Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Joan Leslie, a talented actress who served as a source of comfort and inspiration to millions of Americans during World War II. On May 14, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Connecticut will pay tribute to Ms. Leslie for her tireless devotion to our Nation's servicemen with a gala in her honor.

Born Joan Agnes Theresa Sadie Bordel on January 26, 1925, in Detroit, MI, Ms. Leslie made her professional debut at age nine. As a child she worked as a model and performed a song and dance routine with her two sisters before she got her big break in 1940 when she signed with Warner Brothers.

Joan Leslie shared the screen with many of the leading actors of her time, starring with Humphrey Bogart in ``High Sierra,'' Gary Cooper in ``Sergeant York,'' and James Cagney in ``Yankee Doodle Dandy.'' In 1943, she became Fred Astaire's youngest dance partner, celebrating her 18th birthday on the set of ``The Sky's the Limit.'' Through these roles, Joan Leslie became known as America's quintessential ``girl next door.''

As Ms. Leslie's popularity escalated, so did America's involvement in World War II. Americans found themselves turning to entertainers like Joan Leslie for reassurance about the goodness and strength of our country amid the tremendous stresses and burdens of war. Tens of thousands of American servicemen clung to Joan Leslie's picture as a reminder of the values they were fighting for and the loved ones they left behind. Ms. Leslie willingly accepted the responsibility of her role, taking it upon herself to visit the troops at defense plants and Army bases. Joan Leslie and other entertainers like her played a pivotal role in the overall war effort, serving as a source of comfort and inspiration for American soldiers and the rest of the country. Ultimately, they served as a reassurance that our Nation would prevail.

It is only right that veterans of our Nation should honor entertainers like Joan Leslie, and I take particular pride in the fact that the veterans of Connecticut have taken a leadership role in her tribute. Ms. Leslie not only filled the role of the girl next door on the movie screen, but carried it into her personal life, as well. Her life lives up to her reputation, which is a rare achievement for a public figure. Perhaps her greatest accomplishments have occurred outside the public eye, as she has dedicated most of her life to raising her identical twin daughters, Patrice and Ellen, with her husband, Dr. William Caldwell.

Joan Leslie served as a pillar of strength when America needed her most. She deserves the thanks of a grateful Nation for a life of service. I commend her for her continued dedication to American servicemen, and congratulate her, her husband, her children, and her other family members on this wonderful occasion.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator DeWine to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. They also know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be effected a sort of morbid lottery. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family.

Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every State. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long- term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected

because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the State in which it is born, because not all States test for every detectable disorder.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most States do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a state. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

Two weeks ago, I visited Stamford Hospital in my home State of Connecticut to talk to physicians and parents about newborn screening. I was joined there by Pamela Sweeney. Pamela is the mother of 7-year- old Jonathan Sweeney. At the time of his birth, Connecticut only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Pamela found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy.

Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do many States still not test for L-CHAD?

The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of a consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Fortunately, that is changing. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, Senator DeWine and I authored language to create an Advisory Committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year, that Advisory Committee released a report recommending that all States test for a standard set of 29 disorders. Several States, including Connecticut, are already well on their way to meeting this recommendation.

The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand towards meeting the Advisory's Committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for States to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, States will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders.

Our legislation will also provide $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis.

Finally, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and provides $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us towards more effective treatments and cures.

I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator DeWine to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. They also know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be effected a sort of morbid lottery. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family.

Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every State. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long- term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected

because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the State in which it is born, because not all States test for every detectable disorder.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most States do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a state. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

Two weeks ago, I visited Stamford Hospital in my home State of Connecticut to talk to physicians and parents about newborn screening. I was joined there by Pamela Sweeney. Pamela is the mother of 7-year- old Jonathan Sweeney. At the time of his birth, Connecticut only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Pamela found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy.

Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do many States still not test for L-CHAD?

The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of a consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Fortunately, that is changing. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, Senator DeWine and I authored language to create an Advisory Committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year, that Advisory Committee released a report recommending that all States test for a standard set of 29 disorders. Several States, including Connecticut, are already well on their way to meeting this recommendation.

The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand towards meeting the Advisory's Committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for States to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, States will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders.

Our legislation will also provide $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis.

Finally, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and provides $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us towards more effective treatments and cures.

I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life.

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

Mr. President, today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Each year, our Nation commemorates this tragic event with a week-long period of remembrance, and this Thursday, I will join several of my colleagues in a ceremony honoring the victims of the Holocaust in the Capitol Rotunda. The theme for this year's ``Days of Remembrance,'' the ``Legacies of Justice,'' honors the courage and fortitude of those who testified during the trials of Nazi war criminals.

As many of my colleagues know, I have a personal connection to those trials. My father, Senator Thomas Dodd, then a young lawyer, was asked by the chief counsel for the United States at Nuremberg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, to join his prosecutorial team. My father served as vice-chairman of the Review Board and as executive trial counsel, and his experiences at those trials greatly influenced his thinking on human rights and the importance of international justice for the rest of his life.

One of the major accomplishments of the prosecutors and witnesses at Nuremberg was publicly exposing the scope of depravity of Nazi crimes. My father and his colleagues went to great lengths to meticulously record that evidence, and their efforts formed the basis of much of our current knowledge about the Holocaust. According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, for example, it was during the Nuremberg trials that the world first heard the estimate of 6 million Jewish deaths.

I believe that my father and his colleagues placed so much emphasis on revealing the extent of Nazi crimes in large part because they understood that the Nuremberg proceedings had the potential to reach an audience that far exceeded the four members and four alternate members of the Tribunal sitting in judgment of the defendants. These trials would reveal to the world and to future generations that such unthinkable crimes were possible, and that the international community must, therefore, stand up to injustice and abuse wherever they occur.

The evidence uncovered by the Tribunal was truly horrific. Indeed, the crimes committed by the Nazis were so heinous that they required a new lexicon to describe them. These crimes were prosecuted under the legal terminology of ``crimes against humanity,'' but later, an entirely new word describing them was formalized: genocide. Genocide refers to certain actions committed with the ``intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.''

Sadly, the crime of genocide is not unique to the Holocaust. In Bosnia, Cambodia, and, of course, Rwanda, too many innocents died while the world looked away. And today, in Darfur, Sudan, escalating violence is claiming thousands of additional lives in a conflict that the Congress unanimously declared genocide almost 2 years ago, in July 2004. Secretary of State Colin Powell made that same declaration in September of that year.

Several weeks ago, I received a DVD about the situation in Darfur made by a group of Danbury, CT, high school students. The DVD, entitled ``The Promise,'' is truly a wake-up call. The title, of course, refers to the promise made by the world after the Holocaust--the promise of ``Never Again.''

Yet, as these students so vividly portray, the people of Darfur continue to suffer while the world takes too little notice. By some estimates, as many as 300,000 people, many of them civilians, may have lost their lives in Darfur since the start of the conflict. The Government of Sudan has refused to curtail, and in many instances has actively supported, the activities of Jingaweit militias that have attacked and targeted tribal groups of African decent.

In a particularly moving segment of their DVD, the Danbury students display some of the artwork of children who have fled their homes in Darfur. As the students say, so much can be learned through the eyes of a child, and these images, produced by the children without any prompting, are of war, fire, and death. I think of my own children and shudder to imagine them suffering through the terror that afflicts the children of Darfur every day. Indeed, despite all that we have learned since Nuremberg, I am sad to say that the promise of ``Never Again'' remains a promise unfulfilled.

But while the story of Darfur is clearly one of tragedy, it is also one of hope. Since the start of the conflict, I have been impressed by the dedication and advocacy demonstrated by the people of Connecticut on this issue. If we are ever to fulfill ``the promise,'' it will be due to the extraordinary efforts of dedicated individuals such as these Danbury High School students. I am proud that these students, just like the brave individuals who stood up to testify at the Nuremberg Tribunals 60 years ago to demand justice, are standing up to demand action in Darfur today.

In their DVD, the Danbury High School students cite a famous statement by Ghandi: ``Be the change you wish to see in the world.'' I can think of no greater compliment to these students and the numerous individuals in Connecticut and across this country who have advocated for increased international action in Darfur, than to say that they have lived up to that admonition. I ask unanimous consent that the names of the Danbury students who made this DVD be included in the record following my remarks.

Today is a day of remembrance, but in remembering, we are also called to action. This week, we are debating the President's emergency supplemental request. To his credit, the President has included in that request substantial funds to support the African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur and new humanitarian assistance.

Moreover, the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations is scheduled to brief the Security Council tomorrow, on potential U.N. missions in Darfur. It is my hope that they will advocate a strong United Nations Peacekeeping force, despite Sudanese objections. It is also my fervent hope that we in the Senate actively support an increased international role in Darfur. Because only with our support can any international force hope to meet the enormous challenge of protecting the civilian population and providing a safe environment to supply humanitarian relief.

Finally, just as at Nuremberg the international community enforced justice where justice had too long been blind, I call on the Bush administration to actively support the work of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting those individuals who have committed crimes against the people of Darfur and against all humanity. I know the ICC is not popular in some circles of the Bush administration, but I believe it is the best tool we have to enforce the vision of universal justice that was inspired by Nuremberg.

Following the trials of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, President Truman declared: I have no hesitancy in declaring that the historic precedent set at Nuremberg abundantly justifies the expenditure of effort, prodigious though it was.

Individuals such as my father expected that the historic precedent described by President Truman would long inspire nations to take action against crimes such as those prosecuted at Nuremberg. The lesson of Nuremberg to these individuals was indeed the promise of ``Never Again.'' I hope that on this somber day of remembrance, we will commit ourselves to renewing that promise.

Exhibit 1

Background--A Danbury High School Project

``The Promise'' is a Danbury High School student video

about genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. After school

for three months at the end of 2005, a group of students

worked with assistant principal Tim Salem on the project. The

result is an eight minute documentary meant to raise

awareness about the genocide and motivate action. The name

``The Promise'' is a reminder of the promise the United

Nations and the world made in 1945 to hold people accountable

for crimes against humanity. With the backdrop of the

Holocaust, narration, images and quotations, the focus is on

the plight of

the children of Darfur. The world was promised ``never

again''. The children and people of Darfur are waiting.

Credits

All students are members of the class of 2006 Danbury High

School, Danbury, Connecticut.

Created by: Timothy Salem and Brian Simalchik.

With: Katherine Calle, Caitlin Eaglin, Catherine Trieu and

Lily Yeung.

Written by: Timothy Salem.

Narrated by: Emily DeMasi.

Edited by: Brian Simalchik.

Appearing: Katherine Calle, Emily DeMasi, Caitlin Eaglin,

Mathew Ficinus, Simone Hill, Nick Noone, Michael Steinmetz,

Catherine Trieu, Brian Wright.

Special thanks to: Brianna English, William Najam, Emmanuel

Omokaro, Adam Pin, Greg Scalzo, David Shih, Iwonka Stepniak,

Allison Walker.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor one of Connecticut's finest educators: Margaret Sullivan Wilson.

Peg Wilson is a lifelong resident of Norwich, CT. Throughout her life, she has been dedicated to serving the people of her native city, as well as improving educational opportunities for children in Connecticut and, indeed, in America.

A 1944 graduate of Willimantic State Teachers College--now Eastern Connecticut State University--Peg received a bachelor's degree in education. She also attained a master's degree from the University of Connecticut. Between 1945 and 1950, she taught at Norwich Elementary School and was a reading supervisor in the Greenwich Public Schools. Returning to Eastern in 1950, Peg devoted herself to improving early childhood education.

In particular, Peg has dedicated herself to changing the way young students are taught. She advocated providing an individual approach to early childhood education, which was considered radical by many educators in the early 1950s. However, over the ensuing decades this approach has become widely accepted as the best method of preparing young children for success in school and life.

Peg Wilson was ahead of her time in recognizing the importance of providing children a comprehensive and demanding curriculum that considers each child's strengths and weaknesses. Her determination to improve early education was the driving passion of her career. As both a teacher and administrator, Peg imparted her ``radical'' theory to thousands of prospective teachers and parents during her nearly 40 years at Eastern. This knowledge undoubtedly improved the lives of even more children in Connecticut and throughout the country. For that, we should all be grateful.

During, and after her illustrious career at Eastern, Peg remained active in her community. While working at Eastern, Peg served on the Norwich Board of Education for 18 years. In addition, she is an original cofounder of the Norwich Historical Society, which is dedicated to promoting the history of that great New England town. In addition, she remained active in local politics, even running for city council president and State senate. Her contributions to her community have long been acknowledged; Peg received the Norwich Citizen of the Year Award in 1970.

Although Peg Wilson retired from Eastern in 1989 as vice president for administration and fiscal affairs, her dedication to early childhood development has continued undiminished. Never losing sight of her dream of individualized, comprehensive education for young children, Peg returned to Eastern as an assistant to the president. In this role, she spent nearly 4 years attempting to gain support for a facility on Eastern's campus dedicated to early childhood development. Her hard work, alongside that of the president and senior staff of Eastern, finally paid off. On February 28, 2006, Eastern University dedicated the Margaret S. Wilson Child and Family Development Complex. This new complex currently serves 14 children, ages 3 and 4, in a new comprehensive preschool, implementing many of the ideas Margaret Wilson has espoused for almost 60 years. As the center grows, a limited number of infants and up to 60 toddlers will be served. In addition, the center will eventually offer onsite services such as health, education, and financial services to the participating families. Peg's vision of comprehensive child development is truly being realized.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Peg's family: her late husband, W. Robert Wilson; her daughter, Margaret-Ellen Wilson; and her son, Dr. William Wilson, a recipient of Norwich's Native Son Award in 1999. Their love and support has been instrumental in allowing Peg to devote her career to promoting early childhood development.

As a Senator and a father of two young daughters, I am reminded every day of the importance of providing quality education early in a child's life. Throughout my career, I have strived to ensure that our country makes early childhood development a national priority. Today, I am honored to praise the work of someone who shares that commitment with me.

Margaret Wilson has played an integral role in improving thousands of young students' lives and reshaping early childhood education. The Margaret S. Wilson Child and Family Development Complex stands as a testament to one of Connecticut's most admired and visionary educators. This complex will help ensure that future generations of Connecticut children are provided with a quality education early in life, which is critical for our Nation's future. On behalf of a grateful state and nation, I say thank you, Peg Wilson, for all that you have done and continue to do for the children of America.

Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the need to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. In the course of those remarks, I described a document signed by all five of Mexico's Presidential candidates in the run-up to this July's Presidential elections in that country, as well as leaders from every major party in Mexico. That document makes clear that leaders on both sides of the border understand that border security is a fundamental necessity. I ask unanimous consent that the document, ``Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Alexander, to introduce a resolution that of the resolution the Senate has passed to proclaim the third week of April of 2006 as Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week. Last year, we passed a similar resolution and continue to support raising awareness of this important issue. I would like to recognize the many groups, particularly the National Shaken Baby Coalition and the SKIPPER Initiative, who support this effort to increase awareness of one of the most devastating forms of child abuse, one that results in the death or lifelong disability of hundreds of children each year.

We must recognize child abuse and neglect as the public health problem it is, one that is linked with a host of other problems facing our country and one that needs the comprehensive approach of our entire public health system to solve. The month of April has been designated National Child Abuse Prevention Month as an annual tradition that was initiated in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. In 2006, April is again National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

The tragedy of child abuse is well documented. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, almost 900,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in the United States in 2002, causing unspeakable pain and suffering to our most vulnerable citizens. Each day, nearly four of these children die as a result of this abuse. Most experts are certain that cases of child abuse and neglect are in fact underreported.

Abusive head trauma, including the trauma known as Shaken Baby Syndrome, is recognized as the leading cause of death of physically abused children, especially young children. Shaken Baby Syndrome is a totally preventable form of child abuse that results from a caregiver losing control and shaking a baby, usually an infant who is less than 1 year old. This severe shaking can kill the baby, or it can cause loss of vision, brain damage, paralysis, and seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and causing untold grief for many families.

Too many families have experienced the pain of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates

that, in the U.S., an average of 300 children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom two-thirds will be babies or infants under 1 year in age, as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Medical professionals believe that thousands more cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome are being misdiagnosed or not detected.

Families should be spared the needless tragedy of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Prevention is the most effective solution to ending Shaken Baby Syndrome. It is clear that the minimal costs of educational and prevention programs may help to protect our young children. Families as well as professionals who care for children must be made aware of the injuries that shaking can cause. In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect recommended a universal approach to the prevention of child fatalities that included services such as home visitation by trained professionals or paraprofessionals, hospital- linked outreach to parents of infants and toddlers, community-based programs designed for the specific needs of neighborhoods, and effective public education campaigns.

Prevention programs have demonstrated that educating new parents about the danger of shaking young children and how they can help protect their child from injury can bring about a significant reduction in the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. In 1998, Dr. Mark Dias started the Upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo, which uses a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital. Since that time, the number of shaken baby incidents in the Buffalo area has dropped by nearly 50%; none of the perpetrators have been identified as participants in the hospital education program. Hospitals around the country, including several in my own State of Connecticut, have adopted programs similar to these to educate new parents about the dangers of shaking young children.

I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the third week of April of 2006 as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week, and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

The prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome is supported by advocacy groups across the U.S. that were formed by parents and relatives of children who have been killed or injured by shaking. I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to take the time allocated to me to address the larger issue of this bill; although, clearly, the amendment being offered by our colleagues from Arizona and Texas impacts the larger question: the decision of whether we deal with a part or the whole of the immigration issue.

You can make a case, obviously, that by just dealing with border security issues, you are dealing with an important and essential element of immigration reform. I would quickly argue that if you just deal with border security

and do not also deal with the phenomena of 11 million people who are here illegally, you would only be addressing half of the issue--a legitimate half of the issue--without any kind of recourse or plan on how you ultimately deal with the fact that we have 11 to 12 million people who are here under an illegal status.

So I appreciate the work of my colleague from Arizona, and I would be urging colleagues to vote no on the motion to table because I think we ought to have a bit more time to analyze and discuss exactly what the implications of this amendment are.

Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. I want to acknowledge the work of those on the Judiciary Committee who have done a fabulous job, in my view, through extensive hearings and a very worthwhile markup session. I watched almost every minute of it. I was deeply impressed with our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, who addressed this issue.

Let me be clear from the outset--something we need to say over and over and over and over again--immigration reform is first and foremost about protecting America's national security, our economy, and our citizens from the myriad of challenges we are going to face in the 21st century. We have no higher priority than those: to protect our national security, to protect our borders, and to protect our economy.

Therefore, any discussion of immigration reform must begin with an emphatic declaration of our intentions here: to secure our borders; to protect our citizens from a flood of people arriving here, albeit with good motives. But it is unrealistic to assume that any nation in this world can have open borders--unlimited for people who want to come here. So I believe it is extremely important we state that case at the outset.

But I also believe that it is an enormously complex and difficult issue. It is that very complexity that leads us to the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. There is a very real temptation to deal only with certain aspects of immigration and to put off the more difficult matters to some future time and date. That is exactly what the other body did back in December when they passed a bill dealing only with the issue of border security and enforcement and neglected entirely dealing with the phenomena of 11 million human beings who reside in this country today without documentation.

Which brings me to the legislation currently before the Senate. One version, introduced by our colleague, Senator Frist, mainly addresses border security and enforcement. Certainly, these are critical components of any immigration reform package. No bill should be considered comprehensive without them at all. But Senator Frist's bill does not go nearly far enough toward addressing the other monumental challenges we face on immigration, including the presence of more than 11 million human beings, undocumented, in the United States, who need to be brought out of the shadows and into the open.

In my view, turning our backs on this reality is the same thing as turning our backs on providing border security. If we had a bill before us that only dealt with how we handle 11 million people who are here illegally and not border security, that would be a flawed piece of legislation. The fact that you are dealing with just border security is equally flawed. We need to have both parts here if we are going to succeed.

Thankfully, of course, Senator Specter has provided us, along with the Judiciary Committee members, with an approach that does address both pieces of this problem. Is it an imperfect bill? Absolutely. Does it need more work? Absolutely. But clearly, it is one that brings the balance of dealing with border security, national security, and economic security, as well as realistically trying to deal with the 11 million undocumented workers who have come to our country.

The Specter amendment toughens our borders. We clearly need to do more to control these borders and to prevent individuals from illegally entering our country because, fundamentally, border control is a national security issue. The Specter amendment would provide advanced border security technologies to assist those tasked with protecting these frontiers. The Specter amendment would also improve our ability to enforce immigration laws by making structural reforms and increasing personnel and funding levels where they are needed most. I won't go into all the details here, but 12,000 new agents along that border will clearly help.

My good friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and I were privileged to attend a meeting in Mexico a few weeks ago, an interparliamentary meeting that I have attended for 26 years--odd years here, even years in Mexico. We were both deeply impressed with a document prepared by our colleagues in Mexico that has been signed by all five candidates for President of Mexico, which will be holding elections on July 2, as well as the major parties in Mexico. It is a rather short document. I will ask for it to be included in the Record. Senator Cornyn and I actually sent this to each of our colleagues to look at. But our friends from Mexico list national security, border security, as one of the guiding principles in what must be a part of any immigration reform proposal. It is worth reading because these issues are not only our concern but their concern as well. If Mexico is unwilling or incapable of helping us keep our borders secure, then this legislation will not work.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

The other provision I wish to address in the brief time I have available goes beyond the border security issue that the Specter amendment clearly addresses. Individuals have come to our country looking for work, and we know from surveys that 94 percent of undocumented males in this country are in fact working. These are not unemployed people who are looking for first-time jobs; these are people with jobs who saw a better opportunity in coming across our borders.

I know it has been said, but every one of us here can tell family stories going back a generation or more, regardless of where we have come from, on why our forebears came here. Mostly it was for economic reasons, in the past, or political reasons that made it difficult for our forebears to remain in the countries of their birth.

I acknowledge that people have come here illegally. That is wrong, and we need to put a stop to it. The Specter amendment also acknowledges that fact. It doesn't give these people a free ride at all. Instead, it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring undocumented workers to pay fines, pay all back taxes, submit themselves to background checks, and learn English. But then it does allow them to move out of that status. That is one of the differences.

If we add an additional burden, which our friends from Arizona and Texas are implying here, that if you came in under a legal visa and you have overstayed that visa, then you can never move out of that status again regardless of whether you have complied with these other provisions, it seems to me we are only compounding our problems.

Certainly, this legislation also provides an avenue for undocumented workers to come out in the open, to earn legalization. Earning legal status wouldn't be an easy process. An individual who takes advantage of this program would have to work for 6 years before he or she could even receive a green card. At that point, they would be put at the back of the line of some 3.5 million people who are legally seeking entry into the United States as I speak. They would come first. These undocumented workers would come after those people had been approved.

It would take a minimum of 5 additional years of steady employment before the individual could finally become an American citizen. That is 11 years. That is certainly not a light process to go through. With a pathway to citizenship--not amnesty at all but an earned pathway--we will provide incentives to undocumented workers to come out of the shadows of society.

Why is that important? For many reasons. Because the presence of so many individuals without documentation in our country creates enormous challenges for law enforcement. It undermines worker protections. It is bad for security. It is bad for American workers. It is bad for undocumented immigrants themselves. Moreover, it is impossible to adequately protect U.S. national security if we don't know who is living within our borders. And by bringing undocumented workers into the open, we will help law enforcement professionals and our security services do their jobs: protecting the American people and enforcing our laws--there is no higher priority we have than that. And if we have a process that goes on for 11 years, a pathway, we begin to assist in that effort.

As I said, among other provisions, the Specter amendment would double the size of the Border Patrol over 5 years, adding 12,000 new agents to patrol our borders. It would expand the number of interior enforcement officers by 1,000 per year over each of the next 5 years. It would utilize advanced technologies to improve surveillance along the border, creating a virtual fence to detect and apprehend people who are illegally attempting to enter this country. And it would create new and increased penalties for individuals trying to subvert our borders with tunnels or who attempt to smuggle people into the U.S.

I support these measures. But they are only one part of the bigger equation. We also have to find a way to deal with the more than 11 million undocumented individuals living within our borders.

These are predominantly individuals who have come to the U.S. to make a living, and to support themselves and their families. Ninety-four percent of undocumented men, according to a March 7, 2006, Pew poll, choose to work. These are, for the most part, hardworking individuals, who are not here to flood the welfare rolls or collect our charity. They are here to work and to contribute. They want what all of our families wanted when they came to the U.S.--a piece of the American dream.

I acknowledge that they came here illegally and this is wrong. And so does the Specter amendment. It wouldn't give them a free ride. Instead, it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring undocumented workers to pay fines. It would require them to pay all back taxes, submit themselves to background checks, and learn English.

But critically, this legislation also provides an avenue for undocumented workers to come out into the open, to earn legalization. Earning legal status wouldn't be an easy process either. An individual who takes advantage of this program would have to work for 6 years before he or she could even receive a green card. At that point, they would be put at the back of the line--behind everyone who has come here legally--and it would take a minimum of 5 additional years of steady employment before the individual could finally become an American citizen. That's 11 years in total.

With a pathway to citizenship, not an amnesty but an earned pathway, we will provide incentives to undocumented workers to come out of the shadows of our society. Why is this so important?

Because the presence of so many individuals without documentation in our country creates enormous challenges for law enforcement and undermines worker protections. It is bad for our security, bad for the American worker, and bad for undocumented immigrants themselves.

Moreover, it is impossible to adequately protect U.S. national security if we don't know who is living within our borders. By bringing undocumented individuals out into the open, we will help law enforcement professionals and our security services do their job: protecting the American people and enforcing our laws. We will also help prevent the type of workplace abuses that are bad for everyone, Americans and immigrants alike.

Despite what has been said on this floor, not all people seek to come permanently to the U.S. Many seek temporary work here and desire to return home when that work is complete.

There are legitimate concerns that temporary workers might displace American workers who are available and willing to take a job. That should never be the case. Wherever possible, American jobs should be filled first and foremost with American workers.

The Specter amendment addresses this reality. It creates a new temporary worker classification to meet the needs of American businesses. It would also strengthen procedures to help ensure that no American workers are displaced when temporary workers are hired.

As I have said, the Specter amendment is truly comprehensive legislation. It would be impossible to discuss every provision in the bill at length. So I would just like to comment briefly on a few additional items of interest.

First, I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee included provisions of the DREAM Act in its legislation. I've long supported the DREAM Act, which in my view is a common sense measure, allowing undocumented students under the age of 16, who were brought into this country illegally through no fault of their own, a chance to complete higher education.

Qualifying students, however, will have had to live in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to the date of enactment of this legislation. If they earn and advanced degree or serve our country in the Armed Forces, they would then be granted permanent status and allowed to petition for citizenship. Every student deserves a chance to learn and to serve a cause greater than themselves. This measure will give many deserving children that opportunity.

Finally, I would like to highlight a provision included in the Specter amendment that is receiving somewhat less attention. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I've tried to raise awareness about western hemisphere affairs. Indeed during all my years in this body, I have served as a member of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs--even, for a time, as chairman. One thing I would note about the immigration issue, from a regional perspective, is that many of the problems we are facing--drug trafficking, crime, and insecurity--are also affecting our neighbors in the hemisphere. Just like us, they are struggling to address these seemingly intractable problems every day.

That is why I am pleased that in its bill, the Judiciary Committee included measures to help our neighbors. In particular, the Specter amendment would establish programs to help Guatemala and Belize fight human smuggling and gain control of their tenuous borders. It would also encourage strategic coordination across the hemisphere to fight the growing problem of gang violence. In my view, these are critically important provisions, and I hope we can do more to help some of our closest neighbors on these issues. Because in reality, we cannot solve our problems here without also addressing the roots of the problems abroad.

Unless we act now to address the enormous challenge posed by illegal immigration, the problem is only going to get worse. The Specter amendment isn't perfect--I think most of my colleagues would agree with that statement--but I do believe it is a critical measure that will help to resolve many of the challenges we face with respect to illegal immigration. I again thank my colleagues for their hard work and leadership on this issue.

My hope is that we strike that balance between border security, economic security, national security, and then also designing, as we have with the Specter amendment, a process that will allow for these people to move out of the shadows into the open, and into a legal status. It is a difficult path, a cumbersome path, but a path that will allow them to achieve that status at the end of the road.

I urge adoption of the Specter amendment, and I urge that we not table the Kyl amendment at this point, that we need to examine this issue even more carefully.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Obama, of Illinois, I ask that it be in order to call up three amendments, and once the amendments are reported, that they may be set aside.

I call up amendments No. 2930, No. 2965, and No. 2995.

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be set aside.

On behalf of Senator Levin of Michigan, I call up amendment No. 2960, and once it is reported, I ask that it be set aside.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I call up amendment No. 2963, and once it is reported, I ask that it be set aside as well.

On behalf of Senator Byrd of West Virginia, I ask that it be in order to call up two amendments, and once the amendments are reported, that they be set aside.

I call up amendment No. 3181 and amendment No. 3182.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield just to make a request.

Mr. President, I ask that an amendment by Senator Baucus of Montana, amendment No. 2954, be called up and that amendment be laid aside as well.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, may I be informed when I have consumed 10 minutes. I see my friend from Maine is here. She would like 2 or 3 minutes, as well.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Wisconsin, he and I have worked together on a lot of issues. I consider him one of my best friends in this institution. I appreciate his kind remarks about the adoption of the Dodd-Santorum amendment, about 3 weeks ago now, when our joint amendment provided a total ban on meals coming from lobbyists.

I never could keep straight exactly what the numbers were, for example, how much you could take at lunch and how much you could take at dinner. We decided we would require some bright line tests. Rather than going through and setting a dollar amount--people probably forget the number anyway and put themselves in jeopardy of being found guilty of something, unintentionally--we offered and passed a total ban on meals, without exceptions.

So meals from lobbyists are now banned when this legislation becomes law. If you violate the ban provision, the fine is a maximum of $100,000 under the legislation we are adopting.

The concern I have about my colleague from Wisconsin and his amendment is that it is broader and includes a much larger audience. This bill is about lobbyists. You become a lobbyist through registration under the Lobby Disclosure Act. It is not a self-selecting process where I decide tomorrow I'm a lobbyist. In fact, you have to register and go through a process to become a lobbyist.

We have been very concerned for obvious reasons, given the recent past history, of what happens when lobbyists engage in certain activities, some lawful and some unlawful, and the perception of whether Members of this institution have somehow compromised themselves in those dealings. We have been determined to try and draw that bright line. My concern is that we begin to blur that line because now we are going to be declaring de facto--not

by law, not because they have registered--that virtually hundreds of thousands of people have become lobbyists. They will have no idea they have become one, but they have become one under this amendment, subjecting themselves, potentially, to a $100,000 fine for purchasing a meal for a Member of Congress. As a practical matter, that is what will happen here.

If your organization hires a lobbyist, and most do--I presume even the bank in Mississippi has a lobbyist; today, almost every major institution, financial or otherwise, has someone who is representing their interests--the lobbyists have to register if they come to the Senate and talk to us. Therefore, they become not only de facto, but de jure lobbyist because they have had to register to do so. If you are an employee of that bank, however, and you live next door to someone, you are a longstanding friend, and my colleague from Wisconsin is correct in this regard, if a longstanding friend of my friend from Mississippi took him to lunch, that would be an exception to the rule. However, that longstanding friendship is subject, obviously, to some analysis as to how long the friendship is. That could pose this difficulty.

I don't think we want to extend this, in my view, and my colleagues may decide when we vote on this and reach a different conclusion, to dealing with this legislation on lobbyists and their relationship to Members of Congress, by expanding the universal definition of what is a lobbyist, to virtually every other employee of an organization that hires a lobbyist to represent their interest. This type of expansion goes too far and is overly broad.

Let me tell you one fact situation that worries me. I had hoped maybe my colleague might provide for some legislative language to close a potential loophole that I think could exist under the present circumstance. That fact situation is the following. The lobbyist invites the secretary to go out to have lunch with a Member of Congress. The secretary picks up the tab. The lobbyist is there. The lobbyist may have provided money to the secretary to provide lunch. Now, that would be an abuse of what Congress intended here because it then would be doing indirectly what cannot be done directly, in a sense, bringing someone who is not a lobbyist to lunch. The lobbyist is at the lunch, they buy the meal, but at least ostensibly the person who actually bought the lunch was not the lobbyist.

If there was some situation we could close that loophole, that would be abuse of what we are trying to do. But to extend broadly that every employee of every organization that hires a lobbyist would then become a lobbyist, in effect, for the consideration of this legislation, seems to me to go way beyond what we are intending to accomplish in this legislation.

Again, I made the case to my colleagues, reform is not a static event. It is an organic event. It grows over time. What we consider to be reform today or not reform today, may down the road be the case. I have been involved in every virtual effort on reform here for the last 25 years. Twenty-five years ago what was considered appropriate behavior, that no one had difficulty with, today we would consider very inappropriate behavior. And 5 years or 10 years down the road, maybe we will have different standards.

As of today, I urge my colleagues, as of today, on this bill, dealing with registered lobbyists, we have banned meals. That is a major step for this institution to take. Cut it out altogether. If you are a registered lobbyist, that is it, no more meals.

Let me also say, there is nothing in this legislation which permits any Member of Congress from doing that which they want to do. If a Member of Congress, a Member of this institution does not want to accept a meal from anyone, there is nothing in law which prohibits a Member from doing that. If a Member feels as though somehow it is wrong to be doing it, I strongly suggest that Member not do it. But it seems to me to extend this lobbying bill to people who have no intention of ever being a lobbyist, never see themselves in that regard, have relationships, as my colleague from Mississippi has pointed out in our own States, with delegations, with staff, with others, these have occurred hundreds and hundreds of times when Members are back in their own areas--not longstanding friends, not relatives, people they do not know that well at all but sit down under a variety of different circumstances, including home settings, picnics, barbecues, other things, where you may find yourself in violation of this law.

I don't think we want to do that. That goes a step further than what we should be trying to accomplish with this legislation. I don't want to have to say to my constituents, you are potentially guilty of a violation of law, subjected to $100,000 fine if you fall into this category, or to one of our colleagues as well.

We have done a good job, in my view, on this meals provision. It is a strong line. It is a bright line. There is no longer any question of whether it is a $10 meal or a $50 meal or a $100 meal; you cannot accept a meal from a lobbyist. That is it. If you do, you are potentially in violation of Federal law, or certainly civil penalties. That is where the bright line, in my view, ought to exist.

I have great respect for my colleague from Wisconsin. He has been a champion of reform efforts since the day he arrived. I respect him for it immensely. But in this one, we are taking it a step further than I believe we should go at this juncture.

I urge my colleagues to either table this amendment or reject it, depending on what the motion will be when the matter comes for a vote.

My respect for him is unlimited. I thank him for his thoughts in this regard but I urge the rejection of this amendment.

I am happy to yield.

Again----

Under his amendment, that would be a banned activity.

Putting aside whether she showed up with a lobbyist--if she shows up, and you go out and have lunch, and she pays for it with the company credit card--under the amendment before the Senate, that would be a violation. She could be fined $100,000.

That is correct. If she is not a lobbyist and she takes you to lunch and she decides that is how she is paying for it, she is not a registered lobbyist, she is not in violation of the law in the amendment we agreed to.

I would certainly consider it.

The point I make, about the goal of this bill--the Senator and I have talked about this at great length--is the bill should be narrowly tailored to registered lobbyists and their relationships to Members of Congress and senior staff.

My concern under this bill, is that by expanding that definition of a ``lobbyist'' to include anyone who would use resources that were not their own, we are opening up a universe and making the legislation overly broad. I don't

think we want to go that far at this particular juncture. That is my own sense of matters.

It turns virtually everyone who works for any of these associations, labor unions, trade association, a small business, a large corporation, into a de-facto lobbyist. I think the opening up of a universe of that size based on whether the lunch was paid for by a company credit card or their personal credit card at that particular time, goes too far.

If my colleague will yield, I cited that example, and I hope I did not invite those out there who may decide to use this as a loophole.

If this becomes a problem, we ought to revisit the issue and somehow prohibit it because that is abusing the intent of the legislation.

It seems to me to pass legislation which would turn virtually millions of people--when you start talking about the number of people who can be affected by this--into lobbyists, per se, on the abject possibility that someone may abuse this down the road goes to far.

It goes further than I would at this juncture. In time, if we see those who have engaged in this abuse have carved another loophole, I am prepared to come back and deal with that fact situation.

It is a fact situation that worries me. I say that to my colleagues. I am not unconcerned about it, but I am not so concerned about it at this juncture that I am willing to put everyone else--the millions of others who would not think about that, nor would they do that--in harm's way. That is my concern, putting innocent people, potentially, in harm's way. I do not think our intentions here, as Members, ought to be that.

We are dealing with lobbyists. We are dealing with registered lobbyists. They have to go through certain procedures to achieve that status. Once they have achieved that status, there is a concern. We are trying to deal with that problem. Taking people who go way beyond that definition, it seems to me, is a step that at least I do not want to go that far.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, we went through these numbers and procedures rather quickly. I would tell our colleagues that there were some very good ideas in these amendments. This is not a rejection of some of the concepts and ideas but, rather, under cloture we have to stick with the germaneness criteria.

If we started making exceptions, then this could have become an endless debate. It was painful in some cases because I substantively agreed with a number of these amendments. But the problem occurs, if we get into that process, we could be here for days trying to resolve these matters. We ended up following the rule saying if an amendment is not germane, it will have to fall.

Again I emphasize, this is not an indictment or criticism of the substance of some of these amendments but, rather, under the procedures we are operating, we cannot begin accepting some and rejecting others.

I thank my colleagues for offering these amendments. I presume we will see these amendments again under different circumstances where it will be appropriate to consider them. We have no other recourse but to apply rule XXII and ask the amendment be ruled out of order.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I would like to do that while we are awaiting final resolution of these remaining issues which we can, hopefully, conclude in short order and then go to final passage of this bill.

I begin by again commending my colleagues from Mississippi and from Maine, Senator Lott and Senator Collins, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and their staffs and our staffs for the tremendous work they have done on a bill going back some weeks now.

As my colleagues recall, we began consideration of this matter some weeks ago. We were derailed for reasons that were beyond our control. There were matters that arose of national significance and importance, and Members rightly wanted to consider some of those issues in the midst of this debate.

Nonetheless, I believe we put together a good product. It does not include every idea that surfaced during the consideration of these proposals, but I think it is a very solid effort and one in which my colleagues can rightfully claim credit and with some degree of pride for what we have done.

I again commend the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for handling a major part of this effort, and again the Rules Committee for coming out with a bill, a unanimous vote out of our committee, with matters we considered and presented to our colleagues for their full consideration.

This is not a perfect bill. In my 25 years, I have yet to see one of those. But we have a pretty good one, given the constraints of time and invocation of cloture which left behind some very important amendments, amendments which I would have strongly supported had they been offered.

Nonetheless, this is a strong bill. It bans gifts and meals from lobbyists altogether. That is a major step in reform.

It requires additional and more frequent disclosure of lobbying activities.

It places tight new limitations, including Ethics Committee preapproval, on congressional travel funded by outside sources.

It increases the transparency of the earmark process. It toughens the conflict of interest rules for Members. It tightens the revolving door provisions of Senate rules and bans floor privileges for former Members who become lobbyists.

Further, it bans inappropriate attempts to influence hiring decisions by lobbying firms, such as the K Street Project.

It broadens disclosure requirements for massive grassroots lobbying efforts.

It requires that conference reports be available on the Internet before they are considered by the full Senate. And it makes other important changes to strengthen and tighten current lobbying laws.

This is no small achievement. Just those provisions alone are included in this bill which we will be voting on in very short order.

This bill is the result of the work, as I mentioned earlier, of two separate committees, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Rules Committee of this body. Both of these committees held hearings and markup sessions on those issues within their jurisdiction and reported measures on a bipartisan basis to improve the transparency of our legislative work.

I know it doesn't happen with great frequency any longer, but it is how this institution is supposed to operate: have hearings, have markups, try to build bipartisan consensus whenever we can. Unfortunately, that bipartisan process is becoming the exception, not the rule, I say with a great degree of disappointment. It used to be that this was standard operating procedure. I am saddened to say now it has become the exception, as I said, unfortunately, and not the rule.

These two bills were joined together in one piece of legislation on the Senate floor. Consideration of this matter has been truly a bipartisan effort. I have been honored to serve as the floor manager, along with the majority floor manager who is here, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, and I commend my colleague for his diligence in bringing this legislation to the floor. He advised me very early in the session that he intended to craft a lobbying reform bill, to have a full and open markup in the Rules Committee, and offer all members of that committee the opportunity to offer amendments. That is what he did, and that is why I think we ended up with as strong a bill as we did. Because we had the opportunity to fully debate and amend the chairman's mark in the committee, we were able to produce an original bipartisan bill that was reported to the Senate unanimously. That beginning boded well for this legislation.

I also want to commend, of course, our comanagers of the bill--I have mentioned already Senator Collins of Maine--and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for their very similar bipartisan approaches to this legislation. As I noted earlier, it is unusual to have a bill that is reported from two different committees merge together on a single measure on the Senate floor, but even more unusual, I suspect, is that the bill would be managed by Senate colleagues from the same State, in this case my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I. This may be the first time that has ever happened, I might point out, in this Chamber.

I also want to commend our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, for their efforts to accommodate this bill in the very busy Senate schedule and for allowing this measure to remain the pending business, even in the face of other priorities. In particular, I commend Senator Reid for his leadership on lobbying reform and for his efforts in introducing the very first comprehensive lobbying reform measure in this Congress. In large part we are here today because of Senator Reid's early and persistent efforts to respond to this crisis of confidence of the American people following the Jack Abramoff scandal in the House of Representatives, a matter involving the bribery conviction of a Member of that body and the legal proceedings against certain administration officials involving allegations of lobbying- related improprieties.

That is why we are here debating this measure, because of that scandal of the

illegal activities of a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, that rocked the House of Representatives. The serious allegations have led to guilty pleas by former Members and their staffs, and the activities of Abramoff and his cronies, wherein they violated current lobbying gift and ethics rules, creating a climate of disillusionment, unfortunately, and distrust of the United States Congress. I suspect we have not seen the end of the indictments, nor the full breadth of this scandal, unfortunately.

But to the credit of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, the United States Senate has acted not in haste but in a measured response to this scandal. Our goal is to ensure the confidence of the American people in their system of representative government by ensuring that special interests cannot operate under a cloak of darkness.

This bill, with its extended disclosure requirements of lobbying activities and its restrictions on the type of influence lobbyists can exert over Members of Congress through lobbying gifts, I think, can go a long way toward restoring the confidence of ordinary Americans in their Government. We must now get this bill married to the House bill and get it enacted into law, and that will be a task, given the shortened calendar of this election year. But we cannot neglect this final chapter in our effort to bring real reform to Washington.

Lobbying reforms are important and certainly will change how business is done in our Nation's Capital. But these changes alone will not address what I have consistently stated is the core problem, the one that still hangs out there, and that is the need for true, meaningful campaign finance reform that breaks the link between the legislative favor seekers and the free flow of special interest private money. That would be a much more significant reform, in my view, than all of the reforms that we have accomplished with this legislation, as important as they are.

I am grateful to my colleagues for heeding the concerns that we not mix lobbying reform and campaign finance reform in one measure, and I remain committed to seeing that this body addresses real campaign finance reform. But I am equally committed to seeing that we do not do so on this important piece of legislation.

We are all aware that the House leadership has included major campaign finance measures in its lobbying reform bill. I am very grateful to our colleagues in seeing to it that our efforts down the road will exclude those kinds of provisions in the final product. In the meantime, I welcome the opportunity to have as complete a debate on campaign finance reform issues as we have had on lobbying reform. Chairman Lott, my good friend, has indicated his willingness to hold a hearing on this issue in the Rules Committee. I would like to go further than that and hear him commit to a markup on the bill. He has not gone that far yet, but he has committed to a hearing. I will take victories as I can get them. If I can get a hearing, I will take the hearing, and then I will be lobbying him, without buying him a lunch, to see if we can't get a markup of a good campaign finance reform bill.

But for now, we should commit ourselves to moving forward to conference with the House. I urge the House to move forward as well on this important lobbying reform bill. If the introduced version is any indication, as it appears, the House-passed bill will be substantially weaker than the job we have completed here--in a number of key respects. We must hold fast to our stronger provisions whenever possible as we move forward. The American people are looking forward to us putting our house in order and ensuring that lobbying scandals of the House are not repeated anymore in this Chamber.

So, again, I commend my colleagues for their tremendous work on this bill. It is a good bill. It is one we can be proud of, and I look forward to its adoption and moving to conference with the House of Representatives.

The bill before us has been improved by the amendments offered and debated here in the Senate. There is no reason to believe that we cannot continue to build on these provisions in conference with the House. Although the Majority in the House only recently introduced their lobbying reform measure, I encourage the Leadership to move the measure expeditiously so that we can complete a conference on this measure before Congress gets bogged down in the fall campaigns.

I commend my colleagues, Senator Lott and Senator Collins, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for their leadership in bringing this bill to this point. I also want to thank the capable staff of the Senate Rules Committee, Majority counsel Alexander Polinsky and staff director Susan Wells, for their many courtesies and assistance both during mark-up of this measure in Committee and during the floor debate.

I also want to thank the staff of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for their efforts to successfully merge these two bills and jointly support the managers. In particular, I want to thank the Majority staff director and chief counsel, Michael Bopp, and Senator Lieberman's Democratic staff, in particular his staff director and counsel, Joyce Rechtschaffen, chief counsel Laurie Rubenstein, and counsel Troy Cribb.

I also want to thank my very capable staff, including my committee staff director and chief counsel, Kennie Gill; our elections counsel, Veronica Gillespie, and Democratic staff members Candace Chin, Joe Hepp, Colin McGinnis, and Carole Blessington.

And of course, no legislative effort of this magnitude could be accomplished without the assistance of our floor staff. Marty Paone and David Schiappa are invaluable in their efforts to structure our unanimous consent requests to accommodate our colleagues and the Senate schedule. Lula Davis and our cloakroom staff as well as our leadership staff are indispensable to us in our roles as floor managers.

I say to all of these staff, and the many hundreds of others who work night and day to bring good legislative ideas to fruition and work to manage the Senate floor and its proceedings, job well done. This is legislation that will truly make a difference in how the American people view their government and will hopefully help to reconnect us to the people we serve.

I appreciate the cooperation of our colleagues and look forward to working with them as we move this bill to conference with the House.

I yield the floor.

The Parliamentarian may have suggested something other than, but for the purpose of the legislative intent--and sometimes debate can be enlightening--legislative intent, as far as this Senator is concerned, is exactly as the Senator from Nevada described and the Senator from Arizona described, if there is a matter which is neither in the House bill nor the Senate bill, and if it ends up in conference, that matter is subject to a point of order--and for the very reasons which my colleague described.

I do not know how that is confusing language. If it is, I am certainly committed to trying to straighten it out. I believe that is the appropriate way to go.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Kentucky in expressing my deep sense of sorrow, as well, over the passing of two members of our family. And I speak of both the wife of our colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, who lost his beloved Maggie a week or so ago and, of course, the recent news we received over the weekend of the passing of Erma Ora Byrd. These are members of our family, in a sense.

I have known both Mrs. Byrd and Mrs. Inouye since I was a child. My father was a Member of this body and was elected, in fact, to the Senate on the same day Robert Byrd was, in 1958. So I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd both indirectly and directly for these now more than 40 years. In fact, I have the unique privilege of being his seatmate in this body, something which I have enjoyed immensely over the past decade and a half that I have sat at this seat in the Senate next to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

I certainly remember Maggie Inouye. She was wonderful to my parents and was good to me over the years. To watch two of our colleagues about whom we care so deeply go through the tremendous suffering they are going through as a result of the loss of their life mates is something all of us--regardless of where we sit in this Chamber, to what party we belong, in what direction our ideological compass may lead us--we all have a deep sense of loss for these wonderful people.

Dan and Maggie Inouye were very close to my parents, as I mentioned. She was born in 1924 and attended schools in Hawaii and then went on to receive degrees at the University of Hawaii and Columbia University and was highly respected in the area of speech pathology. She was a remarkable woman in her own right who could have had a very distinguished career independently of her husband.

She and Dan met in 1947, and as Dan Inouye likes to tell the story, on the second date he proposed marriage. Not one to delay at all, he had met the person he clearly decided was going to be his life mate. And for the next 57 years, they were just that.

They celebrated the birth of their son Kenny who was again a wonderful child and has done a remarkable job in his own right.

I will remember Maggie best for her grace and poise and I was saddened to hear of her passing after a long battle with cancer earlier this month.

I went out to Hawaii last week and attended Maggie's funeral along with Senator Stevens and his wife Catherine. It was a long trip, and I know that Dan did not expect a large number of his colleagues to make that journey. It was not a hard trip to make. It would have been harder not to make it in my case, given the closeness of our families over the years. And for me I knew there was nowhere else I could be than being present with Dan and his family to celebrate the life of Maggie.

During the visitation period prior to the funeral service, I was deeply moved by watching literally a couple thousand people express their condolences to Dan, to his son Kenny, Kenny's wife, Jessica. Each expression was heartfelt. It was personal. These were relationships that were solidified over years of friendship with Dan Inouye, with his wife Maggie, and the constituents and friends of theirs from Hawaii.

I was also moved by the peacefulness of the funeral service, and most especially by the very touching and eloquent eulogy delivered by Maggie's longtime friend, Sumi McCabe.

I would like to close by offering my thoughts and prayers, once again, to Dan, to his son Kenny, and to his daughter-in-law Jessica.

As we mourn the loss of this wonderful woman, let us remember that her spirit will be with us and that her inspirational legacy will live on in the generations to come of her family.

So again, to our friend Dan, we want to express our deep sense of loss and our sense of solidarity with him.

Mr. President, to lose, just a few days later, of course, the wife of our great friend and leader, Senator Byrd, was a major blow as well. Certainly, the history of Erma Ora Byrd is well known to all of us.

As Senator McConnell just pointed out, she was the daughter of a coal miner. She had been the life mate, for 69 years, of our colleague from West Virginia. It was clear to anyone who had the fortune of knowing them that they loved each other very deeply.

Erma Ora James was born in Floyd County, VA, in 1917. The daughter of a coal miner, as I just mentioned, her family moved to Raleigh County, WV, where she met Robert while attending the Mark Twain Grade School.

They were married when they were both 19 years of age in 1937. Shortly thereafter they began a loving family that has grown to two daughters, five grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

Even though she was content to remain out of Washington's limelight, Erma became quickly known and loved for her commonsense values and her devotion to her family.

Erma also became well respected for her advocacy on issues affecting children across West Virginia and, of course, our Nation as well. Two academic scholarship programs at Marshall University and West Virginia University, respectively, have been named in her honor as a result of her efforts.

Four years ago, at the couple's 65th wedding anniversary, Senator Byrd said of his wife:

Erma and I are complete and whole, a total that is more

than the sum of its parts. In my life, Erma Ora Byrd is the

diamond. She is a priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman of

great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense. I

wish that more people could know the joy I have had in

finding one's soul mate early in life and then sharing that

deep companionship over many happy years.

Mr. President, my thoughts and prayers, along with those of our colleagues, I know, are with Senator Byrd and his family in these hours. I wish to extend my sympathies to Robert; his daughters, Mona and Marjorie; their husbands, Mohammed and Jon; Robert and Erma's grandchildren, Erik, Darius, Fredrik, Mona, and Mary; and Robert and Erma's great-grandchildren, Caroline, Kathryn, Anna, Emma, Hannah, and Michael.

Knowing of Senator Byrd's love for poetry, I am reminded of a passage in Thomas Gray's ``Elegy in a Country Churchyard,'' which happened to be my father's favorite poem. Gray's ``Elegy'' says in one of its stanzas:

Large was his bounty, and his soul sincere,

Heaven did a recompense as largely send:

He gave to Misery all he had, a tear,

He gained from Heaven ('twas all he wished) a friend.

Robert gained a wonderful friend, obviously, and a companion--a life companion--in Erma. It is my hope that her spirit remains with us and will inspire all of us and future generations to come.

Mr. President, I understand this amendment requires public disclosure of certain holds--namely, those that rise to the level of expressing an intent to object to proceeding to a measure or matter.

Any such objection would have to be submitted in writing and disclosed in the Congressional Record and printed in the Senate calendar of business. Quite frankly, if a Member's objection rises to that level, it is probably appropriate to publicly disclose such.

But the term ``hold'' is used to apply to a much broader form of communication between Members and the leader. A hold is generally considered to be any communication in which a Member expresses an interest in specific legislation and requests that the Member be consulted or advised before any agreement is entered with regard to the issue.

In that sense, a hold is a Senate mode of communication, rather than a procedural prerogative, and when used to communicate a Member's interest in a matter, it is more of an informal bargaining tactic, not an intent to derail or delay consideration of a measure.

Such informal communication is not only important to the workings of this body, but it facilitates the development of unanimous consent requests and facilitates the consideration of legislation.

In some respects, such informal holds act much like the Rules Committee proceedings in the House whereby Members present their position with regard to offering amendments to legislation.

There is no such process in the Senate and often times informal holds, or consent letters, are the only means by which the leadership knows who has an interest in an issue and needs to be consulted in order to craft a unanimous consent agreement.

This amendment does not affect such informal consultation and so will not impede the ability of the leadership to move the business of the Senate. However, when the communication rises to the level that a Member will object to proceeding, it is appropriate that it be disclosed.

Consequently, consistent with the purpose of the bill before us, this amendment would provide greater transparency of the legislative process and increase public confidence in the outcome.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, the Bush administration seeks for the fourth time in 5 years to increase the indebtedness of the United States--this time by $781 billion. This body's consideration of that increase allows us a moment to take stock of the abysmal fiscal health of our country.

As a Washington Post editorial pointed out yesterday morning, this President solemnly pledged upon taking office to payoff $2 trillion in debt held by the public over the next decade. It is patently obvious that President Bush has not just failed but failed spectacularly to deliver on his pledge. He has managed to amass more debt than any President in history, with no end in sight.

By the end of this year, our gross Federal debt is expected to surpass $8.6 trillion, or nearly $28,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. This amount represents an increase of approximately $3 trillion since President Bush took office.

This dramatic runup in the debt has real costs for America's families--both today and for future generations. It puts upward pressure on interest rates for things like student loans, home mortgages, and automobile loans. It raises the cost of capital for business investment. Each of these, in everything but name, represents a tax increase on American families and businesses.

More directly, instead of investing in America's most important priorities--like education, health care, and homeland security--the taxpayers of today and tomorrow must spend more money paying off yesterday's debts. In the late 1990s, interest on the debt represented a declining share of our total budget. Today, that share has begun to rise once again, a trend that would continue under the budget put forward by the administration and the leadership in this body. For 2007 alone, taxpayers will spend $247 billion dollars on interest on the debt instead of American troops and veterans or American families and children.

Our leaders have to be candid with the American public about the sources of this unprecedented level of indebtedness.

The administration is not incurring these debts in order to invest in education. They are not supporting States and local communities struggling to meet their school funding needs out of property taxes.

The administration is not incurring these debts to improve our infrastructure. States, municipalities, and local communities are struggling desperately just to maintain the infrastructure they have-- roads, bridges, ports. They are struggling to maintain a 20th century infrastructure, let alone build a 21st century one.

Certainly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a cost. So have the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and natural disasters. Though the President has been quick to blame factors like these, the truth is the tax policies of his administration have played a far greater role in creating the budget deficits accumulated on his watch.

Under those policies, this administration has spent close to $125 billion on tax benefits for the few most fortunate households in America--those 0.2 percent of individuals making more than $1 million per year--while doing little, if anything, for families in the middle and those working hard to get themselves in the middle.

In a time of war and fiscal and economic strain, this administration has delivered a tax windfall to the most fortunate. Never before has a President made this choice during a time of war.

Regrettably, this kind of shortsighted leadership has been rubberstamped repeatedly by the leaders of this Congress on the other side of the aisle.

I would have hoped, at a minimum, that we as a body could adopt measures to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity, such as pay-as- you-go budget procedures or a smaller debt limit increase. Unfortunately, neither of these common sense reforms was adopted. Indeed, the majority even rejected an amendment by the Senator from Montana to merely study the impact that foreign-held U.S. debt is having on our Nation's long-term well-being.

We cannot erase what has happened in the past, but we can demonstrate to the people of our country going forward that the Senate is willing to take commonsense steps to put our Nation back on firmer budgetary footing. That, regrettably, has not happened in the Senate today. However, many of us will continue the effort to place our nation's fiscal house on firmer ground.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss S.A. 3111 to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution which I sponsored with my colleague, Senator DeWine. This amendment, which helps our Nation's firefighters perform their critical duties more safely, was adopted by unanimous consent. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Gregg, and the committee's ranking member, Senator Conrad, both for their work on the budget resolution and for their consideration of this important issue.

I would imagine that this amendment, which creates a special reserve fund to pay for the assistance to firefighters grants, is not the way that everyone would choose first to provide critical resources to the FIRE Act and SAFER Act grants. However, this amendment does demonstrate the commitment of the Senate to increase conditionally funding for our firefighters in a manner consistent with the need to be fiscally responsible.

Clearly, the need for these grants is irrefutable. Across our country, fire departments are in desperate need of obtaining updated equipment and more expensive firefighter training--two activities that are crucial to ensuring that firefighters can carry out their expanded responsibilities safely and effectively in this post-9/11 world.

In fiscal year 2002, there were over 19,000 FIRE grant applications seeking almost $2 billion in support for eligible activities. In fiscal year 2005, there were over 27,000 FIRE grant applications seeking over $4 billion for such activities. The manmade and natural hazards that firefighters are expected to face today have strapped the ability of municipalities and States to provide for their needs. Therefore, it is imperative that the Federal Government expand its commitment to support our firefighters.

I think that very few people who are not firefighters stop and think about how much we ask of our firefighters in today's world. They still perform their traditional duties of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. However, many firefighters have also taken on new homeland security responsibilities that include responding to and handling hazardous biological and radiological agents.

According to a national needs assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies.

More specifically, the study found that, first, using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope. Second, using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments say that they can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of nonlocal resources to handle the situation. Third, an estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties. And finally, the study found an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response-time guidelines. Many fire departments are often stretched so thin that they cannot respond to fires with sufficient personnel to initiate an interior attack on a structural fire safely.

Moreover, the need for additional firefighters--both paid and volunteer--on our Nation's streets is great. According to National Fire Protection Association standards, a minimum of four firefighters is required to initiate an interior attack on a house fire. The study goes on to conclude that 73 percent of fire departments serving populations between 10,000 and 25,000 lack such personnel, 82 percent of departments serving populations between 25,000 and 50,000, 76 percent of departments serving populations between 50,000 and 100,000, 56 percent of departments serving populations between 100,000 and 250,000, 41 percent of departments serving populations between 250,000 and 500,000 people, 40 percent of departments serving populations between 500,000 and 1 million people, and

zero percent of departments serving populations at least 1 million people.

Over the past 5 years, FIRE and SAFER grants have been highly successful in enabling fire departments to acquire the resources they demand and hire the people they need. Over $3 billion in assistance as been provided to well over 20,000 fire departments in all 50 States thus far. Yet the job of ensuring that all communities receive the assistance they need and deserve is far from done.

America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty to fulfill. We must recognize their contribution to our domestic safety to see to it that they have the necessary equipment and personnel they demand in order to perform their critical duties safely.

I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and my colleagues during the appropriations season to help ensure that the maximum amount of aid is delivered to all of our firefighters.

Mr. President, as a statement of priorities and a vision of where we want our nation to be in the years to come, this budget fails the test of responsible leadership. Instead of correcting the mistakes of the past few years, this budget repeats and compounds those mistakes. It adds to record levels of national debt. It favors the fortunate few over everyone else who is working hard and playing by the rules. It does far too little for the most vulnerable and needy Americans--our children, our seniors, our veterans. Unlike China, India, and other countries, it invests only a minute fraction of our resources in research and development. We've seen where this agenda has led us--it represents a stunning failure to address any of the major challenges of our era, like globalization, security, stagnant incomes, and rising income inequality.

America has always been blessed with great natural resources. But in spite of these physical resources, our greatest strength has always been our human ones--the American spirit of ingenuity, creativity, and old fashioned hard work. Regrettably, the budget before this body fails to make the necessary investments to build and maintain the strength of our human capital, America's greatest asset. This may not be intentional; I presume that President Bush and my colleagues across the aisle believe just as strongly in boosting our nation's economic competitiveness. But regardless of their intentions, the fact is that mismanagement, misplaced priorities, and misguided faith in outdated economic ideologies continue to set us back.

On Friday of last week, an article appeared on an international news wire that is rather stunning in its implications for the budget resolution now pending before the Senate. The headline of this article, Mr. President, reads, ``China to Boost Science, Tech Spending by Nearly 20 Percent.'' The story continues:

``China will increase its spending on science and

technology by nearly 20 percent this year in a move to remain

competitive in the face of international challenges, the

government said . . . The State Council, or cabinet, last

month said 2.5 percent of China's gross domestic product

(GDP) would be allocated to spending on research and

development over the next 15 years, up from 1.23 percent in

2002.''

``The government,'' the article goes on to say, ``will not only allocate more money but also encourage all segments of society, including companies, to put emphasis on research and development through measures including tax incentives.''

Finally, it quotes the Minister of Science and Technology as telling the National People's Congress, ``Without progress on science and technology, it would be very hard to reach our target of becoming a well-off society.''

On one level, we as Americans should welcome the decision by virtually any country to invest more in science and technology. In fact, if more nations were to make a similar decision, the world as a whole would greatly benefit by peaceful advances in commerce and in finding solutions to some of the planet's most intractable problems.

But this news from China should also serve as a reminder to Americans, as we consider our budget priorities for the upcoming year and our vision for the future, of the commitment it takes to remain a leader in the global economy. Even with the passage of the amendment to increase Labor, Health, and Human Services funds offered by Senators Spector and Harkin, of which I was a cosponsor, this budget regrettably falls short.

The average American family over the last few years has been working harder and harder just to tread water. A household earning the median income made $1,600 less in 2004 than they did 4 years earlier. Meanwhile, during the same period, the average family's health insurance premiums have risen by $3,600, or 57 percent. Their energy costs continue to rise--even though many parts of the country had warmer than usual weather this winter, families can still expect to pay more than $250 extra this year to heat their homes. If they have a child attending a public 4-year college, that bill has gone up by 57 percent since 2000, as well.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this budget sets us

on a path to fiscal responsibility. But as the Senator from North Dakota, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has pointed out time and again before this body, that is anything but the case. Instead of saving for the retirement of the baby boomers--which is already beginning--we're borrowing like there's no tomorrow.

In 2000, we had a budget surplus of $128 billion; in 2006, largely as a consequence of the fiscal recklessness of this administration and the majority party in the Congress, the Federal Government is expected to run a deficit of $371 billion. Under this administration, the president and his allies will have added $3 trillion to our national debt by the end of this fiscal year. That would put America's public debt at more than $8.6 trillion, or around $28,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Further, under the current administration, the share of that debt held by foreign creditors has more than doubled.

And it's not just the Federal Government that's borrowing, but the economy as a whole. Our personal savings rate in January was negative 0.7 percent, the 10th consecutive month for which it was effectively zero or below. Our current account deficit continues to set new records; it was an unprecedented $805 billion in 2005.

This dramatic run-up in the debt has real costs for America's families--both today and for future generations. It puts upward pressure on interest rates for things like student loans, home mortgages, and automobile loans. It raises the cost of capital for business investment. Rising interest rates, caused by America's growing indebtedness, represent a de facto tax increase on American families and businesses.

This administration's fiscal recklessness has also hurt our ability to address our nation's most important priorities, like education and health care, that strengthen our economic competitiveness and allow more Americans to share in greater prosperity. This budget provides a clear illustration of this failure, with the drastic cuts it would make in these areas.

The budget proposed by the Bush administration and my colleagues across the aisle would make the largest cut in our Nation's commitment to education in the 26-year history of the Education Department. These cuts will adversely affect students at all levels of learning. Investment and competitiveness begin with our children. As I have said many times before, education may be expensive, but ignorance costs more.

As I noted earlier, college tuition and fees have increased 57 percent for a public 4-year college. They have risen 32 percent for a private 4-year college since 2000. Yet instead of helping middle class families meet these skyrocketing college costs, this budget proposes to once again freeze the maximum Pell grant award at $4,050. In 1975, a Pell grant covered 80 percent of the cost of a public, 4-year college education; today, it covers only 40 percent. Surely we can do better than this for America's families. A college education should be a gateway to a better life for anyone willing to work for it, not just a privilege for those who can afford it.

This budget also continues to underfund K-12 education. The president and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tout their commitment to education in the No Child Left Behind law. But this law is underfunded by $15.4 billion this year. The budget also cuts Head Start, afterschool programs, and child care, all of which prepare our children to learn better and help parents keep their kids in school and off the streets.

While countries like China are increasing their investments in science and technology, this budget would make a commitment in these areas that is little more than cosmetic. President Bush has talked a great deal about his so-called ``American Competitiveness Initiative,'' but under the budget he sent to the Congress, he would actually cut overall R&D funding in real terms for the first time since 1996. As a share of the economy, total Federal R&D funding would fall below 1 percent for the first time since fiscal year 2003.

One of the casualties would be biomedical and cancer research through the National Institutes of Health. Just two months ago, President Bush signed into law the first cut to NIH funding since 1970. Now, he has proposed further cutting funding for 18 of the 19 institutes in Fiscal 2007, including the ones conducting research on two of America's leading causes of death: cancer and heart disease.

The administration's proposals are reflected in the budget before this body today, which carries the same low level of overall discretionary spending. So while countries like China are setting goals like boosting R&D funding to 2.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product by 2020, we have nothing but a catchy slogan and cuts in the kinds of investments we need to stay strong.

This budget increases costs for entrepreneurs and small businesses. President Bush likes to say that his high- income tax breaks have benefited small business owners, but in reality, the distribution of benefits to small business owners has followed the same pattern as it has for everyone else--those with the highest incomes have received the most, and everyone else has been stuck with the bill. Among Americans with small business income, more than half of the benefits of the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks have been spent on those making more than $200,000 a year, or less than 8 percent of all small business owners, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. So while few small businesses have gained anything meaningful from the tax breaks, the administration this year is proposing to increase their cost of capital by charging a new fee for Small Business Administration loans. This would be a direct tax increase on one of our most important engines of growth. For an administration that claims to value small business, the record fails to live up to the rhetoric.

This budget fails the test of economic leadership not only by cutting investments in American competitiveness, but by abandoning our most basic American values. As Americans, we proudly look out for the least fortunate among us. Unfortunately, this budget fails to do this. It asks struggling parents to work more hours, but cuts the child care that helps them do it. It cuts funding for children's hospitals, like Hartford's Connecticut Children's Medical Center in my home state. Children's hospitals like CCMC train 30 percent of the Nation's pediatricians and more than 50 percent of the nation's pediatric specialists. This budget cuts food aid for senior citizens, pregnant women, and children. It cuts housing assistance and freezes funding that helps homeless veterans find work.

By adopting this budget, the president and his allies in the Congress would continue to walk away from one of America's bedrock principles: that everyone in our nation should have an equal opportunity to live a free and meaningful life.

While some of the amendments considered by this body appear on the surface to rectify some of the cuts this budget would make to vital priorities, they in reality fail to live up to their billing. The amendment offered by Senator McConnell, for example, claimed to support port security, which should be one of our nation's highest priorities. It would have done so, however, through a budgetary gimmick that would result in an across-the-board cut to other areas, including, ironically, homeland security and national defense. It also would have provided no new funds beyond the already specified discretionary spending cap. Instead, it would have offered nothing more than non- binding instructions to the Appropriations Committee about how to allocate the funds under its jurisdiction. For this reason, I supported the port security amendment offered by Senator Menendez instead of the McConnell amendment. The Menendez amendment would have provided the funds we need for this critical priority without making other cuts, and done so in a fiscally responsible manner by shutting down tax shelters and closing corporate tax loopholes, measures that have already passed this body on a bipartisan basis but which have not become law.

In the last few years, the American economy has weathered the storm of terrorist attacks, a downturn in the business cycle, natural disasters, and war. This is a testament to the strength and resiliency of the American people. But I wonder how much more our Nation can take of mismanaged economic policies and wrong priorities; of underinvestment in people, ideas, and innovation; and of an

agenda that increases the burden on the most vulnerable members of our society rather than lightening it, before we do irreparable harm.

If we want to continue to increase living standards and expand the capabilities of our society so that all may benefit, we must continue to invest in people, ideas, and innovation. We need a budget that will make our Nation stronger and more vibrant. We need more than just cosmetic solutions to the major challenges of our era. Above all, we need our government's priorities to reflect the values of the American people, like opportunity and responsibility, and the American vision of shared prosperity, expanding freedoms, and a just society. Regrettably, the budget offered by the President and by my colleagues across the aisle fails to accomplish these goals and fails to make the changes necessary to put our Nation back on the right course.

Mr. President, I have filed an amendment that will restore crucial investments to support our children and families in the fiscal year 2007 budget. I am joined on the amendment by Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Harkin, Mikulski, Murray, Durbin, Lieberman, Cantwell, Kerry, Salazar, Baucus, Schumer, Lautenberg, Kohl, and Lincoln. It is important that we shift priorities and resources toward young children and families, to create an environment for healthy development and to help parents give their children the best possible start in life. Children represent one- quarter of our population but 100 percent of our future. We must nurture their growth and education as they provide the human capital that will determine our Nation's success in the global economy.

Today our families are working harder to pay for basic needs such as housing, fuel, health care, and childcare. At the same time, real income has decreased over the past 4 years. As a result, many hard- working families are finding it more difficult to make ends meet.

If our Nation is going to compete with the rest of the world, we must prepare our children for this challenge. It is essential that we cultivate the potential of each and every child. How can we know who may be a Nobel laureate, who may take us further into space, or who may be our future President, if we do not give them all an equal chance to thrive?

We all agree that we should not burden our children and grand children with great debt. Nor should our Nation abandon their need for health care, education, and other necessities.

As I said earlier, the amendment focuses on crucial assistance to children and families. The amendment is very simple. It takes several initiatives which have bipartisan support and restores the investments to a level that the Congress has already agreed to--in previous authorization or spending measures.

This amendment would increase resources by $3.3 billion in the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution for five programs: the childcare and development block grant by $540 million; Head Start by $520 million; 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $1.5 billion; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act programs by $105 million; and the community services block grant by $650 million. In addition, it reduces the Federal deficit by $3.3 billion and pays for itself by closing corporate tax loopholes that were passed by the Senate in the tax reconciliation bill in February.

This amendment attempts to renew investments that have failed to keep pace with our Nation's needs. This proposal will restore the community services block grant to $650 million, the level Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2002; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act initiatives to $200 million for the level authorized for fiscal year 2004; and restore funding to the level of $7.2 billion for Head Start to keep pace with inflation and recent across-the-board cuts.

In addition, the amendment brings the investment in afterschool up to $2.5 million, the level authorized for 21st century community learning centers in the No Child Left Behind Act. The childcare and development block grant investment will reach a level of $2.66 billion from its previous level-funding of $2.06 billion, if the amendment passes.

We must invest in our children and improve their lives. Each day, 12 million children ages 0 to 4 spend much of their day in out-of-home child care while their parents work. In a majority of cases, having both parents work is a necessity, not a choice.

Currently, about one in seven children who are eligible for childcare and development block grant--CCDBG--subsidies are receiving assistance. With childcare costing between $4,000 and $10,000 a year, many families simply can not afford to pay for the care they need. Average child care fees for a year exceed 10 percent of the median household income in most States. Not only is childcare an essential support for hard- working families, it is an important early education opportunity for children.

With respect to Head Start, only 50 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Head Start classes. Costs are rising for transportation, heating, and cooling, health insurance, and supplies. Some centers have cut back hours and days of service to children and let teachers go. Our children deserve a high-quality opportunity to learn and thrive through Head Start, and we should give more children that chance.

As they struggle to reach their own potential and achieve financial stability, working families require support. Community services block grant initiatives serve 15 million individuals, 6 million families and 3.7 million children. Forty-four percent of those receiving funds are gainfully employed, but they may still have trouble affording the cost of heating their home, putting food on the table, or sending their children to a quality childcare program. While each Federal dollar spent leverages more than $5 in State, local and private funding, the Federal investment is still essential to helping hard-working people get ahead.

At the very least, we must keep children from harm. Each year, nearly 3 million cases of child abuse and neglect are reported, and nearly 1 million of these cases are substantiated. States lack the resources necessary to investigate suspected cases, to protect children, and to prevent abuse and neglect from occurring. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act--CAPTA--helps communities maintain and expand efforts to improve children's lives. The amendment seeks to increase this important investment.

All of our children and families deserve a fair start. We know that investments in children pay dividends later in life. But it takes financial commitment and an understanding that we cannot waste a day of a child's life, leaving that child to play catchup later.

Families are asking for our help. I ask my colleagues to join me in heeding their call and supporting this amendment.

Madam President, let me, if I may, respond to some of the things that have been said. I see my good friend from New York is here as well. I expect he may want to share some thoughts. I will not be long. First, let me say to my good friends from Maine and Arizona, they are truly wonderful friends, and I have worked on countless occasions with both of them. I regret we are in this situation as well. I say to my friends, this is a matter that is extremely important. We have all worked very hard in a bipartisan fashion to bring up both this lobbying reform and ethics reform package. So I am still confident, despite the differences that occurred yesterday, that we are going to achieve that goal.

I had hoped we would be able to finish it by this week so we would not end up having an elongated debate about the subject matter. I do not think it needs that much time. I am sorry that is not going to occur.

Let me also quickly say to my friend from Arizona, much of what he has said I agree with. I am a product of this place in many ways. I have been here a long time. I sat here on the floor as a page back--I think Jefferson was President when I sat on the floor here, that is how long ago it was--watching Lyndon Johnson sitting as Vice President of the United States, and with the all-night civil rights debates, and so forth. So I am very much a product of this institution. My father served here, and so I have great reverence for the Senate.

I too regret what has happened in many ways, that we do not spend the time to work out matters, as we have done on this bill. I think this bill has been a good example of how the Senate ought to function in many ways. That is not to say we are all going to agree on every amendment offered, but we created a process by which this can be done. I am disappointed we come here on Tuesdays and leave on Thursdays. There was a time when we used to come on Monday and stay until Friday, and there was ample time during the week for consideration of matters.

Part of the difficulty is, today, when you know you have to come in on a Tuesday at about 5 and leave on Thursday at about 5, then in order to deal with all the matters in front of you, you start doing things or offering things in a fashion you might not otherwise were there more of an opportunity to deal with it.

I counted up last night. I suspect, if I am correct, that there are about 60 legislative days left in this session. Assuming we will probably adjourn sometime in September for the fall elections, we have 60 days left to deal with a variety of issues.

My colleague from Arizona is right. Look, the numbers are there. The American public is not happy with how they see their national legislative body

functioning. There are many reasons for that, not the least of which is there are issues out there which they confront every single day that are staggering to them--their health care problems, employment issues, the education quality in our country. We all know what the issues are. We do not have to do a survey. They want to know whether we are going to pay attention to the matters they grapple with every single day.

This is also an important issue because it has to do with how we are perceived as a body. So I am not going to minimize this at all. I am not going to stand here and suggest we are all--at one time or another we have done things that I suspect if we had the chance to do them again, we would do them differently.

I will let my colleague from New York address and express what his intents were and what his purposes were, but he raised what, as my colleague from Arizona said, is a very important issue. All of us know that. We have had major hearings. My friend from Maine has had major hearings on this question already. The Banking Committee has had hearings. The other body has already passed, at least out of the Appropriations Committee--my good friend Congressman Jerry Lewis has passed--I think 60 to 2 was the vote, something like that yesterday, a similar proposal dealing with this question about our port security.

So none of us minimalize this issue. This is not some extraneous matter that has marginal importance to people here. It is timely. It is important. It is critical. People are worried about it.

I would hope, because the hour of 2:15, or whatever the time for this cloture vote is to occur, has not arrived, that there might still be an opportunity for us to find some way to be able to say--next week, the week after, whenever it is here--that we have a chance for an hour or two to raise an important issue, have a good debate in the Senate--in fact, the leader mentioned 2 hours; I think 3 or 4 or 5 hours--for us to discuss an issue of that importance, and with that agreement being reached, we then would agree there will be no other extraneous matters brought up on this bill, and then we could move forward with it so we do not end up tying ourselves in a knot with cloture motions and voting against or for and whatever we are going to do here, delaying the consideration of this bill.

I will leave it to my colleague from New York to explain what his intentions are, what he would like to do. But having talked to him, I believe he is going to suggest we have something like that. I realize that causes some heartburn for others. But nonetheless, my hope is that we can get away from this, get back to where we were yesterday morning, moving rather smoothly through a process that Senator Collins and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Lott and I were trying to create, with having one amendment going back and forth from either side, and getting down to a number where we actually had a good possibility of concluding the consideration of this bill by this evening.

That may not happen now because of the delay here. But my appeal would be to the Republican leader--I just heard the Democratic leader-- to see if in the next hour or so we can't come to some agreement here to get back on this bill. Let's avoid the cloture votes and get through this legislation. Let's keep it a clean bill, if we can, despite the temptation to bring up other issues. Set aside some time for this debate, and discuss it here on the floor, dealing with the port security issues. That way I think we have satisfied our roles to deal with timely questions, to deal with this important matter, and avoid the kind of acrimony that can truly cause this place to crater again.

Again, I say I will let my friend from New York explain what he did. But I understand his motives to at least bring up this very important matter, and one that all of us care deeply about. We are hearing about it from our constituents.

Again, to my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration--I have loved working with him over the years on many matters--I too worry. If more committees conducted themselves as the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee does--my Committee on Banking, by the way--with oversight, looking at issues--I think the Armed Services Committee is doing a pretty good job on a lot of these issues. That is the role of the Senate: to be engaged in the debate, the discussion, to provide the time here on the floor, with that Monday through Friday, so we have a good opportunity here to discuss the important issues of the day.

Again, the leadership has to work this out. A lot of us are at fault because we ask the leaders, we say: I can't be around on Friday. I can't be here on Monday. Can you wait until 6 o'clock on Tuesday? All of a sudden, you are arriving on Tuesday and leaving on Thursday night. No other job in America allows you to come for a couple days a week in order to do business.

So I am sorry in a way we are finding ourselves in this truncated situation. I regret we are in this situation, but we can get out of it as well. My hope would be we would find an opportunity to provide a window to discuss port security, which is critical, and clean this bill up. Let's deal with the issues before us. My friend from Maine said it well earlier: We need to get back on this question. I agree with her on that point. That appeal is out there. I will leave it up to the leaders to decide how to proceed, but I hope that will be the case.

Madam President, I see my friend from New York.