Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I welcome this vote on such an important piece of legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As we have heard eloquently from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, stem cell research holds the promise of new cures and treatments for countless diseases and millions of Americans with chronic, incurable conditions. The wide range of applications for stem cells may lead to unparalleled achievements on behalf of research concerning Alzheimer's disease, as my friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, so passionately described with respect to her own family and her own experience; spinal cord injuries, like my dear friend Christopher Reeve; diabetes, and other conditions. For example, in my State of New York, research at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center has shown real promise for the use of stem cell research in bone, cartilage, and muscle replacement therapies. At Columbia University researchers have shown that stem cells can develop into neurons, special nervous system cells that would allow us to actually treat vision loss. Other scientists at Columbia University and at the University of Rochester Medical Center are working to cultivate stem cells into spinal cells that control motor function as possible treatments for ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease. And researchers from Rockefeller University, also in New York City, have explored ways in which stem cells can be used to develop dopamine- producing cells which could help Americans living with Parkinson's disease who experience a decline in these types of important cells. A broad consensus in New York and across our country has brought us to this debate and vote. There has been an upsurge of demand. It has crossed every line we can imagine, certainly partisan lines, ethnic, racial, geographic lines. People in every corner of our Nation are demanding that we in Washington open the doors to this promising science. It is long overdue, but finally we are at this point. My friends, Christopher and Dana Reeve, whom we have lost in the last several years, were eloquent, passionate advocates for this research. Christopher, from his wheelchair, performed his greatest role. He may have been Superman in the movies, but he was a super human being after his accident which paralyzed him, consigned him to a wheelchair to help with his breathing and respiratory functions. But he never gave up. He launched his greatest battle to try to bring our Nation to the point where we would take advantage of the science that is there. He worked and struggled on behalf of all who might benefit from stem cell research and other scientific breakthroughs. His brave, beautiful wife Dana, who passed away just this past March, showed a devotion to her husband and her son that was just inspirational. She, too, continued Christopher's work through the Reeve Foundation. And I know that both of them are looking down upon this debate and so pleased and relieved that this day has come. As I travel around New York, I run into constituents who speak to me about this issue. They are living with type I diabetes or their children are. They are suffering from Parkinson's. They have a relative who is struggling with Alzheimer's. They are paralyzed from an accident, as Christopher was. And they believe that this holds promise for their lives, for their futures, and if not for them in their lifetimes, certainly for their children and their grandchildren. Yet we know that the work of researchers in New York and across our country has been stymied, has been held back by the ban on certain kinds of scientific research. In 2001, when President Bush put a stop to all Federal funding for this type of research, it was limited to using already existing stem lines, which has proven to be a barrier to scientific advancement. We only have 20 lines, not 70 as was advertised, that scientists can use. And the utility of these lines has been outstripped by the scientific advances made in the past 5 years. But the ban still stands, and we have to pass this legislation. The House already did. We are now joining with the House. We need to have additional stem cell lines in order to pursue the promising avenues for research. I am worried the President has signaled he intends to veto this legislation, the first veto he will use since he has been President. This research is not standing still around the world. We are looking at other countries putting billions of dollars into supporting stem cell science. They are creating establishments of all kinds, centers of research, special clinical centers because they know they can attract scientists from the United States who will come to pursue this research. We are losing ground instead of doing what Americans do best, leading the world in innovation, ingenuity, new ideas. We can send this legislation to the President's desk, as I anticipate us doing after our vote this afternoon. And then the President has a decision to make: Will he support the scientific community at this moment of unequaled optimism and discovery or will he set us back? I am going to support the other two bills that are going to be before us as well because I think we have to clearly put an ethical fence around this research, send a very clear message about what is permitted and what is not. Right now we have no Federal laws prohibiting the worst of some of this research. That is one of the results of the fact that we have an Executive order, but we don't have any legal prohibitions on some of the worst things people might decide to do. I think it is important that we have a strong ethical stand, a strong legal stand, strong prohibitions and penalties for people who don't pursue research in the way that we set forth. But we cannot make the progress that we need to make for the sake of new treatments, new discoveries, and new hope for countless millions of people who are alive today and are suffering, for those born with diseases and conditions that could be ameliorated or even cured. This is a delicate balancing act. I recognize that and acknowledge it. I respect my friends on the other side of the aisle who come to the floor with grave doubts and concerns. But I think we have struck the right balance with the legislation we will vote on this afternoon. I think we will make a serious mistake if the President vetoes this measure and sets this research back. Mr. President, I hope we will pass it with a large margin, and I hope that the President will allow it to become law so we can, once again, stand for those who need this help to face the suffering that they encounter while living day-to-day. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, my colleague has eloquently described the damage and devastation that he and I visited together last week. Floods are biblical. They go back as far as human history is recorded. But I never cease to be amazed at the damage they cause. There is something about a flood that is so devastating. It leaves behind places that are destroyed because of mold. It ruins businesses and homes. It leaves a residue of mud and muck and debris. It is a demoralizing, debilitating disaster. As Senator Schumer and I traveled from Binghamton north, we saw firsthand people coping and trying to figure out what was next-- businesses that lost everything and don't know how they will ever get back into business, homes that were washed into rivers and creeks, city halls and fire departments and police departments with records that were obliterated in an afternoon. Now, if this were a once-in-a-hundred-years phenomenon, maybe I would not be so worried, but time and again we have heard that there have been 3 floods in this area of New York in the last 24 months, 2 of which were classified as 100-year floods, 1 of which was classified as a 300-year flood. We are beginning to see the effects that were predicted by the National Hurricane Center earlier this year. We had even seen our National Archives, which holds our most precious founding documents, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fighting back the floodwaters, trying to preserve America's history. Just last night in the county I live in in New York, tornadoes were spotted. That is very unusual. I lived for a number of years in Arkansas. We saw tornadoes all the time. I have been chased by a tornado. I have seen them on the horizon. I have lived with tornado damage. I visited many devastated communities. But tornadoes were not thought to affect States like New York. New York was hurricane territory, not tornado territory. Last night, we had a tornado. The strange weather that we are experiencing is out of the usual, and I hope that we can get the help we need and that the amendment that Senator Schumer and I have proposed will be passed so that we can replenish the disaster fund with the amount of money that we know will be needed to take care of the people we represent in New York. There was similar damage in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and apparently there is more to come. We have had predictions that the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season outlook is expected to be 80 percent above the normal in the number and intensity of hurricanes. We all know of the damage that occurred along our Gulf coast. But there are predictions of significant storms along the Atlantic coast up to and including New York for the rest of this summer and into the fall. We need to get ready. That is why this amendment makes such good sense. All that it asks is that we restore the money the President asked for in his budget. That money was cut. We want to add and replenish the disaster relief fund to the tune of $300 million so that there is $1.94 billion in that fund to help us meet the needs of New Yorkers and others who are being afflicted by this unusually severe weather. Fully funding that disaster relief fund is one way to ensure that people know there is going to be help on the way. It is demoralizing enough--I saw it on the faces of people as I walked the streets of Canajoharie and saw everybody in shorts and flip-flops and T-shirts shoveling out the public library or the boys and girls club across the street or the businesses up and down Main Street or the Beechnut plant. It is demoralizing enough to try to figure out how you are going to recover from a flood. Let's not add to that sense of despair by sending a message that the Federal Government isn't prepared to help. We learned a lot from the disasters of our response to Katrina and Rita, and I hope we will have unanimous support to replenish the disaster relief fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman be added as a cosponsor to the Schumer-Clinton amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of calling up another amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I was assured there would not be an objection. This is for the purpose of bringing up an amendment but not calling for a vote on it at this time.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4582.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment which addresses the concerns raised by the Transportation Security Administration lifting the prohibition of passengers carrying onto our passenger aircraft sharp objects, including knives. There is a considerable debate, led by the airline attendants and pilots, as to the wisdom of this rule being lifted. I ask the Senate to consider whether this is a good idea. We have been so successful in nearly 5 years in avoiding incidents on our airlines, in keeping our people safe on our airlines. If it ain't broke, why fix it? This rule has worked. People are used to the rule. My goodness, we have had security people take steak knives out of people's handbags and suitcases. We have had them take out huge pen knives and switchblades. Why do we want to go back to that? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that we return to the pending business of the Schumer-Clinton amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, to be followed by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mrs. CLINTON. How much time remains?

Mrs. CLINTON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I hear a point of order that I will then respond to.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4576 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Obama and Akaka be added as original cosponsors to the amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, nearly 5 years ago, as we all remember, on September 11, 2001, terrorists murdered 2,819 Americans, including 2,752 in New York; 343 firefighters and paramedics and 608 police officers lost their lives. It was the single deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We are here debating how much money our country is ready, willing, and able to spend to protect our homeland. What is clear, what has been clear, is that the threat posed by terrorism requires a great mobilization of American might, muscle, resources, and ingenuity. I do not believe that mobilization has yet occurred. Just in last December, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission, reported that we should get failing grades for how we are responding to the challenges of homeland security. Governor Tim Kaine said when it comes to protecting America, it is not a priority for the Government right now. The urgency may have faded, but the threat has not. We only need to look at the news and see what happened in Mumbai, India, yesterday to be reminded that terrorists strike anywhere, at any time, at innocent people. There are many problems with the strategy, or lack thereof, that we have been pursuing on behalf of homeland security. I regret that we have not done more, we have not had a comprehensive strategy, we have not put the money to work in smart, effective ways, and we have witnessed dangerous incompetence with respect to the failed response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have gotten a lot of tough talk, but I would take tough action anytime. We got a lot of rhetoric, but I would take resources. We have had campaign slogans, but I would rather have real security. What has been the No. 1 recommendation by every independent group, every expert who has analyzed the threats we face and the challenges we confront when it comes to homeland security? Threat-based funding, that was one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Sadly, all too often funding decisions have been based on politics as usual. I have been championing threat-based funding ever since 9/11. I introduced the Homeland Security block grant bill as well as the Domestic Defense Fund Act, both of which provided direct and threat- based homeland security funding to our communities and our first responders. I have personally made the case for threat-based funding to Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Ridge before him. Even funds supposedly distributed based on risk have been administered incompetently. We just saw an inspector general's report from the Department of Homeland Security listing all of the alleged threats around the country. With all due respect, you can read that list and it just causes your head to shake in bewilderment. In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced its 2006 Homeland Security grants. Cities and States facing high terrorist threats suffered considerable funding cuts, a decision that can be largely attributed to a series of highly questionable risk assessments. New York City and Washington, DC, remain at the top of any intelligence that we get with respect to threats. Yet they were given drastic reductions. Funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative alone was slashed in New York City by more than 40 percent, and in Washington, DC, by 43 percent. New York State has been struggling since 9/11 to come up with a comprehensive State plan and has been trying to scrape together funds for what are shortfalls from the Federal Government. Today, I am joining my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and my partner, Senator Schumer, in introducing an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill to restore the Homeland Security Grant Program funding. This amendment provides an additional $790 million in Homeland Security funds so that next year's levels of funding will match those of 2005. That is all this asks for--bring back the funding to what it was 2 years ago. We have already heard eloquent statements on the floor about port security. We have already heard about how difficult it is to get the kind of inspections and screenings we need at our ports. That is why I cosponsored Senator Byrd's port security amendment, and I am delighted that it actually passed by unanimous consent. I only hope that we will fight for that when this goes to conference and that the administration will listen and support this extra funding for port security. We are still fighting for border security. We know that we have not done enough. We have had weeks of debates about immigration that are really about border security. What are we going to do to keep our borders secure? Not enough. Under this administration, despite the 9/11 attacks, our borders have become less secure. According to a May 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Border Patrol grew at a faster rate and apprehended more undocumented immigrants each year under President Clinton than it has under President Bush. We have the technology and the tools. Americans are certainly telling us they want us to make our borders secure. So let's get serious. Let's employ new surveillance equipment, like detection centers, unmanned ground and infrared cameras. Let's enlist and deploy the manpower we need. We just voted on, unfortunately unsuccessfully, putting more money into securing our mass transit systems: our roads, our rails, our tunnels. We know how important that is. I cosponsored Senator Biden's rail security amendment which would have provided an additional $1.1 billion to enhance rail security, upgrade tunnels, provide for more Amtrak police. But it failed. Today I am joining Senator Schumer to submit an amendment to provide an additional $300 million for transit security nationwide. I hope it succeeds. Anybody who rides mass transit should know we are doing everything we possibly can to take care of and eliminate the vulnerabilities that our mass transit systems have. Beyond our financial investments, we also need new strategies and creative ideas. We have been talking about an interoperable communications system since 9/11. The 9/11 Commission recognized the essential critical nature of such a system. But year after year we don't do it. We bring amendments to the floor, we make speeches, it doesn't happen. In May of this year, I introduced legislation to set up a Federal interoperable communications and safety system to create a national emergency communications strategy, to make sure that when police and fire departments respond they can talk to each other; when the Federal Government sends help through the Coast Guard or the military or FEMA, they can talk to each other, and they can talk to State and local officials as well. I have also been fighting for several years to make sure that we have a nationwide emergency 9-1-1 system so that when you call from a cell phone people will know where you are. Can you imagine being caught in a terrorist attack or a natural disaster and calling for help and people can't hear you, can't know where you are, can't send help to you? It happens all the time. I was at an event this morning where an emergency response director made two horrifying calls that went unanswered in one case and a late answer in another because the cell phone couldn't be tracked. We have a lot to do. We can just stand here and list the problems. It is not just all about terrorism. Are we truly ready for a pandemic flu? Do we have adequate security at our chemical and nuclear facilities? Are we prepared for the potential of a dirty bomb attack in a major population center? I was encouraged that legislation I authored to create a national system to track radiological materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb was finally passed. I thought: OK. Great. I can check that off my worry list, which is a pretty long list being a Senator from New York. Then I find out that the administration announced a national plan, which was the whole idea behind tracking radiological materials. They wanted to have a State-by-State approach. In a nutshell, that is what is wrong. It is a national problem. The attacks of 9/11 may have happened in Washington, in New York, and in a field in Pennsylvania, but they were attacks on every single American, on our way of life, on our values, on our freedom. I don't think we want State-by-State responses. Do you think terrorists are going to stop at a State border or a county border? I don't. We have to restore confidence and competence as we approach this problem of homeland security. We have made some progress but not nearly enough. Sadly, I think we have put different priorities ahead of securing our country. I regret that. I hope we make amends. I hope we get back on the right track with a comprehensive plan, with the right strategies, with the appropriations we need, and with the distribution of those taxpayer dollars in a smart and effective manner, not politics as usual. I see on the Senate floor my colleague and friend, one of the great leaders on homeland security, the Senator from Maryland. I yield to her whatever time she needs.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I think this debate must be very confusing to people around our country who might be tuning in or sitting in the galleries because we should be spending an appropriate amount of money, not wasting it. We should have it focused. We should not be thinking of funding places and institutions like those referred to by both Senators Schumer and Mikulski. And I think it is bewildering for us even on the floor. It has been so difficult to get a straight story out of the Department of Homeland Security, to get any kind of clear sense of what the strategy is. What is it we have to do to make a case based on threats and risks? And why is money being cut from the places that are at the top of the terrorists' hit list? I do not have an explanation. The closest I can come is that we have other priorities in this Congress and on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We would rather spend money on tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I just do not get it. But we have a chance to send a very clear message with this amendment, to say: Look, there is not anything more important. Let's do it right. Let's require the highest level of competence from this administration and particularly the Department of Homeland Security. Let's not spend money wastefully, but let's spend money where we know it will give us the best results to protect our country. I make a special plea on behalf of New York. We have spent billions of dollars in New York City and New York State. It is not like we have been waiting around. We have created a 1,000-person intelligence unit with the NYPD, with detectives all over the country. We have spent a lot of money beefing up the personnel and putting in equipment. But we need help. We cannot take a 40-percent cut and protect everything that needs to be protected in New York City--from the mass transit system, to the Statute of liberty, to the United Nations, to the ports, to bridges, to the tunnels; you name it. So I hope we will have a bipartisan vote in favor of going back to the amount of money we spent in 2005, and making sure we spend it in accordance with threat and risk. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 4576, and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. CLINTON. Two minutes if I could.

Mrs. CLINTON. It is my understanding that a point of order has been made against my amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, who has been a strong voice on behalf of our Nation's security and joins with me in putting before the Senate one of the most important issues we face: How will we manage our emergency preparedness and response? I have the greatest respect and regard for my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman. They have done an extraordinary job in leading a committee that has had so much responsibility over the last months for the well-being and the homeland security of our Nation. I respectfully disagree with the solution they are putting forth, but I know it comes after not only many hearings but incredible thought and extraordinary attention to the details about how best to rescue the situation in which we find ourselves. We had a functioning, effective Federal Emergency Management Agency 5\1/2\ years ago. By all accounts, on all sides of the political spectrum, we had a crown jewel, an agency where performance was highly regarded not only in our own country but literally around the world. Unfortunately, that agency became a victim of the governing philosophy of the current administration. We have seen, in stark terms, the failures of the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency, so-called FEMA. We saw it in the disastrous failures in the days and weeks, continuing until this day, along our gulf coast when people lost everything--their homes, their neighborhoods, their churches, even their loved ones. Our Nation lost something precious as well: we lost faith in our Federal Government and in the response capabilities of the organization that until 5\1/2\ years ago we could count on. When we created the Department of Homeland Security after September 11, I warned, along with others, that moving FEMA into that large bureaucracy was a mistake. I said that on the basis of what I thought was the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which was, first and foremost, to deal with the potential for terrorism and to deter and prevent terrorist attacks like the horrific attacks of September 11. The decision was made to move FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security, and my worst fears came true. It became a stepchild. It became a holding pen for political cronies. It was no longer viewed as the crown jewel of the Federal Government but as a stepchild that did not really deserve the attention and the resources of this administration. Our worst fears about what would happen to FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security came true when we saw the images on television coming out of New Orleans and up and down the gulf coast. I applaud Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for the extraordinarily thorough investigation they did. We got even more sickening detail of e-mails from FEMA officials at the time the disaster struck, what their concerns were--which were hardly focused on saving the people who were suffering. We have seen thousands of people displaced. We see 10,000 mobile homes sitting empty at the Hope, AR, Municipal Airport, and on and on. We have a GAO report that says there may have been up to $1 billion--yes, that is billion with a ``b''--$1 billion in Federal assistance that has been misspent. It is not only the facts about Katrina that bring me to urge we restore FEMA to an independent status, give it back Cabinet-level access, make it independent of the behemoth that the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security has become, but it is also my worry about the future. Hurricane Katrina was a foreseen disaster. We watched it on the Weather Channel. We saw it coming across the gulf. It was not a sneak attack by suicide bombers in airplanes, it was a huge storm. I worry, as incompetent as FEMA has become, how would they handle the unforeseen? It is tragic to me that we have come to this position, and I think the new leadership at FEMA is laboring mightily to try to turn the situation around. But I worry it will be impossible, if FEMA stays within the Department of Homeland Security. If it stays within the Department and is renamed and reconfigured, I do not think that eliminates the primary problem, which is that it is stuck in a department with a focus and mission that cannot help but be to try to prevent and deter terrorist attacks. Believe me, I am all for that. We are about to come up on the fifth anniversary year of the attacks of 9/ 11. Although I really respect what Senators Collins and Lieberman are trying to do, I think they are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. They are stuck with the Department of Homeland Security, and so they are trying to figure out a way to shoehorn it in, to detour around the dysfunctional organization and leadership that the Department has. And I do not think that will work. The amendment Senator Akaka and I and others have offered would do three things: first, reinstitute FEMA as an independent Cabinet-level agency; second, require the Director and Deputy Director to have the appropriate emergency service qualifications; and third, require the FEMA Director to report directly to the President of the United States. During Katrina, who was in charge? Was it our President? Was it the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? Was it the FEMA Director? I do not know who it was. And one of the problems is that no one was. If we just sort of move the deck chairs on the Titanic, I do not think that solves the problem. FEMA's response capabilities have been degraded since Katrina even, because people are not there. They are not able to have the same sense of morale and commitment. When you look at all the reports that have been done--one from the White House, one from the Senate, one from the House, as well as the various reports from the Government Accountability Office--you can see all of the things that went wrong. Unfortunately, these reports have not been coordinated, and it is very difficult to figure out how we are going to get ourselves back on the right track with a functioning world-class FEMA, and I just do not believe the answer is for it to operate as a subagency within the Department. Now, I know there are those who are rightly concerned that if we take FEMA back to an independent status, then we will have duplicative efforts, we will not have coordination. I think the amendment tries to specifically say this does not detract in any way from the Department of Homeland Security's mission to secure the homeland. But I believe having it back in an independent status, with full accountability to the President, statutory authority under the Stafford Act to carry out all of the necessary mitigation, response, and recovery actions, is the way to go. If under our amendment we make FEMA report directly to the President, then the FEMA Director will have more authority under Stafford Act designation than if he is a sub- Cabinet official within DHS. My bottom line is we should get FEMA back to a functioning, effective agency again, and there is a difference of opinion about how best to do that. Obviously, we are back in hurricane season. We do not want to do anything, either within a reorganization or an independent status, that would further disable FEMA from responding. But if we reempower FEMA, restore its independence, and staff it with qualified people, we will be back on the right track. We have a regional structure for FEMA, and it is not clear from the proposal from the committee how that will work, who appoints those regional directors, who has to be in charge. I do not want people exchanging business cards at the site of a disaster, which is what has been happening. I believe we have to build on the strong track record FEMA had during the 1990s. I know the committee has said this would be comparable to the Coast Guard, but I think that is a slightly different role and mission. The Coast Guard is a military, multimissioned maritime service. It is one of our Nation's five armed services. Its mission is to ``protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests--in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.'' They did a superb job with respect to Katrina and Rita. But FEMA has a different role. It is supposed to be managing dollars of considerable numbers in advance of catastrophic events, coordinating Federal agencies, carrying out the President's statutory authority for emergency response. It is supposed to be the go-to entity for full management. I believe we have a better chance of getting back the FEMA we should have, that the people should be able to count on, that can work with State and local governments, that can help to mitigate disasters, by returning it to independence. So, Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to support the amendment to restore FEMA to an effective, independent, Cabinet-level agency once again and send a message to the country that FEMA is back--it is back, it is ready for business, and people can have trust in it once again. Thank you, Mr. President.