Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a markup hearing on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Agenda I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation of Legal Basis for Warrantless Wiretap Program. II. Bills: S. 1145, Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Whitehouse). III. Nominations: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. IV. Resolutions: S. Res. 230, Designating July as National Teen Safe Driver Month (Isakson); S. Res. 235, Designating July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day'' (Whitehouse, Vitter); S. Res. 225, Designating the month of August 2007 as ``National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month'' (Biden, Grassley). THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a roundtable entitled ``SBA Reauthorization: Small Business Venture Capital Programs,'' on Thursday, June 21, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. select committee on intelligence

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Private Sector Preparedness I-- defining the problem and proposing solutions.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, the Senate is trying to come up with an energy bill. I know Senators have been working very hard on all sides of the aisle to come up with consensus legislation we can support, and I really do support them. I wish to particularly call to the attention of the Senate the efforts of Senators Pryor and Levin and Stabenow to try to come up with a compromise on the CAFE. But we are now where we are. We are at a very important juncture in our history. You know me. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with the blue-collar American. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar neighborhood. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my dad gave those workers credit. When UAW was having a hard time, my father and mother tried to smooth the way by helping them in the grocery store. My career and my public service is one of deep commitment to the working people. So when automobile manufacturers told me they could not meet the increased CAFE standards, I listened. I listened year after year, and now I have listened for more than 20 years. When they told me they needed more time, I agreed. When they told me an increase in CAFE standards was unattainable with existing technology, I voted against the increase to give more time so we could come up with attainable and existing technology. But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency standards. I was here when we voted for those CAFE standards. Now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change--not any kind of change--a smart change, a feasible change, an affordable change. That is why I support the Energy bill that is before us. I support the framework that has been generally presented by Senator Feinstein of California. I know that American automobile manufacturers and their workers are true patriots. They want what is best for our Nation. They have faced challenges before and they have met them and I believe they will face these challenges now. I believe they want to build vehicles that are safer and more energy efficient. The time has now come to increase fuel efficiency standards. We need a national effort. We need a national standard. It is time for our automobile industry to make the changes because they need to be able to do that to help their own industry survive and also for the interest of the Nation. I believe our world and our Nation is facing a crisis. When you look at the increased gas prices at the pump, it is hurting every single one of us. When you talk to families, you learn it now costs $90 to fill up a minivan. A commuter who has no other way to get to work than an automobile is now paying more to get to work than they are for their food bill in certain areas. As the Presiding Officer knows, small businesses need those vans to make those deliveries, whether they own a flower shop, whether they are a heating and air-conditioning guy, whether they are a plumber or whether they are the person delivering pharmaceuticals to nursing homes. In my own State right now, the watermen, those fishermen are out on the Chesapeake Bay trying to harvest ever-diminishing crabs with ever-increasing fuel prices. It is time to conserve our energy resources and to deal with the crisis we are facing. We know that energy and gasoline and petroleum products are in limited supply and are going up. We know that America's dependence on foreign oil presents a very serious national security challenge. I am on the Intelligence Committee, and I know what these transnational threats are. I know that energy independence is absolutely crucial to fighting the global war against terrorism. If we follow the money, we know that every time we are putting money into the tank, we are putting money into the pockets of the petro jihadists, those petro jihadists who are trying to undermine us everywhere around the world. They are undermining and attacking our troops in Iraq. They are funding Hezbollah so they can attack Israel; Hugo Chavez, shake, rattling, and rolling in Latin America. Do we want our money going to the petro jihadists who want to plot and destroy not only American lives but the American way of life? I don't want to support al-Qaida by buying more gasoline than I have to, but this is what Iran, Venezuela, and others are doing. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that is one of the most important ways we can as the public is by fighting the war against terrorism. There are 150,000 men and women fighting in Iraq today. The temperature is 110 degrees. We already have lost 14 more military. While we are doing that, though, there are 300 million of us who don't have to share in the sacrifice of the battle in Iraq, but we can share in that sacrifice if we embrace energy conservation and are serious about it. At the same time, we know there is a dangerous increase in the climate crisis that affects the life of our planet. It, too, is a national security issue because, make no mistake, the climate crisis will affect our food supply and will create a climate in which infectious disease will grow and natural disasters will increase. What can we do about it? How can we sign up to have a safer America, a safer planet? Well, I believe the most sensible foundation of an energy plan must begin with conservation. We have to make better use of what we have in our homes, in our businesses, in our cars, and in our airplanes. We also need incentives for new renewable energy and energy- efficient technologies that we can use in our homes and in our businesses and an increase in fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles on the road and our vehicles in the air. Now, in considering any fuel efficiency standard, otherwise known as CAFE, I come back to where I began: My heart and soul lies with the American worker, so I believe anything we do must preserve American jobs, but it also must achieve real savings in oil consumption. It also has to be realizable and achievable. That means a real technological ability to accomplish it. That means a reasonable lead time to adjust our production. I also believe we have to create incentives to enable companies to achieve those goals. I don't believe in an industrial policy where we pick winners and losers, but if we are going to pick a winning energy policy, we have to provide some type of help to the industry to help them get where we need for them to go. In the 1950s, when part of the world saw the Iron Curtain come down and they went into communism, many against their own will, such as Poland, Latvia, and Estonia, there was a whole other world that chose to go with what they called a Socialist tendency. We saw industrial democracies such as England, France, and Canada develop a national health system. We said: Oh, no, we are Americans. We don't want to go that way. We don't want to have a national health system. So we said to the private sector: Provide health care, provide pensions, and we will support that. So our American manufacturing base went to a defined benefit. They did provide health care. They did provide pensions. Now, they should not be penalized for it. Yet you look at the fact that our American manufacturers and our automobile industry itself does carry the legacy cost of health care; we asked them to do it and they did do it. General Motors provides more health care than the VA system. They provide more health care than some countries around the world. They have legacy costs to retirees. So if we are going to make the move in CAFE, we have to acknowledge that issue and how that impacts their competitiveness. Let's put our thinking caps on. Let's not only help one industry. Maybe this is the time to motivate us to get serious about having universal health care and a real prescription drug benefit so we don't dump it on the private sector to do. I also know, when we look at this in terms of preserving jobs, we need to also make sure that the technology is achievable, and I believe it is. I believe also there are certain waivers in this bill that help them achieve--that deal with the fact that if they cannot increase some of these standards, the mandates can be waived. But you don't get an energy policy by mandates alone. We can't mandate and regulate our way out of this. I am going to vote to raise fuel efficiency standards, only because I am so convinced it is in our national security interests. But I do not want to ignore the economic impact that this is going to have on the automobile industry. We can't just mandate and we can't just regulate. So I say to my colleagues, if we are going to go energy, then let's go to health care. If we are going to go energy, then let's fix the prescription drug benefit and don't talk about vetoes and filibusters. Let's now work in our national interests. Let's now work for our manufacturing base. Out-of-control health care costs mean that companies are less able to be innovative and invest in technology. Our current President likes to talk a lot about relieving the tax burden, but to our business community, the cost of health care is a tax because we have not gotten serious about how to provide affordable health care, both to the people who want to buy it and businesses who want to provide it. So let's get rid of that health care tax on American business and come up with universal health care. Last year we made some progress in helping manufacturers meet their pension obligations, and we can do it in health care. The time has come to raise the CAFE standards, but the time has come also to put our thinking caps on, to be an innovation society, and to come up with new ideas for efficiency, new technologies for energy efficiency, new composite materials to make cars lighter but keep them safe, and at the same time to seriously come to grips with health care. This is not an easy vote for me. I am telling you, this is not an easy vote for me. I have always, for 20 years, stood with colleagues such as Senators Levin and Stabenow. I stand with them now. But I also know that if the American automobile industry is going to survive and that if we are going to deal with the petro jihadists, we need to get serious about fuel efficiency. Let's get serious about the legislation. Let's get serious about health care. Let's be serious about the American workers, and let's get the job done the people want us to do. So today, I know we voted for cloture on the bill, but we have to continue to speak up on what we need to do to make us a safer country, but to keep a stronger economy, and for God's sake, could we start to be smarter about it. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague. I understand this is his first amendment that will be voted on in the Senate. I am proud to stand with him as he stands up for Maryland and also stands up for the fact that when we are talking about the siting of an LNG facility, those who are the most affected should have the most to say, which means the State in which it is being located. I support this amendment because it is also the right public policy and because it is the right public policy for Maryland. I am absolutely opposed to a new LNG facility in Sparrows Point, MD. As the senior Senator from Maryland, I will do all I can to protect the people of Baltimore and to protect the Port of Baltimore. I oppose this LNG facility because of my fears and frustrations. I worry about a terrorist attack. I worry about an accident with ghoulish consequences. This is a national security issue and a community security issue, not just an energy or a budget issue. These concerns are not mine alone. According to a GAO report, scientists and engineers have raised enormous concern about the potential hazard of an accident or an attack on LNG facilities. GAO says we don't know about the impact of an LNG accident on public safety. We are talking about possible injury and death. How can anyone make a decision on LNG without knowing the decision on public safety? This is why I support this amendment. This amendment gives States and communities a stronger voice by making sure the Army Corps of Engineers gets the approval of the affected State before giving permits for construction for an LNG facility. That means the Governor can say: ``Hold on a minute; this is not good for my State,'' or, ``Hold on a minute; it is good for my State.'' We cannot let a Federal agency rubberstamp plans for an LNG facility. I am committed to promoting America's energy independence, but it must not compromise our national security or our neighborhood security. I want to make sure we know the consequence of what happens when an LNG facility comes to a geographic area. What can be done and should be done to review and control the plants, the docks, the ships, the crews? I do not want permits issued and foreign-flagged tankers coming to our ports until we know key answers. I do not want permits authored by Federal agencies when our States are adamantly opposed and they are not involved in the decision making. Many States will welcome it. Some States will raise questions as we have. It is my responsibility as a Senator to make sure we ask the right questions to protect the American people. But, most of all, we want to give the people most affected something to say. We worry about this second LNG facility in Sparrows Point. It is 50 miles up the Chesapeake Bay. These tankers will have to pass under the Bay Bridge. My Governor is worried about the impact on the Port of Baltimore, and the people are worried about the impact on the community. My colleague says we have another facility, and it was in the right place. Well, I am not sure it was in the right place. They built this LNG facility 3 miles away from a nuclear powerplant--3 miles away from a nuclear powerplant--but it got closed in the 1980s when the market went down. But guess what. FERC issued a permit to reopen Cove Point in a different part of the State 1 month after 9/11, and they did not ask about security concerns. It took this Senator--and then my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, and I--demanding the Department of Homeland Security get involved, demanding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to say: Is it OK to have an LNG facility down the street? I had to force the Coast Guard to look at it from a security standpoint rather than just an environmental standpoint. I worry about the rockfish in the bay, but I worry about the people who eat the rockfish in the bay, meaning my constituents. We finally got the reviews we needed and we moved ahead with the permit. Let me tell you, I am on the side of safety, and I believe the safest thing is to make sure the Governor has a chance to comment with the Corps and to have an expressed impact on this permit facility. I think the Senator's policy is a wise one; it is a prudent one. It is narrowly crafted. I ask my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a marine officer from my home State of Maryland, LTG Emerson N. Gardner, Jr., now serving as the Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, as he prepares to leave this position for one of even greater importance. The position of Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources is one of the most demanding and important jobs within Marine Corps Headquarters. For the past 2 years, as Deputy Commandant, Lieutenant General Gardner has been responsible for planning, programming, budgeting and executing total appropriations in excess of $100 billion. He has led the effort to ensure that the Marine Corps had the resources they needed for success in the current conflict and prepared to answer the nation's call in the future. While Lieutenant General Gardner is responsible for many critical issues, he has been a champion in protecting our forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been a particularly strong advocate for the mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles, or MRAP. These vehicles have the possibility of drastically reducing American casualties caused by improvised explosive devices and Lieutenant General Gardner has been leading the effort to secure support for them. Lieutenant General Gardner has taken the time to educate, encourage, guide--and when necessary to cajole and prod--decisionmakers and action officers wherever necessary to accelerate the fielding of MRAP vehicles. Throughout this process, he has been everywhere and involved in every aspect of the MRAP program. So ardent has Lieutenant General Gardner been in support of this life saving program, that he has become known within Headquarters Marine Corps and throughout the Pentagon as ``Mr. MRAP.'' I know that a grateful nation shares my admiration for Lieutenant General Gardner an indomitable leader whose tireless efforts have directly contributed to the timely delivery of MRAP vehicles to theater. I am confident that my colleagues will join me in expressing the gratitude of the Senate, and bestowing upon him the unofficial title of ``Mr. MRAP.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. We must honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans. I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the federal government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans. I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107 Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill. That is why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation. In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level. In 1973, the nonservice connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the nonservice connected benefit from $300 to $1,270, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level. In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $745, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level. Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again. This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. We must honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans. I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the federal government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans. I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107 Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill. That is why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation. In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level. In 1973, the nonservice connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the nonservice connected benefit from $300 to $1,270, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level. In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $745, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level. Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again. This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the AmeriCorps Week Resolution, which designates May 13-20, 2007, as a time to salute AmeriCorps members for their work, thank community partners who make the program possible, and encourage more people to join. I want to first say thank you to all the volunteers and service workers everywhere. They take time out of their lives to help their fellow Americans in their time of need, and they do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I love AmeriCorps. I love what they do for communities, I love what they do for America. AmeriCorps is stronger than ever. Since its creation in 1994, 500,000 people nationwide have joined the program and taken the AmeriCorps pledge to ``get things done for America.'' AmeriCorps members have served more than 630 million hours nationwide. To date, 9,310 Maryland residents have earned education awards totaling over $30 million. These awards help volunteers pay for college, graduate school, vocational training, or to pay back student loans. The NCCC program, which has a campus in Perry Point, MD, is a full-time residential program for 18- to 24-year-olds designed to strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based service projects. Each year, approximately 1,100 participants reside in its 5 campuses nationwide. The Perry Point campus houses 200 AmeriCorps members every year, and since 1994 its residents have logged more than 400,000 service hours. AmeriCorps is the embodiment of the spirit of volunteerism and service to our country. They tackle the toughest problems in our communities: tutoring teens, starting neighborhood crime watches, turning vacant lots into neighborhoods, and helping communities clean up and rebuild after natural disasters. AmeriCorps volunteers are unflagging, unflinching and determined to make a difference. I know how important AmeriCorps is to communities across the country and to the young people who want to serve. We are so grateful for all the hard work that they do. I fought to create AmeriCorps and I will continue to fight to strengthen AmeriCorps so it can continue to help local communities meet local needs. Today's Federal investment, like these fine volunteers, are needed now more than ever.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. As a member of the HELP Committee and someone who was an active participant in shaping this legislation, I rise to let everyone know it is very important that we pass this bill. This legislation is perhaps one of the most important bills in more than a decade to improve drug safety. I am very distressed that for a variety of ideological reasons, this bill is being impeded. Yet drug safety should not be impeded. Drug safety is one of the most important issues we face. The recent testimony of two former FDA commissioners--one appointed by a Republican, Dr. Mark McClellan, and the other appointed by a Democrat, Dr. David Kessler--discussed the need for this legislation as one of the most important items to come before the Senate. Congress has a unique opportunity to change the way we monitor the safety of drugs. We can't afford to miss this chance. We owe it to consumers, physicians, and patients, who rely on FDA to be the gold standard, to pass this legislation. This is about protecting the American people. There are countries all over the world that can't afford an FDA so they look to us to see what drugs are approved. I have long been a supporter of the Food and Drug Administration. It is in my State, and I am very proud of it. I have fought hard for the employees at the FDA; for the resources to maintain the mission of the FDA. Through the years we have done a variety of things to improve FDA but nothing as important as this bill. When we began to work on this legislation, I wanted to know what impact I could make. I was concerned about the fact that FDA seemed to have lost its way. It seemed not to have the right leadership, and it certainly didn't have the right monitoring for drug safety-- particularly post-market surveillance. So we ended up with the Vioxx situation. We ended up with drugs to treat young adolescents triggering suicidal thoughts and worse. The issue of drug safety is paramount in America. When I looked at this legislation before the HELP Committee, I wanted to find a way to strengthen the FDA but not create a whole set of regulations that were bureaucratic and technocratic but without efficacy. So where did I turn? I turned to the Institute of Medicine. The Institute of Medicine is the premier agency that often gives advice and direction to the larger community. They published a report called ``The Future of Drug Safety.'' It had been commissioned by the FDA itself. As I read this report, I was struck by its commonsense provisions. I was also struck by the fact that we have endless reports. We have lots of commissions that Congress asks to be created, but we never act upon them. Just yesterday, the Journal of the American Medical Association ran an editorial about how the Institute of Medicine developed the right prescription for FDA, but no one is going to act on it. Well, I acted on it. I took the prescription to help the ailing FDA. While our leadership, through Senators Kennedy and Enzi, was working a comprehensive bill, I brought to their attention these recommendations. By working in a civilized, collegial way, my amendments were adopted. It is not about my amendments. It is about the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Isn't it great when we can take the best thinking, work on a bipartisan basis, and put it into action to protect the American people. To me, that is what it is all about. Today when I look at this bill, I am so proud of the provisions we included. It strengthens science. It increases transparency. It improves drug safety. Yet it doesn't shackle the FDA. Let me share the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. In terms of strengthening science, they were very clear and said that science must be strong to protect the public and to keep the best and brightest scientists at FDA. What did we do? No. 1, we created the Office of Chief Scientist at the FDA. A single scientist will now oversee all of the offices to be sure they have strong scientific guidance from the very top of the agency. This Chief Scientist will work with a strengthened Scientific Advisory Board who will make sure the Commissioner and the Center Directors are getting the best scientific advice. Imagine, the FDA didn't have a chief scientist. We have a chief scientist at the National Space Agency. We should certainly have a chief scientist at the Nation's drug safety agency. Then we made sure that all new drugs would be reviewed by an Advisory Committee. That means all new drugs will receive a comprehensive review. You might ask: Don't they now? No. Most got an advisory committee review, but under this legislation, there will be an advisory committee review of ALL new drugs to help assure that as a drug moves into clinical practice, it will be as safe as it can be. Remember, the FDA has a job to make sure drugs do two things: are safe and effective. These Advisory Committees will help make sure the drugs do no harm but also make sure they do good. We also reinforced the ability of scientists at the FDA to publish their scientific papers. One might ask: Can't they now? No. If you work at the FDA, you often can't publish articles unless your boss says it is OK. Imagine that. We are talking about allowing scientists to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This might sound kind of wonky, but it is important to morale. Its important for Scientists who now work at the FDA and important for recruiting new scientists that the FDA desperately needs. The other actions we took were to improve transparency. Transparency at the FDA is critical, especially throughout the drug approval process where all scientific views, even dissenting ones, should be made public. I added provisions to make sure this will happen. Through language I had incorporated in the bill, we will make summaries of the drug approval process available to the public on the Internet. A summary will be available 48 hours after the drug is approved and the whole drug review package will be publically available within 30 days. If there are dissenting scientific views, they will also be made available as well. If you are a scientist, a researcher, even if you are a consumer, you will be able to know the history of a particular drug and review its approval process. You can learn if there were there flashing lights raised during the approval process about which you can talk to your doctor. This is big. I know the distinguished presiding Senator was the attorney general for the great State of Colorado. I know he would also be very concerned about protecting proprietary information. This is not going to be about that. It is about safety issues, and they will be made public. We are also going to make sure patients and consumers help to make sure the FDA is communicating well with the public by creating an Advisory Committee on Risk Communication. This is modeled after two committees at the NIH and will facilitate getting FDA's message out to the public. We also made additional changes that will directly improve drug safety. Throughout the approval process, it is important to include scientists who know how to follow drugs after they are approved. This takes me to one of my most important considerations. This legislation will strengthen the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology to make sure it is part of the drug process from the beginning and all the way through. This legislation will also generate additional money for drug safety. Provisions in this bill would add $29 million in PDUFA fees and up to an additional $65 million specifically for monitoring drug safety. In sum, there are about 15 IOM drug safety recommendations we added to this bill. By working together, we have improved safety, we have improved transparency, we have improved morale, and we have improved resources. This is a good bill. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I don't know what you are cranky about. I don't know why you are holding up this bill. I will tell you what I am cranky about. I am real cranky when a drug goes out into clinical practice, and all of a sudden kids have problems. Kids have problems because they are trying to be like other kids. They are taking medication and it triggers something biomedical in their brain and gives them very dark thoughts. We don't want them to do dark things to each other. I am cranky when we have a doctor working in a rural part of my State, who doesn't have the time to read every medical journal but is relying on the fact that the drug he is prescribing to a patient for a heart condition has been approved by the FDA. He relies on the FDA to make sure that drug is as safe and as reliable as that doctor is in his own clinical practice. I get cranky, real cranky, when we cannot improve drug safety. If we want to talk about that, we have to get back to mission and to purpose. It is the mission of the FDA to stand sentry over our food and drug supply to ensure safety and efficacy. It is incumbent upon us to give them the right policy framework and the right resources. I think we ought to get into action and pass this bill. Let's work together to make sure that when we talk about defending America, we defend Americans by passing this bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr President, this morning I had the honor of saluting members of the Maryland Army National Guard as they departed to begin training for their upcoming deployment to Iraq. The 58th Brigade Combat Team, including the Headquarters Company from Pikesville, MD, the 1st Battalion of the 175th Infantry from Dundalk, MD, and the 1st Squadron of the 158th Cavalry Regiment, are leaving their families and communities to answer our Nation's call. As the Senator from Maryland and the Senator for Maryland, I have promised them that I will do everything I can to support them while they are on the battlefield, help care for their families while they are gone, and ensure they have the medical care, education, and job training benefits they need when they return. I support the conference report on the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill because it will help us keep our promises to America's citizen soldiers and their families. Unfortunately, President Bush continues to threaten to veto this bill. I hope it will not come to that. I urge the President to work with this Congress to meet the pressing needs of our men and women in uniform. I support this emergency supplemental bill because it: Fully funds the needs of our warfighters on the battlefield; adds $466 million to ensure veterans get health care they need when they come home; and requires the President to immediately change our mission in Iraq; and sets the goal of bringing our troops home by no later than April 1, 2008. This bill states clearly that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect our troops. Our troops must understand that Congress will never abandon them, not while they are fighting on the battlefield and not when they come home. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home--swiftly and safely. I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war, 4 years ago, on October 11, 2002. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the United Nations U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the threat from Saddam. The day of the vote, I said, we don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know: When we got to Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast. The United States went to war with Iraq, but today, we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there, mired in a civil war. No one could ask more of our troops. They are brave and courageous and have fought valiantly. And it is time to bring them home. We need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gives us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward, but the President has completely ignored this report. Surely out of 79 recommendations, there are 50 we can agree on. The Iraq Study Group report calls for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to enable the United States to begin to move our forces out of Iraq responsibly. It provides a direction for the U.S. and Iraqi Governments to follow that could lead to withdrawal of American forces by the first quarter of 2008. This is exactly the approach called for by this supplemental bill, which will have most of our troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What are we voting for? This bill contains a binding resolution that directs the President to promptly transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and begin a phased redeployment within 120 days. It sets a goal of bringing U.S. combat forces home by April 1, 2008, except for a limited number of troops essential for force protection, training, and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter terror operations. This resolution also says success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi Government's ability to meet important benchmarks, including the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces so they can control the capitol city of Baghdad; giving Iraqi military commanders the authority to conduct operations without political interference; disarming sectarian militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are loyal to Iraq's Government; drafting and implementing legislation to ensure the equal division of Iraqi oil revenues; drafting and implementing legislation to reform the debaathification process; implementing a fair process for amending the Iraqi constitution to ensure minority rights are protected; and implementing new rules to protect minority rights in the Iraqi Parliament. I support this Iraq resolution. It says what the Iraq Study Group has already told us: the problems in Iraq cannot be solved by the U.S. military--they require a political solution by the Iraqis and diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It says Congress and the American people will not only support the troops but continue to protect them as well. I want to end this war, and the resolution in this bill will do just that. Yet in ending the war, it is my responsibility as a Senator to ensure that our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. I will not vote to end funding for the pay that supports military spouses and children, body armor and armored humvees our troops need for survival, tourniquets and surgical hospitals on the battlefield, jet fuel for the airplanes that take injured troops from Baghdad to Germany and then home, or the medical care they need when they get here. In the last few weeks, we have all been shocked and awed by the conditions facing our wounded warriors. We know that more than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. Yet our troops are being twice wounded. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding, with historic rates of survival from even the most brutal battlefield injuries. Yet, while we have saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system is dysfunctional. This supplemental includes an additional $20 million to improve conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and an additional $900 million for research and treatment of traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorder, and other physical and mental trauma. It also adds $466 million for veterans' health care, including $53 million for new polytrauma facilities and services, $10 million for 100 additional caseworkers to aid troops and their families as they transition from active duty, $25 million for prosthetic research and $120 million for mental health treatment. We know this is only a downpayment for our troops and veterans. We need to overhaul the disability benefits system that is outdated and adversarial. We need a better system for transitioning our troops from active duty to the Veterans' Administration, to ensure they get the health care, job training, and educational benefits they deserve. We need to hear the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on how to fix the problems in our military and veterans hospitals. And I look forward to working with Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and Senator Inouye on a comprehensive reform package that will ensure our troops have the medical care they will need for the rest of their lives. This supplemental supports our troops, follows the will of the American people, and follows the advice of the Iraq Study Group. It is time to change our direction in Iraq and bring our forces home. Let's send in the diplomats and bring our troops home safely and soon.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Lamar Alexander, and Majority Leader Harry Reid for their efforts to move this issue. I am so proud of this great bipartisan team of 54 Senators working to pass this bill. I can't say enough about the appreciation that many of us in the Senate feel about my colleagues' initiation of the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which is the basis for this legislation, the America COMPETES Act. America must remain an innovation economy. This legislation creates the building blocks that we need for a smarter America. Our Nation is in an amazing race--the race for discovery and new knowledge, the race to remain competitive and to foster an innovation society, to create new ideas that lead to new breakthroughs, new products, and new jobs, the innovations that have the power to save lives, create prosperity and protect the homeland, the innovation to make America safer, stronger, and smarter. This legislation is called the America COMPETES Act or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science. It is divided into three sections: research, education and innovation. It calls for getting new ideas by doubling Federal funding for research at the National Science Foundation and establishing the Innovation Acceleration Research Program to fund frontier research like testing new theories and using new research methods; getting the best minds with scholarships for future math and science teachers, including $10,000 scholarships from the National Science Foundation for undergraduate students majoring in math or science along with teacher certification; and establishing a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation and competitiveness in the public and private sectors. Why is this so important? Because a country that doesn't innovate, stagnates. The whole foundation of American culture and economy is based on the concept of discovery and innovation. That is part of our culture. When you look at what has made America a superpower, it is our innovation and our technology. We have to look at where the new ideas are going to come from that are going to generate the new products and workforce for the 21st century. I want America to win the Nobel Prizes and the markets. This legislation will help to set the framework. It will make sure that we're helping our young people with scholarships and helping our science teachers and those working in science with funding and research opportunities. We also are forming partnerships with the private sector and building an innovation-friendly Government. The very essence of our culture is innovation and discovery. Remember we got here because someone wanted to discover. When Lewis and Clark set out on their expedition, it wasn't the National Geographic Society, to find a trail to the Pacific--it was called the Corps of Discovery. That is who we are. That is what our culture is, and that is what we need to maintain. We are a nation of explorers and pioneers always searching for new frontiers. The next generation of pioneers, engineers, and scientists is out there. They will help us create jobs and win the markets. Most importantly, they will help us win the amazing race. I will use my position as chair of the subcommittee that funds science to make sure that there is money in the Federal checkbook to support these proposals, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak with some great urgency on the need to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, S. 5. We must pass this bill because if we do not, the American people will continue to suffer, our brilliant researchers will be discouraged and think about leaving the field of scientific research and, No. 3, we are also outsourcing our intellectual capital because other research is going overseas. We have to have a sense of urgency because stem cell research takes a long time. We cannot have science on demand or scientists on demand. If we do not act now, we are going to be discouraging very important research and wonderful young people from going into this field. Every year we wait, we fall 3 years behind in our research--another time where a patient might have been saved, a family might not have had to watch a loved one suffer, and also where we would not have to watch our great ideas going somewhere else. Stem cell research is very important to the American people. It is very important to Maryland. It is very important to me. I am a firm, clear, unabashed supporter of expanded stem cell research and, at the same time, that this research be conducted under the strictest bioethical standards. That is why I like S. 5. This legislation is based on sound cellular biology science and also good, sound ethical principles. This legislation is so important not because legislation is important but because it opens more opportunity to do stem cell research. What does that mean? It means that currently the existing law under President Bush restricts stem cell research to adult cells, to some vague 21 lines that are becoming tired and toxic. But under our legislation, it would open it up to embryonic stem cell research where embryos are garnered that are discarded in in vitro processes in which the donors themselves have to make that informed choice. What does this do, though? Well, I will tell you, stem cell research is the kind of research that could find a cure for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, diseases of the brain and the immune system, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injury. Imagine if scientists could find a cure for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or if they cannot find a cure, to be able to regenerate new kinds of brain cells to give people a cognitive or functioning stretchout. Think about the impact on families, but also think about the impact on our nursing home budget. Think about research in juvenile diabetes, type 1 diabetes, where little children, every day--whether they are 5 or 9 or 11--have to be testing their blood sugar. They cannot eat the way other kids do. They have to watch how they pace themselves when they play ball or do other things so they do not induce hypoglycemia. As they get older and their cells get even more tired, they fear they could lose a kidney or lose their eyesight. If we could find more breakthroughs in juvenile diabetes, we would give them their childhood back. We would give them a life that has a future full of promise. That is why we are fighting here. It is not about ideology. It is not about party. It is about our American people. And what we invent here could help save lives everywhere. Yesterday, I went to Johns Hopkins University to discuss this stem cell research. I wanted to be sure I was on the right track: sound science, good, solid ethical frameworks. I said to the scientists: Tell me what you are doing and tell me what impedes you now working under the Bush framework? Well, they gave me an earful. First, it is inspirational-- inspirational--in what they are doing in pediatric leukemia, in juvenile diabetes, in multiple sclerosis. Also, to give an example, in talking to Dr. Doug Kerr, he is working now through stem cells--yes, it is with paralyzed rats--to not only regenerate the spinal cord but to have those cells connect to muscle so not only for whether you are regenerating spinal cords that have been injured or severed, but also to connect the muscle so you could walk again. That was the dream of Christopher Reeve. But that is the dream of every paraplegic right now--whether it has come from a diving accident, if you are an athlete, or whether you have been injured in Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't we want Dr. Kerr to do what he is doing now and to be able to extend that? But they do not get the clinical trials because they are restricted in the types of cells they can use. So we saw a cornucopia, again, of opportunity there. But I said to the docs at Hopkins: Why can't we do this with private or State funds? They said: Senator Mikulski, you have to have a national framework. First, that is where you get your bioethical guidelines. It is done not while there is one set of guidelines for States that can afford research and that there is another set of guidelines for those States that can't. Also, there is not enough in private philanthropic funds to be able to do this. Private funds function like venture capital. But at the same time, what happens with States? Maryland is now in a bidding war with our $25 million against California. We have scientists who are leaving Maryland to go to California. Hats off to them. But also, then, we have scientists in Maryland and California who are leaving the country because they can do work in Sweden or Singapore that they cannot do in their own country. These are American scientists who want to do their own work in their own country. But we are driving them out with our narrow-minded ideological sense of politicizing science. So we cannot do this with State funds, and we cannot do it with private funds. As I said, right now we are outsourcing this to China, to Singapore, to Australia, to Germany. I am not saying there are good countries or not good countries, but what are we doing? We are losing our intellectual capital. We are also losing our young scientists. Yesterday, I talked to a young doctor. I knew him as a resident. His wife was a friend of a friend of mine. I knew him through his residency. Now he is a young doctor, married, with three children. His whole field is diabetes. He is so eager to do this juvenile diabetic research. He has already started it. He is already good at it. Gosh, maybe he could win the Nobel prize one day. But guess what. There is not the money for the young scientist. Also, with the very shackling of what goes on now in these so-called Bush lines, with these ideological guidelines, they cannot do the research. He has to think hard about whether he wants to continue his life dream of finding a cure for juvenile diabetes. You see, this man has devoted his life to getting ready to do this, and now his own Government is stopping him--not because he is not smart, not because we do not have the will, but because we have too much ideology and too little money in the wallet. We have a President who has given us a framework where research has one hand behind its back. Scientists have been prohibited from doing new stem cell research. Six years ago, the President restricted Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. What did it do? It created an unregulated atmosphere. The result was federally funded stem cell research was halted almost entirely. Stem cell research was done by private entities. A private entity has no Federal bioethical standards. Mr. President, like you, I am a sunshine person. I believe you should have research conducted in the sunshine. That is where you have compliance with bioethical standards. That is why we need to have the kind of national framework where everybody goes by the same rules, at the same time, in the same way. Without national standards, research will be done by the well-heeled, outside of the public eye, with no national scrutiny. This is where I fear dark and ghoulish things can occur. I acknowledge the validity of some of the concerns raised by colleagues. But as long as you shove it underground, as long as you shove it behind closed doors, then you are going to get either faulty research or very bad ethics. I believe the legislation pending will remove the restrictions imposed by the President. It will provide the ethical and medical framework we need for federally funded stem cell research. It will create strong ethical guidelines. Most of all, it will ensure that we now open the opportunity for even greater and more expanded stem cell research so scientists will now have access to new, fresh stem cell lines which they now do not. What does it mean? Well, I can tell you what it means. It means for the United States of America we have heard what the voters said in November. They said: Change the direction of the country. Change the priorities. Come back home, America. Remember what America is. We are the land of the free, the home of the brave, and of discovery. Let's go for it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the passage of H.R. 1132, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Reauthorization Act of 2007, a program that the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and I have worked closely to reauthorize. H.R. 1132, like our companion bill S. 624, reauthorizes the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The legislation authorizes increased funding for this program to $275 million over 5 years and provides States with greater flexibility to reach priority, hard to reach populations including women living in rural areas and racial and ethnic minorities. Senator Hutchison and I would like to clarify with the chairman and ranking member the intent of the new waiver demonstration project. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a waiver demonstration project that will allow States to leverage nonFederal funds for breast and cervical cancer screening and follow-up services, reduce barriers to screening, and increase the number of women served. Non-Federal funds for breast and cervical cancer services/activities are available in some States through State or local government sources and private sources. Leveraging these non-Federal funds will augment limited available Federal funding and thus enable the efficient and effective utilization of resources to provide education and outreach to screen more women. It is Congress's intent that the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, will administer the described demonstration project as part of its overall management of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Program.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, during the last election, the American people spoke loud and clear: they want a new direction in Iraq. In my own state of Maryland, I have heard from a strong grassroots movement-- they want Congress to act now to end this war. I will vote for this emergency supplemental bill because it: fully funds the needs of our warfighters on the battlefield; adds $454 million to ensure veterans get the health care they need when they come home; requires the President to immediately change our mission in Iraq; and sets the goal of bringing our troops home by March 31, 2008. This bill states clearly that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect our troops. Our troops must understand that Congress will never abandon them: not while they are fighting on the battlefield and not when they come home. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home--swiftly and safely. I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war, 4 years ago, on October 11, 2002. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the United Nations, U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the threat from Saddam. The day of the vote, I said, we don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know: when we got to Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast. The United States went to war with Iraq, but today we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there, mired in a civil war. No one could ask more of our troops. They are brave and courageous and have fought valiantly. And it is time to bring them home. We need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward, but the President has completely ignored this report. Surely out of 79 recommendations, there are 50 we can agree on. The Iraq Study Group report calls for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to enable the United States to begin to move our forces out of Iraq responsibly. It provides a direction for the U.S. and Iraqi governments to follow that could lead to withdrawal of American forces by first quarter of 2008. This is exactly the approach called for by this supplemental bill, which will have most of our troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What are we voting for? This bill contains a binding resolution that directs the President to promptly transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and begin a phased redeployment within 120 days. It sets a goal of bringing U.S. combat forces home by March 31, 2008, except for a limited number of troops essential for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterror operations. It also requires the President to develop a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy for Iraq, including greater U.S. engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to work together to bring stability to Iraq. This resolution also says success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi Government's ability to meet important benchmarks, including: the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces so they can control the capital city of Baghdad; giving Iraqi military commanders the authority to conduct operations without political interference; disarming sectarian militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are loyal to Iraq's Government; drafting and implementing legislation to ensure the equal division of Iraqi oil revenues; drafting and implementing legislation to reform the de-Ba'athification process; implementing a fair process for amending the Iraqi Constitution to ensure minority rights are protected; and implementing new rules to protect minority rights in the Iraqi Parliament. I support this Iraq resolution. It says what the Iraq Study Group has already told us: the problems in Iraq cannot be solved by the U.S. military--they require a political solution by the Iraqis and diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It says Congress and the American people will not only support the troops but continue to protect them as well. I want to end this war, and the resolution in this bill will do just that. Yet in ending the war, it is my responsibility as a Senator to ensure that our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. I will not vote to end funding for the pay that supports military spouses and children; body armor and armored humvee's our troops need for survival; tourniquets and surgical hospitals on the battlefield; jet fuel for the airplanes that take injured troops from Baghdad to Germany and then home; or the medical care they need when they get here. In the last few weeks, we have all been shocked and awed by the conditions facing our wounded warriors. We know that more than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. Yet our troops are being twice wounded. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding, with historic rates of survival from even the most brutal battlefield injuries. Yet while we have saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system is dysfunctional. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd for their leadership in providing funding in this bill for military and veterans' health care. This supplemental includes an additional $20 million to improve conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and an additional $100 million for research and treatment of traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other physical and mental trauma. It also adds $454 million for veterans health care, including $73 million for new polytrauma facilities and services and $100 million for mental health treatment. We know this is only a downpayment for our troops and veterans. We need to overhaul the disability benefits system that is outdated and adversarial. We need a better system for transitioning our troops from active duty to the Veterans Administration to ensure they get the health care, job training, and educational benefits they deserve. We need to hear the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on how to fix the problems in our military and veterans' hospitals. And I look forward to working with Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and Senator Inouye on a comprehensive reform package that will ensure our troops have the medical care they will need for the rest of their lives. This supplemental supports our troops, follows the will of the American people, and follows the advice of the Iraq Study Group. It is time to change our direction in Iraq and bring our forces home. Let's send in the diplomats and bring our troops home safely and soon.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself approximately 10 minutes. First, I wish to respond for a few minutes to my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, the Republican whip. We have been in session less than 70 days. We have already been spending more time on legislation than the Congress led by the other party last year. Last year, we were in session less time than the Maryland General Assembly. We only voted 108 days. Now we have been in session 70 days. We have had a robust work schedule. Our colleagues in the House have passed significant legislation. What takes them 1 day takes us 2 weeks. It takes us 2 weeks not only because parliamentarily and constitutionally we are the more deliberative body, but at the same time it has been the obstructionist tactics of the other party that has prevented us from being able to move our legislation. Nevertheless, thanks to the determination of our majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, we have been able to pass ethics reform. The American people wanted us to clean up our own act before we cleaned up Government and, man, have the Republicans left us a lot to clean up: the Walter Reed scandal, the Attorney General scandal, the national security letter scandal--scandal after scandal after scandal. We came saying we weren't going to be seeking investigations, but now their reckless incompetency is forcing us to do that. Then we pushed to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It has been 5\1/2\ years since the dastardly attack on the World Trade Center, and it has taken us forever to implement these recommendations. So when the other party criticizes us for not doing the people's business, maybe if they get out of the way with their obstructionist tactics and let us move ahead with an agenda that is bipartisan, we can get the job done. Too often, when all is said and done within the Senate, more gets said than gets done. So before people throw rocks, remember those who live in a glass house might end up being shattered to bits themselves. Let us do our work. Every time we turn around, Harry Reid has to file another cloture motion. Why? Because they threaten filibuster. So, hello, don't criticize us.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the floor situation?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let's get on with this micromanaging the war business. Maybe if the administration was micromanaging the war, we wouldn't be here today. They said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe if they had micromanaged the intelligence community, we wouldn't even have gone into Iraq in the first place. No. 2, they said, We are ready to go. If Mr. Rumsfeld had micromanaged the U.S. military, maybe we would have had enough troops. Maybe if they had micromanaged the war, they would have had enough body armor. Maybe if they had micromanaged the system, we wouldn't have the scandal at Walter Reed. Maybe if they had micromanaged, we wouldn't have this horrific backlog at VA. They are the ones who should have been micromanaging the war, and if they can't do it, they need to get out of the way and let us pass our resolution. The distinguished whip from the other party said he wants us to finish by sundown. We would like to sunset the war. That is what we would like to do. It is time for our troops to come home, and it is time for us to bring them home swiftly. But we have a moral obligation and a constitutional obligation to bring them home safely. This is why I support the Reid resolution. This resolution states clearly that the Congress and the American people support our troops. Yet, at the same time, we are saying bring the troops home by March 31, 2008. Unlike the reckless incompetency that got us into the war, we are following the guidelines of the Iraq Study Group, wise heads who pondered some of the best ways to a new way forward. The Reid resolution sets a framework and a time line for doing what needs to be done and assuring our troops that we honor their service, and we are going to protect them on the battlefield. We are going to make sure they have the resources to do the job, and when they come back home, we want to be sure they have health care and they have jobs and they have job training. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been a leader in making sure that when our troops come home, they have job training, and I thank him for that. I am not new to this position on the war. I never wanted to go to war in the first place, not because I am a pacifist--and I respect those who are--but I read that national intelligence report; I am on the Intelligence Committee. I had very grave suspicions about the level of weapons of mass destruction Saddam had. But I also believed it was the U.N.'s job to go to Iraq and do the work that the U.N. was supposed to do. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to engage in a preemptive attack just because he said we were in imminent danger. I wish he had micromanaged that a bit. Maybe we wouldn't have had to go. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options, and I encouraged the administration at that time: Please, stick with the U.N. so the U.N. can meet its responsibility to deal with the Saddam threat. I said we shouldn't go on our own and we should work with the U.N. and the international community. The day of the vote when I spoke, I said I didn't know what lies ahead. I didn't know if our troops would be greeted with flowers or with landmines. Go to Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital and talk to those coming home from Iraq. You know what we got. When we got there, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but destruction sure happened. After 4 years of fighting, are we better off in Iraq? The United States went to war with Iraq, now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, we are still there, and now we are in a civil war. It is time for us to come home, and it is time for us to come home following the Iraq Study Group recommendations. We need a new way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 recommendations. Surely, we could agree on 50. If the administration wasn't being so isolated and so rigid, they would know it is time to engage in the international community, that it is always better to send in the diplomats before we send in the troops. Let's send in the diplomats so we can bring our troops back home. The Iraq Study Group calls for enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and outside Iraq. It provides a direction for the U.S. Government and the Iraqi Government to follow that would bring our forces home by the first quarter of 2008. That is what the Reid resolution calls for. The Reid resolution sets a goal of bringing all U.S. combat forces home by March 31, 2008, except for limited numbers of troops for force protection, training of the Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism operations. It would begin a phased redeployment within 4 months after the passage of this legislation. But it also develops a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy. Finally, this resolution requires the President to report to Congress within 60 days. That is why we support this resolution. Are we micromanaging? No, but I wish the administration, as I said, had micromanaged the war. We wouldn't be in the debacle we are in now. I support the Reid resolution because I believe what the Iraq Study Group said, that the Iraq problems cannot now be solved with a military solution, no matter how brave, no matter how smart. It requires a political solution by the Iraqis and a diplomatic solution with Iraq's neighbors. It says the Congress and the American people will not just support the troops, but protect them. I want this war to end, and I believe this Reid resolution will do that. Yet, in ending the war, it is my responsibility to ensure our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. Mr. President, I have had sit-ins in my office four times during the last 3 weeks. Four times, people have come to my office to sit in. Some come to protest, some come to get arrested, but all have a right to speak out. They want me to vote against the spending for the war. Well, there is no way a responsible Senator can vote against spending. There is no one line item that says: War, yes or no. That is not the way the supplemental works. That is not the way the defense budget works. That is not the way our entire budget works. There is no vote that says: War, yes or no. So I won't vote for defunding the war. I say to the protestors--I say to those well-intentioned liberal activists--know that we are on your side, but what are you asking us to vote against? Do you want us to vote against the pay for the soldiers and for their spouses and for their children? I won't vote against their benefits. What do you want us to vote against--the bullets and what they need to fight? I won't vote against that. Do you want us to vote against the body armor and the armored humvees they need for survival? I won't vote against that. What if they are injured? One of the things that save their lives on the battlefields is the tourniquet. I won't cut off the money for the tourniquets. I want them to have the tourniquets to cut off the hemorrhaging on the battlefields. When they come out of there, there is the jet fuel that gets them on the medevac from Baghdad to Germany to Walter Reed and Bethesda. We will clean up Walter Reed, and we will fix Bethesda Naval Hospital, but they have to get here. When they get here, they need medical care. Hats off to acute medical care. Now we need outpatient care. Now we need long-term care for the 50 years or so these men and women will have the need for it. We have had 22,000 people receive Purple Hearts in Iraq, and more have been injured than we will ever know or we will know years from now. So I can't vote against funding. I tell all who are listening that you can sit in every single day, you can follow me throughout my Senate career, you can follow me to my grave--I will not vote to in any way harm the U.S. men and women in the military, nor will I cut off the support for help to their families. If you want to picket, you want to protest, you want to disrupt my life, better my life is disrupted than the lives of these men and women in uniform. I am going to support this Reid resolution because I believe it helps bring the war to an honorable end, but at the same time, we are going to support our troops. It is time to stop the finger-pointing, and it is time to pinpoint a new way forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to the South River Ruritan Club in Edgewater, MD, on their 50th anniversary. The South River Ruritan Club, a community service organization, was chartered on March 13, 1957, and for 50 years has been providing much needed services to the citizens of Edgewater, Annapolis, and southern Maryland. The Club, whose members are all volunteers, have contributed well in excess of half a million dollars in direct financial aid and countless hours of time, to numerous community service projects. The club awards local students scholastic and vocational scholarships and provides assistance to local Scout troops, youth athletics, and other youth-related programs. They conduct an annual essay contest for fifth grade students and have sponsored students to the National Association of Student Council Conference and Exchange Student programs. They contribute annually to the local fire and rescue departments, the Maryland and Anne Arundel County police departments, and support environmental programs, including efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay. Our Active Duty military, retired and disabled military, and veterans organizations also benefit from the volunteer efforts of the club. They have sent direct aid to our troops in Iraq and provide additional financial assistance through their military's morale and welfare assistance programs. Their work also includes assistance in such areas as financial aid to needy families, victims of violent crimes, families displaced by catastrophes such as fires, and hurricanes, and assistance through Habitat for Humanity. They contribute annually to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and Johns Hopkins Hospital Children's Center and they loan wheelchairs, walkers, and other medical assistance equipment to members of the community. I congratulate the South River Ruritan Club on their wonderful record of community service over the last 50 years and wish them enormous success as they continue their commitment to improving their communities and supporting the families who live in and around them. This club and their membership, both past and present, have every reason to be proud of what they have accomplished.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to one of Baltimore's great civic leaders, Walter Sondheim, Jr. If ever there was a statesman from Baltimore, it was Walter Sondheim. From the time I entered public life in 1971, his name was synonymous with integrity, public purpose and civic leadership, and he was the most self-effacing public figure I ever met. Perhaps Walter Sondheim's most unique talent was his ability to manage transitions. Whether in business, in the community or in his own personal life, Walter knew when to hold them and when to fold them. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Walter recognized the evolution in Baltimore's economic base from heavy industry and manufacturing to tourism, service and technology. He championed a new vision of public land use and architectural excellence when he shepherded the Renaissance of Baltimore and the creation of the present day Inner Harbor. He challenged the business community to look forward and prepare for the service economy and the explosion of technology related businesses that was being driven by our major universities and federal scientific facilities. In the larger community, Walter Sondheim led us from the darkness of segregation and into the vision illuminated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Where other communities hesitated or procrastinated, as president of the Board of School Commissioners for Baltimore City, he forged ahead to implement this milestone ruling long before other cities around the Nation. The result was a speedy, thoughtful, considered integration of the public schools. In his own personal life, Walter Sondheim transitioned from his early life as a businessman with one of Baltimore's premiere department stores to the leader of a number of influential civic and business organizations. With grace and purpose, he carefully released himself from old roles and embraced new opportunities. He never looked backward, only forward. He did not fear new ideas. Whatever challenge he chose to address, he was always the right man in the right place at the right time. Finally, Walter Sondheim was never threatened by other talented people. Indeed, he encouraged young leadership and new faces in the crowd. For this young protestor, who found herself in an elected position inside City Hall, he had nothing but words of encouragement and offers of assistance. He knew that civic leadership was comprised not only of traditional groups, but also of the sweat equity crowd that desired change. He always welcomed new energy and new points of view. Walter remained unburdened by convention and the status quo his entire life long. I ask that a Baltimore Sun article on the life and contributions of Walter Sondheim be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 15, 2007] Walter Sondheim Jr.: 1908-2007--He Was Sage Adviser, Key Figure in City's Growth Through 6 decades, they called upon Walter Sondheim Jr. When Baltimore mayors, Maryland governors and other civic leaders needed sage advice, inevitably they sought it from a man widely admired for integrity and uncommon warmth and graciousness. Mr. Sondheim died at 10 a.m. Thursday of pneumonia at Mercy Medical Center. He was 98, and until last week he worked every day at his office at the Greater Baltimore Committee. Mr. Sondheim had a gift for nudging people toward grand accomplishments, often to the surpassing benefit of Baltimore and the state beyond. He earned his livelihood as a department store executive, but his legacy can be found in sweeping civic movements. As president of the Baltimore school board in 1954, Mr. Sondheim insisted--though other cities stalled--on the speedy desegregation of Baltimore schools after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. As a leader of the city's downtown development agency, he coaxed his colleagues into carefully controlled planning of the Inner Harbor. He headed the state panel that promoted regular testing of students. He disdained anything but the highest ethical standards in business and government. ``It's hard to imagine God having created a better person than Walter Sondheim,'' said Robert C. Embry Jr., the city's former housing commissioner and now president of the Abell Foundation. Accolades poured in from the many leaders Mr. Sondheim counseled throughout the decades. Gov. Martin O'Malley, who ordered state flags to be flown at half-staff, said Mr. Sondheim ``wasn't shy about reaching out'' to him with advice when Mr. O'Malley was mayor. ``If there was one enduring quality about Walter Sondheim, it was he had an unrelenting optimism about human nature,'' Mr. O'Malley said Thursday night. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin said, ``Whether it was integration of the city schools or the redevelopment of Baltimore, he was certainly well ahead of his time.'' William Donald Schaefer, the former governor and mayor who worked closely with Mr. Sondheim on many civic improvement efforts, called his death ``a tremendous loss,'' describing Mr. Sondheim as one of the smartest and kindest men he knew. ``Integrity. I've never known a man with so much integrity in my life,'' Mr. Schaefer said. ``He would not sanction anything that was not right.'' During nearly a century of life, Mr. Sondheim crossed paths with many celebrated personages of his day. His favorite portrait of his late wife, Janet, was taken by the famed photographer Dorothea Lange. His children were delivered by Dr. Alan Guttmacher, a Johns Hopkins obstetrician- gynecologist who was one of the pioneers in the field of reproductive health. His brother-in-law was Richard Neustadt, a Harvard political scientist and the founder of the university's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Linked to history His life was also intimately entwined with the history of Baltimore. He knew H.L. Mencken, who was a friend of Mr. Sondheim's father. His parents were married a week before the Great Baltimore Fire of 1904, which destroyed much of the downtown business district. A droll and charming raconteur, Mr. Sondheim would recount for friends that when his parents returned from their honeymoon to the still-smoking Baltimore, his father told his mother that the fire of their love had engulfed the city. But beyond the stories was a remarkable record of achievement in reshaping the city. Mr. Schaefer said the Science Center, Harborplace and Charles Center--among other projects--are ``all monuments to Walter.'' Through it all, Mr. Sondheim was self-effacing, often protesting his aversion to the spotlight. ``I'm not sure how I've gotten involved in the variety of things referred to here today,'' he said in 1975 when the Advertising Club of Baltimore gave him its Man of the Year Award. ``One factor, of course, is just being around for so many years. My good, long-suffering, strangely faithful wife is clear about the fact that I'm just weak-kneed and haven't the courage to say `no.' ``Personally, I lean to the theory, expressed by a friend of mine, that there are some jobs only a damned fool will do, and if you're one, you have an obligation to accept such an assignment when it's offered to you.'' People who knew Mr. Sondheim dismissed such talk. He was a man of great affability who, until the end, delighted in juicy gossip and laughter.'' Everybody wanted him at their parties,'' Mr. Cardin said. ``You don't get many people in their late 90s that everybody wants to be around. He was one of a kind.'' Freeman A. Hrabowski III, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and a longtime close friend, said he was thinking back Thursday to something Mr. Sondheim told him 20 years ago. ``He said, `Freeman , live life seriously, but don't take it seriously. You do your best, and then you laugh,' and that was Walter,'' Mr. Hrabowski said. Mr. Sondheim performed a vital role as a link between the region's businessmen and William Donald Schaefer when he was a city councilman, mayor, governor and later state comptroller. The two men met when a young Mr. Schaefer chaired a City Council committee on urban renewal. ``He would walk into the City Council, and it was like the Lord walked in,'' Mr. Schaefer said. ``You would never think of challenging Walter.'' State Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp said that while Mr. Sondheim deeply admired Mr. Schaefer, he never hesitated to speak his mind to the mercurial politician. ``He was never reluctant to tell Schaefer he was making mistakes,'' Ms. Kopp said. C. Fraser Smith, a former Sun reporter who wrote a biography of Mr. Schaefer, described an incident in which the two men were flying to Germany to receive an honor on behalf of the city. Mr. Sondheim, the story goes, took advantage of the opportunity to admonish the mayor over his gruff treatment of people. Why are you so mean to people? Mr. Sondheim asked. After stewing a long time, Mr. Schaefer demanded to know whom he had treated badly. ``Why don't you look in the phone book?'' Mr. Sondheim replied. Once pressed to explain his skills in dealing with people, Mr. Sondheim allowed that he possessed an ability to listen to others, the patience to find a workable compromise when confronted with controversial points of view, and the gift of being able to put himself in someone else's position. He then added: ``Liking people is not as important as understanding people. This is a skill that is not born; it's trained. You can't be judgmental about somebody with whom you don't agree.'' Mr. Sondheim was born in his father's house on Bolton Street on July 25, 1908, an era of gaslights and streetcars. He recalled for a 2003 Sun article that the family passed summers in the cooler climate of a rented home in Pikesville. One summer, his father said he couldn't join the family; when they returned to Bolton Hill, they found that the elder Mr. Sondheim had spent the time having electric power installed. Barred from some of the city's elite schools because he was Jewish, Mr. Sondheim attended Park School, becoming a member of one of its first classes. He went on to Haverford College in Pennsylvania, from which he graduated in 1929, and went to work for the Hochschild, Kohn department store, where his father worked. Mr. Sondheim would later chalk up his job to ``nepotism.'' In 1934, he married Janet Blum of Berkeley, Calif., who had been a dancer with the Denishawn Company. He had proposed to her in a speakeasy. They had two children, John W. Sondheim and Ellen Dankert, both of Baltimore. Mrs. Sondheim, who later became a teacher, died in 1992. Mr. Sondheim's death came on what would have been their 73rd wedding anniversary. Even at a young age, Mr. Sondheim was interested in race relations at a time when few white Baltimoreans questioned segregation as a bedrock principle. He served on the board of the Baltimore Urban League during the 1930s. ``It was really a segregated city,'' Mr. Sondheim recalled in a 1995 interview. ``I worked at Hochschild, Kohn's. We waited on African-Americans but on an all-sales-final basis. People couldn't return things, they couldn't eat in the restaurants, and they were only employed in menial capacities. The fact that blacks were not treated as full citizens as customers was a major issue with both the Urban League and the NAACP.'' Mr. Sondheim said he worked within the company to change the practice. ``I was terribly unhappy and embarrassed,'' he said during a 2003 trial in which he testified about the history of discrimination in Baltimore. Nevertheless, Mr. Sondheim rose to the position of store manager at Hochschild's and held that post for five years until, in 1942, he was appointed director of the United States Employment Service for Maryland, an agency responsible for transferring people from nonessential jobs to war work. The following year, he joined the Navy and was commissioned a lieutenant. He was stationed in Cleveland and, when asked about his war service, loved to say he had protected the Great Lakes from Axis invasion. He served until 1946. With the war over, he returned to Hochschild, Kohn. Mr. Sondheim's name and reputation came to the attention of Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. in 1948 when he was looking for someone to fill a vacancy in what was then considered ``the Jewish seat'' on the school board. Mr. Sondheim accepted the job and served on the board for the next nine years. Though Mr. Sondheim seldom dwelled on the discrimination he personally encountered, he took the appointment at a time when anti-Semitism was pervasive in the United States in general and Baltimore in particular. In the 2003 discrimination trial at which he testified, Mr. Sondheim recounted that his family was once blocked from buying a house in Roland Park when the seller found out the Sondheims were Jewish. He also testified that the elite downtown clubs that served the business establishment also barred Jews--a barrier that led to the formation of the Center Club. But when some organizers of that club proposed that it exclude blacks, Mr. Sondheim and several others withdrew their applications. The rule was dropped. Fateful decision It was while Mr. Sondheim was president of the school board that the city decided in May 1954 to desegregate its schools in response to the Supreme Court's decision. Baltimore became the first school district south of the Mason-Dixon line to respond to the Supreme Court's unanimous, landmark ruling outlawing ``separate but equal'' education for blacks and whites. Integration here was accomplished with relatively little tension compared with events in other cities, and the process was hailed as a signal achievement at the time. But it did not come entirely without resistance. On one occasion, an opponent of desegregation burned a cross on Mr. Sondheim's Windsor Hills lawn. But Mr. Sondheim would play down the incident, telling friends that the cross was puny and the fire hardly got started. ``He wouldn't back off,'' Mr. Schaefer said. ``He wouldn't step aside. He wouldn't do anything except what was right.'' In 1958, Morgan State awarded Mr. Sondheim an honorary degree. He accepted his honor alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who received the same honor from the school that day, according to state archivist Edward C. Papenfuse Jr. Nevertheless, Mr. Sondheim declined to count school desegregation as one of his achievements--noting that 50 years later most African-American students attend schools that are almost entirely black. He would tell listeners that while he and others desegregated the schools, they didn't succeed in integrating them. Mr. Sondheim's next major task in the life of the city came in 1957 when he was named head of the newly created Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Authority, which brought together a number of agencies charged with handling the city's public housing program. He said he had no advanced knowledge of public housing-- other than having lived with Mrs. Sondheim and their children in a Cleveland public housing project when he was in the Navy--but he started to learn. The learning process coincided with the city's initial commitment to downtown renewal, spurred by the GBC, an organization of prominent citizens determined to prevent the area from deteriorating. In his role as housing authority chief and as a member of the GBC, he helped launch the first renewal project, Charles Center. The year was 1963. His civic responsibilities, added to his work at the department store, overwhelmed him. He resigned as head of the housing authority to devote more time to retailing but remained involved in less demanding civic enterprises. In 1970, Mr. Sondheim decided to take early retirement from the department store, where he had risen to the post of senior vice president and treasurer, and started a second career with the quasi-public Charles Center-Inner Harbor Management organization that was transforming the city's skyline and attracting national attention from urban planners. The new post became a full-time job, but he also was called upon to serve as director of the Baltimore Urban Coalition, chairman of the board of Goucher College and a member, trustee or director of such organizations as Mercy and Sinai hospitals, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. and the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. However, Mr. Sondheim decided in May 1989 to shed some of these responsibilities. After 15 years as chairman of Charles Center-Inner Harbor Management, where he worked for $1 a year, he announced his resignation. At the same time, he stepped down as president of Charles Street Management Corp. and Market Center Development Corp., two agencies that helped direct development of other parts of downtown. ``I think that people can stay too long on some jobs,'' he said when announcing his retirement. Soon he settled into an office at the GBC, where he took the title of senior adviser. His work ethic never flagged. When snow prompted other staff members to leave the office early, Mr. Sondheim, who lived nearby in a condominium at Harbor View, would take over the job of answering phones. Asked once why he never joined in the white flight out of the city, Mr. Sondheim replied: ``What I learned early on is cutting grass is not as good as walking pavement.'' Two years after taking senior status at the GBC, Mr. Sondheim was appointed by Mr. Schaefer to chair a gubernatorial panel on school performance--a group that would become known as the Sondheim Commission. The group produced a report that became the blueprint for what would become known as the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program, or

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, this joint funding resolution is not what anyone wanted. We are in this position because the last Congress failed to do its job. We had no choice. We were determined to stay within strict spending limits while trying to address compelling needs. I believe we have done the best we can do. We were able to take care of the most important priorities facing the nation without going over our spending limits. In the Commerce, Justice, Science chapter of this resolution, we were able to increase funding for the Department of Justice by $1.4 billion over last year to ensure there were no cuts to the FBI and the war against terror. We provided the FBI with a $333 million increase over the old CR which fully funds the FBI, U.S. attorneys and the Bureau of Prisons. More importantly, the additional $1.4 billion eliminates the cuts to State and local law enforcement proposed in the President's budget. At a time when crime rates are going back up according to the most recent FBI crime statistics, we fully fund the COPS program, as well as programs to fight gangs and sexual predators. Protecting our neighborhoods and communities remains our No. 1 priority and this extra funding is proof of our commitment to make America safer. We were also able to make a down payment on our innovation and competitiveness agenda. We added $335 million to the National Science Foundation's research account to increase our commitment to basic research that will lead to new breakthroughs in science, technology and future innovation to keep America competitive in the global economy. In addition, we added $38 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to increase research grants and an additional $12 million to modernize their laboratory facilities. Finally, we gave the Patent and Trademark Office the full $1.7 billion called for in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request and ensured that all patent fees stay with the Patent Office. While I would have liked to have increased funding for NASA, there was simply not enough extra funding available for us to do so. Within the limits of NASA's fiscal year 2006 operating plan, we added an extra $460 million to exploration while protecting other critical NASA programs in science and aeronautics. With only 7 months left in this fiscal year, I believe NASA will be able to manage their programs in exploration with minimal impact to the overall schedule. This bill cuts $3.3 billion in Military Constructions funds required to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. By putting the entire year's BRAC Military Construction program on hold, the current situation has caused adverse disruptions to important military planning. In Maryland alone, the Defense Department is unable to execute over $300 million worth of projects, preventing the construction of badly needed facilities that directly support our warfighters. This delay also has a huge impact on the economy of the State of Maryland, in the construction industry and other key support industries. Finally, the continuing resolution blocks critical projects required to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, recommendations, jeopardizing the ability of our military installations to complete required BRAC actions on time. I, along with the other members of the Maryland congressional delegation, have sent a letter to the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, urging them to fully fund BRAC Military Construction in the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill. Both the House and Senate majority leaders have pledged their support for our effort. I will fight to add this vital funding to the emergency supplemental when it comes before the Senate in March. So while this bill is not what anyone wanted, it is the best we could do considering what we were left with. I will support this continuing resolution and I will fight to do better next year.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I join my colleagues in saluting Richard H. Shapiro, the executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation. As Rick moves on to new challenges, I want to thank him for his remarkable service to the U.S. Senate. Rick Shapiro is responsible for bringing 21st century management skills to an institution build on 18th century rules and practices. We still have spittoons in the Senate--yet we also have blackberries. Rick Shapiro helped us wrestle with issues that our Founding Fathers didn't even dream about. How do you answer thousands of e-mails a week? How do you hire, train, and retain excellent staff? How do you set goals and measure progress--so that promises made can be promises kept? How do you ensure that state and Washington offices communicate, coordinate and cooperate? Whenever I had a question about managing my office, I turned to Rick Shapiro--and my staff did the same. Under Rick Shapiro's leadership, the Congressional Management Foundation has helped Members to set up their offices, upgrade office systems, and adjust to new ways of connecting with constituents. His book ``Setting Course'' is a must-read for all new Members of Congress. He was the first to compile and analyze information from individual offices--to enable Senators to learn from the best practices of others. Rick Shapiro is a part of our Senate family. In fact, he met his wife Trudy Vincent when she was my legislative director. Their daughter Abby has been spotted selling Girl Scout cookies around the Capitol. Rick Shapiro has made a lasting impact on the U.S. Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his service. While he is stepping down from the Congressional Management Foundation, I look forward to great things from Rick in the years ahead.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to my colleagues, my constituents, and the American people, I rise today to absolutely say without any equivocation that I do support the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution on Iraq opposing the escalation of our troops. I also stand in the Senate to say: We were robbed! We were robbed of our ability to be able to vote on this resolution! The American people, on November 7, sent a message to Congress and to the President of the United States: Change the tone in Washington, change the direction in Iraq, and change the priorities of this Nation. We, on this side of the aisle, got the message. The other side does not seem to have. This parliamentary maneuver to block a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution, to allow us to vote up or down on approving the escalation, shows that it is the same old tone. Please, let's give the process a chance. Second, it also robs us of the ability to begin to express our vocal support for changing the direction. This bipartisan resolution is a first step. It is not going to be the last word in bringing our troops home safely and swiftly. The Warner- Biden-Levin resolution affirms clearly and unequivocally a commitment to our men and women in uniform: Congress will not abandon you while you are in Iraq and when you come home. We stand by our troops. However, this resolution says ``no'' to the President's reckless plan to escalate troop presence in Iraq. The bipartisan resolution insists that the Iraqi Government stand up for its own people to provide security, services, and an agreement on oil revenue sharing. I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was 1 of the 23 who voted against this war on October 11, 2002--4 years ago. I will never forget it. I didn't believe the administration's arguments then, and I don't believe them now. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust its diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the Saddam threat. I said we should not go on our own. The day of the vote, I was so filled with apprehension about the course of the war, about the course we were embarking on, I said in this Senate that we don't know whether our troops will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know. That mission did not get accomplished. I called the 72 families in Maryland who gave their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice. I know what is going on out there with the families. I also know when we got to Iraq there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast. No one can ask more of our troops. They are brave. They are courageous. They have fought valiantly. But after 4 years of fighting, where are we in Iraq? Well, the United States, went to war with Iraq, but right now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there. And we are mired in a civil war between different ethnic and sectarian groups. I have stated what I am against, but let me state what I am for. I am for the Warner-Levin-Biden resolution. I salute the leadership who produced it: John Warner, a decorated war hero, former Secretary of the Navy, chairman of the Committee on Armed Services when the Republicans were in control, a distinguished person, and a man of great comity and civility--no one more compassionate about America's security than John Warner; Joe Biden, chair of our Foreign Relations Committee; Carl Levin, an expert on the Committee on Armed Services and now the chairman. They put their heads together and they came up with this resolution, and to a man--and this woman supports them--the Senate opposes the President's plan because we think it is reckless. The bipartisan resolution says the objective of overall U.S. strategy in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises, to foster reconciliation, and strengthen the unity government. This is what I consider essential. The resolution says the primary objective of our military strategy should be to maintain Iraq's territorial integrity--fancy words for protecting the border; deny the terrorists a safe haven--yes, but they weren't there in the first place; promote regional stability; promote counterterrorism; train and equip the Iraqi forces. We have been doing it for 3 years. Guess what? They have not been showing up! And the other day when they were supposed to show up for a battle, 55 percent of them showed up in Baghdad. Gates, our new Secretary of Defense, said: Isn't this improvement? Last year, they didn't show up at all. It is their war and they are not showing up. Why should we show up for their war when they have a 50-percent attendance rate? What is wrong with this thinking? As much as possible, the current U.S. military operations should be confined to these goals. We show up, they don't. Something is really wrong with this picture. The bipartisan resolution calls for the United States to engage the nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally and internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process. That is what we should be doing. The resolution says it should not be an open-ended commitment or unconditional. Sure, there should be benchmarks, but benchmarks with enforcement capability. I do support this resolution because it makes clear to our men and women in uniform that Congress will not abandon them. It explicitly says that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S. military forces in the field. Whether on the battlefield or on the homefront, our troops deserve the best. Also, the latest intelligence shows that Iraqi leadership has to make difficult changes. The solution in Iraq requires a political solution from the Iraqis--not military muscle--from the Americans. There are parts of this resolution with which I don't agree. They call it an augmentation; I call it escalation. I oppose the calls for the vigorous operations at Anbar until there is greater clarification. There is no doubt that al-Qaida is operating in Iraq. But when I voted 4 years ago, al-Qaida was not there; they were in Afghanistan. Why didn't we stick with Afghanistan and really clean their clock? Now the President wants to send more Marines to Anbar to fight al-Qaida when we should have been in Afghanistan, catching Osama bin Laden. We do need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward. Surely the President of the United States could have found 50 for us to sit down at a table, talk, and work together for the good of our country, the good of our troops, and the good of peace in the Middle East. Seventy-nine recommendations and they have all been cast aside. The Iraq Study Group calls for diplomatic and political efforts, a change in their primary mission to move our troops out of Iraq responsibly. They gave us a way forward that they believe could have gotten our troops out by the first quarter of 2008. Let's give those 79 recommendations at least a forum to be debated and discussed and acted on. Where do we go from here? I will tell you where I think we ought to go. First of all, we ought to have a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution. If they do not want to give us that, give us a vote on the McCain resolution to vote to approve this escalation. One way or the other, that is our constitutional duty. The President says he does not need congressional consent to be able to do this reckless escalation. But he sure does need congressional advice. And my advice is, let's send in the diplomats before we send in more troops. We need a robust diplomatic strategy to match our robust military strategy. We need to make it clear that the Congress will not abandon our troops in the field, and we will not abandon them when they come home. Look at this President's budget; we are abandoning our troops. This whole escalation--sure, they talk about money for the 21,000, but it takes another 20,000 to support them. They don't walk their talk. They don't put the money in the budget. Then we have our troops coming home. You look at the President's budget on Veterans Affairs--not only have they lost the records, they have lost their way at VA. We are not equipped to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans coming home. They have horrific, permanent wounds of war, and we have a weak, unreliable funding system. You can't just support the troops with yellow ribbons. You have to put the money behind it. How about putting the money behind it when they come home? They need us. And they need us not only with words; they need us with deeds in the budget process. And I don't see it. Now, we also need to make it clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that he has to start to act. Speaking of showing up, I saw they could not get a quorum in the Iraqi Parliament. Only 50 percent of the troops show up, their own Parliament doesn't show up, but we show up with 21,000 more troops? The Prime Minister must meet benchmarks. Let me conclude by saying that a great American military should not be a substitute for a weak Iraqi Government. Neither Congress nor the American people will abandon our troops, but the best way to support our troops is not to send more in harm's way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for Senator Kennedy be reserved.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.