Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding a couple of minutes.

There have been a couple of times in my career when I have walked into a room and have been humbled. Obviously, the day I walked in this place, I was humbled beyond words. But when I first walked into a criminal courtroom as an assistant prosecutor as a very young lawyer, I was also humbled by the responsibility that had been placed upon me by our system of justice. I remember talking to one of the older prosecutors in the office about what I should worry about. He said: Just remember, remember that woman with the scales of justice, Claire. Remember she has a blindfold on.

That blindfold is what this is about today. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you were for George Bush or not for George Bush. What matters today is how those prosecutors

out there in this country feel right now, and what this incident did to the way they feel about their jobs. Because there are thousands of professional prosecutors--some of them have been appointed, some of them have been hired, some have been elected--what they all have in common is they understand their job is not about politics, it is about the rule of law.

When this whole incident unfurled in front of the American public, to all of those prosecutors it felt as though they were being cheapened, that somehow Gonzales and the rest of them were saying they were being judged on their politics and not on their professionalism.

So I come here just for a moment to try to give a voice to those thousands of prosecutors out there. I know them. I have worked with them shoulder to shoulder for years. They care deeply about their work, they care deeply about the rule of law, and they care deeply about fundamental justice.

On their behalf, I rise today for a moment to say this Chamber should vote unanimously a vote of no confidence against the Attorney General of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the issue of illegal immigration in this country in a very simple way. As a prosecutor, it is about following the law. As an auditor, it is about following the money. I state for my colleagues today that so much of this problem is about following the money.

We have crimes we can deter in this country and we have crimes we cannot deter. Let me tell my colleagues a crime we can deter. We can stop the hiring of illegal immigrants in this country if we prosecute the people who are hiring them because other business owners will stop hiring illegal immigrants if they see businesses being held accountable. This administration has not been interested in enforcing the law against employers.

What is hard to deter is families who are trying to feed their children. And the wall, yes, I support border enforcement. Of course. As a former law enforcement official, I support enforcing the law against anyone who breaks the law. But let's be realistic about this. As an auditor, I want to be efficient and effective.

Is it going to be efficient and effective to think we are going to solve this problem at the border? It is not the border that is going to stop the people coming into our country illegally. It is what is on the other side of the border. It is the promise of that job and the hungry mouths they are trying to feed.

So when I look at the raid that occurred in Springfield, MO, a few weeks ago when over 100 illegal immigrants were arrested, I kept watching the news for some word about that employer. Silence. With all the raids that have been occurring recently, I think, because of the administration's anxiousness to try to get this bill across the line, I have yet to hear one word about an employer going to jail for hiring illegal immigrants.

I know, I know, they are going to say the employer down near Springfield at the chicken processing plant--these people had fake IDs. They had fake Social Security numbers. If anyone believes that employer did not know they had illegal immigrants working there, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Of course, they knew. You give a good prosecutor a couple of investigators, you send some people in undercover, and you will gather the evidence in short order that dozens and hundreds and thousands of employers in this country are not playing by the rules.

Is that fair? No, it is not fair, and I will tell you to whom it is not fair. Many of my colleagues have said it is not fair to the American worker. I will tell you to whom it is not fair. It is unfair to the businesses that are playing by the rules. It is fundamentally unfair that many businesses in America are requiring the kind of documentation that assures them they are they are following OSHA standards, they are withholding for taxes, they are doing all the things they must do, while other employers are paying cash under the table to pad the bottom line. Follow the money, Mr. President.

Employers right now under the current law can serve up to 6 months in prison. If we would do some of those prosecutions in this country, it would do more to shut the flow of illegal immigrants, frankly, than all the legislation we could ever pass in this Chamber because it would send the message to American employers that they are not going to be rewarded with more profits by breaking the rules.

There are so many people behind this bill who have hearts that are full of compassion, and I certainly, Mr. President, think of you and your family as I make difficult decisions on this bill. But I have to tell you, there are lots of people behind this bill for whom it is all about the money. It is all about the profit.

If we want to stop illegal immigration in this country, we have to get serious about the magnet that is drawing it to our country, and that is we look the other way when people hire illegal immigrants. Until we stop looking the other way from those businesses that are not playing by the rules, we will never effectively deal with immigration in this country.

I have an amendment that would also bar for a minimum of five years any company that is found to hire illegal immigrants from participating in Federal contracts. I hope that will become part of this legislation.

Mr. President, I know there have been enforcement measures added to

this bill that would increase the fines and jail time for employers who repeatedly, willfully hire illegal immigrants. But, frankly, 6 months is plenty if this Administration would only enforce current law. If you put an owner of a business in jail for 6 months in a Federal penitentiary for hiring illegal immigrants and let that word go out across America, you will do more to clean up this problem without spending another dime of the taxpayers' money than anything else we can do.

If this President is serious about illegal immigration in this country, I suggest he call his Attorney General and he say to his Attorney General--we know they have been given instructions; we have heard about it in the Judiciary Committee--tell this Attorney General that we want employers who are hiring illegal immigrants by the hundreds in this country to be prosecuted under the law and to spend some time in jail. That would get to the bottom of the problem.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the life of Phil Curls, a much-loved member of the Kansas City community. With his passing, Phil has left a legacy of public service that will always be cherished, but Kansas City will not be the same without him.

During his life, Phil was an integral member of the Kansas City community and was considered by many to be a local patriarch. Phil always cared deeply about others, whether it was his family, a political cause, or mentoring young leaders through Freedom, Inc.

Phil was a graduate of DeLaSalle High School and earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Rockhurst College. He served 11 years in the Missouri House and 16 years in the State Senate before retiring in 1998.

I had the distinct honor of serving with Phil in the Missouri General Assembly, where his tenure was marked by excellence and community involvement and where I learned important lessons about public leadership from him. Phil was always regarded highly by everyone he interacted with, including his contemporaries as well as older and younger politicians. Through his public service, Phil helped to shape the course that the city and State has taken.

Phil was deeply involved in Freedom, Inc., making sure the community he loved had the political power necessary to bring about positive change. In addition to Freedom, Inc., Phil was involved in so many organizations and had so many achievements and awards that it would be very difficult to list them all. I can, however, state with total certainty that Phil left a permanent mark on Kansas City and will be fondly remembered and dearly missed.

With Phil's passing, we have lost a prolific public servant and a passionate individual. I will miss him as a close friend. Phil is survived by his wife of 43 years, Councilwoman Melba Curls; daughter Monica; sons Phil II, Michael, Quincy and Louis; four grandchildren; and a large extended family.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life and legacy of Phil B. Curls, Sr.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Isadore Erwin ``I.E.'' Millstone of Saint Louis, MO. It is an honor to celebrate I.E.'s centennial birthday and to pay tribute to all that he has accomplished in his 100 years. Through his business and philanthropic interests, Mr. Millstone has helped shape the course of the city of Saint Louis over the past century.

Born on January 6, 1907, in North Saint Louis, I.E. graduated from Soldan High School in 1923. He then continued his education at Washington University in St. Louis, studying architecture and engineering, and graduating in 1927.

During his life, I.E. has been an integral member and patriarch of the Saint Louis community. He is a life member of the United Hebrew Congregation in Saint Louis, where he earned money as a child checking hats and coats, and served as global president of the World Federation of YMHA's and Jewish Community Centers Association.

Following the Great Depression, I.E. formed Millstone Construction Company with his wife and became involved in the creation of many landmarks throughout the Saint Louis area--due in part to his revolutionary use of reinforced concrete. These projects include the old Busch Stadium, Highway 40, and the Jewish Community center in Creve Coeur. As the city is being redeveloped, both the old Busch Stadium and Highway 40 are being transformed to serve a new generation, but the original structures are forever a part of the city's history.

A giant among men, I.E. demonstrates a passion that does not lie solely in building Saint Louis from a physical standpoint. As a dedicated philanthropist, I.E. has supported many causes, including funding a program to support nearly 60 scholarships at Washington University in St. Louis. His dedication to helping others, however, is not limited to the Saint Louis area. Following World War II, I.E. joined a small group of builders to help the new State of Israel construct emergency housing for thousands of immigrants, many of whom were Holocaust survivors.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in honoring I.E. Millstone for 100 years of dedicated service to Saint Louis and to the world. I am proud to recognize this extraordinary Missourian and wish him many more healthy and happy years to come.

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

Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of the important legislation we have been debating this week in order to help America compete, to put America in a competitive place with the rest of the world on technology and engineering. I know how important it is that we make smart investments right now. In a previously adopted amendment I cosponsored along with Senator DeMint, we have adopted an amendment I proposed, along with Senator DeMint, which is important to this legislation.

While I support this legislation, while I think it is very important we invest in technology and invest in the future of our economy in a new, global, technology-driven marketplace, I also am very concerned about the way we spend Federal money. I am very concerned about programs that are put in place that we don't check back on to make sure they are working the way they should and that we are spending money the way we should. The amendment that has been adopted--and I want to thank the managers of the bill for accepting the amendment--simply says this: In 3 years, the GAO has to take a look. The GAO has to come in and do a study on how we have spent all of these billions of dollars we are going to set aside--precious dollars--precious Federal tax dollars that, frankly, have so many needs right now, including bringing our deficit under control.

I understand sometimes you have to invest money in order to make our economy thrive, and I am all for that investment, but it needs to be a wise investment. The GAO needs to come in in 3 years and look at the way this money has been spent and tell the American people--and, most importantly, my colleagues in the Senate and our colleagues in the House--that this money is being used the way we want it to be used: efficiently and, most importantly, effectively. That will give us an opportunity to take the temperature of these programs to make sure we are not throwing money down a rat hole, that we are not coming up with a good idea and never having the discipline to follow up and make sure the money is wisely spent.

So I appreciate the acceptance of this amendment. I think it is important. I think doing the kind of followup scrutiny of Government programs is something that has been woefully lacking in Washington, DC, and I look forward to continuing to mandate GAO studies at intervals in programs such as this to make sure the money is being spent

the way the taxpayers would want it to be spent.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on a matter of significant medical, scientific, and personal importance. Today, my colleagues and I have the opportunity to support research which will result in lifesaving cures, research which alleviates pain and suffering, and research which improves the quality of life of millions of Americans. I am speaking about research which will provide some of the most significant medical advances we have ever seen in the history of mankind.

Of course, I am speaking in the strongest support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I thank my distinguished colleagues, Senators Harkin, Hatch, Kennedy, and Specter, for the leadership they have offered on embryonic stem cell research legislation over the last several years.

In my short time in the Senate, I have had the occasion to speak and vote on numerous matters of significant national importance, but not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to heal the sick. Today, we have a chance to set aside partisan politics and support legislation that aims to improve the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. It is a noble cause and one that reminds me of how proud I am to represent Missouri in the Senate.

Who would oppose such a cause, and what would their reasons be for such opposition? The opponents of embryonic stem cell research attack it on multiple fronts--public opinion, scientific fact, and moral grounds--and the war against embryonic stem cell research is fought in our communities, in the media, and today in this Congress. Unfortunately, the casualties are the medical researchers and doctors who want nothing more than to cure diseases. That is all they want. They have no grand scheme. There is no big money here. We are talking about curing diseases. Ultimately, the casualties are the patients who would benefit from those cures.

My greatest disappointment in this debate has been the numerous inaccurate statements made in this Chamber by opponents of embryonic stem

cell research. Because this issue was on the ballot in Missouri last year, I had the opportunity to learn a great deal about this field during the months we campaigned for the U.S. Senate, as this issue was debated in great detail across my State. Let me talk about a few of the misrepresentations that have been made in this debate.

Claim: Adult stem cell research and stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid are adequate and we don't need embryonic stem cell research and there are 72 adult stem cell treatments for human diseases. The truth: In the medical journal Science, July of 2006, Dr. William Neaves of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City and Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University Medical School in St. Louis detail that this false claim originates from David Prentice of the Family Research Council. Mr. Prentice asserts that there were over 1,000 ongoing clinical trials of adult stem cell therapies. A review of the record at the NIH Web site that tracks clinical trials, however, showed that Mr. Prentice grossly misinterpreted the data. He searched the database for any entry containing the word ``stem'' and counted items such as ``brain stem,'' ``system,'' and ``stem from,'' which is a verb. There were numerous other errors and omissions that served as the basis for this claim. In fact, there are only a handful of clinical trials with adult stem cells, and only nine conditions have adult stem cell treatments that are approved by the FDA.

In addition, as the Senator from Iowa so eloquently outlined yesterday, most scientists and patient advocacy groups agree that adult stem cell research is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. All research is good, but we cannot substitute an inferior form of research for the type of research that holds the most promise for these elusive cures.

Many organs do not have adult stem cells, and adult stem cells and cord stem cells are not pluripotent. That means they don't have the ability embryonic stem cells do to develop into any type of cell, and therefore their use is limited.

Claim: Tumors are a necessary product of implanting embryonic stem cells. The truth: Tumors will only develop if undifferentiated stem cells are injected into mice. Undifferentiated cells are those which have not developed into their final state. For example, a cell that has not developed into its final state is a blood cell or a bone cell or a nerve cell. In fact, tumor formation is exactly how scientists determine that a cell is pluripotent--in other words, able to develop into a multitude of different types of cells. However, nobody is suggesting that undifferentiated stem cells be injected into humans. The FDA has monitored this question, and there is no evidence that cells differentiated from embryonic stem cells cause tumors.

Claim: The 21 viable embryonic stem cell lines we have currently funded are plenty. It is sufficient. The truth: As Dr. John Gearhart told the Committee on Aging, the federally approved lines are not genetically diverse, meaning we don't have the cell lines needed that will allow us to fully utilize this vital research. Importantly, minorities are the greatest affected group due to the lack of genetic diversity in these cell lines. In addition, many of the federally approved lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. Finally, some of these cell lines are involved in proprietary arguments and are not available for research purposes. Asking America's scientists to work with only 21 viable embryonic stem cell lines is hamstringing them and impeding this important progress.

Claim: This legislation will use tax dollars to fund destruction of human embryos. The truth: Each year, Congress attaches the Dickey- Wicker amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill stating that no Federal funds can be used to destroy human embryos. That has not changed. This bill simply allows Federal funds to be used to study stem cell lines that are derived from human embryos that otherwise would have been discarded. How many times do we need to say it: ``that otherwise would have been discarded.'' Not a dime of Federal money will fund the destruction of human embryos.

Claim: If embryonic stem cell research was such a promising field, it should have produced hundreds of cures by now. Over 30 years of research into embryonic stem cells has proved fruitless. The truth: The first of human embryonic stem cells were not isolated until 1998, and research with embryonic stem cells was not awarded Federal funding until 2002. That was only 5 years ago. To put this in context, from the first research into a vaccine for polio, over 20 years passed before doctors first developed the first effective polio vaccine. Hundreds of Nobel laureates agree that embryonic stem cell research has great potential for developing cures, but this will take both funding and time. The NIH has provided over half a billion dollars each year in Federal funding for stem cell research since fiscal year 2003, but only a small fraction of those funds has gone to embryonic stem cell research.

Claim: There are inadequate ethical guidelines in S. 5. In fact, this proposed legislation has tougher ethical guidelines than those which currently exist. This legislation provides the ethical framework we need for this legislation. This proposed legislation makes sure that, first, the only embryos that can be used are those which are created for fertility treatments and which are in excess of the clinical need and would be discarded; second, there must be written, informed consent from the donors; third, donors can receive no financial reward for their donations.

These two facts are important to me as I listened to the misinformation about the way we are going to subject women to egg- harvesting and this rampant practice of selling eggs on the open market. Both of those things are prohibited in this legislation. Donors cannot receive financial reward for their donations, and it has to be only eggs that would otherwise be discarded.

Fourth, the Director of the National Institutes of Health must issue guidelines 60 days after the enactment of this legislation.

Finally, it is interesting to note that some of the 21 stem cell lines that are currently being used for embryonic stem cell research might not even meet the strict guidelines that are contained in this legislation.

Families all across America are using medical research to participate in the miracle of birth.

Fact: The process of using medical research to enhance the likelihood of pregnancy produces an excess of eggs. I have heard no claims to the contrary because that is the fact.

Fact: Thousands of these eggs are going to be destroyed. I have heard a lot of claims in this Chamber, but no one is arguing with a straight face that the process of producing eggs for in vitro fertilization does not produce thousands of excess eggs.

Fact: Thousands of these eggs are going to be destroyed. It is just that simple.

Here is the question. This is the question of the day: Is it better to use these eggs to save lives as opposed to throwing them away? It really boils down to that. Ultimately, if some of our colleagues say it is wrong to use these eggs to save lives, then surely these same colleagues must believe it is wrong to throw them away. Where is their legislation outlawing their destruction? In other words, where is their legislation outlawing in vitro fertilization? Because inherent in that process is the destruction of human embryos.

I come from Missouri, where we say what we think and we mean what we say. Two of Missouri's finest and most respected leaders have spoken quite eloquently on the subject of embryonic stem cell research.

Senator John Danforth, a former Republican Member of this body, strongly supported the stem cell initiative that was put successfully before voters in Missouri in 2006. An Episcopalian minister, Senator Danforth voted many times in this Chamber as a Senator who believed that abortion should not be legal in this country. An Episcopalian minister, Senator Danforth has also worked through the moral and ethical issues he had with embryonic stem cell research. When asked about the equality of a multicelled embryo in a petri dish and the life of a human child suffering from a debilitating disease, he put it in context by asking simply: If a house were on fire and you had to make the choice, would you rescue a petri dish or a 3-year-old child?

Doctor William Neaves is the president of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, one of the finest research institutions in the Nation. One of the most spiritual and thoughtful men I have known, Dr. Neaves has studied the moral and ethical implications of in vitro fertilization and stem cell research over the last 25 years with his wife, who is also a bioethicist and an ordained Methodist minister. He struggled with his position on these issues due to his faith and upbringing, but in the end, upon reflection and studying the Bible, he concluded that embryonic stem cell research is morally and ethically acceptable.

I will close with Dr. Neaves' words:

Two elements have been pivotal in forming my belief. The

first is the biological fact that in normal human

reproduction, most blastocysts, or embryos, perish rather

than implant in the uterus. The second is Ecclesiastes 11:5

in the English Standard Bible:

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in

the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work

of God who makes everything.

Many people of faith believe that research with embryonic

stem cells represents a perfectly moral means of fulfilling

the biblical mandate to heal the sick. Other people of faith

disagree. Should Federal policy disqualify a field of

research from competing for Federal funds because some

Christians object to it? As a Christian who supports this

research, I certainly hope not.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the Obama amendment and then go back to regular order.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment that will be offered by Senator Obama. Our amendment takes part of the legislation we have introduced, the Dignity for the Wounded Warriors Act, and moves it to the front of the line.

The question which has to be asked is, Why? Why is it important that this go into this bill at this time? There is a lot of talk about what should and shouldn't go into the supplemental. I think it is important we realize if we don't act immediately to begin to take the kind of care of our wounded they need to have, that they should have, that we are morally bound to give them, then we shouldn't be passing any more supplemental funding for any more activities in this war.

It is of primary importance to us that we take care of the men and women who have been wounded, who have given more than most Americans will ever give as it relates to this conflict in the Middle East.

I have to say, if you step back and look at this problem, it is not just the active military hospitals that this amendment deals with, but it is the entire system of medical care for our wounded and for our veterans.

I was struck last week when a report came out on all the veterans facilities around the country. This was an internal report done by the Veterans' Administration but contained in that report was a startling revelation. In that report they found there was a bat infestation in a veterans hospital in the State of the Senator from Oregon.

Now, one would think that if you found a bat infestation in a hospital alarms would go off, lights would signal, and the head of that hospital would step up and say: I failed. Oh, no. The head of that hospital said the bats had been helpful to the insect population. Understand that with this particular species of bat, there is more bacteria contained in an ounce of the droppings from this animal than any other species of bat. Microbiologists

yearn to study these droppings because of all of the bacteria that is contained in them.

Something is terribly wrong when we have a veterans hospital in this country that is putting up with an infestation of bats, and if we don't have it in us to fix this medical facility and all others like it in this country, then shame on us. Shame on our Nation that we can't do what we must do to take care of those who have taken care of us.

All the rhetoric about ``support the troops''--forget about it if we can't do basic medical care for those who are coming home who are wounded. We specifically deal with that in our amendment, with the additional funds in this supplemental that we have added to the President's budget to care for our veterans and veterans facilities.

There is no job we have here that is more important. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and the addition of about $1.7 billion in funding to the supplemental for veterans care. They are both important. They are both moral imperatives. It is time we make that phrase--``support our troops''--more than a political phrase.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon, or to go back to regular order.

Mr. President, first, I have had the opportunity to listen to my colleague from the great State of Iowa, and I want to tell Senator Grassley that I couldn't agree with him more in the speech he just gave concerning the leadership of the Smithsonian museum. I find it is not dissimilar to some of the problems we found from time to time with college presidents of public universities, that somehow we get off the beaten path in terms of taxpayer funding. I certainly commend him for the work he is doing in that area.

I rise this afternoon, however, to talk a little bit about something that is so close to the heart of our democracy, and that is the rule of law. As a very young lawyer out of law school, I was very blessed to have the opportunity to begin my legal career as an assistant prosecuting attorney in the courtrooms of Jackson County, in Kansas City, MO. I learned so much in those first few years that I toiled as an assistant prosecutor. I had a felony docket, and I was learning from great prosecutors. It is inspiring when I think back on the quality of legal work that was going on in those courtrooms on behalf of the public by the prosecuting attorneys who worked there for very little money.

I was mentored on the rules of evidence and on courtroom strategy, but, most importantly, I was mentored on the rules as they relate to the ethics of a prosecutor. Where is that line and how do you draw it? How does a prosecutor make the decision as to whether this is justice in terms of a sentence or this is not justice, and it must be put in the hands of a jury when you are trying to decide plea bargains. Charging decisions: how do you decide when someone is charged with a felony or whether you let it go with a misdemeanor, or perhaps not charge at all?

Those lessons were so fundamental to the work that was done. It was from that experience that I began to revere--revere the rule of law in the United States of America. It is fundamental to our democracy. It is the engine that runs our democracy. It is the envy of the rest of the world.

As I have traveled from time to time in other countries, I have seen this firsthand. I will never forget a time when I was in a foreign country and we got pulled over by a police officer. We asked the native who was helping us around the country that day: What is this? He said we have to pay him. I remember thinking to myself how fortunate we are in America that there isn't an ingrained system of bribery on the streets of our cities because we have this rule of law.

What is the heart of the rule of law? At its very essence, if you strip away everything else, what is core and central to the rule of law? It is the independent prosecutor. It doesn't matter if you become a prosecutor by election or selection. Once you take that oath, once you raise your hand and swear to the job that you are about to take, you must become blindfolded to any political considerations. You must see all lawbreakers as equal whether the lawbreaker is a Congressman, a police officer, or a high school dropout who is unemployed.

What is so offensive about the e-mail traffic that has been discovered at the Department of Justice surrounding the firing of eight prosecutors in the Federal criminal justice system has been their reference to loyalty--``loyal Bushies''--loyalty to the President and, by implication, to his party.

Prosecutors I have known, and I am lucky that I have known hundreds, have loyalty to only one thing, and that is to the law. Good American prosecutors are slaves to the facts of the case and loyal only to the law of this great country. They have great power, prosecutors in our country. The decisions they make, as they apply those facts to our law, can achieve justice. Those same decisions can also ruin lives.

What is happening right now in the United States as it relates to these eight U.S. attorneys, frankly, isn't that important in the grand scheme of things to those eight U.S. attorneys, or those eight prosecutors. Am I sorry that they have been caught up in what appears to be a political scandal as it relates to their firing? Am I sorry that they have been maligned, and it was said that they were underperforming when, in reality, this was about being a ``loyal Bushie''?

By the way, I am quoting the e-mail when I say ``loyal Bushie.'' That is the only reason I would use that term on the floor of the Senate, quoting that document.

What really is happening is very important to all the other prosecutors across the United States of America, particularly those prosecutors in the Federal system because, frankly, what the Justice Department is implying is if you still have your job as U.S. attorney, you are loyal to the President of the United States and that is why you kept your job; not that you were loyal to the law. The Attorney General's action implies they kept their jobs because they were loyal to the President.

It is not OK to judge a prosecutor through a prism of political loyalty. The facts show that these decisions included discussions of the prosecutor's loyalty to the President, and because of that fact, and that fact alone, the Attorney General owes them and the rest of America much more than an apology. He owes them his resignation.

Tribute To Former Senator Tom Eagleton

Also, as a young prosecutor, I was very fortunate to have a man who was a mentor to me and continued to be a mentor until, very sadly, the end of his life just a few days ago. He was a great politician, and there is no place he would prefer to be called that than on the floor of the Senate.

There is a hole in the heart of Missouri with the death of Senator Tom Eagleton. He was a giant among leaders and leaves a legacy that should guide public servants and Senators for generations to come.

Beginning in 1956, at the age of 27, he also became a prosecutor. He was elected the prosecutor of St. Louis city, a circuit attorney. In a brief 12-year span, he became elected prosecutor of St. Louis, went on to be elected to the attorney general's position and then on to Lieutenant Governor and on to U.S. Senate--a whirling dervish of energy, intellect, and ambition.

In 1968, when Missourians sent our ``boy wonder'' to Washington, we knew he would achieve greatness, and he certainly didn't disappoint us. Within his first term, he had already begun to turn the tide on the environmental damage that had ensued within the

half century after the industrial revolution by helping craft the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972. He was a strong advocate for children with disabilities and created the National Institute on Aging.

While much of what Senator Eagleton did in the Senate made a true impact on America and the world, no action may have been as great as his handwritten amendment that stopped the bombing in Cambodia. This courageous act changed the course of history by subsequently ending the Vietnam war. His complete grasp of the complexities of foreign policy continued until his death.

As he talked to me in February of 2005 and tried to convince me to run for the Senate, he said to me: Claire, this war in Iraq is a disaster and, believe me, it is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Even in the later years of his life, he was a virtual fountain of information about foreign policy across the world. Despite the fact that Senator Eagleton was a scholar at Amherst College in Massachusetts and Oxford and a cum laude graduate from Harvard Law School and prominent attorney and politician, he could relate to anybody. ``Just call me Tom,'' he would always say, with a warm grin and a firm handshake. That was his style--plainspoken, genuine, and usually the funniest man in the room.

His ability to be the voice of everyday Americans was the reason he was elected to three terms in the U.S. Senate and the same reason it was so hard for him to leave public service in 1986. But, characteristically, he left office with very modest words. He said:

There is no sadness in leaving public life while you still

have something worthwhile to do and the time and motivation

to do it.

And that he certainly did. In the famous style and personality that was Tom Eagleton, he went from public office but not from public life. A university lecturer, political commentator, writer, philanthropic fundraiser, community advocate, sports enthusiast, Tom continued to pursue dreams of a different kind.

While Tom shied away from claiming due credit, his good friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle, Senator John Danforth, summed up his amazing political career by saying:

What has set Tom Eagleton apart from the rest of us is not

his intellect and his energy, as impressive as they are. It

is his moral passion, his capacity for outrage, his

insistence that justice be done, that wrongs be made right.

More than what Americans gained from his victories, achievements, degrees, and accolades is the lessons we find in his words that we can take into the future:

Be civil and modest. Act with courage and integrity. Pursue

your dreams and do right by your neighbors. And most of all,

don't take yourself too seriously.

His memorial service was a wonderful tribute to Tom Eagleton. We all laughed and we cried. Some giants from the Senate were in attendance, and some Democratic ward workers from a nearby political ward who had been working the phones and putting up yard signs for 30, 40 years--all sat together and listened to great stories about a great man.

We all appreciated the fact that Senator Tom Eagleton wanted the last word. So, a year before his death, he wrote a letter--I would like to make it part of the Record today--that everyone who attended the memorial service was lucky enough to receive. It talks about his life, it talks about his service in the Senate, it talks about the things that were important to him, and about his family--which was most important to him. But you got the sense of the man even from his farewell address, and I will close today by using the last line he used in the letter he wrote that he wanted distributed at his memorial service:

So go forth in love and peace--be kind to dogs--and vote

Democratic.

I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, in supporting this much-needed legislation. Not only will the road revive the economy of the communities around Lemay, it will also support the restoration of brownfields sites, improve public safety, create new parks and riding trails, and provide other recreational opportunities. With all of these benefits, it is not surprising then that the bill has broad bipartisan support from every relevant State and local elected official and also here in the Congress. It has also been endorsed by the Missouri Department of Transportation, the local school district--Hancock Place School District and the local fire and police departments.

I also want to assure my colleages that no Federal funds will be used to construct or maintain the Lemay connector road. Neither St. Louis County nor the State of Missouri is seeking or will seek Federal assistance to build, maintain, or operate the road. In fact, the County has sent several letters to FEMA that it will not seek Federal funding for the road. Under terms reached by the St. Louis County and Missouri DOT, private developers will bear 100 percent of the cost of construction of the road, and the road will be maintained by St. Louis County as part of its standard maintenance program,

Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Maine, and I am not just saying that, but I must rise to urge support of my amendment on this bill. Along with Senator Lieberman, I offered an amendment to the 9/11 bill that would provide these basic rights to our airport screening officers. This amendment was in response to the incredibly high turnover rate they have at TSA and the realization that these officers are being treated differently than just about everybody else we see in uniform in the United States of America.

After 9/11, there was an incredible demand around the country for hats and shirts that said ``New York Fire Department'' and ``NYPD'' because all of America realized the heroes these men were. When everyone else is running away from danger, the firefighters run into danger. When everyone's instinct is to flee in fear, they face that fear and they go into the breach. Our police officers do it all the time. In fact, this morning, the first people I saw when I came to the Capitol were Capitol police officers greeting me, checking my car, and standing guard around the Capitol to make sure we are protected from someone who would want to do our country harm.

The irony of this debate is that all of those people I just talked about have these basic worker protections. Those men who gave their lives on 9/11 trying to save lives all were operating under collective bargaining. The Capitol Police, who protect us every day, operate under these same rules that my amendment is going to guarantee to the airport screening officers.

Why in the world, if the sky is going to fall, if we give these workers these basic protections, why hasn't it fallen? Border Patrol, Customs agents, Coast Guard, FEMA, the Department of Defense civil employees--they were all ordered to do things after 9/11, and they, of course, did them. No one thought twice about falling back on some kind of worker protection. Frankly, I think it is moderately insulting to the men and women who are serving as screeners to act as if they would not be directed and go in a time of emergency.

That is what my amendment does. It says that the head of TSA, the director of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has the ability, at any time when there is a threat or an emergency, to direct these officers to do whatever is necessary to protect our country and the people who live here. It goes even further. It says they can't even bargain for higher pay, and it provides some of the same protections provided in the amendment of the Senator from Maine.

I can't figure out why the idea that they would have worker protections through a collective bargaining agreement is so scary when you realize that most of the men and women around our country who are fighting fires and performing work are operating under those agreements, and obviously most of the Federal employees who do similar work in the Federal Government.

There are so many things that have been claimed about this which simply aren't true. One of my favorites is that it is going to cost $160 million. Now, I can't quite figure out--and I know that somehow, something that costs a little ends up costing a lot sometimes in the Federal Government. First they said it was going to be $350 million. I think that figure made even them blush, so then they brought the figure down to $160 million. Maybe it is going to take 7 to 12 people across the country. I can't imagine where they would get a number like that to throw around. I have heard they will be required to negotiate every security protocol. That is simply not true. Federal employees have no right to bargain over an agency's internal security practices.

There has been a lot of fiction that has been spread around the Capitol over the last few days about this amendment and what it will provide. It is going to provide something very simple: It is going to treat these officers who are screening men and women every day at our airports the same way the rest of the employees in FEMA are treated, the rest of the employees in Homeland Security are treated, our Capitol Police, our Coast Guard, our Border Patrol, and the men and women who went into the burning buildings on 9/11, to lose their lives in order to try to save lives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Chair would inform me when I have used 3 minutes because I want to yield my remaining time.

There have been so many things said about this amendment that are not true. I want to make sure my colleagues understand how many things are being said that are not true.

There is one truth everyone needs to embrace. That is, we are only trying to give to the screening officers at airports the same worker protections that we give so many of our men and women in uniform who are helping with our national security and safety. As I drove up this morning to the Capitol, I was greeted by Capitol police officers. Does anyone doubt those Capitol police officers would do whatever is necessary to try to protect us? Of course not. But yet those same arguments are being used to try to discourage people from supporting this amendment, that somehow if these workers are part of some collective bargaining agreement, they will no longer be there at a moment's notice to do whatever they are asked to secure our safety and security.

As I said previously, how many Americans bought the NYPD shirts and hats and the New York fire department shirts and hats after 9/11? Those firefighters in New York who went into that burning building losing their lives in the process, running into danger rather than away from it, all were working under a collective bargaining agreement. Does anyone doubt that they hesitated responding to an emergency because they have basic worker protections? The notion is very un-American and, frankly, it is mildly insulting to the men and women serving as officers in our airports today.

The Border Patrol, same protections; Customs officials, same protections; most of the employees in Homeland Security, the civilian employees of the Department of Defense, FEMA employees, all of whom have to respond to emergencies, all have these same basic worker protections.

My amendment says they cannot collectively bargain for higher pay. My amendment spells out clearly that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of TSA have complete authority to mandate what these workers do in times of an emergency. At the same time it is going to allow us to professionalize this workforce. This part of the Federal Government suffers from incredible turnover, as high as 50 percent. That is a turnover rate that would be unacceptable in the private sector. It is inefficient. It is expensive. We are not getting the kind of experienced screeners who know what to look for and when to look for it based on their experience, not because of some job training program.

This amendment will provide those basic protections. It will professionalize the workforce. In the long run, it will make us all safer.

I urge colleagues to support the McCaskill amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, today, I honor John Bass, a much loved member of the St. Louis community, who died last month at the age of 80. John Bass was soft-spoken and low-key but he was also a fighter. As a young man, he served his country in the U.S. Navy. When he returned from service, he found himself living in a racially divided, socially and economically troubled city. Determined to bring change to his community, John literally fought his way through a college education. As a champion boxer, he won a boxing scholarship to Lincoln University. But John's true fight for St. Louis came long after he hung up his gloves.

As an educator in Beaumont High School, John was a calming presence in a school bitterly divided by racial tension. There, at Beaumont, and probably for the first time in his life, John was sent to the principal's office the hard way. After he began his new job as principal of Beaumont High, he provided the calm, wise leadership that was necessary to soothe wounds that years of inequality inflicted on our Nation's educational system.

John was already a distinguished member of the St. Louis community when he rolled up his sleeves and delved into politics to bring positive change to the city of St. Louis by shaping its policies. He did not come from a family of politicians, and he did not inherit a political power base. He came to politics as a thoughtful, practical, and hard-working man who wanted to make his community a better place to live. With these attributes, John Bass won the trust and respect of St. Louis.

John served as an alderman, State senator, and cabinet official, but is best known for becoming the first African American to win the office of comptroller in St. Louis history. When he ran for that office in 1973, the mayor told him that the prevailing racial tensions in St. Louis would prevent his election. Undeterred, John ignored that prediction, won his seat, crashed his way into the city's most important financial post, and left his mark on the city of St. Louis. Regarded highly by his contemporaries as well as older and younger politicians, John helped pilot the city of St. Louis through some of its most turbulent years.

With John's passing, we have lost a prolific public servant, a trusted friend, and a quiet but powerful leader.

Mr. President, today I am proud to submit as my first piece of legislation as a United States Senator, a resolution to honor the memory of a great woman and a great leader--Harriett Woods.

It is also a privilege to submit this resolution with Senators Bond, Mikulski, Clinton, Cantwell, Murray, Stabenow, Lincoln, Boxer, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Bingaman, Levin, Obama, Harkin, and Dodd.

Harriett, who died last month at the age of 79 from leukemia, had many firsts in her rich life: she was the first female editor of her college newspaper at the University of Michigan. She was the first woman on the Missouri Transportation Commission and she was the first woman to win statewide office in the State of Missouri when she was elected Lieutenant Governor.

But Harriett's career in public service only tells part of the story. Harriett was a born leader and she used it to inspire hundreds of women across the country to get involved at all levels of government. For 5 years, she served as president of the National Women's Political Caucus, a bipartisan grassroots organization whose mission is to increase women's participation in the political process.

Her struggle to win a U.S. Senate seat in 1982 against Senator John Danforth was the inspiration to the founders of Emily's List, which is dedicated to recruiting and funding viable women candidates. Many thought that Harriett could have won that race, which she lost by a scant 27,247 votes, had she not run out of money.

Harriett was also integral to what became known as the Year of the Woman, when in 1992, female candidates won nineteen seats in the United States House of Representatives and three seats in the United States Senate.

Harriett realized 25 years ago, before most women even considered the notion, that there was only one way women were going to take their seat at the table of political power in our great Nation: by daring to fail, by embracing breathtaking risk, and by standing up to the bouncer at the door of the back room filled with the good old boys who ran for office. When that bouncer told Harriett that she could not come in, she said, just watch me.

And when that same bouncer tried to kick her out of the room, she said just try it. And after she was comfortable in that room, she didn't sit down. She went out and found other women and led them to that room by pure unadulterated leadership.

Harriett wrote a wonderful book about her life as a national political leader. She closed the book with the following:

Somewhere, at this very moment, in some neighborhood in

America, a woman very like my younger self is confronting a

problem that affects her life, and family. Perhaps it's the

need for a playground for her children; maybe it's a threat

to clean water from rural animal waste. She has spoken up,

but no one is willing to take action. She's never been a

public person, and famous woman senators seem a world away.

Still, she cares deeply about finding a solution. After

agonizing thought, she makes a crucial decision. She will

step up to power, and another woman leader will be born.

Many of the women who hold or have held public office, including myself, have Harriett Woods to thank for leading the way. So thank you, Harriett. Thank you on behalf of all the women who will follow you, all the women who will stand on your shoulders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday I had the privilege of spending 3 hours at Walter Reed Army Hospital, specifically looking at outpatient care. As a result of that visit, I have come to several inescapable conclusions about the leadership of the armed services over this important area.

First, we have to start with a foundational premise, and that premise is our wounded deserve the best. The men and women who have crossed that line and say ``I will go'' and go and get hurt and come home deserve the best our military can give them--not Building 18.

There are so many problems at Walter Reed, and legislation has been introduced that I am honored to cosponsor that will address a lot of these problems--systemic bureaucratic problems: not sufficient counselors, not sufficient training, not taking care of the families of the wounded. A lot of necessary issues are covered in that legislation. But today I thought it important to spend a few minutes talking about the leadership.

We have to make up our mind around here whether we are going to say ``support the troops'' and provide oversight and accountability or whether we are going to mean it. If you are going to have accountability under these circumstances you have to look at the culture of leadership. You have to look at the very top of the leadership tree over Walter Reed. In this instance the leader, General Kiley, was at Walter Reed at or near the time Building 18 opened. It is clear that General Kiley, the Surgeon General of the Army, knew about the conditions at Building 18. More importantly, he knew about the other problems.

The irony of this situation is General Weightman, who has only been there a year, stepped up and said, I take responsibility. I am the commander here now. Just minutes ago he was relieved of his command, while General Kiley is quoted repeatedly as if there is not a problem-- he is spinning: ``I want to reset the thinking that while we have some issues here, this is not a horrific, catastrophic failure at Walter Reed. I mean these are not good, but you saw rooms that were perfectly acceptable.''

They are not perfectly acceptable. You have people who are stationed at Walter Reed who have better barracks than the wounded. That is unacceptable. Our wounded should get the best. The people in better barracks can be placed in apartments in town. When the decision was made to let these men move into Building 18, they could have moved into the better barracks and the people who are stationed there permanently could have been stationed elsewhere.

On Building 18 he said the problems--by the way, he lives within a block of Building 18, General Kiley--``weren't serious and there weren't a lot of them.'' They are serious and there are a lot of them. He said they were not ``emblematic of a process of Walter Reed that has abandoned soldiers and their families.''''

Back in December, when the vets organizations met with General Kiley and enumerated these problems about the wounded and their families and the problems they were facing in outpatient, General Kiley said, ``very important testimony.'' That was it.

I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Colonel Callahan, who is in charge of the hospital at Walter Reed, was open and honest and clearly cared, as did most of the leaders I talked to around the table. But I went away with an uneasy sense that all the legislation we pass and all the paint we can put on the walls is not going to solve this problem if we don't begin to speak out for accountability within the leadership of the military.

When we had the scandal at Abu Ghraib, noncommissioned officers were disciplined. Up until the relieving of General Weightman today, no one above a captain had been disciplined in this matter. It is time the leadership at the top takes responsibility and that is why I have called today for the Surgeon General of the Army, LTG Kevin Kiley, to be relieved of his command over the medical command of the United States Army so the message can go out loudly and clearly: We will not tolerate treatment of our wounded in any way that does not reflect the respect we have for them.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have listened to the arguments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I believe the amendment I have offered answers many of his concerns but also provides basic rights for our 40,000-some TSA officers across this country.

Let us first talk about what this amendment does that I have offered. It does three things, three simple things. First, it gives them whistleblower protection.

As somebody who has spent 8 years as an auditor, as someone who has spent a great deal of time figuring out where Government is doing its job well and not so well, I understand the importance of whistleblower protection. The best information you get as an auditor comes from the employees of the Government, and they all must be reassured, especially those working on the front line of security, that they will be protected if they tell things they see that need to be fixed. That is important.

Secondly, this bill gives them the right to appeal suspensions of 14 days or more to an independent board, as other Federal workers.

It also gives them the right to collectively bargain, like the Border Patrol, like the Capitol Police, like FEMA employees, and like Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

What does this amendment not do? It is important to understand the limitations in this amendment. First, it makes sure they do not have the right to strike.

Secondly, it prohibits them from bargaining for higher pay. They cannot bargain for higher pay. This is important, because my colleagues spent a great deal of time talking about safety. It explicitly states that no classified or sensitive intelligence can be divulged or released during any grievance process.

It goes further than the original legislation and the original amendment by saying the TSA Administrator or the Secretary of Homeland Security can take whatever actions necessary to carry out an agency mission during emergencies and whenever needed to address newly imminent threats. No questions asked. These employees have to follow orders. In any emergency, the director has the complete and immediate control over these workers. Let me emphasize that again. In any emergency the director, the administrator have complete control over anything these workers should do.

By the way, as an aside, having talked with and been around these screening officers many times as I move through the airports, I think it is a little insulting to them to act as if they would not respond when directed to an emergency. Americans across the board want to do what is right in times of crisis for our country. To indicate these Americans would not do what was asked of them in time of an emergency, and that they would try to rely on some kind of right under the law to not do what is necessary in an emergency, frankly, I think, is unfair to them.

What does collective bargaining get these workers? It provides a structure for quick and fair resolution of grievances and workplace disputes. It provides a forum to discuss health and safety issues, which will reduce the number of on-the-job injuries suffered by TSOs. It reduces the high TSO turnover rate.

Let's talk about that turnover rate. Talk about saving money. Think of the money we are investing in these officers that is wasted right now. We have a 23-percent annual turnover among these screening officers. Among the part-time officers, it is 50 percent. As somebody who has worried about the bottom line in a private business, that kind of turnover is completely unacceptable in terms of the costs.

Let's look at the safety issue. The experience we are losing by that kind of turnover--and I am not talking about people being dismissed for bad conduct or getting rid of bad screeners; I am talking about people who are leaving. That turnover rate, if you don't consider anything else, should tell my colleagues something is wrong. I believe what is wrong is they do not have the basic rights and protections other Federal workers have.

It increases public safety by allowing the TSOs to go through their union to expose threats to aviation security without fear of retaliation. It addresses procedures for emergency and security situations so workers are fully aware of their duties in the event of an emergency.

This is a good amendment for everyone. It puts these workers on equal footing with other Federal workers. It does not give them the right to strike. It does not give them the right to refuse to be deployed in case of an emergency. It does not allow them to negotiate for higher pay.

I was not a Senator at the time, but I understand that the Department of Homeland Security needed the flexibility to get up and running when the agency was first created years ago--5 years ago; more than 5 years ago.

But they are no longer processing 5,000 more screener applications per month in order to transition from a private force to a Federal force. We are no longer scrambling to create a Department of Homeland Security. We are now in a position to professionalize. We are now in a position to professionalize airport officers and give them basic worker protections and, as a result, we will have a seasoned staff and much better security.

My colleague mentioned the threatened veto. That is kind of hard to figure out. It is hard to imagine that the President would use a veto to veto legislation that is all about making our country safer, all of the provisions that this bill will contain, that will go directly to the heart of the matter of the safety of our Nation, that will do what the 9/11 Commission wanted. It is hard to imagine, because the President does not like unions, that he would threaten to veto this bill just because we want to give the same basic worker protections to the screeners at airports that the Border Patrol, the Capitol Police, and immigration officials currently have.

I cannot imagine that the President would veto under those circumstances. I can't imagine that the American public would think that is a good use of a veto pen. I can't imagine that some of our colleagues who think that unions are the enemy would use the collective bargaining rights--that are so limited in scope in this amendment--as an excuse to stop this concerted effort that we are all making to do what we must do to improve homeland security.

If we continue to treat our TSA officers different from their colleagues in the Border Patrol and their colleagues in homeland security, we will never have the seasoned and professional and experienced staff in place as part of our important effort to protect the Nation's transportation system and the people who live and work and care about the United States of America.

Sure.

I do not believe declaring that we have a problem with terrorism worldwide, that is a status quo day in and day out, would be considered a day-to-day emergency. The examples you used, however, of Hurricane Katrina or the necessity to respond in Lebanon--I think those issues certainly would be issues that the professionals at TSA, the officers, would want to respond to quickly.

I understand the point my colleague is trying to make. I would say there are a whole lot of things that some are trying to put under the rubric of a continuing threat against America. There have been proposals to take away some basic constitutional rights. There have been proposals to change the way we view some of the rights and privileges that Americans have.

I think to say that these workers don't get the same benefits as the Border Patrol or Customs agents just because they are screening in airports, under this rubric that we have to be concerned about worldwide terror, is specious reasoning.

I thank the Senator.