Floor Statements

Madam President, may I speak for 12 minutes as in morning business?

Madam President, the Senate is now called upon to consider President Bush's nominee to succeed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of this Nation the person we must rely on to repair what has been left broken to uphold the rule of law where political loyalties once ruled and to lead the Department of Justice forward at a time of upheaval; and of urgency.

In many ways, President Bush has made a fine appointment in Judge Michael Mukasey; far better than we have come to expect in this administration. He is not a political hack. He is not a partisan ideologue. He is not an incompetent crony. We have had our share of those. No, he is a brilliant lawyer, a distinguished jurist, and by all accounts a good man.

And no one feels more keenly than do I the need for repair and recovery of the Department of Justice. In a small way, I served this Department, as a U.S. Attorney, and I feel how important this great institution is to our country; and how important an Attorney General-- such as Judge Mukasey could be--is to this great institution.

I wish it were so easy. But there are times in history that rear up, and become a swivel point on which our direction as a Nation can turn.

The discussion of torture in recent days has made this such a point. Suddenly, even unexpectedly, this time has come.

It calls us to think--What is it that makes this country great? Whence cometh our strength?

First, of course, is a strong economy, to pay for military and foreign aid activities; to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to our land, and to reward hard work and invention, boldness and innovation.

Now is not the time to discuss how we have traded away our heartland jobs, how our education system is failing in international competition, how a broken health care system drags us down, how an unfunded trillion dollar war and the borrowing to pay for it compromise our strength. For now, let me just recognize that a strong economy is necessary to our strength.

But a strong economy is only necessary, not sufficient. Ultimately, America is an ideal. America for centuries has been called a ``shining city on a hill.'' We are a lamp to other nations. A great Senator on this floor said ``America is not a land, it's a promise.''

Torture breaks that promise; extinguishes that lamp; darkens that city.

When Judge Mukasey came before the Judiciary Committee, he was asked about torture and about one particular practice which has its roots in the Spanish Inquisition. Waterboarding involves strapping somebody in a reclining position, heels above head, putting a cloth over their face and pouring water over the cloth to create the feeling of drowning. As Senator John McCain, who spent years in a prison camp in North Vietnam, has said, ``It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.''

The Judge Advocates General of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have agreed that the use of simulated drowning would violate U.S. law and the laws of war. Several Judge Advocates General told Congress that waterboarding would specifically constitute torture under the Federal Anti-Torture Statute, making it a felony offense.

Judge Mukasey himself acknowledged that ``these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me.'' He noted that waterboarding would be in violation of the Army Field Manual.

But in our hearing last week, asked specifically whether the practice of waterboarding is constitutional, he would say no more than: ``if it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,'' and since then he has failed to recognize that waterboarding is clearly a form of torture, is unconstitutional, and is unconditionally wrong.

There are practical faults when America tortures. It breaks the Golden Rule--do unto others as you would have them do unto you, enshrined in the Army Field Manual with the question, if it were done to your men, would you consider it abuse?

There are practical concerns over whether torture actually works, whether it is sound, professional interrogation practice. I am not an expert, but experts seem to say it is not.

But the more important question is the one I asked earlier--whence cometh our strength as a nation? Our strength comes from the fact that we stand for something. Our strength comes from the aspirations of millions around the globe who want to be like us, who want their country to be like ours. Our strength comes when we embody the hopes and dreams of mankind.

September 11 was a terrible catastrophe that rocked our Nation to its core. But tens of thousands of Americans, nearly 30,000 men, died in the Argonne Forest, and we did not lose our character as a nation. Are we not as strong now as then?

September 11 was a terrible catastrophe that challenged our economy, our politics, and our way of life. But Japan withstood two nuclear explosions, and it is today an economically and culturally vibrant country. Are we not made of stuff as strong as they?

September 11 was a terrible catastrophe, and it lives on as a test for our Nation. But the real catastrophe would be if we sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, if we sell our destiny as a lamp to other nations and a beacon to a suffering world, for bits of coerced intelligence.

I don't think anyone intended this nomination to turn on this issue. So many of us saw with relief an end to the ordeal of the Department of Justice, and wished this nomination to succeed.

But for whatever reason, this moment has appeared, unbidden, as a moment of decision on who we are and what we are as a nation. What path will we follow? Will we continue America's constant steady path toward the light?

Will we trust in our ideals? Will we recognize the strength that comes when men and women rise in villages and hamlets and barrios around the world and say, that is what I want my country to be like; that is the world I choose, and turn their faces toward our light?

Or, to borrow from Churchill, will we head down ``the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little farther on there are only flagstones, and a little farther on still these break beneath your feet''? Will we join that gloomy historical line leading from the Inquisition, through the prisons of tyrant regimes, through gulags and dark cells, and through Saddam Hussein's torture chambers? Will that be the path we choose?

I hope not.

I am torn--deeply torn between this man and this moment. This is a good man, I believe. But this moment can help turn us back toward the light, and away from that dark and descending stairway. If this moment can awaken us to the strength of our ideals and principles, then, with whatever strength I have, I feel it is my duty to put my shoulder to this moment, and with whatever strength God has given me, to push toward the light.

One might argue that this makes Mr. Mukasey an innocent victim in a clash between Congress and the President--that no nominee for Attorney General will be able to satisfy Congress or the American people on the question of torture, because the President or perhaps the Vice President will not allow any nominee to draw that bright line at what we all know in our hearts and minds to be abhorrent to our Constitution and our values.

That is exactly the point. If we allow the President of the United States to prevent, to forbid, a would-be Attorney General of the United States--the most highly visible representative of our rule of law--from recognizing that bright line, we will have turned down that dark stairway. I cannot stand for that. I will oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate made a strong and long-overdue investment in the future of public transit in Rhode Island and throughout the country. I am pleased to have cast my vote for the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007 (PRIIA), which will guide the maintenance, growth, and funding of the railroad through Fiscal Year 2012.

Each year, over 12 million business and leisure travelers depend on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service, which connects the great cities of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Providence is a vital link on this route, with more than half a million Amtrak passengers boarding and departing Amtrak trains in the city each year. Also on the Northeast corridor route are Kingston and Westerly, Rhode Island. Kingston is home to the University of Rhode Island, and Amtrak gives students, faculty, researchers, and visitors direct access to this thriving college town. The Westerly station provides rail service to residents of both Rhode Island and Connecticut who rely on public transportation.

Despite its importance to millions of travelers, the Northeast Corridor has fallen into a state of disrepair in recent years. The infrastructure on this route is some of the oldest in the Nation, and a revitalization plan has been necessary for some time. This new Amtrak bill includes a strategy to restore the route to good condition by September of 2012--the first capital development plan put in place since Amtrak's previous authorization expired 5 years ago--and authorizes full federal funding of necessary repairs and upgrades. The Amtrak bill also authorizes the formation of a commission to oversee the operation and maintenance of the Northeast Corridor. The commission will include Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, and each state along the route. I am pleased that Rhode Island will have a voice in future planning for a resource so vital to us.

In addition to funding operations and capital improvements, the Amtrak bill also addresses the congestion experienced on so many of the system's routes. By law, Amtrak passenger trains have the right of way over private freight trains, but this preference is often ignored. The bill the Senate passed today permits the Surface Transportation Board to assess fines against non-compliant freight railroads and to distribute damages to Amtrak. Congestion has increased in recent years, especially along the Northeast Corridor, and this provision should lead to fewer and shorter delays for passengers.

Finally, let us celebrate a piece of good Rhode Island news--I have been informed that the escalators in the Providence train station, which have been broken and covered with dust since early 2005, are scheduled to be reopened and in service by the week of November 12.

I congratulate Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Trent Lott of Mississippi on the passage of this critical piece of legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions of Rhode Island's own Senator Jack Reed, who has been a strong and constant advocate for Amtrak. The new resources and clear development plan outlined in this bill reaffirm Congress's commitment to passenger rail service in the United States.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 to 15 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, as my colleagues know, earlier this week President Bush announced he will ask this Congress to provide an additional $46 billion for the war in Iraq next year. That is $46 billion more than the $150 billion he already told us he would ask for. Taken together, that is close to $200 billion more than the hundreds of billions of dollars the taxpayers of this country have already poured into the sands and marshes of Iraq--for a war this President has made clear he has no intention of ending.

The people of Rhode Island are tired of watching their sons and daughters, their neighbors and their friends, sent off to war by a President who won't trouble himself to make a plan to bring them home. They are tired of spending money our country has to borrow on a war with burdens our country should no longer have to bear. And they are sick and tired of hearing this President veto or threaten to veto legislation passed by this Congress that supports the real and urgent needs of Americans and their families--all because he says it costs too much.

Clearly, this President is an expert when it comes to irresponsible and excessive spending. Look at the war. Look at the private contractors. Look at the national debt he has run up. But how can he keep a straight face and tell the American people it is more important to borrow and spend $35 billion for 3\1/2\ more months of the Iraq war than it is to provide budgeted health insurance for 5 years to 10 million American children? What a sobering revelation of this administration's misplaced priorities.

No American should doubt for 1 minute what is going on here. Every time President Bush vetoes a bill to fund children's health care, every time he threatens to veto legislation that will send our Nation's children to college, keep families warm during the winter months, invest in job training and technical education programs, or offer the promise of medical cures through research at the National Institutes of Health, President Bush is making a choice. He is choosing prolonging a war in Iraq over battling cancer. He is choosing his no-plan war over helping families in poverty. It is a choice, and it is the wrong choice.

Last night, the Senate passed a bill to provide funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and other agencies. On October 17, the administration expressed its opposition to this appropriations bill based on what it calls ``an irresponsible and excessive level of spending.'' As I said, this President is certainly expert at irresponsible and excessive levels of spending, but what does he mean? The President means that $10.8 billion spent to help millions of Americans lead healthier, more productive lives is irresponsible and excessive, but the nearly $200 billion additional he wants to borrow and spend on the war in Iraq is just fine.

Let's look at two areas in this bill where the funding levels we propose exceed those in the administration's budget to see just how irresponsible and excessive we are.

The first is at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at NIH. Our bill funds the institute at $67 million more than the President's request. I want to introduce my colleagues to one man who does not think this increase is irresponsible and excessive.

This is a picture of Richard Pezzillo on his last visit to Washington, DC. Rich is a bright, kind, thoughtful young man from North Providence, RI, who hopes one day to become a meteorologist. Rich also suffers from hemophilia and right now lies in a hospital bed in Rhode Island, too sick to attend his classes at Western Connecticut State University where he hopes to graduate this May. Sadly, Rich, now 24, has missed 2\1/2\ years of school due to his illness.

One of these absences was caused by an activity most of us would never even think about--something we do, in fact, to save lives-- putting on a seatbelt. Three years ago, Rich unfastened his seatbelt from the airplane, collected his things, and walked off into the airport and suddenly started to feel tremendous pain. He started vomiting blood. Simply wearing his seatbelt had caused Rich to bleed internally, inside of his stomach, eventually requiring that his gall bladder be removed. Rich spent roughly 3 weeks in the hospital, accumulating bills totaling nearly $1.5 million. Luckily, Blue Cross- Blue Shield of Rhode Island, his family's insurer, covered most of these costs. But Rich is desperately afraid what will happen to him when he graduates from college and no longer qualifies under his parents' health care plan. Hemophilia is one of the most expensive conditions a person can have, one that few insurance companies will want to take on.

Richard Pezzillo is a fighter. He is an example for us all. But he will continue to face tremendous difficulties with his health throughout his life. Soon, thanks to research going on at the National Institutes of Health; specifically at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, hemophilia could be the first disease cured by gene therapy. The funding in this appropriations bill will go toward research which could save Richard's life and the lives of 18,000 people across this country who suffer from hemophilia. This spending is not irresponsible. This spending is not excessive. This spending is vital and it is working and it has the potential to save thousands of people like Rich Pezzillo.

A second place where this bill calls for spending above the President's budget--$128 million above his budget to be exact--is at the National Cancer Institute. Here I want to share the story of Benjamin Haight. I met Ben's parents this summer when they came down to my office from Warwick, RI, to share their little boy's story. Ben was diagnosed with neuroblastoma early in 1999 when he was just 4\1/2\ years old. At the time, Ben's dad was a senior chief in the Navy, serving aboard the USS Miami. He was airlifted off the submarine to join his son, as Ben underwent five rounds of chemo, surgery, radiation, and endured two stem cell transplants. These treatments left Ben with no high frequency hearing, requiring him to wear the two hearing aids, and they left him with a severely compromised immune system. But Ben refused to let any of this keep him from being a kid. He told his doctors there would be no treatments during science class, and that they would have to be out by 3 to go to Cub Scouts or baseball or soccer or other activities. He often left his chemotherapy sessions dressed in his Little League uniform. Ben was a snorkler, a sailor, a swimmer, a fisherman, a climber, an artist, and an animal lover. He was, as his parents say, a child first and a child with cancer second.

Though Ben and his family enjoyed 2 years of remission, he relapsed again in October 2001 at the start of second grade. This new round of treatment consisted of more chemo and over 200 blood and platelet transfusions. Ben lost his battle with neuroblastoma on August 8, 2003, at the age of 9. The night before he died, Ben turned to his mom and asked: ``Can't we try a stronger medicine?''

Well, Ben, at the pediatric oncology branch of the National Cancer Institute, they are trying to create that stronger medicine. Ten phase I and four phase II clinical trials are currently being conducted on neuroblastoma, and scientists are closer and closer every day to the stronger medicine you asked for.

Is it really so irresponsible and excessive to provide the funding for these studies, to find the treatments that could have saved Ben Haight and could save so many more children like him?

To me, irresponsible and excessive is borrowing and spending $450 billion for an endless war that undermines our national security and then asking the Congress for another $196.4 billion without a plan to bring our troops home, all while nearly 50 million Americans go without health insurance and millions of families hover at the door of poverty.

We should be clear that the nearly $200 billion this President has requested for the war in Iraq, on top of the hundreds of billions he has already spent, is not even the whole story. When this administration tells us about the financial costs of this disastrous war, they don't tell us about the interest payments we will have to pay. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that interest on the war will total $415 billion by 2017, and then there will be more interest on the additional $200 billion the President wants us to borrow and spend. The final interest costs of this war could approach $1 trillion, passed on to our children and grandchildren.

President Bush, I think most Americans would argue with you. I think most Americans would argue that $22 billion to keep our families healthy is a pretty sound investment in our country's future, and trillions of dollars in spending and hundreds of billions of dollars in interest for a war you won't take action to end, that is what is irresponsible and excessive.

The President's threatened veto of this appropriations bill is just another illustration of his extraordinarily misplaced priorities. The $67 million increase this bill calls for to fund the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is a few hours of the cost of the war in Iraq--not even a full day, not even half a day, a few hours. In fact, the entire NIH budget in this bill is only $1 billion above the President's request. One billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, of course, but it is, in fact, only a few days of the war in Iraq--not a month, not a week, only a few days.

President Bush would rather prolong the war in Iraq than fund additional research at the National Institutes of Health into pediatric cancer, into hemophilia, and into other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, autism, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. He would rather fund a continuous war than provide hope for millions of families around this country.

Well, I hope President Bush will listen to Rich Pezzillo's story. I hope he will listen to Ben Haight's parents. I hope he will listen to the thousands of Rhode Islanders who have reached out to me to demand a new direction, not only in Iraq but here at home in America. I hope he will listen to Americans across this country who think that people such as Rich and Ben should be our first priorities.

I am proud this bill puts people such as Rich and Ben ahead of the extreme rightwing ideologies and reckless wars this President pursues, and I hope we in Congress will stand our ground when, of all people, this President charges that putting Rich and Ben first is irresponsible and excessive.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the very real and serious issue of global climate change, and specifically our efforts to help America's fish and wildlife, public lands, and oceans adapt to and survive global warming.

I am aware that there remain some in this country, and even in this chamber, who choose to reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is occurring today, and will worsen severely if nothing is done. For years, Congress and the Bush administration have delayed the implementation of swift and aggressive measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We can delay no longer. But as we work to mitigate the causes of global warming, we must also take urgent action to address its effects.

Climate change can have a devastating impact not only on the environment, but on the living things that depend on it. The early warning signs of climate change--taking place not just in the far reaches of the Arctic but also right in our own backyards--have shown that the world's wildlife is particularly vulnerable.

In Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, the state's most distinctive ecological feature, the gradually-warming water

temperature has contributed to a significant ecosystem shift. This warming has already resulted in a documented increase in ocean temperatures, leading to massive fish kills, like we experienced in Greenwich Bay in the summer of 2003, and other ecological damage.

The changing environment in the Bay has had a broad and significant impact on fish and shellfish. Cold water species, such as winter flounder, that were once abundant in the Bay and had a high commercial value have been replaced by warmer water species, such as scup, that have a lower value. This has happened in just the past 20 years--a frighteningly quick timeline and apparently not what Nature intended. The shift in species has serious implications for Rhode Island's fishermen, whose work has been part of our State's economy for generations.

When I recently traveled to Greenland to witness firsthand the most severe and visible effects of climate change, one of the most striking of these was global warming's impact on Greenland's population of polar bears. The Greenland ice cap is melting at a rate never before seen in documented history. Melting sea ice and glaciers there and in other parts of the Arctic are gradually raising sea levels around the world, shrinking polar bears' habitats and bringing them into increasing contact with humans. In some cases, we were told, villagers have been forced to shoot polar bears with their cubs forced into populated areas in search of food.

Global warming represents the single greatest threat to our natural environment and wildlife, and we must act decisively if we are to avoid disaster.

America's ocean and terrestrial wildlife is a fundamental part of our national heritage, and conservation of our wildlife is a core value shared by all Americans. Climate change is directly related to the species decline we have experienced over the last two decades, both on land and in our waters. The combined impact of climate change, loss of habitat due to development pressures, and exploitation of our natural resources threatens to drive many species over the brink to permanent extinction.

Today, I am introducing legislation that will help bolster our oceans and wildlife against one of the most significant of these pressures-- that of global climate change.

The Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act represents the first comprehensive approach to mitigate the impact of climate change on America's wildlife, oceans, and other natural systems. I am proud and pleased to have the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, join me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

The bill has three primary goals: first, it will create a coordinated national strategy, based on sound science, to guide Federal, State, and local agency actions to address global warming's threat to our oceans and wildlife. The Secretary of Interior will develop a national strategy for managing terrestrial wildlife and the habitats they depend on, and the Secretary of Commerce will develop a national strategy for our oceans, coastal, and great lakes ecosystems. Both Secretaries will consult with other affected federal agencies, States, tribes, local governments, conservation organizations, and other stakeholders to develop the strategy.

Second, the bill will support improved science capacity for Federal agencies to respond to global warming, including the establishment of a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center in the U.S. Geological Survey for terrestrial wildlife and a comparable Science Advisory Board within the Department of Commerce to provide scientific and technical advice to respond to the impacts of global warming on ocean and coastal ecosystems.

Finally, the bill directs that funding for implementation of the national strategy be allocated in a balanced, strategic, and efficient way to the Federal programs, States, and tribal agencies charged with carrying out the national strategy.

The impact of climate change on our oceans and wildlife is an issue too important to ignore. Human activity has caused climate change and we must be responsible for solving it. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to leave behind a natural environment as good, and we would hope and pray better, than the one we inherited. Preserving America's wildlife and oceans so that the next generation can enjoy an unspoiled natural environment, and our many traditions of hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation, is a responsibility we must uphold.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3277

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

Mr. President, as I have traveled around Rhode Island, I have met so many families who worry about health care. Will their child fall ill? Will the price of prescription drugs or a visit to the doctor go up again?

As health care costs skyrocket and the number of uninsured Americans approaches a staggering 50 million, we have a solemn obligation to make health care more accessible and affordable.

This obligation is not new. For decades, our Government has treated it as one of the most sacred promises we keep with the American people, and it has been one of our best opportunities to just plain do the right thing. Initiatives such as Medicare and Medicaid are among our greatest accomplishments. The Children's Health Insurance Program is a shining light in the American health care system, providing health coverage to millions of American children whose families could not otherwise afford insurance.

Since its creation in 1997, the Children's Health Insurance Program has given children in America's working families better access to medical care for common conditions such as asthma or ear infections, better school attendance rates, better academic achievement, better medical access, and more preventive care. It means that children stay out of expensive urgent care settings such as the emergency room. The Children's Health Insurance Program is among the singular health care success stories of our generation. That is why it has long enjoyed bipartisan support, including enthusiastic support from Republican Governors.

My State of Rhode Island has played a vital role in creating and sustaining the Children's Health Insurance Program. The distinguished Republican Senator John Chafee, whom so many of my colleagues will remember, was one of the early bipartisan architects of this bill. For years, my senior Senator, Jack Reed, has been one of the most powerful advocates for this program in the Senate. I am proud to add my voice of support to his.

I am proud also to represent a State with one of the lowest rates of uninsured children and adults in the Nation. Rhode Island has worked for 15 years to achieve this success, beginning with Gov. Bruce Sundlun's establishment of the original RIteCare Program in 1993. I was honored to have been part of Governor Sundlun's team.

Similar to many State programs, RIteCare relies on this funding that the President vetoed--relies on it to help families pay for regular checkups, immunizations, prescriptions, nutrition and other services and to reduce the number of uninsured children in our State.

This year, leaders on both sides of the aisle came together in the Senate to make this strong, vital program even stronger. The $35 billion agreement Congress passed last week would have brought health care to 10 million American children over the next 5 years, including adding up to 6,600 currently uninsured children in Rhode Island. We improved the program in other ways as well, adding quality dental and mental health care for children and new incentives for States to enroll more eligible children and to improve the quality of care.

But President Bush took all that away with the stroke of his veto pen. Why? Health insurance, he says, should be delivered in the private market. Well, guess what, Mr. President. The majority of children's health beneficiaries receive their coverage through private health plans. In fact, in 2005, all but two separate State children's health programs used a managed care company to provide CHIP benefits. The children's health plan does not threaten privatized health care; it is privatized health care for almost two-thirds of its enrollees. In Rhode Island, the Children's Health Insurance Program is delivered entirely through private insurers. As I have displayed here, the children's health program looks a lot like the health insurance the President has and the Senate has, and it doesn't look anything like the socialized medicine Republican opponents of this program have used as a red herring.

By the way, as a footnote on the public versus private health insurance question, maybe President Bush, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, would be pleased to learn that the small group of children's health beneficiaries who actually are in public insurance programs, cost the Government less than those who are on private insurance. In fact, publicly insured children cost taxpayers 10 percent less than privately insured children, and publicly insured adults cost 30 percent less than privately insured adults.

But the President is not persuaded by these facts. It does not matter to him that publicly insured children have a much better chance of having a well child care visit than uninsured children and a much better chance of having a dental care visit. It does not matter that practical Republican Governors across the country support this bill or that it is one of the most bipartisan achievements of this Congress. All that seems to matter to this President is ideology, and in this case, it is a bizarre ideology that doesn't think struggling, working- class families should have health care. In fact, he especially doesn't believe that struggling, working-class parents should have health care. He threatened to veto this bill based on that feature alone.

As recently as last summer at a Finance Committee hearing, his own CMS Administrator, Mark McClellan, stated--and this is a quote from the Bush administration:

Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives--

Parents and caretaker relatives--

not only serves to cover additional insured individuals, but

may also increase the likelihood that they will take the

steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage

to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood

that their children remain enrolled in CHIP.

Here is a copy of a letter that Administrator McClellan wrote to my home State of Rhode Island on January 13, 2006. It reads:

We are pleased to inform you that your amendment to the

RiteCare section 1115 demonstration, as modified by the

special terms and conditions accompanying this award, has

been approved.

It also notes that Rhode Island's request to renew its demonstration project has also been approved.

And what exactly did Mark McClellan approve? Here is the next quote:

Expenditures for expanded SCHIP eligibility to individuals

who, at the time of initial application, are custodial

parents or relative caretakers of children eligible under the

plan.

Signed Dr. Mark McClellan.

The Bush administration approved the program in Rhode Island for custodial parents and relative caretakers. Yet the President is shocked--shocked--that this program may cover some adults.

President Bush, you authorized the coverage for these adults over and over, State by State, through your Cabinet Secretary overseeing this problem. Your argument, sir, is with yourself.

All I can say is you were right the first time, before you took this shameful ideological U-turn.

Setting aside reason, setting aside the security and peace of mind of countless working-class families, driven by ideology, President Bush lifted his veto pen for only the fourth time in his Presidency and struck down the Children's Health Insurance Program. His reason this week: Because it costs too much.

In other words, the same administration that in 1 year, in 2008, will spend $70 billion to pay for the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income earners, thinks it is too much to spend half that much over 5 years to provide billions of American children affordable health care. Said another way, the annual cost of Bush tax cuts for the superrich is 10 times the annual cost of this bill for children's health care, and he says he vetoes it over its cost.

The same administration is spending more than $10 billion each month in Iraq, with no plan for ending the war and bringing our troops home, an administration that is now asking for 200 billion more dollars for the war this coming year, refuses to spend $35 billion over the next 5 years to provide

millions of children all over this country affordable health care.

Instead, the President sought a funding level that would result in 1 million American children losing--losing--their health insurance.

So where would their families go to get these children health care if they don't have access to this insurance under the President's proposal? Well, before an audience in Cleveland on July 10, the President of the United States revealed his approach:

People have access to health care in America--

He said.

After all, you just go to an emergency room.

So that is it.

Tax cuts for billionaires that explode our national debt and leave future generations on the hook to pay for it--that is a big priority for President Bush. Billions for Blackwater, for an endless war with no plan to end it, for no-bid contracts for Halliburton--that is a big priority for President Bush.

But health care for children and their struggling working-class families, all paid for in the budget after hard-working bipartisan compromise? Nope. That is not a priority. That is a veto.

And the kids? ``Send them to the emergency room,'' he says.

I am ashamed of the President's decision. His veto was unnecessary. It was wrong. It is now up to Congress to make it right. I ask my colleagues to override the President's veto of children's health insurance.

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

Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations, Ms. Mikulski, in a colloquy concerning the e- prescribing of controlled substances. Would the chairman and manager of the bill entertain a question?

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. As she knows, I am a profound believer in the potential of health information technology to revolutionize the way we deliver health care in this country. The potential for better coordinated care, reduced medical errors, increased patient satisfaction, and enhanced patient peace of mind is enormous. It is also worth noting that several well-respected organizations estimate annual savings near $80 billion.

Unfortunately, we have been unable, as a nation, to develop an interoperable, integrated health information infrastructure the way we were able to do with our highway system or our railroad tracks. This is the result of a variety of barriers that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to tackle if we are going to take this necessary step to improve health care in this Nation. One of those barriers is the current prohibition by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, on the electronic prescribing of controlled substances.

This ban requires physicians who e-prescribe to maintain two separate systems: an electronic system for noncontrolled substances and a paper system for controlled substances. This is an excessive encumbrance for doctors who are trying to do the right thing for their patients--an encumbrance that has unfortunately led many overburdened doctors to give up electronic prescribing altogether. This is a travesty.

As a former attorney general and a former U.S. attorney, I am sensitive to the prosecutorial concerns of the Drug Enforcement Administration. But CMS has been working without success for years with the DEA to resolve their differences on this issue. Apparently, the DEA refuses to budge. I would like to know why. Billion-dollar transactions are done electronically; highly classified national security information travels electronically; military attack aircraft are targeted electronically. I would say to the DEA: Please do not tell me we cannot figure out a way for a doctor to prescribe Vicodin electronically. I think we need to demand a joint report from CMS and the DEA laying out a way, or ways, to overcome this hurdle, to be completed at the earliest practicable date but no later than 1 month after the date of enactment. In the absence of the DEA changing the rules, we must seek a statutory solution to this problem. Considering the extraordinary potential of e-prescribing, we have to break this logjam.

Mr. President, I would ask the chairman if she would work with me to ensure that CMS and the DEA will work together to propose a reasonable approach soon to allow the electronic prescribing of controlled substances?

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and all my colleagues for their help on this issue.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Texas was also an attorney general of his State. I wonder if in that capacity the staff who served the appellate function in the attorney general's office, a solicitor general, are separate and he recognizes appellate practice, in many ways, is a specialized skill in that context, and I wonder what appellate argument experience the candidate for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my distinguished senior Senator Jack Reed in remembering a great Rhode Islander, Representative Paul Crowley, of Newport. With his passing early last week, the ``Ocean State'' lost not only a champion for our children and powerful advocate for Newport, the city he loved, but a friend and mentor for many of us who served and worked with him. In a place such as Rhode Island, a loss like that of Paul touches us personally as well as politically.

So together with Senator Reed, I wish to share briefly with the Senate the Paul Crowley I know.

Paul was a Newporter heart and soul, a lifelong resident of the fifth ward and a warm and generous host at Laforge Casino Restaurant, long owned by his family. He loved his old city and worked tirelessly to strengthen its economy and bring new vitality to its proud history.

Paul's role in founding the Newport County Convention and Visitors Bureau helped make Newport a world-class destination, and he led efforts to build a sister city relationship that endures today, between Newport and Kinsale, Ireland.

A loyal member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and former Grand Marshal of the Newport St. Patrick's Day Parade, Paul treasured his Irish heritage. He loved his family, his native city, and his ancestral Ireland, I think in that order.

Paul was a deeply respected leader. In 27 consecutive years of service in our General Assembly, his work as deputy chair of the Rhode Island House Finance Committee, among many other posts, cemented Paul's reputation as a hard worker, an honest broker, and a skilled negotiator.

Paul relentlessly dedicated those skills to improving education in Rhode Island. He believed Rhode Island children deserved the best education and he never compromised that commitment. He pushed schools and teachers to take responsibility for their students' successes and failures, and he pushed the State to ensure that schools improved, from accountability measures to State aid for poorer districts. Paul was particularly focused on middle schools, a concern he and I shared.

His legislative deeds are the shoulders on which education reform in Rhode Island will stand for a generation. Paul was a friend especially to Senator Reed's colleague and mine in our delegation, Patrick Kennedy. Paul befriended Patrick when they both served together in the General Assembly. I know Paul watched with great pride as Patrick rose first in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, and later in Congress, where he has earned the great honor and responsibility now of serving on the House Appropriations Committee.

Paul will be so deeply missed. Hearts all over Rhode Island go out to Paul's family--his wife Diana, his daughter Meredith, his sons Matthew and Edward, and his entire family.

I join Senator Reed in offering my condolences, on behalf also of Sandra, my wife, who worked with Paul in the legislature and who was so fond of him.

Newport, the city Paul loved, and the Ocean State, whose people he served unselfishly and with great integrity, are lessened today because he is no longer with us.

Paul, may the road rise up to meet you, and the wind be always at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face; may the rain fall soft upon your fields. And until we meet again, may the Lord hold you in the palm of His hand.

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

Madam President, it is without question that we are on a wrong course in Iraq. The Bush administration's failure to listen to the American people, failure to plan for the unexpected, and failure to learn from its mistakes has left our Nation less, not more, secure from terror and from the dangers our troops face in Iraq.

The expenditure of hundreds of billions of American tax dollars has not only strained our Treasury, but cost us uncountable opportunities to improve the lives of American families and to strengthen our country's future.

Every month, we are borrowing and spending over $10 billion to fund the war in Iraq--billions of dollars that we borrow and spend that could help deliver health coverage to children who need it; that could help improve the quality of elementary education and make college more affordable--things that are an essential investment in our Nation's economic strength into the future.

In addition to the billions we are spending to continue our military involvement in Iraq--a policy that must change, and soon--we are also spending billions more on reconstruction efforts. In this area alone, between 2003 and 2006, we have spent more than $300 billion. The same President who thinks it is too much to spend $35 billion on American children's health care over the next 5 years had no problem pouring $300 billion into Iraq reconstruction, and I submit that there is very little to show for it.

We have fought long and hard to keep pressure on President Bush to take a new direction in Iraq. At every turn, he and his allies in Congress have resisted. We will continue our fight, but as we do, we also have an obligation on behalf of the American people to ensure that these tax dollars are being used as they should be.

As fighting the war and rebuilding Iraq have been privatized, too often we have seen evidence of fraud. According to a 2005 report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, nearly $9 billion in funding intended for reconstruction efforts went unaccounted for--just gone. Investigations by the Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction of $32 billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction have already led to $9.5 million in recovered and seized assets and more than $3.6 million in restitution.

Iraq is a target-rich environment for corruption, and monitoring the expenditure of U.S. resources there requires vigilance. We must ensure that our tax dollars are not squandered to corruption or other malfeasance, and we must ensure that we have the ability to audit U.S. tax dollars from the time our officials award contracts through their final expenditure. We must do all we can to prevent ``leakage'' of this reconstruction aid through every step in the contractor supply chain.

We must give ourselves the chance to consider what effect all this graft and corruption may be having on the motivations of Iraqi leaders. When I visited in Iraq, we heard of just one official from Al Anbar Province--a police official--who had embezzled more than $50 million. With graft at that scale, one can only imagine how the motivations of Iraqi leaders might be warped.

The measure before us today will help us find out. It will establish a new ``Truman Commission'' to restore the American people's faith that their tax dollars are being accounted for. The Truman Commission was formed during World War II, when then-Senator Harry S Truman created a special committee to investigate the National Defense Program to investigate defense-related contracts and expose corruption and mismanagement in the use of war-related funds.

The commission we seek today will have the authority to audit U.S. funds used for U.S. projects or for U.S. efforts to support rehabilitation of Iraqi industries. The establishment of this commission will ensure that this cascade of billions of dollars for reconstruction in Iraq can be tracked, so that the hard-earned money U.S. taxpayers provide will serve the purposes--the legitimate purposes--of the American and the Iraqi people.

I applaud Senator Webb and our Presiding Officer, Senator McCaskill, for their leadership in sponsoring this amendment. I am very pleased that my colleagues in the Democratic freshman class, every one of us has thrown our support behind it.

Last November, the American people told us it was time for a change in Iraq, and we are working hard for a new direction. But as we fight to bring our troops home, this amendment will help make certain that our tax dollars are spent as we mean for them to be. It is wise legislation, it is needed legislation, and I urge its support.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.