Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would like to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today because I will be introducing my first bills as a Member of this esteemed body; legislation that I hope will provide a helpful step forward as we address one of the most significant challenges this Senate faces, reforming America's broken health care system. I have heard from countless Rhode Islanders who have struggled to pay for their health care and who live in fear of losing coverage on which they and their families depend. I have met nurses frustrated and heartbroken that they must spend so much time coping with the paperwork and so little time caring for patients. I have talked with families whose lives and health were shaken by terrifying medical errors, lost paperwork, missed diagnoses that should have been totally avoided. I believe our current health care system is too complex and costs so much, yet so often does not provide patients with the quality of care they should have. It does not have to be this way. I have seen firsthand that we can make the system work better for everyone, we can cut costs, save lives, and improve the quality of the health care we receive, a critical step toward ensuring that all Americans have health care they can afford. In Rhode Island, we have been working and experimenting for years to find solutions to many of these challenges. I have been privileged to be part of much of that work, most directly when I founded the Rhode Island Quality Institute to focus on quality reforms in health care. While we have a long way to go, so far we have been successful. It is that Rhode Island experience that I bring to you today. It is Rhode Island's good work that I hope will provide a good example. Right now our health care system is a mess, such a mess that we should hesitate to call it a health care system. It yields unsatisfactory results at vast expense. What I wish to talk about today is not how you finance the health care system--that is an important issue--but it is a different issue. I don't even want to talk about how you get all Americans covered by our health care system. That is another important issue, but that is not the subject today. The subject today is the issue of how the system itself runs, how it operates, put bluntly, how badly in America it runs. If we can reduce the cost of the underlying system by improving its performance, it will make solutions easier for financing our health care system and for finding a way to make sure every American gets health care coverage. Our health care system is a mess. The number of uninsured Americans is climbing and will soon reach 50 million. The annual cost of the system exceeds $2 trillion every year, and that number is expected soon to double. We spend more of our gross domestic product on health care than any other industrialized country in the world, 16 percent. That is double the European Union average. There is today more health care in Ford cars than there is steel. There is more health care in Starbucks coffee than there are coffee beans. Worse still, for all this money we spend, we get a mediocre product. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best procedures and equipment, the best medical education in the world. Yet the system produces mediocre results. As many as 100,000 Americans are killed every year by unnecessary and avoidable medical errors. That is just the fatalities. Think how many people have to stay longer in the hospital and run up costs. Life expectancy, obesity rates, and infant mortality rates are much worse than they should be in a country such as ours. We fail by most international measures. The system itself does not work. Hospitals are going broke. Doctors are furious, and paperwork chokes the system. Quarrels between the providers and the payers drive up costs, while potential savings in billions of dollars are left lying on the table. More American families are bankrupted by health care costs than any other cause. It is a system in crisis. I urge my colleagues to consider this point too. If we do not fix this system now, while we still can, if we don't get these savings now, then we are going to be forced to consider very tragic choices in the future: Cutting coverage for seniors now on Medicare, throwing children off S-CHIP or pushing more and more out-of-pocket costs onto families who need Medicaid in their struggle to get by. Those will be tragic choices, awful choices, ones I hope we never have to deliberate. But if we end up having to make these choices because today we failed to do our duty, then shame on us. I believe what is wrong with our system can be identified. The reasons for its failures can be identified. The causes of those failures can be corrected, and the failings can be cured. In the days to come, I will speak at greater length on three critical areas of reform, one by one, and advance proposals for each one that will help provide a cure. Today, I wish to highlight all three of the major failures, how they combine to worsen each other and keep our system broken, and how reforming those three areas can reinforce each other and repair our broken system. Left unattended, these three conditions will continue to degrade our system. Properly reformed, they will begin to improve it. This is because what we are dealing with, in a nutshell, is market failure. Market forces are bottled up, logjammed, conflicted, and misdirected to push the health care system in a bad direction. I trust market forces and I believe in market forces, but I see it as our job in Government to create the environment in which market forces operate in a healthy way to serve the public interest. That is our job. It always has been. Where that healthy environment for market forces does not exist--which is the case right now in our health care system--Government must act. The market failure in health care has three core components: One, the American health care system does not optimize investment in quality of care, even where--indeed, particularly where--that quality investment in improving care would also lower costs; two, the system does not have the information technology infrastructure to support the improvements we need; three, the way we pay for health care sends perverse price signals that steer us away from the public interest. These problems can each be fixed, but fixing each in isolation will not yield the change we need. Similar to three climbers roped together for an ascent, the three solutions need to track with each other, not necessarily in lockstep but staying close because each one reinforces the other. Let me tell a story about each one of those problems to illustrate the three points. Let's look at the area where improved quality of care would lower costs. That intersection, where improved quality of care and lower costs converge, should be our Holy Grail. A good example comes out of the Keystone Project in Michigan, home to Senators Levin and Stabenow. The Keystone Project went into a significant number of Michigan intensive care units to improve quality and reduce line infections, respiratory complications, and other conditions that are associated with intensive care units. In a 15-month span, between March 2004 and June 2005, the project saved 1,578 lives, 81,020 days patients would otherwise have been spent in the hospital, and it saved--in that 15 months--over $165 million. The Rhode Island Quality Institute has taken this model statewide in Rhode Island, with every hospital participating. Infections in patients with catheters decreased 36 percent from the first quarter of 2006 to the fourth quarter. Eleven out of twenty-three participating intensive care units had zero infections for 12 months. Savings from the initiative are on track to produce $4 million annually. That is pretty good money in Rhode Island. What is true in intensive care units in Michigan and Rhode Island is also true far more broadly in health care. There are many areas where significant savings can be achieved by making care better. There could be initiatives similar to Keystone throughout the health care sector. They do not necessarily have to be reforms of existing procedures and practices because Keystone was. Quality improvements, quality reform, could well involve improvements in prevention and detection of illness, stopping it before it even gets to the hospital. There are vast and unexplored horizons out there, rich with opportunity, and the Keystone story is one example of how improved quality of care can lower costs and save lives. This takes us to the second story, this one about the reimbursement problem. Why isn't this quality reform happening spontaneously all over the country if these big savings are there? Think of Michigan, $165 million in 15 months in one State. That is big money. Why isn't it being pursued? Why aren't we all doing this? Well, primarily because the economics of health care pays providers not to and punishes providers who try. When a group of hospitals in Utah began following the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society for treating community-acquired pneumonia, significant complications fell from 15.3 percent to 11.6 percent, inpatient mortality fell from 7.2 to 5.3 percent, and the resulting cost savings exceeded half a million dollars a year. But net operating income of participating facilities dropped by over $200,000 per year because treating the healthier patients was reimbursed at roughly $12,000 less per case. In Rhode Island, when we got into this intensive care unit reform, the Hospital Association estimated a $400,000 cost for $8 million in savings, a 20-to-1 return on investment. But all the savings went to the insurers and the payers, and the costs came out of the hospitals' pockets. Do you know a lot of businesses that invest money in order to reduce their revenue? I don't. How many businesses would spend $400,000 in cash to lose $8 million in revenues every year? With reimbursement incentives such as the ones we have, it is no wonder that quality investments face an uphill struggle. The final problem is our health care information technology, which is inexcusably underdeveloped and underdeployed. It has been described by the Economist magazine as the worst information technology system in any American industry except one, the mining industry. We are leaving massive savings in health care costs unclaimed as a result. Some pretty respectable groups have looked at health information technology to see what an adequate system would save in health care costs, and here is what they report: Rand Corporation, $81 billion per year conservatively. David Brailer, the former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, $100 billion per year. The Center for Information Technology Leadership, $77 billion per year. That is a lot of savings to leave sitting on the table, savings desperately needed by American businesses and American families. Here is my third story, about a courageous and passionate doctor in Rhode Island trying to build an electronic health record for patients in our State. By the way of context, Rhode Island may be the lead State in the country at developing health information technology. We have Patrick Kennedy in the House, our Representative, who has been an absolute leader on this issue; Lifespan and other hospitals are leaders in electronic physician order entry; the Rhode Island Quality Institute is a leader in e-prescribing, electronic health records and health information exchange; Rhode Island Blue Cross is beginning to fund innovations; all the local Rhode Island health care folks are active in this. It is very impressive. I mean no criticism by telling this story, only to illustrate what an uphill struggle it is. The lead on developing electronic health records in Rhode Island is being taken by a very frustrated doctor, Dr. Mark Jacobs, who put his practice on hold, went out and looked at what was available, found an e-clinical works platform, had it modified to suit what he thought would be more useful for his needs, and is now raising capital and trying to recruit his colleagues to get around that system and get it up. It is his passion, and he is dedicating himself to it with energy and conviction. What Dr. Jacobs is doing is heroic, but if you went to any business school and if they asked you, what is the best way to seize that $81 billion a year in savings that RAND Corporation has said is out there, and you had said: Well, we are going to wait until a doctor gets so frustrated he is willing to give up his practice and go out and try to learn about health care technology and do it on his own, you would be laughed out of that business school classroom. They wouldn't just say you flunked the course, they would suggest you should maybe look at another livelihood. But that is exactly the system we have right now. If a truckdriver were to go out with a pick and shovel building bits of the interstate highway for us, that would be pretty heroic and noble. But all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower, people in Government knew that would be a pretty nonsensical way to finance the Federal highway system. We have work to do in these three areas: fixing our information technology to increase efficiency and generate savings; improving health care quality and prevention in ways that lower costs; and repairing the reimbursement system so it does not discourage those reforms but encourages and rewards them. In the coming days, I will expand on each of these problems, and I will propose solutions in those three areas that will unleash market incentives in positive directions. As I conclude, my message is this: The health care system that underlies all our health care financing and coverage problems is itself broken. The underlying health care delivery system is itself broken. It is administrative and bureaucratic machinery, but it is still machinery. It needs to be repaired the way any broken machinery does. Fixing it, however, will reduce costs, improve care, and make a badly operating system run better and move us a critical step forward to making sure every American family has access to health care they can afford. I sincerely hope to work with all of my colleagues on solving this. Please think of it this way: If your car is not running right, there is no Republican or Democratic way to tune it up. There is just getting it working. If your plumbing is jammed and water is flooding out, there is not a Republican or Democratic way to fix that. It is either flowing properly or it isn't. If your electric system is sparking and short circuited, again, there is no Democratic or Republican way to solve that problem. It is working right or it is not. Our health care system is not working right, and it needs to be fixed. Because the health care system is a dynamic system, you can't tell it what to do. You have to take the trouble to identify what is wrong, identify why it is wrong, and correct the cause.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, American troops must come home from Iraq. Because more than 3,000 of our men and women have lost their lives, and tens of thousands more have returned home wounded, American troops must come home from Iraq. Because hundreds of billions of America's tax dollars have been sunk into the sands and marshes of Iraq, with much of that funding lost to waste, fraud, or abuse by those who have neither Iraq's nor America's best interests at heart, America's troops must come home from Iraq. Because the public records of this conflict--reflected in the many retired generals who have spoken out against the conduct of the war, and the many books and articles chronicling its planning and execution--reveal catastrophic mistakes and misjudgments that have raised serious questions about this administration's very capacity for leadership, American troops must come home from Iraq. Because that same administration misused and distorted intelligence, arguing that America should go to war on the basis of information that proved to be untrue or highly misleading, American troops must come home from Iraq. Because despite the millions of Americans who joined together to call for a new direction in Iraq, this President chose instead to escalate the conflict, American troops must come home from Iraq. Because the President and Vice President and their political allies would rather pick a political fight with this Congress, using false rhetoric, such as ``micromanaging'' and ``precipitous withdrawal,'' than answer tough questions from the American people, American troops must come home from Iraq. Because the prospect of our troops' redeployment is the single most powerful force at our disposal to galvanize unity and cooperation among the Iraqi factions and effect real change, American troops must come home from Iraq. And because even after all this, this President still refuses to listen to the American people and stubbornly fails to give this country the change of course it demands, it is up to this Congress to act to bring American troops home from Iraq. Some claim this strategy is risky, but the greater risk by far would be to fail to seize the opportunity a redeployment of our troops presents us. To announce clearly to the world that American troops will soon leave Iraq will change the dynamic there in a positive way. It may be the only way we can change the dynamic there in a positive way. It will give us the chance to renew and rebuild diplomatic ties in the region and around the world that have been so badly damaged by this President and this President's war, and restore America's prestige and standing among our friends. It will send a signal to the insurgents who foment violence in Iraq that they will no longer be able to use the United States military presence as a recruiting tool for extremists, and it will motivate efforts by the Iraqis to secure and stabilize their Nation. It will give the Iraqis the impetus to step forward and do the things our military leaders say they must do for the surge to succeed--things they have been disgracefully slow in doing, such as passing a hydrocarbon law to allow equal sharing of oil revenues among all Iraqis, and measures to facilitate elections, as an example. It will give our country the time and resources to restore our extraordinary military to the strength and level of readiness our troops deserve. And it will give us the freedom and the resources to look to the many challenges that still confront us here at home, from soaring gas prices to a broken health care system. To achieve all these things, we must take the first step. We must make it clear we will bring our troops home from Iraq. The measure offered by Senator Feingold, with the support of the distinguished majority leader, is a smart strategy. It has a responsible schedule and it will be an effective step to repair what the President has left broken. It would require the President to redeploy our troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008. After that date, funds would only be available for three specific limited purposes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The limited purposes for funding would be: targeted counterterrorism operations, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and training and equipping Iraqi security forces. This plan gives our troops in the field the resources they need today and a strategy that is worthy of their service as they look to tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, competence, independence, and sound judgment are the lodestar of the administration of justice in this country. Unfortunately, over the past few months, I and many Americans have been forced to question on all three counts those whom this President has appointed to lead the Department of Justice. Indeed, with each passing day, we sense more and more that something is gravely wrong. For example, we have learned about the misuse and abuse of the Department's power to issue national security letters under the PATRIOT Act--which, even under the most legitimate and benign circumstances, represents a truly imposing authority. As you know, a national security letter, or NSL, is a Government demand for private information, issued without a warrant to third parties such as banks, phone companies, and Internet service providers. In March, the Department of Justice's inspector general reported that NSLs were being ``seriously misused.'' Among other things, there were no clear guidelines for issuing national security letters. They were issued without proper authorization, there was sloppy recordkeeping by the FBI, and there were no procedures for purging a citizen's private information if the investigation was closed. We have also, of course, learned about the unprecedented firings of eight U.S. attorneys--dismissals which seem to have been motivated by politics, marred by incompetence, or, more likely, both. The details of the Department's misjudgments in this matter, and particularly the degree to which partisan politics has infiltrated this Department, become more numerous and more damaging to the Attorney General's credibility every day. But the politicization of the Department should come as no surprise when we examine how the rules governing initial contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice on non-national security-related investigations and cases-- traditional criminal cases--have changed since President Bush took office. During previous administrations, there were strict rules governing contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice on investigations and cases--and for good reason. A strong firewall is necessary to prevent undue and untoward efforts to inject politics into the administration of justice. During the Clinton administration, this firewall was articulated in a September 1994 letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. It is my understanding that credit goes to Senator Hatch, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his interest in seeing this policy confirmed in this way. So this has been a continuing and bipartisan concern, this question of the firewall between the White House and the Department of justice. The Reno letter stated: Initial communications between the White House and the Justice Department regarding any pending Department investigation or criminal or civil case should involve only the White House counsel or deputy counsel, or the President or Vice President, and the Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General. That policy is represented by this chart. On the White House side, the only people authorized to have these initial discussions on criminal cases are the President, Vice President, Deputy White House Counsel, and the White House Counsel. Within the Department of Justice, it is only the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General--a grand total of seven people. As I noted during the Attorney General's testimony before the Judiciary Committee last month, that rule was changed in an April 2002 memo from Attorney General Ashcroft. The new policy permits initial communications on cases and investigations between the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and the office of the counsel to the President, and it also states that staff members of the Office of the Attorney General, if so designated by the Attorney General, may communicate directly with officials and staff of the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, and the office of counsel to the President. The new rule is represented by this other chart. There are over 400 people in the White House now authorized to have those conversations with the Department of Justice, where before it was 4. Before, it was the very top administration officials in the White House--the President, Vice President, Attorney General, White House Counsel, and Deputy White House Counsel. Who knows who all these other folks are. One of these boxes is Karl Rove. That makes you wonder. Down here, these are all the staff now within the Department of Justice who are authorized to have those communications, whereas before it was limited to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General. These charts demonstrate the extraordinary latitude now permitted the White House and Department of Justice to discuss sensitive investigations and prosecutions. With the clear exception of discussions related specifically to national security, where one can understand you might want to have discussion also with the White House when it is a national security issue that would involve the military and other agencies of Government, for regular criminal cases and for prosecutions, I am hard-pressed to imagine any reason the Clinton-era rule needed expansion. Indeed, when I put this question to Attorney General Gonzales when he was before our committee, he had no answer. These are not just bureaucratic niceties. Rules governing conduct within organizations have an obvious and direct effect on the conduct of people within those organizations. Clearly, the politicization of the Department has been either a byproduct or a cause of this changed rule. After all, the more political people you allow to weigh in on sensitive investigations and cases, the more you run the risk--or, indeed, make it possible--that those investigations and cases become inappropriately politicized. So this brings us to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Given all this, perhaps I should not have been surprised when I reviewed the administration's proposed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ``modernization'' bill and compared it to the current FISA statute. Under the current statute, title 50 of the U.S. Code, section 1804, passed in 1978, each application for a court order approving electronic surveillance under FISA must include the approval of the Attorney General, plus a number of required statements and certifications. One of those is a certification that information sought is ``foreign intelligence information'' and that such information ``cannot be reasonably obtained by normal investigative techniques.'' That certification--a critical proceeding with a FISA application--can currently be made by only a few people: The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is actually a grand total of nine people, all senior level, all with a lot at stake in making sure they do the right thing. This makes perfect sense, given the importance of such a certification. Now, let's take a look at the administration's proposed FISA ``modernization.'' That bill will allow the following people to certify applications for court orders under FISA: The assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. So any executive branch official or officials designated by the President can now authorize--or could if this passed--electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. According to the Congressional Research Service, the most conservative estimate of the number of people who could be called ``executive branch officials'' under this definition is 9,050. The number is actually probably greater than that. So, in other words, if the administration had its way, more than 9,000 people would be eligible for designation by the President to certify an application for a warrant to the FISA Court. That is what this chart demonstrates. Just to give you an idea, over here on this chart, we are talking about individuals--each block represents a person. Here, because the numbers are so big, we have divided by nine. This block represented the existing FISA certification authority to the nine Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed individuals who qualified, and we reduced it to one. Each one of these blocks would also represent nine, so multiply by nine. I am probably stretching my limits on the floor by using two charts at the same time. If I had to represent this with 9 people here and 9,000 here, I would have charts up to the ceiling of this room. That is the scale they are trying to change this to. By the way, one of these people, again, would be Karl Rove. What we have is another example of the Bush administration trying to break down established barriers that defend fair, professional, and responsible decisions in national security and in the administration of justice. Making matters worse, the administration's FISA bill would greatly expand the powers of the Attorney General in a number of key areas. I don't think I need to say again that this Attorney General has thoroughly and utterly lost my confidence. I think he has also lost the confidence of this Chamber and of the American people. In my view, he does not merit any greater authority, particularly where that authority involves the power of the Federal Government to invade personal privacy for the purpose of secret wiretaps. We gave him that kind of authority when we gave him the authority with the national security letters. Look what he did with it. That authority was ``seriously misused.'' This is the man who has proven he cannot be trusted with these authorities. The administration's bill would give the Attorney General expanded powers to hold on to information that was obtained without a warrant or obtained unintentionally. It would grant blanket immunity to any person or company that, from September 11 on, provided the intelligence community with any records, facilities, or assistance purportedly intended to protect against a terrorist attack. This blanket immunity power would allow the Attorney General to shut down a number of lawsuits and State investigations looking into whether and how companies provide detailed records about their customers' private communications. It would allow powers to transfer any case before any court challenging the legality of classified communications intelligence activity, or any case in which the legality of such activity is even an issue, from the court it is filed in to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This would be an extraordinary and unprecedented power for the Attorney General to forum-shop by grabbing cases out of open court and placing them before the secret FISA Court. Finally, it would authorize the Attorney General to conduct surveillance directed toward foreign powers with fewer safeguards to ensure the surveillance will not capture the contents of Americans' communication. This is just a sampling of the ways in which this bill would expand the Attorney General's authority under that FISA statute. We count at least 10 expansions of power. Mr. President, the Department of Justice wields some of the most powerful tools held by any Federal agency. The prosecutive power is probably the most severe power the Government holds. Among these powers is included the power to issue national security letters, the power through U.S. attorneys to prosecute criminal cases, and the power to help administer the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These awesome powers must be used with competence, independence, and sound judgment. I am afraid the current Attorney General has not lived up to those high standards, and for that reason, I cannot support legislation that would increase this Attorney General's authority. For that reason, I also call on him again to step down so we can begin to put this sad episode in the history--the proud history--of the Department of Justice behind us. The Attorney General's resignation will not solve all the problems at the Department of Justice or the White House, but, regrettably, I have come to the conclusion it is a necessary first step. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; that the amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 29, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the motion to proceed has just passed, 93 to 3. We will bring before the Senate in fairly short order the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I rise today to speak in support of that act. It is a bill that is as simple as it is important. At a time when judges are the subject of sometimes vitriolic criticism, when judges and their families have been made the targets of acts of violence and murder, when the independence of the judiciary must be maintained in a climate of violence, we should take these important steps to improve the safety of our judges and their families. This bill will do that by requiring the U.S. Marshals Service--which has oversight over the safety of the judicial branch--to consult with the Judicial Conference to determine security requirements of the judicial branch, and it authorizes $20 million for the Marshals Service to protect the judiciary further. The bill also amends the Criminal Code to enhance penalties for the possession of dangerous weapons within Federal court facilities. This bill also extends and expands to family members the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a judge's mandatory financial disclosure for security purposes. The bill directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the security of assistant U.S. attorneys arising from the prosecution of terrorists and violent gangs. I will speak in a moment to an incident that happened in my State. The bill will increase criminal penalties for tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, and it will authorize grant programs to expand witness and victim protection programs. In my own experience as U.S. attorney in Rhode Island, I have been the subject of threats. Indeed, one man went to prison for threatening me. Prosecutors whom I sent to court we had fitted with body armor because of the security to their personal safety. We had prosecutors have extensive security systems installed in their homes to protect their security. That is one experience from one U.S. attorney in one 4- year term. Across this country, the need is very great. In February, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing where Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to us about the need to preserve an independent judicial branch and to pass this bill. U.S. District Court Judge Brock Hornby also had important testimony regarding the need to pass this legislation. He said: ``This bill will contribute significantly to the security of Federal judges and their families.'' In short, it is long past time that this bill be enacted. Indeed, the core provisions of this bill have already passed the Senate twice last year, the second time by unanimous consent. So it is a little surprising that it is not being approved by unanimous consent at this time. But apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have lodged an objection. Nevertheless, I am happy to spend whatever time is necessary to ensure passage of this important legislation. The Framers of our Constitution understood the importance of an independent judiciary. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 78: ``The independence of judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals . . . '' While in this Chamber we may disagree on judicial nominations and we may argue over judicial philosophies, we should all, every one of us, agree to do everything we can to make sure the men and women who work in the judicial branch, who serve their communities in those important positions--and their families--are safe, as they make the important decisions lodged in their care. I am pleased this bill has broad bipartisan support. I am pleased with the powerful results of the motion to proceed. I wish to commend particularly the efforts of Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee and our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, for their hard work on this issue. I look forward to supporting passage of this important legislation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I speak today in outrage that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to block S. 3, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, from coming to the floor. You meet a lot of people when you campaign for a seat in this esteemed body. You meet people of all ages, from all socioeconomic levels, from all ethnic and cultural backgrounds, liberal and conservative, rural and urban, healthy and ailing--you meet them all. These individuals bring personal voices to national issues. They educate us with their stories, and they trust us to be stewards of their experiences. I am sure my fellow freshman Senators will agree with me when I say that listening to these stories was the best part of running for U.S. Senate. Sometimes these stories are uplifting tales about the triumphs of government: SCHIP providing health insurance to at-risk children, AmeriCorps helping young people serve communities throughout the Nation, The Family and Medical Leave Act allowing parents, spouses, and children the time to care for loved ones. But sometimes these stories are just the opposite--depressing, discouraging, disheartening tales of how the government has failed in its duty to support and safeguard our must vulnerable citizens. I have hosted community dinners throughout my State. Some of the very saddest stories that Rhode Islanders shared with me were about their experiences with the Part D drug benefit. I would like to share with you a particularly touching story from Travis, who came to one of my community dinners in Woonsocket. Travis told me of his great- grandmother, a woman over 90 who was living independently, in a second or third story walk-up apartment building in Woonsocket. She, like other women her age, had signed up for a Part D plan, and was taking a number of prescription medications. One day, Travis's great-grandmother arrived at the pharmacy, only to be told that she was in the donut hole, that she would now be responsible for almost the entirety of her drug bill. His great-grandmother called Travis in despair. She would no longer be able to afford her apartment, or her independent lifestyle. She was forced to choose between her spirit of self-reliance and her health. This is a tragedy. It is a human tragedy because no human being should be forced to choose between her dignity and her life, and it is a moral tragedy because this is a totally unnecessary choice. The Congressional Budget Office concludes that the privatization of the drug benefit--the choice not to simply add the drug program onto the established Medicare benefit--costs almost $5 billion a year. The Center for Economic and Policy Research reveals that the combined cost of privatization and failure to negotiate prices is more than $30 billion a year. I do not know about you, Mr. President, but I cannot look Travis in the eye and tell him that the reason his great-grandmother cannot afford her apartment is that the government needed to give it to pharmaceutical manufacturers, an industry that, in 2004, was three times more profitable than the median for all Fortune 500 companies--an industry that from 1995 to 2002 was the most profitable industry in the entire country. I was not in the Senate when the drug benefit was created. I was not privy to the debates that went on here regarding the complexities and particulars of the bill. But I have a very hard time understanding how, with a successful Federal drug benefit model in place at the VA, this body created a new program that pays, on average, 70 percent more for drugs than the existing VA program, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. I understand that there are fundamental differences between the Veterans population and the senior population, between the Veterans system and the Medicare system, but 70 percent? This seems, to me, like a de-evolution of the policy making process. We are creating new programs that function less effectively and less efficiently than the ones we already had in place. The real question is why. Have we gained something valuable for this extra cost? Can we justify the expensive and byzantine architecture of this program based on the promotion of other values? Some of my colleagues argue that the Part D drug benefit maximizes choice, and that choice is of fundamental importance in health insurance markets. Indeed, the bill succeeds here. In 2006, there were nearly 1,500 prescription drug plans offered throughout the Nation. Beneficiaries in 46 States had over 40 plans to choose from. This year, seniors everywhere in the country can choose between at least 45 plans. In my small state of Rhode Island alone, there will be 51 plans available. But study after study, survey after survey, has shown us that, beyond a reasonable point, more plans do not add up to beneficiary or provider satisfaction. In fact, 73 percent of seniors think the Medicare prescription drug benefit is ``too complicated.'' Sixty percent agree with the statement, ``Medicare should select a handful of plans that meet certain standards, so seniors have an easier time choosing.'' Thirty-three percent think it is ``somewhat difficult'' or ``very difficult'' to enroll in a plan. In addition, 91 percent of pharmacists and 92 percent of doctors think the benefit is too complicated. It is time to admit that a plethora of plans does not add value to the program; it adds bewilderment and burden. And do we have a system in place to deal with the confusion we have caused? No. We have 1-800-Medicare, which is adequate at its best, and inaccurate, unreliable, or altogether unreachable at its worst. But we need not rely on anecdotal evidence. GAO itself placed 500 calls to the Medicare help line in the middle of last year to make its own determination about the usefulness of the feature. Eighteen percent of calls received inaccurate responses, 8 percent of the responses were inappropriate given the question posed, 5 percent of the calls ended in disconnection, and 3 percent of responses were incomplete. In total, one-third of calls placed by GAO in this study were handled in an unacceptable fashion. Our mechanism to demystify the drug benefit for the average consumer is furthering the confusion of one-third of callers. This is a catastrophe. A second value that some of my colleagues argue excuses the convoluted and costly nature of the drug benefit, is expanded coverage. More seniors have drug coverage now than they did before January 2006. No one disputes this. But insurance is not insurance unless it is there for you when you really need it. Our sicker seniors are reporting far more problems getting their prescription drugs than our healthy seniors are. Over 40 percent of seniors who describe themselves as in ``fair'' or ``poor'' health report problems filling a prescription under their Part D coverage, while only 12 percent of seniors in ``excellent'' or ``very good'' health report a problem. If Part D is failing to help the sick, it is failing to meet the basic definition of insurance. Do I mean to say that providing some coverage is worse than being uninsured? No. But that was not the option on the table in 2003. We had the option to provide everyone with excellent coverage. We had the option to care equally and comprehensively for every elderly person in this country, healthy, sick, or in between. We did not. Instead, we chose to write checks to the pharmaceutical industry, we chose to write checks to private insurers, and we left our seniors to write their own. What, then, can we do to fix this broken benefit? There is a lot we can do, and today is the first step. Today, we can allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with drug companies to lower prices for consumers. We can require the collection of data from prescription drug plans, so that our experts at CRS, at CBO, at GAO, or at MedPAC can better understand the operations of this program. We can require CBO to study whether or not market competition is truly reducing prices, as was the intent of privatization. We can increase transparency for our seniors, by making the prices of covered drugs available to the public on the CMS website. We can pass S. 3--the only thing standing in our way is Republican obstructionism. I thank the majority leader and Senator Baucus for their commitment to our Nation's seniors, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will drop their obstructionist tactics and let us get to work on this bill. As important as it is, it is only a first step to fixing our Medicare Part D program. I hope we can soon take that step and then move on to the broader issues, for I believe there is much, much more to be done.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we have seen a considerable number of the members of the Intelligence Committee come up to this floor this afternoon, and that is because we have before us S. 372, legislation authorizing funding for our intelligence and national security services. But rather than work with Congress to ensure agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, and many others receive the funding they need to meet their missions and keep Americans safe, the Bush administration and some in the Republican minority are stonewalling this legislation. As the newest member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply troubled to see this legislation stalled at the expense of the security of our Nation. My father was a Foreign Service officer, and through his eyes I have seen the power of American diplomatic and intelligence efforts to do both great good in the world and great harm. In their misuse and in the politicization of America's intelligence apparatus, President Bush and his administration have done great harm to America's standing in the world and our security at home. Now we face the bleak prospect that for the third year in a row the Senate may not pass an intelligence authorization bill. This should give every concerned American pause. This measure will fund our intelligence community agencies, fight terrorism, strengthen our capabilities to collect, analyze, and act on intelligence, and, most importantly, expand transparency and oversight of our intelligence community. It is a reflection of diligent, thorough, and tenacious work by our committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia whom I see with me on the floor this afternoon, along with his Republican counterpart, Vice Chairman Bond. I was hopeful that at least we could end the partisan logjam that has crippled the Senate Intelligence Committee for the last several years. I have been pleased with the thoughtful and serious tone of the committee's work on both sides of the aisle. Yet now something has suddenly changed, and the Republican minority has maneuvered to block this legislation from becoming law. Now it appears the White House has intervened, has called in chits, and twisted arms to stop a bill on which Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have worked so long and hard. We understand this administration does not want congressional oversight. They don't want oversight on their inept response to Hurricane Katrina. They don't want oversight on the unprecedented purge of U.S. attorneys. They don't want oversight on the debacle going on in Iraq. They don't want oversight on intelligence either. But no administration in recent memory has more badly needed congressional oversight, and in no area has that need been more plainly demonstrated than in the intelligence function of our Government. This is the administration that failed to ensure adequate oversight of national security letters under the PATRIOT Act. This is the administration that conducted its own secret wiretap program to monitor conversations, including the conversations of U.S. citizens. This is the administration that established its own secret prison network offshore to hold terrorism suspects off the record of this country's legitimate judicial institutions. This is the administration that cherry-picked its intelligence to justify the claim of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. That abuse of intelligence alone cost our country thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and damage to our relations with allies around the world that will linger for many years. One can see why this administration would resist congressional oversight, but Congress is obligated to oversee our country's national security and intelligence-gathering services. That is our duty under the Constitution. This duty is particularly important with the covert intelligence agencies because their work is not subject to public inquiry. These are not organizations that work in the bright light of day but in the deep dark of the secrecy they require to be effective. So meaningful and appropriate congressional oversight is our only safeguard. This administration welcomes oversight less than almost any I can think of, but no administration in recent memory has needed it more. Perhaps the Nixon administration, but like the Nixon administration, this administration's resistance to congressional oversight is a measure of how badly that oversight is needed. Unfortunately, for too many years this Congress has conducted oversight by the principle, ``out of sight, out of mind'' or maybe ``see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.'' You don't have to look far to see how badly this strategy has failed. But there is a new team in town and a new leadership of this Congress that takes these responsibilities seriously. It is an abdication of our responsibility under the Constitution, and it is irresponsible with respect to the security of our Nation to let this legislation languish. I urge my colleagues in the minority to reconsider their actions, to return to this floor in good faith, to continue the good work that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have so nobly accomplished, and to give our intelligence agencies the funding they need to keep us safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as I come to the floor this morning to share my concerns about this country's disastrous policies in Iraq, our Nation is mourning the unimaginable loss of 32 people in the tragic and senseless shootings at Virginia Tech. The thoughts and prayers of every American are with the victims of this horrific episode, the deadliest shooting this country has ever seen. We are only beginning to learn exactly what happened yesterday. We may never know why it happened, but what we know for certain is that in our shared grief we will find shared resolve to care for the wounded, to comfort the families and friends of those who died, to support this university and its community, and to search for answers and hope this tragedy may never be repeated. I have been a member of the Senate now for just over 100 days. I am here, and many of my freshman colleagues are here, because the people of Rhode Island, like millions of other people across this country, looked at the war in Iraq and saw something that needed to change. They saw hundreds of billions of dollars spent, much of it wasted on reconstruction contracts that were sloppily managed or ill-advised. They saw one after another in a succession of retired generals protesting the failed strategy in Iraq and arguing for a different course. They saw reports that the Bush administration had misused and politicized our national intelligence services to press a case for war that did not exist. They read books, chronicling a heartbreaking series of mistakes and misjudgments. They saw tens of thousands of American soldiers return home grievously injured, and mourned more than 3,000 men and women who will never return home. The country saw one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of American history and demanded a new direction. The American people voted for change. They were sincere, sober, and correct in their judgment, and this new Congress listened, but President Bush did not. Instead of committing to redeploy our troops from Iraq, the President chose to escalate this conflict. Now, instead of working with this new Congress to forge a new strategy, a strategy worthy of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the President and Vice President are on the attack--on the political attack--not against the Iraqi leaders who are slow-walking us through this conflict in their country, but against the American people who have rightly questioned their failing policy. The question is this: How much longer will this President refuse to listen? Since joining the Senate just over 100 days ago, I have worked to put pressure on the Bush administration to redeploy our troops from Iraq. In mid-March, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I traveled to Iraq to get a firsthand look at the situation on the ground, to see the hard work of our dedicated troops, and to talk with our military commanders and with Iraqi political officials. In Baghdad, our delegation met with several of the officers leading America's military engagement in Iraq, including GEN David Petraeus, LTG Raymond Odierno, and LTG Martin Dempsey, as well as members of our U.S. Embassy country team. We also met with Mahmud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, and National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waili. In my capacity as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I also met with members of our Nation's intelligence staff and their Iraqi counterparts. In Fallujah, we spoke with GEN Walter E. Gaskin, Marine commander in Anbar Province, and other commanders of the Marine Expeditionary Force. I met three brave Rhode Islanders there: Kristie St. Jean from Woonsocket, Christopher Tilson from Providence, and Anthony Paulo from Westerly, all serving our Nation with dedication, courage, and honor. On our return, we traveled through Germany to visit Landstuhl Regional Medical Center near Ramstein Air Base where our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, badly injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, are med-evac'd to receive critical medical care before their return home. MAJ Andrew Risio, who hails from Ashaway, RI, is helping provide care to our wounded soldiers in that facility. The young men and women I met with in Iraq and their families have made tremendous sacrifices, and their expert performance and can-do attitude reinforced my pride in the American spirit. The security posture we maintain around our military bases is strong, and our troops are working hard to secure the cities and countryside of Iraq. The work of our intelligence and Special Operations personnel, which often runs nonstop through the night, is remarkable and exhibits a level of professionalism in which every American can be very confident. The achievements of our forces in Iraq are serious--and here is what impressed me the most from our trip: So is their commitment that the Iraqis must assume responsibility for the security and governance of their own country. In nearly every briefing, at every level of command, the message came loud and clear that our military is highly focused on accomplishing a handover of security responsibilities so as to bring our troops home. As a young soldier in mess hall told me, the Iraqis ``won't stand up until we start to stand back.'' I do believe the Iraqis need more motivation to stand up. For instance, there is key legislation the Iraqi Parliament must pass that our military commanders believe is necessary if this surge is to succeed. They told me we cannot succeed in this military surge unless it is accompanied by a political surge, an economic surge, and a diplomatic surge. Critical measures to facilitate provincial elections, regulation and revenue-sharing for the Iraqi oil industry, reversing de-Beatification in favor of reunification, and restricting sectarian militias are all legislative initiatives that have stalled. Iraq must take action and move this legislation forward and step up its own security presence. That will require real commitment and urgency, Mr. President. And it would be putting it mildly to say I was not reassured by the signals I received from our meetings with Iraqi officials. There is a serious disconnect between the urgency of our generals about this legislation, and the absence of urgency or energy on the part of Iraqi officials. One soldier I met put it in simple, homespun terms. He said: ``If your parents are willing to pay for the movies and you don't have to spend your own money, or if you can get your big sister to do your homework for you, who wants that to stop?'' It does have to stop and this Congress is taking action to make that clear. I was proud to vote with a majority of the Senate to pass binding bipartisan legislation to require the safe redeployment of our brave troops beginning in 120 days, with the goal of having the vast majority of our troops redeployed from Iraq by the end of March. I am also a cosponsor of the recently introduced Feingold-Reid legislation to continue to put pressure on the Bush administration to safely redeploy our troops. Only the kind of pressure a decision to redeploy creates will provide the motivation needed for Iraq to take the necessary steps to assume responsibility for its own governance and security. An announcement that our troops will be leaving will encourage the Iraqis to step up and take their security seriously, will discourage the insurgents, and will send a message to the world community that stability in Iraq will no longer be the responsibility of America alone. Last week, I had the opportunity to take that message directly to the Oval Office. In a meeting with President Bush and several of our colleagues who had recently traveled to Iraq, I urged him to announce a redeployment and a change of course was the strongest force he had in his hands. I also gave the President letters sent to me from Rhode Island folks with family members serving in Iraq. Those messages said loudly and clearly that it is time to bring our troops home. But rather than acting to change course, the President keeps playing politics. He has threatened to veto legislation this Congress passed to provide critically needed funding for our troops in the field. In our meeting last week, he said he was prepared for what he called a ``classic political showdown.'' The question of what to do in Iraq is not a political fight between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress. It is a struggle between the President and the will and the good sense of the American people. It is long past time that their voices were heard. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I speak today in support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, offered by the majority leader, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for bringing this important bill to the floor. As a new Member of this body, as is the Presiding Officer, it also gives me great pride to express my appreciation for the leadership of Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Hatch, whose voices over the years have placed us in the position to pass this legislation, as I hope we will tomorrow. I also wish to recognize the exceptional work and extraordinary leadership of my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Congressman Jim Langevin. Congressman Langevin has been both a State and national leader on this issue, championing the passage of H.R. 810 in last year's Congress and of H.R. 3 in January, as well as playing an integral role in Rhode Island's stem cell dialogue. Just today he was with our Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts, as she issued her report, ``Discovering Rhode Island's Stem Cell Future: Charting the Course Toward Health and Prosperity.'' This report is an important step toward developing a comprehensive statewide plan for stem cell research initiatives in Rhode Island. Congressman Langevin did not arrive at his position on stem cell research easily. He grappled, as we all do, with the ethical and scientific issues involved, meeting with a host of individuals and groups spanning the ideological spectrum. After serious and heartfelt consideration, he concluded, as have many of our Senate colleagues, that a central part of his deeply held beliefs about life is a commitment to those who are challenged by diabetes, by heart disease, by Alzheimer's, by Parkinson's, by spinal cord injury, by stroke, and by the myriad of diseases and conditions that stem cell research might help or even cure. I share this deep commitment to stem cell research and a sincere optimism about the hope it offers for so many lives. I want to share the story of one of those lives. It is the story of Lila Barber, a 12-year-old girl from Westerly, RI, who came to visit me here in Washington 2 weeks ago. In 2005, Lila started experiencing pain in her leg. The pain got progressively worse over a 5-month period, until it was keeping her, and her parents, up all night. The Barbers began a medical journey, from doctor to doctor and test to test, only to be told that Lila had bursitis. As it turned out, Lila did not have bursitis; she had osteosarcoma, a cancerous bone tumor on her tibia below her knee. Years ago, doctors would have had no option but to amputate Lila's leg. But reconstructive techniques have improved, and most limbs can now be replaced with a metal and plastic artificial joint or a cadaver bone transplant. Fortunately, Dr. Richard Terek, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in musculoskeletal oncology at Brown University, was able to save her leg using such a cadaver bone transplant, which preserves as much normal tissue as possible. In the year following Lila's surgery, she was home-schooled as she underwent 16 rounds of chemotherapy. Lila's chances of long-term survival are now good--75 percent. But even if Lila remains cancer free, she will face a painful and ongoing medical struggle. Since the donor bone and cartilage are not living, Lila's transplanted tibia will not grow as she does. Even worse, it will break down over time. This is a place where stem cell research could vastly improve care for cancers like Lila's. In the short-term, stem cell research could allow surgeons to develop techniques to use Lila's own cells to biologically and mechanically enhance bone tissue transfer. That is, Lila's own stem cells could be used to repopulate the lost bone and cartilage. In the longer term, stem cell research might allow scientists to grow entirely new replacement bones and joints. One day, children with osteosarcoma and other bone tumors might receive new bones that actually grow with their bodies into adulthood. Such bone tissue enhancements would also be beneficial to individuals with injuries from accidents, sports injuries, or just the wear and stress of age. This is just one area of promise in the broad landscape of hope stem cell research opens to Americans. As for Lila, with frequent monitoring from Dr. Terek, and sporting a bright bandanna on her first days back to school in the seventh grade, she is getting back to her old ways. She even attended the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards last weekend, a trip made possible by A Wish Come True, an organization in Rhode Island that grants wishes to children with life-threatening and dangerous illnesses. For the Barber family, their greatest wish is for Lila's good health. Stem cell research holds the promise of making that wish, and millions of wishes like the Barbers', come true. Let us throw off the ideological shackles constraining our progress imposed by the bleak and benighted policies of the Bush administration. Let us all support S. 5 and embrace the promise for life and health and hope and cure that these discoveries present to mankind. I thank the majority leader for sponsoring this vital legislation. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on the floor. I yield the floor.