It holds the potential to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, all those autoimmune diseases, such as MS and spinal cord injuries.

Just imagine if scientists could find a cure or the cognitive stretchout ability for Alzheimer's. Even giving individuals with a disease a longer mental capacity would be a big breakthrough. Eighty percent of Medicaid costs go to paying for long-term care for seniors. Eighty percent is primarily spent on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Think of just the financial savings we could have, let alone dealing with the tragedy in lives.

I, along with Senator Bond, am the lead sponsor of the Ronald Reagan breakthrough legislation to sponsor breakthroughs. We have spoken personally with Nancy Reagan, and she has endorsed this legislation, just as Senator Lautenberg has talked about. We need this opportunity to pursue the opportunity.

If we do not have national legislation, we are going to do it one State at a time. California has done it. My own home State of Maryland has done it. But do you know what. There is $30 million here and $30 million there, but we do not have national standards, which means, can we replicate the research? Can we have international cooperation?

For too long, this Federal health research has been operating with one hand tied behind its back. Scientists have been prohibited from doing embryonic stem cell research.

Five years ago, President Bush restricted Federal funding for embryonic stem cells. He said: Oh, we have these little lines, these little stem cell lines.

Those little stem cell lines did not turn out very well. The result is, federally funded research was almost halted. Stem cell research is conducted by private entities, and there are no national Federal bioethical standards.

I want bioethical standards. I want to ban human cloning. I want to make sure the ghoulish is not done in laboratories.

I support the other legislation. We should not turn this into financial opportunity. We should sign it into pure opportunity.

What I like about this legislation is that it removes the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, but it does provide for an ethical and medical framework and allows for sound science and sound ethics to be able to proceed. This ensures transparency and public accountability. But most of all, it ensures opportunity.

When my father was in that nursing home and he could no longer recognize me or the woman to whom he had been married for 50 years, it did not matter that I was a Senator. There was no cure for Alzheimer's. It did not matter that I could get five Nobel Prize winners on the phone because they did not have the answer.

My father, when he passed away, was a modest man. He would not have wanted big, lavish testimonials. What he would have liked to have had was the fact that I cared enough to look out that no family would go through what we went through. And whether you were the First Lady of the United States, like Nancy Reagan, and the first caregiver, or my mother, who was by my father's bed when he passed away, we watched what that disease did. And now I will not stand patiently by and watch the opportunity to find a cure pass by.

So let's remember President Reagan. Let's remember the little guys like Mr. Willy, who ran a grocery store in Highlandtown, and who looked out for his neighbors and for his girls, as he called his daughters. Let's look out for the American people and pass stem cell research.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of this resolution condemning Hezbollah and its state sponsors, and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense.

On July 12 Hezbollah militants launched an attack into northern Israel, killing seven Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two soldiers to hold hostage in Lebanon. On June 25, despite Israel's evacuation of Gaza almost a year ago, Hamas entered sovereign Israeli territory, attacked an Israeli military base, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped one, who is still being held captive.

Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations supported by Syria and Iran. The Senate is on the record demanding that Syria and Iran abandon their sponsorship of terrorism, with legislation including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. Syria, Iran, and the Hezbollah terrorists that these states sponsor are responsible for the current violence in the Middle East. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers from Israeli soil and the exploitation of civilian populations as shields are provocations to which any sovereign nation would be obligated to react. Israel has every right to respond to protect her citizens.

These terrorists must be stopped. Terrorists destroy lives. They destroy hope. They destroy the opportunity for peace. The independent militias in Lebanon must be dismantled and withdrawn. The Lebanese government must take steps to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 and disarm the Hezbollah forces operating within its territory. The Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas must be released immediately and unconditionally.

I urge President Bush to use all available political and diplomatic means to persuade the governments of Syria and Iran to end their support of Hezbollah and Hamas. We are united in our rejection and condemnation of the heinous acts of Hezbollah and Hamas and the governments of Syria and Iran are supporting them.

We are also united, Mr. President, in our steadfast support for Israel and Israel's right to self-defense. Israel is one of our closest allies. As Americans, we share with Israel both strategic interests and moral values. Today I am proud to stand with the people of Israel and support their right to defend themselves.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Dodd-DeWine amendment increasing funding for firefighter grants. These grants are for local fire departments to ready themselves. The cost of equipment can't be covered on fish fries and bingos alone. The firefighter grant program is a wise and prudent use of Federal funds. I know these funds are used well in my home State of Maryland.

This program has no winners or losers. Everyone wins in rural and urban America. I acknowledge that these are tight times and there is a tight allocation. But we must do better for our first responders. When I was the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, Senator Bond and I funded firefighter grants at $900 million. While this amendment does not get us to that funding level, it does provide an increase for the program.

Mr. President, today I rise to support and cosponsor Senator Specter's amendment to make sure funding to nonprofit institutions that are at high risk of terrorist attack receive the funds we have given to them. I have worked with my colleague from Pennsylvania on legislation to help nonprofits that serve communities throughout the Nation but that are threatened daily by the risk of terrorist attack. We have also worked together to provide these vulnerable communities with needed funding for the past 2 years. Yet despite our efforts to protect these ``soft targets'' of terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security has refused to release any of last year's money to these nonprofits. This is unacceptable. Today, we are making it clear that the $25 million provided for nonprofits must be spent to protect these institutions.

We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States, Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey. These attacks by al-Qaida on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and cultural centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of all types in order to conduct its campaign of terror.

I want to make sure that our communities are safe and the buildings where citizens live, learn and work are strong and secure to safeguard American lives in the event of a terrorist attack. Local communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This Congress must do its share to make sure that they do not have to bear the full cost of this war. We have done this by providing funds for security enhancements in buildings that Americans visit everyday. Yet DHS has failed to give local communities the funds they need. DHS has not released any of the funds despite instruction from Congress to do so.

This amendment is very simple--it requires the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to release the $25 million Congress provided to enhance the security and safety to these nonprofits. This funding will help nonprofits make the needed security improvements to protect these ``soft targets'' of terrorism. These nonprofits are worried now, they are under threat now, and they need our help now. This Congress has acted and now DHS must act now to make these nonprofits and the communities that they serve safer and stronger.

As a nation our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be safer, stronger, and smarter so that we are able to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This amendment gets us one step closer to meeting those goals by making vulnerable targets smarter in detecting and preventing terrorist attacks and by making sure that if terror strikes one of these facilities, security and safety measures are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around these buildings.

Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America security and Americans safety. I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted because it does exactly that. In the battle to protect our nation from terrorist attacks, we must be sure to provide assistance to these high-risk nonprofit organizations that provide vital health, social, cultural, and educational services to the American people.

Amendment No. 4616

Mr. President, I rise today to address yet another problem with the Department of Homeland Security. It has been 3 years since its creation, and the Department continues to have difficulties integrating a financial management system. The Department began with 18 different financial systems. The Department's most recent effort to create a new, consolidated financial management system, known as Emerge2, has been canceled after the Department spent $23 million without making progress.

History has shown that integrating Federal computer systems and migrating data can be a complicated and costly undertaking. As the Department of Homeland Security moves forward in its efforts on financial management integration, it should do so carefully and deliberately. It is my hope that the Department considers a range of possible solutions. This includes soliciting ideas from commercial providers with prior Department of Homeland Security experience and contemplating a pilot program with one of these providers to work through the complicated technical and operational problems.

Mr. President, I also wish to address one of the most important issues the Congress faces today--protecting our homeland from terrorist threats. One threat we have only just begun to address is a possible attack on our food production, supply and distribution systems. Bioweapons could threaten both our crops and livestock, which would have profound impacts on the health of our society and our ability to export such products.

The Senate must support funding for biodefense research, to prevent and prepare for such an attack. I am proud that the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill provides additional funding to complete planning and design of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, an initiative to replace outdated labs transferred to the Department of Homeland Security from the Department of Agriculture when DHS was created in 2002.

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security solicited expressions of interests from around the country from consortiums qualified to operate this facility. DHS received twenty-nine proposals and will choose a set of finalists later this year. The chosen teams and sites will go through a competitive process and National Environmental Policy Act review to identify a final team and site. NBAF will be on the front-line of research and development of new ways to protect our nation's food supply, so the final choice of a team to operate NBAF must be made on the basis of scientific and technical merit.

The Mid-Atlantic Bio-Ag Defense Consortium is among the 29 applicants to run NBAF. It consists of a group of researchers from leading universities and selected federal and state agencies in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Delaware. I believe that this five-state consortium, led by the University of Maryland's School of Medicine, offers unparalleled scientific expertise and critical understanding in large institutional management, and will present a strong proposal for the Department's consideration.

The combined expertise of the Mid-Atlantic Consortium has a proven track record in research and development of countermeasures to many agents and toxins designated as threats by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This team has considerable ``hands on'' experience in handling the most sensitive kinds of material while adhering to the protocols essential for high quality and safely-managed scientific research. I believe this team is uniquely qualified define problems so as to develop, test and implement solutions to ensure that we can protect our crops and livestock from biological threats.

To augment its exclusive research capability, the consortium has identified the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, BARC, to serve as the NBAF site. BARC offers the Department an integrated, secure and results-oriented approach to tackling plant and animal diseases of high consequence that could enter the U.S. through ordinary commerce or an act of terrorism. Its existing infrastructure and location would contribute to successfully protecting a highly sensitive facility like

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity Act. I am proud to be joined on this bill by my colleague and friend, Senator Sarbanes. This legislation will ensure that all Federal law enforcement officers have the same retirement options and that their pay and benefits conform to the federal law enforcement retirement system.

Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. But some Federal law enforcement personnel, such as customs and immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security or police officers at Veterans Affairs, are not eligible for these same

benefits. This legislation will amend current law and grant the same pay and 20-year retirement to all law enforcement officers.

We must honor our Federal law enforcement personnel. The names of Federal law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty are engraved on the Law Enforcement Memorial. We include the names of the officers from Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. We honor them when they die, but we don't recognize them when they are living.

We need to make sure that all Federal law enforcement officers earn the pay and benefits that they deserve. These brave men and women are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel, and face the same risks and challenges.

For example, U.S. Customs inspectors are responsible for the most arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Yet they do not qualify for law enforcement officer status. Along with U.S. Customs agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping to provide additional security at the nation's airports and help enforce U.S. Customs laws. They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at the World Trade Center. After September 11, Customs inspectors are playing a critical role in ensuring that terrorists don't get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and smuggle them into the country.

Like customs inspectors, immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security are also on the front lines of defense against terrorism. Immigration inspectors enforce the Nation's immigration laws at more than 300 ports of entry. In the normal course of their duties, they enforce criminal law, make arrests, interrogate applicants for entry, search persons and effects, and seize evidence. Inspectors' responsibilities have become increasing complex as political, economic and social unrest has increased globally. The threat of terrorism only increases these responsibilities.

This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level of benefits.

This bill will improve the effectiveness of our Federal workforce to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. This bill is strongly supported by the National Treasury Employees Union. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity Act. I am proud to be joined on this bill by my colleague and friend, Senator Sarbanes. This legislation will ensure that all Federal law enforcement officers have the same retirement options and that their pay and benefits conform to the federal law enforcement retirement system.

Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. But some Federal law enforcement personnel, such as customs and immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security or police officers at Veterans Affairs, are not eligible for these same

benefits. This legislation will amend current law and grant the same pay and 20-year retirement to all law enforcement officers.

We must honor our Federal law enforcement personnel. The names of Federal law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty are engraved on the Law Enforcement Memorial. We include the names of the officers from Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. We honor them when they die, but we don't recognize them when they are living.

We need to make sure that all Federal law enforcement officers earn the pay and benefits that they deserve. These brave men and women are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel, and face the same risks and challenges.

For example, U.S. Customs inspectors are responsible for the most arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Yet they do not qualify for law enforcement officer status. Along with U.S. Customs agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping to provide additional security at the nation's airports and help enforce U.S. Customs laws. They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at the World Trade Center. After September 11, Customs inspectors are playing a critical role in ensuring that terrorists don't get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and smuggle them into the country.

Like customs inspectors, immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security are also on the front lines of defense against terrorism. Immigration inspectors enforce the Nation's immigration laws at more than 300 ports of entry. In the normal course of their duties, they enforce criminal law, make arrests, interrogate applicants for entry, search persons and effects, and seize evidence. Inspectors' responsibilities have become increasing complex as political, economic and social unrest has increased globally. The threat of terrorism only increases these responsibilities.

This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level of benefits.

This bill will improve the effectiveness of our Federal workforce to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. This bill is strongly supported by the National Treasury Employees Union. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, once again I rise with great pride to support the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as she has so often in the past stood for the fact that funding to fight terrorists and to be ready for any kind of major disaster should be based on risk. In other words, money should go to where there is the greatest risk. The Senator from New York has been a longstanding advocate of this from September 12 to standing here today.

I support this amendment, as I, too, have done in the past. I am so frustrated with the Department of Homeland Security. It can't get its act together. It can't get the job done. It makes poor decisions on allocation, and it is saturated with waste and fraud.

The last straw was when I opened the paper and saw that the Department of Homeland Security was slashing funds for high-threat urban areas. The money was leaving the Capital region and New York to go to States such as Nebraska. I respect the people of Nebraska. If they are in danger, I want them protected. I don't know about the threats of Montana and Minnesota, but I sure do know about the threats in Maryland. We are part of the Capital region, the home of the President of the United States, the home of the Congress of the United States, the home of the Cabinet that runs Government, the home of the Supreme Court, and the FBI.

In the Capital region we have the Pentagon, we have the Central Intelligence Agency. In Maryland, we have three intelligence agencies gathering technical information--and they say we are not a high threat?

On September 11, we lost 60 Marylanders at the Pentagon, mostly African American, mostly who worked in the clerical positions. And we said a grateful nation would never forget. Just like the other Marylanders who died at the World Trade Center, we said a grateful nation would never forget. And the way that we are never going to forget is to make sure it doesn't happen again--to protect against attacks and, second, that we were going to do whatever we could to be able to be ready and respond to any of these attacks.

When we saw that smoke here at the Capitol that day, it just wasn't on television. I was so proud of the fact that it was Maryland first responders who were first on the scene because they work together in the Capital region. Rescue One out of Chevy Chase, MD, dashed across the Potomac to be first on site at the Pentagon. They were worried in northern Virginia because they didn't know what else would happen.

I visited that site. Again, on a bipartisan basis, I and Olympia Snowe toured the site together. We saw the rubble of the Pentagon. We saw them working to save lives. We saw how they had worked together in the Capital region. Obviously, Homeland Security, its agencies, and its database doesn't get it. They don't get it. They do not get the fact that the 9/11 Commission recognized the threats facing our urban areas and said target the resources at the areas of greatest need.

The Senate recognized the threat facing the Capital region when they worked with Senators Warner, Allen, Sarbanes, and myself to establish an Office of the National Capital Region so we could coordinate in the most effective way. It enabled the Capital region and also New York and other major areas to receive extra resources. However, the Department of Homeland Security that gave us the Katrina aftermath ignored Congress and ignored the Commission, and they slashed the resources for New York and the Capital region by 40 percent. They said we had gotten money. Oh. Right.

They said: Our database shows you don't deserve it. Thank God for the Department of Homeland Security's IG. There they go again over there at Homeland Security. They can't get it right. Their own inspector general said the Department's ability to assess risk is seriously flawed.

Guess what. They count an insect zoo and a bourbon festival as critical infrastructure.

When you listen to the fact that an insect zoo ranks up there with the Supreme Court, doesn't that bug you?

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security failed to list the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building.

They do not know the difference between a bourbon festival and the Statue of Liberty. They don't seem to know the difference.

This is the data that the Department of Homeland Security used to allocate the funding for Homeland Security grants.

There were in the State of Indiana over 8,000 assets listed, and in New York over 5,000. Just come with me down the Baltimore-Washington corridor as you pass these agencies that are helping people. There are the threats. We have high-threat targets because of what they do in national security, such as the National Security Agency.

We have threats of the heart, like the National Institutes of Health. Can you imagine the blow to research if something happened to NIH? Then come with me over there to Calvert Cliffs where we have a nuclear power plant, and then come up along the bay and see the U.S. Naval Academy.

How does that rank? That is Maryland. Then, of course, there is New York. We all know that New York showed up on every single list.

I commend the Senator from New York for offering this amendment. I believe that as we have organizational reform for Homeland Security, as the Collins' amendment did, and the Clinton amendment made such a strong point, we should have resource funding reform, and the heart and soul of that is the resource funding should follow risk.

The Department of Homeland Security along with FEMA should be operating on a risk-based strategy with confident professional people who have to learn the difference between an insect zoo, the Supreme Court, and the White House. If they can't get that straight and they didn't know how to build lessons, and they say: Don't worry ``Brownie,'' you are doing a good job, there they go again. I am fed up with it.

If I could vote one more time to dissolve the Department of Homeland Security, I would. I can't quite do that. But what I can do is make sure that the right resources go to the areas with the greatest risk. Baltimore would benefit. The Capital region would benefit. New York would benefit. But it is not about money. It is about saving lives and saving people.

I want to enthusiastically support the Clinton amendment and know that we are here to try to do this, to save lives, to save communities, and to protect the United States of America. If they do not know how to be the Department of Homeland Security, let us in Congress be the ones who understand it and properly fund it.

In conclusion, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire because under his leadership the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee was the first committee to hold comprehensive hearings on terrorism. He remembers the questions and who was in charge. Obviously, you can see that the Department of Homeland Security is not.

I support the Clinton amendment and am happy to be a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I supported Senator Clinton's amendment to restore FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it once again as an independent agency. In the early 1990s, as the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD, we funded FEMA. Senator Garn, my wonderful colleague, was my ranking member. We found that FEMA was a Cold War relic, and we went to work on a bipartisan basis, transforming it from a relic of the Cold War into a professional, prepared, all- hazards agency.

Hurricane Katrina was the storm we all feared. In the hours and days after Hurricane Katrina, like all of you I watched in disbelief and absolute frustration. Why? At the Federal Government's befuddled and boondoggled response blowing it. The people in our Gulf Coast States were doubly victimized first by the hurricane, second by the slow and sluggish response of our Government. And I thought: How like Hugo. How like Andrew. I didn't know about Betsy.

So this, of course, has prompted reform. Well, back in 1989 when we took a look at this, what did I see? What I found out as I took over the chairmanship of that subcommittee was that FEMA was a Cold War agency. It focused only on worrying about if we were hit with a nuclear attack. It was out of date, out of touch, and riddled with political hacks. If you had to give someone a favor job, whether it was at the Federal level or the State level, put them in civil defense. It was called civil defense. And many of us in my generation remember where we used to practice by hiding under those desks if war came. Well that is the way the bureaucrats were. Any time there was a question, they hid under their desk. So we set about reform. They were focused on something called continuity of Government. It was incompetent leadership. They had ridiculous ideas. In the event of a nuclear war-- stop first at the post office and leave your forwarding address to these three shelters. So you get a sense of what it was like.

But Senator Garn and I looked at it. And then what happened was Hurricane Hugo hit the Carolinas, particularly

South Carolina. FEMA's response was very poor. The military had to come in to get power back up in Charleston. The people went for over a week without basic functions. Sound familiar? Our former colleague Senator Hollings had to call the President's Chief of Staff, John Sununu, to get help and call the head of the Joint Chiefs, then General Colin Powell, just to get generators from the Army. It was like cats and charmer cops. Are you in charge? No, I am not in charge. They had the generators but didn't ask. It was all of that. In the meantime, there was no water, no utilities in Charleston. We began then to begin to examine what steps to take in reform.

Then along the way we were hit with Andrew. Andrew, again, was the worst disaster. Yet FEMA's response was so bad and they were so inept that President Bush I sent Andy Card, then Secretary of Transportation, to take over. I remember seeing a woman named Katie Hale saying, ``Where the hell is the cavalry on this one? We need food. We need water. We need people.''

Having said all that, it was very clear to Senator Garn and me. Our job was to protect lives, protect people, and now of course protect the homeland. Working with Garn, and then Senator Bond, we worked to change it. We commissioned three studies, and I ask you to go take a look at them. One was a GAO study, the other was a National Academy of Public Administration, and then FEMA's own inspector general.

We looked at all of this, and we wanted to be able to prevent, do all we could for prevention, and do what we could to respond. Our goals then were: First of all, FEMA has to be professionalized. They need a professional director and a professional staff. Whoever runs FEMA has to have a background in crisis management, either to come from emergency response at the State level, the way James Lee Witt or Joe Allbaugh did, or from the military or private sector where they have done crisis management and know how to organize large numbers of people. But not only professionalized Washington but insist there be professionals at each State level. And I would emphasize reform must also be directed at the States. No matter how good James Lee Witt was, no matter how dedicated Joe Allbaugh was, if they didn't have the State functioning well, it wouldn't work. As we know, the genius of our system is that each State will have a different type of threat. The terrain is different, the threat is different. And they need to be ready. So the professionalization and the way was that each State submit a plan. If you don't do the right plan and do tabletops, you are not going to get the money. I think you have to have a muscular way to have State plans in place with professional people and where there are benchmarks for measurement and then use the ultimate withholding. That is tough, but let me tell you, it works. So that is why we go for the professionalization of FEMA.

We focused on it being a risk-based agency--that means prepared for any risk that affects the risk base--because we thought then that the threat of the Cold War was coming to an end. The wall was coming down in Berlin, but the wall wasn't coming down in the Federal bureaucracy. So we said, what are the risks? The threat is natural disasters. And our States--we are coastal Senators, I share a coast with my colleague from Delaware--we are threatened by hurricanes. Soon as June comes, we are on our hurricanes readiness again--regardless of what the threat is. And now it is even more important because it could be an earthquake in California, a tornado in the Midwest, or, of course, a terrorist attack.

Next, be ready for all hazards. And again, it is the States that get ready with Washington offering the command and control and the ultimate backup of sending in the calvary should the States collapse. All hazards need to be prepared like when we had a fire in the Baltimore tunnel--we didn't know if it was predatory or not. A hazardous chemical spill, a hurricane, a tornado or even a dirty bomb.

If we practice the three R's, of readiness, meaning if we are ready, and we are ready at the State level, then we can respond where the threat occurs and then you have the infrastructure ready for recovery. We were able to put the State plans, professionalize the agency, in place.

What was never really ultimately addressed, though, is the Federal backup if there is a complete collapse. That is something I believe needs to be very carefully examined because of two things: No. 1, I recall Governor Giles of Florida when Andrew hit. He said: We need NASA satellites to tell me what my coast line looks like. We can't even call the first responders. The firehouses are underwater. And you know all of the great tragedies that you have heard. There does come a time when there is only the Federal Government that can bring in, under some kind of doctrine of mutual aid, really come in and provide the resources necessary. We lost cities--we have never lost an entire city, except back to Betsy.

That has to be dealt with. The other is the role of the Vice President in our earlier recommendation. The Vice President always backs the President up, but in a big disaster, like when the big ones hit, the Vice President should move to the Situation Room and really take charge, to make sure the Governors can handle the job, that the Governors next to the States affected can provide mutual aid, and so on, because it is also an appropriate role for the Vice President should the President be out of the country. The Vice President would be prepared and also, should the Vice President ever have to take over for any reason, would know the complete working of the FEMA disaster plans and how it should work. There are those other questions, too, of legal authority when the Government takes over. Our three R's have to be readiness, response, recovery. To do that we have to have professionalization, risk-based, all hazards.

You know, hurricanes are predictable. Terrorist attacks are not. And we have to be ready. Colleagues, I am concerned that whether it is avian flu or another hurricane getting ready for the season or something else, we don't know the answer, Who is in charge? That question has never been answered. Who manages the disaster? And most of all, who manages the panic around that? And who speaks? Your health committee members have just done a tabletop on bioterrorism. It is the same.

So I believe, No. 1, FEMA ought to be an independent agency. No. 2, maybe we need a disaster response agency, which handles this. But I also think we need to take a look at what would be our response and how we would handle these others, like avian flu. Are we going to call FEMA in? Is FEMA going to be avian flu? I don't know if we have to respond, but I don't think so. I would hope not. But should we have a new framework for that? What are the legal authorities? Can a President supersede a Governor if necessary? These are the big questions. But I believe we can create the right infrastructure. We can be ready for the natural disasters, and so on.

I am going to conclude by saying that when we work together, and I don't mean just us, but really work--we know how we have worked with Delaware. Just a couple of months ago, there was a terrible accident in a factory in West Virginia. The closest search and rescue team with helicopters was in Maryland with our State police. But because they had worked together, because they had trained together, because they knew each other, could talk to each other, trusted each other, my wonderful Maryland State troopers were able to go fly that 90 miles. The Coast Guard was too far away, this up near our Appalachian region. In the pitch blackness, with power lines around them when they couldn't see, they went down and were able to rescue two, and for the third they weren't sure whether he was going to get in the little basket that they have, but they stayed to make sure they were going to leave no one behind. Our State troopers did it, but they did it because they were professional, they were trained, they had worked together, they had trusted.

That is what they did that terrible night in West Virginia. It should be a model of what we need. Let's work together, train together, and trust each other. And that is why I supported this amendment to restore FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it again as an independent agency

northern border air wing initiative

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York, as well as all of my colleagues, the nine Democratic women from the U.S. Senate.

We are united today. We, the Democratic women of the Senate, rise in a united way to launch something we are calling the Democratic Women for Change. We want to change the agenda that is going through the Senate. We want to change the tone in the Senate for one of more civility, and we want to change the schedule to get things done.

The Senate has only been in session about 75 days, less time than most State legislatures. And what have we debated? Divisive constitutional amendments and tax breaks for zillionaires.

I regret that the Republican leadership has squandered time, squandered opportunity, and squandered taxpayers' money. We spent time with bills focused on reelecting Republicans instead of helping American families. It is time we bring real issues to the floor. We have only 50 days left before this Senate adjourns. This is why we have done our checklist.

We have a must-do list for change. It is specific, it is immediate, it is realizable, and it is also affordable.

We women know about checklists. We remember all the important things that we need to get done by having a checklist. It is what we use to keep our families on track, and now we bring a checklist to the Senate to get America on track.

These are the challenges that we can meet right now by the time Congress adjourns for the fall elections. Each and every one of us has a specific issue we want to see done, and we want to check that off.

I am advocating for reliable pensions. I want to talk about retirement security and giving help to those people who practice self- help all of their lives. In the United States of America, everyone should retire with financial security.

Honoring your father and your mother is not only a good commandment to live by, it is a very good policy by which to govern. That is why we the Democratic women of the Senate fought to stop the privatization of Social Security, and we were successful. Now we stand sentry on the Senate floor to make sure Social Security is never ever privatized.

We believe that Social Security should be a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble. We want to make sure Social Security is reliable, undeniable, and inflation proof.

But as we stand sentry, we are alarmed to see that a budget bill will come soon to the Senate floor that

could be a backdoor way of privatizing Social Security. The so-called budget reform bill will create a commission on entitlements, fast-track authority, but it is really a backdoor way to privatize Social Security.

Under the guise of empowering an unelected commission, they would have the authority to cut benefits, to turn it over to Wall Street where seniors would have to rely on the bull of political promises or the bear of a market. We, your Democratic women, are standing sentry, and we will not let this happen.

But we also want to support the private sector, the good guys in America's entrepreneurial and business community who provide pensions. So we are fighting for pensions that workers can count on and so that good-guy businesses would have clear rules coming out of the legislative framework on which they could depend. And we want to protect taxpayers from a bailout of companies dumping their programs on a government program.

Where are we now? A pension bill has been languishing. We are stalled, we are sputtering, we are dithering. It has been 180 days since the House and the Senate passed each bill on pensions, and 110 days since conferees were named--110 days.

After all is said and done, more is being said than gets done. Time is running out. We must pass this bill. But most of all, time is running out on this Congress. The American people are running out of patience. That is why we bring to the Senate our economic list for change, and we ask that we adopt this checklist and let's bring about change that will make a difference for our constituents.

I now yield the floor to my wonderful colleague from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and thank her for all of the extra work she is doing in standing up for New York and standing up for America.

Mr. President, I rise to support the substitute offered by Senator Durbin to ban the desecration of our flag. The Durbin alternative stands for the same things I do. It protects the principles embodied in our Constitution--as well as our U.S. flag. It does not amend the Constitution, but it will get the job done by punishing those people who help wage war against the symbol of this country and everything it stands for.

I know that we have gone down this road before, by passing statutory language to ban flag-burning only to have the Supreme Court overturn it. But this language has been specifically crafted so that it will pass constitutional challenge.

It says you cannot get away with abusing the flag of the United States or using it to incite violence. This is an exception the Supreme Court has allowed. The Durbin substitute says you can't use this Nation's symbol of freedom and turn it into a symbol of disrespect.

If there is a way to deal with and punish those who desecrate our U.S. flag without amending the Constitution, I am all for it. That is why I support the Durbin Substitute.

I feel very strongly about this issue. I have voted for legislation to prohibit flag burning, and I have voted against amending the U.S. Constitution. Today, I will do so again.

I take amending the U.S. Constitution very seriously. In the entire history of the United States we have only amended the Constitution 17 times after the Bill of Rights. Seventeen times in over 200 years-- that's it.

We have amended the Constitution to extend rights. We have amended the Constitution to end slavery, give women the right to vote, and guarantee equal protection of the laws to all citizens. The Constitution protects our liberty and it is the symbol of the strength of our Nation. I believe that it is my obligation as a Member of this body to protect its integrity and strength.

So many of our veterans have fought to protect our flag and what it stands for in battle. They have defended our flag and the nation against foreign enemies. These men and women fought valiantly to protect America and this issue is very important to veterans, who fall on both sides of the debate.

Many want an amendment to protect this important symbol of our Nation. Others know that the flag is a symbol of our freedom but our freedom endures beyond the cloth of the flag.

I respect how strongly they feel about our flag and all that it stands for. I share their concerns and have seriously considered supporting a constitutional amendment.

But, I have weighed the concern about protecting this national symbol with the need to defend our Constitution and the rights of free speech. I believe that the substitute offered by Senator Durbin strikes the right balance. My colleague from Illinois has offered an alternative to amending the Constitution that would protect the flag and protect the Constitution. I will support that alternative approach today.

Yet, I can't help but be concerned about why we are raising this issue now. There has not been a sudden surge in flag burning. In fact, to the contrary, I see more Americans waving their flags proudly as they support our troops overseas. It disappoints me that we raise this issue now, instead of focusing on priorities that really matter to veterans.

Instead of focusing on amending the Constitution, we should be standing up for our veterans where it really counts. Support for our military in the field must be matched by support for our veterans at home. This means deeds, not just words.

There are 25 million veterans in the United States. These veterans served with honor, bravery and sacrifice. The way to thank them is with a commitment to veteran's healthcare, veteran's programs and veteran's services.

Whether at Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill, the Mekong Delta, Falluja or the mountains of Afghanistan, our veterans shouldn't have to fight for the services they need and deserve at home. Instead of debating this amendment, the Senate should take up and pass Senator Akaka's Keeping Our Promise to America's Veterans Act.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which does five things to provide real support to our veterans with deeds, not just with words. First, it makes sure veterans get full funding for veterans medical care by accounting for growing vets population and rising health care costs. Second, it provides mental health care to vets from Afghanistan and Iraq. Third, it allows VA hospitals to fill prescriptions written by private doctors. Fourth, the bill guarantees concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability benefits. Finally, this bill makes it easier to take advantage of the G.I. bill by excluding G.I. benefits from financial aid eligibility computations.

I am disappointed that the Senate has chosen to spend time on this debate, instead of taking up this important bill and keeping our promise to America's veterans. We are giving our veterans rhetoric instead of results, and I am deeply disappointed for Maryland's 500,000 veterans, and veterans all across the Nation.