Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to support older Americans. Seniors today are living longer, healthier lives. We must do what we can to help them be as independent and active as possible.

We have worked together on both sides of the aisle and with aging organizations, including the organizations that make up the Leadership Council on Aging, to introduce S.3570, the Older

Americans Act Amendments of 2006, which I believe is a strong bipartisan bill. I would like to thank Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Senator DeWine for their work. I have worked closely with Senator DeWine in the past, and this is the second Older Americans Act that we have reauthorized together. This bill honors and maintains the commitment we made to the nation's seniors through the Older Americans Act.

The Older Americans Act is one of our most important responsibilities. The 1,200 delegates to the December 2005 White House Conference on Aging voted reauthorization of the act this year as their top priority. I am pleased that we were able to produce this bipartisan bill, but we still have work to do before the Older Americans Act is reauthorized.

We need to continue to work on the Community Service Employment Program for Older Americans, in title V. Much of our bill is quite similar to what the House passed last week, but title V is not. Our bill has maintained the strong community service employment aspect of the program, which has been an integral component since the beginning. The House bill has elements that will minimize and chip away at this community service employment element. The Community Service Employment Program for Older Americans helps seniors obtain employment at Meals on Wheels programs, senior centers, local area agencies on aging, public libraries, and many other public organizations that rely heavily on these seniors. Through community service employment, community organizations receive valuable support while participants receive valuable skill training. I am strongly opposed to losing the community service aspect of this program, and I am pleased our bill strengthens it. I expect that we will continue to protect this as we move to work with the House.

There are several principles that I believe must guide reauthorization. First, we must continue and improve the core services of this act to meet the vital needs of America's seniors. Secondly, we must modernize the act to meet the changing needs of America's senior population, including the growing number of seniors over 85, the impending senior boom, and the growing number of seniors in minority groups. Next, we must look for ways to help seniors live more independent and active lives. Finally, we must give national, State, and local programs the resources they need to carry out these vital responsibilities.

I believe the 2006 reauthorization bill strengthens current Older Americans Act programs and offers innovative ideas that will address the needs of our country's aging population. The reauthorization bill strengthens information and referral services that are the backbone of OAA programs, providing seniors and their family members information about supportive services and information needed to prepare for long- term care. Our bill also strengthens elder abuse programs.

The reauthorization bill also improves the core services of the Older Americans Act. Seniors have come to depend on the information and referral services, congregate and home-delivered meals, transportation, home care, and other OAA programs to meet their daily needs. Whether it is pension counseling or the long-term care ombudsman program--these are vital to helping seniors navigate the complex financial and health care systems. Not all seniors have family and friends that can assist them with complicated decisions, like choosing a long-term care insurance plan or a nursing home. These programs put information in terms seniors can understand. These programs are a safety net for many.

I am especially pleased that this bill authorizes programs to encourage community innovation to support and enhance the ability of seniors to age in place. Seniors will be able to remain in their homes and communities, close to family and friends by providing them necessary supporting services such as transportation, social work services, and health programs to help seniors remain independent and in their communities. Grant program will encourage innovation and build on the success of naturally occurring retirement communities, NORC, programs. NORC programs have been developed at the local level and have a proven record of success. We heard from successful programs in Maryland, Ohio, and New York at the Subcommittee on Aging hearing on NORCs last month. I thank them again for their work and leadership. I always say that the best ideas come from the people, and this is one of the best I have seen in a long time.

This bill also improves the National Family Caregiver Support Program. With the reauthorization of OAA in 2000, we worked hard to create the National Family Caregiver Support Program. In 2003, this program provided assistance to nearly 600,000 caregivers. Services include respite care, caregiver counseling and training, information about available resources, and assistance in locating services. These services are invaluable to seniors and their families. We have worked with the aging community to expand these services. Upon the advice of the Alzheimer's Association our bill lowers the age eligibility for the program for individuals with Alzheimer's from 60 to 50, allowing more individuals with Alzheimer's to qualify for services. Our bill also lowers the age of eligible grandparents to 55. This allows the program to target services to those who need it most.

Our bill also seeks to improve emergency preparedness for seniors. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, who was left behind? The elderly, the sick, the disabled. We must plan for their needs and use the senior network that exists in our country to make sure that they are not forgotten. Our bill requires States and Area Agencies on Aging to coordinate to develop plans and establish guidelines for addressing the senior population during a disaster/emergency.

I believe that this bipartisan reauthorization bill honors and maintains the commitment Congress made to our Nation's seniors through the Older Americans Act when it was first created in 1965. Reauthorization of this program for America's seniors and their families is one of our most important responsibilities. I look forward to continuing to work to get a bill passed this year. It is an important responsibility that we have to our Nation's seniors.

Mr. President, I rise today to support older Americans. Seniors today are living longer, healthier lives. We must do what we can to help them be as independent and active as possible.

We have worked together on both sides of the aisle and with aging organizations, including the organizations that make up the Leadership Council on Aging, to introduce S.3570, the Older

Americans Act Amendments of 2006, which I believe is a strong bipartisan bill. I would like to thank Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Senator DeWine for their work. I have worked closely with Senator DeWine in the past, and this is the second Older Americans Act that we have reauthorized together. This bill honors and maintains the commitment we made to the nation's seniors through the Older Americans Act.

The Older Americans Act is one of our most important responsibilities. The 1,200 delegates to the December 2005 White House Conference on Aging voted reauthorization of the act this year as their top priority. I am pleased that we were able to produce this bipartisan bill, but we still have work to do before the Older Americans Act is reauthorized.

We need to continue to work on the Community Service Employment Program for Older Americans, in title V. Much of our bill is quite similar to what the House passed last week, but title V is not. Our bill has maintained the strong community service employment aspect of the program, which has been an integral component since the beginning. The House bill has elements that will minimize and chip away at this community service employment element. The Community Service Employment Program for Older Americans helps seniors obtain employment at Meals on Wheels programs, senior centers, local area agencies on aging, public libraries, and many other public organizations that rely heavily on these seniors. Through community service employment, community organizations receive valuable support while participants receive valuable skill training. I am strongly opposed to losing the community service aspect of this program, and I am pleased our bill strengthens it. I expect that we will continue to protect this as we move to work with the House.

There are several principles that I believe must guide reauthorization. First, we must continue and improve the core services of this act to meet the vital needs of America's seniors. Secondly, we must modernize the act to meet the changing needs of America's senior population, including the growing number of seniors over 85, the impending senior boom, and the growing number of seniors in minority groups. Next, we must look for ways to help seniors live more independent and active lives. Finally, we must give national, State, and local programs the resources they need to carry out these vital responsibilities.

I believe the 2006 reauthorization bill strengthens current Older Americans Act programs and offers innovative ideas that will address the needs of our country's aging population. The reauthorization bill strengthens information and referral services that are the backbone of OAA programs, providing seniors and their family members information about supportive services and information needed to prepare for long- term care. Our bill also strengthens elder abuse programs.

The reauthorization bill also improves the core services of the Older Americans Act. Seniors have come to depend on the information and referral services, congregate and home-delivered meals, transportation, home care, and other OAA programs to meet their daily needs. Whether it is pension counseling or the long-term care ombudsman program--these are vital to helping seniors navigate the complex financial and health care systems. Not all seniors have family and friends that can assist them with complicated decisions, like choosing a long-term care insurance plan or a nursing home. These programs put information in terms seniors can understand. These programs are a safety net for many.

I am especially pleased that this bill authorizes programs to encourage community innovation to support and enhance the ability of seniors to age in place. Seniors will be able to remain in their homes and communities, close to family and friends by providing them necessary supporting services such as transportation, social work services, and health programs to help seniors remain independent and in their communities. Grant program will encourage innovation and build on the success of naturally occurring retirement communities, NORC, programs. NORC programs have been developed at the local level and have a proven record of success. We heard from successful programs in Maryland, Ohio, and New York at the Subcommittee on Aging hearing on NORCs last month. I thank them again for their work and leadership. I always say that the best ideas come from the people, and this is one of the best I have seen in a long time.

This bill also improves the National Family Caregiver Support Program. With the reauthorization of OAA in 2000, we worked hard to create the National Family Caregiver Support Program. In 2003, this program provided assistance to nearly 600,000 caregivers. Services include respite care, caregiver counseling and training, information about available resources, and assistance in locating services. These services are invaluable to seniors and their families. We have worked with the aging community to expand these services. Upon the advice of the Alzheimer's Association our bill lowers the age eligibility for the program for individuals with Alzheimer's from 60 to 50, allowing more individuals with Alzheimer's to qualify for services. Our bill also lowers the age of eligible grandparents to 55. This allows the program to target services to those who need it most.

Our bill also seeks to improve emergency preparedness for seniors. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, who was left behind? The elderly, the sick, the disabled. We must plan for their needs and use the senior network that exists in our country to make sure that they are not forgotten. Our bill requires States and Area Agencies on Aging to coordinate to develop plans and establish guidelines for addressing the senior population during a disaster/emergency.

I believe that this bipartisan reauthorization bill honors and maintains the commitment Congress made to our Nation's seniors through the Older Americans Act when it was first created in 1965. Reauthorization of this program for America's seniors and their families is one of our most important responsibilities. I look forward to continuing to work to get a bill passed this year. It is an important responsibility that we have to our Nation's seniors.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Philip Merrill--journalist, diplomat, philanthropist, patriot--and friend.

Phil Merrill was an original. Yet his life story was the American dream. He was born in a row house in Baltimore. Through hard work and brilliant business sense, he built a major publishing company--Capital- Gazette Newspapers. He was a champion for sound environmental stewardship. He endowed the School of Journalism at the University of Maryland. He served his Nation, and he served his State. And he was part of a strong, loving family.

Phil Merrill ran the oldest continually published newspaper in the United States--the Annapolis Capital. Each of his newspapers is known for strong local coverage and for strong opinion pages. He endowed the Philip Merrill School of Journalism at the University of Maryland-- which trains the next generations of journalists in the skills and values that Phil Merrill put into action every day of his life.

Phil Merrill served three Presidents in important international appointments--including Assistant Attorney General of NATO. When he was appointed by President Bush to be president of the Export-Import Bank-- I laughed with him, saying ``I thought diplomats were supposed to keep us out of wars.'' A dainty diplomat--no. A determined advocate for democracy--yes.

Phil was also a passionate environmentalist. He especially loved the Chesapeake Bay. He endowed a ``green'' building for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. This is not just a building where the Bay Foundation does its outstanding education and advocacy work; it is a building with a design that is environmentally friendly.

Much has been said of Phil Merrill's feistiness. Well, I happen to like feisty people. He stood up for what he believed in. He fought for what he felt was right. And he made a difference.

His partner in life was his wife Eleanor. In publishing, in philanthropy, she shared his zest for life and his many passions. I know that Ellie Merrill will continue to guide the institutions that she and Phil built and supported. She and her family are in my thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time.

Phil Merrill's death is a tragedy. Yet his life was a triumph. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this extraordinary man.

I ask that an article from the Annapolis Capital be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

Philip Merrill, Capital Publisher, Dead at 72

Philip Merrill, 72, publisher, diplomat and philanthropist,

died June 10 after going sailing aboard his 41-foot sailboat

Merrilly on the Chesapeake Bay. His body was discovered

yesterday in the bay near Poplar Island.

A longtime resident of Arnold, Phil Merrill combined

publishing and public service throughout his career. The

Baltimore native received a degree in government in 1955 from

Cornell University where he was managing editor of the

student newspaper. After serving in the Army, he worked for

newspapers in New Jersey until 1961 when he joined the State

Department and graduated from Harvard University's management

development program.

In 1968 he returned to journalism when he bought The

Evening Capital with several partners. Later he brought in

Landmark Communications Inc. as a minority partner and grew

the newspaper's circulation from 13,000 to 48,000. Chairman

of the board of Capital-Gazette Communications, he also owned

Washingtonian magazine and five other newspapers--the

Maryland Gazette, the Bowie Blade-News, the Crofton News-

Crier, the West County Gazette and South County Gazette. He

also formerly owned Baltimore magazine.

During his public service, he took leaves of absences from

the publishing business to serve six presidential

administrations.

From 1981 to 1983 he was counselor to the under secretary

of defense for policy and from 1990 to 1992 was assistant

secretary-general of NATO for defense support in Brussels,

Belgium, at the treaty organization headquarters. He also had

served on the Department of Defense Policy Board. From 2002

until last summer he was chairman and president of the

Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Mr. Merrill represented the U.S. in negotiations on the Law

of the Sea Conference, the International Telecommunications

Union and various disarmament and exchange agreements with

the former Soviet Union. He was a former special assistant to

the deputy secretary of state, served as the State

Department's senior intelligence analyst for South Asia and

worked in the White House on national security affairs.

He was vice chairman of the Center for Strategic and

Budgetary Assessments and the U.S. director of the

International Institute of Strategic Studies. He also served

on the Department of Defense Policy Board and the Department

Business Board. During the Gulf War he was on President

George H.W. Bush's Air Power Survey and served on President

Reagan's Commission on Cost Control.

In 1988 the Secretary of Defense awarded him the Medal for

Distinguished Service, the department's highest civilian

honor.

Mr. Merrill was chairman of the Capital-Gazette Foundation

and the Merrill Family Foundation. He was a trustee of the

Aspen Institute, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Johns

Hopkins University and the Corcoran Gallery of Art. He was on

the board of visitors of the University of Maryland and the

boards of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International

Studies, the Advanced Physics Laboratories, the American

Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Johnson School of

Management at Cornell, the University of Maryland Foundation,

the Federal City Council, the National Archives Foundation

and the World Affairs Council of Washington.

His board memberships also included those of Cornell, the

Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, the Washington

Airports Task Force and Genesco.

A former fellow of the Institute for International Affairs

of the University of Chicago, he also was a member of the

Council on Foreign Relations, the Chief Executives

Organization and the World Presidents' Organization. For many

years he was chairman of the White House Fellows Commission

regional panels.

A sailor since age 7, he served in the Merchant Marine to

earn money for college. He supported the America's Cup

campaigns and the Hospice Cup sailing regatta which raises

money for charity.

He donated $1 million to Cornell for a sailing center, $10

million to the University of Maryland School of Journalism,

$4 million to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced

International Studies at Johns Hopkins and $7.5 million to

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation for its ``green'' headquarters

in Annapolis. Since 1988 Capital-Gazette newspapers have

awarded $661,000 in academic scholarships to outstanding high

school students.

Mr. Merrill enjoyed his family, snow skiing, sailing and

ice cream.

Surviving are his wife of 45 years, Eleanor Pocius Merrill,

who has assumed his publishing duties; his family, Doug and

Lisa Merrill of Shelburne, Vt., Cathy and Paul Williams of

Washington, D.C., and Nancy Merrill of Arlington, Va.; four

grandchildren, Alexander Merrill, 6, Jack Merrill, 4, Wynne

Williams, 17 months, and Bryce Williams, two weeks old; and

one sister, Suzanne Watson of Chicago, Ill.

A celebration of life ceremony for family and friends will

be held at 2 p.m. Thursday at Mellon Auditorium, 1301

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.

In lieu of flowers, the family requests you cherish a

memory.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin-Reed amendment on U.S. policy in Iraq. Before I continue, I would like to say a word about our troops and their families. We owe our brave servicemembers and their families a debt of gratitude for their selfless service and great sacrifice in Iraq, over the last 3 years. Members of our Armed Forces are at this moment deployed in harm's way, many on their second or third deployment. They and their families should know they have our wholehearted support and gratitude, with deeds, not just with words. Our troops need to know, what is our exit strategy?

In October 2002, as the Senate debated giving the President authority to invade Iraq, I asked whether our troops would be greeted with land mines or parades. Three years later, we know the answer. Our forces have faced a violent insurgency and terrorist attacks that have claimed the lives of 2,500 brave American servicemembers. We went to war with Iraq, but today we find ourselves at war in Iraq. After 3 years, it is time for a new approach.

Mr. President, 2006 must be a year of transition in Iraq. We want Iraqis to lead, so we can leave. It is important for Iraqis to take ownership of Iraq. They must provide for their own security, take charge of economic development, and restore civic order. Iraq is beginning to move in the right direction, but our open-ended presence is keeping them from making faster progress.

That is why I am proud to support this amendment, which calls on the President to begin reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq by the end of 2006. This amendment gives us a plan for a phased, structured withdrawal of our troops so Iraqi forces can take control of their country in an orderly way.

This is not about cut and run. This is about getting out of the way so Iraqis can run their own country. Iraqi security and police forces are getting stronger by the day, and the U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, thinks it will be possible to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 troops by the end of 2006.

Iraqi National Security Adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has said that the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people. In an excellent article in the June 20, 2006 Washington Post, he details the ``road map'' for restoring security in Iraq and reducing the presence of foreign troops. The road map's objectives are similar to the benchmarks for withdrawal of U.S. forces outlined last year in legislation offered by Senator Warner and Senator Levin, which I supported.

Here is what Mr. Rubaie said can be done: ``With the governors of each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq's ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.'' He went on to say that ``. . . the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. . . . [T]he draw-down of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to.'' Mr. Rubaie concluded, ``Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it.'' We salute and support the position the Iraqis themselves are taking. This is what the Levin-Reed amendment does. Iraqis want full control of their country by the end of 2008, and we should help them toward that goal.

We need to ensure that an adequate number of Iraqi Army battalions can operate independently to defeat the insurgency and protect Iraq's borders, and we must ensure an adequate number of Iraqi police and security units are trained and equipped to maintain law and order. The Iraqi Government is committed to meeting these benchmarks as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, our brave men and women are serving with great honor in Iraq. Their service has paved the way for democratic elections and for the formation of a new unity government. We are all tremendously proud of their accomplishments and grateful for their sacrifice. It is time for the Iraqi Government to stand up, so our troops can begin to stand down

Mr. President, I intend to vote for this emergency supplemental appropriations conference agreement because of the critical funding it will provide to our troops. Our men and women in uniform, and their families, deserve our support, not just in words but with deeds. This bill also provides important support to our fellow Americans in the gulf coast region who continue to rebuild their communities after the devastation of the 2005 hurricane season.

But I am disappointed that important provisions included in the Senate bill were stripped out in conference. With nearly 150,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is shameful that this conference report stripped out $430 million for veterans health care. And I am concerned that this bill short changes the U.S. Coast Guard and important port security measures. Through the regular appropriations process, I will continue to fight for our veterans, and to ensure the security of our coast and our ports.

In this bill, we have provided over $15 billion to fix or replace equipment that has been damaged during combat operations and to buy additional force protection equipment desperately needed by our brave men and women on the battlefield.

To help protect our troops from deadly improvised explosive devices, IEDs, this bill creates the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and provides the fund with nearly $2 billion to develop and field the necessary tactics, equipment, and training to defeat these deadly weapons.

To ensure that we do all we can to care for soldiers when they are injured, this bill includes an additional $1 billion for the Defense Health program. This money ensures that we can continue to provide world-class services including rapid aero-medical evacuation to our most severely wounded soldiers.

The veterans health care system is stretched to the limit at a time when more and more veterans are turning to VA. That is why I cosponsored an amendment by Senator Akaka to increase veterans funding by $430 million to meet the health care needs of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and other war veterans. I am very disappointed that this funding was removed in conference but will continue to fight for our veterans to ensure they have the funding needed to receive the care they deserve.

The rank-and-file employees of the Federal Government are the unsung heroes of this country. Unfortunately, they are often required to work in substandard or often hazardous conditions. It was recently reported that employees within this very building are forced to enter tunnels full of asbestos and on the verge of collapse. That is why I co- sponsored an amendment by Senator Allard that provides over $27 million for critical emergency structural repairs to the Capitol Complex utilities tunnels. I will continue to fight for our Federal workforce to ensure they have safe working environments and proper safety equipment.

We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when they are mobilized because their military pay is less than the pay from their civilian job. Many patriotic employers and State governments eliminate this pay gap by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and military pay. The reservist pay security amendment, which I worked on with Senator Durbin, was designed to ensure that the U.S. Government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserves. Again, this important piece of legislation was removed from the bill during conference, but it is not dead with me. I will continue to push for equitable treatment for our Guard and Reserve troops who selflessly serve their Nation.

After 9/11, we realized that our borders were not secure. Since then, we have waged the war on terror and made great strides in protecting our homeland. We have made significant investments in law enforcement and security; however, the infrastructure that supports our border security has been allowed to crumble.

To counter this, I supported an amendment proposed by Senators Gregg and Byrd to add $1.9 billion for border security initiatives to include buying additional vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, and ships. This amendment also provided $600 million for the U.S. Coast Guard, the border protector of our waters. Of this amount, $12 million was for the Mission Effectiveness Program at the U.S. Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, MD. This project is designed to extend the service life and increase the mission performance of the Coast Guard's aging fleet of medium endurance cutters. I regret that in conference the House and Senate agreed to

the President's border security proposal which solely focuses on beefing up the National Guard and border agents along the Nation's southwest border.

I am also disappointed that $648 million for additional port security initiatives was stripped from the final conference agreement. The Port of Baltimore, in my hometown, recently celebrated its 300th anniversary. It is my responsibility to see to it that the Baltimore community celebrates the port's 400th anniversary. We must continue to provide adequate funding for our ports in the manner we are for our borders.

We have all seen the devastating effects of natural disasters and terrorism and are working hard to prevent future occurrences from affecting our Nation and the world. We have recently learned of another potential threat: a worldwide flu epidemic that could cost millions of lives if we are unprepared. In response to this threat, this bill provides $2.3 billion to prepare for and respond to an influenza pandemic. Making this money available now will help expand the domestic production capacity of influenza vaccine and will help develop and stockpile the right vaccines, antivirals, and other medical supplies necessary to protect and preserve lives in the event of an outbreak.

Mr. President, this bill is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their families and providing relief for those impacted by the devastating hurricanes.

We support our troops by getting them the best equipment and the best protection we can provide. We support them by making it easier for our citizen soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves to serve their country. And we support them by ensuring they are cared for with the best possible medical system when they are injured or ill.

With this bill, we are also helping our neighbors rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives, and I am proud to give it my support.

Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment to create a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers. America is facing a nursing shortage and it is getting worse. America's nurses are overworked, underpaid, and undervalued yet nursing schools are still forced to turn away qualified students. More than 30,000 qualified applicants were turned away last year. In Maryland, nursing programs turned away more than 2,000 qualified students last year. Why are they turning away all of these qualified applicants? Because there aren't enough teachers to teach them. This is the biggest bottleneck in ending the nursing shortage.

The military is also facing a nursing shortage. Medicine is a 24-hour job. Military medicine is even harder. Our military medical professionals have accomplished something truly remarkable in this war: injured troops who make it to a field hospital have a 96 percent rate of survival. That is a testament to our military doctors and nurses on the front lines.

We need to make sure there are enough military nurses to continue to provide this outstanding care. Neither the Army nor the Air Force have met their nurse recruitment goals since the 1990s. In 2004, Navy Nurse Corps recruitment fell 32 percent below its target. The Air Force and Army are also 30 percent below their targets. All branches of the military are offering incentives for nurses to join the Armed Forces. But there simply aren't enough nurses to fill those jobs because there aren't enough teachers to train them. There is a pool of potential nurse educators in our retired nurse corps. We should take advantage of their experience and their dedication to teach the next generation of military nurses.

This amendment would help to train the next generation of military nurses and help to curb the nursing shortage by encouraging nurse corps officers to become nurse educators. It establishes a ``Troops to Nurse Teachers'' pilot program which will provide scholarships and other financial assistance to

nurse corps officers so that they can get advanced degrees to become nurse educators. In exchange for these scholarships, they must teach for at least 3 years in a school of nursing and continue service in either the reserves or another form of public service. This is modeled after the ``Troops to Teachers'' program which gives incentives to people leaving the military to become teachers. Since 1994, more than 8,000 former soldiers have been hired as teachers through this program.

We must make sure our troops have enough nurses to keep them safe. The nursing shortage affects every State, every city, every town. And it affects our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are so many dedicated military nurses that still want to give back to their country. They can do this by teaching the next generation of military nurses. But we must empower them to choose nurse education--making it more affordable, providing opportunities for advancement--so nurses can move up instead of moving on and so our troops get the care that they need. I thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my longtime friend and colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd, on his landmark accomplishment of becoming the longest serving member of the U.S. Senate. Today is Senator Byrd's 17,327th day in office--that is 48 years. And he is still going strong--gearing up for his race for a ninth term this fall.

Senator Byrd's life shows the power of America's unique opportunity structure. His mother died when he was a baby. He was raised by his aunt and uncle, a coal miner, during the Great Depression. In his early life, he worked pumping gas, cutting meat, and even welding war ships in various ports--including in my own hometown of Baltimore. Yet Senator Byrd never forgot his roots, and he never forgot those miners. In fact, his new mine safety legislation--the MINER Act--just passed the Senate last week. Like me, he stands up for the little guy.

Senator Byrd and I have a long history together. When I first came to the Senate in 1986, one of the people who was most welcoming to me was Senator Byrd. I reached out to him. I told him I not only wanted to be a fighter--I wanted to be an effective player. I wanted to be there not only to change the law books. I wanted to be sure there was money in the Federal checkbook for my State and for the national priorities that would help ordinary families. Robert Byrd said to me, ``You should come on my Appropriations Committee.''

Senator Byrd helped me become the first woman on the Appropriations Committee and one of the first freshman members of the Senate on the Appropriations Committee. With Senator Byrd as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and I as a member, we have been working together ever since to build coalitions to get things done.

Senator Byrd's home State of West Virginia is right next door to Maryland. We share a common border--with Allegheny, Garret, and parts of Washington Counties just across the State line in Western Maryland. But we share more than a common border. We share a common set of values--rooted in faith, family commitment and patriotism.

Senator Byrd is no stranger to breaking records. He has done this before. He has already cast more votes and held more leadership positions--including serving as minority leader for 6 years and serving two stints as President pro tempore--than any other U.S. Senator in history. Today's record is further evidence of Senator Byrd's unwavering dedication to his State. When asked about this accomplishment, Senator Byrd told the press: ``Records are fine. But what's important is what I do for the people of West Virginia. They are the ones who sent me here 48 years ago.'' It is this dedication that keeps the people of West Virginia voting for Senator Byrd. I like to say that I am the ``Senator from Maryland and for Maryland,'' and it is this kind of shared value that makes me feel so close to Senator Byrd.

So today--June 12, 2006--we congratulate Senator Robert C. Byrd for his historic contributions to his State and to our Nation.

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues in the submittal of S. Res. 98 congratulating the Israeli people on their celebration of the 39th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and calling for the United States to relocate its embassy in Israel from the city of Tel-Aviv to the recognized capital city of Jerusalem.

This year, Israel celebrates the 39th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Starting in 1948 Jerusalem was a divided city. Under Jordanian rule, many of the holy areas were off limits to Israelis of any religion and to Jews of any nationality. In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israeli troops reunified the city of Jerusalem. Then, people of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city, and the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

In 1995, the U.S. Congress declared that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. I was proud to cosponsor the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, and I am proud today to join my colleagues in urging the administration to move our Embassy to Israeli's rightful capital. The President of Israel, Israel's Parliament and the Israeli Supreme Court are all located in Jerusalem. What is not located in Jerusalem is the Embassy of the United States. Every sovereign country has the right to designate its own capital and the United States maintains its Embassy in the functioning capital of every country. The one exception is Israel, a great friend and ally to the United States.

Israel is a steadfast strategic ally of the United States. The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel. It is time for the U.S. Embassy to be relocated to Jerusalem, the recognized capital of Israel. With this resolution, the Senate calls on President Bush to discontinue the waiver contained in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and reaffirm U.S. policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel.

Madam President, today the Senate is considering whether to repeal the estate tax. I believe strongly there are problems with the estate tax. Most importantly, it needs to be reformed so it applies to fewer people.

To ensure our Nation's economic competitiveness, government must reward thrift, hard work, and entrepreneurship. It cannot punish those who have saved and worked hard. Instead, we should support our small businesses and family farms--the engine of economic growth in America.

To do this, Congress must raise the exemption for the estate tax. In 2006, estates worth more than $2 million are subject to the tax. This is too low and subjects too many Americans to the estate tax. That exemption needs to be raised. The baby boomers are growing older and approaching retirement, and many have attained some measure of economic prosperity through their years of hard work. They should not be punished for this well-deserved success. Tripling the exemption to $6 million will make sure that the estate tax continues to target an extremely small group of very wealthy Americans. In fact, with an exemption of $6 million per person, or $12 million per couple, less than 50 of all those who pass away in Maryland in 2006 will have to pay any estate taxes at all.

At the same time, I stand for a patriotic pause, which means not passing any new tax cuts until our Nation has paid for the war in Iraq and our troops. The war in Iraq is costing us $2 billion each week. Where is the Iraqi oil that we were promised would help pay for this? There cannot be a change in our revenue stream until the war is over-- or paid for by Iraqi oil. If I have to choose between a tax cut or body armor for our troops, I choose body armor. Our first obligation must be to our troops.

War is not the time to be repealing the estate tax. Americans are putting their lives on the line to serve in Iraq and too many are making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to repeal the estate tax. But we must reform it.

I am a deficit Democrat. The Federal Government has a $337 billion budget deficit. But that pales in comparison to our Nation's debt, which has risen to $8.3 trillion. It has been estimated that by 2015, each American family's share of our national debt will be $85,000. It affects us all.

I took the tough votes in 1990 and 1993 that led to a balanced budget. They led to the first budget surplus in a generation. But most importantly, those steps put the economy back on track and resulted in 8 years of prosperity enjoyed by all Americans. We created 23 million new jobs and increased wages. Inflation fell and unemployment dropped to historic lows.

Today, Congress must act responsibly. We should not be repealing the estate tax. We should be reforming it so it affects fewer people, protects our small businesses, and so we can keep our Nation strong and secure.

Mr. President, I speak today in support of the nomination of Dr. Susan Schwab to be the U.S. Trade Representative. I have known Susan for a long time and have seen her great leadership and vision as dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. As dean, Susan helped the school grow into one of the top public policy programs in the Nation.

I support fair trade, so American workers can compete. Dr. Schwab has demonstrated her commitment to this approach and to ensuring our Nation's economic competitiveness. Our top trade representative needs to be tough, smart, and have experience standing up for American interests. Dr. Schwab clearly fits that bill as well.

Dr. Schwab's qualifications for this position are first-rate. She is a former Foreign Service officer, serving in the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo and as a trade negotiator at the USTR. The experience of serving on the front lines of an office she will now help lead is particularly important. Dr. Schwab also has extensive experience in both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government. She was legislative director for Senator John Danforth and served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director-General of the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service in the first Bush administration.

In addition to her practical experience, Dr. Schwab is accomplished academically. While dean of the Maryland School of Public Policy, she taught a variety of graduate courses on U.S. trade policy and international relations. Dr. Schwab received her Ph.D. in public administration and international business from the George Washington University. She holds a master's in development policy from Stanford University and a bachelor's from Williams College.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. President, today I will vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the Marriage Protection Amendment. This amendment is unneeded and unnecessary. It is divisive and it is a distraction from what the Senate should be doing, which is making families stronger and safer. First, I will vote against this amendment because it is unnecessary. Congress has already spoken on the issue. There is a Federal law and a State law in Maryland that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I supported the Federal law because it allows each State to determine for itself what is considered marriage under its own State law. And no law--not a Federal law, not a State law--can force a church, temple, mosque, or any religious institution to marry a same-sex couple.

I am also opposing this amendment because I take amending the Constitution very seriously. In the entire history of the United States we have only amended the Constitution 17 times. Seventeen times in over 200 years--that's it. We have amended the Constitution to extend rights, not to restrict them. We have amended the Constitution to end slavery, to give women the right to vote, and to guarantee equal protection of the laws to all citizens. We have never used the Constitution as a weapon against a minority of the population, to condone discrimination, and we should not embark on that path today. It is wrong and it undermines the integrity of our Constitution.

This amendment is about politics; it is not about strengthening families. It is about helping Republicans get reelected. If Republicans were serious about helping families they would focus on jobs, health care, the raising cost of energy, and the cost of college tuition. This proposed amendment does not create one new job, pay for one bottle of prescription drugs, lower prices at the gas pump, or send one child to college. This amendment does not help a family pay for the health care of a sick child. It does not make sure that the parent of that child has a job with health care coverage. What it does is divide. Americans don't want to see this divisive debate as part of this year's elections. It is a dangerous distraction; it is an election year ploy.

What do the American people want? They want to see how the Congress is fighting to make families stronger and safer. They want to see how we are standing up for all families. Families are stronger when we create jobs, control the costs of health care, and when we make sure that kids and schools have the resources they need to learn and educate. Families are stronger when we make sure our children have the best education we can offer and when we put these values in the Federal lawbooks and the Federal checkbook. And families are safer and stronger when they have help raising healthy children, when we build communities where they can thrive and when we create a family friendly Tax Code. Those are the actions that help to strengthen families and family values, not this amendment.

Finally, I believe that we need to recognize the rights of gays and lesbians and their families. We should be focusing on helping to strengthen their families and all families. That is where we need to be putting our energy and devoting our attention, instead of on this divisive constitutional amendment.

Mr. President, there are five criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity, commitment to the core mission of the department, commitment to the Constitution, and independence. Based on what I know about General Hayden after working closely with him for more than 5 years, and based on his testimony last week, I will support his nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. I have no question about his competence or personal integrity and expect him to remain an independent voice, committed to the Constitution not just with words but with deeds.

My confidence in General Hayden should not be interpreted as confidence in this administration. I have flashing yellow lights about the Bush administration's willingness to politicize this important intelligence agency. I am also concerned that this administration sometimes pays lip service to the law of the land, as we have seen with recent revelations about the warrantless surveillance program.

In more than 35 years as military intelligence officer, General Hayden has clearly demonstrated his competence, both in his work as Director of the National Security Agency, NSA, and as Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He led NSA at a critical time in the Agency's history, as the United States took the offensive against those who had attacked us. He inherited an agency that needed to be transformed: from its Cold War orientation, from analogue to digital, from concentrating on the Soviet threat to looking at multiple threats and nonstate actors. He accomplished this transformation at breathtaking speed. As Deputy Director of National Intelligence, General Hayden helped stand- up a brand new intelligence organization, recruiting a top-notch team, breaking down ``stove pipes'' between agencies, and helping to unify the entire intelligence community.

I have known and worked closely with General Hayden since 1999, when he came to NSA. I have no question about his personal integrity. He has always been a candid reformer. But recent revelations about the warrantless surveillance program have raised serious questions: questions about the integrity of surveillance programs that may have side-stepped the law; questions about a decision at the highest level to keep most members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in the dark about these programs; and questions about whether a candid reformer has become a cheerleader for this administration. I discussed my concerns with Hayden during the confirmation hearing, and he promised to ``speak truth to power.'' I take him at his word, but the proof will be in his deeds.

I have no question about General Hayden's commitment to the mission of the intelligence community. He has worked in almost every aspect of collecting and analyzing intelligence. But his expertise is technical intelligence, known as signals intelligence, SIGINT, and the CIA is our Nation's lead agency for human intelligence, HUMINT.

These two disciplines have very different challenges, different technology, and different cultures. Many have asked if a SIGINT expert is the right choice to lead a HUMINT agency. General Hayden addressed this question in our hearing. He believes his long career in intelligence has prepared him for this challenge. He has a plan to improve HUMINT tradecraft and develop common standards among all HUMINT agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency. He will also invest in research and development of the cutting-edge technology our men and women at the CIA need to accomplish their mission. General Hayden has promised to focus our human intelligence activities on understanding tomorrow's threats, not just responding to today's headlines. I believe he will bring to the CIA the same leadership, passion for reform, and respect for our intelligence workers that he brought to the NSA. He will be a strong advocate for the CIA as it struggles to redefine itself.

I have two flashing yellow lights about this nomination. First, I have serious questions about the Bush administration's commitment to protecting the Constitution. Second, I believe that we need a CIA Director who will be independent.

I believe General Hayden is committed to protecting the Constitution while he works to protect our country from terrorists. But I am concerned that others in this administration pay lip service to the law of the land. We all take an oath when we take office. We swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We don't swear to a President or to a party. We know there are real threats, predators, actors who want to kill Americans. And we know that some of the tools that keep us safe must remain secret. Which is why our commitment to the Constitution is more important than ever. We can not protect the American people and ignore their Constitution when nobody's looking. Support for the Constitution must be more than lip service. We need a real commitment to put the Constitution first. The Framers gave Congress the responsibility for oversight over the President's policies. We must be informed about significant intelligence activities, as the law requires, so we can exercise our responsibility to protect the Constitution as we protect our Nation from the threats we face.

I am very concerned about the independence of the CIA. We need an independent voice at the CIA, someone who is willing to speak truth to power to whomever is President and also to the congressional oversight committees. The last few years have been difficult ones for the CIA, in part because American people have lost confidence in its leaders. The Agency has had too many ``yes'' men, too few independent voices. I asked General Hayden how he would avoid another Powell, when our distinguished Secretary of State was sent to the United Nations with wrong information, because CIA analysis had become too politicized. General Hayden said that his job at the CIA will be to let intelligence analysts do what comes naturally: provide unvarnished intelligence analysts, independent of political concerns. He said, ``My job is to keep anything from getting in the way'' of their work. He promised to consider implementing a dissent channel to allow intelligence workers an avenue for expressing their concerns without leaking classified information to the press.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe General Hayden is qualified to lead the CIA, and I will vote for his confirmation. But I have serious concerns about how the Bush administration has politicized this important intelligence agency. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence must keep a close eye on the CIA as it struggles to redefine itself and its role in our reformed intelligence community.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk over the last 2 weeks about immigration and the need for immigration reform. I agree our immigration system is broken. We

need to secure our borders, protect American jobs and make sure those immigrants in this country are treated with dignity. I rise today to talk about two provisions that I fought hard to include in the immigration bill.

First, the H-2B visa program, which rewards those immigrants who play by the rules while protecting American jobs. And second, the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Act. This act rights a wrong and corrects a terrible injustice. It makes sure those who are not U.S. citizens but who are fighting to protect this country and have a green card can be a U.S. citizen quickly and easily.

My H-2B visa provision protects our borders by rewarding immigrants and employers who play by the rules. We are talking about workers who come here on a seasonal basis but return to their families when they are finished with their job. Workers who honor their legal commitment to come here, work legally at a job and return home when finished with their work.

This provision protects American workers by requiring employers to recruit American workers before hiring immigrant workers. It makes sure small business can continue to operate and pay their U.S. workers 12 months out of the year. It keeps small and seasonal businesses open for business and guarantees the labor supply small businesses need during their peak seasons when they can't find American workers to take the jobs.

This provision does not raise the cap. It allows employers who hire good guy workers, workers who have played by the rules and returned home after the work was done. These workers can be hired for another 3 years and not count against the annual cap of 66,000 H-2B visas. It provides a helping hand to businesses by letting them apply for workers they have already trained to come back again, year after year and return home after the work is done. And it only applies to those who have already successfully participated in the H-2B visa program-- immigrants who have received a visa and have returned home to their families after their employment with a U.S. company.

Small businesses across this country count on the H-2B visa program to keep their businesses afloat when they cannot find local American workers to fill their seasonal needs. They can then turn to the H-2B visa program. Without being able to get the seasonal workers they need, these businesses would not survive. These businesses try to hire American workers. They would love to hire American workers. Under the law, they are required to hire American workers. These businesses have to prove that they have vigorously tried to recruit American workers. They have to advertise for American workers and give American workers a chance to apply. They have to prove to the Department of Labor that there are no American workers available. Only then are they allowed to fill their vacancies with seasonal workers.

The workers these businesses bring in participate in the H-2B visa program year after year, often working for the same companies. This has been the experience of the Maryland seafood industry. Yet they cannot and do not stay in the United States. They play by the rules, and return to their home countries, to their families. After the worker goes home, the U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the next year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers. The program also requires that the employers pay these workers the prevailing industry wage.

This is not just a Maryland issue. This is not even a coastal issue. It is an issue that affects everyone. Every State uses H-2B workers, from ski resorts out West and in the Northeast to quarries in Colorado, from landscapers who hire most of their workers in spring and summer to shrimpers in Texas and Louisiana. And of course the seafood industry on both coasts.

Being able to hire seasonal workers is critical to the State of Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. First, they hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Without this program they can't meet their needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors. These are family businesses and small businesses in Maryland. Take for example J. M. Clayton. What they do is a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers all over the Nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world. By employing 65 H-2B workers, the company can retain over 30 full time American workers.

But it is not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It is also S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago. Friel's is the last corn cannery left from 300 that used to operate on the shore. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B visa program. Since then, many workers come each season and then go home year after year. They have helped this country maintain its American workforce and have paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery. Friel's now employs 75 full-time and 190 seasonal workers, along with 70 farmers and additional suppliers.

Last summer, I went over to the Eastern Shore after the victory of getting an extension to the H-2B visa program to meet with Latina women who come to Maryland every year under this program. I asked them ``What does this program mean to you?'' They told me that coming here year after year is hard work, but it means they can provide for their families. They come in April and stay until late September when the crab pots are packed up until the next season. During one summer here, they earn more than they could earn in their home countries in 5 years. They take this money back to their families and children who have been waiting for them and build a well in their native village or build a home or even pool their money to build a community center. Each year these women come back to Maryland because they know the shore and they know Clayton, they know Phillips; and they know they will have a place to live, a bus that will take them to church, access to translators and in some places they are even able to learn English. First, it is one sister and then another sister coming to the Eastern Shore for a few months a year to make money so they can take care of their families and communities back home.

Some of you may ask, ``why do we need this extension since the bill has a temporary guest worker program?'' We need to make sure we do not forget the needs of small and seasonal businesses in this immigration debate. I welcome the guest worker program that is before the Senate. Once the program is up and running, it will help augment the H-2B program. But that is going to take time. We need to make sure that there is no interruption so that companies can meet their hiring needs. When American workers don't apply for the job, the lack of workers could mean a missed season. That doesn't just mean a loss of profit. It means a loss of a family business, because these businesses will be forced to close their doors.

Again this year, we have already reached the cap on the H-2B visa program. The first half of the cap--33,000 visas--was reached less than 3 months after employers could begin applying. These businesses relied on the exemption of returning workers to fill vacancies that were open after trying to recruit American workers. We know how important it is to protect our borders, protect American workers and make sure small and seasonal businesses continue to operate. I don't need to tell you how important our seasonal industries are to our State economies and our local communities. This provision in the immigration bill does all of this. Every Member of Senate who has heard from their constituents, whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals knows the need for this H-2B program to continue.

I also want to talk about another provision in the immigration bill meant to fix a broken bureaucracy and help noncitizens who are serving in our military become citizens of the United

States. There are over 40,000 non-U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military today. Many want to become U.S. citizens but are caught up in red tape and paperwork, bureaucratic run-a-rounds and backlogs. And that is wrong.

Many of these young people are on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world fighting terrorists. They are focused on fighting the enemy, they shouldn't also have to fight the bureaucracy just to become a citizen of the country they are fighting for. This provision in the immigration bill makes sure that it is easier and quicker for non-U.S. citizens serving in our military to become citizens.

This provision was inspired by a young man from Maryland who was in the Army serving our country. Though not a citizen, he had a green card and was killed in Iraq on October 19, 2005. He was 21 years old. Kendell Frederick was killed by a road side bomb on his way to be fingerprinted to become a U.S. citizen. But he was also killed by the botched bureaucracy of the U.S. government, by their incompetence, by their indifference, by their ineptitude. This is inexcusable.

Every military death in Iraq is a tragedy, but this one did not need to happen. A Trinidad citizen, but fighting for America, Kendell Frederick was a terrific young man who came to this country when he was 15 years old. He joined his mother here in the U.S. and wanted so much to be a part of this country. He wanted to serve this country and joined the ROTC while at Randallstown High School. After graduation, he joined the Army and went off to serve this country. In the Army, he was a generator mechanic assigned to a heavy combat battalion. His job was to keep all of the generators running, which kept his battalion running. Kendell wanted to become an American citizen, yet a series of bureaucratic screw ups and unnecessary hurdles prevented that.

Kendell had been trying for over a year to become a U.S. citizen. He started working on it when he joined the Army. While he was training and learning how to become a soldier, Kendell sent his citizenship application in and checked the wrong box. Specialist Frederick was busy training for war, packing to go to Iraq, saying good bye to his mother, his brother, his two sisters--all the while worrying which box to check to become a U.S. citizen.

After that, his application was derailed by Immigration three times. First, after his mother checked the correct box saying Kendell was in the military, the Citizenship and Immigration Service, CIS, sent the application to the wrong office, not the office that handles military applications. Second, CIS rejected the fingerprints he had submitted-- with no explanation. Kendell had his fingerprints taken when he joined the military. He had an FBI background check for the military. We have high standards to be in the U.S. military. But there was no explanation. His mother did not know why the fingerprints had been rejected. Third, and finally, Kendell was told to get his fingerprints retaken in Maryland. But he was in Iraq fighting a war. His mother called 1-800-Immigration--that's supposed to be the HELP line. She told them--my boy is in Baghdad, he can't come to Baltimore to get fingerprinted. She would have loved for son to come to Baltimore, but he was fighting in a war, fighting for America. And CIS told her there was nothing they could do. They were wrong. That was the wrong information. They were no help.

Finally, an arrangement was made. Kendell's staff sergeant made arrangements for him to be fingerprinted at a nearby air base so he could complete his application. On October 19, SPC Kendell Frederick was traveling in a convoy to a base to get fingerprinted. He did not usually go on convoys, but that day he was in the convoy to get his fingerprints to become an American citizen and he was killed by a roadside bomb. Kendell was granted his U.S. citizenship a week after he died. He was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Kendell was trying to do the right thing, yet he was given wrong information. He got the run-a-round. His staff sergeant tried to help, but he didn't know all the rules, it was not his job to know the rules--he was fighting a war. His mother did the right thing. She tried to cut through the bureaucracy, making phone calls, sending letters, she was diligent and relentless. The system failed--again and again. And a wonderful young man lost his life.

Kendell's mother--Michelle Murphy--could have just sat there, could have boiled in her rage. She wanted to do something with her grief. When I spoke with her, she told me she didn't want any mother to have to go through what she went through, what her son went through. Servicemembers and their mothers should not be worrying about what box to check on a citizenship application, which of many addresses is the right address to mail it to, where to get fingerprints taken when the servicemember is fighting for America. Mothers have enough to worry about. Servicemembers have enough to worry about.

It took me introducing a bill to get Immigration's attention about the problems servicemembers and their families face. The Department of Homeland Security is working with me and Kendell's mother to try and make sure this does not happen again. They are working to get rid of the red tape. This provision will make sure that no mother has to go through what Mrs. Murphy went through.

The Kendell Frederick Citizenship Act that is part of the immigration bill makes it easier for military servicemembers to become citizens. The provisions of the legislation cut through the red tape. First, the act requires CIS to use the fingerprints the military takes when a person enlists in the military, so a servicemember doesn't have to keep getting new fingerprints. Second, it requires the creation of a military citizenship advocate to inform the servicemembers about the citizenship process and help with the application. Third, this legislation requires CIS to set up a customer service hotline dedicated to serving military members and their families. And fourth, it requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an investigation into what is wrong with immigration services for our military.

No one should ever again have to go through what Kendell and his mother went through. The Kendell Frederick bill will make sure that anyone in the military who wants to be a U.S. citizen will be able to do so, quickly and easily. If you are willing to fight and die for America, you should be able to become an American.

Mr. President, I am honored to have joined my colleagues Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin and Senator Murkowski to submit S. Res. 491 commemorating the 65th anniversary of Ignacy Jan Paderewski's death on June 29, 1941 and recognizing his accomplishments as a musician, composer, statesman, and philanthropist.

I.J. Paderewski was a brilliant pianist who played hundreds of concerts in the United States and Europe. Paderewski always gave back to his society. As a pianist Paderewski donated a bulk of the proceeds from his concerts to charitable causes and helped establish the American Legion's Orphans and Veterans Fund.

When he decided to enter into politics, Paderewski continued to work for the betterment of society. He worked hard to bring independence to Poland, served his country as the first Premier of Poland during World War I and fought against the Nazi dictatorship in WWII.

During his time in politics one of Paderewski's main goals was to build a strong relationship between Poland and the United States. This is why it is so fitting that this resolution acknowledges Poland as an ally a strong partner in the war against global terrorism. The strong relationship that exists today is due in part to the foundations laid by I.J. Paderewski.

Ignacy Jan Paderewski's contributions to music, democracy, and humanity--as a renown pianist, composer, humanitarian and great Polish statesman--make him one of the most deeply valued and appreciated figures in the Polish American community. His close and friendly relationship with his contemporary U.S. social, cultural and political leaders, including many U.S. Presidents, made him a real friend of the American people. That is why it is an exciting opportunity for me, an American of Polish heritage to honor Ignacy Jan Paderewski by acknowledging his work, his accomplishments and all that he contributed to the world with this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Salazar's amendment. English is one of the common bonds that bring Americans together. Just as a new immigrant must learn the monetary currency of a country, new immigrants must learn the social currency the English language. Immigrants need to learn English so they can be successful and contribute to their new country. That is why current law already states that anyone becoming a U.S. citizen is required to learn English.

Yet as immigrants are learning English, we need to be able to provide them with critical information in a language they can understand. What if there was an avian flu outbreak? What if there was another terrorist attack? Or a hurricane? Our first priority is to make sure they are safe in any language.

English can bring us together it shouldn't pull us apart. We must remember that our country was founded by immigrants from around the world. Their contributions to this Nation have made it great. My own great-grandparents were immigrants from Poland. Their desire to seek a better life for them and their children is the part of the American dream.

It is ridiculous. I don't think people are going to buy into it.

I agree with my friend from Tennessee. If they are looking, searching for things to object to, they are not going to find it in this bill.

The racist thing, it is interesting. If you will look at polling data in 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation poll says 91 percent of foreign- born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States.

Just 2 months ago, the Zogby poll found that 84 percent of Americans, including--this is significant--77 percent of Hispanics, believe that English should be the national language. That is only 2 months ago--77 percent of the Hispanics.

I think it is an insult to the Spanish to say we are not going to have English as a national language because they are not capable of operating and succeeding in a country like this. They are dead wrong.

In terms of people criticizing us for wanting to make this the national language, 51 countries have done it. Isn't that interesting? Fifty-one countries have made English their national language, except for us. Twenty-seven States out of fifty States already have it on a State basis.

When you go to your townhall meetings, it is not even a close call. This comes up every time I go to a townhall meeting in Oklahoma: Why don't we have English as a national language? Now I hope they understand why, if they have seen this debate today, and the dialogue that is going on, pulling out of the air very eloquent statements that might be referring to some bill someone may want to introduce someday, or some amendment. It is certainly not this amendment.

I look at this and wonder, and I shake my head. What have you been reading? It has nothing to do with this. Our amendment does not prohibit using language other than services, or any other Government services in languages other than English. It doesn't prohibit it at all; it allows it. It doesn't prescribe and say you have to do it. There is no prohibition of giving Medicare services or any other Government services in a language other than English. This amendment simply says there is no right unless Congress has explicitly provided that right.

If you read page 2 of the bill, it very specifically says ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.'' That is the exception. In every one of these examples that have come up--from the Senator from California, the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Illinois, they fall into that category.

This is going to answer the question for a lot of people out there saying: Why can't we have this as our national language?

It has been 23 years since we had our last vote. You can't have it both ways. I wouldn't want anyone here to be under the misconception that they could vote for my amendment and then turn around and vote for the Salazar amendment because that would completely negate our amendment.

This is your last chance to vote to make English the national language. When we listen to the National Anthem: O, say can you see, by the dawn's early light . . . bombs bursting in air . . . gave proof through the night that the flag was still there . . . the land of the free, and the home of the brave--that is not an official anthem, that is not a common anthem, that is the national anthem.

This is our last chance to have English as the national language for America.