Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 193, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, which was received from the House.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 180.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Friday, May 11; that on Friday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I speak today in outrage that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to block S. 3, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, from coming to the floor.

You meet a lot of people when you campaign for a seat in this esteemed body. You meet people of all ages, from all socioeconomic levels, from all ethnic and cultural backgrounds, liberal and conservative, rural and urban, healthy and ailing--you meet them all. These individuals bring personal voices to national issues. They educate us with their stories, and they trust us to be stewards of their experiences. I am sure my fellow freshman Senators will agree with me when I say that listening to these stories was the best part of running for U.S. Senate.

Sometimes these stories are uplifting tales about the triumphs of government: SCHIP providing health insurance to at-risk children, AmeriCorps helping young people serve communities throughout the Nation, The Family and Medical Leave Act allowing parents, spouses, and children the time to care for loved ones. But sometimes these stories are just the opposite--depressing, discouraging, disheartening tales of how the government has failed in its duty to support and safeguard our must vulnerable citizens.

I have hosted community dinners throughout my State. Some of the very saddest stories that Rhode Islanders shared with me were about their experiences with the Part D drug benefit. I would like to share with you a particularly touching story from Travis, who came to one of my community dinners in Woonsocket. Travis told me of his great- grandmother, a woman over 90 who was living independently, in a second or third story walk-up apartment building in Woonsocket. She, like other women her age, had signed up for a Part D plan, and was taking a number of prescription medications. One day, Travis's great-grandmother arrived at the pharmacy, only to be told that she was in the donut hole, that she would now be responsible for almost the entirety of her drug bill. His great-grandmother called Travis in despair. She would no longer be able to afford her apartment, or her independent lifestyle. She was forced to choose between her spirit of self-reliance and her health.

This is a tragedy. It is a human tragedy because no human being should be forced to choose between her dignity and her life, and it is a moral tragedy because this is a totally unnecessary choice. The Congressional Budget Office concludes that the privatization of the drug benefit--the choice not to simply add the drug program onto the established Medicare benefit--costs almost $5 billion a year. The Center for

Economic and Policy Research reveals that the combined cost of privatization and failure to negotiate prices is more than $30 billion a year. I do not know about you, Mr. President, but I cannot look Travis in the eye and tell him that the reason his great-grandmother cannot afford her apartment is that the government needed to give it to pharmaceutical manufacturers, an industry that, in 2004, was three times more profitable than the median for all Fortune 500 companies--an industry that from 1995 to 2002 was the most profitable industry in the entire country.

I was not in the Senate when the drug benefit was created. I was not privy to the debates that went on here regarding the complexities and particulars of the bill. But I have a very hard time understanding how, with a successful Federal drug benefit model in place at the VA, this body created a new program that pays, on average, 70 percent more for drugs than the existing VA program, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. I understand that there are fundamental differences between the Veterans population and the senior population, between the Veterans system and the Medicare system, but 70 percent? This seems, to me, like a de-evolution of the policy making process. We are creating new programs that function less effectively and less efficiently than the ones we already had in place.

The real question is why. Have we gained something valuable for this extra cost? Can we justify the expensive and byzantine architecture of this program based on the promotion of other values? Some of my colleagues argue that the Part D drug benefit maximizes choice, and that choice is of fundamental importance in health insurance markets. Indeed, the bill succeeds here. In 2006, there were nearly 1,500 prescription drug plans offered throughout the Nation. Beneficiaries in 46 States had over 40 plans to choose from. This year, seniors everywhere in the country can choose between at least 45 plans. In my small state of Rhode Island alone, there will be 51 plans available.

But study after study, survey after survey, has shown us that, beyond a reasonable point, more plans do not add up to beneficiary or provider satisfaction. In fact, 73 percent of seniors think the Medicare prescription drug benefit is ``too complicated.'' Sixty percent agree with the statement, ``Medicare should select a handful of plans that meet certain standards, so seniors have an easier time choosing.'' Thirty-three percent think it is ``somewhat difficult'' or ``very difficult'' to enroll in a plan. In addition, 91 percent of pharmacists and 92 percent of doctors think the benefit is too complicated. It is time to admit that a plethora of plans does not add value to the program; it adds bewilderment and burden.

And do we have a system in place to deal with the confusion we have caused? No. We have 1-800-Medicare, which is adequate at its best, and inaccurate, unreliable, or altogether unreachable at its worst. But we need not rely on anecdotal evidence. GAO itself placed 500 calls to the Medicare help line in the middle of last year to make its own determination about the usefulness of the feature. Eighteen percent of calls received inaccurate responses, 8 percent of the responses were inappropriate given the question posed, 5 percent of the calls ended in disconnection, and 3 percent of responses were incomplete. In total, one-third of calls placed by GAO in this study were handled in an unacceptable fashion. Our mechanism to demystify the drug benefit for the average consumer is furthering the confusion of one-third of callers. This is a catastrophe.

A second value that some of my colleagues argue excuses the convoluted and costly nature of the drug benefit, is expanded coverage. More seniors have drug coverage now than they did before January 2006. No one disputes this. But insurance is not insurance unless it is there for you when you really need it. Our sicker seniors are reporting far more problems getting their prescription drugs than our healthy seniors are. Over 40 percent of seniors who describe themselves as in ``fair'' or ``poor'' health report problems filling a prescription under their Part D coverage, while only 12 percent of seniors in ``excellent'' or ``very good'' health report a problem. If Part D is failing to help the sick, it is failing to meet the basic definition of insurance.

Do I mean to say that providing some coverage is worse than being uninsured? No. But that was not the option on the table in 2003. We had the option to provide everyone with excellent coverage. We had the option to care equally and comprehensively for every elderly person in this country, healthy, sick, or in between. We did not. Instead, we chose to write checks to the pharmaceutical industry, we chose to write checks to private insurers, and we left our seniors to write their own.

What, then, can we do to fix this broken benefit? There is a lot we can do, and today is the first step. Today, we can allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with drug companies to lower prices for consumers. We can require the collection of data from prescription drug plans, so that our experts at CRS, at CBO, at GAO, or at MedPAC can better understand the operations of this program. We can require CBO to study whether or not market competition is truly reducing prices, as was the intent of privatization. We can increase transparency for our seniors, by making the prices of covered drugs available to the public on the CMS website. We can pass S. 3--the only thing standing in our way is Republican obstructionism.

I thank the majority leader and Senator Baucus for their commitment to our Nation's seniors, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will drop their obstructionist tactics and let us get to work on this bill. As important as it is, it is only a first step to fixing our Medicare Part D program. I hope we can soon take that step and then move on to the broader issues, for I believe there is much, much more to be done.

Mr. President, the motion to proceed has just passed, 93 to 3. We will bring before the Senate in fairly short order the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I rise today to speak in support of that act. It is a bill that is as simple as it is important.

At a time when judges are the subject of sometimes vitriolic criticism, when judges and their families have been made the targets of acts of violence and murder, when the independence of the judiciary must be maintained in a climate of violence, we should take these important steps to improve the safety of our judges and their families. This bill will do that by requiring the U.S. Marshals Service--which has oversight over the safety of the judicial branch--to consult with the Judicial Conference to determine security requirements of the judicial branch, and it authorizes $20 million for the Marshals Service to protect the judiciary further.

The bill also amends the Criminal Code to enhance penalties for the possession of dangerous weapons within Federal court facilities. This bill also extends and expands to family members the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a judge's mandatory financial disclosure for security purposes.

The bill directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the security of assistant U.S. attorneys arising from the prosecution of terrorists and violent gangs. I will speak in a moment to an incident that happened in my State.

The bill will increase criminal penalties for tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, and it will authorize grant programs to expand witness and victim protection programs.

In my own experience as U.S. attorney in Rhode Island, I have been the subject of threats. Indeed, one man went to prison for threatening me. Prosecutors whom I sent to court we had fitted with body armor because of the security to their personal safety. We had prosecutors have extensive security systems installed in their homes to protect their security. That is one experience from one U.S. attorney in one 4- year term. Across this country, the need is very great.

In February, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing where Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to us about the need to preserve an independent judicial branch and to pass this bill. U.S. District Court Judge Brock Hornby also had important testimony regarding the need to pass this legislation. He said: ``This bill will contribute significantly to the security of Federal judges and their families.''

In short, it is long past time that this bill be enacted. Indeed, the core provisions of this bill have already passed the Senate twice last year, the second time by unanimous consent. So it is a little surprising that it is not being approved by unanimous consent at this time. But apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have lodged an objection. Nevertheless, I am happy to spend whatever time is necessary to ensure passage of this important legislation.

The Framers of our Constitution understood the importance of an independent judiciary. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 78: ``The independence of judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals . . . ''

While in this Chamber we may disagree on judicial nominations and we may argue over judicial philosophies, we should all, every one of us, agree to do everything we can to make sure the men and women who work in the judicial branch, who serve their communities in those important positions--and their families--are safe, as they make the important decisions lodged in their care.

I am pleased this bill has broad bipartisan support. I am pleased with the powerful results of the motion to proceed. I wish to commend particularly the efforts of Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee and our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, for their hard work on this issue. I look forward to supporting passage of this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, as I come to the floor this morning to share my concerns about this country's disastrous policies in Iraq, our Nation is mourning the unimaginable loss of 32 people in the tragic and senseless shootings at Virginia Tech. The thoughts and prayers of every American are with the victims of this horrific episode, the deadliest shooting this country has ever seen. We are only beginning to learn exactly what happened yesterday. We may never know why it happened, but what we know for certain is that in our shared grief we will find shared resolve to care for the wounded, to comfort the families and friends of those who died, to support this university and its community, and to search for answers and hope this tragedy may never be repeated.

I have been a member of the Senate now for just over 100 days. I am here, and many of my freshman colleagues are here, because the people of Rhode Island, like millions of other people across this country, looked at the war in Iraq and saw something that needed to change. They saw hundreds of billions of dollars spent, much of it wasted on reconstruction contracts that were sloppily managed or ill-advised. They saw one after another in a succession of retired generals protesting the failed strategy in Iraq and arguing for a different course. They saw reports that the Bush administration had misused and politicized our national intelligence services to press a case for war that did not exist. They read books, chronicling a heartbreaking series of mistakes and misjudgments. They saw tens of thousands of American soldiers return home grievously injured, and mourned more than 3,000 men and women who will never return home.

The country saw one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of American history and demanded a new direction. The American people voted for change. They were sincere, sober, and correct in their judgment, and this new Congress listened, but President Bush did

not. Instead of committing to redeploy our troops from Iraq, the President chose to escalate this conflict. Now, instead of working with this new Congress to forge a new strategy, a strategy worthy of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the President and Vice President are on the attack--on the political attack--not against the Iraqi leaders who are slow-walking us through this conflict in their country, but against the American people who have rightly questioned their failing policy. The question is this: How much longer will this President refuse to listen?

Since joining the Senate just over 100 days ago, I have worked to put pressure on the Bush administration to redeploy our troops from Iraq. In mid-March, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I traveled to Iraq to get a firsthand look at the situation on the ground, to see the hard work of our dedicated troops, and to talk with our military commanders and with Iraqi political officials. In Baghdad, our delegation met with several of the officers leading America's military engagement in Iraq, including GEN David Petraeus, LTG Raymond Odierno, and LTG Martin Dempsey, as well as members of our U.S. Embassy country team. We also met with Mahmud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, and National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waili. In my capacity as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I also met with members of our Nation's intelligence staff and their Iraqi counterparts.

In Fallujah, we spoke with GEN Walter E. Gaskin, Marine commander in Anbar Province, and other commanders of the Marine Expeditionary Force. I met three brave Rhode Islanders there: Kristie St. Jean from Woonsocket, Christopher Tilson from Providence, and Anthony Paulo from Westerly, all serving our Nation with dedication, courage, and honor.

On our return, we traveled through Germany to visit Landstuhl Regional Medical Center near Ramstein Air Base where our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, badly injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, are med-evac'd to receive critical medical care before their return home. MAJ Andrew Risio, who hails from Ashaway, RI, is helping provide care to our wounded soldiers in that facility.

The young men and women I met with in Iraq and their families have made tremendous sacrifices, and their expert performance and can-do attitude reinforced my pride in the American spirit. The security posture we maintain around our military bases is strong, and our troops are working hard to secure the cities and countryside of Iraq. The work of our intelligence and Special Operations personnel, which often runs nonstop through the night, is remarkable and exhibits a level of professionalism in which every American can be very confident.

The achievements of our forces in Iraq are serious--and here is what impressed me the most from our trip: So is their commitment that the Iraqis must assume responsibility for the security and governance of their own country. In nearly every briefing, at every level of command, the message came loud and clear that our military is highly focused on accomplishing a handover of security responsibilities so as to bring our troops home. As a young soldier in mess hall told me, the Iraqis ``won't stand up until we start to stand back.''

I do believe the Iraqis need more motivation to stand up. For instance, there is key legislation the Iraqi Parliament must pass that our military commanders believe is necessary if this surge is to succeed. They told me we cannot succeed in this military surge unless it is accompanied by a political surge, an economic surge, and a diplomatic surge. Critical measures to facilitate provincial elections, regulation and revenue-sharing for the Iraqi oil industry, reversing de-Beatification in favor of reunification, and restricting sectarian militias are all legislative initiatives that have stalled.

Iraq must take action and move this legislation forward and step up its own security presence. That will require real commitment and urgency, Mr. President. And it would be putting it mildly to say I was not reassured by the signals I received from our meetings with Iraqi officials. There is a serious disconnect between the urgency of our generals about this legislation, and the absence of urgency or energy on the part of Iraqi officials. One soldier I met put it in simple, homespun terms. He said: ``If your parents are willing to pay for the movies and you don't have to spend your own money, or if you can get your big sister to do your homework for you, who wants that to stop?''

It does have to stop and this Congress is taking action to make that clear. I was proud to vote with a majority of the Senate to pass binding bipartisan legislation to require the safe redeployment of our brave troops beginning in 120 days, with the goal of having the vast majority of our troops redeployed from Iraq by the end of March. I am also a cosponsor of the recently introduced Feingold-Reid legislation to continue to put pressure on the Bush administration to safely redeploy our troops.

Only the kind of pressure a decision to redeploy creates will provide the motivation needed for Iraq to take the necessary steps to assume responsibility for its own governance and security. An announcement that our troops will be leaving will encourage the Iraqis to step up and take their security seriously, will discourage the insurgents, and will send a message to the world community that stability in Iraq will no longer be the responsibility of America alone.

Last week, I had the opportunity to take that message directly to the Oval Office. In a meeting with President Bush and several of our colleagues who had recently traveled to Iraq, I urged him to announce a redeployment and a change of course was the strongest force he had in his hands. I also gave the President letters sent to me from Rhode Island folks with family members serving in Iraq. Those messages said loudly and clearly that it is time to bring our troops home.

But rather than acting to change course, the President keeps playing politics. He has threatened to veto legislation this Congress passed to provide critically needed funding for our troops in the field. In our meeting last week, he said he was prepared for what he called a ``classic political showdown.''

The question of what to do in Iraq is not a political fight between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress. It is a struggle between the President and the will and the good sense of the American people. It is long past time that their voices were heard.

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

Mr. President, we have seen a considerable number of the members of the Intelligence Committee come up to this floor this afternoon, and that is because we have before us S. 372, legislation authorizing funding for our intelligence and national security services. But rather than work with Congress to ensure agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, and many others receive the funding they need to meet their missions and keep Americans safe, the Bush administration and some in the Republican minority are stonewalling this legislation.

As the newest member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply troubled to see this legislation stalled at the expense of the security of our Nation. My father was a Foreign Service officer, and through his eyes I have seen the power of American diplomatic and intelligence efforts to do both great good in the world and great harm.

In their misuse and in the politicization of America's intelligence apparatus, President Bush and his administration have done great harm to America's standing in the world and our security at home. Now we face the

bleak prospect that for the third year in a row the Senate may not pass an intelligence authorization bill. This should give every concerned American pause.

This measure will fund our intelligence community agencies, fight terrorism, strengthen our capabilities to collect, analyze, and act on intelligence, and, most importantly, expand transparency and oversight of our intelligence community. It is a reflection of diligent, thorough, and tenacious work by our committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia whom I see with me on the floor this afternoon, along with his Republican counterpart, Vice Chairman Bond. I was hopeful that at least we could end the partisan logjam that has crippled the Senate Intelligence Committee for the last several years. I have been pleased with the thoughtful and serious tone of the committee's work on both sides of the aisle. Yet now something has suddenly changed, and the Republican minority has maneuvered to block this legislation from becoming law. Now it appears the White House has intervened, has called in chits, and twisted arms to stop a bill on which Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have worked so long and hard.

We understand this administration does not want congressional oversight. They don't want oversight on their inept response to Hurricane Katrina. They don't want oversight on the unprecedented purge of U.S. attorneys. They don't want oversight on the debacle going on in Iraq. They don't want oversight on intelligence either. But no administration in recent memory has more badly needed congressional oversight, and in no area has that need been more plainly demonstrated than in the intelligence function of our Government.

This is the administration that failed to ensure adequate oversight of national security letters under the PATRIOT Act. This is the administration that conducted its own secret wiretap program to monitor conversations, including the conversations of U.S. citizens. This is the administration that established its own secret prison network offshore to hold terrorism suspects off the record of this country's legitimate judicial institutions. This is the administration that cherry-picked its intelligence to justify the claim of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. That abuse of intelligence alone cost our country thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and damage to our relations with allies around the world that will linger for many years.

One can see why this administration would resist congressional oversight, but Congress is obligated to oversee our country's national security and intelligence-gathering services. That is our duty under the Constitution. This duty is particularly important with the covert intelligence agencies because their work is not subject to public inquiry. These are not organizations that work in the bright light of day but in the deep dark of the secrecy they require to be effective. So meaningful and appropriate congressional oversight is our only safeguard.

This administration welcomes oversight less than almost any I can think of, but no administration in recent memory has needed it more. Perhaps the Nixon administration, but like the Nixon administration, this administration's resistance to congressional oversight is a measure of how badly that oversight is needed. Unfortunately, for too many years this Congress has conducted oversight by the principle, ``out of sight, out of mind'' or maybe ``see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.'' You don't have to look far to see how badly this strategy has failed.

But there is a new team in town and a new leadership of this Congress that takes these responsibilities seriously. It is an abdication of our responsibility under the Constitution, and it is irresponsible with respect to the security of our Nation to let this legislation languish.

I urge my colleagues in the minority to reconsider their actions, to return to this floor in good faith, to continue the good work that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have so nobly accomplished, and to give our intelligence agencies the funding they need to keep us safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

I speak today in support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, offered by the majority leader, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for bringing this important bill to the floor. As a new Member of this body, as is the Presiding Officer, it also gives me great pride to express my appreciation for the leadership of Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Hatch, whose voices over the years have placed us in the position to pass this legislation, as I hope we will tomorrow.

I also wish to recognize the exceptional work and extraordinary leadership of my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Congressman Jim Langevin. Congressman Langevin has been both a State and national leader on this issue, championing the passage of H.R. 810 in last year's Congress and of H.R. 3 in January, as well as playing an integral role in Rhode Island's stem cell dialogue. Just today he was with our Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts, as she issued her report, ``Discovering Rhode Island's Stem Cell Future: Charting the Course Toward Health and Prosperity.'' This report is an important step toward developing a comprehensive statewide plan for stem cell research initiatives in Rhode Island.

Congressman Langevin did not arrive at his position on stem cell research easily. He grappled, as we all do, with the ethical and scientific issues involved, meeting with a host of individuals and groups spanning the ideological spectrum. After serious and heartfelt consideration, he concluded, as have many of our Senate colleagues, that a central part of his deeply held beliefs about life is a commitment to those who are challenged by diabetes, by heart disease, by Alzheimer's, by Parkinson's, by spinal cord injury, by stroke, and by the myriad of diseases and conditions that stem cell research might help or even cure. I share this deep commitment to stem cell research and a sincere optimism about the hope it offers for so many lives.

I want to share the story of one of those lives. It is the story of Lila Barber, a 12-year-old girl from Westerly, RI, who came to visit me here in Washington 2 weeks ago. In 2005, Lila started experiencing pain in her leg. The pain got progressively worse over a 5-month period, until it was keeping her, and her parents, up all night. The Barbers began a medical journey, from doctor to doctor and test to test, only to be told that Lila had bursitis. As it turned out, Lila did not have bursitis; she had osteosarcoma, a cancerous bone tumor on her tibia below her knee.

Years ago, doctors would have had no option but to amputate Lila's leg. But reconstructive techniques have improved, and most limbs can now be replaced with a metal and plastic artificial joint or a cadaver bone transplant. Fortunately, Dr. Richard Terek, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in musculoskeletal oncology at Brown University, was able to save her leg using such a cadaver bone transplant, which preserves as much normal tissue as possible. In the year following Lila's surgery, she was home-schooled as she underwent 16 rounds of chemotherapy. Lila's chances of long-term survival are now good--75 percent.

But even if Lila remains cancer free, she will face a painful and ongoing medical struggle. Since the donor bone and cartilage are not living, Lila's transplanted tibia will not grow as she does. Even worse, it will break down over time. This is a place where stem cell research could vastly improve care

for cancers like Lila's. In the short-term, stem cell research could allow surgeons to develop techniques to use Lila's own cells to biologically and mechanically enhance bone tissue transfer. That is, Lila's own stem cells could be used to repopulate the lost bone and cartilage. In the longer term, stem cell research might allow scientists to grow entirely new replacement bones and joints. One day, children with osteosarcoma and other bone tumors might receive new bones that actually grow with their bodies into adulthood. Such bone tissue enhancements would also be beneficial to individuals with injuries from accidents, sports injuries, or just the wear and stress of age. This is just one area of promise in the broad landscape of hope stem cell research opens to Americans.

As for Lila, with frequent monitoring from Dr. Terek, and sporting a bright bandanna on her first days back to school in the seventh grade, she is getting back to her old ways. She even attended the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards last weekend, a trip made possible by A Wish Come True, an organization in Rhode Island that grants wishes to children with life-threatening and dangerous illnesses.

For the Barber family, their greatest wish is for Lila's good health. Stem cell research holds the promise of making that wish, and millions of wishes like the Barbers', come true. Let us throw off the ideological shackles constraining our progress imposed by the bleak and benighted policies of the Bush administration. Let us all support S. 5 and embrace the promise for life and health and hope and cure that these discoveries present to mankind.

I thank the majority leader for sponsoring this vital legislation. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the SCHIP amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Rockefeller, and to respectfully oppose the amendment of my colleague Senator Cornyn. I also want to praise my senior Senator, Jack Reed, and thank him for his tireless commitment to providing vital health care coverage to the children of Rhode Island for so many years.

Our State of Rhode Island has one of the lowest rates of uninsured adults and children in the Nation. This fact is both encouraging and troubling. It is encouraging because insured children are more likely to receive medical care for common conditions like asthma and ear infections. It is encouraging because insured children have higher school attendance rates and higher academic achievement. It is encouraging because insured individuals are more likely to receive preventive care like mammograms and other cancer screenings.

But Rhode Island's uninsured rates trouble me because, even as one of the most well-insured States in the Nation, my State is still home to nearly 120,000 uninsured Americans. And 20,000 of those are children. Even as a leader in insuring children and adults in this Nation, we are still far from where we need to be, and we are going in the wrong direction. Rhode Island witnessed a 4.2-percent increase in the number of uninsured from 2000 to 2004, coupled with a 7.3-percent drop in those covered by employer-sponsored plans.

Senator Cornyn's amendment proposes to limit the SCHIP program to children under 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. In Rhode Island, that would have meant that almost 2,700 children would not have been able to access health insurance using SCHIP funds during fiscal year 2006. And this number does not even include children under the age of 8 because Rhode Island has covered those children through its Medicaid Program up to 250 percent of poverty.

For my colleagues from larger States, 2,700 might not sound like that many children. But the Cornyn amendment would potentially result in a 7.5-percent increase in the uninsured rate for children in our State. This is unacceptable. And it is particularly unacceptable in light of the fact that 10.1 percent of Rhode Island children under 250 percent of poverty are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP.

I also oppose the Cornyn amendment because I do not believe that we should use SCHIP reauthorization as a vehicle to limit coverage of parents. First, covering parents is one of the most effective ways to cover children. When States cover parents, children participate in the Medicaid Program at higher rates, they have more contact with medical professionals, and receive more preventive care. Second, kicking parents off SCHIP only increases the number of uninsured individuals in our States, and forces those individuals to seek coverage in more expensive settings like hospital emergency rooms. Lastly, the Bush administration has repeatedly approved waivers to expand insurance to parents of children covered under State Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Covering parents is a value shared on both sides of the aisle.

As we move forward with this budget, and move forward with the ongoing health care debate, we should not be looking for ways to limit the coverage that States can offer their residents,

but ways to expand coverage to new and wider populations. For savings, we should be looking at reforms that improve quality and reduce cost, not throwing kids off health care programs. SCHIP was created in an effort to provide health insurance coverage to vulnerable children. In the spirit of this program, reauthorization should provide us with an opportunity to expand the tools States can use to cover the uninsured, not as an opportunity to hurt those Americans who need help the most.

I want to make a particular point to thank Chairman Conrad and his staff for their superb work throughout this budget process, and for the chairman's continued support of children's health insurance programs.

Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from

Iowa for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed.

I rise to commend Chairman Leahy of our Judiciary Committee, and Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, my senior Senators on that committee, for their very deep concern about the politicization of the Department of Justice by the Bush administration.

As you know, I am new to this body, but having served as Rhode Island's U.S. attorney for 4 years, I want to share some thoughts based on that experience.

First, I want to point out that even if everything the administration has said about their firing of these U.S. attorneys were true--and we certainly have cause to doubt that--there is still a very real concern here that merits the attention of this body over the independence of the U.S. attorneys.

My experience convinces me--and it convinces me firmly--that Main Justice and the U.S. attorneys in the field check and balance each other in a way that is very healthy for the administration of justice in this country. Even if the mass firings--the purge of U.S. attorneys--had been done to punish policy differences with the Department of Justice, the firings would still defeat that healthy check and balance.

Bear in mind that nothing has been shown that suggests the exercise of graduated discipline one would expect in any kind of a well-managed setting. For instance, Carol Lam was ostensibly fired for not prosecuting enough low-level immigration cases. But when she was here testifying before us, she testified she was not told that when she was fired; nor, evidently, was she ever told beforehand this issue was a serious problem for her or that it might cost her job.

Even enemy ships usually get a warning shot. So the message of these firings to the U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration is this: You serve at our whim. You displease us at your peril. A sudden firing awaits you if you cross us.

That is a very bad message to send in the context of this traditional balance. Intimidation by purge is a tactic far better suited for a Soviet ministry of justice than for the U.S. Department of Justice-- that is, if everything they have said is true, which brings us now to the question of the Department of Justice telling the truth.

Let me start by saying, as I have said to the Attorney General directly, unless you are first a department of truth, you will never be a Department of Justice. Without truth, there can be no justice. We know already--because they have admitted it--the Department of Justice came before the Senate days ago and told us things that were not true. We also know they have said things that are inconsistent. They have not yet told us which statement is true and which statement is not true, but they have said things that cannot both be true. At least one must inevitably be false. We also know they have said things that boggle the imagination. Perhaps they are true, but it seems mighty unlikely.

The big question within this shameful cloud of admitted falsehood, inevitable falsehood, and probable falsehood is this: What truth hides behind the bodyguard of lies? Is it this: U.S. attorneys who prosecuted public corruption cases against Republicans or those who did not bring public corruption cases against Democrats were terminated with extreme political prejudice? Is that what made them fail the Department of Justice test that they be ``loyal Bushies''? Is that what made Carol Lam a ``real problem'' for the Department of Justice on the day Republican corruption indictments were announced?

Like dead flesh that must be excised before a wound can heal, like rotten wood that must be scraped away before rebuilding can begin, the cloud of falsehood that now wraps around the Department of Justice must be dispelled. It must first, again, become a department of truth or else it can never again be our American Department of Justice. We cannot tolerate a Department of Justice or an Attorney General who will not give the complete truth and face the consequences.

I think at least three questions must be pursued by the Judiciary Committee or, if and when necessary, the entire Senate.

One, let's review authoritatively the historic relationship between U.S. attorneys and the Department of Justice, if necessary with expert assistance from historians and input from U.S. attorneys who served in past administrations.

The President of the United States has said this selective mass firing of U.S. attorneys is--this is his quote--``customary practice.'' As a former U.S. attorney myself, I believe that statement by the President of the United States to be false. His own Department of Justice officials seem to have conceded in their e-mail traffic that it is false. But let's take a thorough look because--I should not have to state the obvious--our President should not be saying things that are not true and also because that historic balance between independent U.S. attorneys serving in the field, in their districts, before their judges, and knowing their communities, against the group here in Washington that runs Main Justice, that historic balance has value which should not be destroyed.

Two, let's get the full, exact, unvarnished truth of what happened, and let's fix accountability for things that were said that were false. Falsehood has no place within the halls of the Department of Justice. Whatever needs to be done to dispel the clouds of falsehood, we must do.

Three, if, indeed, the worst is to be feared and this Department has infected its pursuit of political corruption with partisan bias, let's find that out. Let's start by looking at the cold, hard, numerical statistics on public corruption matters under this administration, again with expert help, if necessary, and certainly with full regard for the confidentiality of such investigations, and let's see what the factual record is and what it suggests. We can then proceed as necessary.

God forbid this should be so, but the air is thick with reasonable suspicion which must be laid to rest, and if the worst should prove true, God forbid the Senate fail in its duty to preserve, protect, and defend the integrity of our Government where its integrity should least be questioned--in the U.S. Department of Justice.

I look forward to working with my learned colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to do whatever is necessary to restore the honor and credibility of a once-proud department and the tradition of its able and independent U.S. attorney corps. In the meantime, I hope we will all support Senator Feinstein's commendable legislation, S. 214, to close the PATRIOT Act loophole that may have invigorated the Bush administration in its unprecedented assault on the U.S. attorney corps.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, the Senate will vote on whether America is on the right course in Iraq, or the wrong one.

I have spent the past two years traveling all over Rhode Island, listening to people from my state who were angry and frustrated at this President's refusal to see that his policies in Iraq were wrong from the start, and remain wrong today. Last November, they and millions of Americans cast their votes for a new direction.

They sent us here to hold this President accountable: for distorting intelligence to serve his policy goals; for failing to give our troops the equipment they needed to do their jobs overseas, and failing to take adequate care of them when they return home; for telling our country the mission was accomplished when, as we've seen, the war has now stretched on for five long years; for now proposing to send tens of thousands more American soldiers into harm's way, against the wishes of the American people, and without a plan to bring the conflict to an end.

Americans know the truth: escalating the war in Iraq will not make that nation more secure, or bring Iraq

and its people any closer to a lasting peace. It will not make our nation more secure. And it is not the new direction Americans demanded.

There is a way to change course in Iraq. If we announce clearly that the redeployment of American troops will begin, and begin soon, that opens up diplomatic opportunities in Iraq, in the Middle East, and around the world.

When it is evident to the insurgents that America is not an army of occupation, the factions within the Iraqi government will be obliged-- and better able--to assume responsibility for the security and governance of their own nation. Iraq's neighbors will be newly motivated to take steps that will encourage a peaceful and secure Gulf region.

This binding resolution makes it clear that the situation in Iraq has changed since Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq in 2002. It states the President must begin the phased redeployment of American combat troops in no later than four months, with that redeployment completed by March 31, 2008.

The President failed to show America a new direction, and so the Senate will step forward to lead where he will not. I will vote yes to a change of course in Iraq, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.