Floor Statements

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, as the Republican leadership gavels this session to a close, I am disappointed by the inaction and missed opportunities on America's most crucial priorities.

First, although we did finally pass a long overdue port security bill, we still have a long way to go to protect our infrastructure. We knew before 9/11 that our ports are soft targets, and since that terrible day, many experts have continued to warn us that they are vulnerable to attack.

Since the 9/11 attacks, we have spent only $984 million on port security grants, despite Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed over 10 years. That total includes the grants that were released this week.

To make matters worse, port security funds aren't reaching the ports that need them the most. In California, port security grants awarded by the Bush administration have fallen from $33.3 million in fiscal year 2005 to $13.3 million in fiscal year 2006, a staggering 60 percent reduction. Despite the fact that California's ports carry over 47 percent of all goods imported into the United States, we are receiving only eight percent of the total port security grants funding.

In addition, the final port security bill lacks the Senate-passed transit and rail security provisions. The last three major attacks have been on transit systems in Madrid, London, and in July, Mumbai. According to APTA, there are $6 billion in transit security needs across the country. But last year, Congress appropriated only $150 million for transit and rail security. That is barely a drop in the bucket. Americans take 33 million trips on transit each day. We must do more to protect them.

The Senate bill also does not consider aviation security. Yes, aviation security has improved greatly in the last five years. But five years after 9/11, we are still not screening cargo loaded on board passenger planes. I am pleased that DHS will launch a pilot program at San Francisco Airport, SFO, this October to check all commercial cargo for explosives on passenger flights, but we should be doing this at every airport in America to ensure the safety of passengers and the solvency of the airline industry.

But until that time, at the very least, we need to use at least one blast resistant cargo container on passenger planes that carry cargo. This was one of the major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. When I tried to offer an amendment to do just that, the Republican managers of the bill blocked my amendment.

Cost is not the problem here. The price to place one blast-resistant container on planes is about $75 million or a little more than the price of 5 hours in Iraq. The American people deserve to know that we are doing everything we can to keep them safe. We cannot allow terrorists to exploit holes in our aviation security system.

Second, although we passed border fence legislation, we failed to act on the AgJOBS bill, which would provide a much-needed solution to the farm labor shortage crisis that is threatening our nation's farm economy. In California and across America, fruit and vegetables are dying on the vine and rotting in the fields because there are no workers to harvest the crops.

Earlier today, my friend from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, came to the floor to speak against the AgJOBS bill. He said that as he has traveled the country this year holding farm bill hearings, every farmer he met told him to oppose AgJOBS.

Yet, if the Senator from Georgia had come to California, our Nation's largest agricultural State, he would have heard from farmers who desperately need and want the AgJobs bill passed now. And they are not alone. Farmers in States experiencing labor shortages in Idaho, Washington, New York and Florida, among others, want this bill, as do a broad coalition of pro-agriculture groups.

The H-2A program is badly in need of reform, and the AgJOBS bill, which the Senate has already passed with more than 60 votes, enacts those meaningful reforms. These AgJobs will save users money, simplify the program, streamline the litigation process, and bring stability to our nation's agricultural work force.

And third, we also failed to stand up for fair and smooth elections. On Tuesday, Senators Dodd, Feingold and I introduced the Confidence in Voting Act of 2006, S. 3943, a simple bill that would reimburse electoral jurisdictions for the cost of contingency paper ballots for the General Election. Under the bill, the jurisdictions would be reimbursed for their documented costs up to $0.75 per contingency paper ballot printed.

This bill is timely in light of the recent problems with voting machines in Maryland, Illinois, Ohio and other states. It is clear that many jurisdictions that use electronic voting machines and other voting systems will need to have a backup plan for the upcoming November 7, 2006, general election.

The Confidence in Voting Act of 2006 would work within the existing structure of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to provide reimbursement funding for jurisdictions that provide a contingency paper ballot in addition to their existing voting system. The estimated maximum cost of this measure is approximately $15 million a small price to pay to ensure that every American's vote is counted.

The American people deserve better. We face great challenges that will determine our safety and prosperity for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting long overdue legislation for the security of our infrastructure, to aid our farmers, and to ensure our right to fair and accountable elections.

Mr. President, I view this bill as a weak plan that will lead to delay after delay in convicting terrorists, endanger our troops on the field, and surrender one of the bedrock constitutional principles of our justice system--habeas corpus.

We had a chance to improve this bill with amendments, but this rubber stamp Senate defeated them one after another, leaving us with a flawed plan that will face a serious court challenge, and that makes us less safe.

The Republicans even voted against a bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Charities for the Blind, a nonprofit organization in southern California. This organization continues to make a positive impact on the lives of individuals who are blind or visually impaired.

Charities for the Blind is an organization that provides computer adaptive technology and training to blind and visually impaired individuals. The men and women who volunteer their time and energy to this organization provide an important service to the people of Southern California and our Nation.

Charities for the Blind was created by Craig Schneider in 2000 after he suffered a complete loss of his vision. Craig Schneider is a general building contractor who became blind after complications from radiation treatments and exposure to radon gas. He found it difficult to adapt to a visually impaired lifestyle. He took computer courses with the assistance of computer adaptive technology but found them difficult and frustrating. Other students were similarly frustrated, and when some began to drop out of classes, he knew that he was not alone. After seeking assistance from State rehabilitation authorities and blind charities, Craig Schneider recognized that there is an important need among the visually impaired that needed to be met.

According to the National Federation of the Blind, 70 percent of individuals who live with blindness or a visual impairment are unemployed. This overwhelming number of individuals have the potential to live highly productive lives and gain meaningful employment. Charities for the Blind recognizes this need and works to assist individuals with blindness and visual impairment, providing them with tools they need to overcome their disability.

In addition to providing training, counseling, and computer adaptive equipment to the visually impaired and blind, Charities for the Blind also employs blind individuals directly. Craig Schneider has five employees who work with him who are also blind, who help make Charities for the Blind possible. Craig Schneider funds the organization from his private business, which allows him to pay for computers and equipment, employees and technicians, and travel to and from people's homes to help train them in the use of adaptive equipment.

In its first year, Charities for the Blind gave away 12 computers. Today, the organization provides roughly 30 computers each month, with a short yet successful history of meeting needs in the blind and visually impaired community for individuals between the ages of 10 and 96. Those who have received counseling and equipment from Charities for the Blind have gained new levels of independence, and more and more blind and visually impaired individuals are being empowered and employed each day.

Today I salute the dedication and service of Charities for the Blind. This organization has recognized a tremendous need and works daily to help empower our Nation's blind and visually impaired. I applaud the work and commitment Charities for the Blind has made in bettering the lives of many.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that today I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the incomparable Dr. Edgar Wayburn on his 100th birthday. To Californians and others across the United States, Ed Wayburn is a living legacy and an environmental hero.

Ed Wayburn was born on September 17, 1906, in Macon, GA. He attended Harvard Medical School and moved to San Francisco in 1933 to start his medical practice. He found northern California's natural beauty intoxicating and refers to the Sierra Nevada and Yosemite National Park as his ``first wilderness love.''

Within 6 years of moving to California, Ed joined the Sierra Club. And over the next 50 years, his love and passion for nature and conservation grew. He served five terms as the Sierra Club's elected president.

Ed shared this love of nature with his wife Peggy Wayburn. Together they traveled throughout Alaska and fought to protect natural areas in California and the West for over 50 years.

More than 100 million acres of natural beauty throughout California and Alaska have been protected today thanks to Ed's hard work, including northern California's Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore and Alaska's Denali and Glacier Bay National Parks.

Dr. Wayburn is credited with saving more wilderness than any other person alive today.

I always say that one of my proudest honors is the Edgar Wayburn Award presented to me by the Sierra Club. It is a frequent reminder of the work Ed and I have done together. It is also a reminder of the important work which still remains to protect and preserve our natural surroundings.

Without Ed's efforts over the past decades, I would not want to imagine what the American landscape would look like today. Ed's leadership and perseverance have ensured the preservation of precious open space and wild areas for generations to come. His work will continue to be an inspiration

to countless environmental advocates and others working to effect change. His work is certainly an inspiration to me.

I extend my most heartfelt wishes to Ed Wayburn for a very happy 100th birthday. Thank you, Ed, for all you have done for the protection of our natural environment.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Latina Health Access Act. This important legislation addresses the serious health care access barriers, and consequently higher incidences of disease and poorer health outcomes, for the Latina population in the United States.

The United States has witnessed a tremendous growth in the Latino population across the Nation. There are now 35 million Latinos residing in the U.S., and Latinas are more than half of the total Latino population--for a total of 18 million Latinas in the United States. In my home State of California, 29 percent of the female population is Latina--this is approximately 5 million women. The number of Latinas is expected to continue to grow, and it is estimated that by 2050, one out of every four women in the U.S. will be a Latina. Despite their growing numbers, Latinas continue to disproportionately face serious health concerns, including sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes, and cancer, which are otherwise preventable, or treatable, with adequate health access.

Latinas are particularly at risk for being uninsured. It is estimated that 37 percent of Latinas are uninsured, almost double the rate of the national average. This lack of adequate health care results in health problems that could otherwise be prevented. For example, 1 in 12 Latinas will develop breast cancer nationwide. White women have the highest rates of breast cancer; however, Latinas have among the lowest rates of breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. As a result, Latinas are more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Also, the prevalence of diabetes is at least two to four times higher among Latinas than among white women. More than 25 percent of Latinas aged 65 to 74 have Type II diabetes. All of these health problems would be more effectively treated or prevented with adequate health care coverage.

To address these health concerns, the Latina Health Access Act provides a two-fold approach to dealing with this problem. First, the bill would provide greater health access to Latinas. Second, the bill would provide educational outreach programs targeted at Latinas in regards to health care access.

The bill would create a program at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that provides funding for high-performing hospitals and community health centers targeted at serving the growing Latina population of the United States. Also, the bill would mandate that HHS provide grants to various nonprofits, state or local governments that serve Latino communities, and lastly to women of color who seek to create diversity in the health care community. Finally, the bill would direct HHS to provide $18 million for grants to fund research institutions so that they may conduct research on the health status of Latinas.

The Latina Health Access Act also focuses on educational outreach to the Latina population. The bill would fund health education programs targeted specifically to Latinas through community-centered informational forums, public service announcements and media campaigns.

Adequate health access is the key to diagnosing and treating diseases before they become deadly and rampant. We need to strengthen our efforts to bring greater health access to the Latina population. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that the text my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the HOPE (Hispanas Organized for Political Equality) Youth Pregnancy Prevention Act.

The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the Western industrialized world, and the U.S. teen-pregnancy rate is nearly twice that of Canada and Great Britain. Although overall teen pregnancy rates have decreased in recent years, the teen pregnancy rates for Hispanics and other ethnic and racial minority teens in the United States are significantly higher than the national average. For example, 51 percent of Latina girls in the U.S. will become pregnant once before the age 20.

The Latina population in the United States has grown tremendously. Currently, there are approximately 18 million Latinas that reside in the U.S. In my home State of California, 29 percent of all women are Latinas, this is approximately five million women. The number of Latinas is expected to continue to grow. It is estimated that by 2050, one out of every four women in the U.S. will be a Latina. Despite their growing numbers, Latinas continue to face serious health care access barriers and consequently higher incidences of teenage pregnancy.

To address the growing risk for many reproductive and other health concerns that are otherwise preventable, the HOPE Youth Pregnancy Prevention Act would provide a comprehensive solution and the resources to help prevent teen pregnancy among at-risk and minority youth.

Specifically, the bill would provide grants to States, localities, and non-governmental organizations for teenage pregnancy prevention activities targeted to areas with large ethnic minorities and other at- risk youth. These grants could be used for a number of activities, including youth development, work-related interventions and other educational activities, parental involvement, teenage outreach and clinical services. The bill would authorize $30 million a year for five years for these grants.

The bill would also provide grants to States and non-governmental organizations to establish multimedia public awareness campaigns to combat teenage pregnancy. These campaigns would aim to prevent teen pregnancy through TV, radio and print ads, billboards, posters, and the Internet. Priority would be given to those activities that target ethnic minorities and other at-risk youth.

Over the past 10 years, we have made progress in reducing teen pregnancy, but our work is not done. We need to strengthen our efforts, especially among Latinas and other minority

youth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, this is a very poignant morning for so many. I am so glad I have been able to arrange my schedule to be here to listen to my colleagues and friends, whom I deeply respect, and to listen to the great Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords.

If I might say how blessed I have been, I got here in 1993 and went right to the Environment and Public Works Committee. I met Jim there, and now I get to sit next to him in the Senate. I got to know his staff.

We are going to miss you. But, Jim, I must say, you made a beautiful speech today. And in listening to Tom Harkin talk about you and explain that you have always been motivated by what is right for the people, if ever you could take an opportunity to tout your accomplishments, it is when you say goodbye. People would say that is fair. But you did not do that. You did not say: This year I passed this legislation and this bill. The rest of us have been lauding your accomplishments, but it is just like you, instead, to talk about this country you love so much. And you cite to us what our challenges are. And, of course, they continue to be the challenges you have taken up: education, the environment, fiscal responsibility, war and peace. You have left a roadmap for us, and for that we are very grateful.

I mentioned that I was sworn in in 1993. That was the so-called year of the women, where we tripled the number of women in the Senate. That sounds great, but it was from two to six. We were still a very strong minority. Our leader, Barbara Mikulski, the dean of the women here, always taught us, from day one--she said: You are going to have to work with the men because they control things here, and you are going to find that among these many men there are many Sir Galahads.

Jim, you are Sir Galahad. You have been a wonderful friend to us, treating us, from the minute we walked in, as equals and colleagues. We are very grateful to you for that.

I am not going to talk a long time at all. But I want to talk about three things quickly. One is, I went to your State of Vermont this last weekend. I had been there before and always marveled at how beautiful it is, but I was taken with it again.

Now, coming from California, we have our beautiful places, believe me. So I have come to appreciate beautiful places. We overlooked Lake Champlain when we were there. Knowing that you worked so hard to make that lake clean and beautiful, thank you for that. There is so much history there, Jim, that you have also helped to preserve--you and Patrick Leahy, and so many others who came before.

But what struck me about Vermont as much as the beauty is the incredible people in your State, how involved they are. It is that old New England townhall type of quality. They get it. They are involved. They love you, Jim. They love you. When I mentioned your name, oh, my goodness, the roars came up. You could hear it blocks away.

People love you here and they love you in Vermont. And your family loves you. As you said, you are blessed, as we are blessed in your presence.

The second point is your family and how much they care about you. They are so proud of you. I know how hard it was for them when you declared your independence. It rocked their world, just as it rocked your world, and just as it rocked the country. But when you do something for the right reasons, it all works out. And you did something for the right reasons, for the people of this country.

The last thing I want to say to you is, we do not know how things will work out this November, but either way, I will be taking a larger role on the committee you love, the Environment and Public Works Committee, where you have been an extraordinary leader. You have given us a roadmap on how to fight global warming--a huge challenge we face. We cannot turn away from it because if we do, we are neglecting our responsibility. You, thank goodness, have written a bill that will show us the way.

So I am here today not only to wish you well in your retirement, and joy with your family, but to tell you that I am going to follow your leadership on global warming. I am excited about the challenge. And because of the love your colleagues feel for you, I hope you will come back here, as Tom Harkin said, to help me with that because we are going to have to move and get going on it.

Mr. President, thank you very much. And thanks to our colleagues for giving us this time we need to pay tribute to an extraordinary Senator, one who will be missed but never forgotten.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to pay tribute to an exceptional man and a wonderful friend of mine, Seymour Robinson. Seymour died on September 13 at the age of 90. His deep sense of moral and social responsibility and tireless commitment to giving back touched the lives of all who knew him.

Seymour was born on May 24, 1916, in Chicago, IL. He worked hard to support his family during the Great Depression. He enlisted in the Army Air Corps and was soon transferred to the U.S. Army Infantry in Fort Worth, TX. It was here that he met his beloved wife of 60 years, Anita. Before they could marry, he was shipped out to serve in World War II.

As a member of the Civil Affairs D Team of the U.S. First Infantry Division, he fought at Omaha Beach during the U.S. landing in Normandy on D-Day. As part of a U.S. unit attached to the French Second Armored Division, Seymour was involved in the liberation of Paris. After his unit captured the German SS barracks on the Place de la Republique in Paris, it was overrun by cheering crowds; the Jewish people in Paris were finally able to come out of hiding, wearing the yellow stars that were used to segregate them. Of this time, Seymour recounts a powerful incident: ``As their enthusiasm settled down, we were asked a devastating question: `What is the will of the Americans. Are we still to wear our yellow stars?' Without a second's hesitation, we tore the stars off the clothes of

those nearest us and put them on our uniforms. The question had floored us. We couldn't speak. The word had spread quickly. `We are free!' ''

His bravery and courage will never be forgotten. He was awarded three Bronze Battle Stars by the U.S. and the Croix de Guerre by the French government, given to individuals who distinguish themselves heroically in acts of bravery against the enemy.

Seymour's experience as a World War II veteran helped shape his deep sense of responsibility. He said ``This experience reestablished my identity. I am a Jew who knows that I must forever be vigilant about the human rights not only of my people but of all people . . .''

After returning to Chicago a war hero, he married Anita on January 14, 1946. They soon visited California, where Anita's parents lived. As Anita recounts their trip, there was ice on the ground in Chicago when they took off and it was 80 degrees in California when they landed; she refused to go back. Seymour and Anita thus ended up in my beautiful home state, where they lived the California dream with their three wonderful children: David, Lorraine and Billy.

Their children were deeply influenced by their father. Seymour taught his three children that they have a responsibility as Jews and Americans to give back to society and do the right thing.

Once in California, Seymour easily found a job first as a steelworker and then a typographer. As a typographer, he worked his way up to foreman and ended up buying the business, Ad Compositors, which was one of the largest of its kind in Southern California. He was a lifelong member of the International Typographical Union. Seymour had previously been an organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations, CIO, before it became the AFL-CIO.

While living in West Los Angeles with his family, Seymour was a cofounder and leader of Neighbors United, an organization that worked to promote racial harmony and maintain diversity in neighborhoods at a time of racial strife in L.A. He was also active in the Public Affairs Committee of the Westside Jewish Community Center and the Urban Affairs Committee of the Los Angeles Board of Education, working to desegregate the Los Angeles public schools.

Seymour helped elect Mayor Tom Bradley, Los Angeles's first African- American mayor. Seymour was also involved with the L.A. City Human Relations Commission and the Mayor's Advisory Committee.

Seymour was President of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Pan Pacific Park, helping to coordinate funding for this park. Mayor Richard Riordan officially named him the ``Father of Pan Pacific Park'' for his instrumental role in creating this public park on the Westside of Los Angeles.

Never one to rest on his laurels, in his later years he was active as the Los Angeles County Political Coordinator for the AARP.

Seymour Robinson is survived by his beloved wife Anita; his children David, Lorraine and Billy Robinson; and his granddaughters Rachel and Mara Woods-Robinson.

I am proud to have called Seymour my friend. Seymour was never afraid to speak his mind when he saw injustice. He had a deep sense of right and wrong and was very persuasive in convincing others to get involved in the fight for social justice. He was an inspiration to all who knew him and a hero to this nation. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, Today, I ask my colleagues to recognize the 7th Annual Lights on Afterschool events taking place across the country on October 12, 2006. ``Lights on Afterschool is a national celebration in which more than 1 million Americans will gather in their communities to recognize the important role that afterschool programs provide for the children in this country.

Afterschool providers throughout California and across the country have demonstrated that afterschool programs keep children safe, improve learning, and reduce crime and drug use. According to the FBI, youth are most at risk for being victims of violent crimes and committing violent acts between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.--after school is out and before parents arrive home. Afterschool programs keep children safe, reduce crime and drug use, and improve academic performance.

As we take this occasion to recognize the afterschool program providers, we also must honor the communities that also contribute to the enrichment of these afterschool activities that provide safe and supervised afterschool educational, enrichment, and recreational programs. The partnerships you have forged with the afterschool program providers are instrumental in their success. There is no responsibility greater than ensuring that our children can learn and grow in a safe environment.

Afterschool programs are critical to the success of American families. These programs make it easier for parents to go to work because they know that their children are in a safe and nourishing environment. According to the Afterschool Alliance, 14.3 million children go home to an empty house every day. We must work to ensure these children have access to these programs that are vital to developing cultural and social skills, as well as the academic enrichment that the programs provide.

Afterschool is a wise investment in our children's future. That is why I will continue to work to make after school a national priority-- so that we can bring Federal resources to support great local programs to keep the lights on and the doors open.

I send my sincere thanks to everyone working in programs and schools involved with Lights on Afterschool and for all of the work you have done and continue to do in creating partnerships that promote and enhance afterschool programs.

Mr. President, I was pleased that the Senate leadership finally agreed to consider a port security bill last week. It is high time we did more about security at our ports.

Our ports are a soft target. We knew this before 9/11 and many experts have warned us since that terrible day that our ports are vulnerable to attack.

Since the port security bill was signed into law at the end of 2002, we have not moved forward on port security, and it remains dangerously underfunded. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have spent only $816 million on port security grants, despite Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed over 10 years.

Addressing port security is critical. However, security for other transportation modes is important, but the Republican leadership wanted us to do port security and nothing else.

Through the efforts of many Senators, provisions for rail and transit security were included. But, the final bill the Senate approved does not contain any major provisions for aviation security. Yes, aviation security has improved greatly in the last five years. But, as we recently found out with the aviation terrorist plot uncovered by the British authorities, there are still holes in the system.

Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has implemented new security procedures since we learned of the London terror plot to detonate liquid explosives on flights from Great Britain to the United States. While I support these new procedures, TSA is asking passengers to give up their lip gloss, yet we are not examining cargo loaded on board our passenger planes.

I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security will launch a pilot program at San Francisco Airport, SFO, this October to check all commercial cargo for explosives on passenger flights.

We should be doing this at every airport to ensure the security of the flying public and the solvency of the airline industry. But until that time, at the very least, we need to use at least one blast resistant cargo container on passenger planes that carry cargo. This was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

For several years, I have been working to get these containers on planes.

Currently, TSA is undertaking a pilot project using these containers, some of which are made with Kevlar, for cargo. But we must move past pilot programs.

We should use blast-resistant containers for cargo on all passenger planes. That is why I an introducing a bill to do just that.

The 9/11 Commission recommended, TSA should require that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo. Therefore, all passenger planes should have at least one blast-resistant container for cargo.

To place one blast-resistant container on each plane, it would cost about $75 million--this is equal to the cost of a little more than 5 hours in Iraq. Imagine the impact on the security of the country and the financial outlook for the airline industry if a plane were to explode during a flight.

We owe this to the American people. We cannot allow terrorists to exploit holes in our aviation security system.

Mr. President, in the last 5 years, Americans have faced both devastating terrorist attacks and natural disasters. We have also been warned that an avian flu pandemic is a strong possibility.

In California, we have had fires, floods, mudslides, and earthquakes--thankfully not the big one.

We have learned that disasters are inevitable. Being prepared is crucial--especially when the American people cannot rely on the Federal Government, which was demonstrated by the poor Federal response in Hurricane Katrina. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has even said, People should be prepared to sustain themselves for up to 72 hours after a disaster.

Therefore, being prepared and knowing how to respond in the days following a natural disaster is extremely important. However, people do not know how to prepare, and, unfortunately, local governments may lack the resources to educate their residents.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County officials could not afford to distribute pamphlets on earthquake preparedness for individuals with special needs.

That is why I am pleased to introduce legislation that will provide grants, through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness, to local governments to educate the public about how to deal with natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and an influenza pandemic.

It is important that we work to make sure that local communities are able to prepare their citizens to deal with future disasters.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. President, I was pleased that the Senate leadership finally agreed to consider a port security bill last week. It is high time we did more about security at our ports.

Our ports are a soft target. We knew this before 9/11 and many experts have warned us since that terrible day that our ports are vulnerable to attack.

Since the port security bill was signed into law at the end of 2002, we have not moved forward on port security, and it remains dangerously underfunded. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have spent only $816 million on port security grants, despite Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed over 10 years.

Addressing port security is critical. However, security for other transportation modes is important, but the Republican leadership wanted us to do port security and nothing else.

Through the efforts of many Senators, provisions for rail and transit security were included. But, the final bill the Senate approved does not contain any major provisions for aviation security. Yes, aviation security has improved greatly in the last five years. But, as we recently found out with the aviation terrorist plot uncovered by the British authorities, there are still holes in the system.

Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has implemented new security procedures since we learned of the London terror plot to detonate liquid explosives on flights from Great Britain to the United States. While I support these new procedures, TSA is asking passengers to give up their lip gloss, yet we are not examining cargo loaded on board our passenger planes.

I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security will launch a pilot program at San Francisco Airport, SFO, this October to check all commercial cargo for explosives on passenger flights.

We should be doing this at every airport to ensure the security of the flying public and the solvency of the airline industry. But until that time, at the very least, we need to use at least one blast resistant cargo container on passenger planes that carry cargo. This was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

For several years, I have been working to get these containers on planes.

Currently, TSA is undertaking a pilot project using these containers, some of which are made with Kevlar, for cargo. But we must move past pilot programs.

We should use blast-resistant containers for cargo on all passenger planes. That is why I an introducing a bill to do just that.

The 9/11 Commission recommended, TSA should require that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo. Therefore, all passenger planes should have at least one blast-resistant container for cargo.

To place one blast-resistant container on each plane, it would cost about $75 million--this is equal to the cost of a little more than 5 hours in Iraq. Imagine the impact on the security of the country and the financial outlook for the airline industry if a plane were to explode during a flight.

We owe this to the American people. We cannot allow terrorists to exploit holes in our aviation security system.

Mr. President, in the last 5 years, Americans have faced both devastating terrorist attacks and natural disasters. We have also been warned that an avian flu pandemic is a strong possibility.

In California, we have had fires, floods, mudslides, and earthquakes--thankfully not the big one.

We have learned that disasters are inevitable. Being prepared is crucial--especially when the American people cannot rely on the Federal Government, which was demonstrated by the poor Federal response in Hurricane Katrina. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has even said, People should be prepared to sustain themselves for up to 72 hours after a disaster.

Therefore, being prepared and knowing how to respond in the days following a natural disaster is extremely important. However, people do not know how to prepare, and, unfortunately, local governments may lack the resources to educate their residents.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County officials could not afford to distribute pamphlets on earthquake preparedness for individuals with special needs.

That is why I am pleased to introduce legislation that will provide grants, through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness, to local governments to educate the public about how to deal with natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and an influenza pandemic.

It is important that we work to make sure that local communities are able to prepare their citizens to deal with future disasters.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. President, will my friend yield for a question on how much time he would like? I would like to speak immediately following his remarks.

I don't have a problem.

That is wonderful. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized.

Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator from Alabama. He brought us back to 9/11 and that is where I am going to start in my remarks right now, on a dreadful day when we saw the Pentagon in flames right here from the Capitol and we ran down those front steps and it was the bluest of skies and we were looking for Flight 93, was it coming our way? We all vowed to go get the people who attacked us.

I came down to this floor and with a heart full of grief. Every one of those planes was going to my State. I voted to go get the terrorists. Go get al-Qaida. Go to war against Osama bin Laden. I am sorry to say that, for whatever reason--and we are beginning to learn more about it--based on misinformation, faulty information, skewed information, we turned around and we took our resources, great resources and the greatest men and women in the military, and we went into Iraq.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee now tells us unequivocally there was never one connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Remember all the talk and all the chatter from the Vice President and the President and Condi Rice? Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said we know where those weapons are? I remember sitting literally 8 feet from Donald Rumsfeld, asking him where the weapons of mass destruction were. And he said, Oh, they are all around Baghdad. You go down the street, take the left, turn to the right--there they are.

No. No. Now we have a circumstance where, because of the great work of our intelligence community, we have brought back people, some of whom were involved--that is what we believe--in 9/11. Right now we do not have a system in place so they can meet their just reward because the Supreme Court said Congress has to act and set up a tribunal in a way that respects the Geneva Conventions--this is very important.

We have three Senators with distinguished military careers on the other side of the aisle, who have said: Whatever we do we must not jeopardize our troops. Therefore, we must make sure that we do not do anything to change the Geneva Conventions. What do they get for thanks from those who have never seen combat?

My husband served in the military. I know what it is like to sit and wait, because he was 6 years in the Army Reserves, asking, Will he be called? Won't he be called? We were fortunate. Senator McCain was not that fortunate. He was a prisoner of war. He, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, who was an attorney in the military, are guiding us to write something that makes sense so that we can try these people. And if in fact they are guilty, they can meet their just reward.

They get people on their own side of the aisle calling them out. I think it is outrageous. To quote the Senator from Alabama:

People who don't agree with the President on this, they are

slandering the military.

I can't believe it. It is basically like swiftboating Senator McCain and Senator Warner. It is unbelievable.

Who would you trust, I ask the people of America, on this military matter? People who never served a day in combat or people who put their life on the line? And then to hear them slandered in this way on the floor of the Senate--not by name, but by inference--is very disheartening. And to see a Republican do it to a Republican? I don't get it. I don't get it.

I hope we can come together to make sure we have a good plan in place because if we do not have a good plan in place, what good does it do us? It doesn't do us any good if we don't have a plan in place that passes the legal test, because it will be thrown out by the courts and we will be back to square one and we will not be able to try these people in the way they ought to be tried.

I come here to say thank you to those Senators who stepped out and said: Wait a minute; we want to do this right, Mr. President. Work with us. We want to do it right.

I think we have had enough. We have had enough of swiftboating around here, and it has to stop in America. It has to stop in America.

I want to go back to 9/11 because when I voted to go after the terrorists, that is what I thought this Government was going to do. I thought they would throw all the resources at it. We went into Afghanistan. We freed the people there. I was proud. I went to my Afghan-American community and I was so happy for those people. They saw light. And we shorted that. We shorted them. We don't have enough troops there.

You know what is happening even in Kabul now. You are seeing attacks on women and girls, you are seeing murders. The poppy trade is growing. This was our opportunity to not only find Osama bin Laden, who was there, but also to make Afghanistan a model of democracy that the President is always talking about. He stood up at the United Nations-- some of the things he said I really believe were correct. But one of the things that was not correct is when he said: We need democracy; take a look at what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can tell you, anyone with a television set looks at what is happening in Iraq and says: Oh, my God, it's close to civil war. He puts that picture in our minds next to the word democracy? That is not going to help people. People looking around the world at that say, You know what? I really want democracy, but if my country is going to look like this, count me out.

It is just not real, Mr. President. It is not real. Just like it is not real to go after three Senators with distinguished military careers and tell them they are off-base when they try to put forward a solution to the problems that we are facing in terms of how we try these alleged terrorists. If they did what we think they did, again, I don't want them sitting in prison, I want them tried, convicted, and meet their fate. That means we need to put a system in place.

After 9/11 and after we took that turn and we didn't go after the terrorists as we should and we went into Iraq instead and we got bogged down there, year after year after year, and the President's plan is, and I quote: We will be there as long as I am President. That is his plan. That is not a plan. That is not a strategy. That is not a policy of success. It is the status quo, and it is weighing on the American people.

The President said that. I agree with him. It is weighing on the American people. What he didn't say is it is weighing down the American people because it is so expensive that it is up to near $8 billion, $9 billion, $10 billion a month in Iraq.

I went to a rally on The Mall today for cancer survivors. Mr. President, I don't know if you got to go over there, but it is the most touching thing I have seen in a long time. Each State there has a tent and in the tent are the cancer survivors. They are asking us,

they are begging us, they are pleading with us to reverse the cuts that this President made in this budget for cancer research. That is what they are asking.

We spend $5 billion a year on cancer research--$5 billion. That is 2 weeks of the Iraqi war. Why don't we just decide we will end the war 2 weeks earlier and double the funding for cancer research?

Our families need us at their backs. They cannot do this alone. They cannot find the cure for cancer. They cannot come up with the treatments, with the science. Many of them need insurance. We spend $10 billion a month, almost, for the Iraq war. Think about it.

So this war, which has nothing to do with the war on terror, which has been shorted because of this war, is also now stealing from the American people, and they do not want it. They want to start bringing the troops home.

We need a political solution in Iraq. We need a conference with that country and its neighbors. We need to look at semi-autonomous regions, with the Federal Government there making sure that the oil is distributed in the right way. That is a way out of this. Senator Biden has explained it many times. He understands that it is not a policy to just say we are just going to keep on keeping on.

Anyone who has ever read a book on Iraq knows that after World War I the Brits put together everyone in that country who didn't get along with each other and then they were just busy taking in oil while everyone else was fighting. It took a monstrosity of a man, a tyrannical man, to keep that country together--and now that man is facing his just rewards.

But there has to be a better way than the status quo. We need a new direction in Iraq, and we need it because the Iraqi people have to step up to the plate and take care of their own country. No country can survive with an occupation force running the show. It doesn't work.

They have to want freedom and democracy. They have to love each other enough to live in the same country as much as we want it for them; otherwise, this is an endless war. This is the forever war.

Come to my office. In front of the door I have four easels. I am sorry to tell you they are huge easels with small print. On those are the names of the dead from California or based in California. We are all faced with this in our States more and more--broken-hearted mothers, hysterical children. And what is the ultimate plan?

First, it was the mission: go get the weapons of mass destruction. Then we found out there were none. That mission was done. Second mission: go get Saddam Hussein. Our military was brilliant. They got Saddam Hussein. He has been brought to trial. Then they said, well, things are still not good. Maybe you ought to get his family members, and we will show them to the Iraqis. That will stop the killing. Tell them that we mean business. Our military did it. That didn't help. Oh, well, we will get a terrorist. That will show them. That didn't help because the underlying problem is these are people who have hatreds that go way back. They have to decide if they want to set those hatreds aside. Otherwise, we will be there forever.

We are fueling terrorism. We cannot stop this civil war. And we are paying the price in dead and wounded, 20,000-plus, with the worst injuries you can imagine, including brain damage, burns, things that I don't know whether any of us here could actually imagine.

The cost is weighing us down. Everywhere you look we don't have the money for this, we don't have the money for that, we don't even have the money for what Senator Sessions is putting before the body, which he voted for before. There are areas of the border where you can build the fence. This isn't an issue with me. But we don't even have the money for that. It is not even in this bill that is before us. Where are we going to get it?

I wasn't going to go on and on with these different subjects because I really came to talk about the state of agriculture in my State. I am going to do that now. But when the Senator from Alabama--and he is most sincere--came down here and attacked people who are trying to find a reasonable solution to a difficult problem and said that they were slandering the military if they do not agree with the President, I had to talk about these things.

It was a Republican President who said this. I wish I had the exact quote. I will paraphrase it. This was Teddy Roosevelt. He said--and I paraphrase--that the President is the most important elected official among many, but those who say that he should not be criticized are guilty of being servile and border on the treasonous.

I can tell you when I came here, I took an oath to protect and defend my country. I told the people of California they could count on me to do that. I didn't come here to be a servile Senator, to rubberstamp any President, Democratic, Republican, Independent, you name it. And I certainly didn't come here to say to another Senator who might not agree with me that if they do not support the President they are slandering the military. I find that over the top, outrageous.

We have a bill before us that, as I understand it, the Republicans are not going to allow us to amend. I hope I am wrong. I hope Senator Frist, in fact, will allow us to amend it because there are some very good ideas in this body that need to be heard about security, about immigration reform. And I know my colleagues in the Chamber today have worked very hard to try to bring balance into the way we approach the immigration debate. I support them on that.

I want to tell you what is happening in my State right now. We haven't acted, and we haven't taken care of the broader issue. I have a farm community, an agricultural community that is in deep trouble. It seems to me, since we have 62 Members supporting the Craig-Kennedy bill, which is the AgJOBS bill, that at minimum we ought to be allowed to offer an amendment, which I know Senator Craig wants to do, to deal with this terrific problem. We must do more than one thing at a time.

To those people who say we will take care of the fence, and then after it is built we will figure out how we can take care of the rest of the immigration problem, I say that is a recipe for economic disaster, at least in the agricultural community.

I want to read to you a letter that I received from an organization that represents 1,100 organizations, the United Fresh Produce Association. The headline says: ``Farmers to Congress: Support a Safe and Secure American Food Supply, Pass an Immigration Fix Before the Election of 2006.''

It goes on to say that we have a horrible problem in our agricultural industry.

Here is what they say:

American labor-intensive agriculture has proactively sought

a solution to its labor and immigration challenges since the

early 1990's. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to act. Now,

growers and producers are experiencing actual labor shortages

rather than just shortages of legal workers. Labor shortages

are being reported from coast to coast. Crop losses are

starting to occur, from berries and pears in the West to

oranges in Florida.

Specialty crops, fruits, vegetables, nursery, greenhouse

and floriculture plants, turfgrass, sod, wine grapes, forage

crops, and Christmas trees comprise 50 percent of the value

of the American crop agriculture. They are labor-intensive

crops, and they are at risk. Also at risk are poultry, dairy

and livestock production.

My dairymen tell me the same thing. They talk about the fact that the 50-year-old flawed guest worker program just isn't working. It is unresponsive, it is bureaucratic, and it is expensive. It is litigation prone. They are asking for this AgJOBS bill.

You may ask: Senator, why can't you offer this amendment? The answer has to come from the Republican side. They control this place. I can tell you right now there is support from 1,100 businesses from growers to shippers, wholesalers, retailers in every state want this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we need to pass an AgJOBS bill. Our farmers and our ranchers are begging us to do it. They need a solution. But because we haven't acted, everything is paralyzed.

I want to show you a picture of Toni Skully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA, looking at the pear crop she lost because she didn't have enough workers to pick the trees. Pear farms are an estimated $80- million-a-year business in California. They were unable to harvest 35 percent of their crop this year due to the lack of field and packinghouse labor. Unfortunately, situations like Toni's and the pear growers of Lake County are happening all over California.

I discussed this with my colleagues. They are telling me it is happening in their States, too. My lemon growers in San Diego are experiencing a 15- to 20-percent harvest loss. Avocado farmers in Ventura County are worried about workers for the December planting season. Tree fruit growers in Fresno County have seen their labor force increase by as much as 50 percent. In Sonoma, as many as 17,000 seasonal farm workers have not returned from Mexico to work in the fields.

According to USDA, agriculture is a $239-billion-a-year industry. And if we refuse to provide a solution to labor shortages now, we are jeopardizing our domestic economy and our foreign export markets. We are driving up production costs that get passed on to consumers. Our consumers are already having trouble. Even with the decrease in gasoline prices, they are way up from where they where historically. They are dealing with health insurance premiums that are way up. They are dealing with college tuition costs and education costs that are way up. Now they are going to walk in the supermarket where we have such good prices and see that prices are up because of the inability to hire people because there has been a crackdown on the workers.

All of that is happening for one reason: the House wouldn't follow the Senate. The Senate had taken care of it. We had a good, broad bill that dealt with border security, additional guards at the border, and everything they needed at the border, plus a way to deal with the agricultural industry and the millions of workers who are in the shadows who are afraid to come out of the shadows.

Let me tell you, do you think that makes us secure when we don't know who they are? I don't think it does for a minute. That is why we need to have this type of bill passed in the Senate.

But at minimum, I say to Senator Frist, allow us to offer the Craig amendment. Senator Feinstein is very strong on this.

It was interesting. Independent of one another we immediately said we ought to offer the Craig-Kennedy amendment. She and I talked to Senator Craig. We said: Please put us on as cosponsors.

A 2006 study done by the American Farm Bureau found that if agriculture's access to migrant labor is cut off, as much as $5 billion to $9 billion in annual production would be lost--and that is just the short-term prediction. If agriculture's access to migrant labor is cut off, as much as $5 billion to $9 billion in annual production of primarily import-sensitive commodities would be lost in the short term. That is a statistic from the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Again, this is a place where Republicans and Democrats should come together. I don't understand why Senator Frist will not allow us to offer this Craig amendment. We have a vast majority in this body in favor of it. Our farmers say pass the AgJOBS bill now.

It is supported by United Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, Western United Dairymen, the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, California Citrus Mutual, among many other agricultural groups.

The AgJOBS bill pulls together both the owners and the workers. This is rare in and of itself to have everybody come together, farmer groups and the agribusiness people coming together, and yet with all that support--I believe we are up to 62 supporters in the Senate--we cannot at this stage be assured that Senator Frist, the Republican leader, will allow us to have a vote on this amendment.

The AgJOBS bill would allow immigrant farm workers who are here now to harvest the crops. It would put 1.5 million workers on a path toward legal status if they prove they worked in agriculture before enactment of the law, and if they work 3 to 5 more years in agriculture after its enactment.

It is a way to save the workforce and get people out of the shadows. We know who they are. That is key, to know who is in this country, not to have people hiding. It makes no sense.

In May, the Senate again passed immigration reform that included this very language we want to offer. It got 62 votes. Building a border fence--again, I voted for it. There are parts of our border that need that kind of structure. I don't have a problem with it.

What I have a problem with is the fact that is not going to solve our problem because we need to address the economy. We are worried about a housing slump. It is coming on pretty quick. We hope it does not materialize, but it does not look good. In many cases, a housing slump is followed by a recession. Do we want to add to the trouble by having a situation where as much as $5 to $9 billion in annual production is lost? I don't think so.

I will do whatever I can to convince the Republican leadership to allow Congress to take care of agriculture. When we have a bill that is supported by 62 Senators, on both sides of the aisle, that is supported by labor and management, it makes sense to move it forward. I cannot stand the thought of looking in the eyes of my dairymen and my farmers one more time when they come back here and say the first issue on their agenda is this problem they are having with their workforce.

There is a way to do this that makes sense. There is a way to do this that will give us control of our border. That is what we ought to be doing. We ought to be looking, at the minimum, to saving our agricultural industry.

I say to my Republican friends, and I am being very honest, I am not sure farmers have been my strong supporters over the years. They usually go Republican. I can read the list of supporters. What is the majority doing, shutting them out?

Let's work together. Let's work together for them, for the consumers, for the workers. We cannot afford the one-two punch of an agriculture industry that begins to fall apart as the housing industry is having problems. We just cannot afford to see another sector have a problem. Autos, housing, now agriculture?

Please, this is too important to play politics with. Help our agriculture businesses. Help our workers. Help get people out of the shadows. Do something to help America. Don't keep this bill so narrow in focus that we do not see the forest for the trees.

I hope we have some good news and that there will be a good agreement on our surveillance issue, on our military tribunal issue. I hope the leadership will open this up to save our agriculture industries. They are asking us for this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize and celebrate the important milestone of the 15th anniversary of Armenian independence.

Armenia has a rich history which spans more than 3000 years. Considered one of the cradles of civilization, Armenia was the first country in the world to officially adopt Christianity as its religion. The Armenian alphabet and language have helped ensure the continuation of a vibrant Armenian culture, despite great odds and numerous attempts to destroy the Armenian nation and the Armenian people.

I was honored to witness the resiliency, courage, and spirit of the Armenian people when I visited Armenia as a Member of Congress in 1991, in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. During that trip, my commitment to recognizing the Armenian genocide was further strengthened.

In 1915, the Ottoman Turks attempted to annihilate the Armenian people in a brutal genocide. To this day, the Turkish Government refuses to acknowledge the atrocities for what they were--a systematic genocide. Not only were the Armenian people able to survive the genocide, but they kept their small nation alive. It was a great victory when the first Republic of Armenia was formed in 1918 following the Armenian genocide. But again, Armenia faced dissolution when it was taken over by the Soviet Union in 1920; the short-lived independence of Armenia ended when it became a Soviet Republic in the USSR.

Again, the Armenian people persevered despite their loss of independence and despite more devastation. In 1988, disaster hit when an earthquake rocked Armenia, killing approximately 50,000 people and leaving more than half a million people homeless.

Then, on September 23, 1991, Armenia declared its independence from the Soviet Union and formed the second Republic of Armenia. This was a rebirth of the independent state of Armenia and an historic moment for an oppressed country. It was a cause for celebration for Armenians around the world.

I am proud that the United States helped the newly independent Armenian nation during its transition to democracy. In December, 1991, the United States formally recognized the independence of Armenia, and the two countries established diplomatic relations with embassies in each country in January 1992.

But more remains to be done. This 15th anniversary offers an opportunity to celebrate the United States' relationship with Armenia and to renew our commitment to this country and our calls for Armenian genocide recognition.

Following September 11, 2001, Armenia was one of the first countries to respond with assistance to the United States. Armenia provided embassy protection and clearance for U.S. flight, shared intelligence, and froze bank accounts. The U.S. friendship with Armenia remains critical in our fight against terrorism. The United States must never forget Armenia's help and must do all it can to help this independent, democratic nation prosper.

On this milestone 15th anniversary, I am honored to recognize Armenian independence. I pledge to do all I can to assist Armenia and my Armenian-American constituents in California.

Mr. President, today I honor the memory of a dedicated public servant, battalion chief Rob Stone of the California Department of Forestry. From the time he became a seasonal firefighter at the age of 18, Chief Stone devoted his adult life to providing the citizens of California with safety and service. On September 6, 2006, while assessing a fire from the air and coordinating ground firefighting efforts, Chief Stone was tragically killed in the line of duty when the spotter plane crashed in the rugged forest of the Mountain Home State Park.

Upon graduation from high school, Chief Stone attended the California Department of Forestry Firefighting Academy to pursue his lifelong goal of becoming a firefighter. His prodigious talents were evident as Chief Stone moved in rank from firefighter to become one of the youngest engineers ever in the California Department of Forestry. He was then promoted to captain, and his most recent assignment was battalion chief of the Porterville Air Attack Base. Chief Stone's commitment to excellence, coupled with his passion for his profession, enabled him to become a model member of the California Department of Forestry. Chief Stone's colleagues shall always remember him for his leadership and commitment to his job.

Chief Stone is survived by his wife Randi, son Wil, and daughter Libbie; parents Cliff and Janet; sister Melissa Martin; brother Marty; and his grandmother Louise Lyons. When he was not on duty or spending time with his family, Chief Stone was an avid outdoorsman who enjoyed gathering cows, hunting, fishing, and camping. Chief Stone served the State of California with honor and distinction and fulfilled his oath as a firefighter. His contributions and dedication to firefighting are greatly appreciated and will serve as a shining example of his legacy.

We shall always be grateful for Chief Stone's exemplary service and the sacrifices he made while serving and protecting the people and the land that he loved.