To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

Amendment No. 2213

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on the motion to waive the
Congressional Budget Act with respect to Kennedy amendment No. 2213.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is a very modest
amendment. It effectively adds $200 for students who receive Pell
grants. These are students who come from families with low incomes.
Pell grants have been a backbone of our education policy and are
essential to providing these students an opportunity.
We initially passed in the budget a $5.4 billion increase in funding
for higher education. All of that was eliminated. We have an
opportunity this afternoon to make a small difference for those who
receive Pell grants.
This amendment is about education. Education is about opportunity.
This amendment is about competitiveness because in today's global
economy we need well-educated individuals.
This amendment is about national security because education is the
key to having a strong national security.
Finally, it is about fairness. Americans understand fairness. They
believe in education.
I hope this amendment will succeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with everything Senator Kennedy
has said about the importance of increasing Pell grants. But the
difficulty is, in adding this appropriated fund, in his effort to add
additional money, there is no offset. We have a budget of $145 billion.
We have made the allocations as best we can.
Since I took over the chairmanship of the Appropriations
subcommittee, in 1995 we have increased the Pell grants on an annual
basis from $2,340 to $4,050. I would like to increase them more, but
there simply is not enough money to do so. If the Senator from
Massachusetts has a suggestion as to some other priority which is of
lesser importance, I would be glad to listen. This is a carefully
crafted bill. Much as I would like to increase the Pell grants, there
simply are not the funds to do so.
I am constrained to ask my colleagues to support the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. What is the issue before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is to waive the Congressional
Budget Act in relation to the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Further inquiry: An aye vote effectively would be
related to keeping the pending amendment alive?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden

NAYS--51

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Corzine

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their prompt
arrival in the Chamber to vote. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. I don't
think we have had too many under 20 minutes, recently, at least, so we
are moving right along. I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendment No. 2222

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S11794]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself, and Mr.
Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2222.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To rename certain buildings of the centers within the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) The Headquarters and Emergency Operations
Center Building (Building 21) at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Arlen Specter
Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center.
(b) The Global Communications Center Building (Building 19)
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby
renamed as the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications Center.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to two of our
most distinguished colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom
Harkin. I wish to recognize both for their many outstanding
contributions to our country's disease and injury prevention and
emergency preparedness through their work with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Since 1995, when Senator Specter and Senator Harkin became chair and
ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, funding for the CDC has tripled, from a
little over $2 billion to more than $6 billion. This funding has been
used by CDC to achieve its mission of promoting health and quality of
life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.
In 1999, Senators Specter and Harkin visited the CDC main campus in
Atlanta, GA. They were surprised to find world-class scientists and
health care professionals working in substandard, 50-year-old
buildings. They recognized that beyond the aesthetics, the facilities
were hindering the ability of the scientists to respond to disease
outbreaks with the full force of modern technology.
They set out to rebuild the infrastructure of the CDC to ensure that
it was capable of meeting its mission. In 1999, the budget for CDC
buildings and facilities was $17 million, barely enough to make
critical repairs, such as patching leaky roofs. However, since 2000,
under the leadership of Senators Specter and Harkin, over $1.3 billion
has been invested in the infrastructure of the CDC.
These funds have been used to build laboratories capable of handling
the most dangerous pathogens, such as ebola, anthrax, and smallpox. The
foresight of these two Senators was confirmed by the essential role the
new facilities played in responding to the anthrax attack in 2001, the
Marburg virus outbreaks, and the potential for an influenza pandemic.
The latest additions to the CDC campus are now complete and include
two new buildings dedicated to responding to public health emergencies
and disseminating information to health professionals. The CDC
Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center will be the new home to
the Office of the Director, Coordinating Officer of Terrorism
Preparedness and Emergency Response, Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness, and the Emergency Operations Center. It will provide
permanent, secure, and consolidated command and control areas for CDC's
response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and outbreak
responses. It allows for CDC's executive leadership and other critical
headquarters functions to relocate to one building to allow for
increased coordination and communication.
The Global Communications Center will support outreach and worldwide
collaborative efforts. The center is a multifunctional, comprehensive
scientific learning facility encompassing functions key to CDC's
mission and goals for public health, such as outreach, research, and
programmatic foundations. The Global Communications Center not only
provides a physical place to bring the public health community together
for training, information exchange, and collaboration, but it is also
the technological link for CDC employees around the globe, from Alaska
to Zimbabwe.
It is fitting that these flagship buildings be named for the two
Senators who have led the Senate in providing funding for public health
and research. I am pleased to offer this amendment, cosponsored by my
dear friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, to designate the two new
CDC buildings as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency
Operations Center and the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications
Center.
Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2222) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 2194

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside, and I further ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 2194 that is pending at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed, for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin,
Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Salazar, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Kohl, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment
numbered 2194.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for appropriations for Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program)

In title II, in the matter under the heading ``low-income
home energy assistance'', in the matter under the heading
``Administration for Children and Families'', after the first
sentence insert the following:
In addition to amounts appropriated under the preceding
sentence, for making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.),
$2,920,000,000, which amount is designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Dodd
and DeWine as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week Senator Collins and I came to the
floor to offer an amendment on the Transportation-Treasury
appropriations bill to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, more commonly known as LIHEAP. We would have
increased the appropriations to the authorized amount of $5.1 billion.
With Senator Collins' support, and with the help of 53 other Senators,
we came forward to make a statement that in this cold winter that is
approaching, with soaring energy prices, Americans needed help and we
could do better. Fifty-three Senators, Democrats and Republicans,
northerners and southerners, east coasters and west coasters supported
our amendment when it came to a vote. But it failed to pass because of
a procedural need to acquire 60 votes. We, joined by 30 of our
colleagues, are here again today to offer our amendment to the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill.
Our amendment provides $2.92 billion in emergency spending for the
LIHEAP program. This amount, coupled with the $2.18 billion in the
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, will fully fund LIHEAP at the authorized
level of $5.1 billion, a level authorized by this Congress and signed
into law by the President just 3 months ago. At this level, LIHEAP will
cover the full increase in

[[Page S11795]]

recipients' heating costs so they would not be forced to pay more out
of their very limited budgets for this winter's heating season. It is
imperative that this appropriations bill provide additional resources
to the LIHEAP program so families are safe and warm this winter.
As we speak, there is a storm raging in the Northeast in New England.
We expect in some parts of the region to have snow this evening. Winter
is coming. It is coming with a particular ferocity at this moment. But
something else is already happening: Rising energy prices,
extraordinary increases in energy prices, much of it as a result of
Hurricane Katrina that struck the gulf coast area. As I have said
before, the first surge was high water that overwhelmed low-income
people in New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama and other cities
along the gulf coast. The second surge is high energy prices which are
about to overwhelm many individuals in the Northeast and the Midwest
and throughout this country where the temperatures begin to fall as
they do this time of year. We have to do more to protect these people
because we know it is coming.
One of the lessons from Katrina is that we understand that there are
people who are vulnerable, and they have to be protected before the
storm hits, not afterwards. This is an opportunity to do that for
people throughout this country who are vulnerable this winter to rising
energy prices and falling temperatures.
I particularly thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their strong
support of the LIHEAP program. I realize the difficult choices they
faced this year in determining spending limits for the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill. I appreciate their support for this amendment to
add emergency spending for LIHEAP.
On Saturday, the New York Times printed an editorial titled
``Washington's Cold Shoulder.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Oct. 22, 2005]

Washington's Cold Shoulder

The weather is turning cold, and home heating fuel is
increasingly unaffordable. The Energy Department recently
reported that households should expect to pay 48 percent more
this year for natural gas, on average, and nearly a third
more for oil and propane--assuming a ``normal'' winter and no
further supply disruptions like Katrina.
In and of themselves, those increases will be too much for
an estimated seven million low-income Americans, including
old people, disabled people and families with children. On
top of gasoline prices that are already high and wages that
are stagnating, the rising cost of heating fuel is bound to
be devastating.
Yet Congress is balking at approving an additional $3
billion in federal heating subsidies that would help meet the
coming need. (Lawmakers allocated $2 billion to the subsidy
program last summer, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita sent
prices soaring.) Earlier this month, and again on Thursday,
measures in the Senate to provide the extra funds were
defeated, largely by a bloc of Republican lawmakers, though
with each vote, a handful of Republicans voted in favor and a
few Democrats voted against.
At the same time, Republican majorities in Congress are
unrelenting in their drive to pass $70 billion in new tax
cuts this fall, most of them for wealthy investors, and $35
billion in spending cuts, most in programs that benefit the
poor.
With Congress's priorities so obviously skewed, the best
chance for adequate heating subsidies this winter lies with
President Bush. Advocates for the poor are hoping that Mr.
Bush will ask for the additional money in a future hurricane-
related emergency spending request to Congress. But so far,
Mr. Bush has not said whether he will ask for more heating
aid, and, if so, when or how much.
This sad lack of urgency is seen elsewhere in the
administration as well. Asked at a news conference earlier
this month whether the administration would support bolstered
subsidies for low-income families and the elderly, Secretary
of Energy Samuel Bodman suggested that everyone just wait and
see. ``I can't respond to that,'' he said, ``other than by
saying we're going to do our very best, first, to see what we
can accomplish by the reduction in demand for energy.''
That's unacceptable. Heating subsidies are not a
conservation issue. Vulnerable people need to keep the heat
on to keep from getting sick, or worse. Such subsidies help
everyone by maintaining public health and safety, ensuring
that others don't become ill and spread illness, or resort to
hazardous means of heating that can cause fires. Heating aid
for the needy is also a matter of common decency, which
ordinary Americans are entirely capable of, though not, so
far, their elected leaders.

Mr. REED. The editorial says that our congressional priorities are
skewed, and I agree. As the editorial points out, Members of Congress
are continuing an unrelenting drive to pass $70 billion in new cuts
this fall in taxes, most of them for wealthy investors, and to cut $35
billion in spending, mostly in programs that benefit the poor. The
vulnerable people need to keep the heat on to keep from getting sick,
becoming homeless, or worse.
Because of our budget rules, we are prevented from getting a straight
up-or-down majority vote on our amendment to provide assistance to
seniors, low-income working families, and disabled individuals. This
amendment will ensure that they will be protected from the ravages of
the cold this winter: aid that will ensure children will not become ill
or malnourished, aid that will ensure families do not resort to
hazardous means of heating that can cause fires. Unfortunately and
regrettably, every heating season there is a terrible incident where
some poor person decides their stove can provide them some heat, and
they leave it on, causing a fire with tragic consequences. I hope that
will not be the case this year. If we don't provide support for these
families, they have very little choice in many cases, other than to
improvised heat, and that often leads to tragedy.
As the New York Times editorial states: Heating aid for the needy is
a matter of common decency. Is our memory so short that we have
forgotten the pledge we made to low-income families after Hurricane
Katrina to address the economic disparity in our Nation that literally
leaves many out in the cold or in the dark?
Rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class
families and seniors this winter. Energy costs for the average family
using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,600 this winter, an increase
of $380 over last winter's heating season. For families using natural
gas, prices could hit about $1,400, an increase of $500. For families
using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,400, an increase of about
$325. For families living in poverty, energy bills are now over 20
percent of their income compared to 5 percent of the income of other
households, more affluent households.
In America, no one should be forced to choose between heating or
eating. No senior citizen should be forced to choose between buying
necessary pharmaceuticals and keeping the heat up. But unfortunately,
low-income working Americans are facing these decisions each day, and
they will become more dire and more consequential as the winter
approaches.
The heat-or-eat dilemma is a real one for poor families. A study by
the RAND Corporation found that low-income households reduce food
expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increase in heating
expenditures. That is an awful tradeoff, one that I don't think any
American would like to see take place.
The Social Security Administration recently announced its cost-of-
living adjustment for 2006 for seniors. The COLA is about a $65-per-
month increase for the average retired couple. But with this winter's
energy prices, that increase will be wiped out in an instant. So we
have to do better. Even at a funding level of $5.1 billion, LIHEAP
would still only serve about one-seventh of the 35 million households
that are poor enough to qualify for assistance. So we are just talking
about serving the very neediest in our community. This is a program
that, frankly, could use many more dollars to serve every qualified
individual. We are just reaching the neediest among us. If we don't
pass this appropriations, we won't even reach those individuals.
I urge all my colleagues to join us to secure $2.9 billion in
additional LIHEAP funding and pass this amendment. I urge an up-or-down
vote on the amendment. As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our
priorities. American families are facing an energy emergency. If we can
find money for tax cuts, then we can find funds for LIHEAP. Now is not
the time to sacrifice the health and safety of American families. We
must prioritize, and the priorities start with providing affordable
energy to low-income and middle-class Americans as they struggle with
extraordinary increases in

[[Page S11796]]

prices and the looming cold of this winter.
I am pleased and proud to be joined in this effort by my colleague
from Maine, Senator Collins.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague
and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment
that would increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $2.9 billion. I want to begin my
remarks by thanking the manager of this bill, Senator Specter, for his
strong commitment to the LIHEAP program. Despite difficult budgetary
constraints, the chairman has found an additional $200 million in
LIHEAP funding above the administration's request, bringing the total
to approximately $2.2 billion. I do recognize and very much appreciate
that effort.
Unfortunately, even with this additional funding, we are still far
short of the amount of funding that is needed for this vital program.
Just a few months ago, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. This law, which passed the Senate with an overwhelming
vote, authorizes $5.1 billion for the LIHEAP program for fiscal year
2006. The Reed-Collins amendment would increase LIHEAP funding to the
fully authorized level.
Our Nation has now been struck by three extremely powerful hurricanes
in as many months. While these hurricanes have been devastating to the
people of Florida and the gulf coast, they have also had a major impact
on the rest of the Nation. Just as the Nation should be building oil
supplies for the winter heating season, these hurricanes have disrupted
our already strained supplies and sent the cost of both home heating
oil and gasoline, as well as natural gas, to painfully high levels.
While high energy prices pose a challenge for almost all Americans,
they impose an especially difficult burden on low-income families and
our elderly citizens who are living on limited incomes. Low-income
families spend a greater percentage of their incomes on heating their
homes, and they have fewer options available as energy prices soar.
High energy prices can even cause families to choose between keeping
the heat on, putting food on their table, or buying much-needed
prescription drugs. In our country, the most prosperous country on
Earth, surely no family should have to make such terrible choices.
I believe our amendment reflects a realistic appraisal of the need
for more assistance in this program. Let me briefly describe the
situation that we are facing in my State of Maine, a State where snow
is predicted for later today. While the official start of winter is
still 2 months away, temperatures have already fallen below freezing in
much of Maine. In Maine, 78 percent of all households use home heating
oil to heat their homes. Currently, the cost of home heating oil is
approximately $2.50 per gallon, although I recently paid 20 cents more
per gallon to fill my tank.
That price, the $2.50 price, is some 60 cents above last year's
already high prices. These high prices greatly increase the need for
assistance and at least 3,000 additional Mainers are expected to apply
for LIHEAP assistance this year. With more people in need of help, the
benefit is expected to fall by roughly 10 percent, to about $440 per
qualifying household.
Unfortunately, at today's high prices, $440 is only enough to
purchase approximately 173 gallons of oil. That is far below last
year's equivalent benefit of 251 gallons and not nearly enough, not
even close, to what will be needed by these families to get through
Maine's winter.
With rising prices and falling benefits, we have a real problem. To
purchase the same amount of oil as last year, Maine would need an
additional $10.8 million in LIHEAP funding. With winter fast
approaching and energy prices soaring, home heating bills are set to
pound family budgets mercilessly. For low-income families, LIHEAP funds
can be a factor that prevents them from having to choose between
turning down the heat to the point where they are at risk for
hypothermia or putting food on the table, paying their bills or buying
prescription drugs.
Surely we can do better to help those who otherwise will truly suffer
during the winter months.
I call upon all of our colleagues to join us in this amendment or
surely it will be too late to help those who are going to be in dire
straits this winter. Let us act now to provide the funding that is so
sorely needed.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been around the Senate for a long
time, and I have been serving West Virginia for a long time. I have
seen many seasons in my time in this Senate, and I know that with each
season comes its challenges. There is strength and beauty in West
Virginia winters, but the impacts of recent hurricanes and other energy
challenges will test our ability to meet our needs this coming season.
These colder temperatures mean that West Virginians and Americans in
many regions of this country will be struggling to heat their homes. I
know, as winter approaches, many West Virginians will be faced with
tough choices about whether to use their paychecks to heat their homes,
to fill their cars with gasoline, or to buy winter clothes for their
children. I sympathize with those who have to make these tough choices,
and these hard-working Americans deserve some measure of relief.

I strongly support the Reed/Collins amendment. We need to fully fund
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. This program is
critical for those in my State and across the country who will be
facing a tough winter. Colder winter months, coupled with the
simultaneous challenges of an increase in poverty, a growing elderly
population, and ever-increasing home heating costs, will make this
program crucial. The LIHEAP program fills the gap for the poorest and
most vulnerable of our citizens, allowing them the sanctuary of a warm
home, something to which each and every American is entitled. More than
130,000 households benefit from this program in my State. Households,
including many in West Virginia, that heat with natural gas are
expected to pay an average of $350, or 48 percent, more for home
heating this winter than last. This increase will leave many West
Virginians even more vulnerable and forced to make tough choices.
Therefore, I support this amendment, as I have when it has been
previously offered on other fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bills. I
cannot stand by and let the throes of winter leave the most vulnerable
in my State out in the cold, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

IRAQ

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, press reports today indicate that the number
of American troops killed in Iraq has now reached 2,000--2,000. This is
another tragic milestone in this costly and unnecessary war in which
too much blood--too much blood, too much blood--has already been
spilled. And I offer my deepest sympathies to the brave men and women
who have given their lives--that is everything. They have given their
lives. They have given their all, everything, their lives--most of
these young lives in their 20s or thereabouts--given their lives in
selfless dedication to service--2,000--2,000 men and women given their
lives in dedication to our Nation. See the empty chairs. Two thousand,
2,000 empty chairs at the table, 2,000. How many hearts have been
broken? How many tears have been spilled? I offer to these families my
prayers that God, almighty God, may comfort them in their grief over
the loss of their beloved husbands, wives, sons or daughters, brothers
or sisters.
As we mourn the losses that have already occurred in the war in Iraq,
Americans should be mindful that all indications are that there will be
many more losses to come--many more losses to come, yes, in the most
dangerous, the most dangerous country in the world, the most violent
country in the world. How would you like your sons or grandsons or
granddaughters to go? And for what? For what? They did not ask to be
sent to war. They were young. They had life ahead of them. Oh, the
lofty horizons they had, the great dreams they had--the dreams, the
dreams, yes, the dreams, of these young men and women--2,000--2,000--
2,000. They did not ask to be sent to war, I say.

[[Page S11797]]

But each day they carry out their duty. Think of those who are in
Iraq. No, they must not stand still in one place, no. Keep on the move.
Look all around you. How much they sleep at night and how much their
mothers and fathers lie on their pillows to cry out to God to save
their sons and daughters, to send them home safely. What a terrible
thing.
It is only reasonable that the American people and their elected
representatives, like you--like you, yes, and like me--ask more
questions, questions, more questions, yes. Why? Oh, why? Why? Why? How
much longer, how long do we have to suffer? How long do our young
people have to look forward to this dreadful trap?
I was alarmed last week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was
asked at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the
President's ability to initiate another war. Specifically, Secretary
Rice was asked whether the President must seek a new congressional
authorization if he were to attack Syria or Iran. Secretary Rice
responded:

I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war
powers.

How about that.

I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war
powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the
President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in
the war on Iraq.

I am astounded, I am flabbergasted, I am astonished by that response.
The Secretary of State seems to indicate that she believes this
President or any other President has the power to redefine the war in
Iraq and the war on terrorism--and that power that appears in the
Constitution of the United States: Congress shall have power to declare
war--has the power to redefine the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism
to include a possible attack on Syria or Iran.
Think of it. Mr. President, Congress made a grave mistake, Congress
made a grave mistake--what a blot on the escutcheon of the Senate--when
it voted to pass the resolution which transferred to the President the
power to declare war against Iraq. What a shame. What a shame. What a
mistake. Oh, my, what a mistake. What a mistake. What a shame. And this
Senate for the most part stood mute--mute, mute, silent, speechless.
Congress made a grave mistake on October 11, 2002, in passing the
resolution that transferred to the President, any President, the
power--how about that, the power--that is not what this Constitution
says. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, says that Congress--
that is us, the people's representatives, here and across on the other
side of the Capitol--Congress shall have power to declare war. But what
did Congress do? Congress shifted that power to declare war, tucked its
tail between its legs, so to speak, and walked off the field, threw its
sword in the sand and walked off the field, relegated itself then, now,
and forever more, until that law is changed, rendered itself
speechless. We wash our hands, Congress washed its hands. Congress
washed its hands and walked away from that field, with its broken sword
in the sand, transferring to the President the power to declare war
against Iraq. And for what? For what? Why did we go there? Well, there
are all kinds of reasons now they bring but then it was because there
were to be found weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Rumsfeld said: Oh, we know where they are; they are in the north,
they are in the south, the east and west. We know where they are.
Well, where are they, Mr. Secretary? Where are they? Where are they?
Two thousand men and women, one for every year that has passed since
Jesus Christ was born--2,000, 2,000. And for what?
But that resolution was limited to Iraq alone. It had no mention of
Iran, no mention of Syria. That resolution cannot possibly authorize a
new war against Syria or Iran. Our troops are so deeply mired in this
sectarian conflict in Iraq, what point could there possibly be in
contemplating an attack on Syria or Iran? Why did Secretary Rice
dismiss the notion that the President must first come to Congress if he
wishes to broaden this war to new countries--unless our country is
under the direct threat of an imminent attack. Then a President has the
inherent constitutional power to move to war.
The American people seek an end, they seek an end, they want an end
to this ongoing bloody war in Iraq, not new conflicts in neighboring
countries.
For the sake of the Constitution--here it is in my hand--for the sake
of the Constitution, for the sake of the American people--there they
are. I see them out there through those electronic lenses. Yes, there
they are, out into the mountains, the Appalachians, then the Midwest,
then the Rockies, then the west coast. They are all over there, the
American people--and for the brave members of the U.S. Armed Forces,
the President should publicly acknowledge that there will be no
expansion of the war in Iraq, none, no expansion, without the
authorization of Congress. That is us. That is us, Members of the House
and Senate. Not one man, not one body. Two bodies, the House and the
Senate, the Congress of the United States.

There must be no more mission creep. There must be no more billions
committed. There must be no more lives lost without authorization by
the people's representatives in Congress, including an open debate and
an up-or-down vote. That is what I pleaded for. That is what some of us
pleaded for. That is what some of us pleaded for--debate, time, talk,
wait, wait until after the election; let's hear what the people have to
say and then come back and talk about it. No, it had to be done in a
hurry; we have to get it behind us.
The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey and
the Senator from Rhode Island and others said: Wait a minute, let's
talk about it; let's wait until after the election; we don't have to do
it now; let's wait, wait, wait; let's talk about it. No, we were told,
get it behind us, get it behind us. I said you will never get it behind
us. This man down at the White House is not going to let it get behind
us. He has you right where he wants you.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for addressing the
Senate on this very grim day that marks the loss of the 2,000th young
American in Iraq. I welcome my memory being refreshed by the Senator's
very eloquent statements about what took place at that time and
subsequently about his policy differences, which I share so deeply.
While the Senator said we should wait, does the Senator not think it
might have been appropriate that we give the inspectors adequate time
to complete their inspection prior to the time we were going to have
the troops begin the invasion?
As members of the Armed Services Committee, we were told that we were
transferring the information Don Rumsfeld had to the inspectors. Under
the excellent questioning of the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin,
Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the information that would be
transferred to the inspectors, and he gave the assurance to the Armed
Services Committee that this was a continuing, ongoing process in which
we were involved. Then we found out subsequently that there was no
transfer of information. There was no transfer of information because,
as the Senator has pointed out, those weapons had not been there. But
that information was never shared with the Members of this body. There
was never an effort to try to see whether the international inspectors
could find what the Secretary of Defense swore to, effectively, about
the weapons of mass destruction--and the Senator used the words north,
south, east, and west, which are very much the words the Secretary of
Defense used. He assured the American people he knew where they were.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. We understood they were going to notify the inspectors
and give assurances to the American people. Doesn't the Senator believe
it would have been appropriate at least if we had waited until that
kind of process continued and we find out whether weapons of mass
destruction were there or were not there? That is part of the waiting,
is it not?
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely, positively.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for reminding us about that period
in history. I gather from what the Senator is saying, with all the
mistakes and blunders that have been made--

[[Page S11798]]

Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. --what the Senator is asking for is out of respect for
the extraordinary heroism of our current men and women in the service,
that they deserve something better than the cliches and slogans for
policy.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. And that they need to have a real policy that is going
to reflect how we can bring those brave American service men and women
home with honor.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. And do it in a way of which we can all be proud.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes. I thank the distinguished Senator for his very
appropriate observations. The U.N. inspectors were doing their job.
They were finding certain weapons, and they were disposing of them.
With some more time--I believe it was the top inspector, his name was
Blix--he said: We can do this job; it may take some months. We could
have done that and saved 2,000 men and women. Oh, what a shame. The
inspectors were doing their job.
Let me hurry on. Too many lives have already been lost.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? I don't want to interrupt his
comments here, they are so important, but has the Senator, in his
following of this issue, been able to detect any plan, any strategy
that has come from the administration from which he believes the
American people can gain great satisfaction that we are headed in the
right direction? Does he know of any plan or program, any strategy that
would result in the opportunity to bring those service men and women
home with honor?
Mr. BYRD. There has been none. There is none. There has been none. I
see only a huge black hole. No plan. No plan. No plan. No vision. We
are there with no vision, and people perish and they perish.
Too many lives have already been lost in pursuit of this nefarious
doctrine of preemption, unconstitutional on its face--on its face. How
can there be a congressional debate if one man may decide when to hit,
where to hit? I urge the administration to turn away from that
dangerous doctrine of preemptive war and adhere to the requirements of
the Constitution of these United States, to which we all swear an oath
to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies foreign and domestic. Lord, Lord, help us. May God bless these
men and women who gave their lives, and God bless their families who
mourn them every day, every night, and there is no end in sight. May
God help this Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 2194, as Modified

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment No. 2194. I am told I do not need consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:

On page 158, after line 12, insert:
In addition to amounts appropriated under the preceding
sentence, for making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.),
$2,920,000,000, which amount is designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Byrd
to amendment No. 2194.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment which has been
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine is
one of necessity. It is regrettable that fuel costs have grown so high,
occasioned by a great many factors, one of which is what has happened
with Hurricane Katrina and the elevation of oil, the elevation of
natural gas prices.
This issue of low-income home energy assistance, LIHEAP, has been a
difficult matter for this subcommittee for the 24 years I have been on
the subcommittee because it poses such a drastic alternative for so
many people. The comment ``heat or eat'' is a very accurate one. That
really is the choice for so many, especially the elderly. I have
supported funding for LIHEAP in the past, and I believe it is
accurately characterized as an emergency.
I say that recognizing the very heavy, burdensome obligations the
Federal Government has and that spending is a very major issue. But
when it comes down to the exigencies of this moment where we have
appropriated so much money to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, we
are talking about brothers and sisters of those victims of people who
live in Rhode Island or New Hampshire or Maine or Pennsylvania or so
many States in the Union. So I will be supporting the amendment Senator
Reed and Senator Collins have offered.
I have been advised that there will be an alternative amendment put
forward to have an across-the-board cut. I do not think that is the
better answer to the issue, but I wanted to put that on the record so
that if we move ahead with the yeas and nays, we will hold off on the
vote perhaps to vote on them side by side, if there is not a second-
degree amendment. We will see what we sort out on procedure.
I thought it important as manager on this side that I make this
statement which I have. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we are going to pause at 3:40 p.m.
My friend and colleague from New Jersey has an important statement, but
he is letting me proceed.
Winter is rapidly closing in on States across America. Yet even after
Hurricane Katrina shocked the Nation about the desperate plight of the
poor, the administration and the Republican Congress continue to ignore
our neediest citizens.
According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating
bills will soar this winter. Households heating primarily with natural
gas will pay an average of $350 more this winter for heat--an increase
of an incredible 48 percent over last year. Those relying primarily on
oil for heat will pay $378 more--an increase of 32 percent.
The people most in need of help on this issue are the 37 million
Americans living in poverty today--including 13 million children.
According to a recent report by Economic Opportunity Studies, families
in poverty will owe an average of 25 percent of their entire income for
their energy bills this winter.
The Federal poverty guideline is $16,090 for a family of three. That
means that $4,022 will be spent on home energy bills, leaving only
12,000 or $1,000 a month for expenses the entire year.
A family whose rent is $800 a month would have only $200 left. For a
household of three, that's only $63 per person per month for food,
clothing, and health care.
Mr. President, 46 million Americans lack health insurance in this
country. If such families have a health emergency and no health
insurance, their annual income could be further strapped.
What if the family owns a car so they can get to and from work? More
money will be needed to pay the high cost of gasoline and to make
monthly car and insurance payments.
Since many families live below the Federal poverty line, they will
have even less money left for other needs after they pay to heat their
homes.
A recent study by researchers from Stanford University, the
University of Chicago, the RAND Corporation, and UCLA found that when
poor families' heating bills go up during cold winter months, they
reduce their spending on food.
LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, was created
two decades ago to prevent low-income families from being forced to
make these impossible tradeoffs. Yet Federal funding for LIHEAP has
been stagnant for over a decade, even as the need for assistance has
risen sharply. As a result, the purchasing power of LIHEAP assistance,
adjusted for inflation, is now only a little over half of what it was
in 1982.
Thirty-three million households are eligible for LIHEAP assistance.
These households will spend nearly $55 billion in energy costs. Yet the
LIHEAP program is funded at only $2 billion.
According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association,
LIHEAP assistance reached 5 million families this year--the highest
level in

[[Page S11799]]

ten years, but only 15 percent of the eligible population.
In Massachusetts, LIHEAP serves 134,000 families, which is only 15
percent of the 867,000 families eligible for assistance.
Earlier this month, I visited the Curtis Hall Community Center in
Boston, MA, with Mayor Menino. I heard first hand about the extreme
need for home energy assistance among senior citizens.
Last winter, Eileen Duggan, a widow from Jamaica Plain in Boston,
kept her oven on high and wore several layers of clothing because her
time-worn furnace was inadequate to provide enough heat. She started
buying less food so that she could use her small monthly budget to pay
her heating bill. Despite her best efforts, she still couldn't pay that
bill, and last April, with the New England winter chill still in the
air, she asked the utility company to stop sending her oil. ``I told
the oil man: `Don't give me anymore. I can't afford it,' '' she said.
Other low-income families have also been sharing their stories. One
example involves a single mother who lives in Haverhill, MA, with her
18-year-old son who is handicapped, her 19-year-old daughter, and her
daughter's child who has a medical condition. Both mother and daughter
work as school bus monitors, and they have little or no income over the
summer. Their rent is $950 a month. Their last gas bill was $1,729.
Because they couldn't pay the bill, their gas was shut off last winter.
Even if they qualify for $600 in LIHEAP assistance, the gas company may
still refuse to reconnect their service, unless the family comes up
with another $400 to $800 towards their debt.
Millions of low-income Americans set their thermostats at just 60
degrees or even lower--if their heat is still on--while Congress, the
administration, and the vast majority of us rest content in warm homes.
Yet the Bush administration and the Republican Congress do nothing year
after year.
Time and time again I have stood on the Senate floor urging Congress
to open its eyes to the needs of the poor.
It is shameful that after the President and the Republican Congress
froze LIHEAP funds through the continuing resolution, they continue to
tune out the pleas of low-income families who need home heating
assistance.
Last week, the Republican leadership decided to use a procedural
maneuver once again to block emergency funding for LIHEAP. Almost every
Democratic Senator supported this additional relief, but Republican
Senators overwhelmingly opposed it, and it was defeated.
There is no excuse for the Republican majority to look the other
way--but they do. They continue to ignore families who lie awake at
night worrying how to make ends meet. They refuse to acknowledge the
parents who worry, day after day, week after week, month after month,
how to feed their children and keep the heat on, or the elderly who
turn down their thermostats, put on extra sweaters, or even turn off
the heat in an attempt to save money.
It is time to tell low-income families across the country that we
hear them, that we care about them, and that we don't intend to leave
them shivering in the cold again this winter. That is why I strongly
support the Reed-Collins amendment to add $2.9 billion to the LIHEAP
program. We need to increase LIHEAP funding now to avoid real harm to
real people this winter, and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I urge our colleagues to listen to our colleagues not only from New
England, from the Northeast, but other parts of the country in urging
favorable consideration of this amendment. I join them in saying I have
seen the faces of too many senior citizens, too many elderly people who
are on fixed incomes. I have seen their fear about what is going to
happen in their homes and the hard, difficult choices they are going to
have to make this winter unless we provide this assistance. This
assistance is desperately needed for our region of the country. It is
Katrina in a very real way. Like Katrina, it is an emergency in terms
of heating homes. I hope we can get favorable consideration of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Iraq

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a grim moment for America:
2,000 of our young courageous people have perished in Iraq--2,000. From
the years 1961 to 1965--those are the years in Vietnam--we got over
2,000 death notices sent to homes across the country. There is a lot of
pain across the country, yes, for those who lost loved ones, but across
this Nation of ours people are wondering what is it, when do we get to
see our people coming back home, because it certainly does not have the
appearance of a matter resolved.
I have often thought that some memorial should be present in this
body as these casualty numbers are reported. But as we were denied the
opportunity to have some reminders of this catastrophe displayed in the
Rotunda or a busier place, I decided to put a memorial to those lost in
Iraq at the front door to my office. I have been overwhelmed by the
interest shown by passers-by.

We have their pictures up there and their names and the communities
they come from. There are more numbers coming. We update the list
regularly, the pictures regularly. Every casualty is a life cut short,
families torn apart. Outside my office we have this memorial to the
fallen heroes. You look at those faces and see how young are the people
who died.
When I started the Senate memorial I hoped major combat would soon be
over and our casualties would be minimal or eliminated, but major
combat has dragged on and the memorial display unfortunately has grown
and grown. It has gotten to the point where the memorial takes up most
of the space outside my office. I encourage my colleagues to visit
these memorials. There is one in the Longworth House Office Building in
front of the office of Representatives Rahm Emanuel and Walter Jones. I
encourage my colleagues to visit these memorials and pay tribute to
these troops.
As we reach this grim milestone today, it is critical that we examine
the situation we are facing in Iraq. The President made a speech today.
We heard it on TV. He basically said let's keep on doing what we are
doing. We heard the usual rhetoric about spreading freedom.
I do not think we need any more slogans. I remember the President's
slogan on the aircraft carrier when he said, ``Mission accomplished.''
Mission accomplished? The President declared that major combat
operations were over. This was in May 2003. Since then we have lost
1,855 of our people.
As the debacle on the aircraft carrier proved, slogans are only as
good as the banners they are written on. But we don't need more
slogans. We need a plan. We need a plan that will provide relief to our
troops so they are not shouldering all of the burdens in Iraq. The
President and his team ignored the wise advice of the State Department
and alienated our usual allies before the war, and did it with
incredible arrogance and ineptitude.
Last year, President Bush scolded my colleague Senator Kerry, while
debating this issue, alleging that Senator Kerry forgot--I put this in
quotes--``forgot Poland.'' But even Poland is pulling out of Iraq now.
With the exception of British troops in Basra, we are essentially going
it alone across the rest of Iraq. As our troops go it alone, they have
to live with President Bush's taunt to our enemies when he said:
``Bring `em on. Bring `em on.''
Mr. President, have they sufficiently brought them on? That was said
in July of 2003.
What the troops on the ground need is less talk and more of a plan
that defines our specific goals. They want to know exactly how many
Iraqi troops need to be trained before our soldiers can begin to come
home. We hear stories about these trained battalions, trained units
that are made up of Iraqi soldiers. But when you get the other side,
people who have knowledge from the front, they tell us there are far
fewer Iraqis trained than are presented to us from the administration.
What we hear from President Bush over and over again is that we need
to complete the mission. But we are not told what the mission is.
Today, I hope every American will pause and reflect on the price that
has been paid by our very brave service people. Their courage is above
question--but the administration's policy in Iraq is not. The American
people

[[Page S11800]]

have a right and a duty to demand answers from our Government. Our
troops deserve nothing less. Every flag-draped coffin represents a
family who will never again share a moment with their spouse, with
their child, sibling, friend.
It was very telling, early on in this conflict, when the
administration banned the photography of flag-draped coffins coming
back to our shores from Iraq. Imagine banning that demonstration of
honor and tribute--a flag-draped coffin, based upon the fact that it
might disturb the privacy of the family while they greet the coffin.
Families don't come to Dover, DE, where the coffins are carried off the
airplanes. There is a mortuary where remains are often identified and
moments of privacy provided for the families. But they banned these
tributes to heroes who served our country. The administration argued
about the privacy matter. It is a red herring. Of course the funerals
are private. But at issue was the return of these caskets to Dover Air
Force Base.
Why do I talk about it? Because it is an attempt to hide the real
pain and sacrifice that is being made in this war in Iraq. They do not
want the American people to see flag-draped coffin after flag-draped
coffin because it reminds us about what is taking place.
Presidents Reagan and Clinton publicly met flag-draped coffins on the
tarmac at Dover. But under this President we cannot even take pictures
of them.
We should honor, not hide, flag-draped coffins. They are a symbol of
the respect, honor, and dignity our fallen heroes deserve. Today we
honor the 2,000 heroes who sacrificed their lives for our country.
I urge the President to pay tribute to their memory by offering this
country a concise, realistic plan that will allow us finally to
transfer power to Iraqis and bring our troops home.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know the chairman is eager to make
further progress on the underlying bill, and therefore we will be
brief.
A number of Senators have come to the floor over the course of today
to express their thoughts or feelings or emotions or sympathies for the
families of the over 2,000 military dead in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At this point, I ask the Senate now proceed to a moment of silence in
honor of our fallen soldiers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to a moment of
silence in honor of our fallen soldiers.
(Moment of silence.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today U.S. military deaths in Operation
Iraqi Freedom surpassed 2,000. These brave men and women in uniform
sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and for the security of
their fellow Americans. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their
courage, for their valor, for their strength, for their commitment to
our country. They heard the call of duty and they took the fight to the
enemy so that the enemy would not strike us here at home. These brave
men and women join a pantheon of heroes who have fought and died over
the years for our country.
Because of their determination, Saddam Hussein now faces a trial for
his life; because of their resolve, the Iraqi people are exercising
their right to self-rule. And today, because of their bravery, today
Iraq has a new constitution, a historic milestone on the march toward
freedom and the fight against terror.
Our hearts do go out to all the families who have lost loved ones on
the battlefield as well as the thousands of men and women who have been
injured. Their valor, their courage are a shining example to all. We
owe them our deepest respect. We offer our continued support and our
continued prayers. We pledge to stand firm in the war on terror. We
will accomplish the mission to secure a free and prosperous Iraq and,
in turn, secure the freedom and safety of America.
We will persevere and we will win--for our heroes in uniform; for the
United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a solemn occasion, to have the
Senate stand in silence in respect for the sacrifices made by the
fighting men and women of this country. Our thoughts go out, not only
to the lives of these individuals but to their families. This is only a
small token of what we can do to recognize the sacrifices they have
made, leaving behind their sons and daughters, the husbands and wives
and friends. We all have been touched by the deaths of these 2,000 in
one way or the other.
It is my prayer that the sacrifices made will prove to have been
warranted.
I am grateful to my colleagues for being here today on both sides of
the aisle, and I am grateful to Senator Frist who has joined in this
moment of silence. It is something that I will remember, and I hope we
all do.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as of today, 2,000 American soldiers have
been killed in combat in Iraq.
Since last January's election in Iraq, we have lost 565 American
soldiers; 74 of those soldiers have been killed in October--an average
of three a day. An additional 15,220 have been wounded, and more than
7,000 of whom were unable to return to combat.
The youngest of America's fallen soldiers was just 18. The oldest was
59. Nearly three quarters had not even celebrated their 30th birthday.
They came from every State in the Nation. This includes 38 soldiers
from my own State of Massachusetts.
They are the best of America, and we are proud of each one. Although
I disagree with the President about Iraq, I honor the service and
sacrifice and dedication of each of these brave men and women.
Our Armed Forces are serving ably in Iraq under enormously difficult
circumstances and the policy of our Government must be worthy of their
sacrifice. Unfortunately, it is not, and the American people know it.
Our soldiers in Iraq need more than happy talk about progress from
the President. They need more than a public relations campaign.
They need an effective plan to end the violence, and stabilize Iraq,
so they can come home with dignity and honor.
Reality is hard medicine to swallow. Facts are stubborn. As the
Valerie Plame case makes increasingly clear, the administration stopped
at nothing to cover up its misguided and dishonest decision to go to
war, and our servicemen and women, their families, and friends are
paying an unacceptable price. They deserve better--much better from
their President and so does the Nation.
It was wrong for the President to rush to war for such a deeply
questionable cause. President Bush once said that the war in Iraq was a
catastrophic success. He's half right in one sense. The war has been a
catastrophe--for our soldiers and their families, for the war on
terrorism, and for America's standing in the world. It has made the
United States more hated in the world than at any other time in our
history.
Beyond the cost in human lives and to our national security, there
has been an enormous financial cost.
American taxpayers are spending $195 million each day in Iraq.
For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq for one day, we could make
significant improvements in homeland security.
We could provide 4 million American households with emergency
readiness kits. We could close the crisis communications technology gap
for 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized cities, or 6 large cities, so that
Federal, State and local first responders can talk to one another
during an emergency.
We could purchase 780 fire trucks for improving local emergency
response capabilities, and we could employ 5,000 fire fighters, 4,000
police patrol officers, or 7,000 paramedics and emergency medical
technicians for one year each.
For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq one day, we could double the
Federal budget for nuclear reactor safety and security inspections to
ensure that these potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.
We could pay for 1,100 additional border patrol agents to better
guard our borders against potential terrorists.

[[Page S11801]]

We could provide 9,700 port container inspection units to detect
hazardous materials being trafficked into the country.
Obviously, the $195 million a day we spend in Iraq could be better
spent on the all-important areas of jobs, education, and health care,
which the Senate is debating today. Instead of spending those funds in
Iraq, we could spend them on better teachers, better financial aid for
college students, better health care for families, and countless other
priorities whose budgets are being cut back because of Iraq. I ask
unanimous consent that a document I've prepared outlining the various
ways $195 million dollars a day could be spent on pressing priorities
at home be printed in the Record.
Instead of covering up mistakes in Iraq, it is time for the President
to admit them, to adopt an effective strategy to end this war and begin
to bring our troops home, and to stop ignoring the very real priorities
facing the Nation and the many many challenges facing us at home and
abroad.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Real Cost of the Iraq War to American Taxpayers--$195 Million per
Day

For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq for one day, we
could . . .

Homeland Security

One day in Iraq could provide 3.97 million households with
an emergency readiness kit.
One day in Iraq could close the financing gap for
interoperable communications in 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized
cities, or 6 large cities so that Federal, State and local
first responders can talk to one another during an emergency.
One day in Iraq could purchase 780 fire trucks for
improving local emergency response capabilities.
One day in Iraq could employ 4,919 fire fighters, 4,222
police patrol officers, or 7,052 paramedics and emergency
medical technicians for one year each.
One day in Iraq could double the Federal budget for nuclear
reactor safety and security inspections to ensure that these
potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.
One day in Iraq could pay for 1,101 additional border
patrol agents to better guard our borders against potential
terrorists.
One day in Iraq could provide 9,750 port container
inspection units to detect hazardous materials being
trafficked into the country.
One day in Iraq could provide 1,332 explosive trace
detection portals for airport screening of passengers, as
recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
One day in Iraq could provide 6,290 local law enforcement
agencies with a bomb-detecting robot.
One day in Iraq could provide 4,875 narcotics vapor and
particle detectors.

education

One day in Iraq could cover the full cost of attendance for
one year at a public college for more than 17,100 students.
One day in Iraq could provide more than 79,000 needy
college students with a Pell grant.
One day in Iraq could enroll 27,000 more children in Head
Start.
One day in Iraq could employ 4,269 elementary school
teachers or 4,027 secondary school teachers for one year.

HEALTH CARE

One day in Iraq could provide health insurance coverage to
344,500 working Americans to give them a break from the
rising cost of coverage.
One day in Iraq could provide health insurance coverage for
one year to 380,900 uninsured children in America.
One day in Iraq could employ 3,597 additional registered
nurses for one year.
One day in Iraq could immunize every person over 65 in the
U.S. against influenza 4.6 times over.
One day in Iraq could immunize every baby born in the U.S.
last year against measles, mumps, and rubella 14.2 times.

LABOR

One day in Iraq could provide unemployment benefits for
almost 722,000 unemployed Americans for one week.
One day in Iraq could fund Social Security retirement
benefits for one day for over 6.75 million Americans.
One day in Iraq could provide comprehensive safety and
health training to 121,875 workers.
One day in Iraq could pay for an increase of $3.34 per hour
in the wages of every minimum wage worker in the country.
One day in Iraq could provide paid sick leave to half a
million workers for an entire year.

BASIC NEEDS

One day in Iraq could buy 71.55 million gallons of unleaded
regular gasoline.
One day in Iraq could pay for one year's gasoline
consumption for 97,500 Americans, even at today's elevated
prices.
One day in Iraq could buy 63.1 million gallons of fortified
whole milk.
One day in Iraq could buy 166.6 million cartons of large
Grade A Eggs sold by the dozen.

INTERNATIONAL

One day in Iraq is equivalent to half of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of the country of East Timor.
One day in Iraq could feed all of the starving children in
the world today almost four and a half times over.
One day in Iraq could vaccinate three-quarters of the
children in Africa for measles and give millions a lifetime
protection from the disease.
One day in Iraq could build 5,571 AIDS clinics in Africa.
One day in Iraq could provide 650,000 women in Africa
living with HIV/AIDS antiretroviral treatment for one year to
extend their lives and improve the lives of their children.
One day in Iraq could provide one third of the aid needed
for earthquake relief for the four million people affected in
South Asia.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today is a very somber day. The U.S.
military death toll reached 2,000 in Iraq, a figure that I--and every
American--hoped we would never reach. Our hearts go out to the families
and friends of those who have lost loved ones.
I pray for these young Americans, may they rest in peace; and I pray
for their families, may they heal.
Let us honor their lives and their memory.
And let us honor the lives of those who continue to serve by
developing a credible plan for Iraq. It is time for this administration
to level with the American people and provide a strategy for success.
As the current investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame
reminds us, this administration took us to war on false intelligence,
misstatements, and exaggerations.
This administration told the American people that we had no other
option but to go to war because the regime of Saddam Hussein posed a
threat to the security of the United States. However, no weapons of
mass destruction have been found, and there was no serious link between
Iraq and al-Qaida.
The administration also provided rosy scenarios and false
expectations about how the United States would be greeted as liberators
in Iraq and how the war would be brief. In fact, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld actually said in February 2003 that the war ``could
last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.''
Yet here we are, 2\1/2\ years later, lamenting the death of the
2,000th soldier in Iraq. Of those 2,000 soldiers, 464 of these soldiers
were either from California or based in California.
Even as attacks on American soldiers continue, the administration
refuses to level with the American people. In May 2005, Vice President
Cheney proclaimed that: ``I think the level of activity that we see
today in Iraq from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline.
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.''
Since that day--since Vice President Cheney told us that violence was
coming to an end in Iraq--more than 300 Americans have lost their
lives. And the violence continues to escalate.
Today we do not just lament the strategic disaster in Iraq, the loss
of U.S. credibility around the world, and the overwhelming costs to the
American taxpayer. Above all, we mourn the tragic deaths of 2,000 young
Americans.
These men and women voluntarily put their lives on the line to defend
us when they put on the uniform of the United States Armed Forces. They
put their trust in the Government that we would only send them to war
if there was no other recourse.
In rushing to war, in twisting and revising the case for war, and in
failing to plan for the aftermath of the war, this administration broke
the trust with these young men and women at a catastrophic cost.
These 2,000 young men and women have sons and daughters, husbands and
wives, mothers and fathers, friends and extended family, all of whose
lives have been forever changed by the consequences of this reckless
war.
Today, let us remember these 2,000 brave Americans. Let us honor
their lives and their memory by bringing this war to an end.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have reached a milestone in Iraq. Two
thousand U.S. servicemembers have been killed, including 42
Marylanders. We must not talk about this in terms of just numbers and
statistics. Each individual has left behind a legacy, a unique life
story.
Today, I want to pause to remember five young men from Maryland who

[[Page S11802]]

died in Iraq in the last 10 days: Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC
Samuel M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W.
Anderson, III, and Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick. Our condolences go
out to their families, as well as our gratitude and our appreciation
for these brave young men. To honor those who have died, we must
remember the way they lived. Let me tell you about them:
SGT Brian R. Conner of Gwynn Oak, MD was just 36 years old. He was a
member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company, in
Baltimore. Sergeant Conner was one of three Army National Guardsmen
killed October 14 in an accident northwest of Baghdad. A tractor
trailer struck their humvee, setting it on fire and detonating
ammunition aboard. Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in Baltimore Fire
Department, having joined in 1993. He had served in the Maryland
National Guard since June 1989. Sergeant Conner leaves behind three
daughters, ages 10, 15, and 21, and his beloved 3-year-old grandson. He
is survived by his mother Hortense Connor, his brother Paul Edwards,
and sister Cherice Conner Davis. He is also mourned by his brothers and
sisters in the Baltimore Fire Department. One family friend said of
Sergeant Conner: ``Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many
of his dreams--he was someone loved and cared for. His values will live
on.'' May God bless Brian Conner.
SPC Samuel M. Boswell of Elkridge, MD, was 20 years old. He was also
in the Army National Guard, killed in the same accident that took
Sergeant Conner's life. Specialist Boswell joined the National Guard in
June 2003, right after graduating from the technology magnet program at
River Hill High School in Clarksville. He is mourned by his father,
Anthony L. Boswell, and by his seven brothers and sisters. Describing
his youngest brother, Michael Boswell said, ``Sam was probably the
happiest person you'll ever meet. He was always walking around with a
smile on his face. . . . He always wanted to do things that would help
other people whether he knew them or not.'' May God bless Sam Boswell.
SPC Bernard L. Ceo of Baltimore was 23 years old. He was the third
member of Maryland's Army National Guard killed on October 14.
Specialist Ceo enlisted in the Army in December 2001, joining the
military to help pay for college. He dreamed of being a teacher, and
when he wasn't serving with the Guard, he worked with students with
special needs at Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology
Center. Specialist Ceo was carrying on a proud family tradition of
military service: his father and several uncles served in Vietnam. He
leaves behind his parents Rosemarie and Fred Ceo, fiancee Dajae
Overton, and her two young children, whom he was raising as his own.
Specialist Ceo's coworker said, ``He was a thoughtful, introspective
young guy. He would have been an excellent teacher.'' May God bless
Bernie Ceo.
Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, from Parkton, MD, was 21 years
old. He served with the U.S. Marines' 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine
Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, based at Camp Lejeune, NC. Lance
Corporal Anderson was killed by a suicide car bomb on October 19 in
Karabilah, near the Syrian border. He was a 2002 graduate of Hereford
High School, where he was a running back on the football team. He
joined the Marines in December 2003, and had already served one tour in
Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife Victoria Anderson, his parents,
Robyn and Norman, and his sister Brooke. The last time he was home he
told his mother that, if he was killed in Iraq, she should know that he
died doing what he wanted to do. May God bless Norman Anderson.
Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick, from Randallstown, MD, was 21 years
old. He was an Army reservist, assigned to 983rd Engineer Battalion, in
Monclova, OH, where he served as a mechanic who worked on power
generators. Specialist Frederick was killed outside Tikrit when a
roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was driving. He was a 2004
graduate of Randallstown High School. Specialist Frederick leaves
behind his parents, Michelle Murphy and Peter Ramsahai, his stepfather
Kenmore Murphy, and two sisters and one brother. May God bless our
Kendell.
Mr. President, similar stories are being told in every community,
across the Nation. Stories about volunteers who left behind friends and
family--in the case of guardsmen and reservists, they also left behind
jobs--to protect our country and help bring freedom to people of Iraq.
We honor their service and sacrifice, not just with words, but with
deeds.
First, we must support our troops, by ensuring they have the
equipment they need to stay safe and accomplish their mission. Second,
we need a workable plan to drawdown our troops. Today, there are
159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of
sacrifices they have made. We need to involve the international
community more, getting help to seal Iraq's borders and keep out
foreign fighters and terrorists. We used to be at war with Iraq, now we
are at war in Iraq with insurgents.
We must also continue to support Iraqi political process. The
constitution has been approved by more than 78 percent in an election
that included 63 percent of Iraq's registered voters. Iraq can now move
forward with parliamentary elections. We should continue to support
their progress toward democracy. We need better progress rebuilding
Iraq's military. Iraqis need to fight for Iraq. Our training program
has been slow to start. We seem to be making progress, but not fast
enough. We should let our allies help us in this effort. Finally, let's
get that Iraqi oil going, so they can start to pay their own bills.
We need to see faster progress on all these things. When these things
happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops in stages and bring them
home. Our military men and women have sacrificed in Iraq. They honored
our country by volunteering to serve. We must honor them with an
effective plan to finish their work, and bring our troops home.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Mikulski of Maryland be recognized for 10 minutes to speak and that I
be allowed to follow her to speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today we reach a milestone in Iraq.
Two thousand U.S. service members were killed, including four
Marylanders.
A few weeks from now we will be celebrating Thanksgiving. For 2,000
families, there will be forever and a day an empty chair.
The 2,000 members of our armed services who died, we cannot think
about them in numbers and statistics. We in Maryland have lost 42
soldiers, and most recently we have lost 5 in just this last week
alone. Each individual left behind a legacy, a unique story.
Today, as I come to the Senate floor, I wanted to remember the five
young men who died in the last 10 days, tell you their names, and tell
you a little bit about them. Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC Samuel
M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson,
III, Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick.
Our condolences go out to their families, as well as our gratitude
and our appreciation for those who have died. To honor those who have
died, we must remember the way they lived.
Let me just tell you about them. SGT Brian Connor was only 36, a
member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company. He was
one of three Army National Guardsmen killed on October 14 northwest of
Baghdad. Their humvee carrying munitions was set on fire and detonated.
The ammunition exploded and all three died. Sergeant Conner, Specialist
Boswell, and Specialist Ceo.
Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in the Baltimore Fire Department. He
joined in 1993. But he was a real star. He rose quickly through the
ranks to become a lieutenant. The firehouse put his hat and his coat
aside as a perpetual remembrance. He leaves behind three daughters, one
10, one 15, the other 21, and a grandson he loved so much.
A family friend said about Sergeant Conner:

Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many of the
dreams, he was someone who loved and cared for people. His
values will live on.

[[Page S11803]]

God bless Brian Conner.
Then there is SPC Samuel Boswell from Elkridge, MD, another guy from
the Army National Guard, killed in that same accident. He joined the
Guard in 2003. He had just gotten out one of our technology magnet
schools called River Hill High School in Clarksville. He was one of
eight brothers and sisters. He joined the military because he wanted to
have a future. He wanted a long career, and he wanted to follow the
American dream while protecting the American homeland. Here is what
Michael Boswell said about his brother:

Sam was probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. He
was always walking around with a smile on his face. He always
wanted to do things that would help other people whether he
knew them or not.

God bless you, Samuel Boswell.
Then there was Specialist Bernard L. Ceo, from Baltimore. He was just
23. He enlisted in the Army in December 2001 to help earn money for
college. Specialist Ceo dreamed of being a teacher, and when he wasn't
on duty as Guardsman, he worked with students with special needs at the
Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology Center. He was
carrying on a proud family tradition of military service--his father
and several uncles had served in Vietnam. Specialist Ceo leaves behind
his parents, Rosemarie and Fred, his fiancee Dajae Overton, and her two
children, whom he was raising as his own. God bless you, Bernie Ceo.
Then there was Norman Anderson, III from Parkton, MD. He was a marine
based in Camp Lejeune. He was killed on October 19. A suicide bomber
killed him. He had just graduated in 2002 from Hereford High School,
where he was a running back on the football team. Under the Friday
Night Lights this week, they took his helmet and his sweatshirt and put
them aside. The team gave him a salute. They really knew that Norman
Anderson gave one for the Gipper and one for the United States of
America. He joined the Marines in December 2003. He already served one
tour in Afghanistan. He came back home and was recently married to a
wonderful woman named Victoria. But he went back into the field one
more time because he felt it was his duty. The last time he was home,
he told his mother if he died she should know that he died doing what
he wanted to do.
God bless Norman Anderson, III.
Then we come to Kendell K. Frederick, U.S. Army, only 21 years old,
from Randallstown, MD. He was in an engineering battalion. He was a
mechanic who worked with power generators. He wanted to do something
for his country as wells as for himself. He graduated from one of our
community high schools called Randallstown High School. He was killed
outside Tikrit. A roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was
driving. He leaves behind his parents, a stepfather, and other family
members. He had two sisters and one brother. But he was willing to go
into the military in order to be able to earn what he needed to earn to
be able to go on to college.
All of Randallstown mourns our Kendell. We want to say to Kendell
Frederick, God bless you.
Senators of the U.S. Senate, and to all who are watching, those are
five Marylanders. Knowing they will never be back, we can never forget
them. The best way for a grateful nation to honor them is to stand up
for our troops. We need to make sure they have the right pay, that they
have the right benefits, that they have the right equipment to protect
themselves. We also need to have a workable plan to draw down our
troops. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of the sacrifices our
troops have made. The U.N. needs to get more involved in international
burden sharing--in securing Iraq's borders. We need to continue
supporting the Iraqi political process, and work with our allies to
boost training for the Iraqi military. Iraqis want to fight for Iraq,
and they should. Finally, let's get that Iraqi oil going, so they can
pay their own bills. We need to see faster progress on all these
things. When these things happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops
and bring them home with the honor they have earned.
God bless our men and women in the U.S. military and all those who
passed on. And wherever there is an empty chair, we should always fill
it with our hearts and our remembrance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Frist and
Senator Reid for this extraordinary occasion, for this bipartisan
moment of silence.
Today, we learned that our Nation had crossed a tragic threshold:
2,000 American service men and women have now been killed in Iraq, and
more than 15,000 of our sons and daughters have been injured and have
suffered painful and permanent injuries.
All are equal in their tragedy. The 2,000th death is no more
heartbreaking than the first or the 50th. But the enormity of this
lost--of 2,000 of our best and bravest--breaks America's heart.
We have seen their pictures. When you look at the faces of the
fallen, you are struck by several things.
First, you are overwhelmed by how young they are. Three hundred and
fifty-seven of these men and women never saw their 21st birthday.
As a father, I cannot imagine a greater grief than losing a child so
young.
When you see the photos of our fallen heroes, you are struck by the
resolve in their faces. They were young but they had courage, a sense
of duty and purpose to volunteer and defend America.
In a few cases, you are also struck by some of the faces that are
quite old. The oldest American killed in Iraq was 60 years old. The
faces look like America because they are America. Most were born here.
Some were Americans and soldiers by choice.
These 2,000 of our best and bravest came from every State of the
Union and from the Territories. Seventy-nine were from my home State of
Illinois. Almost half of those killed were soldiers in the Army, but
members of this saddest of all rollcalls came from every branch of the
service.
About one in four of those killed were members of the National Guard
and Reserve, one more measure of the enormous sacrifice that these
branches of our service are making.
All of these fine men and women volunteered to serve their country.
All 2,000 gave their lives in that service.
The great World War II correspondent, Ernie Pyle, wrote a book
entitled ``Brave Men.'' It is a collection of some of his best writing
in the European theater. This is what he wrote in the dedication:

In solemn salute to those thousands of our comrades--great,
brave men that they were--for whom there will be no
homecoming, ever.

It is right that we honor the sacrifices of the great, brave men and
women we have lost in Iraq and the sacrifices of their families and
loved ones.
But words alone are not enough. We owe our fallen soldiers and their
families answers. We owe them accountability. We owe them leadership as
brave as their service. America cannot allow our Nation to drift into a
war without end in Iraq.
GEN John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, said
recently that the key to military success in Iraq ``is whether we can
learn from our mistakes.''
We owe it to those who have fallen, to their loved ones, and to those
who are still in harm's way, to change course when needed.
Our troops adapt to changing tactical situations on the ground--and
so, frankly, do our enemies. Political leaders in Washington must do no
less.
Earlier this month, the people of Iraq voted on a constitution. In
December they are scheduled to hold parliamentary elections, and then,
we hope, a new government will take over that can lead Iraq forward.
These are important milestones. They should be milestones not only
for the Iraqis but for our troops as well. Each step the Iraqis take
toward the successful establishment of self-governance should bring our
troops a step closer to home.
Today is not a day to cast blame or question past decisions. Today is
a day to mourn our dead, to honor their service and to extend our most
heartfelt thoughts and prayers to their families. But we cannot put off
a debate over the best course for the future. Two thousand brave
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have given their lives for
America. More than 15,000 have suffered devastating, life-changing
wounds. Over 150,000 still stand in harm's way.
The choice we face in Iraq is not a choice between resolve or
retreat. The

[[Page S11804]]

men and women in our military and their loved ones deserve a clear path
to stability in Iraq so they can come home as soon as humanly possible.
We do not honor our fallen soldiers simply by adding to their numbers.
At some moment today or very soon we will cross that sad threshold and
begin the count toward another thousand lives.
The American people and every elected leader of both political
parties owe it to our soldiers and their families to never allow this
war in Iraq to drift and stall as lives are lost and bodies are broken.
One more soldier's life lost in Iraq is one too many. The 2,000
funerals, 2,000 flag-draped coffins, 2,000 grieving families--America
mourns the loss of these brave soldiers. America's leaders must
redouble their efforts 2,000 times over to bring this war to an end.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the majority leader to understand how
much I appreciate his breaking up his schedule to come here to offer
this unanimous consent request. I appreciate it very much.
As I indicated a short time ago, the solemnity of this occasion is
significant. I want the record to reflect that we have reached, as has
been said here several times today, regrettably, a milestone in Iraq;
that is these 2,000 killed. Frankly, Mr. President, it is no longer
2,000. It is now 2,002.
There has been--and will continue to be--heated debate about our
involvement in Iraq, about the flawed pre-war intelligence that some
say existed, and it appears pretty certain at this time, the selling of
the war by administration officials, the poor planning, and the
ideologically driven attempt by the President and others to reshape the
Middle East through the force of arms.
These debates will go on, and they should. That is what our country
is all about. But today--right now this minute--I think it is
appropriate to set the debate aside and reflect on this solemn mark
that we have reached so that we can pay tribute to the heroic services
and the sacrifice that each of these brave Americans made to our
Nation.
A few months ago, I was able to travel along with a number of my
colleagues to the Middle East where I spent time with scores of
Nevadans serving in Iraq. Any one of us who traveled to the region
meets with U.S. troops and comes back so impressed and so proud of the
men and women who serve our country. Many are young, as Senator Durbin
has so graphically described, just out of high school, and this is
their first time out of the country. Others are more senior, having
served in the first Gulf war or in Afghanistan. Most were given short
notice, year-long deployment, and were serving away from family,
children, spouses, parents and friends.
The Nevada Guard unit that I spent time with was tasked with
transporting critical supplies from Kuwait through Iraq and into
Baghdad to support combat forces. These were dangerous missions,
carried out with the real possibility of an attack by Iraqi insurgents.
I also met with some young Marines from Nevada who were assigned to
protect U.S. facilities in the fortified Green Zone. Eager,
enthusiastic, and with a great sense of spirit, these young men took
pride in their duties, and we took great pride in them.
But there can be no question that the effort in Iraq has taken a huge
toll on Americans, and on Nevadans.
So far, 13 Nevadans have died in this conflict. But the number 13
does not tell the whole story.
Let me take just a minute. I will be brief. But I would like to, as
my dear friend, the junior Senator from Maryland, outlined, tell you
just a little bit about these 13 Nevadans.
Marine LCpl Donald Cline, Jr., of Sparks as the first Nevada soldier
to die in Iraq. During the initial invasion of Southern Iraq, LCpl
Cline was killed in combat while assisting injured soldiers on March
23, 2003. He left behind a wife and two sons, Dakota and Dylan.
Marine 1LT Frederick Pokorney of Nye was killed in action on March
23, 2003. He left behind a wife and a 3-year old daughter. Lieutenant
Pokorney was the first Marine from Operation Iraqi Freedom to be buried
in Arlington National Cemetery.
Sgt Eric Morris of Sparks was only six weeks into his tour of duty
when he was killed by a homemade bomb on April 28, 2005. He was awarded
the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his bravery.
Marine Cpl William I. Salazar of Las Vegas was killed on October 15,
2004, in a suicide bomb attack. Corporal Salazar was the first Marine
combat photographer to be killed in action in more than 35 years. He
died on his father's birthday.
Marine PFC John Lukac of Las Vegas was killed on October 30, 2004,
when his convoy was attacked. The son of immigrants who escaped
Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, Private Lukac had been interested in
joining the Marines since the age of 12.
LCpl Nicholas Anderson of Las Vegas died on November 12, 2004, when
his Humvee crashed. It had only been one year since he graduated from
Bonanza High School.
Army PFC Daniel Guastaferro of Las Vegas was determined to join the
Army, despite suffering a snowboarding injury that left him with a
steel plate in his arm. Private Guastaferro died on January 7, 2005,
when his vehicle ran off the road. He was 27 years old.
Marine LCpl Richard A. Perez, Jr. of Las Vegas died in a truck
accident on February 10, 2005. LCpl Perez enlisted in the Marines
shortly after his graduation from Coronado High School and volunteered
to go to Iraq. He died only 10 days before he was supposed to return
home.
Cpl Stanley Lapinski died on June 11, 2005 from injuries sustained in
a roadside explosion. After college, he worked at several jobs, finally
winding up at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. September 11 prompted
him to join the Army. The 37-year old was known in his unit as
``Pops.''
Marine Cpl Jesse Jaime of Henderson was killed on June 15, 2005 when
the vehicle he was riding in hit an explosive device. The 22-year-old
had followed his twin brother's footsteps by enlisting in the Marines.
Spc Anthony S. Cometa of Las Vegas was killed on June 16, 2005 when
his Humvee flipped over. He was a member of the 1864th Transportation
Company, which I met with when I visited Kuwait and Iraq. Specialist
Cometa was the first Nevada Army National Guard soldier to die in Iraq.
He died just one day after his 21st birthday.
2LT James J. Cathey of Reno was killed by a roadside bomb on August
21, 2005. After graduating from the University of Colorado in 2004, he
headed to Quantico, VA, for officer training. Known as ``Cat,'' Cathey
and his wife had just found out they were going to have their first
child before he left for Iraq.
Spc Joseph Martinez of Las Vegas was killed on August 27, 2005. He
was killed in combat while serving his second tour of duty in Iraq. His
mother said he always wanted to be a soldier.
To all of these Nevada families--and to the families of all 2,000
U.S. troops who have fallen in Iraq--our Nation will forever be in debt
to you. Your sons and daughters are heroes, and their sacrifice will
never be forgotten.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2226

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2226, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an
amendment numbered 2226.

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that certain local educational agencies shall be
eligible to receive a fiscal year 2005 payment under section 8002 or
8003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:

SEC. ___. APPLICATIONS FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT.

Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 8005(d)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7705(d)(2) and (3)), the Secretary of Education shall
treat as timely filed, and shall process for payment, an
application under section

[[Page S11805]]

8002 or section 8003 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702, 7703) for
fiscal year 2005 from a local educational agency--
(1) that, for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004,
submitted an application by the date specified by the
Secretary of Education under section 8005(c) of such Act for
the fiscal year;
(2) for which a reduction of more than $1,000,000 was made
under section 8005(d)(2) of such Act by the Secretary of
Education as a result of the agency's failure to file a
timely application under section 8002 or 8003 of such Act for
fiscal year 2005; and
(3) that submits an application for fiscal year 2005 during
the period beginning on February 2, 2004, and ending on the
date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, Senate amendment No. 2226 will provide
Impact Aid to the children of the service personnel in Fort Carson, CO.
It will restore $1.2 million in needed educational Impact Aid funding
to the El Paso school district. The money for this amendment has
already been appropriated and sits within the Department of Education.
The El Paso school district educates thousands, serving our men and
women at the Fort Carson military base. Many loved ones of the students
and staff of the El Paso school district have been deployed to Iraq as
part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, over 11,000 soldiers from
Fort Carson are currently deployed in Iraq today. That is one-half of
the fort's total force.
Due to a technical error, the Department of Education denied the
school district access to $1.2 million set aside for that school
district's program. The result is the district may have to eliminate as
many as 12 teachers and teachers' aides positions. This amendment
simply corrects a technical error between the district and the
Department of Education and permits the school to access money already
set aside for it.
I note, too, that I have discussed this issue with the HELP
Committee.
Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy have graciously consented to
the inclusion of this amendment on this bill. I have also been in close
contact with Senators from Arizona and New Mexico who face similar
challenges. They support this measure as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set this amendment aside to
call up amendment No. 2224 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would suggest, if I may, that we
conclude action on this amendment, with a brief reply by this side, so
we can move ahead with the amendment, anticipating its adoption. I
think that would be a more orderly process. So technically, I do
object--with that suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I said, I think it is preferable, as a
procedural matter, to take up the amendments one at a time so we can
conclude debate on the amendments.
I believe this amendment is a good amendment. It would permit the
Secretary of Education to treat as timely filed applications from El
Paso, CO, school district and Window Rock, AZ, for impact aid. There is
no cost involved. There is sound explanation as to why they were not
timely filed.
In order for the Secretary of Education to make the payments, there
needs to be legislative action. The Senator from Colorado has provided
the vehicle for doing so. I support the amendment and urge its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I would then ask my friend from
Pennsylvania whether we should move for unanimous consent on the
adoption of the amendment I just proposed.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment on impact aid, I urge its
adoption, or you can articulate it for unanimous consent to be adopted.
One way or another, let's adopt it and move on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2226) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I also thank the
chairman of the committee, my friend from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 2224

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2224 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an
amendment numbered 2224.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a study to
evaluate the effectiveness of violence prevention programs receiving
funding under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act)

At the end of title III (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. The Secretary of Education shall conduct a study
to evaluate the effectiveness of violence prevention programs
receiving funding under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) based on, among
other things, evidence of deterrent effect, strong research
design, sustained effects, and multiple site replication. The
study shall also include information on what regular
assessment mechanisms exist to allow the Department of
Education to evaluate the efficacy of such programs on an
ongoing basis. Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall
submit a report to Congress describing the findings of the
study.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am a proponent of evaluating the
effectiveness of the actions we take and the programs we enact here in
this Capitol. That is because I believe that results do matter. At the
end of the day, we can all say what we tried to do, but Americans will
judge us by the results we achieve. We all have a responsibility to see
that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and well.
Amendment No. 2224 is a ``results matter'' amendment. It will simply
require the Department of Education to conduct an assessment of the
effectiveness of youth violence prevention programs.
These programs are vitally important in my home State of Colorado and
across the Nation. During my time as Colorado's attorney general, I
spent much of my time working on the investigation of the horrific
murders involving many young people at Columbine High School, which
remains today the bloodiest school shooting in American history.
As we worked to learn the lessons from that terrible tragedy in
Colorado, we also attempted to implement programs in our schools to
create safer schools and safer school communities. As I went through
the process of assembling information about how we create the safest
school environments possible, it became obvious to me that though we
spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars on programs intended to
deal with the issue of youth violence prevention, we do not know
whether many of those programs work. Indeed, when we look at the facts
and we look at what the science tells us, many of those programs
actually harm our children more than they actually help our children.
So it is important we measure the effectiveness of these programs.
This amendment will ask the Department of Education to do exactly that.
I believe our violence prevention programs should actually work and
that we should be able to measure them with the results we intend them
to have. We owe it to the next generation to ensure that these programs
are as effective as possible in preventing youth violence. This
amendment will do this by providing an assessment of the programs.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment No. 2224.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment calls for the Secretary of
Education to undertake a study to evaluate the effectiveness of
violence prevention under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. I
think it is a good idea.
So frequently we make appropriations for certain purposes and never
have any concrete idea as to how well the programs are working. One
area analogous to this is the money we spent on literacy training and
job training, so-called rehabilitation in our correctional system. It
is not enough we spend the funding, never having an idea as to really
what works and what

[[Page S11806]]

does not work in terms of stopping recidivism.
I believe the Senator from Colorado has struck a good idea. I support
the amendment and join with the Senator from Colorado in urging its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2224) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Amendment No. 2225

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2225 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an
amendment numbered 2225.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a study of national service programs in the
rural United States)

On page 196, strike line 14 and insert the following:
tional poverty level: Provided further, That the Corporation
shall use a portion of the funds made available under this
heading to conduct an evaluation, after consultation with
experts on national service programs and rural community
leaders, of programs carried out under the national service
laws (consisting of that Act and the National and Community
Service Act of 1990) in rural areas, to determine utilization
of the programs and to develop new and innovative strategies
that would prioritize geographic diversity of the programs
carried out under the national service laws to increase the
presence of the programs in rural areas.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, amendment No. 2225 also makes sure that
our national service programs effectively serve all of our citizens.
This amendment calls on the Corporation for National and Community
Service to report on efforts to bring its programs to rural
communities.
These programs include, first, the AmeriCorps program, which has done
wonders, which was created in 1994 and provides opportunities for more
than 70,000 Americans to work in 3,000 public agencies, faith-based and
other community organizations. Through the various AmeriCorps programs,
volunteers tutor and mentor youth, build affordable housing, teach
computer skills, take care of our environment, and help communities
respond to disasters. In exchange, they are given an opportunity to
build career skills, to invest in a community, and are provided a small
educational stipend.
The programs also include Senior Corps, which recognizes that seniors
are one of America's most vital resources.
The programs also include Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve
America supports schools, higher education institutions, and community-
based organizations that engage students, their teachers, and others in
service-learning. Through Learn and Serve, students get their hands
dirty. Service-learning connects teaching in the classroom with
communities. Nearly 1 million students participated in Learn and Serve
programs last year.
The resources marshaled by these service programs--students, elders,
and energized and committed people--can help unlock the door to rural
development in America. It is my hope that the corporation will come up
with new and innovative strategies for increasing rural participation
in national service programs. This amendment will not cost additional
money and has the potential to benefit rural communities throughout the
Nation. We owe it to our rural communities to make sure our national
programs are serving them. We must not allow rural America to be left
behind by these very important national service programs.
Mr. President, amendment No. 2225 would direct the Corporation of
National and Community Service, CNCS, to conduct an evaluation of the
presence of their programs in rural America. The study would include
programs funded by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 and the
National and Community Service Act of 1990, presence in Rural America.
In addition, CNCS, in consultation with national service experts and
rural community leaders, is directed to develop new and innovative
strategies to prioritize increasing rural communities' participation in
CNCS programs. The amendment does not require additional funding.
As per Jane Oates at 4-8460, Senator Kennedy has no objections to the
amendment.
As per Beth Beuhlmann at 4-6770, Senator Enzi is reviewing the
amendment language, but appears to have no objections since the
amendment is cost neutral.
As per Brandon Avila at 606-6728, Corporation for National and
Community Service, Office of Legislation and Government Affairs, they
are reviewing but are supporting of conducting evaluations that help
increase CNCS programs in rural areas.
In addition, we have touched base with Voices for National Service, a
national service non-profit coalition. They are very supporting of the
amendment's intent.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment No. 2225.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the amendment is adopted, I would
like to have an opportunity to speak on this side of the aisle.
This amendment would use a portion of the funds for the Corporation
for National and Community Service to do a study of national service
programs in rural areas. I think, again, this is a good idea which the
Senator from Colorado is offering. Rural areas are too often
underserved and underfocused. Pennsylvania has more people living in
rural areas than any other State in the Union. It might be surprising,
but we do.
I think it is a good amendment, and I will now defer to the Senator
from Colorado for urging its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2225) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2223

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, finally, I call up amendment No. 2223 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an
amendment numbered 2223.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase funding for the safe and drug-free schools and
communities program)

At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$15,000,000 to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7111 et seq.).

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, amendment No. 2223 addresses a serious
and growing problem that we face in our urban and rural communities. As
attorney general of Colorado, I saw firsthand the growth of
methamphetamine problems in communities throughout my State. Meth usage
has increased in rural towns and communities across our Nation.
Some of the facts are startling.
According to the National Association of Counties, meth use is the
Nation's most serious local drug problem today.
Secondly, 58 out of 500 county law enforcement officials have said
methamphetamine use is, in fact, their largest problem.
Third, 87 percent of county law enforcement officials reported
increases

[[Page S11807]]

in meth arrests in just the last 3 years. In the West, methamphetamine
use is a growing problem. Between 67 and 75 percent of the western
counties rated meth as their No. 1 drug problem.
The labs for meth production are rising in rural areas. Because meth
can be made in the home and has harsh effects on the environment, it is
easier to hide from authorities in rural areas. Three of our most rural
States--Missouri, Iowa, and Tennessee--have the highest number of meth
labs, with over 5,000 meth labs in those three States alone. Meth labs
in Colorado have been on the rise, with over 225 meth labs this last
year in my State.
In a report by Congressional Quarterly, the Drug Enforcement Agency
said that meth use is the No. 1 drug threat in rural America. The
production of meth has spiked, from 327 labs nationwide being busted in
1995 to over 17,000 meth labs busted in 2005; that is, in a period of
10 years, we have gone from busting 327 meth labs to over 17,000 meth
labs.
Our health infrastructure has dealt with the meth use increase as
well, with emergency room visits due to meth use doubling in 7 years.
This amendment I have proposed will restore $15 million in funding to
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools State grant program, which funds
virtually all of the drug prevention programs in our Nation, to ensure
that our schools and communities are as safe and drug-free as we can
make them. We need to help our young people understand the dangers of
drugs, including meth, and this amendment takes an important step
toward making this issue the Federal priority it should be.
Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would add $15 million to a
program. While it is a very good program, regrettably, this would
exceed the allocation which has been given to the subcommittee. I,
therefore, have to oppose it. It is subject to a point of order.
For the record, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment provides
budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b)
allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the
budget and, therefore, is not in order.
As I had discussed with the Senator from Colorado, this will require
60 votes for the Senator from Colorado to prevail. So the choice is his
as to whether we move ahead to vote on it at some point during the
consideration of the bill. I ask how the Senator from Colorado would
like to proceed.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of the act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask that
we dispense with a rollcall vote and that we just do a voice vote on
this amendment at the appropriate time.
Mr. SPECTER. That is acceptable, provided those on the floor can
muster a no which either exceeds the ayes or is so recognized by the
Chair to be the predominant voice vote. I call for the question on a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 2223.
In the opinion of the Chair, the motion has failed and the Senate has
not obtained the three-fifths majority necessary for passage. The point
of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Colorado for coming forward at
this early stage with these four amendments to help move processing of
the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania
for his leadership, not only on this bill but also on so many other
important issues that we are working on in the Senate today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 2194

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Reed-Collins LIHEAP
amendment. I want to speak to all of my colleagues, but mostly I want
to address my comments to my colleagues from the South and the West. I
thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Susan Collins for their
cosponsorship of amendment No. 2194, bringing forward the issue of
LIHEAP funding. We all know that LIHEAP funding has decreased in real
dollars for over a decade now. Senators Reed and Collins have shown
true leadership in offering their amendment. Hopefully, we will vote on
it today. They have shown national leadership with what they are trying
to accomplish.
In the face of rising energy prices, the poorest among us have been
hit the hardest. They are paying about $3 at the pump right now. We
have had a record hot summer in many parts of the country. Their
utility bills have been going up and up. Low-income families need our
help. I believe we can do better. We can think of ways to help our low-
income constituents and low-income Americans. The Reed-Collins
amendment can do that. It adds $3.1 billion to the core LIHEAP program.
This is what Southern and Western Senators need to understand. I don't
want any of my colleagues to be surprised when the amendment comes to
the floor for a vote today. I hope that all their staff who are
listening will please advise their bosses accordingly. This money will
go to LIHEAP's core program.
When I say ``core program,'' that means it will not be designated as
emergency funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. Why
is that significant? It is significant for this basic reason. By giving
the money to the core program instead of HHS, the amendment helps put
low-income heating applicants in Southern and Western States on better
footing.
Let me explain. In the past, Health and Human Services has had
discretion. When we put emergency funding there, they have had
discretion on how they spend it. Their track record has been very
clear. They seem to prioritize areas of the country that are heated
with home heating oil. What we are trying to do is put the money into
the core program, which means it goes into the formula that has been
long established in Federal law, which means in States all across
America--States such as Arkansas in the South and the West--people who
are going to be facing record high prices for natural gas this winter
will receive some relief.
Unfortunately, when we get emergency funding, many of the States are
not helped as much as the formula would help them. I am not disputing
at all that the Northeast and the Midwest face very harsh winters, more
so than the South and some parts of the West. But we have low-income
citizens in our States, too, who need to heat their homes this winter.
I believe it is a more effective and better way to put money into the
core LIHEAP program, sending it through the formula, rather than
leaving it to the discretion of HHS.
I am happy to join Senators Reed and Collins in this effort. It is a
bipartisan effort. I want my colleagues to understand that. In my view,
it is better than past proposals. It is better because it is more
equitable in its distribution. It is bipartisan. Southern and Western
Senators have a chance to help the people in their States with this
vote. It will help people all across America. This amendment also
recognizes the high cost of natural gas this winter. All the experts
who have looked at this say natural gas is going to be at a record high
price for consumers this winter. It acknowledges the high cost of other
forms of energy to heat our homes.
I don't want my colleagues to be surprised when this comes to the
floor for a vote at some point this afternoon or tonight. I would hate
for any Senator to vote against this and then later learn that this is
their best opportunity to help their constituents during this very cold
and expensive winter.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been proceeding reasonably well
on handling amendments. We had a short period between 12 and 12:30
where we did not have amendments pending. I understand we will have an
amendment presented at about 6 o'clock this evening. But that leaves us
with an hour and 22 minutes. The distinguished

[[Page S11808]]

Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 10 or 15 minutes. We can
accommodate his schedule. We have quite a number of amendments which
have been filed and others where there has been an indication that
there will be amendments. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor.
Floor time is hard to find. When this bill moves ahead tomorrow or the
day after or Friday, the bill is going to be finished this week,
however long it takes us. We are anxious to conclude the work of the
Senate. Now is the time.
I yield to my distinguished colleague from Texas 10 to 15 minutes, as
he chooses, and ask unanimous consent for his recognition to speak for
up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas is recognized.

Iraq

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished
manager of the bill, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on
which I am honored to serve, for his accommodation. I certainly do not
want to detract from the efforts to complete this important
appropriations bill. I do thank the Senator for yielding to me so I may
address some of the historic events occurring today in Iraq. This has
been the subject of other speakers. I thought it was important that
while this is on the minds of a lot of people, that we talk about some
of our successes in Iraq and what the facts are with regard to what
reality is like there on the ground.
I am disappointed to hear some Members, primarily on the other side
of the aisle, this morning blaming America for the insurgency and
claiming that our military does not have a plan for victory. That is
not true as a factual matter, and they know it. As recently as a couple
of weeks ago, we had the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq,
General George Casey, and the CENTCOM commander, General John Abizaid
here, along with Secretary Rumsfeld and others, to talk precisely about
what conditions were like on the ground in Iraq, how our plan was
going, and what the future looked like. We do have a plan, and I wanted
to talk about it for a minute.
I want to note my concern that to use Iraq as a convenient political
football only undercuts the brave young men and women who are fighting
there, not only on behalf of the beleaguered Iraqi people but on behalf
of us here. We know that the central front in the war on terror today
is in Iraq. We know that foreign fighters and other jihadists who
adhere to an extremist ideology, who believe that they can use force to
kill innocent Americans because they simply hate who we are and our way
of life, that Iraq is where they are being drawn. If we leave
prematurely, if we fail to finish the job that we have undertaken
there, then it will simply leave a haven available for those who want
to train, recruit, and finance international terrorism and who will
then threaten us on our own shores, as we were hit dramatically on
September 11.
In reality, it is the critics of our military that have no plan. They
simply want to cut and run. They believe in retreat. The most
disturbing of all, their proposals serve merely to divide the American
people.
I am particularly concerned when I hear people make the argument, as
I have heard on the floor of the Senate, that Iraq was not a threat to
the United States and the rest of the world. Perhaps these critics need
to be reminded of the statement of President Clinton in 1998 which
clearly lays out the threat that Iraq posed at that time. President
Clinton said, talking about Saddam:

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take
some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass
destruction . . . He will then conclude he can go right on
and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the
arsenal.

This was on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton.
Then, on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said:

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power,
he threatens the well-being of this people, the peace of the
region, and the security of the world. The best way to end
that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government,
a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a
government that respects the rights of its people.

That was President Clinton on December 16, 1998. I am pleased that
this body passed that same year the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which
stated:

It should be the policy of the United States to support
efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime.

The Congress passed that legislation because, indeed, Saddam Hussein
was a threat in 1998 and remained a threat. Fortunately, today, he is
no longer a threat. But we must stay the course.
Complaints without solutions are simply not productive. What are the
proposals coming from those who criticize our current efforts in Iraq?
Some complain that we don't have enough troops in Iraq to finish the
job, but at the same time all they talk about is creating an arbitrary
timetable for cutting and running and bringing those troops home before
they finish the job, before we finish the job. Then others say our
presence in Iraq actually creates additional terrorism. But what they
don't explain is what we would leave the Iraqis with if we were to
leave prematurely. Again, complaints are not solutions.
GEN George Casey, whom I mentioned a moment ago, who is the leader of
the coalition forces in Iraq, said when he testified before the Senate
Armed Services Committee:

We're in a tough fight but we've been in tough fights
before to advance the cause of democracy and to protect our
way of life. We should not be afraid of this fight. We and
the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of wills if we
don't lose ours.

Again:

We and the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of
wills if we don't lose ours.

Just this morning, we heard that the Independent Electoral Commission
of Iraq has announced an overwhelming majority of Iraqis has approved
the country's constitution; that is, 78 percent of those who voted yes
to approve that constitution which has now been cleared. You know what.
Their voter turnout was 63 percent, better than most elections we hold
here in the United States, given our long tradition of constitutional
democracy.
Soon the Iraqi people will have a chance to elect their elected
representatives in parliamentary elections on December 15 which will
provide the final step in their march to democracy and self-
determination.
Yes, the Nation of Iraq has made remarkable political progress in the
last 2 years, but they still have a way to go to achieve a fully
functioning democracy. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in her
eloquent remarks she clearly outlined the political and military
strategy in Iraq: Clear, hold, build. Clear, hold, build. That is to
clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build
durable national Iraqi institutions.
I could not agree more with Secretary Rice. This is a strategy that
has been articulated for quite some time now by the President of the
United States. This strategy is the only way we will see the blossoming
of a democratic Iraq.
In 2003, not that long ago, the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein was
brought to an end. The Iraqi people were liberated and a provisional
government established. In 2004, a five-step plan was announced to end
occupation in Iraq and to bring our troops home, and in 2005 that
transition is well underway.
Our strategy is working. The Iraqi people will vote in elections in
December and soon will select a government that will serve them for the
next 4 years.
As I mentioned, Iraqi participation in these recent elections was
very strong, including among Sunnis who boycotted the earlier election
last January. These elections were also much more peaceful than the
previous elections. A clear path is being charted to implement the rule
of law and we must continue our support for the Iraqi people to achieve
success.
It is clear that the implementation of the rule of law is the next
step, a necessary next step to achieve stability in Iraq. It is in the
absence of democracy, it is in the vacuum created by the absence of the
rule of law, that there is no forum, no mechanism for justice to

[[Page S11809]]

address grievances in which extremism will rear again its ugly head.
Only 2 short years ago the people of Iraq were oppressed by a brutal
dictator. Those who privately yearned for freedom held their silence
out of fear for their lives. No more. As it has been said before,
freedom is on the march.
Part of implementing law and justice, not to mention providing a
measure of closure for the people of Iraq, is the trial of Saddam
Hussein which began on October 19. Unfortunately, this trial has been
postponed because--and it comes as perhaps no surprise--the defense
lawyers representing him said they needed more time to prepare.
Well, I for one do not begrudge them additional time, but it is not
so much for them, because I doubt any level of preparation, any amount
of investigation will absolve Saddam Hussein of the blood that is on
his hands, but I do believe that perception is important, and it is
important that the public perception, the international perspective be
that this is, indeed, a fair proceeding and that Saddam Hussein, even
the most brutal of tyrants and dictators, is, indeed, entitled to the
protection of the rule of law and entitled to a fair process.
Of course, this trial is one of the first formal acts in the path to
restoring the rule of law, and it is important Iraq demonstrate to the
world that it can conduct this trial in a fair manner, as it is a
foundational and deeply symbolic proceeding.
A series of declassified U.S. intelligence documents and other U.S.
agency reports provides a wealth of evidence substantiating Saddam
Hussein's human rights abuses and more evidence of Saddam's brutality
is provided by the people of Iraq who had suffered under his boot heel
for years. A portion of these documents concerned Saddam's
responsibility, along with other members of his regime, for the
massacre in 1982 of Shiites in a town 35 miles north of Baghdad after
an unsuccessful coup d'etat, including an attempt on the dictator's
life. It is said he may be tried at least a dozen times for crimes he
committed during his regime, to include gassing of Kurds and
suppression of a Shiite uprising in the south. However, the Iraqi
Government is reportedly considering foregoing additional trials if
Saddam is convicted as expected and such conviction results in the
death penalty under the laws of the sovereign nation of Iraq.
In remarks before the United Nations, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
Zebari said that under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was ``a
murderous tyranny that lasted 35 years and today we are unearthing
thousands of victims in horrifying testament.'' In a report entitled
``Mass Graves: Iraq's Legacy of Terror,'' compiled by the United States
Agency for International Development, it is estimated that nearly
400,000 Iraqis lie buried in mass graves--Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis,
Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, all killed because neither Saddam
Hussein nor his regime valued life in the least.

I am confident that some day in the not too distant future an
appropriate measure of justice will be meted out to Saddam Hussein for
the atrocities he committed against his own people, the people of Iraq.
And that is as it should be. I am sure that the symbolism of this first
tribunal being held in Iraq to try their former dictator is not lost on
the people of Iraq. This restoration of the rule of law, this process
which is designed to administer justice, is commensurate with the rule
of law.
We must continue working with the Iraqi people to ensure that
democracy, freedom, progress, free markets, self-governance, and the
rule of law are allowed to flourish. It is the only way to promote
stability in that country and throughout the greater Middle East.
There is no enemy on the face of the Earth that can defeat the people
of the United States of America unless, of course, it is the American
people ourselves, by losing our resolve to stay the course, to finish a
job that was just in its initiation and which is just in its goals. We
must stay the course. We must maintain our resolve. To hear the
comments of those here in this body and elsewhere who would attempt to
hijack this just cause in the interest of political gamesmanship does
nothing but harm our efforts, the resolve of the American people, and
undermine the heroic and noble efforts being carried out on a daily
basis by our young men and women who are fighting in freedom's cause,
not just for us but for the people of Iraq.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the regular order is that we are back on
the bill, is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the bill.

Amendment No. 2194

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, obviously, the amendment that is now
pending of the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine is
an amendment I am sympathetic to. Those of us who come from the
northern States, whether they be in the Midwest or New England,
recognize that winter can be a beautiful time. Snow is wonderful,
lovely, and certainly brings skiers to our region, and we very much
encourage that. But it can also be an extraordinarily difficult time,
difficult for people who are living on a fixed income, a set income,
difficult for folks who have to find ways to heat their home and also
meet the expenses of everyday life. Certainly keeping home heating is
about as important an expense as you can have in everyday life. It is
especially hard on senior citizens, seniors who have obviously fixed
incomes in most instances. When the price of their fuel oil jumps
significantly, they do not have a whole lot of opportunity to adjust
their income because they are no longer earning a salary, usually, in
most instances in order to meet that increase in cost. We have
obviously seen a dramatic rise in the cost of energy prices, especially
home heating oil and in the gas area for homes. So the issue becomes
how do we help these people who, through no action of their own, find
themselves in a dire financial situation and facing a very stark
situation this winter, should they not have the dollars necessary to
pay for their home heating oil.
We are talking about people of very low incomes, people who are on
fixed incomes, in most instances people who are senior citizens, and
the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program which has been in place for a
number of years has been a way of helping these people bridge this
period, and it has always been focused on the neediest of the needy. It
has been a well-administered program, at least in the State of New
Hampshire where people who were clearly in distress, who have
situations where they simply are unable to afford the cost of keeping
their home heated in the middle of an extremely cold winter, had a
place to go to get some assistance.
It is a good program for that reason. It has been strongly supported
over the years in a bipartisan way. The administration has consistently
funded this program and has, to its credit, always released money early
when it was necessary due to cold weather hitting us sooner than might
have been originally anticipated under the traditional weather
patterns, which is what happened last year. But this year we do face
the unique situation of these huge runups in the cost of home heating
oil in New England specifically and, of course, the gas across the
Midwest and into parts of New England, and this runup is a function of
a lot of different events. The Katrina situation is a big part of it.
It has disrupted the refining capacity of our Nation rather
significantly. Obviously, the instability of the Middle East is another
part of it. The demand which is now being created in parts of Asia,
especially China and India, as those economies expand, is part of it.
But whatever the reason, we are seeing a dramatic jump in the cost of
home heating oil specifically and therefore we know a lot of people, as
we head into winter--and believe me, it is getting cold in New
Hampshire. In fact, today there was a fair amount of snow in many parts
of our State--we know these people are going to need some help, people
of very low income, people who are living on very fixed and tight
budgets.
So it is appropriate that we expand the LIHEAP program to meet this
unanticipated cost which is no fault of anybody's, certainly not those
who are receiving the benefit of this program.
The question is how do we expand this program? Over the last few
weeks, we have had a number of attempts to expand this program. It
really was not

[[Page S11810]]

in a manner we call fiscally prudent or responsible, and we simply said
we are going to put a lot of money in this program, money not budgeted,
money outside the budget, and do it in a manner which would have
violated the budget. So points of order were made against those
proposals, and those points of order have all been sustained, and
appropriately so.
We do have a budget under which we must live. The issue is how do we
set priorities within that budget. Right now I believe one of our
actions should be to set a priority to put more money into the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We should absolutely do that,
but we should do it in a way that is responsible so we do not end up
passing the bills for today's energy costs on to our children by
creating more debt.
I don't think senior citizens who benefit from the low-income energy
program want us to go into debt to pay for their energy costs and end
up with our children paying the cost of their energy today, when their
children might need the same type of support and would be less able to
get it if they had to pay for not only their energy costs but also pay
for the low-income energy costs of the last generation, the generation
of today.
The proper way to do this is to increase the LIHEAP program in a way
that is fiscally responsible. The best way to do that is to look at
what the need is, to begin with. The program costs or additional costs
of the program, which we know will probably be generated as they can
best be projected, on top of the money already being spent on the
program, which is about $2.4 billion, is about $1.276 billion.
This number of the additional cost increase, which is a fairly
significant number--it is a lot of money--that was essentially reached
by calculating the increase in energy cost as a result of a runup in
energy prices and finding out how much oil and gas was used last year
by this program and then basically converting that to the increase in
the cost of the program.
So the number that has been generally agreed to around here as being
the correct number and the reasonable number and the number that would
be consistent with the historic needs of the program is $1.276 billion.
It is not me saying this, by the way. I didn't come to that number.
Actually, 41 Members of the Senate signed a letter saying that. They
wrote the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee on September 20--not that long ago--and asked for an increase
in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $1.27 billion.
Signing that letter were Senator Collins and Senator Reed, who are the
authors of the pending amendment, along with, as I mentioned, 41 other
Members, which is a fairly large number of the membership of the
Senate, many of whom are from the Northeast. They reached that number
through the calculations I just said. So that number is a reasonable
number.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter, signed by 41 Senators, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2005.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd: Hurricane
Katrina upset the lives of millions, displacing families from
their homes and inflicting severe economic damage. Without
question, the people of the Gulf region deserve our support,
and we stand ready to help. As the Appropriations Committee
considers an urgently needed comprehensive supplemental
appropriations bill to address Hurricane Katrina's
devastation as well as its economic and energy impacts on the
nation, we urge you to include $1.276 billion in emergency
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds.
With this additional funding, the LIHEAP program will be able
to provide the same level of purchasing power as last year.
This funding is critical to avoid a looming, but preventable,
crisis for millions of additional Americans caused by the
soaring cost and diminishing affordability of home heating
fuel as winter approaches.
The effects of Hurricane Katrina are being felt by
Americans outside of the Gulf Region as gasoline, heating
oil, and natural gas prices rise in the wake of this
disaster. Indeed, there is an imminent emergency confronting
millions of low-income Americans unable to afford the cost of
rising energy prices. The current skyrocketing in energy
prices coupled with energy debt remaining from last winter
and this summer are leading to increased disconnections and
arrears among consumers as the winter heating season begins--
threatening the well-being of low-income families and
seniors. This situation warrants the provision of emergency
LIHEAP funding in the comprehensive supplemental request.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation in the Gulf
region, Americans were facing record prices for oil, natural
gas, and propane. Hurricane Katrina damaged platforms and
ports and curtailed production at refineries in the Gulf of
Mexico, the source of almost a third of U.S. oil output.
Crude oil for October delivery stands at over $66 a barrel on
the New York Mercantile Exchange. Heating oil prices
increased dramatically after Hurricane Katrina. Prices
averaged $1.70 per gallon in July, but now stand over $2 per
gallon. Before Hurricane Katrina struck, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) predicted a 16 percent
increase in heating oil costs. This increase comes on top of
the 34 percent increase during the 2003-2004 winter. Natural
gas prices also rose dramatically after Hurricane Katrina,
and now stand over $12, more than 140 percent increase
compared to last year at this time. EIA's Short-term Energy
Outlook reports, ``The ranges for expected heating fuel
expenditure increases this winter are 69 percent to 77
percent for natural gas in the Midwest; 17 percent to 18
percent for electricity in the South; 29 percent to 33
percent for heating oil in the Northeast; and 39 percent to
43 percent for propane in the Midwest.'' Heating costs for
the average family using heating oil are projected to hit
$1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an
increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the
winter heating season of 2003-04. For families using natural
gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an
increase of $611 over last year's prices and $643 over 2003-
04. States need additional funding immediately to help
low-income families and seniors to ensure they can afford
to heat their homes. States are bracing for potentially
crisis conditions caused by the lack of affordable heating
sources, particularly for seniors and the disabled.
Almost daily, newspapers are reporting on the impacts of
higher energy costs for consumers. Hurricane Katrina's impact
on energy markets comes on top of soaring energy prices over
the past several years. Utilities from New England to Florida
to Oregon are seeking rate increases. In addition to rising
energy prices, the economic devastation in the Gulf region is
likely to impact the national economy. Many more Americans
will need LIHEAP assistance than the 5 million households
that received aid during FY 2005. State LIHEAP programs are
expecting a major increase in applications due to the rapid
increase in home energy prices and this additional funding
will allow them to address the need for assistance.
Residents and business affected by Hurricane Katrina
deserve the nation's full support and financial assistance,
and we stand ready and willing to do everything we can to
help. We recognize that the Committee is still working to
assess the needs wrought by Hurricane Katrina and will face
difficult priorities in determining emergency funding. We
feel that preventing hardship for millions of Americans by
acting to provide LIHEAP emergency funds before we have
another crisis on our hands is an important priority. Thank
you for your serious consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins, Jeff Bingaman, Olympia Snowe, Jack
Reed, Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Debbie Stabenow, Carl Levin, Dick Lugar,
Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh, Patrick Leahy, Mike DeWine, Mark
Dayton, Jay Rockefeller, Barack Obama, Edward M.
Kennedy, Jon S. Corzine, Max Baucus, Ken Salazar, Joe
Lieberman, Barbara A. Mikulski, Paul S. Sarbanes, Jim
Jeffords, Herb Kohl, Maria Cantwell, Kent Conrad, Lisa
Murkowski, Byron L. Dorgan, Russell D. Feingold,
Charles Schumer, Lincoln Chafee, John F. Kerry, Mark
Pryor, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Dick
Durbin, Gordon H. Smith, Conrad Burns, Tom Carper, Pete
V. Domenici, Tim Johnson, Ron Wyden, Norm Coleman, Jim
Talent.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that establishes pretty
definitively what the number is. In fact, I drafted an amendment, which
I intend to offer at this time, which would increase the funding for
low-income energy assistance by an amount of $1.276 billion. The $1.276
billion which is, I believe, the agreed-to number about which 41
Members of this Senate, all of whom I believe are probably supporting
various amendments in this area, signed a letter asking the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee to put in place an
increase in the LIHEAP program--is going to be the amount by which my
amendment increases the LIHEAP program.

[[Page S11811]]

That is a significant increase, a rather dramatic increase, in fact,
and it represents, as a percentage, probably about a 50-percent
increase in the program or well over a 50-percent increase; in fact, a
58-percent increase in funding and, in fact, hits the target we need to
aim at in order to make sure that people of low incomes, living on
fixed incomes, will have the necessary support they need to fund the
cost of their energy this winter during the coldest months so they do
not have to be put in a situation where they choose between food and
warmth, something that would be inexcusable and inappropriate.
There is a further thing that my amendment does because I do believe
in a fiscally responsible approach, and I believe Congress has an
obligation to set priorities. There is no question in my mind that an
immediate priority for us is that we make sure that the low-income
energy assistance program is adequately funded heading into what will
obviously be a difficult winter in light of the high energy costs. That
should be a priority of our Government. But in setting that priority,
we should not pass the debt, as I said earlier, of funding that program
on to our children. We should decide what we are going to cut or how we
are going to reduce the rate of growth in spending at the Federal level
to pay for this program.
So my amendment, in addition to adding this fairly significant,
rather dramatic increase in funding to the LIHEAP program, and a number
which was originally supported by the 41 signatories of the letter to
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, also
puts in place an offset to pay for this.
The offset represents an across-the-board cut under this bill of all
accounts. It comes out to be less than a 1-percent cut, a nine-tenths-
of-1-percent reduction in spending across other accounts to pay for
this LIHEAP spending. That is the proper way to approach an issue such
as this.
Let's determine whether or not it is a priority. If it is a
priority--and I believe it is a priority--to fund LIHEAP, then let's
fund it and not pass it on to our children.
That is what I do in this amendment. Rather than sending it up as a
second degree, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by Senators Reed and Collins to the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor, HHS
appropriations bill to appropriate $2.92 billion emergency funding for
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, (LIHEAP).
LIHEAP provides much needed assistance to Americans who might
otherwise be forced to choose between heating their home during the
winter months and putting food on the table for their family. In
Illinois, 311,000 households received LIHEAP assistance last winter,
out of 600,000 that applied. Clearly there is much more need than there
are available funds.
If you have never experienced an Illinois winter, I can tell you that
it can be bitterly cold. In January, the wind coming off of Lake
Michigan near my house in Chicago will chill you to the bone. This
year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is projecting an
even colder than average winter. As a result of colder temperatures and
rising energy prices, the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration is predicting that families will be faced with
significantly higher heating costs than last year. Those families whose
homes are heated primarily by natural gas will pay about $350 more this
winter, families in homes heated primarily by propane will pay an
average of $325 more, and families in homes heated primarily by heating
oil will pay, on average, as much as $378 more than last year.
With the expected increase in heating costs, there will be an
increased demand for LIHEAP assistance. Already this year, 100,000
Illinois households have applied for help with their heating bills for
the coming winter, a higher than average number for this point in the
year. The $2.92 billion in emergency funding proposed in this amendment
will supplement the $2.18 billion already contained in the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill to fully fund LIHEAP at a total of $5.1 billion.
Livable shelter is a basic human necessity. Without authorizing these
emergency funds: we put the elderly, the disabled and the low-income
families that depend on this aid at risk. If we have learned anything
from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is that we cannot afford to
shortchange programs that provide assistance for the most vulnerable in
our society.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
amendment.

Amendment No. 2253

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 2253.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program by $1,276,000,000, with an across-the-board
reduction)

On page 158, strike lines 12 through 21 and insert the
following:
bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, $3,159,000,000.
For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That these funds are for the
unanticipated home energy assistance needs of one or more
States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of the Act: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.

general provision--reduction and rescission

Sec. __. (a) Amounts made available in this Act, not
otherwise required by law, are reduced by 0.92 percent.
(b) The reduction described in subsection (a) shall not
apply to amounts made available under this Act--
(1) for the account under the heading ``low-income home
energy assistance''; or
(2) for the account under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant
Assistance'' (with respect to amounts designated as emergency
requirements).
Sec. __. (a) There is rescinded an amount equal to 0.92 of
the budget authority provided in any prior appropriation Act
for fiscal year 2006, for any discretionary account described
in this Act.
(b) Any rescission made by subsection (a) shall be applied
proportionately--
(1) to each discretionary account described in subsection
(a) to the extent that it relates to budget authority
described in subsection (a), and to each item of budget
authority described in subsection (a); and
(2) within each such account or item, to each program,
project, and activity (as delineated in the appropriation Act
or accompanying report for the relevant fiscal year covering
such account or item).
(c) The rescission described in subsection (a) shall not
apply to budget authority provided as described in subsection
(a)--
(1) for the account under the heading ``low-income home
energy assistance''; or
(2) for the account under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant
Assistance (with respect to amounts designated as emergency
requirements)''.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the reason I sent this amendment up as a
first-degree amendment is that I believe we have an understanding with
Senator Reed and Senator Collins as to the voting sequence, and that is
important, and that is why I originally asked to be protected with a
second-degree amendment.
The amendment is now pending. Once again, to summarize what the
amendment does, it increases the funding for LIHEAP by $1.276 billion,
which is the number which was asked originally of the administration
about a month ago by 41 Senators, including Senator Collins and Senator
Reed, in a letter sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Appropriations Committee. It is a significant number. The number is
reached by determining what the projected costs of the increased cost
of energy will be to our citizens who are living on a fixed income.
Second, it is an amendment which is paid for where we recognize we
have a priority as a Government to participate in assisting these
individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire
straits if the energy costs, with their significant jump in price, make
it impossible for them to buy adequate heating oil to heat their

[[Page S11812]]

homes, and in recognizing that priority, we pursue a policy of making
sure that the moneys will be put into the LIHEAP program, but at the
same time it will be paid for by a reasonable, across-the-board cut,
relative to other programs within this bill, on the theory it would be
inappropriate to simply raise this spending without doing an across-
the-board cut or without some adequate offset because that means we
would be deficit financing this number and thus passing this cost on to
our children to pay, rather than absorbing the cost, as it should be
absorbed, by our generation.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be listed as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the thrust of the argument
being advanced by the Senator from New Hampshire in terms of
expenditures. There is no doubt that the deficit is excessive. There is
no doubt that the national debt is an enormous burden on our society.
When we deal with the issue of energy assistance for the poor, there
has been a generalized agreement, as evidenced by the amendment offered
by the Senator from New Hampshire, agreeing that there ought to be
LIHEAP assistance.
He approaches it differently than the Reed-Collins amendment, which
treats the issue as an emergency, and instead has an across-the-board
cut of almost 1 percent on all funding under this bill.
The bill is not cut to the bone. The bill, in its present shape, goes
into the bone. It does not have an increase for inflation. It has a
very marked shortfall on many programs. We heard one this morning on
education in the caption of Pell grants where there simply is not
enough money to take care of the basic needs of these three
departments.
Education and health care are our two major capital assets. Without
good health, people cannot function. Without a decent education, people
cannot progress. This allocation of $145 billion is right to the bone.
We find ourselves in what I think is a genuine emergency situation
with respect to fuel assistance. It is as much an emergency as Katrina
is to the people who are victims of that hurricane. That incident has
markedly raised the cost of fuel oil and natural gas where people need
it for heating.
Where we can appropriate the kind of dollars which we have for
Katrina--and I am not questioning that--this is right in the same boat,
to use an overused metaphor.
Much as we have problems with the deficit, much as we have problems
with the national debt, this is, I think, a genuine emergency, and the
accounts on this bill simply cannot tolerate further cuts. Therefore, I
am constrained to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking
recognition--I was about to suggest the absence of a quorum--but let me
urge my colleagues to come to the floor, instead, and offer amendments.
We have an indication that there will be an amendment offered at 6
o'clock. We may be in a position to vote on some amendments at that
time, if no other amendments are to be offered. But we have 47 minutes
between now and 6 o'clock where there is ample time for someone to come
to the floor a few minutes and offer an amendment.
It may be the offerer of the next amendment will be here at 5:30. I
am advised there may be a change. That still leaves us 16 minutes. We
can get a lot done in 16 minutes, if somebody comes to the floor and
offers an amendment. We don't like to waste any time, Mr. President. We
have a complicated bill here. Wait and see, tomorrow, the day after
tomorrow, Friday, or whoever knows when this week we will finish this
bill--and the majority leader and the managers are determined to finish
the bill--16 minutes will look like a lot of time.
I remind my colleagues about the argument over a unanimous-consent
request for 1 extra minute last Thursday. We have those arguments from
time to time, sometimes made by experienced Senators who know that if
you object to a 1-minute unanimous consent request, it will take at
least 5 minutes to straighten it out. Eventually they got the
minute. Mr. President, 15 or 16 minutes is a lot of time, so I urge my
colleagues to come to the floor.

In the interim, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for up
to 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is.
Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to lay it aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2193, as Modified

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and send
to the desk amendment No. 2193, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Talent, proposes an
amendment numbered 2193, as modified.

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II (before the short title), add the
following:

SEC. __. TELEHEALTH.

(a) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$10,000,000 to carry out programs and activities under the
Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 (Public Law 107-
251) and the amendments made by such Act, and for other
telehealth programs under section 330I of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-14), of which--
(1) $2,500,000 shall be for not less than 10 telehealth
resource centers that provide assistance with respect to
technical, legal, and regulatory service delivery or other
related barriers to the deployment of telehealth
technologies, of which not less than 2 centers shall be
located in a rural State with a population of less than
1,500,000 individuals;
(2) $5,000,000 shall be for network grants and
demonstration or pilot projects for telehomecare; and
(3) $2,500,000 shall be for grants to carry out programs
under which health licensing boards or various States
cooperate to develop and implement policies that will reduce
statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth.
(b) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, amounts made available under this Act for the
administration and related expenses for the departmental
management for the Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education,
shall be reduced, on a pro rata basis, by $10,000,000. The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
administer such reductions.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S11813]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we are on the
appropriations bill. I will speak for 5 minutes or so on a subject
unrelated to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Senator's right.

Pentagon Clearance for Judith Miller

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there has been a lot of information around
this town about a New York Times reporter named Judith Miller. She has
been central to a case that Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, is
looking into. There is a lot of anticipation here about what or what
might not happen with respect to charges that might be filed. It has to
do with the disclosure of a covert CIA agent and who might have
disclosed her name and why. Judith Miller was a reporter for the New
York Times and Judith Miller spent some 80-plus days in jail because
she decided not to testify about that subject before a grand jury when
requested by the special prosecutor. She was subsequently released and
did testify.
I share the common interest in what has happened, what did the
special prosecutor find, were there people in Washington, DC, who were
``outing,'' as it were, a covert agent of the CIA, and if so, did they
lie about it, did they obstruct justice. I don't know the answer and I
don't pretend to know the answer to any of that. As one colleague
suggested on television this weekend, these are not ``technical''
issues. There is no such thing as technical perjury. In any event, this
is very important. But that is now why I am here now.
The reason I come to the Senate for a moment to mention Judith Miller
is she wrote something in her own hand that appeared in the New York
Times in recent days describing her situation. She said something that
was of interest to me and alerted my curiosity. I have since made a
number of calls related to that.
Judith Miller was embedded in a military unit and she said the
following in her piece:

The Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret
information as a part of my assignment ``embedded'' with a
special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons [or
weapons of mass destruction.]

We all understand in the Senate what it means to see secret or top
secret material. We frequently are provided briefings by the CIA, by
the Defense Department, by other intelligence units, briefings that are
classified as either ``secret,'' or ``top secret.'' We understand what
that means. We understand, for example, if a member of our staff is to
be made available to have those clearances, clearances come only when
there is a background check and people are evaluated for receiving a
clearance to possess secret or top secret information.
So I had a question when I read this article from a New York Times
reporter embedded with a military unit:

The Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret
information . . .

My question is, What kind of clearance would that be, that a
reporter, traveling with a military unit in Iraq, searching for weapons
of mass destruction, what kind of clearance would that reporter have to
see classified or secret information?
I called the Pentagon to find out what kind of clearance would exist,
perhaps not just with respect to this reporter. My interest would be on
a broader basis. We had many reporters embedded with military units in
Iraq during the invasion and during the subsequent activities, looking
for weapons of mass destruction.
Based on what I can learn from the Pentagon--although it was not all
that clear from the response I received--based on what I could learn
from the Pentagon, it seems there was no ``secret'' or ``top secret''
clearance given this reporter.
Now, last evening I talked to a soldier in Germany, a man who was a
part of the unit in which this reporter was embedded. He was very
willing and interested in talking about the entire experience. The
fellow from Germany, who is a sergeant in that special unit Judith
Miller was embedded in, spoke at some length about what happened there.
I told him of the quote Judith Miller had in the New York Times. He
said he would have understood that she would have likely seen secret or
even top secret information. The way the reporter is embedded in that
circumstance, they have access to a substantial amount of information,
could not help but have access. So the question I asked the Pentagon
is, on what basis would a reporter have access to these clearances to
receive secret or top secret information?
Further, it is my understanding, at least from the sergeant whom I
spoke with in Germany last evening, all that was transmitted from this
reporter, embedded with a military unit, was approved by the colonel
involved in that military unit and material was not to be published
without the colonel's approval. Well, of course, that is the censoring
of the material. It is also the case as reported not only by the
sergeant in the conversation I had last evening but also in previous
publications, that this reporter, Judith Miller, described often her
acquaintance with Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Feith and others in the
Pentagon at high levels, including generals. And she expressed freely
her either agreement or disagreement with the military activities of
the unit she was in, and talked about complaining back to Rumsfeld, and
so on and so forth.
I don't know the voracity of all of that. All I am reporting is what
I was told by someone in that unit. That is, perhaps, for another
discussion. I intend to visit about this a bit more fully tomorrow.

The first question I have is not just with respect to Judith Miller,
but generally under what conditions were reporters approved to be
embedded with military units and given opportunity to see secret or top
secret material? Did they have security clearances or not? The Pentagon
says not. This reporter said she did. If they had clearances, what
kinds of clearances were they? The Pentagon said they have
nondisclosure forms. How can you give a nondisclosure form to a
reporter and then show them secret or top secret material? Take a look
at the law, which I will read tomorrow in the Senate. That is not what
is allowed.
The classification of material that is secret or top secret dealing
with intelligence or military operations is not a classification that
is done lightly. It is not a classification that can be overcome by
someone in the Pentagon who says, Okay, put on a military shirt or a
pair of military trousers and go embed yourself with that unit, and, by
the way, you sign a form that says ``nondisclosure.'' That is not the
way we decide how to disperse information that is considered secret or
top secret.
Those who are in our Senate community, on our staffs and so on, those
who are permitted to see classified secret and top secret material,
must have a clearance. That clearance must come after an investigation
to determine whether that person is qualified to have classified
information. I am asking the Pentagon, did they provide a clearance?
The short answer says no, they did not. The writer says they did. The
Pentagon says a ``nondisclosure form.'' What on Earth is that? How many
nondisclosure forms exist when they are embedding men and women in the
news media with military units engaged in activities that often are
secret and top secret?
I will be asking the inspector general at the Pentagon to take a look
at this to evaluate for the Congress. All Members should understand
this. What are the circumstances by which a reporter describes her
access to see secret information because she had a ``clearance'' from
the Pentagon when the Pentagon said she did not have a clearance? We
understand what secret clearances are around here. All of us understand
that. We deal with that classification every day. What are the
circumstances by which a reporter is allowed to see secret or top
secret information because they have a clearance, when the Pentagon
says no such clearance exists?
If, in fact, it is not a clearance and the reporter has simply
misspoken, if it is instead a nondisclosure form, then I would like to
see the provision in law by which the Pentagon has decided to provide
nondisclosure releases to journalists who join military units whose
units then censor the material that comes from the journalist. And is
there

[[Page S11814]]

in any way any implied quid pro quo, saying: Give me a clearance, embed
me, let me see secret material; and by the way, I won't report on the
things that are secret and you can review all things I write and take
out the things you do not like?
I do not know the circumstance. What I have read in recent days
raised questions for me beyond what has been raised in recent days
which is the issue of the special prosecutor and his potential action
before the grand jury expires. I don't know about all of that. I am as
interested as others about what may or may not happen.
I am a member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. We spend
a fair amount of time evaluating weapons programs and other issues that
are secret and top secret. But I don't understand this, a self-
description by a New York Times reporter about her clearance to see
secret information as part of being embedded with the military unit.
Mr. President, I will have more to say about this tomorrow. In the
meantime, I intend to try to find additional answers. They have not
been forthcoming in the last couple of days. But I think all of the
Congress, all of the Senate, should be asking these questions as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been sitting in the Chamber
without accomplishing much for more than 45 minutes now. We had, in my
view, more quorum calls and more time which was not spent on the bill
than we should have. We have a great many amendments pending, and we
are going to be pushing ahead.
We are filing cloture today, and we are going to be pushing ahead to
try to get this bill finished at the earliest time. Whether it is
Thursday, Friday, or when this week, I do not know. We have been
awaiting for more than 30 minutes the arrival of a Senator to offer
another amendment. And very candidly, I am tired of waiting.
So that concludes the action on this bill today. We will begin
tomorrow morning with a series of amendments. We had wanted to vote on
a number of amendments which were pending, but we cannot because too
many Senators have other commitments. That is something that is hard to
understand sometimes: why we are notified midafternoon that Senators
are too busy to attend to the business of the Senate and to vote.
I say in gest that I am going to run for majority leader on a
platform to have a 4-day workweek, from Monday noon until Friday noon.
That would double the workweek of the Senate. The second plank of my
platform--I notice the two Senators from Georgia are amused; anybody
would be amused--to hold down these votes to 15 minutes and 5 more
minutes, we did pretty well on that. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. So
that is a little progress. The junior Senator from Georgia is nodding
in the affirmative.
But we have to do better. And to advocate a 4-day workweek, which
would double the work of the Senate, is said only facetiously. I would
have only one vote, my own. I would have maybe two or three if I didn't
run on that kind of a platform.
Seriously, we need to get on with this bill. But it is now past 6
o'clock, and that concludes our activity on the bill. I think the
custom of the Senate is to move to morning business at this point.
I am advised we have not yet filed cloture, Mr. President, so I
suggest the absence of a quorum so we technically stay on the bill
until the final signature is added so that the cloture motion can be
filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed as though in morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Levin are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note that S. Res. 287, which is a
resolution I introduced on behalf of Senator Stabenow, Senator Reid,
Senator Frist, and I believe a majority of this body now, has been
cleared for passage later on this evening. I very much welcome that
development. It is fitting, indeed, that on the day after the passing
of Rosa Parks the majority of this body sees it important to adopt a
bipartisan resolution honoring her life.
I thank the Chair. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

cloture motion

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have been moving forward with the
underlying bill, and Chairman Specter has indicated that he has a
lineup of amendments ready for tomorrow. I know that tomorrow will be a
busy day with votes in relation to those amendments. We need this final
appropriations bill this week, as I have said again and again--this
week and last week--and, therefore, in order to facilitate passage, I
now send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 3010: The
Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Thad Cochran, Michael Enzi,
Wayne Allard, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, Richard Lugar,
Mike DeWine, Craig Thomas, Mel Martinez, Sam Brownback,
Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Robert
Bennett, Mike Crapo.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. This cloture vote will occur Thursday morning. We will
announce the exact time sometime during tomorrow's session, hopefully
Thursday morning.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to support an important cause,
at a critical time, increasing the representation of students from
underrepresented backgrounds in law school and the legal profession.
Senator Durbin and I have introduced an amendment to the Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill that would
restore funding for a program which seeks to do just that the Thurgood
Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program. The Marshall Program
provides technical assistance, training, coaching, and financial
assistance to prospective law students who might otherwise experience
academic or financial obstacles to law school success. It also runs 6-
week Summer Institutes that serve as a bridge between college and law
school, and helps law students prepare for the bar exam. Since its
inception, over 7,000 students have received their law degrees with
help from the Marshall Program. I am proud to say that some of the
Program's valuable initiatives are held at Illinois' own Northern
Illinois University and DePaul University.
Judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other legal professionals
are the faces of our justice system. It is important that these
individuals come from a variety of experiences, and bring to their jobs
a diverse range of perspectives. According to a national study
commissioned in 2000, however, half of those polled believed that the
justice system treated people differently because of their background.
One important way to address this problem is to make sure that working-
class people and students from different cultural backgrounds have the
opportunity to go to law school and successfully enter the legal
profession.
Equally important is the effect these students will have on their
families and their communities. The Marshall Program's benefits extend
not only to

[[Page S11815]]

program participants but also to the generations that follow behind
them. Every person who rises from limited means to become a doctor or
lawyer in this country is also a mother, father, sister or brother who
will help bring resources to their families, leadership to their
neighborhoods, and hope to their communities. The Marshall Progam helps
to expand opportunities, for this generation of Americans and the next.
I am proud to support the cause of increasing the representation of
students from less advantaged backgrounds in the legal profession. I
urge my colleagues to do the same.

____________________