Floor Statements

Mr President, I speak on the subject of full funding for the payments to State governments in order to comply with the requirements mandated on January 1, 2006, under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA.

On October 16, 2002, over 3 years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly adopted the conference report for this bipartisan landmark legislation by a vote of 98-2. The House of Representatives adopted the conference report by a vote of 357-48 on October 10, 2002. President Bush signed HAVA into law on Oct. 29, 2002. At the White House signing ceremony, surrounded by a bipartisan group of congressional members, President Bush said in a brief speech:

When problems arise in the administration of elections, we

have a responsibility to fix them. . . . Every registered

voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and

elections are honest, that every vote is recorded and that

the rules are consistently applied. The legislation I sign

today will add to the nation's confidence.

I agree with the President. We must follow the American tradition of fixing problems that occur in our national elections system. HAVA began a new era in election law--one where the Federal Government works with State and local governments, in conjunction with civil rights, voting rights and disability organizations, to conduct fair, free and transparent elections in our Nation. HAVA is our colective promise to the American people to fix the problems in our Federal elections. After the 2000 November elections, Americans recognized that real election reform changes must be made to ensure the integrity and security of our democracy. Congress made a commitment to the States, and to the voters of this Nation, that we would be a full partner in the conduct of Federal elections. Congress accomplished much with the passage of HAVA; but two years later in the November 2004 general election, some voters faced both old barriers to ballot access that HAVA promised to remove and new ones. We can do better and we must do better. Full funding of HAVA will ensure America does better in conducting Federal elections by ensuring both ballot access and ballot integrity.

Building democracy and freedom for every American must begin at home in the United States. In the wake of the October 15, 2005 province-by- province election on the Constitution in Iraq, it is critical that Americans take stock of our own decentralized elections systems. In light of the continuing barriers and irregularities that Americans faced at polling places across this Nation in 2004, we cannot fail to fully fund HAVA to fix these problems. Our ability to successfully do so goes directly to ensuring the integrity of elections and ensuring the confidence of the American people in the final results of those elections. America's ability to promote free societies abroad is inextricably linked to our ability to expand and secure transparent elections at home. At a time when we are spending billions of dollars to ensure the spread of democracy across the globe, we must ensure the primary right to vote for all eligible voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, or resources.

For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress acknowledged the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide leadership and funding to States and local governments in the administration of Federal elections. First, Congress codified the Federal role in HAVA by entering into a partnership with States to restore the public's confidence in the final results of Federal elections and to ensure that every eligible American had an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. Next, Congress required States to conduct Federal elections according to minimum Federal requirements for voting system standards, provisional balloting and Statewide voter registration lists, including new requirements to prevent voter fraud. Finally, Congress refused to impose unfunded mandate on States and authorize nearly $4 billion in payments to States over 3 fiscal years to implememt the HAVA requirements and disability access grants and services.

January 1, 2006, is the effective date for two of the most important Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: the voluntary voting system standards and the Statewide computerized voter registration list. Both requirements are expected to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat by providing an equal opportunity for every eligible voter to cast a vote and have that vote counted, as well as providing important antifraud requirements to protect and preserve the integrity of our decentralized elections systems. In order to comply with HAVA, States must timely implement both requirements, which are expected to cost millions in both Federal dollars for the 95 percent portion and State dollars for the 5 percent portion of the expenditures.

To date, the President's budget, for the second year in a row, while providing millions in funding for democratic elections in foreign countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, assumes no funding for requirements or disability access payments to the States.

Congress also failed to fully fund HAVA 2 years in a row. HAVA is underfunded by a total of $822 million. In addition to the $600 million authorized in fiscal year 2005, but not appropriated Congress underfunded HAVA by $222 million over the last 3 fiscal years, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. As a result, HAVA currently has a total funding shortfall of $822 million in federal funds, $727 million for election administration requirements and $95 million for disability grant payments.

The absence of the $727 million for requirements payments will likely impede the Statewide implementation of the two most critical election reforms, the voting system standards and the Statewide voter registration lists in time for the 2006 congressional elections.

No civil right is more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the people's right to vote. HAVA has been acknowledged as the ``first civil rights law of the 21st century.'' Full funding of HAVA enjoys the support of a broad coalition of organizations representing the civil rights communities, voting rights groups, disabilities groups, and State and local governments, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State.

I am grateful to LCCR and NASS for their consistent leadership in ensuring that Congress fulfills our commitment to fully fund the HAVA reforms. I applaud the nonpartisan work of the LCCR/NASS Coalition and look forward to continuing to work with them to see this commitment come to fruition.

The organizations have submitted a letter, dated October 20, 2005, in support of full funding in the amount of $727 million for HAVA implementation in fiscal year 2006. The letter, and I quote, states that:

The states and localities need the remaining authorized

funding to implement the requirements of HAVA and the federal

EAC needs to be fully funded to carry out its

responsibilities as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

If we fail to honor commitment now and only appropriate partial funding, we may jeopardize the ability of the States to implement these historic and comprehensive election reforms. We will also miss an opportunity to ensure the integrity and security of Federal elections and the confidence of the American people in the final results of those elections.

While I will not offer an amendment today to provide for this additional funding, I am serving notice that as the States proceed to complete implementation of the HAVA requirements, I will continue to monitor this situation and as the needs of the States become more clear, I will come back to my colleagues for prompt action to ensure that the States do not face an unfunded mandate.

Exhibit 1

Make Election Reform a Reality--Fully Fund the Help America Vote Act

October 20, 2005.

Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you

to support full funding for the Help America Vote Act of 2002

(HAVA) and include $727 million in the Transportation,

Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the

District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

Appropriations Act of 2006. This figure represents the

authorized HAVA funds for federal requirements that remain

unappropriated.

HAVA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,

includes an important list of reforms that states must

implement for federal elections. State and local governments

have been working on such reforms as improving disability

access to polling places, updating voting equipment,

implementing new provisional balloting procedures, developing

and implementing a new statewide voter registration database

system, training poll workers and educating voters on new

procedures and new equipment.

To help state and local governments pay for these reforms,

HAVA authorized $3.9 billion over three fiscal years. To

date, Congress has generously appropriated $3 billion between

FY03 and FY04. Unfortunately, while HAVA authorized funding

for states for FY05, none was appropriated. The states and

localities need the remaining authorized funding to implement

the requirements of HAVA, and the federal EAC needs to be

fully funded to carry out its responsibilities as well.

States and localities are laboring to implement the

requirements of HAVA based on a federal commitment that HAVA

would not be an unfunded mandate. State officials have

incorporated the federal amounts Congress promised when

developing their HAVA implementation budgets and plans.

Without the full federal funding, state and local governments

will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able

to afford complete implementation of important HAVA mandates.

According to a state survey, lack of federal funding for HAVA

implementation will result in many states scaling back their

voter and poll worker education initiatives and on voting

equipment purchase plans, both of which are vital components

to making every vote count in America.

We are thankful that you have seen the importance of

funding the work of the Election Assistance Commission in

FY06. States, localities and civic organizations look forward

to the work products from the EAC that will aid them in their

implementation of HAVA i.e., the voting system standards, the

statewide database guidance, and the studies on provisional

voting, voter education, poll worker training, and voter

fraud and voter intimidation.

We thank you for your support of funding for the Help

America Vote Act, and we look forward to working with you on

this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please

contact Leslie Reynolds of the National Association of

Secretaries of State or Rob Randhava of the Leadership

Conference on Civil Rights, or any of the individual

organizations listed below.

Sincerely,

Organizations Representing State and Local Election Officials

Council of State Governments

Election Center

International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election

Officials and Treasurers

National Association of Counties

National Association of County Recorders, Election

Officials and Clerks

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed

Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund

National Association of Secretaries of State

National Conference of State Legislatures

Civil and Disability Rights Organizations

Alliance for Retired Americans

American Association of People with Disabilities

American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial

Organizations

Americans for Democratic Action

APIA Vote

Asian American Justice Center

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund

Common Cause

FairVote--The Center for Voting and Democracy

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

League of Women Voters of the United States

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

National Council of La Raza

National Disability Rights Network

National Federation of the Blind

National Voting Rights Institute

Project Vote

The Arc of the United States

United Cerebral Palsy

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

USAction

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I cannot underscore enough what my colleagues have already stated--that this is a one-time, emergency aid program. All of the authors of the bill have agreed that next school year, in terms of assistance to nonpublic schools, we will go back to the way things are done today. We are reaching out to all of the students affected by Katrina here, no matter what type of school they attend, because it makes sense under these extraordinary conditions, because it gets kids back on their feet as quickly as possible. In no way is this bill meant to undermine or amend current law or set any type of precedent for future legislation.

Of course.

Mr. President, I support the Hurricane Katrina Elementary and Secondary Education Recovery Act introduced by myself, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander. This bill will provide much needed relief to the children, families and schools devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

Hundreds of thousand of children have been displaced by this disaster. Schools across the country are taking students in offering them some sense of normalcy in an otherwise abnormal situation. We have heard stories of schools all over the country that have opened their doors to new students, including schools in Connecticut. These collective examples point to our education system as an integral part of our communities. Better than any other entity, schools know that children need a safe place to develop and learn in the wake of disaster.

Among the provisions today, is one that will provide financial assistance for displaced students regardless of where they go to school. Public and nonpublic schools will receive assistance that can be used to pay for additional personnel, curricular materials, portable classrooms and even health and mental health services as long as the services provided are secular and neutral in nature and are not used for religious instruction, indoctrination or worship.

This is not a voucher bill. Through a number of mechanisms, this bill maintains public control of public dollars. This bill prohibits Federal dollars from going to religious instruction. And, this bill preserves civil rights protections.

Most important, this bill is temporary in nature. The bill provides temporary emergency impact aid for displaced students. It is temporary in that it sunsets at the end of the current school year, emergency in that it is necessary because of the extraordinary circumstances that we have been presented with, and impact aid as it is assistance for those schools that have been impacted as thousands of children and their families have left the devastated areas.

I cannot underscore this enongh--the provisions in this bill are a departure from Federal law but they are a temporary departure in light of extraordinary events. Next school year, in terms of assistance to nonpublic schools, we will go back to the ways things are. We are reaching out to all students here, today, because it makes sense, because it gets kids back on their feet as quickly as possible. We are not changing the generic laws. As we explicitly state in the bill, the level of assistance we are providing to nonpublic schools is being authorized solely because of the unprecedented nature of the crisis, the massive dislocation of students, and the short duration of the assistance.

Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the Senator from Illinois? I ask unanimous consent that I can speak for 7 or 8 minutes following the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking our colleague from Massachusetts for, once again, offering this amendment. As he has pointed out already, this is a pared-down version of what was offered before. It is hard to comprehend how anyone, let alone a family can make ends meet on $5.15 an hour. How do you pay for housing, food, clothes and other staples?

I have often said--and it has been repeated by others--the best social program ever created was not by an act of Congress. It was not created by a regulation or rule. The best social program ever created was a job. Think of all the benefits, the intangibles, that accrue as a result of having a good-paying job.

Here we are saying to people: Work hard and make only $5.15 per hour. You cannot even begin to provide for the basic needs of your own family.

What bothers me a great deal is how things have changed here in the Senate. In my 24 years in the Senate, I recall with great vividness the real discussions we had. I won't bore my colleagues going back to the Roosevelt administration, although it is not insignificant to talk about it. But just in more recent years, the minimum wage battles were not battles. They were resolved in a bipartisan way. My colleague from Massachusetts can tell you chapter and verse how it was done.

What has happened to us? What is wrong with this Congress, in these days, that we are incapable of raising the minimum wage to meet even the level of inflation for poor people in this country? Increasing the minimum wage was never a divisive battle. That was done by almost unanimous consent. We would work it out, come up with an amount that we could afford that made sense for people, and enact it.

These are familiar examples, as shown on this chart, going back to the Roosevelt administration, when the minimum wage was enacted, going through the Clinton administration, where we were actually able to get those kinds of agreements between Republicans and Democrats. And here we are now, for the last 5 years, still battling over whether we can get a modest increase in the minimum wage.

I am really stunned by it. This increase of $1.10, gets you to $6.25. It provides for some additional groceries and rent, 1 year of childcare. That would be an additional $2,288 if we adopted the Kennedy amendment.

There are so many examples that can be cited about what this means and what people are going through. The Senator from New York raised this earlier. Senator Kennedy has, as well. This is that chart that shows where the minimum wage is. As shown here, this is the poverty line. The black line is the poverty line. We have been without these increases in the minimum wage. People are literally staggering at the bottom with a little more than $12,000 a year. Here is the poverty line.

How do you explain to people, good people, what we are doing in this Congress when we cannot even get this number up even close to the poverty line for people to make ends meet? What has happened? This never was a debate that caused great friction--to talk about making sure people out there working hard would be able to provide for their family. Now, we would turn around and say: You are not even going to get the kind of level of support that makes it possible to make ends meet.

I would hope that, No. 1, we would adopt this amendment. Let's get back to the days when we were able to come to agreement on something that would take people who are struggling and give them a chance to make ends meet.

I have one more chart that highlights the importance of all of this. Consider what is going to happen as heating oil prices go up by more than 30 percent. We are talking about the minimum wage actually going down in excess of 8 percent in terms of its ability to help people make ends meet. We have the Bush economic plan that is going to have rising energy costs with a declining minimum wage. What in the world do we think people are going to do? How are they going to make ends meet? How does that get done? What happened to compassionate conservatism? What happened to the days of the first Bush administration, and the Reagan administration as well, when we were able to come to agreement about the minimum wage?

I am happy to yield.

In response, the Senator makes a very good point. We have a tendency to think about raising the minimum wage as being a cost to society. What the Senator from Massachusetts is pointing out is quite the contrary. Raising the minimum wage is an overall benefit. In fact, the Senator is absolutely correct. In Great Britain, in fact, in no small measure because they have actually raised the minimum wage, the economy of that nation has improved. In the years since we have

not increased the minimum wage in this country, we have watched millions more of our fellow citizens fall into poverty. There is a direct correlation. We now have some 13 million children in America living in poverty. What is the 21st century going to offer if we are raising a generation of so many of our children living in poverty? Overall, 37 million Americans are living below the poverty level. In fact, more than 5 million Americans have fallen into poverty in the last 5 years. In Great Britain, as the Senator points out, as a result of increasing the minimum wage, people have actually been lifted out of poverty and the economy of their country has improved.

What the Senator from Massachusetts is offering today is substantially less than proposals he made earlier. This increase would be to $6.25, if we can get it approved. We ought to come together around this. What a great day it would be in America for the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to support this modest increase in the minimum wage.

With all due respect to my good friend from Wyoming, his amendment is some 80 pages long. I suggest to my colleagues, in the hour you have left before we vote, that you read this amendment carefully. I think you will be stunned to discover the impact of this amendment.

I ask my friend from Massachusetts, on page 17 of the Enzi amendment, correct me if I am wrong, as I read line 7, subsection 5 of this amendment, it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State may

impose a civil penalty on a small business concern, in the

case of a first-time violation by the small business concern

of a requirement regarding collection of information under

Federal law, in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of

this subsection.

That is a license, in my view, to go off and do anything, notwithstanding any other provision of law. It could wipe out all other Federal laws. Do my colleagues know which laws are being eliminated, notwithstanding any other provision of law? You could lie and cheat and steal. Am I reading this correctly?

Again, we are looking at an 80 page amendment. This is only one provision that I happened to read quickly. Do my colleagues know what they are voting for? It literally could wipe out all the Federal laws that a State would have to protect its people. That is ridiculous. With all due respect, this amendment ought to be defeated.

I know very little time remains. I urge my colleagues to consider this modest request to increase the minimum wage and reject the Enzi amendment. That amendment goes beyond raising the minimum wage and requires far more work than we can do in a 1-hour debate. Its implications may only be discovered weeks or months from now.

This ought to be rejected if for no other reason than I don't think we even know all that is in it.

I urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment and the rejection of the Enzi amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations conference report. The Senate passed this measure earlier today by a voice vote. Frankly, I would have liked to have had a recorded vote on this measure. If a recorded vote had been ordered, I would have expressed my opposition to this conference report.

Nevertheless, I would like to begin by recognizing that the authors of this conference report, Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, do a tremendous job each year. I have served in the Senate long enough to know how hard it is to pull these types of appropriations bills together. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran. It is no easy task to write and manage a bill that provides for our domestic security needs. I further commend all of our colleagues and their staffs on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for the hard work they have put into this legislation.

However, I feel compelled, notwithstanding these efforts, to express my disappointment over the adoption of this conference report. I have very deep

concerns about how this measure funds our country's vital homeland security activities.

In many crucial respects, I believe this conference report continues a pattern of failure on the part of the administration and the leadership of our Congress to address the acute and ongoing needs of our Nation's homeland security infrastructure.

Allow me to read a letter I received 3 days ago from the Republican Governor of my State, a good friend and someone with whom I work all the time. I think it is important to hear--even after we adopted this measure--from a Governor of a State that is grappling with providing the necessary security to protect its citizens.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my comments.

The Governor says:

. . . [I]n a time when the threat of terrorism remains

elevated and natural disasters such as the recent hurricanes

have reminded us all of the staggering power of nature, [the

cuts in this bill] simply [defy] rational explanation.

The conference report inexplicably contains cuts that

exceed those in the original House or Senate bills or the

President's proposed budget. Funding for the State Homeland

Security Grant program is halved, from $1.1 billion to $550

million, while funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative

is reduced from $885 million to $765 million. Those programs,

along with the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program,

have accounted for the bulk of [homeland security] funding

that our state has received.

Of the money available for the State Homeland Security

Grant program, states will receive a mere 0.75 percent in

guaranteed funding. The balance is to be distributed by the

Department of Homeland Security based on risk, though how--or

when--that assessment is to be made is not clear.

Under the conference report, guaranteed funding for

Connecticut in fiscal year 2006 would amount to barely $7.13

million. This is down by two-thirds from the $21 million in

fiscal year 2005--itself a reduction from the $46 million in

2004.

My Governor concludes her letter by saying:

The funding contained within the conference report is

utterly insufficient to support the actions needed to protect

the people of our State, to say nothing of the millions of

travelers and tons of truck, train and barge cargo that pass

through Connecticut every year.

In an age when terrorism continues to be a threat to our country, one would think that the Congress of the United States would be doing everything it could to shore up our domestic security, to make it as impregnable as possible against those who would do us harm. Yet when we look at this conference report, I do not believe it does enough to protect our people from terrorism. We are simply not investing in the resources required to make this Nation as safe as possible.

Instead of filling in the cracks that continue to exist within our homeland security foundation, we are letting those cracks grow.

I was particularly disturbed to see that the FIRE and SAFER grant programs--vital firefighting assistance initiatives that I was pleased to author with Senators DeWine, Warner, and Levin--was cut by $60 million over fiscal year 2005 levels. As the Governor of my State says, funding cuts of this nature defy rationality when one considers the devastation recently wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the unprecedented burdens placed on emergency first responders who are on the domestic frontlines in the fight against terrorism.

For the past 3 years, I have come to the floor and offered legislation that would implement the recommendations made by the Rudman Commission.

As we all know, our former colleague Warren Rudman, a former Republican Senator from New Hampshire, chaired a blue ribbon commission sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that included George Schultz, William Webster, Harold Varmus and other distinguished Americans.

The Rudman Commission concluded that our country's homeland security infrastructure was ``drastically underfunded'' and that our Nation was ``dangerously unprepared'' to respond effectively to a terrorist attack.

The Commission recommended that our Nation invest no less than $20 billion a year for 5 years to take the minimum steps necessary to protect all Americans from natural and manmade threats. Regrettably, this conference report neglected to implement the recommendations of the Rudman Commission, providing only $3.4 billion of the $20 billion that the Commission identified as essential each and every year for 5 years.

I would point out that in the last 3 years I have offered an amendment on the Rudman Commission report, it has been regrettably defeated.

In March of 2004, we watched the train system in Madrid, Spain, attacked by terrorists with nearly 200 dead. Earlier this year, we watched the London Underground and the double-decker buses attacked by terrorists, with dozens who were killed. Yesterday, the New York City subway system was placed on high alert. Yet in response to this clear and present danger to our Nation's largest transit system, the administration today and the leadership of both the House and the Senate have, in effect, cut funding for transit security in this bill, providing funding levels that do not keep pace with expected inflation.

There is an added irony to all of this. At a time when we are dealing with record high gas prices and the administration is encouraging Americans to conserve energy by taking public transportation when and where they can, it is actually doing less than it did last year to ensure that our public transit systems are as safe as possible.

What more is it going to take before the administration and the leadership of this body realize that we are not investing nearly enough in our homeland security infrastructure and our emergency first responders?

When it comes to meeting the security needs of our country, this administration and leadership in Congress are pursuing a policy that, at best, in my view, can be called benign neglect. That has become painfully apparent in light of the inadequate response to meeting the needs and mitigating the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people along the Gulf Coast. And it has been reinforced by this conference report's failure to make essential investments to keep all Americans safe from the risk of terrorism.

Exhibit 1

State of Connecticut,

Executive Chambers,

Hartford, CT, October 4, 2005.

Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, Joseph I. Lieberman, John B.

Larson, Robert R. Simmons, Rosa DeLauro, Christopher Shays,

Nancy L. Johnson

Dear Connecticut Congressional Delegation: I have reviewed

the Conference Report on H.R. 2360, the Department of

Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006, and I am deeply

disturbed by the woefully inadequate funding the bill would

provide to Connecticut.

Under the Conference Report, guaranteed funding for

Connecticut in Fiscal Year 2006 would amount to barely $7.13

million. This is down by two-thirds from some $21 million in

FY2005--itself a reduction from nearly $46 million in FY2004.

This is incredibly unfair to Connecticut and, in a time

when the threat of terrorism remains elevated and natural

disasters such as the recent hurricanes have reminded us all

of the staggering power of nature, simply defies rational

explanation.

The threats have not abated. Nature has not gone away. The

need for equitable and sensible funding has not ended.

The Conference Report inexplicably contains cuts that

exceed those in the original House or Senate bills or the

President's proposed budget. Funding for the State

Homeland Security Grant (SHSG) program is halved, from

$1.1 billion to $550 million, while funding for the Urban

Areas Security Initiative (UASI) was reduced from $885

million to $765 million. Those programs, along with the

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), have

accounted for the bulk of funding our state has received.

Of the money available for the SHSG program, states will

receive a mere 0.75 percent in guaranteed funding. The

balance is to be distributed by the Department of Homeland

Security based on risk, though how--or when--that assessment

is to be made is not clear.

In essence, the Conference Report reduces the vast majority

of homeland security funding to a lobbying contest. States

that are most successful in making their case before the

Department of Homeland Security will get the bulk of the

funding. Those that are not--will not.

This is unfortunate, to say the least. In previous years,

after guaranteed SHSG and LETPP funding was distributed the

remainder was apportioned on the basis of population. None of

the UASI funding is guaranteed to states, and you will recall

that despite the obvious need--the FY2004 grant for New Haven

Harbor was not renewed in FY2005.

On September 11, 2001, America was awakened to the need for

vigilance against security threats as well as natural

disasters.

Connecticut, as you know, contains a number of major

highways, a nuclear power facility, ports that are home to a

regional depot for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve,

shipyards, cargo operations and passenger and auto ferries.

The funding contained within the Conference Report is

utterly insufficient to support the actions needed to protect

the people of our state, to say nothing of the millions of

travelers and tons of truck, train and barge cargo that pass

through Connecticut every year.

I am urging you to seek an increase in the funding for

Connecticut. We cannot sustain a two-thirds reduction in

federal homeland security funding. It is unfair and unwise.

I will be contacting you shortly to discuss this matter

further.

Sincerely,

M. Jodi Rell,

Governor.

Mr. President, I will not take as much time as others have, but I would like to commend my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, for her Herculean efforts over the last couple of days to try and convince this body to do everything it can to provide the needed relief for thousands of displaced individuals along the Gulf Coast, including, obviously, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Texas.

I am really stunned, in a sense, by the response we are providing to this situation so far.

On average we provide $5 billion a week to fund our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, this funding is critical to protect our troops and the work they continue to undertake overseas. When the President has been asked how he plans to pay for these ongoing efforts, he says that he plans to pay for them using additional Federal resources that are not taken out of other Federal spending priorities.

And yet when it comes to providing the necessary relief to our own citizens in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, we are being told by the President that we absolutely have to use existing Federal resources to pay for recovery and relief efforts. We are being told that Federal resources cannot be provided unless we reduce other Federal spending priorities.

I can understand the frustration of the Senator from Louisiana. She goes every week to community after community in her State and still sees the horrible circumstances under which thousands of people are living. Meanwhile, the Senate is about to take another week off. As literally hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are suffering, we are leaving town instead of working together to provide adequate long-term disaster assistance in areas such as public health, education, housing, transportation and homeland security.

The Senator from Louisiana took the floor over an extended period of time to talk about the importance of providing this relief: to care for the thousands of displaced children, to assist people who lost their homes, their businesses, their very livelihoods. Nevertheless, we are told by this administration and the leadership in Congress that no adequate assistance can be provided unless we cut vital spending elsewhere.

If we do not have to find offsets for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, then why do we have to find offsets to rebuild the Gulf Coast--our own soil? If this catastrophe were to happen in my State of Connecticut or anywhere else, we would all appreciate what our colleague from Louisiana has gone through and express our frustrations in the same way she has.

So I join with Senator Landrieu and others who have already spoken. I am also waiting to hear about what offsets we are going to be forced to come up with to pay for the recovery and relief efforts along the Gulf Coast. They will most certainly come from domestic investments such as Medicaid that aid the poor, not from repealing the estate tax or other tax cuts that have aided only the wealthiest of Americans.

I imagine that we will cut spending to services provided under Medicare and Medicaid--services that provide basic health care coverage to the poorest of our citizens who are the most dependent for their health care needs. There is a very sad irony to this. We are going to force the poor to bear the greatest burden on funding recovery and relief efforts along the Gulf Coast. In essence we are going to charge them to pay for this. What kind of logic is that? It is irrational, it is wrong, and we ought to be doing better by the people of our own country.

I am disappointed that this body had to rush out of town and could not spend the additional time necessary to get this right for the people of the Gulf Coast.

So I, again, applaud the Senator from Louisiana. I admire her courage. I certainly admire her tenacity in fighting as hard as she has been for the people of her State.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Timothy Wineman, who is retiring after 35 years of dedicated service to the Senate.

There are thousands of employees who work behind the scenes here in the Senate, who make it possible for the Members of this body to discharge the duties of their office. It is rare that these employees get the recognition they deserve.

One of the greatest and longest serving of those unsung heroes has been Tim Wineman, with whom I have had the honor of sharing these halls for the last 25 years. Over that period of time, both my wife Jackie and I have come to rely on his experience and counsel. We are both sad to see him go, but we know as well as anyone that he has certainly earned his retirement.

Tim was hired as a payroll clerk in the disbursing office on October 19, 1970, while my father still served in this Chamber. Six years later, Tim was promoted to payroll supervisor. Four years after that, he became the assistant financial clerk. And, in 1998, he was appointed the Financial Clerk of the United States Senate.

He has fulfilled his duties in all of those roles with efficiency, integrity, and vision. When Tim began over 30 years ago, the Senate's financial services were still performed manually and recorded in pen and ink, without the aid of computers. Over the last three decades, through various leadership positions, Tim has overseen the technological renovation of the Disbursing Office, as it almost flawlessly shifted to cover a marked increase in staff and services.

The Senate Disbursing Office handles not only the payroll of Senators and staff, but also their retirement funds and life and health insurance. The workload is tremendous. Last year, the Disbursing Office also approved nearly 50,000 expense reimbursement vouchers, administered the oath to over 3,200 new Senate employees, and provided 36 training sessions to new office managers, among countless other responsibilities requiring attentiveness and precision.

Under Tim's leadership, these tasks have been carried out with the utmost professionalism. He has adeptly kept the Senate's financial house in order.

I thank Tim for his years of dedicated service to the Senate. He will be sorely missed. I also want to extend to him and Pat, his wife for as long as he has served the Senate, my best wishes as they begin this new phase in their lives.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a constituent and a pioneer in substance abuse treatment, Bill Walsh, who is retiring this year.

Mr. Walsh grew up in New Bedford, MA, and attended Seton Hall University. He served as a Radioman First Class in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Aboard the USS Hyter, he participated in the naval escort for President Franklin Roosevelt as he flew to the conference at Yalta.

After he left the Navy, Bill Walsh nobly dedicated his life to helping those in need of mental health services and those debilitated by alcohol and substance abuse. For 3 years, he served as the executive director of the Mental Health Association of Eastern Connecticut, where he created community mental health services and educational seminars to meet the needs of eastern Connecticut.

And, for the last 34 years, Mr. Walsh has served as the president of the Southeastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. In that position, he oversaw the development of three halfway houses, a detoxification program, outpatient services, and community-based education programs. He has helped thousands confront the devastating effects of drug and alcohol abuse and take the difficult steps to recovery.

Mr. Walsh was also a pioneer in long-term care in Connecticut. In 1979 he developed the Lebanon Pines Treatment Facility for those with chronic alcoholism, who are invited to live and work at the rural, alcohol-free facility for an indefinite period. This program has no doubt helped hundreds of individuals find sobriety.

Bill Walsh's selfless desire to truly help those in need is further evidenced by the extent to which he has been willing to share the vast knowledge that he gained working on the front lines. Over the last five decades, he has strenuously lobbied the Connecticut legislature on behalf of those suffering from addictions to drugs or alcohol and their treatment providers. He has served on numerous boards and advisory committees dedicated to substance abuse treatment. And he has lectured on substance abuse and community rehabilitation projects at colleges and universities in Connecticut and throughout our Nation.

Millions of Americans battle drug and alcohol addiction every day. Bill Walsh has dedicated his life to making sure that they don't fight alone. For his tireless service, Connecticut and, indeed, the whole Nation owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Next week, a dinner will be held in honor of Bill Walsh's many contributions to the field of substance abuse treatment and to raise money for a scholarship fund to support those who want to become substance abuse treatment professionals. Both the dinner and the scholarship fund are wonderful tributes to Bill's contributions to serving those who struggle each and every day with addiction.

Once again, I thank Bill Walsh for his years of dedicated service to his community, to Connecticut, and to our Nation. And, I send my best wishes to him, his wife Cinda, and his family as he embarks on this new stage in his life.

Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in submitting a resolution declaring the week of October 16th ``National Character Counts Week.'' Senator Domenici and I have worked together for many years on the issue of character education and hope that by designating a special week to this cause, students and teachers will come together to participate in character building activities in their schools. In 1994, Senator Domenici and I established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. I am pleased that we are continuing our efforts today to help expand States' and schools' abilities to make character education a central part of every child's education.

Our schools may be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly is the mortar. Character education means teaching students about such qualities as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and other qualities that their community values. It isn't a separate subject, but part of a seamless garment of learning providing students with a context within which to learn.

Earlier this week I was in Connecticut attending an event that honored the fundamentals of character education, especially those of caring, responsibility and citizenship. In response to the devastation caused by the tsunami last December, Connecticut schoolchildren across the State came together to raise money for tsunami relief. Collectively, 350 schools rose over $300,000 in hopes of building a school in Sri Lanka. Knowing that it would take approximately a half million dollars to rebuild one, the students also worked to find a nonprofit willing to match their donation. They did. The Brother's Brother Foundation, a nonprofit that seeks to improve international health and education, brought the final contribution amount to $600,000.

These collective dollars will be used to build a 1,500-pupil school consisting of four buildings, including science and computer labs, in Sri Lanka. But that's not all. Dedicated to their cause, these students plan to continue to donate money for the next five years to fill the Sri Lankan students' library with books and to make sure that they have necessary school supplies. Since the initial fundraising effort, these same students have begun collecting small change and checks for Katrina relief efforts. These efforts, efforts to help students, hundreds and some times hundreds of thousands of miles away, demonstrate character at its best.

Schools across the country that have adopted formal character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community. Children want direction--they want to be taught right from wrong. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that about 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education.

As all education policy should be, character education is bi- partisan. This year we have 26 cosponsors to our resolution, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Character education not only cultivates minds, it nurtures hearts. While our children may be one-quarter of our population, they are 100 percent of our future.

I ask unanimous consent that I follow my distinguished colleague from Illinois.

I would say to my colleague, I hope maybe it is 15 minutes or so. Depending upon the reaction of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, maybe even less time than that. I will try to be brief because I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan are interested in having a colloquy.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his graciousness. I thank my colleague from Virginia as well for his consideration, and I will try to be brief.

I call up amendment No. 1970 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this is old business in the sense of what I am bringing up was a matter considered a little over a year ago on similar legislation. I regret that I have to come back again this year. My colleagues voted unanimously a year ago to adopt this amendment or an amendment very much like it. The other body as well agreed to this amendment during conference between the two bodies. It became the law of the land.

The amendment basically said that for those men and women in uniform serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who purchased--or family members, neighbors, or others--essential equipment that they needed in their role as service men and women, it would be reimbursed up to a maximum amount of $1,100 over a relatively limited period of time. The amendment was straightforward, clear-cut, and enjoyed the strong support, I might add, of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, as well as others who believed this was the right thing to do.

At the time, the Pentagon objected to the amendment, offered talking points against it, and said it was unmanageable to have a reimbursement program for equipment that our service men and women were having to either buy themselves or having bought for them by family members or others.

Over the last year and almost a half, I have had some 15 or 16 exchanges and correspondence with the leadership of the Pentagon. Up until today, and I mean literally this afternoon, there had been almost no response to this requirement of law. As of today--and I will get to this in a minute--they have decided to issue some regulations. It is not a coincidence that they are offering those proposed regulations the very day I am offering the amendment again on the floor. There is an old expression, ``I was born at night but not last night,'' and I would love to believe that this was strictly a matter of timing, but I am concerned that basically there is still a resistance to the idea that our service men and women ought to be receiving the kind of equipment they need, particularly in a war zone.

As we all know, and again I am stating the obvious, we are at war. The safety and protection of our troops in the field could not be a more serious issue for every single one of us. So why is it that the Pentagon has repeatedly failed to adequately equip these men and women? As far back as June of 2003, the military was regularly reporting that up to a quarter of the troops deployed to Iraq were short of critical body armor needed to protect themselves from shrapnel and AK-47 fire.

Just this last June, the Marine Corps Inspector General estimated that 30,000 marines in Iraq needed twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to perform their operations successfully than they were getting. Let me repeat: 30,000 marines in Iraq need twice as much heavy equipment in some areas as they are getting.

The Army has had so many troubles mass-producing body armor that it eventually lost as many as 10,000 armored plates as reported by the Army Inspector General's Office.

Most frustrating of all is that as casualties mounted due to roadside bombs or, in DOD parlance, the improvised explosive devices, IEDs, we found that the Pentagon had gravely underestimated the necessary armor needed to protect Army and Marine ground vehicles.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March of 2004, Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee--a good friend of mine, I might add-- testified that the Army had not made fortifications of humvees a priority, saying:

We simply were not prepared for that kind of

counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys.

As a result of all of these failures, our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and marines, were forced to take matters into their own hands in far too many cases.

As early as 2003, the Army's own Soldier Systems Command reported that soldiers, particularly infantrymen, were paying an average of $400 each out of their own pockets for their equipment that their civilian leaders had failed to provide them. Again, the Soldier Systems Command reported those statistics and that the figure did not even include personal body armor that was being purchased. Because they saw the Pentagon failing our troops, servicemembers and their families have all pitched in to pay for protective gear, even vehicle armor, so they did not have to see their own people going off to war without the equipment they need to keep safe.

Things seemed to come to a head when in December of 2004 a soldier asked Secretary Rumsfeld about having to sift through garbage dumps for scrap metal for Army vehicle armor. The Defense Secretary cavalierly replied:

You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army

you want.

Of course, we all recall the reaction of the public to that statement. It was very negative, to put it mildly.

Two weeks ago, my office received a call from a constituent I will call Gordon, his first name. Gordon is a good American. He is a former mayor of a small town in Connecticut and a Vietnam veteran. He asked that he be identified only by his first name because he is afraid of retribution against his son. His only son is a lance corporal, recently deployed in Iraq, in the U.S. Marine Corps.

A loyal Republican, Gordon is not looking for Government handouts or to be challenging the President of the United States. He just wants his son to be safe. That is why last month he contacted the online store Diamond Back Tactical and ordered combat gear for his son totaling $683.36. His purchase included lower back double-plated body armor, CAT NAPP body armor for the lower torso and pelvis area. He willingly paid for the order in full, as would any parent, I suggest. But why is it that this family had to place a purchase order on their own? And how can we bear to let good Americans such as Gordon pay this price when there should be regulations on the books providing reimbursements for these kinds of purchases if we are not going to make them on behalf of these young men and women ourselves?

Last week, I met another marine, SGT Todd Bowers, now a reservist attending George Washington University, who has already pulled two tours in Iraq. On his last deployment, Sergeant Bowers said he was fired on by a sniper. It was not the gear provided by the Marine Corps that saved his life but, rather, a $600 rifle scope that his father had just purchased at a gun show in Arizona and a pair of goggles he himself bought for $100. The bullet from the insurgent's gun lodged into Sergeant Bowers' scope rather than his skull, and the goggles guarded his eyes from scattering shrapnel. Thank goodness Sergeant Bowers' father made these purchases. But why is it these concerned parents had to make these purchases on their own? And what about the hundreds of military families without the resources to buy these items? Are we going to allow these sons and daughters, husbands and wives in uniform to go without the battlefield equipment that is essential for their safety?

This is not a new issue. In fact, we have been sounding the alarm to Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon's

leadership for several years now. To address inadequate equipment supplies, in 2003, I proposed an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to resolve $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear, identified by the Army itself, including body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets. Unfortunately, the administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines.

Last year, we tried a different approach--requiring the Pentagon to reimburse military personnel, their families, and charities that bought equipment for military servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately, in June of 2004, despite ardent objections, I might add, of the Department of Defense, this body approved that amendment 91 to 0.

On October 9, 2004, this body approved the final version of that bill, and the President signed it into law, including a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to implement a reimbursement program by February 25 of this year. It is now October 5, 2005, nearly a year after this provision became the law of the land, over 7 months after the Defense Department was required by law to set up a system for the troops to receive compensation for the protective gear they purchase for use in combat, equipment they bought because the Government failed to provide it. All of this time has passed and still the administration has failed to comply with the law.

My office has made dozens of contacts to the Pentagon, both in phone calls and in letters, and still we heard nothing back and still little action has been taken. Maybe they thought they could just ignore the law or that I might just go away. Instead, under pressure from renewed press interest on this issue, the Defense Department finally issued early guidelines--guess when. Today--for implementing the reimbursement program just over 7 months late.

The regulations are incomplete, with provisions for reimbursement for only a select few items. If one needs any proof that DOD is once again coming up short, all one needs to do is look at the list of reimbursement items. It does not include the gun scope that saved Todd Bowers' life. It does not include the gear that Gordon bought for his son. It does not even include items that were purchased in an attempt to protect humvees with what has been called ``hillbilly armor,'' as depicted by this New York Times story in May of 2004.

In this story, a community in New Jersey went out as a community and bought a lot of this body armor to use on the floor of humvees to protect the young men and women from their own State from those problems, such as bombs going off that were taking so many lives. This goes back to that date. They would not be included in the list provided by the Pentagon.

As I understand it, there are still no plans for each of the military services to actually enforce these regulations. The Pentagon's leadership has done everything in its power, unfortunately, to stop this measure from being implemented, either by circulating talking points against my amendment last year or merely failing to implement the statute as it was enacted a year ago. Why should they stop now, I ask?

In their talking points to Congress last year, the Department of Defense actually said that it ``set an unmanageable precedent,'' and that it would actually ``encourage servicemembers and their loved ones to purchase equipment on their own.''

Such arguments seem absolutely appalling to me. It is the Pentagon's failure to equip our soldiers that is causing servicemembers to go out and buy equipment, not legislation promoting reimbursement for gear that should have been provided anyway. If only the Defense Department's leadership had kept its commitment to protect our troops, I would not be taking the measures I am taking today.

I regret to say I am telling only part of the story. It seems not only the Pentagon miscalculated what the needs are of our troops, but it also underestimated the need to fix the problem in short order. At the time I originally introduced my amendment, in June of 2004, the Pentagon leadership pledged they would have all the equipment needs addressed by July 31, 2004. All troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan would have adequate protective gear, they claimed. All appropriate vehicles would have the necessary body armor, they said. And according to the Pentagon, all our deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines could rest assured that their equipment needs would be met. We therefore crafted our amendment to reimburse troops for purchases only made between September 11, 2001, and July 31, 2004.

But, as many military members and their family members such as Gordon or Todd Bowers will tell you, private purchases of critical gear are still occurring every day. We owe it to our troops to make sure that they are adequately compensated for these purchases. For all of those reasons, I introduced this additional legislation that I hope will move this Government into action.

Let me briefly describe what it does. First, since Secretary Rumsfeld has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to comply with the law, we take out of his hands the requirement to devise the reimbursement program, and instead we leave it up to the individual troops' unit commanders to decide which equipment need is worthy of reimbursement. If the unit commander thinks it is necessary, they can say reimburse for it. If they say no, you don't get reimbursed. Leave it to your unit commanders. No one knows the needs of our troops better than the commanders deploying alongside our fighting men and women.

Rather than waiting for some bureaucrat at the Pentagon to decide what kind of armor our soldiers and marines should be entitled to, it is far more appropriate, in my view, to leave that up to their company commanders or squadron leaders.

My colleagues should have no objections to this requirement, since they endorsed the unit commanders' discretion in the original version of the amendment that was unanimously passed by this body in 2004.

Second, as I have already stated, in spite of the Pentagon's assurances, the military has not yet met the troops' armor and equipment needs so the legislation I am offering today will allow reimbursement for equipment purchases made at any time in support of operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom, not just the period between September 11, 2001, and June 31, 2004, as originally recommended by the Department of Defense.

Words cannot adequately express this Senator's frustration that in the year 2005, the most powerful nation on Earth cannot even see to it that its military personnel have the safety equipment they need while deployed in harm's way. I believe we owe it to our troops to do the right thing and to pass this measure. This legislation has already received the endorsement of several national military organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers Association of America, National Guard Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard.

I particularly thank Retired Brigadier General Green for his strong endorsement of this bill, along with Retired Master Sergeant Kline of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard for their strong endorsement. They appeared with me a few days ago at a press conference in which I announced I was going to offer this amendment and gave very strong statements in support of this effort.

Again, I do not want to take up a lot of time. We have already adopted this amendment a year ago, virtually the same amendment. I regret I am back again more than a year later urging similar action. But, again, I point out it has taken far too long for some response to this. Again, if the problem were over with, if it were not ongoing, I would not offer the amendment. I would be disappointed the administration or Pentagon did not comply with last year's law but, as I testified, we have problems every single day in this area. The Pentagon needs to get to business on this.

Today they have all of a sudden come up with a proposed set of regulations, but I point out no gun scopes, no humvee protection, no GPS receivers, no radios. These and other items that are being purchased by our troops are included on our list. It is a step in the right direction but occurring on the very day I am offering the amendment

is not mere coincidence, in my view. I thank them for their action today, but we need to do more.

I urge the adoption of this amendment. I hope my colleagues will make this a unanimous vote here to support the amendment.

If my colleague will yield.

I thank my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his support. You were tremendously helpful. At a time when the Pentagon was resistant, the chairman of the committee and others stood up and said we should do this--regrettably, we should be doing this.

We have done two things a little differently in this amendment. The chairman pointed it out. One, we removed the decision from the Pentagon to the field commander to make a decision on what is reimbursable or not, on the theory, as a squadron leader or platoon leader, field commander, they are in a better position to decide whether or not an item a soldier may purchase should be reimbursable, rather than someone at the Pentagon who would not have a firsthand knowledge of the kind of equipment.

Second, we limit the amount that can be collected. This is not an unlimited amount. Some of these items would be in excess of the limitations we put in the amendment. That is what we had last year.

Third, I am willing to consider some outlying date. The reason we limited it last year was because of the assurances we had been given that, in fact, the problem no longer existed. In fact, it still exists. I am prepared to accept an appropriate time, 2006 or something.

I hope we do not have to come back to this amendment, but the idea of having some outside date as a parameter, I am willing to accept that.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize a dedicated public servant at the Congressional Research Service, Jeffrey C. Griffith, who is retiring this month after 30 years of service to the U.S. Congress. A recognized expert in information technology, Mr. Griffith led CRS into the digital age and was instrumental in developing and implementing an integrated Legislative Information System, LIS, for the Congress.

He has been particularly helpful to the Senate Rules Committee and served as an information technology adviser and facilitator to then Chairman John Warner and Ranking Member Wendell Ford during the implementation of the committee's strategic planning process for information technology in the Senate. Mr. Griffith's expertise and his understanding of the Senate institution proved invaluable to the committee during a critical time when the committee was grappling with expanded Internet use, including the development and expansion of the legislative information system, and changing technology expectations and opportunities in the Senate.

Mr. Griffith earned both A.B. and MAT degrees at Harvard College and a masters in library science from UCLA. He came to the Library of Congress in 1976 as a participant in the Library of Congress Intern Program and then moved on to the Congressional Research Service in 1977. In the years since, he has held positions of increasing responsibility and he retires as the chief legislative information officer.

Leading change in information technology has been the hallmark of Mr. Griffith's career. In the early days of automation, he played a key role in developing SCORPIO, a system for retrieving legislative and public policy information that was one of the first systematic uses of digital information in the Federal Government. Similarly, he led the effort to automate CRS's request management system, ISIS, which helps CRS assure Members of Congress and their staff that their information

requests will be responded to quickly and efficiently.

When information technology moved to the desktop, Mr. Griffith managed the introduction of personal computers as individual workstations in CRS. Before the Internet and the World Wide Web, Mr. Griffith pioneered the use of optical disk technology for preserving and disseminating information to the Congress.

Mr. Griffith was a champion of interagency cooperation in the Congress. When a high capacity data communications network was established on Capitol Hill, he led an interagency group that resolved issues related to data exchange. This was the first step in the Internet-age. In 1997, when the Congress requested a new legislative information system, the LIS, Mr. Griffith assumed a leadership role as the CRS coordinator and worked closely with the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Library of Congress, and the Government Printing Office to develop and implement the new system. Today the LIS home page has over 4 million hits per year and is the primary resource for legislative information for Members of Congress and their staff.

Mr. Griffith's skill in leading interagency efforts extended to other initiatives as well. He is a recognized leader in efforts to implement XML technology consistently for legislative data and he has championed improvements in security initiatives to protect critical databases and ensure continuity of operations in the event of disaster.

Although Mr. Griffith is retiring from the Congressional Research Service, he will continue to contribute his professional expertise to the scholarship of legislative information. In 2006, through a Fulbright fellowship, Mr. Griffith will study the legislative information systems of the European Union and several European countries. He will be joined by his wife Jane Bortnick Griffith, who is the former assistant chief of the Science Policy Research Division of CRS and a Government information specialist in her own right.

Jeffrey C. Griffith has served the U.S. Congress with distinction for 30 years. The leadership and knowledge he provided has greatly benefited the Congress and the American people and his advice and counsel will be missed. His retirement now provides him the time to pursue study in legislative information systems that will continue to benefit all of us. I congratulate Jeff on a distinguished career and wish him and Jane the best in their future endeavors.

Madam President, I thank Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl for their efforts as floor managers of H.R. 2744, the Agriculture appropriations bill, and for their willingness to include in that legislation an amendment that I offered along with Senators Harkin, Reed, Carper, Biden, and Lieberman.

Our amendment, No. 1818, expresses the sense of the Congress that the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, should act within 1 year to issue comprehensive labeling guidelines for over-the-counter, OTC, sunscreen products--a so-called ``final monograph.'' The FDA began work to develop such a monograph in 1978. In 2002, after 24 years, the agency issued a final monograph. Unfortunately, the final sunscreen monograph failed to address one of the most critical aspects of sunscreens--how to measure protection against UVA rays, which are responsible for causing skin cancer. Because the final monograph failed to address this key issue, the FDA stayed it until a comprehensive monograph could be issued in order to avoid consumer confusion and the need for unnecessary product relabeling.

That stay was issued nearly 4 years ago, and the FDA has yet to issue a comprehensive final monograph. Sunscreen manufacturers need clear guidance on product labeling in order to provide consumers with crucial information about the protective benefits of sunscreen products. Studies have shown that skin cancer rates continue to rise, especially in younger adults and women.

Furthermore, in the face of FDA inaction, States are poised to fill the void, raising the specter of a patchwork of state labeling requirements that could be confusing to consumers and unnecessarily burdensome to manufacturers. Pursuant to section 751 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, which was enacted in 1997, a Federal rule on sunscreen labeling would preempt any related State labeling requirements. But this preemption does not apply in the absence of a Federal rule. A recent decision by the Los Angeles Superior Court held that, because there is no final FDA monograph for sunscreens, the FFDCA does not preempt California State labeling and advertising laws. Consequently, California State law can require specific labeling for sunscreens sold in California.

The FFDCA expresses Congress' view that national uniformity of sunscreen labels is important to providing all consumers with equal access to valuable information about the need for sunscreens to reduce the risk of skin cancer. As such, under Public Law 105-115, the Food and Drug Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress intended the FDA, which has the requisite scientific and medical expertise, to prescribe labels for sunscreen products.

In March 1999, in a letter to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, Senator Reed and I expressed similar concerns about the agency's protracted delay in issuing a comprehensive final OTC

monograph for sunscreen. Sadly, and much to the detriment of many Americans who need clear, accurate, and comprehensive sunscreen labeling as their first line of defense against skin cancer, little has been done by FDA since that time. Twenty-seven years is more than enough time for FDA to finalize this monograph. Again, I thank Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl for their willingness to address this issue. I urge the FDA to act with all possible haste to finalize the OTC monograph for sunscreen products, and to do so within the next year.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor our former colleague Claiborne Pell, with whom I had the pleasure of serving in this body for 16 years.

I have always felt a special affinity for Senator Pell. Both of our fathers served in Congress. We represented neighboring States in the Northeast. We sat together on three committees and share many of the same views and principles about our great Nation and its role in the world. And, he was one of the few Senators who served with both my father and me. So it is with great personal pleasure that I come to the floor to honor him today.

Senator Pell accomplished important things during his Senate career, each one of which could have defined a successful tenure for any one Senator. He created a Federal college scholarship initiative--later to be named the ``Pell Grant'' in his honor. This initiative has opened the doors of our colleges and universities to millions of American students. He coauthored legislation to establish the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, both of which have enriched the cultural life of our Nation. He helped to establish the Northeast rail corridor. And he was a chief architect of the ban on nuclear testing on the ocean floor.

Throughout 36 years of service, Senator Pell left a graceful and indelible legacy. His commitment to education, the arts and humanities, and peace was an attempt to cultivate the best in all of us. And we have advanced as a nation in part because of his dedication to these ideals and his success in codifying them.

Almost as admirable as his legislative accomplishments was the manner in which he legislated. In the 16 years that I served alongside Senator Pell, even when he was the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee under the chairmanship of a hard-charging Senator from the other end of the political spectrum, I never saw him speak or act with anything but kindness and integrity. In the course of six elections to the U.S. Senate, Senator Pell never once attacked a political opponent who ran against him. He was a true gentleman. He always sought out the better nature of people through discussion and debate. He held immense respect for the history of the Senate and the vocation of public service. He was the model of what a leader should be.

Paying tribute to his tremendous career is reason enough to come to the floor today, but I have also come to speak on a more timely matter. Senator Pell is to be recognized this Friday by a regimental review at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut.

Senator Pell served in the Coast Guard for 37 years, enlisting 4 months before the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He began as a ship's cook, but quickly received his commission and served as a lieutenant on boats in the North Atlantic and Sicily. During World War II, he was arrested six times by enemy governments. After the war ended, he served as a captain in the Reserves until he reached the mandatory retirement age.

Senator Pell frequently cited his service as one of the defining moments in his life. He has always been an ardent supporter of the Coast Guard--believing, as I do, that it plays a vital role in keeping America safe. As the Coast Guard honors Senator Pell's service this week, it is important that we remember the Coast Guard personnel who continue to risk their lives to maintain the safety and security of our Nation.

Over the past few weeks, Coast Guard crews, operating with characteristic precision and professionalism, have rescued over 33,000 people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. They have spent significant sums to do so--sums that were never contemplated to be spent for this purpose. Regrettably, however, none of the over $60 billion in aid that Congress recently sent to the Gulf coast region has been specifically set aside to replenish Coast Guard accounts. Their costs in both operations and reconstruction are estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are being forced to divert funds from continuing and future operations.

The men and women of today's Coast Guard are certainly vindicating Senator Pell's faith in and commitment to this branch of our military. By honoring their service--including by seeing to it that Coast Guard operations are fully supported by our Government--we honor the service of an outstanding leader, a great patriot, and a dear friend: Claiborne Pell. I wish him, his wife Nuala, and his family my best wishes on this wonderful occasion.

Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague and friend from Missouri. He is a tireless fighter and a persistent advocate. Under normal procedures we would not be adding a proposal such as this to an appropriations bill. Therefore, I must begin by expressing our sincere gratitude to the Chairman and the ranking Democrat of this subcommittee on appropriations for both of their willingness to accept an authorizing bill of this nature. Their willingness to accept what I think is a very sound and good proposal by the Senator from Missouri, myself, and others who have joined in this effort, is something for which we are very grateful. I thank them for their willingness to entertain this proposal and to accept it as an amendment to this bill.

There are those who would say this amendment is a case of ``too little, too late.'' In some ways they are right. Where is the justice, I suppose, when a moral monster such as Edgar Ray Killen roamed free for literally decades after killing young civil rights workers in this country? That fact alone speaks to the excusable failures of our legal system to bring to justice those who committed brutal crimes.

As the Senator from Missouri pointed out, not that many years ago these crimes were rarely investigated in parts of our country. There was no effort made whatsoever to determine who engaged in these brutal violent acts. In more recent history, of course, we have seen a strong effort. I applaud those who engage in this effort.

The Senator from Missouri and I believe there is a good justification for dedicating an adequate amount of resources with some special designation to go back and reopen the books. Those who engaged in these activities, who think they never have to worry another day in their lives about being pursued, take note--take note that you may never and should never have a sleep-filled night again, that we will pursue you as long as you live, that we will do everything in our power to apprehend you and bring you to the bar of justice.

That is the message we want to convey to the families, the friends, and others who lost loved ones, who put their lives on the line by advocating a greater justice, helping our Nation achieve that ``more perfect union'' that our Founders spoke about, that Abraham Lincoln articulated brilliantly more than a century and a half ago.

That is at the heart of all this--to try to level this field. We will never be a perfect union, but each generation bears the responsibility for getting us closer to that ideal.

America stands for the principle of equal justice for all. Yet for far too long, many Americans have been denied that equal justice, and many despicable criminals have not been held accountable for what they have done to deprive people of those equal opportunities. This is a failure we can never forget.

So this Senate, in this Congress, on this date, early in the 21st century, is saying that we will not forget. This amendment is on record. This amendment seeks to right the wrongs of the past and to bring justice to people who perpetrated these heinous crimes because of racial hatred. We are saying that we want to create the mechanism to allow us to pursue these wrongdoers in the coming years. It cannot bring back and make whole those who have suffered and were murdered by a racist criminal hand. But it can reaffirm our Nation's commitment to seek the truth and to make equal justice a reality.

The hour is, obviously, very late. Memories are dimming. Those who can bring some important information to the legal authorities are passing away. This amendment may be the last and best chance we have as a nation to write a hopeful postscript in the struggle for racial equality in our Nation.

We urge our friends in the House of Representatives, the other body, to accept this idea, to join with us in this late hour to right these wrongs done in our recent past.

Again, my compliments to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.