Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise as well to speak about our priorities that Senator Reid has introduced. First, I compliment him for his vision and drive toward shaping these priorities, and his leadership that will ensure the Senate makes the concerns of the average American family our top priority.

I thank my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, who, as always, is able to articulate in a very smart way, but also a way the average person can understand, how important these priorities are to us.

I also, in advance, thank my colleague Senator Murray for being here, and who again, in her usual wise and thoughtful way, will help us let the American people know what our priorities are.

Now, I wore a blue suit today, naturally, because we are all excited over the election in November. But in our excitement, we have to remember that we are here because of the people who sent us here, and to realize their desire for change, to make their lives better. We know a bipartisan approach is the best and perhaps the only way we will get this done.

If all our exultation and happiness today--and, believe me, I stood there with pride watching the new Members in particular be sworn in, knowing how fine they are, what a diverse group of people they are--the thing they share in common is coming from the bosom of the people of their State. Each one, each of the new representatives, each of the new Senators represents the people of their State.

They come to us with a message, and I don't think the message is left, right, or center, as some of the pundits have said. The message is to keep your eyes focused on the average family. All too often we in Washington get lost in the world of Washington. Too often politics here seems to be a minuet, shadow boxing, sometimes real boxing, where each party and each individual is seeking advantage over the other, and the focus on getting something done--something done for the American people--gets lost.

If there was one message that this election had, I think that is it. The American people were pleading with us, crying out to us with a strong but plaintive voice: Help us. The world is changing, and we see that world change in every way. Technology has dramatically affected everything we do, whether it is terrorism, where technology has enabled small groups of bad people to hurt us; whether it is jobs in education, where we now have a one-world labor market, and our workers, our kids in the third grade are going to be competing not simply against the kids in the third grade across the hallway but the kids in the third grade in China, India, and Brazil; whether it is the technology that has allowed us to live longer.

I read somewhere that a little girl born today, if she lives in the early months and up to a year old, could well live to be 100. And not very unusually, that would almost be the average. That is incredible. What that means is new problems for Social Security and Medicare. It also means that our whole lifestyle changes as people get married later, have children later, and retire and have many years of leisure in life. So technology is changing everything.

The old messages--whether they be, in my judgment, the old Democratic new deal message or the old Reagan Republican message--just don't work anymore. Voters, in November, didn't tell us to adopt a certain ideology or philosophy or even party. Their message to Washington was to stop fighting with each other and finally get something done for average Americans who are in more need of help now as the world changes quickly and dramatically.

The average American wants us to get to work on issues that matter to them on a daily basis: making them more secure, lifesaving medical research, fair wages, comprehensive immigration reform, energy independence, and affordable education and prescription drugs. They want us to go to work for them again. That is what we are going to do.

The 10 bills we have introduced are all aimed right at the heart of the average American in the sense of saying to the average American: We do know what you need, what you have asked us to do, and we are going to do our best to help you.

Make no mistake; overall, families are doing quite well, but they are beginning to hurt in certain ways: high gas prices, skyrocketing tuition, prescription drugs. These are all things the average person worries about that they probably didn't worry about 10 years ago. These first 10 bills that we are going to introduce represent the Democratic priorities for the Senate and the country. These bills take aim at making education and prescription drugs more affordable. They address our goals for energy independence, better homeland security, innovative medical research, a modernized military, and comprehensive immigration reform--priorities that have been neglected for far too long.

I first want to express my enthusiastic support for our bill to address college affordability, S. 7, which my colleagues will also address. We know we must make it easier for families to send their kids to college. As tuition costs rise, it gets harder and harder for them to do it. As college becomes more of a necessity, it also becomes less affordable. That is the dilemma we face. We are facing a critical time with this challenge coming, when a college education is vital not only to one's individual future but to our Nation's prosperity and independence.

We are competing now in a global market connected by technology, and we need a well-educated workforce. That is why I introduced upon arriving in the Senate a bill to permit a college tuition tax deduction. I have worked to support it ever since. We must ensure that this deduction does not expire, as it nearly did in December, by making it permanent. And we must do more. Just getting by is not enough when it comes to sending our kids to college. We must address other aspects of college costs, including Pell grants, loans, and lowering interest payments on loans. I know my colleague, Senator

Kennedy, has big plans for addressing these issues. Just as I will work hard on the Finance Committee on the tuition issue, he, in the HELP Committee, will be leading many of my colleagues on those issues there.

What I have been asked to spend a few minutes to talk about is S. 4, a bill to implement the recommendations of the national commission on terrorist acts, the 9/11 Commission. It has now been over 5 years since the tragedy and devastation of September 11. On that day, our Nation changed irrevocably with the knowledge that terrorist forces, motivated by hatred, have the determination and ability to threaten America on our own soil. My own city of New York knows this devastation and tragedy well. On that day, and in the days following, we lost thousands of our friends and family members, including hundreds of brave firefighters and police officers who died trying to save others. We owe it to all those who lost their lives on that day to take up and implement the commission's recommendations.

On that day, it was clear that much needed to be done to improve the security of our homeland. The President and Congress responded in part by establishing the 9/11 Commission. This bipartisan commission did its work thoroughly and well, devising 41 core recommendations to prevent, defend against, and respond to the threat of future terrorist attacks. Each one of the recommendations was a vital part of the Commission's charge to Congress and the President. Yet Americans have not just been gravely disappointed but also endangered by the failure to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It is high time for this failure to be rectified.

S. 4 expresses the sense of Congress that we must immediately work toward passage of legislation that will, after far too long, implement the solutions carefully crafted at our request. As the committee puts together a final detailed bill, S. 4 will serve as an important symbol of our priority for securing our Nation by implementing the recommendations. We have made some improvements since 9/11, but we still have so far to go.

America simply cannot wait any longer to fully protect our homeland. Whether it is improving communications between first responders, ensuring that law enforcement shares information about threats, or securing our transportation systems, which I know my colleague from Washington has worked on, we have a whole lot to do. We cannot wait longer for decisive action to stop weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists entering our country or being built by those who would destroy us. We cannot wait any longer to better combat the violent extremism that is growing around the globe.

This is only the beginning of the work that remains to be done. We have heard so much talk about homeland security in the years and days since 9/11, but in all this time we have seen far too little action. In the 110th Congress, at last that shameful state of affairs must and will come to an end.

In conclusion, the voters in November gave us great honor but humbling responsibility. We must now rise to meet that responsibility by returning the focus of our work to the basic needs of American families. Today is the first and important step toward meeting that responsibility.

So as we start this new Congress, I look forward to working with our Republican colleagues and the President to deliver these priorities for American families. Those families deserve no less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great honor that I recognize John Machacek for nearly 40 years of service as a reporter for Gannett News Service. He has dedicated his career to breaking down policy and politics in a way that underscores how these important issues affect the daily lives of the people of New York. John began his Gannett career in 1967 as a reporter for the Times Union in Rochester. In 1972 John won a Pulitzer Prize for using his instinctive investigative reporting skills to produce unparalleled coverage of the Attica prison riot. He began covering the entire State of New York, from Rochester to Westchester, in 1983 and has kept readers informed on news and politics by serving as a watchdog for the American people ever since. John has accomplished what reporters all over the Nation set out to do by immersing himself in the art of journalism and becoming one of the greatest reporters in his field. He has spent his career with his finger on the pulse of the Nation's politics, government, and the American people. John's unbridled search for the truth has raised the standards in journalism and reporting among his peers, coworkers and competitors and he will always be remember for his unbiased and colorful accounts of our Nation's most important and transformative landmark events. As John concludes his renowned and distinguished 40 year career, he will be placed among the most influential reporters to have ever worked for Gannett News Service.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield 4 minutes from his time?

Mr. President, I rise to support the India nuclear trade agreement because it strengthens America's relationship with a critical ally, but it also creates strong incentives for other countries to support our nonproliferation efforts by rewarding them with our valuable nuclear technology.

Proliferation of nuclear technology is a very serious issue. Make no mistake about that. India has a good nonproliferation record and will be a true partner in our efforts to prevent nuclear weapons technology from falling into the wrong hands. India's history of nonproliferation of dual-use nuclear technology and its willingness to implement IAEA guidelines and standards at nuclear facilities make India a welcome member of the global nuclear community.

Of course, the devil is in the details. That is why it is so important that this bill preserves congressional oversight of any agreement the administration reaches with the Indian Government. It is carefully crafted so that the U.S. agreement will not undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or our obligations to the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Under this bill, cooperation would end if India tests a nuclear weapon, proliferates nuclear weapons or materials, or breaks an agreement with the United States or the IAEA. India's access to nuclear cooperation will depend on its continued participation as a good citizen of the global nuclear community.

A close relationship with India in general will help us to align our mutual goal of combating terrorism. Both our nations have been victims of serious attacks of terrorism, and we know that the greatest danger we face is a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. Neither of us wants al-Qaida to gain a nuclear weapon. Neither of us

wants Iran to go nuclear. The best way to ensure India's proper handling of its nuclear technology is not by distancing it but by working with it to address issues of mutual concern.

Economic ties continue to bind our two countries through an increasing flow of goods, services, and cultural exchange. It is vital that we recognize this improving relationship and work toward common goals for international policy standards. The buildup of nuclear weapons throughout the world is one of the most serious dangers humanity faces. Especially in today's world, we must ensure that nuclear technology is developed and used according to global standards as set forth by the International Atomic Energy Association for peaceful purposes. An agreement with the United States will also provide an incentive for India to refrain from conducting future nuclear weapon testing and to work with our Government to curtail proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most important, this legislation creates incentives for other countries that cooperate with our nonproliferation efforts. It will encourage other countries around the world to cooperate with the efforts of the United States to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons by rewarding those countries that behave responsibly with advanced American technology.

I yield the remainder of the time I have to my friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that is pending. It will be voted on at 3:30, as I understand.

The amendment is very simple. It mandates--no test study, no pilot-- it mandates we inspect all cargo that comes here for nuclear weapons within 4 years.

I have offered this amendment, frankly, out of frustration. This is something that can be done. This is something that is being done. This is something where the technology is working. Yet we refuse to move forward.

I come from New York. Obviously, we lived through September 11. However, I stay up at night sometimes worried about the worst tragedy that could befall us. There is nothing worse, in my opinion--and there are a parade of ``horribles'' with the terrorists--than a nuclear weapon exploding in America. It would change our lives so dramatically for so long for those who survive. If we were ever going to focus on a single issue, this should be it.

But for 4 years I have come to the Senate--my good friend from Minnesota has done very good work on this, my colleague from Maine has, my colleague from Washington has.

They say: We are not ready. Let's do a pilot. Let's study it. Let's improve the technology.

My colleagues, what has changed with me is that I visited the Hong Kong Port run by Hutchison Whampoa last April, along with the Presiding Officer. And we saw it working in two lines. Trucks went through--it did not hold them up--and they were inspected for nuclear weapons in a system that everyone who has looked at it says works.

So what are we waiting for? The cost is not large. It is estimated, once it is up and running, the cost would be about $8 a container. Yet it costs $2,000 to move a container from Hong Kong to the West Coast. It works. The cost is reasonable. We are not asking the Federal Government to pay for it. In a competitive container world, it probably will not even be passed on. That minimal .2 percent addition to the cost of a container will probably not be added on.

So now is the time, my colleagues. We can have another excuse and wait another year and do another pilot, work more on the security and on the technology, or we can implement something now. The Homeland Security Department, in my opinion, is derelict in this responsibility. They have dithered and dallied. Every time we have offered amendments to put an adequate amount of money in to fund this, it has been cut by this body and by the other body.

The frustration, when we know we can really protect the people of this country and we let special interests, we let the fact that we need money for something else--although I do not know what else is more important--stand in our way. It is a monument to why people are frustrated with Washington.

Again, you and I have seen it, I say to the Presiding Officer. We have seen this technology at work. Hutchison Whampoa stands by it. Their leader was so frustrated that he implemented it himself in Hong Kong. And everyone who has studied it says it works. Would it take a little while for all these foreign ports, the 40 ports of the CSI, to set this up? Yes, but not very long. And when you compare this to the danger we face, all of the arguments against mandating that our containers be inspected for nuclear weapons fade away.

Mr. President, I salute my colleagues who have offered other amendments. I salute my colleagues who have worked on the bill. It is a good step forward. But there is a glaring deficiency. We need a mandate. We have been patient long enough. It works. It can protect us. It is not expensive. What are we waiting for?

I urge my colleagues, I hope, I pray we can have a broad bipartisan majority for this amendment because--coming from New York, I feel this keenly--we do not want to be in the ``what if'' situation. God forbid, the worst has happened, a nuclear weapon has been

smuggled in on a container and exploded on our shores. We do not want to be in a situation where we say: What if What if we had done more. Because clearly, as of now, we are not doing enough.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I want to briefly answer my colleagues. Of course, I have tremendous respect for what they have done and are trying to do. It is certainly true that my colleague from Minnesota was the first to talk about the system in Hong Kong.

I will make two points. First, it is true that we will put mandates here in the United States. We have them in New York in one of our ports. One, it is not close to being as sophisticated, effective, or as speedy as what is done in Hong Kong. It is not as good a system. Second, we don't have to debate the technicality of the system. We all know, as my friend from Minnesota said, that we have to push this outward, because if a nuclear weapon is on a container or a ship in New York Harbor that hasn't docked or been unloaded onto a truck and it explodes, the same terrible consequences exist for the people of New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, or anywhere else that has a major port.

I will make one other point. My colleagues argue for patience. My colleagues argue we have to do this in a certain way. If this were 1 year after 9/11, or 2 years after 9/11, I would agree. In fact, I did. I wanted to offer amendments like this 2, 3, and 4 years ago. But I believe this. I believe nothing

will get homeland security and the shipping industry and the world community to act and get something done better than a mandate. As long as they know they can delay, as long as they can go to DHS and present 10 reasons why this should not be done, DHS, which has shown absolutely no enthusiasm for doing this, will get nothing done.

If this were danger No. 37 on the list, maybe, again, we should not have the tough measure--I would say it is tough--of imposing this. I assure my colleagues--we all know how the world works--a deadline will get DHS, the shipping industry, and all of the other players to act and get this done better than any other method.

So, again, I salute what my colleagues have done, and I remind my colleague from Maine that I have said this is a good bill. In fact, I voted for cloture, despite the urging of some of my colleagues, because I think it is a good bill. On the issue of nuclear security, of inspection of containers for radiological material, no one can say that we have done a good job--not this Senate, not the House and, most of all, not this administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

The time is now to force everybody to act. The danger is too great. I have offered this amendment after years--not months, not days, but years--of trying all of the other ways to get homeland security and, frankly, our two bodies to act. So I am grateful to my three colleagues, all of whom have done yeomen's work in this area. But we can do more. I suggest to all of my colleagues here that this amendment will get us to do a lot more than any other amendment proposed thus far.

I yield the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

Let me say this amendment is a very simple one. It says within 4 years we must have all of our cargo inspected for nuclear weapons. We have been trying to do this for 5 years--close to 5 years--and what we have gotten is a lot of studies, pilot projects.

And now I have seen it with my own eyes. Others have here, too. It can be done. It is done in Hong Kong on two lines. It costs about $8-- once it is fully going, per container, nothing because it costs $2,000 to send a container over.

This does not cost the taxpayers any money. And this is the greatest--greatest--terrorist act that could befall us: a nuclear weapon smuggled into this country and exploded, God forbid. Can any one of us say we have done everything we can to stop it? No.

The fact that this amendment has drawn such controversy and has focused attention on the issue has shown that when you put in a deadline, you get things done.

When you do pilot projects and studies--especially because Department of Homeland Security has not done a very good job in this, the most important of areas--you will get delay. If you want to wait another 5 years, vote against this amendment. But if you care about protecting the security of America and preventing the greatest act of terror that could befall us, you will vote for this amendment to impose deadlines-- because we know it can be done--and make our country more secure once and for all. We cannot afford to wait any longer, Mr. President.

I urge a ``yea'' vote.

Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 4930.

I have a modification at the deck.

I thank the Senator from Alaska.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment, which I believe is at the desk, No. 4930.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of the most critical gaps in our homeland security, and that is port security. This week, everyone in my home State of New York--certainly there but also everywhere in America--is asking if we are safer since 9/11. I have to say, if you look at port security, the answer is an unfortunate no.

In this week of remembering the attacks on 9/11, I am pleased that the critical issue of port security is under consideration by the Senate. I think the Port Security Act of 2006 is a good start. I commend my colleagues, and particularly my friend from Washington State, who worked so long and hard on this issue. But I also want to be sure the legislation we pass provides real teeth and resources for port security.

The United States is the leading maritime trading Nation in the world. At any given moment our seaports are full of container ships, warships, cruise ships, and oil tankers. Every one of these ships is an opportunity for terrorists to strike at our industry, our infrastructure, and our lives. We know these enemies will wait patiently and plan carefully in order to create maximum panic and damage.

Our greatest risk is that a terrorist could easily smuggle a nuclear weapon through our ports, God forbid, and bring it into the United States. Once it gets out of the port, it will be gone, and we would not know about it until it is too late.

Yet, unfortunately, our vulnerable seaports have long been neglected by the administration. Programs to screen for nuclear materials are delayed and delayed and delayed. I have been pushing amendments such as this for years and, frankly, the administration, in lockstep with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, generally talks the talk, but they do not walk the walk. They do not say we should not do research to guard against nuclear weapons being smuggled into our country, but then when it comes time to allocate resources to get it done, when the need is $500 million, they might allocate $50 million or $35 million. That is what has happened in years past. That is a disgrace. That is letting our guard down.

Mr. President, we need to fight the war on terror overseas, no question about that. But as any high school basketball coach will tell you, to win a game--in this case, a war on terror--you need both a good offense and a good defense. We have woefully neglected the defense. An example is the spending by this administration, DHS, and by the Senate and this Congress on port security.

By the end of this month, DHS will have provided $876 million in port security grants since 9/11. This is a fraction of what we have spent on aviation security, and it is far less than what is needed.

Maritime trade is booming. The Coast Guard estimates port owners will need $7.2 billion over the next 10 years to bring ports in line with Federal security requirements, and we need to give more funding and more attention to vulnerable seaports. If we ever needed convincing that this administration is asleep at the switch when it comes to port security, turn back the clock a few months to the fiasco over Dubai Ports World. That company, a government company from the United Arab Emirates, was cleared to take over operations at more than 20 ports along our eastern and gulf coasts without any serious review.

It was hard to believe. And then when the President learned there wasn't serious review, he still said we don't need it. Now that shows a profound and very disturbing unawareness of what we need for port security.

The Dubai Ports World takeover almost snuck under the radar, after getting scanty review from the CFIUS committee. There is only one bit of good that came from this Dubai Ports World fiasco. It revealed how little we had done to protect our ports and focused the Nation, and hopefully this administration, on bolstering port security in the United States and around the world.

I am inclined to support the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, but I am also very concerned that this bill does not go nearly far enough toward securing our seaports and shipping vessels, especially against the unspeakable danger of a nuclear weapon.

This is our great nightmare. God forbid--God forbid--a nuclear weapon is shipped into this country and exploded. Nothing could be worse.

So instead of doing little baby steps, instead of saying this is a 10- or 15-year

project, why aren't we moving with alacrity to make ourselves safer against the greater danger we could face?

I know my colleague from Connecticut, who has just walked in, has been very active on this issue and has been very helpful to me when I have offered amendments in this regard.

We need to do much more to guard against nuclear weapons being smuggled into our country by sea, and we can't have any holes in our defenses. Today I am offering two amendments that will strengthen port security improvement in these key aspects.

The first amendment is the amendment that is pending, No. 4930. This amendment secures our ports by screening all cargo containers that reach our shores to make sure they do not contain a nuclear or radiological weapon.

More than 9 million cargo containers enter the country through our ports each year, and as we all know--it is sad, it is woeful--only 5 percent of these containers have been thoroughly screened by Customs agents. That is nothing short of an outrage. It would truly be a nightmare scenario if one of these unchecked containers had a nuclear weapon smuggled in by a terrorist group.

The latest I heard from some on the other side is: We can't guard against every single terrorist act. We don't have the resources or the focus to do it.

I disagree. But even if one believed in that philosophy, one would have to put nuclear weapons and the danger of them being smuggled into this country at the very top of the list of dangers. So even if one's view is we can't do everything, we certainly should do everything we can to prevent this nightmare scenario.

Terrorists, unfortunately, could detonate a nuclear bomb in a port or the bomb could be loaded on a truck or railcar and be sent anywhere in our country or terrorists could combine radioactive material with conventional explosives to make a so-called dirty bomb.

Any attack of this kind would cause unspeakable casualties, destruction, and panic. We know our enemies are ruthless and determined enough to plan this type of attack. Yet the administration has waited years and years, and I have been trying to importune them to take significant action on port security.

We know terrorists have tried to purchase nuclear materials on the black market, and we know that any shipping container could be used as a Trojan horse to smuggle deadly radioactive material into our country. But this country has not stepped up to the plate to fund port security at the levels that are necessary or to pass laws with real teeth.

This amendment will end this shocking state of affairs and make America safer by requiring that within 4 years, every container coming into the United States will pass an advanced nuclear detection system known as integrated scanning.

Integrated scanning is used now. I have visited--and so has my colleague; I visited, with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, Hong Kong about 6 months ago. It is an amazing system. The containers are not slowed down. They simply are required to drive through a portal with two detection devices, each on a side, that do two things: They first check for nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. The only good news is--they are terrible and dangerous--they emit gamma rays which pass through just about anything but lead. Even if they are hidden in an engine block, the detection device works.

At the same time, because lead may cover them, there is a scanning device that will reveal large chunks of lead. Once these trucks go through the devices with these containers, we will know if they have nuclear weapons or nuclear radiation, nuclear materials or, alternatively, a significant enough amount of lead that could shield those, and we could then inspect the container.

An integrated scanning system works. I have seen it with my own eyes. I salute the firm of Hutchison Wampoa, the largest shipping company in the world, for on their own instituting this system in the Port of Hong Kong. They do the checks using nonintrusive imaging technology. Then it is checked with a tracking device, as well as, of course, the nuclear device. And if the checks don't match up, Customs inspectors know something is wrong and can stop the container.

Isn't it a shame that China and Hong Kong have better port security than we have in the United States? Integrated scanning for nuclear weapons is a model of what it means to make a true commitment to port security.

We don't need to study this any more. My amendment sets firm deadlines for containers entering the United States to meet this mark. If it is working in Hong Kong, there is no reason why America shouldn't hold other ports that handle our commerce to the same high standard of safety.

There are some critics who say this is an unrealistic deadline; let's study it some more. It is working. It is there. It has been working for a year without flaws. Why do we have to study it when the danger is so great and the technology is there?

The Department of Homeland Security has wasted enough time securing our ports. It is time for Congress to hold DHS accountable and time for us to demand real security at our seaports.

Under this pending amendment, by October 2008, integrated scanning must be used to check all containers that arrive on U.S. shores from foreign ports participating in what is known as CSI, the Container Security Initiative.

There are 40 ports in the CSI in 22 countries. U.S. Customs agents, under the program, work directly to inspect containers bound for America.

But it is not enough to extend integrated scanning only to the ports in the voluntary CSI program. So my amendment also sets a deadline of October 2010 for every single container entering the United States to pass an integrated scan.

We have waited long enough for port security to receive the attention it deserves. While the Department of Homeland Security drags its feet, it is time to put our safety first by voting for a measure that will actually stop nuclear weapons before they ever get near the United States.

This does not cost the taxpayers a plug nickel. We simply require the shipping companies to do it. When Senator Graham and I visited Hong Kong--and Senator Coleman, who has been very interested in this issue, will confirm it--they told us it costs about $8 to scan a container; whereas, the cost of shipping that container from Hong Kong to the west coast is $2,000. That is .2 percent.

Shipping companies will have to put these scanners in. They will then have to pass along the costs to their customers. But I doubt the U.S. consumer would see any increase, the amount is so small and competition in the shipping industry is so large.

I support this amendment and urge bipartisan support so we can once and for all say we are keeping our world safe.

Amendment No. 4938

I have another amendment which I am not going to ask to call up at the desk right now because we don't have anyone on the other side, and they haven't seen it yet. I don't think there will be any objection to calling it up, but I am going to talk about it now, and then we can get unanimous consent to call it up. It is amendment No. 4938. Let's talk about that.

This is the Apollo project amendment. Here is what it does.

Forty-four years ago today, John Kennedy vowed to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. That was a bold and visionary promise. NASA succeeded with time to spare because it was backed by the full extent of American resources and ingenuity. John Kennedy called for us to do it, and we went forward and did it. It was a bold and visionary promise.

Now it is time for Congress to make the same bold commitment to homeland security. Too often since 9/11 we have said this has to be done; here is $5 million when the job takes $100 million. As a result, 5 years after the attacks on our country, we are still far behind where we need to be. We must stop shortchanging port security.

This amendment dedicates $500 million over the next 2 years in competitive grants to public and private researchers who have innovative and realistic ideas for nuclear detection devices that will keep us ahead of our enemies. The funding is sorely needed.

We have to develop better portal monitoring devices. We need devices that can be positioned on cranes. We need devices that can be placed under water. In all of these areas, we need devices accurate and effective enough to keep commerce moving smoothly.

The model Hong Kong uses will work for big ports, but it may not work for small ports. In all these areas, we need the devices to be accurate enough and effective enough not only to detect radiation but to not have so many false positives that they interfere with commerce.

So many times in the past, this Congress has authorized appropriations for port security. They are simply hollow promises and do not go anywhere. This amendment is different. It makes a meaningful and long-term commitment of a worthy goal of keeping our seaports safe. Funding for the grant process will come from a port-related user fee that will be a dedicated source of revenue. It is only fair to ask those who will benefit most from port security improvements to contribute to this task.

We have spent $18 billion on aviation security in the past 5 years. Mr. President, $500 million is not too much to devote against the horrifying threat of a nuclear attack on our soil. The first amendment doesn't cost us any money. This amendment does. I imagine that is why there is a temporary holdup on the other side to offering it.

The bottom line is the leaders of the 9/11 Commission called a nuclear weapon being smuggled into this country ``the most urgent threat to the American people.'' Congress has done far too little for far too long in this area. We are running a marathon against a ruthless enemy. We haven't taken any more than a few halting steps. We can no longer afford to fail in securing our ports.

I ask my colleagues to support both amendments, when we have a chance to vote on them, to strengthen this important bill.

Once again, she wasn't here earlier. I praise my colleague from Washington for the good work she has done on this bill, a bill I am strongly inclined to support.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. And I thank both of my colleagues from North Dakota for offering this outstanding amendment.

If there were ever a metaphor for what is wrong with the war on terror, it is the fact that Osama bin Laden is alive. He continues to taunt us on al Jazeera broadcasts that we have not found him.

Now, if we said we were doing everything we could to find him, that would be one thing. But the unit to get him was disbanded. Many report that the number of troops in Afghanistan is not adequate. They have just asked for more today. And he is our No. 1 danger.

So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment. The fact that 5 years after 9/11 we have not yet found bin Laden shows we can do a whole lot better in the war on terror than we are doing.

This amendment will help bring us there. I urge full bipartisan support of it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, will my colleague from Alaska yield?

I don't believe my amendment will take much time. It might be good to dispose of both of them together.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will be brief.

I rise to offer an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill to address what is literally a growing problem in the fight on the war on terror. We are not really doing enough to counteract an ever-increasing production of opium in Afghanistan, a problem that is threatening the ever fragile Government. Not only does opium production fuel its heroin trade around the globe, but the heroin funds terrorists who aim to attack America and our allies around the world.

We all note the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan. One of the main reasons that situation is deteriorating is the opium production is increasing dramatically. It will increase by a huge 50 percent over last year. A large portion of the opium trade is controlled by the Taliban, the very people who provide the ``warm'' reception.

I say that with sarcasm. It is due to bin Laden and al-Qaida. And yet the Taliban is increasing their reach, their strength, their hold on the country, and their wealth through opium.

As I mentioned, there has been a surge by over 50 percent over the last year's harvest, a surge in production largely in the southern part of the country where the Taliban has reasserted control. It is in part because we have abandoned Afghanistan and the country is steadily descending into chaos as we have less and less to say over it. We have abandoned large parts, and opium rules.

I hope my colleagues will listen to the fact. Afghanistan now supplies more than 90 percent of the world's opium. In this year alone, there were over 400,000 acres of poppies planted, compared to 250,000 acres in 2005--a 50-percent increase. Why is this happening? It is happening in Afghanistan because the administration failed to finish the job when we changed our focus to Iraq, and now the country is swarming with corrupt warlords and the Taliban is once again taking control over a large portion of the country. Our soldiers fought long and hard to rid Afghanistan of terrorists and the Taliban; however, if the drug trade continues to surge and consume the nation, their heroic efforts may be undone.

The Taliban draws its strength from the drug trade, and in order to prevent them from reclaiming the country, we need to crack down on the drugs that fuel its regime. The Taliban generates an amazing 70 percent of its income through the production and sale of opium. Those poppies generate a whole lot of money. This year's opium harvest is worth roughly $4 billion.

In addition, the Taliban is fueling the production of opium from behind the scenes and using the profits to fund its brutal and oppressive regime. Every night, the Taliban drops off ``night letters'' encouraging poor Afghan farmers to grow poppies in exchange for ``protection.'' Unfortunately, just like in ``The Godfather,'' that is an offer they cannot refuse.

Now Afghanistan's narcotrade is spreading outside its borders and funding insurgents and foreign terrorists in Iraq. Money from the sale of Afghan-produced heroin is being used by terrorists to buy weapons and equipment, to create improvised explosive devices, and to pay ordinary Iraqi citizens to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq. If foreign terrorists are using Afghanistan's opium production to fund their deadly activities in Iraq, what is to stop them from using the same funds to attack the United States? On 9/11, it is estimated that the horrible acts by al-Qaida cost only $500,000 to carry out. Can you imagine how many more attacks they could carry out given how huge the profits are from Afghanistan's opium?

Given the magnitude of this problem, a total of $350 million to the Departments of State and Defense to fight opium in this part of the world is not enough. Those funds weren't enough--it is proven fact-- when the production has doubled in a year's time. I am not saying the funds are not being used effectively. They may well be. They are clearly not enough. Fighting Afghanistan's drug production and trade is elemental to our success in fighting global terrorism. It is essential to protect our troops in Iraq, keep Afghanistan from descending into chaos, and save American lives here at home.

My amendment will increase counternarcotics funding in Afghanistan by $700 million. With additional funds, the Department of Defense can work to ensure that the Taliban and other foreign terrorists don't use Afghanistan's opium crop against the United States.

Last year, the U.S. Government spent less than $350 million fighting the drug trade. Afghanistan produced its largest poppy crop in recorded history and raised billions of dollars to fund terrorism.

For people who say this significant amount of money is not useful, it sure is. On a cost-effective basis, it is. It costs a lot more to fight terrorists who use the money from the poppy trade than to fight the poppy trade itself.

Some may suggest the money is not useful to DOD, but I would argue that DOD clearly doesn't have enough resources just on the basis ipso facto that the crop doubled last year. We have to make sure the Department of Defense and the State Department have all the available resources to combat this threat.

Others may say this issue is not a priority to DOD and we should let other agencies take the lead on this issue. The problem clearly is not a priority to DOD, but it absolutely should be, and this amendment will make clear that is our intent.

The growing insecurity in Afghanistan clearly requires that DOD take a more active role in combating the rise in the Taliban and corresponding rise in production of opium. To show that we are serious about combating cultivation of poppies and the production and trade of opium and heroin, we must put additional resources into the fight. If we don't, Afghanistan's drug trade will come back to haunt us.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when we have a vote on it later today. I thank the President and my colleagues from Alaska and Hawaii.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. The Taliban is gaining huge parts of Afghanistan, southern Afghanistan. The Taliban is all over the place. How do they fund themselves? How do they spread their hegemony? It is through opium. Opium production has doubled in a year. While we are making some efforts to fight it, we are not doing close to enough. If we want to stop the Taliban from going back to where they were before 9/11, we must stop the way they prosper, survive, and fund themselves. It is opium production. They make 90 percent of the world's heroin.

This amendment, very simply, adds money to the DOD budget so we can fight the scourge of opium and the scourge of terrorism to which it is interlinked in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I know we have a long list of Members who wish to speak on this weighty and important matter.

First, I compliment the minority leader. The resolution he has put forward is well thought out and covers a range of issues for those who believe the war in Iraq needs a new direction; therefore, I am proud to support this resolution. I hope we can get bipartisan support for it. Most Americans--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--believe we need a new direction in Iraq. That is what this resolution personifies.

Our troops on the ground and their loved ones here at home deserve a clear policy, a plan, from this administration--not rhetoric, not name- calling, not ``kneecapping''--a plan, a direction. We cannot continue to pour lives and resources into Iraq without a clear plan for transitioning the security of Iraq to Iraqis. With the insurgency diving into civil war, we need to come up with this plan now.

No Americans anticipated that the main goal of our troops would be to police a civil war, knowing the longtime hatred between the Shiites and the Sunnis, between the Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis and the Kurds. Yet that is what this war is devolving into right now.

In sum, to fight a war on terror, we need to be both strong and smart. With Secretary Rumsfeld and this administration, you do see a great deal of strength, but we do not see enough of the smarts. We can have both. The two are not contradictory.

Furthermore, Secretary Rumsfeld's comments last month before the American Legion show he does not get it. The President's comments yesterday show he doesn't get it. We do not need to be reminded that Osama bin Laden is still alive. It is 5 years since September 11, and he is still alive. We will address that in an amendment both colleagues from North Dakota will bring up.

Certainly, when Secretary Rumsfeld tries to draw the analogy to World War II, the analogy is flawed. Back in the late 1930s, indeed, there were many Americans who wished to appease Hitler and thought he could be won over. I don't know of an American who thinks we can appease the terrorists, al-Qaida and the others who strike against us. It is a false analogy. I dare them to name a single Member of this Senate or the other body or anyone else who is seeking appeasements of the terrorists.

Secretary Rumsfeld's speech in Utah was a low point. We got a lot of name-calling, more slogans, but for all the hype, we did not get any new policies. One has to ask: Is the name-calling, is the hype--are there imperfect historical analogies made because there is no plan? That is what it seems to be.

When the American people--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans-- are crying out, in droves, for a change in direction and a new policy, we hear none. We never get a plan. Unfortunately, we also often do not get straight answers.

When Secretary Rumsfeld was asked by a member of our Armed Forces about the lack of body armor, he could not give a direct and forthright answer. We must get answers on what has gone wrong. We need to hear a plan for getting it right. Unfortunately, we have heard neither from this administration, and particularly our Secretary of Defense.

This is not even about the end game because that is the President's responsibility. And we are going to be focusing on President Bush repeatedly on that issue. This is also about the implementation of the administration's own goals, and that falls on Secretary Rumsfeld's shoulders.

When a schoolteacher tells one of our colleagues, Senator Dorgan, that she had to pay for the body armor for her son who was in Iraq, something is wrong with the implementation. That does not go to the plan. That does not go to whether you are a hawk or dove. Everyone would think our troops would need body armor. Yet tens of thousands did not get it on Secretary Rumsfeld's watch.

When Iraq was supposed to have, by now, a self-sufficient army that could guard against a civil war, and it is not even close, the implementation of that falls on Secretary Rumsfeld's shoulders. Not even discussing whether democratization is right, it has not been done appropriately or properly.

So to say that Secretary Rumsfeld should be removed from office does not let the President off the hook. He is responsible for the policies, and those are not working. But Secretary Rumsfeld has not only gone along with those policies, he has been the lead figure in the failure of the actual implementation of those policies.

Democrats want new strategies and new ideas to fight a strong war on terror, to secure the peace in Iraq. We certainly do not want the continuation of the status quo, which is clearly not moving Iraq in the right direction.

There have been major tactical failures which Secretary Rumsfeld and the administration refuse to admit: failure to protect vital infrastructure, failure to protect the streets from looters and violence, failure to protect a strong Iraqi security force.

However, these failures are among many, and they are things that neither the President nor Secretary Rumsfeld will own up to, much less address.

People in this administration, this week, are giving a lot of speeches on this topic. But they never talk about a plan, a change in direction, what we are doing wrong, why it has not worked, and what has to change to make it right. If you ignore the realities and simply engage in a game of name-calling and sloganeering, you are never going to solve the very real problems.

In conclusion, Mr. President, the bottom line is very simple: The American people want some answers. What is the game plan in Iraq? How are we going to win the war on terror? We need answers to these questions and a new direction in Iraq. Removing Secretary Rumsfeld from office will be a first step to accomplishing that goal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about lupus, a chronic and devastating autoimmune disease which affects a growing number of military personnel, their family members, and veterans. I would like to have this disease included in the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. I am glad to see my friend Chairman Stevens is on the floor to discuss this issue with me.

For the past 2 years, Congress has included lupus as one of the diseases eligible for research funding through this highly regarded DOD program. This program has proven effective in filling essential gaps in research efforts funded by private industry and other public sources.

This disease predominantly affects women and African Americans, which are a growing demographic in today's military. This debilitating disease damages vital organs and can cause disability or even death. Despite its prevalence and seriousness, lupus is notoriously difficult to diagnose, and no new treatments have been developed in more than 25 years.

Chairman Stevens, because of the expert research that is conducted in this area through the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program, I hope you agree, and support adding lupus to the list of diseases eligible for funding under the DOD Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.

I thank the chairman for his commitment.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak about amendment No. 4783 which has been filed and accepted into this bill.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye, for agreeing to accept this amendment and for their management of this bill which is so critical to funding the needs of those who serve our country.

When our service men and women, fighting so bravely in the face of such grave danger, go into battle, they should have all the resources and technology they need to not only get the job done but come home healthy and safely to their families.

This is why I was dismayed to learn that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not equipped with the medical bandages they need to stop heavy bleeding from potentially fatal wounds. These hemostatic agents--which are small enough to be easily carried by all soldiers-- can literally save lives.

Unfortunately, those supplies are being stockpiled in medical units and soldiers are writing home to their friends and families to say that they need these bandages on the front lines.

Take a moment to think about that. Imagine a mother or father, sitting in their living room, scared stiff every day that they might not see their son or daughter alive again, reading a letter begging them to send bandages so their son or daughter can take care of themselves if they are hurt.

We need to do better because sending these men and women into harm's way without the medical equipment they need is simply unacceptable.

Hemostatic agents are chemical compounds that have been tested and proven to help save soldiers' lives by forming powerful clots which halt blood loss so a wounded soldier has a better chance of getting to an operating room.

Stopping rapid blood loss from a wound is critically important because, according to the American Red Cross, half of all military deaths on the battlefield are a result of excessive blood loss.

Distribution problems can be no excuse. We must ensure that every single soldier has at least one of these bandages or packets with them at all times. And, of course, the medical units should have as many as they see fit.

Mr. President, it is more than obvious that our men and women who are risking their lives should have access to any and all life saving items, such as these hemostatic agents.

A group on Long Island called Jacob's Light Foundation has taken matters into its own hands and is raising money to buy these bandages and packets to send them directly to soldiers. I am grateful for their efforts, but the bottom line is, this is the military's responsibility, not the families'.

Families who have already sacrificed so much should not have to dip into their own pockets to ensure their children survive an attack.

That is why when we debated the Department of Defense Authorization bill a few weeks ago, we added language to ensure that there are plenty of the bandages to go around.

My amendment on this bill, which I am proud to note that Senators Coleman and Clinton have joined me on, will ensure that sufficient funds are available during the fiscal year to make that happen. It provides $11 million to purchase these hemostatic agents and get them to our troops on the front lines.

Mr. President, we have the means to prevent unnecessary deaths on the battlefield instead, we are nickel and diming our troops.

Mr. President, would my colleague yield for a brief question?

Does the Senator know how long he will speak?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak immediately after the Senator from Mississippi finishes his remarks.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.

Before I begin, let me say this: I want to try to put this in a general setting. We have an energy problem in this country. We all know about that. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars flow out of the pocketbooks of hard-working men and women and end up in the pockets of people we don't like particularly, people in Iran and people in Venezuela, countries like them, leaders who don't really play ball with us in the Middle East or in the Soviet Union on so many issues. It is imperative that we get a grip on this. In the long run, there is only one solution, and that is independence from fossil fuels. We are doing so little on that, it is almost pathetic. We should have a crash program to free us of imports within 10 or 15 years. We should be putting every nickel in. We don't.

The Energy bills in the past have too often listened to the big oil companies which are happy with the status quo. Mr. Tillerson, head of ExxonMobil, came before our Judiciary Committee and said he didn't believe in alternative fuels. But that is down the road. Because even if we started today--and we should have started 5 or 10 years ago--that will take a while. So what do we do in the short run? It seems to me there has been a little bit too much deadlock here: one side, mainly our side, saying conserve--and we are right, there should be conservation--the other side saying produce more, not just alternative fuels, which I think are very important, alternative energy, which I think is very important, whether it be wind or solar or biofuels but those just nibble at the edges. The other side says we need to supply more fossil fuels. There is a deadlock. It is about time we broke the deadlock. An ideal bill would be one that breaks the deadlock on both sides, that increases supply of fossil fuels in a way that doesn't do grave damage to the environment and yet at the same time conserves. Such a bill is not yet here.

The majority in its wisdom does not allow such a bill to come forward. The majority doesn't allow amendments on conservation to be added to this bill. But this bill does move to increase supply in a certain portion of the gulf, 1.2 million barrels of oil, 5.8 trillion cubic feet of gas, in about 8 million acres. That is 1.2 billion barrels of oil we won't have to purchase from a Middle East that is, unfortunately, looking more volatile and less friendly day by day.

For the sake of consumers, it is clear we have to get gas prices under control. And while drilling in these 8 million acres isn't going to send the price plummeting--that takes a much larger endeavor and a larger picture--it will affect things at the margin. Gas prices are the highest they have been since the aftermath of Katrina. In my State, a family with two cars, two cars they need to get to work, drive the kids to the doctor and dentist, to get the groceries, can expect to pay $1,000 more in gas this year as compared to just 1 year ago. That is a tragedy for that family--not a tragedy, I guess, but an economic tragedy. If your income isn't that large, $1,000 is just too much. It is a huge burden--is a better way to put it--on working families as prices keep going up.

So I have thought a lot about this. I am going to vote for this bill. I have advocated in our caucus for this bill as a way of showing faith on this side of the aisle that when dramatic damage is not done to the environment, as it would be in Alaska where we are 10 years away, we are willing to look at increasing the supply of fossil fuels in the United States.

I am going to support this bill. I hope the other side will join us in allowing CAFE standards to come to the floor. A bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Lugar and Obama would be a great place to start. Then we would increase supply some and decrease demand some. It would make a huge difference. The fact that our CAFE standards are lower than that of China, a country with virtually no environmental conscience but, rather, a country interested in economics--and they understand the economics are very important.

Make no mistake about it, if this bill is tampered with in the House, if we go beyond these two areas and talk about drilling in the oceans, as the Congressman from California, Mr. Pombo, is, most of us on this side of the aisle will do everything we can to block that, and we will get no bill at all. Let that be a warning to the people in the House not to take advantage of our good faith here. By opening significant tracts for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, I also believe this bill should give us less reason to drill in areas that are more environmentally sensitive like ANWR.

I am supporting this bill. I have urged my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support the bill. I appreciate the hard work the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has done in persuading us to be for this bill. But this bill will be an empty promise if we don't go further, if we don't do more to conserve, if we don't do more to come up with a bipartisan approach that in the long run removes us from the stranglehold of fossil fuels and in the short run both increases supply and decreases demand for energy.

Mr. President, I salute my colleague on her wonderful and heart-felt words.

Mr. President, this is a hallowed moment on the floor of this Senate. We don't have too many of these hallowed moments these days, but passing, working for, voting for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is just one of those. I rise in proud and full-hearted support of H.R. 9, which is a bicameral and bipartisan bill, thank God, to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

The bottom line, Mr. President, is this: Without the right to vote in a democracy, people have no power. And while I do believe that race and racism have been a poison that has afflicted America for a long time, and there are many ways to solve that, probably the best is the full and unrequited power to vote. For so long, that power was denied to people of color: Blacks, Hispanics, and others. Now it is not being.

I can tell by my own history, even here in the Congress, the progress we have made. When I got to the Congress in 1980, there were only 17 African Americans in the House. Today, there are 42. That is very close to the percentage of African Americans in American society. That shows you the progress we have made. Without the Voting Rights Act, it clearly would not have happened.

However, we sit in the Senate, and only last year did we again have an African American come to the Senate. There is only one. So while we see the progress in the House of Representatives, we also look in the Senate and see how much longer we have to go.

I am glad that final passage is now imminent, as leaders from both parties are supporting this bill. Let me say this act has been hailed as the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation we have ever passed. The reason is it does not just simply guarantee the right to vote in name, but it ensures the effective exercise of that fundamental right.

Today, when we see the Governor of Georgia and the legislators of Georgia impeding the right to vote, we know that we need a strong and full-throated Voting Rights Act. And, thank God, the attempts to dilute it--mainly, I am sorry to say--coming from the other body, did not succeed.

Our Founding Fathers said it best when they penned these words in the Declaration of Independence: Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Simply put, in our Nation there can be no consent without unfettered access to the voting booth. A renewed and reenergized Voting Rights Act is exactly the right formula to ensuring equality in the political process for all Americans.

In 1965, when President Johnson signed the bill into law, there were only 300 minorities elected to State, local, or Federal office. North, South, East, and West, people of color were not represented. Today, four decades later, in large part because of this Voting Rights Act, 10,000 minorities serve as elected officials.

I have seen the Voting Rights Act have an effect on my city. New York is one of the most diverse cities in the country. And in our city, the Voting Rights Act has been extremely effective in ensuring that all our citizens are able to participate equally in the political process. However, many of the act's successes in New York--we think we are a modern country and, of course, a modern city--but they have only come since the last time we renewed its provisions. The first and only African-American mayor of New York wasn't elected until May of 1989. The first and only African American wasn't elected to statewide office until 1994. In 2002, the first and only Asian American was elected to the city council. Finally, just last year, a mayoral candidate became the first and only Latino to win his party's nomination.

So while these strides are important, they are too few and too recent to declare that the promise of the Voting Rights Act has been realized. The bottom line is that the Voting Rights Act has worked to remove barriers from countless men and women from all backgrounds to participate in the political process, to run for office, to enter and thrive in the political process, but there is still a lot of work to do. We cannot and thankfully will not let the act expire.

Mr. President, I look forward to casting my vote in favor of H.R. 9 later today, and urge all of my colleagues to do so. I am hopeful that we can have a unanimous vote on the floor of this Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to Tovah Calderon, a detailee from the Department of Justice who is currently serving on my Judiciary Committee staff.

Madam President, first, I thank my colleague for yielding time generously, as he always does, and note that I support his amendment and look forward to voting on it.

(The remarks of Mr. SCHUMER are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Madam President, I rise to speak about the situation in the Middle East. As we have seen, the missiles are continuing to fly, the fighting continues, the situation gets volatile. This morning, another Hezbollah rocket attack--this time on Nazareth--caused the death of two more Israelis. So it is vitally important that we seriously discuss this issue.

Israel and its immediate neighbor Lebanon are in a state of peril that concerns the entire world. If I had one point to make this morning, it is this: President Bush is correct to fully support Israel in her effort to bring peace, to bring the soldiers home, to prevent missiles from flying on the northern fifth of Israel.

Mr. President, 1.2 million people are living in shelters. That is a fifth of the entire population. Israel has an inherent right as a sovereign nation not only to secure her borders but to defend herself from outside attack. I am urging the President to continue to stand tall and give Israel the space she needs, the time she needs, to defend herself and make sure that these missiles cannot continue to rain down upon her people at Hezbollah's will.

There is a great deal of pressure from the European community and from others that Israel should not be given the ability to defend herself. In short, if we were to prevent Israel from doing everything she could to stop these rockets from flying down on her people, we would be back where we are now 3 months, 6 months, a year from now, in the same situation.

So should there be peace and negotiations? Yes. Might it be possible eventually to have an international force in southern Lebanon? Perhaps, although many of us who believe in Israel are worried about that force because in the past it has not stopped terrorist attacks on Israel. But at the moment, we cannot allow the status quo to continue, where a militant terrorist organization, Hezbollah, has the ability to rain torture down on the northern part of Israel.

Israel must be allowed to defend herself like any nation. Can you imagine if some group were operating in Canada and continued to fire missiles at Buffalo and Detroit and Minneapolis and Seattle? Would the rest of the world tell the U.S. ``show restraint'' even though every night a hundred missiles came down on the cities, even though millions of people might be living in shelters? Of course not.

Every country has the right to defend herself. Israel is no exception. I salute President Bush for understanding that and hope he continues on that course because any other course, any appeasement of Hezbollah, will lead to this same sorry situation repeating itself.

Let's be clear: The state of Israel is not an aggressor here. Israel has stated over and over again its desire to live in peace with the Arab world. It is Israel's policy to allow a Palestinian state. And there are some in the Palestinian and Arab world who agree with it. But there are some who do not.

Hezbollah believes Israel has no right to exist, not simply in the West Bank and Gaza but in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Ashdod and Ashkelon. And Hezbollah has said they will do all they can to eradicate the state of Israel. Hezbollah is the aggressor.

I feel deeply for those who are injured, both Israeli and Lebanese, both Jew and Arab. But the Lebanese Government also has an obligation here; that is, not to allow terrorists to operate on her soil. I was so pleased to see that Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Arab world understand that Hezbollah is the provocateur here. But the world must unite against terrorism. The sad lesson we learn is that if terrorism is first directed at one country, it will inevitably spread, unless we have a strong, united world against terrorism.

In this case, Israel is not the aggressor. She is defending herself against an unlawful incursion into her borders by the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Hezbollah has rockets, and they shoot indiscriminately at civilians. Israel, on the other hand, in defending herself, goes out of her way and sacrifices the lives of her soldiers not to punish and hurt civilians. It is awfully difficult when people store missiles in their garages and in their homes.

But all Israel asks for is the ability to defend herself. To create some moral equivalency between Israel's response to these rocket attacks and the terrorist attacks themselves is, in my opinion, immoral. What other country would allow it? Would Prime Minister Chirac stand for restraint if missiles rained from Switzerland to Lyon? Would President Putin ask for restraint? Why he asks for restraint against terrorists in the Middle East but asks for world support against terrorists in Chechnya is beyond me. He seems to have a double standard.

Would any country simply watch as dozens of its own citizens were killed, countless more injured, the whole nation frantic with fear and uncertainty? No, of course not. Every nation would respond with strength and do everything it could to eradicate the terrorists. And that is just what Israel is doing now.

Prime Minister Olmert has publicly called for peace. He is right to do so. Israel did not seek out this conflict and does not seek its continuance. But neither will nor should Israel back down and simply allow Hezbollah to continue its reign of terror over Israel and its citizens at any time of its choosing.

So this is a sad situation. Lebanon's entire population is paying the price for Hezbollah's outrageous actions. The Prime Minister, Siniora, said in a statement:

Lebanon cannot grow and develop if the government is the

last to know and yet the first to pay the price.

The great mistake was allowing Hezbollah into the government and then allowing them free reign in southern Lebanon. It should not be a mistake that Lebanon repeats, and it should not be a mistake to which the world acquiesces.

Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora has called for his government to assert ``sovereignty in all Lebanese territory.'' I agree with this. You cannot have a terrorist separate nation living within your nation and then disclaim any responsibility and blame the country that is simply defending itself against terror.

As I said, I welcome the stance of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan and Kuwait, which characterized Hezbollah's actions as ``unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible.'' This is a welcome stance, a new stance. But talk is cheap. We should hold the Arab League's feet to the fire and pressure them to take concrete steps that will force Hezbollah to stop its attacks and return the captured soldiers.

In short, our President is doing the right thing. Americans of all political philosophies and all parties back him in doing it. Our plea, Mr. President: Stay the course. Continue strong. Let Israel, who does not ask for United States troops or United States casualties in any way--defend herself. All she needs is the support of the world to help her fight terrorism, a terrorism which could afflict any one of our nations.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Any one of us who has met people who have petitioned us for this act has to be moved. I have looked into the eyes of a mother who brought her beautiful 4-year-old daughter to my office and said, Senator, please allow this research to go forward because I am worried my daughter will be blind at the age of 20 without it.

I have met families whose patriarch is suffering from ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. Again, they have pleaded with us, allow the research to go forward so maybe that person or his children, who might get the disease, will be able to be cured.

I have met with so many people my age whose parents are suffering from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Again, they plead with us, allow stem cell research to move forward so that maybe my parent or other parents such as mine could be cured.

Americans struggle with diseases every day. The confounding and amazing thing is, when scientists are on the edge of a breakthrough, the President stops them. Scientists are on the cusp of making incredible progress through stem cell research, a process that has the potential to cure diseases as widespread as diabetes and heart disease, but progress came to a grinding halt in 2001 when President Bush limited federally funded stem cell research to only 19 sources. With that Executive Order, President Bush shut the door on hope for millions of American families. With that one action, the President not only stopped current research in its tracks, he sent a message to future scientists that they should not pursue this line of work. As they see a limited funding stream for the work they do, fewer and fewer graduates are specializing in this kind of work. We need the best minds there.

Substantively, there is no doubt this is the right thing to do. But I put it in a broader context. There is a group of people in America of deep faith. I respect that faith. I have been in enough inner-city Black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses of worship, and small Jewish synagogues, to understand that faith is a gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they want that faith to dictate what our Government does. That, in a word, is un-American. It is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.

If you do not like stem cell research, don't use it for yourself or your family, but don't tell millions of Americans who may not share your faith that they cannot use it, as well.

We have seen this repeatedly with Schiavo, or the required teaching of creationism in the schools, and now with stem cell research. Unfortunately, the President and too many in this Chamber and too many in the other Chamber have gone along and said that faith, wonderful and noble as it is, should determine what our Government does.

This administration is not pursuing what most Americans want, but following the dictates of the narrow few. Fortunately, we live in a democracy. In a democracy these issues are debated.

I assure everyone in this Chamber, this issue will be debated and debated strongly in November. Those who have stood in the way of scientific progress and research, those who have told that wonderful mother that her child cannot get the research she needs so she might not be blind, will be held accountable. This will be one of the largest issues that will face us in November, and it should. That is what democracy is all about. All of those, including the President, who have tried to hide their actions with false promises or bills that accomplish nothing, will be held accountable.

Thank God we have a democracy. Thank God that a narrow band of people, few in number, deep in conviction, cannot dictate what our Government does. The fact that H.R. 810 has come to the Senate, the fact that it will get a large majority of votes here as it did in the House, and the fact that the President and some of his allies in this Chamber and others have stood in the way of saving lives and of scientific progress because they believe their faith should dictate what the rest of us do--again, they will be held accountable for that.

I hope this measure passes. It would be a miracle, a miracle that could save lives if it got a veto-proof majority in this Senate. I doubt that will happen. But one can always hope, because the hopes, the futures, of millions of Americans, born and unborn, rest on us pursuing this research, doing what science tells us it needs to do to enhance and preserve life, and not be blocked by a small group that wishes to impose its views on everyone else.

I yield the floor.