Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a brave soldier, PFC Justin King. After graduating college and working as a civilian, Private King enlisted in the Army Reserve so he could, in his words, do something ``for his country and more than himself.'' While in advanced individual training, Justin was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Although his body has not responded to chemotherapy treatments and his hope to serve in the field will go unrealized, his illness has failed to break his ironclad spirit. The first time Private King's commanding officer visited him in the hospital, Private King insisted on getting into full uniform before she entered the room. He said that he wanted to ``look like a soldier and stand like a soldier.''

Since returning to Robinson, IL, to be with his family, Private King told his CO: ``I want to serve in some capacity to the best of my ability and until my health fails, as a soldier. I want to tell other soldiers how to deal with a terminal illness, I want to do something useful.''

I am thoroughly impressed by this young man's desire to serve and the resolve he has displayed when faced with adversity. I admire Private King's patriotism, sacrifice, and strong character. He is a role model for all Americans, and I am proud to recognize him today.

Mr. President, I rise today to note with pride an accomplishment of one of my constituents. Bonny Jain, of Moline, IL, won the National Geographic Bee here in Washington, DC, on May 24 by correctly identifying the Cambrian Mountains on a map. I don't know if they have ``phone a friend'' in the bee, but it is good that he didn't call me because I thought a Cambri was a small Toyota.

His victory in this competition demonstrates a laudable dedication to scholarship. As technology makes the world smaller, knowledge of other peoples and cultures becomes more important. And cultures are shaped by geography. Geography is often the main factor in the path of national borders. Under the influence of geography, wars are won and lost, and civilizations rise and fall.

Bonny's path to victory in the 2006 bee was a long one. I am impressed not only by his comprehensive knowledge of geography but by his steady ascent through 4 years of competition. From second place at his individual school's geography bee, he rose to the national competition last year and to victory last month.

I am proud to have this young man and his family as constituents. I give them my heartiest congratulations and

wish Bonny well in high school and beyond.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing this fine amendment.

In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.

I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States.

I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida.

And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics than fact and reason.

It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young men and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts have been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my concerns had been unfounded.

America and the American people have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed. I believe that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of ``we know best'' and ``stay the course.'' It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the administration--the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be ``we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it.'' At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.

Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.

The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces

taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin amendment builds on this approach.

The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..

And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.

There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, in introducing the Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006.

Last summer, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which included a bold, bipartisan initiative to help wean our Nation from its petroleum dependency. This initiative, known as the Renewable Fuels Standard, established that it is the policy of the United States that the 140 billion gallon national gasoline pool will consist of at least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2012.

We have seen tremendous response to this new policy. Almost 30 new ethanol plants have been proposed to be constructed in my State of Illinois alone, and many more are proposed nationwide. By comparison, over the past 30 years, no new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States. The Renewable Fuels Standard is probably one of the single most important legislative actions taken by Congress in recent years to strengthen our domestic energy security, and the legislation we introduce today takes this policy one step further by addressing the 40 billion gallon national diesel pool.

Petroleum-based diesel is used in a wide variety of transportation modes: transit buses; semitrucks; ships; heavy duty construction, farming and mining equipment; military vehicles; locomotives; barges; large scale generators; and in a range of cars and trucks. While not as large of a market as gasoline, petrodiesel is enormously significant to our economy, and reducing our reliance on foreign feedstocks for this diesel is of equal importance in our efforts to increase energy security.

Our bill, the Alternative Diesel Standard, simply requires that by the year 2015, the national diesel pool must consist of at least 2 billion gallons of alternative and renewable diesels.

This is but a modest 1 percent of the national diesel supply--hardly painful for the petroleum industry. It would not in any way dent the oil industry's record-shattering profits. Instead, it establishes certainty to those who know that alternative diesels can provide a real solution to our dependence on foreign oil and who are prepared to invest in alternative diesel production on a commercial scale.

Right now, there is an estimated 180 million gallons of biodiesel production capacity in the United States. Fifty-four companies have reported plans to construct dedicated biodiesel plants in the near future, but those plans are dependent upon regional and national demand prospects.

Moreover, entrepreneurs across the Nation have proven that we can make diesel from other plant oils, like sunflower seeds, or coal, manure, animal fats, and yes, even from recycled plastics or garbage. This bill sends a signal to those entrepreneurs that a market is planned in the future for these domestically produced fuels, attracting the necessary investment to establish a national infrastructure of domestic fuel production capabilities.

If we are serious about reducing our country's dependence on imported petroleum and insulating our economy from future supply disruption shocks--whether from the volatile Middle East or natural disasters such as Katrina--encouraging the construction of more domestic alternative fuel production capacity must be part of that strategy. Several billion gallons of alternative diesels are possible within the timelines proposed in our legislation, making another bold step to create jobs in rural America and strengthen our economic security. An Alternative Diesel Standard is the right course for the Nation's future. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I ask their support for swift enactment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, in introducing the Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006.

Last summer, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which included a bold, bipartisan initiative to help wean our Nation from its petroleum dependency. This initiative, known as the Renewable Fuels Standard, established that it is the policy of the United States that the 140 billion gallon national gasoline pool will consist of at least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2012.

We have seen tremendous response to this new policy. Almost 30 new ethanol plants have been proposed to be constructed in my State of Illinois alone, and many more are proposed nationwide. By comparison, over the past 30 years, no new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States. The Renewable Fuels Standard is probably one of the single most important legislative actions taken by Congress in recent years to strengthen our domestic energy security, and the legislation we introduce today takes this policy one step further by addressing the 40 billion gallon national diesel pool.

Petroleum-based diesel is used in a wide variety of transportation modes: transit buses; semitrucks; ships; heavy duty construction, farming and mining equipment; military vehicles; locomotives; barges; large scale generators; and in a range of cars and trucks. While not as large of a market as gasoline, petrodiesel is enormously significant to our economy, and reducing our reliance on foreign feedstocks for this diesel is of equal importance in our efforts to increase energy security.

Our bill, the Alternative Diesel Standard, simply requires that by the year 2015, the national diesel pool must consist of at least 2 billion gallons of alternative and renewable diesels.

This is but a modest 1 percent of the national diesel supply--hardly painful for the petroleum industry. It would not in any way dent the oil industry's record-shattering profits. Instead, it establishes certainty to those who know that alternative diesels can provide a real solution to our dependence on foreign oil and who are prepared to invest in alternative diesel production on a commercial scale.

Right now, there is an estimated 180 million gallons of biodiesel production capacity in the United States. Fifty-four companies have reported plans to construct dedicated biodiesel plants in the near future, but those plans are dependent upon regional and national demand prospects.

Moreover, entrepreneurs across the Nation have proven that we can make diesel from other plant oils, like sunflower seeds, or coal, manure, animal fats, and yes, even from recycled plastics or garbage. This bill sends a signal to those entrepreneurs that a market is planned in the future for these domestically produced fuels, attracting the necessary investment to establish a national infrastructure of domestic fuel production capabilities.

If we are serious about reducing our country's dependence on imported petroleum and insulating our economy from future supply disruption shocks--whether from the volatile Middle East or natural disasters such as Katrina--encouraging the construction of more domestic alternative fuel production capacity must be part of that strategy. Several billion gallons of alternative diesels are possible within the timelines proposed in our legislation, making another bold step to create jobs in rural America and strengthen our economic security. An Alternative Diesel Standard is the right course for the Nation's future. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I ask their support for swift enactment.

Mr. President, today marks the anniversary of a joyous day in our Nation's history. It was on this day in 1865 when word finally reached the farthest corner of the Southwest that all slaves were free. More than 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, this was the day freedom became a reality. After hundreds of years of servitude and oppression, this was the day that former slaves claimed their rightful place as equal citizens. Juneteenth was the day our Nation reclaimed its dignity.

Today, Juneteenth is still a celebration of freedom. It is an opportunity for engagement and self-improvement, a time to reflect and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of justice and equality. Juneteenth is about acknowledging where we have been as a Nation, looking honestly and critically at our past, and gaining a fresh understanding of the challenges we face as we look toward the future.

Half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, this is a day for us to assess the quality of education we are providing to our children. Forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, this is a day for us to think of the injustices that must be overcome, the millions without health care, the families without jobs, and the disparities that continue to divide us.

Juneteenth should be a reminder to all Americans that we must not resign ourselves to waiting for a better time to do what we know is right. This is the day we honor previous generations for the great strides they have taken toward creating a more just society. This is the day we honor future generations by undertaking with determination the work that is yet to be done.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague Robert Byrd, who yesterday officially became the longest serving Member in the history of the Senate.

As of June 12, 2006, Senator Byrd had officially served West Virginia in the Senate for 17,327 days. That is an astounding 47\1/2\ years since he took office on January 3, 1959. It was a time when a postage stamp cost $0.04, gasoline was $0.25 per gallon, and you could buy a brand new Ford car for a little over $2,100.

Senator Byrd has served through 10 Presidencies, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, wartime and peacetime, surplus and deficit, the dawn of space travel and the advent of the Information Age. And, as I stand here today, I have to chuckle at the fact that when I was just beginning the first grade, Senator Byrd was already serving his second term in the Senate.

However, the indelible mark he has left on this institution has more to do with the quality of his service than the length of his service. Senator Byrd has a deep love for his beloved home state of West Virginia, for the institution of the U.S. Senate, and for our country. Always ready with a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, Senator Byrd understands just how sacred this document truly is, and he fights every day to protect it.

He literally wrote the book on the rules and traditions of the Senate, and he teaches by example, offering the kind of eloquent, principled debate that has historically filled this Chamber. His speeches are honest and heartfelt, with a Shakespearean rhythm, peppered with stories from his boyhood in the coalfields of Appalachia. He is never shy about scolding colleagues when they put politics before principles or when they violate the practices of this great institution.

And yet he also exemplifies the cordial tradition of the Senate, disagreeing without being disagreeable, and always willing to offer a handshake to a political opponent at the end of hard-fought debate. He is a man of integrity, who has demonstrated that an honest search for truth can lead to a principled change of heart and a desire to seek justice for all.

I know this remarkable accomplishment is a bittersweet one, since Senator Byrd is not able to share it with his beloved wife Erma, who passed away in March. Yesterday, the day on which Senator Byrd set this record, was also Erma's birthday. It is fitting that he marks this milestone on the same day he celebrates Erma's life, because he has often credited Erma's unconditional love and support with sustaining him through his years of service.

When asked last week about achieving this milestone, Senator Byrd replied that ``records are fine, but what's important is what I do for the people of West Virginia.'' That humble devotion to the people he serves is what brought Robert Byrd to the Senate more than 47 years ago, and it is what continues to drive him each and every day.

After I was sworn in last January, one of the first Senators I met with was Senator Byrd. We sat down in his hideaway on the first floor of the Capitol. After we posed for a few photographs, I inquired after his wife, who I had heard had taken a turn for the worse, and asked about some of the figures in the many photos that lined the walls. Eventually I asked him what advice he would give me as a new member of the Senate.

``Learn the rules,'' Senator Byrd said. ``Not just the rules but the precedents as well.'' He pointed to a series of thick binders behind him, each one affixed with a hand-written label. ``Not many people bother to learn them these days. Everything is so rushed, so many demands on a Senator's time. But these rules unlock the power of the Senate. They're the keys to the kingdom.''

We spoke about the Senate's past, the Presidents he had known, the bills he had managed. He told me too many Senators today became quickly fixated on reaching the White House, not understanding that in the constitutional design it was the Senate that was supreme, the heart and soul of the Republic.

``So few people read the Constitution today,'' Senator Byrd said, pulling out a pocket copy from his breast pocket. ``I've always said this document and the Holy Bible, they've been all the guidance I need.''

On many occasions over the past year and a half, I have remembered these wise words as I have performed my duties in the Senate.

I am proud to call Robert Byrd a colleague, a friend, and a mentor. I congratulate him on this remarkable achievement and wish him all the best for many more years of service to our country.

Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the complete repeal of the estate tax.

First of all, let call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is--the Paris Hilton tax break. It is about giving billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses at a time when American taxpayers just can't afford it.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought out the Paris Hilton tax break in June because they are eager to make it an election issue in November.

And I think that is fine. In fact, I am eager for the American people to choose. Because if people want their Government to spend $1 trillion--an amount more than double what we have spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror combined--on tax breaks for multimillionaires and multibillionaires, then the Republican Party is their party.

If the American people want to borrow billions more from foreign countries, spend billions more in taxes to pay the interest on our national debt, and watch billions cut from health care and education and gulf coast reconstruction, then the Paris Hilton tax break is your tax break.

Now let's be honest. This is not about saving small businesses and family

farms. We can reform the estate tax to protect the few farms that are affected. We can set it at a level where no small business is ever affected. We can even repeal the estate tax altogether for the 99.5 percent of families with less than $7 million in taxable assets--that means families with assets almost 100 times greater than the average American household net worth.

Democrats have offered to reform the estate tax in these ways time and time again. Reform is possible in a way that doesn cost $1 trillion.

But our offers have always been refused, which can only mean that the party in power is really interested in an unprecedented giveaway to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

And don't think for a minute that there is any plan to pay for this. Every proposal to enforce pay-as-you-go rules for fiscal responsibility has been rebuffed. This tax cut will have to be paid for in the years ahead by higher taxes on working families and reduced public services in all of our communities. This tax cut will have to be paid for by higher interest rates on homes and student loans. This tax cut will have to be paid for by greater dependence on foreign countries. Alan Greenspan warned us against financing tax cuts with debt. But that is exactly what this bill does.

So I would ask the American people one question. At a time like this--a time where America finds itself deeply in debt, struggling to pay for a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, security for our homeland, armor for our troops, health care for our workers, and education for our children--at a time of all this need, can you imagine opening Forbes magazine, looking at its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, and realizing that our Government gave the people on that list far more than half a trillion dollars worth of tax breaks?

I know I can imagine that. And I would bet that most Americans can imagine that either.

This is shameful. Are we really going to cut taxes again for the Forbes 400 before we fix the alternative minimum tax which affects middle-class families? Are we really going to cut taxes again for multimillionaires and billionaires before we extend the expiring child tax credit which helps working families? Are we really going to worsen our country's financial future for all Americans just so that a tiny number of the estates--estates that average over $13 million--can escape all taxes?

There is no economic justification for repealing the estate tax and certainly no moral justification. This is politics pure and simple.

So if the Republicans want to bring up their Paris Hilton tax break to use it as an election issue later, I say go for it. Because I can think of no better statement about where and how we differ in priorities than that.

Mr. President, today, we take up the valuable time of the Senate with a proposed amendment to our Constitution that has absolutely no chance of passing.

We do this, allegedly, in an attempt to uphold the institution of marriage in this country. We do this despite the fact that for over 200 years, Americans

have been defining and defending marriage on the State and local level without any help from the U.S. Constitution at all.

And yet, we are here anyway because it is an election year--because the party in power has decided that the best way to get voters to the polls is not by talking about Iraq or health care or energy or education but about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that they have no chance of passing.

Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that, personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But let's be honest. That is not what this debate is about. Not at this time.

This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country. It is a consensus between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, red States and blue States, that it is time for new leadership in this country--leadership that will stop dividing us, stop disappointing us, and start addressing the problems facing most Americans.

It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say: You know what, maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital and share health care benefits; most of us do believe that they should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected by the federal government.

We all know that if this amendment were to pass, it would close the door on much of this--because we know that when similar amendments passed in places such as Ohio and Michigan and Utah, domestic partnership benefits were taken away from gay couples.

This is not what the majority of the American people want. And this is not about trying to build consensus in this country; it is not about trying to bring people together.

This is about winning an election. That is why the issue was last raised in July of 2004, and that is why we haven't heard about it again until now. And while this is supposedly a measure that the other party raised to appeal to some of its core supporters, I don't know how happy I would be if my party only talked about an issue I cared about right around election time--especially if they knew it had no chance of passing.

I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the States.

Today, we should take this amendment only for what it is--a political ploy designed to rally a few supporters and draw the country's attention away from this leadership's past failures and America's future challenges.

There is plenty of work to be done in this country. There are millions without health care and skyrocketing gas prices and children in crumbling schools and thousands of young Americans risking their lives in Iraq.

So don't tell me that this is the best use of our time. Don't tell me that this is what people want to see talked about on TV and in the newspapers all day. We wonder why the American people have such a low opinion of Washington these days. This is why.

We are better than this, and we certainly owe the American people more than this. I know that this amendment will fail, and when it does, I hope we can start discussing issues and offering proposals that will actually improve the lives of most Americans.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005.

Although I am a proud Illinoisan, proud to be the junior Senator from Illinois, many of you know that I was born and raised in Hawaii. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit or call Hawaii home, as I once did, and as my grandmother and sister and adorable niece still do, anybody who has spent time in Hawaii cannot help but recognize the uniqueness of the place. In addition to its scenic landscapes and rich history, it is the living legacy of aloha--the spirit of openness and friendliness that is ingrained in the shared, local culture that shapes and enhances each island encounter and experience.

Throughout Hawaii's history, individuals of all nationalities, races and creeds have found solace in Hawaii. In large part this stems from the culture of Native Hawaiians, who have always acknowledged and celebrated diversity. This incorporation of new cultures and practices over the years has strengthened and unified the community. And as the child of a black father and a white mother, I know firsthand how important Native Hawaiian efforts are to foster a culture of acceptance and of tolerance.

For this reason, I am proud to join Senator Daniel Akaka to extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians are a vital part of our Nation's cultural fabric, and they will continue to shape our country in the years to come.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act provides both the process and opportunity for Native Hawaiian communities to engage themselves in and reorganize their governing entity to establish a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States of America. The process set forth in the bill empowers Native Hawaiians to explore and address the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii.

There are three main provisions of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

First, the bill establishes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between the Native Hawaiians and the United States.

Second, the bill establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group that will be comprised of Federal officials from agencies that administer Native Hawaiian programs. These provisions are intended to increase coordination between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government.

And third, the bill provides a process for reorganizing the Native Hawaiian government entity. Once the entity is reorganized and recognized, there is a process of negotiations to resolve longstanding issues such as the transfer of and jurisdiction over lands, natural resources, and assets.

Support for this bill comes not only from the people of Hawaii but from people all across America. This bill also is supported by the indigenous peoples of America, including American Indians and Alaska natives. As Americans, we pride ourselves in safeguarding the practice and ideas of liberty, justice, and freedom. By supporting this bill, we can continue this great American tradition and fulfill this promise by affording Native Hawaiians the opportunity to recognize their governing entity and have it recognized by the Federal Government.

As someone who grew up in Hawaii and has enormous love for the Hawaiian culture, I also think it is important, as I know the two Senators from Hawaii will acknowledge, that there have been difficulties within the community of Native Hawaiians, oftentimes despite the fact that we are visitors to Hawaii; that many times particularly young Native Hawaiians have had difficulties in terms of unemployment, in terms of being able to integrate into the economy of the islands, that some of the historical legacies of what has happened in Hawaii continue to burden the Native Hawaiians for many years into the future.

This bill gives us an opportunity not to look backward but to help all Hawaiians move forward and to make sure that the Native Hawaiians in that great State are full members and not left behind as Hawaii continues to progress.

This is an important piece of legislation. I take a minute to commend the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and most of all Senator Akaka, particularly, for his tireless efforts to bring this to the floor. When people all across the country didn't know about this issue, Senator Akaka was the one who made sure we did. He has been a champion for the people of Hawaii. He is always working hard and thinking big to realize this ideal for the native population of his State. They are truly fortunate to have Senator Akaka as their Senator.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I will be proud to add my vote to the roll call.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2006.

When we talk about veterans in Washington, I often think about my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.

He could have had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the G.I. Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American dream.

And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as

a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a recent trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters.

Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And more than half a million will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. They have served in every conflict since World War II. Many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector.

All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us.

This is wrong. It is because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they were abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it is wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right.

Last year, I introduced the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act, S. 1180--the SAVE Act--to strengthen services for homeless veterans. The SAVE Act would reauthorize and expand two of the most successful programs in dealing with homeless veterans: the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. In addition, the SAVE Act would expand the reach of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to also include veterans at risk of homelessness, so that we can work to prevent homelessness before it happens.

And while it is one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily; it is another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness.

That is why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans.

So that we don't just leave them, to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.

Every day in America, we walk past men and women on street comers with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar; sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve--and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.

This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that any of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it is time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2006.

When we talk about veterans in Washington, I often think about my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.

He could have had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the G.I. Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American dream.

And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as

a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a recent trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters.

Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And more than half a million will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. They have served in every conflict since World War II. Many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector.

All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us.

This is wrong. It is because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they were abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it is wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right.

Last year, I introduced the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act, S. 1180--the SAVE Act--to strengthen services for homeless veterans. The SAVE Act would reauthorize and expand two of the most successful programs in dealing with homeless veterans: the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. In addition, the SAVE Act would expand the reach of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to also include veterans at risk of homelessness, so that we can work to prevent homelessness before it happens.

And while it is one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily; it is another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness.

That is why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans.

So that we don't just leave them, to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.

Every day in America, we walk past men and women on street comers with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar; sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve--and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.

This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that any of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it is time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. President, on May 1, I was in Chicago to witness a monumental event. There were close to half a million people marching for comprehensive immigration reform. They were mostly people of Mexican origin, but among them were also Nigerians, Polish, Irish, Central American immigrants, and their American-born friends, family, and supporters.

By now, most Americans are familiar with the issues surrounding immigration. We have a system of legal immigration under which 1 million people apply for legal residency each year and eventually pursue citizenship if they choose. Another 500,000 come across the border illegally and evade our border patrol.

There are an estimated 12 million undocumented persons here working mostly in backbreaking jobs in agriculture, construction, packing plants, restaurants, and elsewhere. Some in the media have presented them as an invading hoard.

But I spoke to the marchers who gathered 3 weeks ago, and what I saw was nothing to fear. They have come here for the same reason other immigrants have come for generations: to pursue the notion that they can make a better life for themselves, and most importantly for their children, if they work hard and apply themselves.

Our country is ambivalent about this influx of undocumented immigrants. Many Americans, including myself, believe that these people are doing what many of us would do for our own children in the same situation. They take immense risks to get here and would not have come illegally if they could have come legally through the limited visas we issue each year.

But while Americans understand the human desire to pursue a better life, they know we do not have an infinite capacity to absorb everyone who would like to come here. Ours is a nation of laws. And we cannot perpetuate a system that continues to have people coming here outside the law.

Economists debate the effect undocumented workers have on the economy and opportunities available to Americans. There are areas where immigrants are doing jobs Americans would not do. But there are other circumstances where employers are bringing in workers for jobs that Americans would fill if employers paid fair wages. In the African- American community, where unemployment rates often remain high, there is some tension about whether we should be importing large numbers of workers to compete with American workers.

What I say to them is that immigrants in illegal status have no ability to fight for fair pay and fair treatment. African-American workers and Latinos at the bottom of the wage ladder will all be better off if these workers can come out hiding and defend themselves.

Today, under Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy, Senator McCain, and Senator Kennedy's leadership, we will pass a bill that provides stronger border security, meaningful enforcement in the workplace, and a long, earned pathway to citizenship. The idea for the undocumented is that they would jump through multiple hoops over an 11-year period to earn the right to stay and eventually become citizens of the United States.

The Senate bill upholds our tradition as a nation of immigrants and proposes reforms in a comprehensive, commonsense manner, and it imposes new, strict but sensible enforcement mechanisms.

The opponents of this effort have called it amnesty. They would prefer a punitive House bill that builds a wall across our southern border, deports the 12 million people here illegally, and makes any undocumented worker a felon.

That kind of approach is not realistic. We are not going to deport 12 million people. Millions of them have American children. Many have been here for many years and have deep roots. It is hard to imagine that we would have police and immigration officials invading people's homes, separating families, and forcibly sending people home. But Americans are right to demand that we end illegal immigration going forward.

The draconian House legislation led to the marches. But what started as marches of fear on the part of immigrant workers has turned into a movement of hope. People are hoping they have an opportunity to legalize their status in some way. Their hope and our hope is that we can move forward together.

This was and will continue to be an emotional debate. What we saw in the marches was the face of a new America. The face of our country is changing, and we cannot be threatened by it. I strongly believe that we are going to be better off united than divided.

But I also believe in a common culture. I told the immigrants at the marches that citizenship involves a common language, a common faith in the country, a common sense of purpose, and a loyalty to a common flag. I believe that this is what the immigrant community wants. They want to follow in the steps of the millions who came before them and helped our country meld from many peoples into one Nation. In diversity we come together as one.

To those who fear immigrants, I say we cannot have a country in which you have a servant class picking our lettuce, mowing our lawns, and caring for our children, but who never have the full rights and obligations of citizenship.

Today, the Senate will respond to the call for action from not only these marchers but all Americans who want to uphold our finest traditions. It has been a tough few weeks, but I am proud of this body today. We worked hard, conducted a civil debate, and have taken a big step toward fixing our immigration system. My hope is the conferees will put their stamp of approval on the Senate bill we are passing today.

Let me say that while I support this bill, it is not perfect. I have serious reservations about several of the provisions in the bill, most notably the guest worker provision. I voted for two amendments offered by Senator Dorgan that would have eliminated or sunsetted the provision, but these amendments failed. I am pleased, however, that the Senate adopted an

amendment by Senator Bingaman that lowers the number of guest workers that could enter the country under this bill.

I also am concerned about the changes we have made to the diversity visa program that will end up disadvantaging potential immigrants from underrepresented countries, such as African countries.

On balance, however, this is a very good bill. It gives us strong border security, makes hiring illegal workers virtually impossible, and provides all those families, children, mothers, and fathers I saw in that amazing march with the opportunity to become full members of the American community.

I was pleased that two amendments I offered were included in the bill. One amendment strengthened the prevailing wage requirements in the bill for all American workers and all jobs. It also ensured that communities where the American unemployment rate is high will not experience unnecessary competition from guest workers.

The second amendment was a collaborative effort with Senators Grassley, Kennedy, and Baucus to create a new employment eligibility verification system. We are making it simple but mandatory for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work here. This amendment will have a far greater impact on stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into this country than simply building a fence along the border.

I commend my colleagues for their work on this legislation. Together, with faith in the values that unite our country, we are moving forward true to our tradition as a nation of immigrants that is capable of coming together to resolve difficult challenges.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, let me start by saying that the nomination of General Hayden is a difficult one for me. I generally, as a rule, believe the President should be able to appoint members of his Cabinet, of his staff, to positions such as the one General Hayden is nominated for without undue obstruction from Congress.

General Hayden is extremely well qualified for this position. Having previously served as head of the National Security Agency and as Deputy Director of National Intelligence under John Negroponte, he has 30 years of experience in intelligence and national security matters. And he was nearly universally praised during his confirmation to Deputy

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Let me echo Senator Kennedy's strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

There is no more fundamental right accorded to United States citizens by the Constitution than the right to vote. And the unimpeded exercise of this right is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Unfortunately, history has not been kind to certain citizens in their ability to exercise this right.

For a large part of our Nation's history, racial minorities have been prevented from voting because of barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and property requirements.

We have come a long way in the last 40 years. That was clear just a few weeks ago when Democrats and Republicans, Members of the Senate and the House, stood on the Capitol steps to announce the introduction of a bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. That rare and refreshing display of bipartisanship reflects our collective belief that more needs to be done to remove barriers to voting.

Right now, the Senate is finishing a historic debate about immigration reform. It has been a difficult discussion, occasionally contentious. And it has required bipartisan cooperation. After several weeks, and many, many amendments, we are less than an hour away from voting for cloture. Considering our progress and the delicate balance we are trying to maintain, this amendment could not come at a worse time.

Let's be clear, this is a national voter identification law. This is a national voter identification law that breaks the careful compromise struck by a 50-50 Senate 4 years ago. It would be the most restrictive voter identification law ever enacted, one that could quite literally result in millions of disenfranchised voters and utter chaos at the State level.

Now, I recognize there is a certain simplistic appeal to this amendment. After all, why shouldn't we require people to present a photo identification card when they vote? Don't we want to ensure that voters are actually who they claim to be? And shouldn't we at least make sure that noncitizens are not casting ballots and changing the outcomes of elections?

There are two problems with that argument. First, there has been no showing that there is any significant problem of voter fraud in the 50 States. There certainly is no showing that noncitizens are rushing to try to vote. This is a solution in search of a problem. The second problem is that historically disenfranchised groups--minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled--are most affected by photo identification laws.

Let me give you a few statistics. Overall, 12 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a driver's license, most of whom are minorities, new U.S. citizens, the indigent, the elderly, or the disabled. AARP reports that 3.6 million disabled Americans have no driver's license.

A recent study in Wisconsin found that white adults were twice as likely to have driver's licenses as African Americans over 18. A study in Louisiana found that African Americans were four to five times less likely to have photo identification than white residents.

Now, why won't poor people be able to get photo identifications or REAL IDs? It is simple: Because it costs money. You need a birth certificate, passport, or proof of naturalization, and that can cost up to $85. Then you need to go to a State office to apply for a card. That requires time off work, possibly a long trip on public transportation, assuming there is even an office near you.

Imagine if you only vote once every 2 or 4 years, it is not very likely you are going to take time off work, take a bus to a far-off government office to get an identification, and pay $85 just so you can vote. That is not something most folks are going to be able to do.

The fact of the matter is, this is an idea that has been batted around, not with respect to immigration, but with respect to generally attempting to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the country. This is not the time to do it.

The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform found that in the 2002 and 2004 elections, fraudulent votes made up .00003 percent of the votes cast. That is a lot of zeros. So let me say it a different way: Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during those elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that in some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a Federal election.

This is not the appropriate time to be debating this kind of amendment. We have a lot of serious issues to address with respect to immigration. I ask all my colleagues to reject this amendment so we can move on to the important business at hand.

Thank you, Mr. President.