Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak in support of S. 214, Senator Feinstein's legislation to restore the independence of our U.S. attorneys. Like many in this body, I have watched in dismay as more and more details of this administration's efforts to fire Federal prosecutors and replace them with loyal partisans have become public. There has been a great deal of discussion of these facts on the floor of this Senate--the fact that those U.S. attorneys who were fired were criticized in one e-mail for not being ``loyal Bushies,'' and the fact that many of these U.S. attorneys had received glowing personnel reviews in the time leading up to their firings.

But one of the facts that I think we are losing sight of in this debate is the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in this country. These are incredibly important jobs, and the people that hold them are responsible for overseeing the most complex and serious prosecutions of the most treacherous crimes. U.S. attorneys around the country are responsible for overseeing major conspiracy cases including organized crime, large-scale drug trafficking by organized gangs, terrorism, and political corruption.

While these are political appointments, in the past, mere political loyalty was not generally sufficient to get you the job. In the past, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, you also needed to have the support of the legal community in the district and to have demonstrated solid legal skills. Ensuring that people who were known in the community and had the necessary judgment, skills, and independence to fulfill the demands of these positions is the reason that home State Senators are consulted.

It is because the importance of these positions has long been recognized on a bipartisan basis that it is simply astonishing that this administration gave real consideration to summarily dismissing all 94 U.S. attorneys. Even more appalling is that the Attorney General, the man who earlier this year told the Judiciary Committee that he would ``never ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons,'' was involved in those discussions.

As difficult as it is to believe that the administration seriously considered wholesale replacement of the U.S. attorneys, it is even more troubling that they proceeded to summarily dismiss eight prosecutors for very murky reasons and then tried to justify their actions as performance based. Given that each of the prosecutors underwent a detailed favorable review, it has become very clear that this is simply not true.

More troubling still is that at least three of the fired prosecutors were involved in political corruption probes that were not proceeding in a way that the administration viewed as politically favorable, and in at least two of these cases lawmakers and their staff personally intervened with the prosecutors.

As if a large-scale effort to fire lead Federal prosecutors for political reasons wasn't sufficient, the Department of Justice clearly intended to replace sitting prosecutors with highly political White House and other administration staffers on an ``interim'' basis without sending them to the Senate for confirmation. That is what this bill before us today addresses. It revokes the ability of the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for an indefinite period of time and thus avoid the Senate confirmation process. This is just one of the problematic provisions slipped into the PATRIOT Act and I commend Senator Feinstein for her efforts to bring this issue to light and to restore the balance to the process of appointing U.S. attorneys.

While the Deputy Attorney General has insisted that it wasn't the intent of the Department of Justice to avoid Senate confirmation, this has been flatly contradicted by the documents. In discussing the appointment of Karl Rove's Deputy Tim Griffin as the ``interim'' U.S. attorney in Arkansas, the former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, wrote in December 2006: ``I think we should gum this to death . . . Ask the senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say `no never' (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in `good faith' of course.''

The decision to fire the U.S. attorneys was finalized after the elections and the knowledge that Democrats would be taking control of the Senate. But even so, it raises the question of why the White House would feel it necessary to avoid Senate confirmation. After all, many of the current U.S. attorneys were confirmed smoothly under Democratic control in 2001 and 2002. Again, Kyle Sampson has the answer for us. In an early email, he laid out the benefits of avoiding the Senate stating: ``we can give far less deference to home-state senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''

This bill before us today restores the status quo prior to the renewal of the PATRIOT Act last fall by repealing the ability of the Administration to appoint ``interim'' U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods of time. I am glad the administration has dropped its opposition to this bill, and I look forward to seeing the President sign this bill in to law. But this exercise has been an eye-opener for those of us in the Senate, and I hope for the American people, about the contempt this administration has for the Congress and the willingness of the administration to politicize any and every office. It has also, once again, underscored the value of oversight into our system of government. For the past 6 years, this administration has operated without any independent check on its power. But those days are over. By passing this legislation and beginning the necessary work to restore the integrity of our Nation's U.S. attorneys, we can begin to restore Americans faith in our system of justice.

Mr. President, this spring, the new community health center in Burlington, IA, officially opened for business. Having secured funding for the center and attended the groundbreaking ceremony last June, I know how important this health care facility is to Burlington and the surrounding communities. At long last, Des Moines County has a permanent, unified medical and dental clinic something that has been sorely needed for many years.

This is a truly unique community health center. It is housed on the grounds of Southeastern Community College. And there is an agreement between the CHC board and the community college to allow nursing and health aide students to do some of their training in the center. This gives the center an edge in recruiting staff, and it gives students hands-on training opportunities right there on campus. Clearly, this is a win-win-win arrangement for the center, for the community college, and for the entire Burlington community.

I salute Ron Kemp and others who had the vision to create this new community health center, and the persistence to transform their vision into bricks and mortar. The facility is welcoming, modern, and well equipped. And the staff members are truly an inspiration. They have a special passion for their work, and take pride in the fact that they are providing first-rate health care to underserved communities.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., used to say that ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?'' The staff members at the community health centers of southeast Iowa have answered that question in powerful ways. They have committed themselves to providing high-quality health care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay. All are welcomed equally. All are served with professionalism and excellence.

As chair of the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, I am 100 percent committed to securing appropriate funding

for community health centers all across America. One thing I know for certain: Every dollar Congress appropriates for centers like the one in Burlington is a dollar spent wisely and frugally. It never ceases to amaze me how their staff members are able to do so much--and to serve so many people--with such limited resources.

I dare say that nobody in the health care profession faces greater challenges than those who choose to work in community health centers challenges including chronic illness, cultural and linguistic differences, geographical barriers, homelessness, and on and on. Nothing stops these superb professionals.

And one more thing: Community health centers have a well-deserved reputation for caring and kindness. In some ways, their physicians and nurses are a throwback to another era. They offer a direct and personal style of health care. They follow up. They care about prevention and wellness.

So I am deeply grateful to executive director Ron Kemp, to Dr. Beverly Simone, the president of Southeastern Community College, to the center's dedicated board members, to Ted Boesen, executive director of the Iowa/Nebraska Primary Care Association, and to all the other people who made this new facility possible. They work their hearts out to provide the very best health care to some of our most needy citizens. I deeply appreciate their passion, their compassion, and their dedication to public service.

Mr. President, today we recognize a distinguished executive at the Social Security Administration, Bob Rothenberg. Bob is an Associate Commissioner and Director of the Social Security Budget Office. He is a dedicated public servant who has served his country at the Social Security Administration for nearly 37 years.

A native of New York, Bob began his career in the local Social Security Office in Brooklyn. In 1973 he moved to the Budget Office at Social Security Headquarters in Baltimore. Bob's intellect and resolve were quickly recognized and he rose to the position of Budget Director--a position he has held for nearly 20 years. During Bob's long and distinguished career with the agency he has received many awards, of special note, the Presidential Rank and Meritorious Executive Awards.

For many years I have had the privilege of relying on Bob's outstanding work on the Social Security Administration's budget. He has always been resourceful, insightful, and forthcoming.

Bob will retire from the Social Security Administration on March 31, 2007. He will be sorely missed by his fellow colleagues and his congressional contacts on the Hill. He will leave behind the numerous individuals he has mentored and encouraged over the years and who, because of his guidance, are now prepared to carry on his work.

It is important that we in Congress recognize the many men and women who devote their working lives to improve the lives of others. Career civil servants often do their work in quiet anonymity behind the scenes providing vital service to the American people. They are rarely recognized for their important contribution. Bob Rothenberg is one of those people. His record of leadership at the Social Security Administration and his commitment to providing the American people with effective and compassionate service is a record of which he can be justly proud.

I wish Bob all the best in his retirement from Federal service and thank him for his many years of dedicated service.

Mr President, Americans are divided over the Iraq war, but we are 100 percent united in our determination to support the troops in the field and their families back home.

But just as we have seen shortcomings in the treatment of wounded warriors at Walter Reed, it is clear to me that we are falling short in supporting the families of Guard and Reserve personnel who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. These families are especially vulnerable because of their isolation, their distance from military bases, and their lack of access to the services that active-duty military families can draw upon.

This is a new era for our National Guard and for the Reserves. They are shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a stepped-up role in homeland security. More than four times as many Guard members have been killed in Iraq as during the entire Vietnam war.

With many Guard and Reserve members on their third or even fourth deployment, and with some deployments being stretched out to 16 months, the stresses on their families are acute. Their children are at greater risk for depression, behavioral disorders, or academic problems. And long family separations often result in financial difficulties and troubled marriages.

To address this quiet crisis, today I am introducing legislation titled the Coming Together for Guard and Reserve Families Act. This bill does several things.

First, it expands and strengthens the existing family assistance program. We need to ensure that there is adequate professional staff to work with Guard and Reserve families and meet their special needs at every point of the deployment cycle--as they prepare for deployment, during the long absence, and during reunification and readjustment.

I am especially concerned that there are few resources for the families of Guard and Reserve members who are wounded or experience mental illness. My bill expands the VA's Disabled Transition Assistance program to ensure that family members have access to family counseling and mental health services during this critical time.

Children of deployed service members often react to parental separation with acting-out behaviors, anxiety, or depression. My bill calls for outreach to professionals who serve children--including school administrators and teachers--to alert them to the special needs of kids in military families, especially those with a parent deployed in a war zone.

Forty-one percent of Guard members and Reservists report symptoms of mental illness--including post-traumatic stress disorder--within 6 months of returning home from deployment. Currently, mental health information is distributed to service members when they return from deployment--and often that's it. But symptoms of PTSD may not appear for months after return. My bill will ensure that families receive mental health information 6 months post-deployment.

Finally, my bill creates a family-to-family mentoring program to enable military spouses to serve as peer counselors to other spouses and family members. It can be extremely valuable for a military spouse to consult with someone who has gone through a similar experience.

The role of our Guard and Reserve members in defending our national security abroad has significantly increased. In turn, we have an expanded obligation to care for their spouses and children, who are facing tremendous stresses, often alone and with no one to turn to.

The aim of my bill is to address the unmet needs of Guard and Reserve families before this becomes the kind of full-fledged crisis we witnessed at Walter Reed. I urge my colleagues to support this urgent and important legislation.

Mr President, Americans are divided over the Iraq war, but we are 100 percent united in our determination to support the troops in the field and their families back home.

But just as we have seen shortcomings in the treatment of wounded warriors at Walter Reed, it is clear to me that we are falling short in supporting the families of Guard and Reserve personnel who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. These families are especially vulnerable because of their isolation, their distance from military bases, and their lack of access to the services that active-duty military families can draw upon.

This is a new era for our National Guard and for the Reserves. They are shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a stepped-up role in homeland security. More than four times as many Guard members have been killed in Iraq as during the entire Vietnam war.

With many Guard and Reserve members on their third or even fourth deployment, and with some deployments being stretched out to 16 months, the stresses on their families are acute. Their children are at greater risk for depression, behavioral disorders, or academic problems. And long family separations often result in financial difficulties and troubled marriages.

To address this quiet crisis, today I am introducing legislation titled the Coming Together for Guard and Reserve Families Act. This bill does several things.

First, it expands and strengthens the existing family assistance program. We need to ensure that there is adequate professional staff to work with Guard and Reserve families and meet their special needs at every point of the deployment cycle--as they prepare for deployment, during the long absence, and during reunification and readjustment.

I am especially concerned that there are few resources for the families of Guard and Reserve members who are wounded or experience mental illness. My bill expands the VA's Disabled Transition Assistance program to ensure that family members have access to family counseling and mental health services during this critical time.

Children of deployed service members often react to parental separation with acting-out behaviors, anxiety, or depression. My bill calls for outreach to professionals who serve children--including school administrators and teachers--to alert them to the special needs of kids in military families, especially those with a parent deployed in a war zone.

Forty-one percent of Guard members and Reservists report symptoms of mental illness--including post-traumatic stress disorder--within 6 months of returning home from deployment. Currently, mental health information is distributed to service members when they return from deployment--and often that's it. But symptoms of PTSD may not appear for months after return. My bill will ensure that families receive mental health information 6 months post-deployment.

Finally, my bill creates a family-to-family mentoring program to enable military spouses to serve as peer counselors to other spouses and family members. It can be extremely valuable for a military spouse to consult with someone who has gone through a similar experience.

The role of our Guard and Reserve members in defending our national security abroad has significantly increased. In turn, we have an expanded obligation to care for their spouses and children, who are facing tremendous stresses, often alone and with no one to turn to.

The aim of my bill is to address the unmet needs of Guard and Reserve families before this becomes the kind of full-fledged crisis we witnessed at Walter Reed. I urge my colleagues to support this urgent and important legislation.

Mr. President, this is a statement I wish I did not have to make. Jim Sourwine, who has almost 40 years of Federal service, including more than 30 on the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will retire this month. He not only served the committee but the entire Senate as a professional staff member. And when I say ``professional,'' I really mean it with Jim. Always courteous, always helpful, he is an appropriator's appropriator. He worked for Republicans and he worked for Democrats, with equal diligence. He treated every Senator with respect, and we respected him as well.

And we all benefited from that service. He understands the appropriations process better than anyone. New staff could always look to Jim for institutional knowledge, and count on him to be a patient teacher of many on both substantive issues an the appropriations process.

The Senate depended on this expertise. Jim is a master craftsman, the person we relied on to compile all the spending figures and technical language and mould it into an appropriations bill. Whether it was drafting an amendment to the budget resolution; finding a creative offset to meet an important priority; or organizing and staffing a hearing on an important labor issue, such as those that we held on the overtime regulation, Jim Sourwine was the staffer we wanted and needed by our side.

Jim is the undisputed master at identifying creative solutions to funding problems. However, we can never forget that the work he did to support this institution ultimately benefited the American people, through increased educational and job training opportunities, greater protections for the Nation's workers or more affordable and improved health care.

For example, when Jim came to the committee, title I education grants were funded at $1.6 billion; this year's level is $12.8 billion. Think of the millions of disadvantaged students who have benefited over the years from this funding. In 1972, Congress created the basic educational opportunity grant to provide grant aid that would help low- income students earn a postsecondary education. The grant program, now known as Pell grants, provides a maximum award of $4,310 to more than 5 million low- and middle-income students. Millions of students have been able to earn a postsecondary education because of the extra assistance they were provided. Jim should feel proud of the role he has played in each of these programs and so much more.

Jim, I understand that the round-the-clock hours and weekend work have made it difficult to catch up on some projects around the house and get on the golf course. While you might prefer one over the other, I hope you know that your long and distinguished service to the Senate has more than earned for you the right to do just that or nothing at all. I will miss you and your sage counsel. The Senate will miss you. I wish you all the best on your retirement and thank you for your service.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2007. This bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill.

There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and promote alternatives to petroleum-based fuels in transportation.

The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all, as a domestically-produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs.

My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions promote the production of ethanol from a broad variety of plentiful and low-cost biomass including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry wastes woody municipal wastes and dedicated energy crops.

The viability of ethanol is reflected in the rapid expansion of its production

and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent annually for the past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term potential to become a very significant energy source for transportation is gaining attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol can contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in the future. Several of my Senate colleagues have joined me to introduce S. 23, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, which calls for increased access to ethanol at the pump and greatly expanded production of flexible-fuel vehicles. The Act also provides a directive for domestic production of renewable fuels to reach 60 billion gallons a year by 2030. I am especially proud of the leadership role that my State of Iowa and communities across rural America are going to play in this expansion.

Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should be considered due to the potential economic and environmental advantages this alternative might offer as compared to shipment by highway, rail tanker, or barge. As production volumes increase, especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the country. Pipeline shipping could provide for reduced vehicle emissions and superior energy efficiency compared to rail or tanker shipment.

For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport of ethanol as early as 2015. The current state of knowledge regarding transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. Although it is being done in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol, challenges remain. The water solubility of ethanol introduces technical and operational issues that affect the shipment of ethanol in multi- product pipelines. Thus, the largest associated research costs will be in the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction of the first ethanol pipelines. This work may well take as long as a decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to develop a solid understanding of this ethanol transport option.

This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A systematic analysis of these issues will provide the substantive information necessary to assess the costs and benefits of this transport alternative. The Act would allow DOE the option of funding private sector studies or conducting the studies on its own. The results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to understand what policies or programs might be appropriate to promote the most cost-effective and environmentally sound ethanol transport into the future.

We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to take into account the full range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. The rapid growth of ethanol production and use necessitates the very near- term study of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2007. This bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill.

There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and promote alternatives to petroleum-based fuels in transportation.

The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all, as a domestically-produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs.

My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions promote the production of ethanol from a broad variety of plentiful and low-cost biomass including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry wastes woody municipal wastes and dedicated energy crops.

The viability of ethanol is reflected in the rapid expansion of its production

and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent annually for the past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term potential to become a very significant energy source for transportation is gaining attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol can contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in the future. Several of my Senate colleagues have joined me to introduce S. 23, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, which calls for increased access to ethanol at the pump and greatly expanded production of flexible-fuel vehicles. The Act also provides a directive for domestic production of renewable fuels to reach 60 billion gallons a year by 2030. I am especially proud of the leadership role that my State of Iowa and communities across rural America are going to play in this expansion.

Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should be considered due to the potential economic and environmental advantages this alternative might offer as compared to shipment by highway, rail tanker, or barge. As production volumes increase, especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the country. Pipeline shipping could provide for reduced vehicle emissions and superior energy efficiency compared to rail or tanker shipment.

For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport of ethanol as early as 2015. The current state of knowledge regarding transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. Although it is being done in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol, challenges remain. The water solubility of ethanol introduces technical and operational issues that affect the shipment of ethanol in multi- product pipelines. Thus, the largest associated research costs will be in the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction of the first ethanol pipelines. This work may well take as long as a decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to develop a solid understanding of this ethanol transport option.

This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A systematic analysis of these issues will provide the substantive information necessary to assess the costs and benefits of this transport alternative. The Act would allow DOE the option of funding private sector studies or conducting the studies on its own. The results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to understand what policies or programs might be appropriate to promote the most cost-effective and environmentally sound ethanol transport into the future.

We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to take into account the full range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. The rapid growth of ethanol production and use necessitates the very near- term study of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Clinton, for her kind remarks. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 took place nearly 1,000 miles from Iowa. But the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were really an attack on the heart of America. Iowans answered the call of service and came to the aid of those affected by these attacks. The Musco Lighting Company from Muscatine donated lighting equipment to assist the World Trade Center recovery efforts. Quad-Cities fire departments collected more than $75,000 for the Uniformed Fighter Association's 9/11 Disaster Relief Fund.

And just as Iowans and other Americans responded to the calls for help, I am proud that the Appropriations Committee has worked step by step with the New York delegation to address the many desperate needs that arose from 9/11. I was proud to work with Senator Clinton, Senator Byrd, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to secure $20 billion immediately after 9/11 to help both short and longer term recovery efforts at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA. The funding for tracking health outcomes is a particular concern to myself and Senator Specter. This funding has been used to monitor not only the brave responders and recovery workers who live in New York, but also all who responded from around the country, including more than 35 from Iowa.

I thank you for your leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with you on the upcoming emergency supplemental appropriations bill to maintain the current monitoring and treatment program for 9/11 responders and recovery workers.

Mr. President, today, Senator Specter and I, and others introduce the Community Choice Act. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.

In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with disabilities and older Americans need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institutional setting. Federal law requires that States cover nursing home care in their Medicaid programs, but there is no similar requirement for attendant services. The purpose of our bill is to level the playing field, and to give eligible individuals equal access to the community- based services and supports that they need.

Although some States have already recognized the benefits of home and community-based services, they are unevenly distributed and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals. Some States are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program, but others do not.

Those left behind are often needlessly institutionalized because they cannot access community alternatives. The civil right of a person with a disability to be integrated into their own community should not depend on their address. In Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead.

The Community Choice Act is designed to do just that, and to make the promise of the ADA a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services. Today, almost two-thirds of Medicaid long term care dollars are spent on institutional services, with only one- third going to community-based care.

This current imbalance means that individuals do not have equal access to community-based care throughout this country. An individual should not have to move to another State in order to avoid needless segregation. Nor should they have to move away from family and friends because their own choice is an institution.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the goals of the ADA that Americans with disabilities should have equal opportunity, and the right to fully participate in their communities. No one should have to sacrifice their ability to participate because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

We have made some progress to date, as CMS has started to award Money Follows the Person demonstration grants. But that is only a start. Together, that initiative and the Community Choice Act could substantially reform long term services in this country. With appropriate community-based services and supports, we can transform the lives of people with disabilities. They can live with family and friends, not strangers. They can be the neighbor down the street, not the person warehoused down the hall. This is not asking too much. This is the bare minimum that we should demand for every human being.

Community based services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will experience a chance to make their own choices and to govern their own lives.

The Community Choice Act will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream and I urge all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community-based services for people with disabilities. I would also like to thank Senators Kennedy, Inouye, Salazar, Biden, Lieberman, Clinton, Schumer, and Dodd for joining me in this important initiative.

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

Mr. President, today, Senator Specter and I, and others introduce the Community Choice Act. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.

In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with disabilities and older Americans need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institutional setting. Federal law requires that States cover nursing home care in their Medicaid programs, but there is no similar requirement for attendant services. The purpose of our bill is to level the playing field, and to give eligible individuals equal access to the community- based services and supports that they need.

Although some States have already recognized the benefits of home and community-based services, they are unevenly distributed and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals. Some States are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program, but others do not.

Those left behind are often needlessly institutionalized because they cannot access community alternatives. The civil right of a person with a disability to be integrated into their own community should not depend on their address. In Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead.

The Community Choice Act is designed to do just that, and to make the promise of the ADA a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services. Today, almost two-thirds of Medicaid long term care dollars are spent on institutional services, with only one- third going to community-based care.

This current imbalance means that individuals do not have equal access to community-based care throughout this country. An individual should not have to move to another State in order to avoid needless segregation. Nor should they have to move away from family and friends because their own choice is an institution.

Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the goals of the ADA that Americans with disabilities should have equal opportunity, and the right to fully participate in their communities. No one should have to sacrifice their ability to participate because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.

We have made some progress to date, as CMS has started to award Money Follows the Person demonstration grants. But that is only a start. Together, that initiative and the Community Choice Act could substantially reform long term services in this country. With appropriate community-based services and supports, we can transform the lives of people with disabilities. They can live with family and friends, not strangers. They can be the neighbor down the street, not the person warehoused down the hall. This is not asking too much. This is the bare minimum that we should demand for every human being.

Community based services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will experience a chance to make their own choices and to govern their own lives.

The Community Choice Act will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream and I urge all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community-based services for people with disabilities. I would also like to thank Senators Kennedy, Inouye, Salazar, Biden, Lieberman, Clinton, Schumer, and Dodd for joining me in this important initiative.

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

Mr. President, one thing I have learned in my years in public service is that if you want answers to the big problems in our society, you have to ask the people who work with those problems every day. When there is a meth crisis in my State, the first people I want to talk to about it are the police chiefs and sheriffs because they are the ones that have to think every day about how a meth distributor might think, where they hide, and how they operate. When I want to know how education policy is affecting children in the classrooms, I talk to teachers and parents.

So it only stands to reason that if we want to know where the holes in our TSA screening processes are, then we ought to be talking to the transportation security officers, or TSOs. These are the people who are responsible for screening airline passengers. A good way for the screeners to band together and share their collective thoughts on how to improve safety in our airports is by allowing them to collectively bargain. I realize that some members of this body have antiunion sentiments. They think that if folks come together and try to negotiate for better pay and working conditions that we won't be able to expect consistently high results.

Let me remind my colleagues that before we created a Department of Homeland Security, we routinely heard horror stories about the non- Federal airport screeners making near minimum wage pay and working in terrible conditions resulting in high turnover and a lack of experience and dedication to our shared goal of keeping our airways safe.

So we created a Federal workforce. We knew that the pay and benefits that the Federal Government provides can attract top notch workers. I strongly feel that Federal TSOs are the first people to care about safety in our airports.

I would remind my colleagues that many Federal workers who are critical to our Nation's security, such as Capitol Police, Border Patrol agents, Customs agents, and immigration enforcement officers are all allowed to collectively bargain while ably serving our Nation's security interests. We are simply saying that TSOs should have the same rights and responsibilities as other Federal workers performing similar functions who also are allowed to collectively bargain but not to strike or disclose information that would somehow jeopardize national security.

I would also like to point out that last fall, the United Nations International Labor Organization opined that TSOs should have the right to organize. This is a disgrace, that we are allowing fear to override rationality in supporting our need for a well-trained, well-compensated workforce that can more ably make suggestions about how to improve security in our Nation's airports.

One of the most critical protections that the DeMint amendment would strip is protection from retaliation against whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are some of our most valuable assets in identifying and eliminating systemic fraud. I, for one, want to see a vigilant Federal workforce ready to shed as much sunlight as possible on any practices at any agency that are in contradiction to our goal of promoting the national defense. I don't see a need to explicitly limit TSO whistleblower authority when the Administrator already has the ability to expressly prevent TSOs from divulging information that jeopardizes national security. Most notably, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley's invaluable information about failures in our intelligence system led to a reworking of the agency in a way that can hopefully help the flow of information that could prevent another September 11-type attack. One whistleblower can change the world. Stifling that activity can and will do more harm than good.

Here is the irony--administration officials threatening out of one side of their mouths to halt legislation containing important homeland security improvements over an irrational disposition against unions, while out of the other side of their mouths calling supporters of the right to organize enemies of security. I ask this: Is it so important to strip away TSO collective bargaining rights that we must sacrifice all of the other important components of this legislation? The truth is that we all want more security. This is precisely why we want TSOs to have fair pay and benefits and a channel for their concerns for everyone's safety. We need seasoned personnel with reasonable work hours and benefits. A good way to keep good people on the job is by giving them a voice at work. What we are fighting for is a security enhancement, not a detraction.

The truth is that there is nothing in the collective bargaining process that would make TSOs less capable of serving the public. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving them collective bargaining rights and the clear ability to communicate their concerns about screening protocols with the TSA.

I ask my colleagues to defeat the DeMint amendment--to support our constitutionally granted freedom of association, and to protect the millions of Americans who rely on TSOs to protect their safety every day.

Mr. President, one of the joys of my job as a Senator is working closely with talented, dedicated Iowans from all walks of life. One of the exceptional people is Marvin Van Haaften, director of the Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy. With his retirement in January, he will conclude an extraordinary career in public service spanning over three decades.

Marvin Van Haaften has lived in Marion County most of his life, but his law enforcement experience and expertise has been felt throughout the State of Iowa. Before being named by Governor Tom Vilsack to be Iowa's drug policy coordinator in December 2002, he served as Marion County sheriff for 18 years. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, certified as a peace officer by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, served in the National Guard, and was a licensed medical examiner investigator.

One key to his success is that he speaks with the authority of a seasoned veteran of decades on the front line fighting crime and improving public safety. Marvin was named Sheriff of the Year in 1991 by the Iowa State Sheriffs' and Deputies' Association and served as its president in 1996. With more than 32 years of law enforcement experience, he has taught extensively in the field of rural law enforcement, particularly death investigation and domestic violence crimes. He has provided local and national leadership on the role of law enforcement in strategic victim safety and offender apprehension, and served on the board of directors of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. Marvin also served on many local and State committees such as the Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council, the board of the Mid-Iowa Narcotics Enforcement Task Force, the board of the 18-county South Central Iowa Clandestine Laboratory Task Force, and was third vice president on

the board of directors of the Iowa Association of Counties.

As a law enforcement officer, Marvin has seen firsthand the ravages that domestic violence inflicts on innocent women and children. For that reason, he has been a committed advocate for combating domestic abuse. During the nineties he served on the President's National Advisory Council on Domestic Violence, chaired by the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services, setting policy and developing domestic abuse and sexual assault training for the Nation. He was also a member of Iowa's Domestic Violence Death Review Team, the Lieutenant Governor's STOP Violence Against Women Coordinating Council, and the National Sheriffs Association's Domestic Violence Committee.

The commitment that Marvin brought to domestic violence, he also brought to his role as Iowa's drug policy coordinator and director of the Office of Drug Control Policy. As a law enforcement officer, he saw the destruction that drug abuse wreaks on families--the broken homes and ruined lives. He worked very hard at both the State and national level to ensure that the voices and needs of local law enforcement were heard. He will leave very big shoes to fill. I personally am very grateful for the excellence, professionalism, and long hours that he brought to this job.

Marvin also realizes the importance of a healthy, supportive family in a person's life: Marvin has been married to his wife Joyce for 42 years and has 5 grown children and 11 grandchildren. I am sure they will enjoy his retirement, but my staff and I will miss his counsel and his can-do attitude. I have turned to him again and again over the years, and he has never let me down. It has meant so much to be able to rely on someone of his caliber for authoritative answers and prompt answers.

Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At the same time, since 1963, rates of obesity have quadrupled among children ages 6 to 11 and tripled among children ages 12 to 19. Even our youngest children are not immune. Since 1971, among children ages 2 to 5, obesity rates have tripled.

There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually detrimental to them.

Not only does the overconsumption of these foods take a toll on the health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it undermines the nearly $10 billion in federal reimbursements that we spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.

Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and development.

What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch program?

Today, along with my colleague Senator Murkowski of Alaska, I will introduce bipartisan legislation to address this problem--and to do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill has broad support in both the education and the public health communities and is supported by the National PTA, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the School Nutrition Association, the Food Research and Action Center, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others.

The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 does two very simple but important things:

First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up with the science.

Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a lunch consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck through-- literally. It is time to close it.

The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Schumer of New York, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator Carper of Delaware. The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts across ideological lines and shows that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our differences in the interest of our children.

This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable chronic diseases--the current

generation of children could very well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. If this isn't a wake up call, I don't know what is.

Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007.

Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At the same time, since 1963, rates of obesity have quadrupled among children ages 6 to 11 and tripled among children ages 12 to 19. Even our youngest children are not immune. Since 1971, among children ages 2 to 5, obesity rates have tripled.

There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually detrimental to them.

Not only does the overconsumption of these foods take a toll on the health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it undermines the nearly $10 billion in federal reimbursements that we spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.

Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and development.

What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch program?

Today, along with my colleague Senator Murkowski of Alaska, I will introduce bipartisan legislation to address this problem--and to do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill has broad support in both the education and the public health communities and is supported by the National PTA, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the School Nutrition Association, the Food Research and Action Center, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others.

The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 does two very simple but important things:

First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up with the science.

Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a lunch consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck through-- literally. It is time to close it.

The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Schumer of New York, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator Carper of Delaware. The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts across ideological lines and shows that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our differences in the interest of our children.

This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable chronic diseases--the current

generation of children could very well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. If this isn't a wake up call, I don't know what is.

Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007.