Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Baucus, Rockefeller, Salazar, Boxer and Kerry, the Summer of Service Act of 2006. This bill offers middle school students the chance to spend a summer in service to their communities as they transition into high school.

Summer of Service creates a competitive grant program that enables States and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It employs service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program also grants participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college.

Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it also provides significant benefits to the students who participate. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their lives in a positive way, avoiding risk behaviors, strengthening their community connections and become more engaged in their studies. When service is tied to what students are learning in school, they make gains on achievement tests, complete their homework more often, and increase their grade point average. Students who engage in service learning also improve their communication skills, gain increased awareness of career possibilities, and develop more positive workplace attitudes, setting the foundation for their place as America's future leaders. Studies also show that students who participate in community service are more likely to graduate high school and demonstrate interest in going to college.

We often hear today of the tremendous pressures our young people face at home, in school and in the afterschool hours. Summer of Service provides young people with the chance to be a positive change in their communities. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Summer of Service Act of 2006. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Baucus, Rockefeller, Salazar, Boxer and Kerry, the Summer of Service Act of 2006. This bill offers middle school students the chance to spend a summer in service to their communities as they transition into high school.

Summer of Service creates a competitive grant program that enables States and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It employs service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program also grants participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college.

Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it also provides significant benefits to the students who participate. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their lives in a positive way, avoiding risk behaviors, strengthening their community connections and become more engaged in their studies. When service is tied to what students are learning in school, they make gains on achievement tests, complete their homework more often, and increase their grade point average. Students who engage in service learning also improve their communication skills, gain increased awareness of career possibilities, and develop more positive workplace attitudes, setting the foundation for their place as America's future leaders. Studies also show that students who participate in community service are more likely to graduate high school and demonstrate interest in going to college.

We often hear today of the tremendous pressures our young people face at home, in school and in the afterschool hours. Summer of Service provides young people with the chance to be a positive change in their communities. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Summer of Service Act of 2006. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to explain why I voted against limiting debate on the Secure Fence Act of 2006 when that vote occurred last night.

In large measure my decision to vote against cloture was procedural. This Senate has had no opportunity to debate and amend the bill before us today. There are some very important amendments that our colleagues would have like to offer which now they cannot.

Those who do not understand Senate procedure might ask, how could that be possible? After all, hasn't this bill been the pending business of the Senate off and on for 6 days?

Let me explain. The Senate majority leader has, as is his right, used Senate procedures to block Senators from offering or voting on amendments. He has done what is called filling the amendment tree. Until the Senate voted last night to limit debate on this legislation, no vote was taken on any amendment to this bill. Now that cloture has been invoked, many otherwise pertinent and important amendments are no longer in order to this bill.

Unfortunately, that has been the pattern of conduct with respect to this legislation and others in this Congress. This bill was rushed through the House of Representatives on September 14. There were no Senate hearings on the matter, no committee input into the content of this bill. That is not the way this Senate ordinarily does business, and it is certainly not the best way to address legislation that is supposed to be improving our Nation's security .

The Senate already had a very serious and responsible debate on the subject of border security in the context of its deliberations of comprehensive immigration reform. We spent 9 days debating many amendments on that bill, including amendments related to the construction of fences along the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill ultimately adopted by the Senate provides for 370 miles of fencing in the most vulnerable high-traffic areas along the U.S.-Mexican border. That is what the administration requested and recommended. It also contained a very important requirement that Federal authorities first consult with those who will be most affected by construction of such a fence--relevant local, State, and Federal agencies on both sides of the border. I supported that legislation.

Why is it that the Senate is now being asked to consider a far less comprehensive approach to securing our country? Does anyone really believe that by simply building a fence, adding physical barriers, lights, cameras, and sensors along 730 miles of our southern border, we are somehow going to make our Nation secure? Do we really believe we can be secure without the cooperation of other governments, most especially our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico? And do we really believe that by unilaterally putting up barriers on our southern border and contemplating doing the same on the northern border, we are strengthening the will of Canada or Mexico to give us that cooperation?

Is the next step going to be building fences along the remaining 1,300 miles of our southern border and the more than 3,000 miles of our northern border? At what cost? The Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the current fence proposal at $3.2 million per mile of fence. Other estimates are even higher--$10 million per mile for some stretches of the fence. When you add in annual maintenance, the cost of the fence could exceed $1 billion. So are we prepared to spend another $5 billion to $6 billion or so to construct an additional 4,300 miles of fencing to complete the job?

In the meantime our immigration system is broken. More than 10 million undocumented aliens live among us but at the same time outside the legal structures of our Government creating additional economic and national security challenges which the comprehensive immigration bill passed by the Senate responsibly sought to address. The pending bill does not.

The House and Senate passed very different legislation related to comprehensive immigration reform and enhanced border security. The President endorsed the Senate-passed measure. What would usually be the next step in the legislative process would be for the House and Senate conferees to meet to reconcile the differences between the two bills. But that is not what has happened in this case.

Rather, the Republican leadership, in an effort to score political points, has rushed through this very minor bill authorizing the construction of fences on the southern border and mandating a study of the advisability of doing so on our northern border. They have blocked any serious debate or amendments to the pending matter, and once final passage occurs they will declare that our Nation is now secure.

That is why I felt strongly last night that we ought to have a real debate on the challenges to our Nation's security and consider relevant amendments that could address those challenges rather than rushing to judgment on the very simplistic and costly approach called for in this bill.

Mr. President, we do our citizens a real disservice when we let election year politics get in the way of the peoples business.

Unfortunatey, it will have to be left to a later date to do what would really enhance our Nation's security; namely, enact legislation to fix our broken immigration system.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations conference report. The Senate adopted this measure earlier today, and I supported it.

I would like to begin by thanking the principal Senate authors of this conference report: Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. I commend my colleagues and their staffs for the hard work they put into negotiating with the House of Representatives and crafting this report.

The conference report adopted by the Senate today funds our country's homeland security activities at $34.8 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. These activities include supporting national and regional emergency preparedness, first responders, and infrastructure protection. Taken together, these initiatives form the foundation upon which our country depends for its domestic security.

I feel compelled to speak today because notwithstanding the efforts of our colleagues and notwithstanding the adoption of this conference report, I have deep concerns about how this measure--like those that preceded it--funds our country's vital homeland security and emergency preparedness activities.

We all know that disasters--both natural and manmade--continue to threaten our Nation's domestic security and prosperity. As Hurricane Katrina tragically demonstrated last year and as the recent terrorist plot uncovered by British authorities to destroy U.S.-bound aircraft demonstrated last month, our domestic security--particularly our critical infrastructure--remains dangerously prone to exploitation and attack. In light of this unpleasant reality, one would think that the Congress of the United States would do everything it could to shore

up the foundation of our domestic security--to make it as impregnable as possible against the destructive forces of nature and man. Yet, as we look at the measure adopted by the Senate, I do not believe it does enough to protect Americans from natural disasters or acts of terrorism.

I believe that the most important activities for ensuring our domestic security include assisting local and regional emergency preparedness activities, supporting first responders, and protecting critical infrastructure. Taken together, these activities represent the backbone of our efforts to plan for, respond to, and prevent disasters on our soil. They encompass supporting firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians; they encompass fully protecting all of our ports and transit systems; and they encompass quickly and effectively responding to real or perceived threats in all parts of our country.

Over the past several years, experts in the national security and public health issues relevant to our first responders, critical infrastructure, and emergency preparedness have reported their domestic security needs. I would like to remind my colleagues that these are present needs--not future projected needs. For example, our firefighters have identified more than $4 billion needed each year for performing their critical duties safely and efficiently; our port authorities have identified $8.4 billion required for meeting increased Federal security requirements; and our transit systems have identified $6 billion needed for making our trains and buses safer for passengers.

Regrettably, the conference report adopted by the Senate continues a pattern of failure on the part of the present administration and leadership of Congress to adequately meet these needs. Under this measure, States receive $900 million from the State Homeland Security Grant Program--a $350 million increase over the fiscal year 2006 level but $250 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Our firefighters receive $662 million from the FIRE and SAFER grant initiatives--vital firefighter assistance grants that I was pleased to author with Senators DeWine, Warner, and Levin. This level of funding is $7 million above last year's level but $1.338 billion below the most recent combined authorization level. Our ports receive $210 million-- just over half of the amount authorized in the recently passed SAFE Ports Act, which I was pleased to support. Finally, our transit systems receive $175 million--a $25 million increase above last year's level. While we have taken steps to boost our domestic security since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our State and local governments largely remain inadequately prepared, our first responders spread too thin, and our critical infrastructure inadequately protected.

I would also like to discuss briefly another aspect of this conference report. In addition to funding the Department of Homeland Security for the upcoming fiscal year, the conference report makes significant administrative changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. Many of these changes codify recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission and various reports issued in the wake of the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

I would like to commend particularly the efforts of Senator Collins and my fellow colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in working with conferees to incorporate these reforms to FEMA into the conference report. In my view, these reforms promise ultimately to return FEMA to being better empowered to manage mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities with respect to natural and man-made disasters.

Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I did not mention some concerns I hold with respect to these reforms. More specifically, I remain concerned these reforms open the possibility for, but do not guarantee, input from all stakeholders involved with local, regional, and national emergency preparedness efforts. I am also concerned that these reforms do not offer, in my view, explicit guidelines with respect to resource sharing, capability standards, and compliance benchmarks. I believe that it is essential for FEMA, as it works to incorporate these reforms, to develop and implement proper regulations that ensure equal input from all local, regional, and national stakeholders, clear guidance on adequate local, regional, and national levels of investment, and clear direction on what activities need to be performed by local, regional, and national preparedness systems.

Mr. President, we continue to live in an age when the threat of harm to Americans on their own soil remains dangerously high. As world events continue to remind us, we must remain vigilant about our domestic security. We must proactively assess our weaknesses and proactively work to do all we can to eliminate those weaknesses. Put simply, the lives and the safety of all Americans hang in the balance.

On balance, I supported this legislation because the funding it appropriates does take important steps toward meeting some of our crucial domestic security needs. However, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming years to find and provide the resources necessary to make our Nation as safe and strong as it can possibly be.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Philip A. Johnson, of Enfield, CT, a heroic young man who lost his life serving his country in Iraq on September 2, 2006. He was 19 years old.

Lance Corporal Johnson, a member of the weapons company of the 3rd Battalion, Second Marine Division based at Camp Lejeune, NC, was killed along with one other marine when a roadside bomb detonated as their unit was traveling from Ramadi.

Philip Johnson was the consummate American patriot. He dedicated his life to the U.S. Marine Corps and took immense pride in serving his country. As a little boy, Philip dreamed of being a marine and wasted no time in pursuing his goal. He joined a youth education and service organization named the Westover Young Marines at the age of 11, where he attained the rank of staff sergeant and served as a role model for younger members. Many who knew him remember his lifelong love of the Marine Corps, but they also remember him as a focused and thoughtful young man with a drive to help people. Philip was active in his church and committed to his faith.

Above all, Philip was eager to serve his country, so shortly after graduating from Enfield High School in 2005 he fulfilled his childhood dream by enlisting in the Marine Corps. As a marine, he continued to exhibit the exceptional determination and focus that defined his youth. Philip attained the rank of lance corporal in less than a year, an impressive feat that speaks volumes about his dedication to the Marine Corps.

Philip Johnson was a model marine, prepared to fight America's worst enemies and deeply committed to both the Corps and our Nation. Lance Corporal Johnson and others like him have made the ultimate sacrifice so that their fellow Americans can live in peace and security, and for that, we should be eternally grateful.

So today I salute Philip Johnson for his unwavering commitment to our Nation and the principles for which it stands. He was a young man of exceptional integrity and will be greatly missed. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to his parents, Louis and Kathy, his sister, Jessica, and to all those who knew and loved him.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak in honor of U.S. Army PFC Nicholas Madaras, of Wilton, CT, who was killed in Iraq on September 3, 2006. He was 19 years old.

Private Madaras, a member of the 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, was fatally wounded when a bomb detonated near his dismounted patrol in Baqouba, Iraq.

A 2005 graduate of Wilton High School, Nicholas excelled both in the classroom and on the soccer field, where he started for 3 years and served as the team manager. Among the students, teachers, and coaches, he was known as a genuine person, one who led by example and cared about the people around him.

Nicholas enlisted in the Army shortly before graduation and arrived in Iraq in February of this year. He was proud to be a soldier and approached his assignment as a driver of a Humvee in a security escort with the same leadership and intensity that he brought to the soccer field. Despite the unimaginable hardships of war, Nicholas never lost his generous spirit. He persuaded his father to mail dozens of used soccer balls to his base because he could not stand to see the local children kicking tin cans. This act of kindness in the midst of cruelty and chaos clearly demonstrated the character of this exemplary young man.

PFC Nicholas Madaras was a patriot in the best sense of the word. He and others like him have given their lives in defense of our Nation's principles, and for that, all of us in Connecticut and across America owe them a deep debt of gratitude.

I salute Private Madaras for his tremendous service to our country, and wish to offer my deepest sympathies to his parents, William and Shalini, his sister Marie, his brother Christopher, and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. President, there has been much discussion and debate over the last 6 years on the best way to modernize the way we run Federal elections. As a result of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA, the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, a bipartisan independent agency, was created. One of the EAC's duties is to serve as a clearinghouse of election administration information for the use of election officials, the information of voters, and the good of our democracy.

The Election Assistance Commission has recently released four documents that serve as an overview on good election administration practices in preparation for the November 7 Federal elections. States are making the final push to implement the new election administration requirements enacted in HAVA which must be in place by November. As with any new Federal requirements, it is anticipated that there may be problems with new technologies, administrative failures, or human error. In light of some of the challenges faced by election officials in primaries over the last few weeks, these best practices guidelines are both timely and instructive for those who are responsible for conducting our Federal elections this fall.

The first document, ``Quick Start Management Guide for New Voting Systems,'' covers basic polling place planning and management operations for those jurisdictions that have recently purchased new voting equipment. This document includes recommendations on contingency plans, testing procedures, and security.

The second document, ``Quick Start Management Guide for Poll Workers,'' discusses best practices for recruiting, training, and retaining poll workers. These best practices include election day recommendations for establishing a dedicated phone line for poll workers and creating a troubleshooting guide for problems at the polls.

A third guide, ``Quick Start Management Guide for Voting System Security,'' discusses methods of assessing technological or procedural flaws in election security, and suggests protocols on how to improve the secure functioning of the elections process. These protocols include installing only certified software, implementing procedures and systems to control physical access to voting systems, and maintaining an inventory of all election materials.

Finally, the fourth guide, ``Quick Start Management Guide for Ballot Preparation/Printing and Pre-election Testing,'' provides recommendations for ballot preparation and logic and accuracy testing of systems. These best practices include testing all components of the system prior to election day, replacing all batteries before each election, and ensuring that all state laws and procedures for logic and accuracy testing have been followed.

These guides have been developed based on best practices used successfully by election officials across this Nation. While many jurisdictions may already be considering these procedures, I wanted to bring these guides to the attention of my colleagues in the hope that they will pass this information on to their state and local election officials for use in the November Federal elections.

These recommendations may not cover every potential election problem faced by poll workers and voters in the fall elections. State law in some jurisdictions may even preclude election officials from implementing some of these best practices. However, these documents raise potential issues for everyone involved in the elections process to consider, and offer concrete solutions to the challenging administrative problems that impact state and local election officials. Most importantly, these procedures can help ensure that every eligible American will have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in the November Federal elections.

The text of these four Quick Start Guides can be accessed on the Election Assistance Commission Internet Web site, http://www.eac.gov by following links to: Guide for New Voting Systems; Voting System Security Guide; Poll Workers Guide; and Ballot Preparation/Printing & Pre-Election Testing Guide.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Mary Bourdette, who passed away earlier this month after a 15-month struggle with ALS. My condolences go to Mary's family and the many friends and colleagues with whom she shared her spirit and commitment to social justice and making our country stronger through our families.

Mary is missed by me and so many others who had the honor to work with her as she championed the needs of those who have no voice in the political process. Our nation is truly better for Mary's 30 years of work on behalf of children and families.

Mary, who keenly understood the legislative process, combined her passion for good policy with a political pragmatism that yielded real results. She never lost sight of the important issues and built effective coalitions to guide important legislation to passage. Most notably, her focus on the children never wavered.

Her commitment, talent, and leadership improved the lives of countless Americans. I had the honor to have worked with her over the past 20 years on behalf of those among us with the greatest needs. Mary had an ability to get to the heart of the matter and move it forward. She was a driving force during the 3\1/2\ years we worked to win enactment of the child care and development block grant. She played a critical role in expanding the earned-income tax credit to help even more low-income families. She also helped to move forward important bills related to foster care and adoption. Her keen understanding of the technical Federal budget process benefited innumerable children and their families.

I am especially grateful for Mary's tireless work related to Head Start. During reauthorization of this important legislation in 1993, she was instrumental in the creation of Early Head Start that provided more comprehensive assistance to parents and their infants and toddlers. When the law was again reauthorized in 1998, Mary was there to ensure that it was further strengthened.

I applaud Mary's many accomplishments throughout her distinguished career. From the Legal Services Corporation to the Children's Defense Fund to the Child Welfare League of America to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, her dedication to helping the most vulnerable among us never wavered.

Mary Bourdette made enormous contributions and left all of us with much to protect and to build on in the future. We and the Nation's families are so grateful to Mary for her dedication and work to better the lives of our Nation's children.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to jump-start the chance for success in school for this Nation's low- income children. Today I am introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2006.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with additional time in kindergarten during the summer before and the summer after the traditional kindergarten school year, and help to ensure that more children enter school ready to succeed. The kindergarten year is an important time of transition for young children. It represents the first year of schooling for 98 percent of the children in the United States, and it marks the bridge between early childhood education and the primary grades of school.

Many may ask why an initiative that will give an extra four months of kindergarten to low-income children? The answer is simple. Because too many low-income children today enter kindergarten unprepared for the year ahead and many children from low-income families are constantly outperformed by their wealthier peers.

We can, however, do a better job of preparing less fortunate children for school. We can expose them to classroom practices and routines and the expectations for kindergarten behavior and protocol. We can introduce them to educational concepts and help them understand that classrooms have rules. We can expose them to literature, story time or circle time. We can help them understand that books are made up of printed words and that words are made up of individual letters. We can ask them questions to help develop their critical thinking skills, like what do you think will happen next in the story? We can offer them ``show and tell'' to develop their oral language skills and ability to speak out loud in sequential sentences. Simply put, we need to provide them with a solid foundation that allows them to enter school with the skills necessary to become strong students.

How does this translate into school readiness? About 85 percent of high-income children, compared to 39 percent of low-income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. About half the children of college graduates can identify the beginning sounds of words, but only 9 percent of the children whose parents didn't complete high school can recognize the beginning sounds of words. Low-income children often have a more limited vocabulary. By the time they are in first grade, children in low-income families have 5,000 word vocabularies. In contrast, children from more affluent families enter school with vocabularies of 20,000 words. These are significant discrepancies.

In the John Hopkins University report, ``Schools, Achievement, and Inequality: A Seasonal Perceptive,'' recommendations are made to improve the socioeconomic differences in the seasonality of children's learning over the school and summer months. The report that states during the summer, upper socioeconomic status (SES) children's skills continue to advance, but lower SES children's gains, on average, are flat. Pre-school and kindergarten can reduce the achievement gap associated with SES when children start first grade, but to help them keep up it requires extra resources and enrichment experiences. Summer education programs can build potential for economically disadvantaged children and their parents in support of academic development.

What we know from the research is that children can enter kindergarten better prepared to learn. We may not be able to close the gap between low-income children and their wealthier peers, but we can certainly narrow it considerably. This is what this legislation strives to do.

This legislation was named after Sandy Feldman who was a tireless advocate for children and public education who died last year after a long battle with cancer. Her commitment to social justice and her authority on urban education dates to her involvement with the civil rights movement.

Sandy rose from her position as second grade elementary school teacher to

become president of the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers. She also knew that all too often, we don't give our schools the resources they need to make all students' dreams come to fruition. Her focus on early childhood education led her to develop the concept for this legislation and it was Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure this would be a high quality initiative.

I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Durbin, Schumer, and Clinton. This bill is also supported by the American Federation of Teachers, the Parent Teacher Association, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, the Society for Research in Child Development, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Service Employees of International Union, National Head Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and Easter Seals. I urge my colleagues to join this effort and cosponsor the legislation. I encourage them to help give low-income children a jump-start on school success.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to jump-start the chance for success in school for this Nation's low- income children. Today I am introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2006.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with additional time in kindergarten during the summer before and the summer after the traditional kindergarten school year, and help to ensure that more children enter school ready to succeed. The kindergarten year is an important time of transition for young children. It represents the first year of schooling for 98 percent of the children in the United States, and it marks the bridge between early childhood education and the primary grades of school.

Many may ask why an initiative that will give an extra four months of kindergarten to low-income children? The answer is simple. Because too many low-income children today enter kindergarten unprepared for the year ahead and many children from low-income families are constantly outperformed by their wealthier peers.

We can, however, do a better job of preparing less fortunate children for school. We can expose them to classroom practices and routines and the expectations for kindergarten behavior and protocol. We can introduce them to educational concepts and help them understand that classrooms have rules. We can expose them to literature, story time or circle time. We can help them understand that books are made up of printed words and that words are made up of individual letters. We can ask them questions to help develop their critical thinking skills, like what do you think will happen next in the story? We can offer them ``show and tell'' to develop their oral language skills and ability to speak out loud in sequential sentences. Simply put, we need to provide them with a solid foundation that allows them to enter school with the skills necessary to become strong students.

How does this translate into school readiness? About 85 percent of high-income children, compared to 39 percent of low-income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. About half the children of college graduates can identify the beginning sounds of words, but only 9 percent of the children whose parents didn't complete high school can recognize the beginning sounds of words. Low-income children often have a more limited vocabulary. By the time they are in first grade, children in low-income families have 5,000 word vocabularies. In contrast, children from more affluent families enter school with vocabularies of 20,000 words. These are significant discrepancies.

In the John Hopkins University report, ``Schools, Achievement, and Inequality: A Seasonal Perceptive,'' recommendations are made to improve the socioeconomic differences in the seasonality of children's learning over the school and summer months. The report that states during the summer, upper socioeconomic status (SES) children's skills continue to advance, but lower SES children's gains, on average, are flat. Pre-school and kindergarten can reduce the achievement gap associated with SES when children start first grade, but to help them keep up it requires extra resources and enrichment experiences. Summer education programs can build potential for economically disadvantaged children and their parents in support of academic development.

What we know from the research is that children can enter kindergarten better prepared to learn. We may not be able to close the gap between low-income children and their wealthier peers, but we can certainly narrow it considerably. This is what this legislation strives to do.

This legislation was named after Sandy Feldman who was a tireless advocate for children and public education who died last year after a long battle with cancer. Her commitment to social justice and her authority on urban education dates to her involvement with the civil rights movement.

Sandy rose from her position as second grade elementary school teacher to

become president of the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers. She also knew that all too often, we don't give our schools the resources they need to make all students' dreams come to fruition. Her focus on early childhood education led her to develop the concept for this legislation and it was Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure this would be a high quality initiative.

I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Durbin, Schumer, and Clinton. This bill is also supported by the American Federation of Teachers, the Parent Teacher Association, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, the Society for Research in Child Development, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Service Employees of International Union, National Head Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and Easter Seals. I urge my colleagues to join this effort and cosponsor the legislation. I encourage them to help give low-income children a jump-start on school success.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are submitting a resolution designating the third week of October as ``National Character Counts Week.'' I have worked 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 not only this week but all year long.

In 1994, Senator Domenici and I first established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character education is about celebrating what's right with young people while enabling them to develop the knowledge and life skills necessary in order to embrace ethical and responsible behavior. 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 figuratively be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly provides the mortar. Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship are the six pillars of character. The standards of conduct that arise out of those values constitute the foundation of ethics, and therefore of ethical decision-making.

Character education looks like young people learning, growing, and becoming. It feels like strength, courage, possibility, and hope. Character education provides students a context within which to learn. If we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we will not only miss an opportunity, but will jeopardize our future.

Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 states in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. I'd like to take a moment to tell you about two programs in my home state of Connecticut.

At Jared Eliot Middle School in Clinton, CT, creating safe, welcoming schools where character matters is a high priority. Pillars showcasing the principles of high character greet everyone who enters the building and are a vivid reminder of the values embraced by the school community. This schoolwide effort is felt and lived by all who work and learn there.

Also, Old Saybrook Middle School, a recognized middle school of the year, is stellar in large part because of the ongoing schoolwide initiative to focus on efforts to create a school climate that celebrates individuals who exhibit high moral character and are engaged and connected to school. Parents are closely involved and support these efforts in uniquely high numbers. This dedicated school and its community work hard to build a positive community through its character education program, and has experienced great success socially and academically because of it.

Character education programs work. Schools across the country that have adopted strong 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. Young people yearn for consistent adult involvement, and when they get it, according to surveys, they are less inclined to use illegal drugs, vandalize or commit suicide. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education.

As all education policy should be, support of character education is bipartisan. This year we have cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Many of our country's leading educational and youth-serving organizations also actively support character education, including YMCA, 4-H, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Little League, the National Education Association and the National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Character education can and is being incorporated into children's lives in and outside of the classroom. It provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure our children's futures are bright and filled with opportunities and success. 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 would submit that character transcends religious, cultural, political,

and socioeconomic barriers. I believe our country is having a renewed focus on character and this sends a wonderful message to Americans, and will help those of us involved in character education reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved.

So today, Senator Domenici and I introduce a resolution to accomplish just that and hopefully our renewed effort will bring together even more communities to ensure that character education is a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.

Mr. President, America was attacked on September 11, 2001, by a ruthless enemy of our Nation. It is my strong belief, as I believe it is the belief of all of us in this Chamber, that those who are responsible for orchestrating this plot and anyone else who seeks to do harm to our country and citizens should be brought to the bar of justice and punished severely. On that I presume there is no debate whatsoever.

These are extraordinary times, and we must act in a way that fully safeguards America's national security. That is why I support the concept of military commissions: to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As we develop such means, we must also ensure our actions are not counterproductive to our overall effort to protect America at all levels.

The administration and the Republican leadership on this issue would have the American people believe--and this is the unfortunate point-- that the war on terror requires us to make a choice, both here in this Chamber and across the country, between protecting America from terrorism and the choice of upholding the basic tenets upon which our Nation was founded--but not both. This canard, in my view, has been showcased far too often.

I fully reject that reasoning. Americans throughout the previous 200 years have as well. We can and must balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice while at the same time protecting what it means to be an American. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage, but it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers established the legal framework of our country on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America's leaders knew this 60 years ago when they determined how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and persuasive voices at that time crying out for the summary execution of those men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men and women. After World War Two, our country was forced to decide whether the accused criminals deserved trial or execution.

There was an article written recently by Professor Luban, a professor at Georgetown University, titled ``Forget Nuremberg--How Bush's new torture bill eviscerates the promise of Nuremberg.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

He pointed out something that needs to be made clear. He said:

Make one thing crystal clear, it's the burning desire of

the United States to create international law using those

trials. Great Britain initially opposed the Nuremberg trials

and urged simply shooting top Nazis out of fear, they would

use the trials for propaganda. Stalin favored conducting

trials only to establish punishments, not guilt. Like Great

Britain, he thought punishing the top Nazis should be a

political, and not a legal, decision. The trials happened as

they did only because the United States insisted on them for

purposes of establishing future law--a task that summary

justice at executive say-so could never have done.

At the London conference that wrote the Nuremberg Charter,

France and Russia both objected to criminalizing aggressive

war for anybody but the Axis countries. But Supreme Court

Justice Robert Jackson, the American representative insisted

that creating universally binding international law was the

prime purpose of the tribunal.

And he prevailed in that argument.

The history is particularly poignant to me because my father, who served in this body, from whose desk I speak this morning, served as Robert Jackson's No. 2, as the executive trial counsel at Nuremberg. Mr. President, the Nuremberg trials rendered their first judgment 60 years ago. What an irony indeed that 60 years ago this Saturday, one of the great, if not the greatest, trials of the 20th century was taking us to a point where we are now codifying and moving to international law. The enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accusers, the right to confront evidence against them, the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this Nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised.

As we approach this 60th anniversary, I think it is important to reflect on the implications of the past as we face new challenges, new enemies, and new decisions. Much as our actions in the postwar period affected our Nation's standing in the world, so, too, do our actions in the post- 9/11 era.

The Armed Services Committee, and I have great respect for my friend, John Warner, decided not to rubberstamp the administration's legislation. Instead they worked in a bipartisan way to craft a more narrowly tailored approach. Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today is not the one that passed out of that committee. The bill before us today was worked out between several of our Republican colleagues and the White House and does not contain the improvements over the Bush administration's original proposal. I remain concerned about several provisions in the pending legislation.

The bill would strip detainees of their habeas corpus rights. The eloquent remarks of Arlen Specter yesterday should be read by everyone. This longstanding tradition of our country that is about to be abandoned here will be one of the great mistakes I think history will record. There are strong beliefs among Senators on both sides that this provision is not only inadvisable but flatly unconstitutional as well. We must do everything in our power to protect our country from threats to our national security, but it is also incumbent upon every one of us to protect the very foundation upon which our Nation was established. This legislation will not achieve those aims.

I support the efforts, certainly of those who are trying to improve this bill, but I wish to conclude these remarks by quoting Justice Jackson. Justice Jackson said at the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials:

We must never forget that the record on which we judge

these defendants today--is the record on which history will

judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned

chalice is to put it to our lips as well.

To rubberstamp the administration's bill, in my view, would poison one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. I urge my colleagues not to move in that direction.

Also, if I can, I wish to read from this article which was written by Mr. Luban, talking about the Nuremberg trials, because it is an important moment in our history. He said:

The Nuremberg trials presupposed something about the human

conscience: that moral choice doesn't take its cues solely

from narrow legalisms and technicalities. The new detainee

bill takes precisely the opposite stance: technicality now

triumphs over conscience, and even over common sense. The

bill introduces the possibility for a new cottage industry:

the jurisprudence of pain. It systematically distinguished

``severe pain''--the hallmark of torture--from mere

``serious'' pain--the hallmark of cruel and degrading

treatment, usually thought to denote mistreatment short of

torture. But then it defines serious pain as ``bodily injury

that involves . . . extreme physical pain.'' To untutored

ears, ``extreme'' sounds very similar to ``severe''; indeed,

it sounds even worse than ``severe.'' But in any case, it

certainly sounds worse than ``serious.''

Administration lawyers can have a field day in the coming years reading painful interrogation tactics on the Three Adjective Scale, leaving the rest of us to shake our heads at the essential lunacy of the enterprise.

It is about conscience. It is the fundamental principle which we enshrined and fought for. It was the United States of America that stood and insisted that our allies try to do something to avoid future conflicts, 60 years ago this Saturday. To watch the Senate, on the anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, step away from that great tradition, those great principles enshrined at that time, I think is one of the saddest days I have ever seen in this Senate in my almost 30 years serving in this body.

I hope my colleagues, with a few days to go before the election, put this aside. Let's come back afterward and think more clearly. Too much of politics is written into these decisions. This is the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

If I may respond to my colleague from Virginia, for whom I have the greatest respect, it is not only my love and affection for my father; more importantly, it is my love and affection for what he and a group of Americans did at a time when others said abandon the rule of law: They stood up at a time when it was tempting not to do so. World opinion certainly was against them in many ways. These were dreadful human beings. These people murdered millions, incinerated millions of people. Yet people such as my father and Robert Jackson and others stood up and said: No, we are going to be different than they are. The rule of law is so critically important to us that we want to show the civility of this great country of ours and how the last part of the 20th century can be conducted differently. It is not just my affection for my father; it is more the affection for what they did in

a moment, against public opinion, to set the gold standard and set us apart.

We have been known as the nation of Nuremberg. My fear is now we will be known as the nation of Guantanamo, and I worry about that.

If our colleague would yield, I do not disagree, but I don't think there is a choice between upholding the principles of America and fighting terrorism. Every generation of Americans will face their own threats. This is ours. Every previous generation faced serious threats, and they did not abandon the principles upon which this country is founded. I am fearful we are going to do that today.

Mr. President, food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know first-hand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies.

In the past 5 years, the number of Americans with food allergies has nearly doubled from 6 million to almost 12 million. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, today they rank 3rd among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years old. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life- threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies have doubled among school-age children from 1997 to 2002.

Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school-age children Nation-wide, and yet, there are no Federal guidelines concerning the management of life-threatening food allergies in our Nation's schools.

I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools--whether they get promoted or move to a different city. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe.

Last year, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the

prevention of life-threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. Other States, such as Massachusetts, have enacted similar guidelines. Tennessee school districts are poised to implement their statewide guidelines in July. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next.

In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform, Federal policies that school districts can choose to adopt and implement.

For this reason, my colleague, Senator Frist, and I introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2006 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. I thank Senator Frist for his hard work and commitment to this important legislation.

The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction.

Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the Federal Government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools.

I wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies.

I hope that my colleagues in the Senate and in the House will consider and pass this important legislation before the end of the year so that the Department of Health and Human Services can begin work on developing national guidelines as soon as possible. Schoolchildren across the country deserve nothing less than a safe and healthy learning environment.

Mr. President, I add my voice to my colleagues who have spoken and those who will speak in thanking our wonderful friend from Vermont for his remarkable service to our country.

I begin as well by thanking his family, Elizabeth and the children, as well as the people of Vermont, as Senator Kennedy has said so eloquently.

Let me also include in enumeration his wonderful staff people, over the years, who have been very much a part of Jim's family. In fact, I note from the interns to senior staff people, everyone refers to him not as ``Senator'' or ``Mr. Chairman''--but just ``Jim.'' That is certainly a symbol of the kind of relationship he has had with his constituents and with his family over the years.

I have had the privilege of serving my entire time in the Senate--in the Congress--with this remarkable person from Vermont. We arrived in the House of Representatives on the very same day, 32 years ago. As Jim pointed out, he had that neck brace on, and I had a head of black hair. We have aged over those 3 decades. But my respect for Jim Jeffords has only grown.

He has taught us America will listen to you even if your voice is soft. His achievements in the Senate and the House are the envy of all who wish to improve a quality of life in this great country of ours. Jim's body of work is truly admirable.

But it looks even more admirable when you remind yourself that it was all the doing of a man unpretentious enough to be fond of mismatched socks, frugal enough to spend his earliest days in Washington sleeping in a parked van, and humble enough to be universally known, as I've said, as just ``Jim.'' The people of Vermont returned him to office over and over again on the strength of his plainspoken integrity and his indefatigable Yankeeness. That's what Jim brought to this body of discussion; and that was more than enough.

Jim came to Washington knowing what he wanted to accomplish, and his success is clear to us today. No one has worked with more dedication for a clean environment. Jim was an environmentalist practically before we had a word for it. In fact, he got his start in the Vermont State Senate in the 1960s, fighting the efforts of the paper mills to pour sludge right into Lake Champlain. He was a long-time nuclear watchdog and among six Congressmen to found the Congressional Solar Coalition years ago. It is telling that when he had his pick of chairmanships, Senator Jim Jeffords chose the Environment and Public Works Committee. Perhaps most importantly, he helped clean up the air we breathe. He mentioned it briefly. But the work of John Chafee, George Mitchell, and Jim Jeffords truly created the great Clean Air Act of 1990, a huge accomplishment. I want to thank Jim immensely for the tremendous effort he made years ago in improving the quality of air in this country. If he had done nothing else in 32 years, that alone would have been a significant achievement. Of course, his body of work is far more than that.

Like Jim's dedication to the environment, his work for children who come from special education needs is decades long. In 1976, he was essential to the passage of legislation guaranteeing local school districts that the Federal Goverment would pay 40 percent of the costs of educating the disabled. And if that guarantee remains unfunded today, never let it be said that it was for lack of Jim's passionate work.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention of Tom Harkin, another fellow classmate of 1974, working with Jim and many others who cared about this issue over the years. No one contributed more to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act than Jim Jeffords. Few Senators are as tied to special education, and that is a title to be very proud of. It has been my honor to work along with him in the House and the Senate on the issues that meant the most to him--on afterschool programs, on higher education, and, most especially, to secure funding for IDEA.

It Vermont, commitment to education is a longstanding tradition. Right in the middle of the Civil War, we building the dome on the Capitol to show our determination to keep this Union together; but we showed it in another way, too. A Senator from Vermont by the name of Justin Smith Morrill created the land grant colleges--the University of Connecticut is one; there are many all across the country--and his work was one more demonstration of the remarkable people who come from that State of Vermont to help build this country, defend this country, and secure this country for our children. Senator Stafford and Morrill passed on that proud tradition, and Senator Jeffords stands in its forefront today.

Jim has taught at every opportunity the difference between education as a privilege and education as a right. It is a right, and its worth is measured in our willingness to educate even--especially--where it is inconvenient.

There weren't many Senators shyer than Jim Jeffords, but there wasn't a single one fuller of quiet purpose and courage. Politics was always a means to Jim's purpose--never the other way around. And the way Jim practiced politics, the way he spent his power, was never calculated to bring him money, or fame, or even particularly glamour. It was only the quiet satisfaction of a job very well done.

That is what I think of when I recall the more than three decades of our service together. But, to tell the truth, through all those 30 years I had a privileged seat right here with him. Those without that vantage point are probably going to remember, first of all, something very different. We all know how Jim crossed this aisle for good 5 years ago, and how he has served as an an Independent ever since. Jim entered the national spotlight full of honest regret, and fully aware of how difficult his choice was for colleagues, his staff, and his supporters.

I saw Jim upclose as he struggled with a decision as few men or women ever have to. But whatever one thinks of it, there is a fact beyond dispute, which all of us appreciate in this body: Jim Jeffords has never followed anyone but his conscience.

If we insist, 5 years later, on reasoning out the need in votes or dollars or any other measure of practicality, we only reveal our failure to understand what that man did on the day he made his choice. Sometimes what goes on in this Chamber cannot be reasoned away. Jim taught us that, too.

So, I would like to close with a happy thought. Two years before the American Revolution, Edmund Burke gave a speech on the relationship between a representative and those whom he tries to represent.

``It is his duty,'' said Burke, ``to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence.''

Jim, you have kept your trust over these many years, in both the Senate and public life, in your State and in the Congress. We send you back to Vermont with your work in the Senate accomplished, with your conscience still clean, and with our best wishes to you and your lovely family. God bless you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Governor Ann Richards, who died last week at the age of 73.

Humor is one of the chief democratic virtues. A good joke can wipe out differences of rank, bring down the self-exalted, and join audience and speaker in a common bond. A sense of humor is an especially priceless quality in a political leader because it exposes the pretensions that always seem to accumulate around the state, and it reminds us that we are still a people's government.

Governor Richards is being remembered this week as an innovative leader, a pioneer for women, and, I might add, one tough cookie. But we should also take a moment, on the occasion of her sad death, to remember something else we have lost--her wonderful sense of humor. And if we could take a positive thing from her passing, it might be that we have had the opportunity to remind ourselves of all the many times she made us laugh. We all remember Ann's remark that ``Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did--she just did it backwards and in high heels.'' And we all treasured her earthiness--for instance, when she allowed that she regretted her 1994 election defeat ``Oh, for about five seconds.''

Of course, there have always been people who have found a sense of humor threatening, especially when it is in their idea of the wrong hands. As Texas columnist Molly Ivins said of the Governor, ``I mean, with Ann it was a real problem. . . . They just did not know what to make of her. . . . If they realize that a woman can be funny, I think men are afraid that tone can be used against them. And they don't like it.''

The truth is that Ann Richards--the first woman to be elected Governor of Texas in her own right--had to fight against bias her whole political life. At every stage, she was more than a match. In the early 1960s, Ann was forced to help found the North Texas Democratic Women ``basically to allow us to have something substantive to do.'' And asked at the end of her long career why she had entered politics, Ann replied: ``I did not want my tombstone to read, `She kept a really clean house.''' Instead of accepting others' ideas of what was best for her, Governor Richards opened her own path--and everyone who follows her, in Texas and in every other State, owes her thanks.

But there is another danger to humor. As she wrote in her 1989 autobiography, ``I was always worried because there is a general feeling that if you're funny you're not serious.'' That pressure is particularly acute for a politician. But Ann taught us all that laughter draws on great honesty and insight--that depth and humor can exist in the same spirit. ``Humor is a powerful tool,'' she continued. ``It clears the air. Once you laugh, your mind is opened and then you are able to hear the other things that are being said to you.''

Governor Richards showed her depth in 4 years of successful policies in Texas. She presided over the dramatic growth of her State's economy, and her audits on the State bureaucracy saved taxpayers $6 billion. She reformed Texas's prison system, pursued a truly egalitarian policy for education funding, and saw a dramatic increase in student achievement scores on her watch. And through all of her success, Governor Richards never forgot the prejudice she had faced--and so she worked tirelessly to include members of marginalized groups in the people's work. Ann Richards appointed more women and minorities than any of her predecessors. She was responsible for the first crime victim on the State Criminal Justice Board, the first disabled member of the human services board, the first teacher to chair the State board of education, the first Black regent at the University of Texas, and the first Black and female officers in the elite Texas Rangers.

And while many ex-politicians have a habit of fading into the sunset, Ann remained a dynamo. She worked in international law, taught at Texas and Brandeis, continued to write, and campaigned for members of her party across the country, right to the end--in fact, I am sure many of us in this Chamber owe Ann thanks for her help on the stump. What Ann accomplished after leaving the Governor's mansion could have been a full career for someone less ambitious or full of life. And her 2004 book had an exceedingly apt title--``I'm Not Slowing Down,'' a phrase that embodied the energy and Texas doggedness we loved in her.

It took cancer to stop Ann Richards. And though she has gone, we will remember her as one of the great political characters of the 20th century. We will miss her boldness and her silver tongue. But we will remember what she taught us over a five-decade life in politics: Jokes don't just make us laugh. They force us to see more clearly and sympathize more fully; and they bring us a little closer to the state of equality that is the whole reason our Nation is.