Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in honor of U.S. Marine Corps Corporal Jordan C. Pierson, of Milford, CT, who was killed in Iraq on August 25, 2006. He was 21 years old.

Corporal Pierson, a member of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, died from hostile gunfire while on foot patrol in Fallujah, Iraq.

Corporal Pierson joined the U.S. Marine Corps in December 2003, just a few months after graduating from Joseph A. Foran High School in Milford. He was adamant about his decision to join the Marines. As a young man who loved the military from an early age, Jordan found his calling in the principles and discipline of the Marine Corps. He postponed his studies at the University of Connecticut, where he was taking courses in business and psychology, to serve in Iraq. During his deployment he was wounded by shrapnel from an insurgent grenade and was awarded the Purple Heart. After treatment at Camp Fallujah, he bravely returned to combat, exhibiting great dedication to his fellow marines and his Nation.

Jordan's positive spirit and selflessness were an inspiration to all those around him, whether friends, family, or the men and women he served with in the Marine Corps. He represented the very best features of American patriotism. Among his fellow marines, his enthusiasm was contagious, and he often reminded them of the difference they were making in Iraq. To his childhood friends, he was a refuge in times of trouble and a constant source of entertainment. Never forgetting about the family he left behind, Jordan sent money home every month without ever being asked.

People like Corporal Pierson make it possible for us to live each and every day in freedom, peace, and security. They have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens and our Nation, and we must never forget their heroic service.

So today I salute the courage and commitment of U.S. Marine Corporal Pierson, a young man who lived his life to the fullest and died fulfilling the noblest of callings, defending our Nation and the values we hold dear. I offer my deepest sympathies and support to his parents, Eric and Beverley, his brother Ethan, and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I, along with 42 cosponsors, are submitting a concurrent resolution with the House designating October 12, 2006 as Lights On Afterschool Day. Lights on Afterschool is a national celebration of afterschool programs, designed to promote the critical importance of afterschool in the lives of America's children, families, and communities. This year alone, we expect over 1 million Americans to participate in this important celebration.

Quality afterschool programs keep kids safe, help working families, and improve academic achievement. It has been demonstrated that children in afterschool programs show greater interest in school, learn new skills, exhibit improved behavior and get better grades than their peers. Afterschool programs also build stronger communities by involving our students, parents, business leaders and adult volunteers in the lives of our young people, thereby promoting positive relationships among children and adults.

In America today, more than 28 million children have parents who work outside the home. As many as 15 million of these children have no place to go after school and consequently are missing out on important opportunities to learn and grow. Two-thirds of Americans say that it is difficult to find programs in their communities and that not enough programs are available.

In our work on the Senate Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have been working for more than a year to impress upon our colleagues the importance of afterschool and are proud to say that 34 of our colleagues have joined the Caucus to date. We hope that they, along with other Members of the Congress, will join us on October 12th to celebrate the importance of afterschool programs in their communities back home.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank our colleague from Arkansas for her eloquent comments both about rural America as well as on our wonderful friend, Ann Richards. I want to add my voice of condolence to her family and friends, not only in Texas but across this great country of ours, because she had friends that reached all across this land of ours--in fact, beyond the shores of the United States in her work after she left public life, working in the private sector as a great representative of a number of interests, including some that were offshore.

She was a remarkable person, and Senator Blanche Lincoln has captured her very, very well. There are so many things I remember about her. She was a strong-willed woman. She had definite and clear views, and she was not shy about expressing them to you. But she probably had one of the best senses of humor of anyone I ever met in American politics. She could make you laugh. She could take a situation and bring up an anecdote or a story to make her point that would bring the house down.

Regardless of your point of view, Ann Richards had a gift to communicate with the American public like few other people I have ever met in public life. And it was a gift because she did so many good things with her talents.

Both as the State Treasurer of Texas and as Governor of that State, I got to know her very well, when I was the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee. She was a tremendous source of help to me in those years of 1995 and 1996 when I was campaigning and supporting Democrats across the country.

But her politics transcended partisan politics. She was beloved and admired and cared for by people of all political stripes and colors in this country. She will be sorely missed. But as Senator Lincoln said, the memories of her are going to linger on for an awful long time. Every time you mention her name, a smile comes to your face because she brought many smiles many times on the countless occasions I heard her address audiences across the country.

I thank Senator Lincoln and others who have spoken about her. I do not have prepared remarks, but I just wanted to express my feelings about this wonderful person.

Mr. President, I want to spend a couple minutes talking about Darfur as well. I know my colleague from Kansas addressed this issue. I know my colleague, Senator Durbin, as well, has been working on this issue for a long time. Many of us have been watching this situation. Senator Barack Obama, I know, cares about this issue. And many members of the Foreign Relations Committee have talked about it. We heard Senator Boxer, a moment ago, talk about her deep concern.

There is a tremendous amount of interest about what is happening and great concern. It is the moral responsibility of nations around the globe to help end the genocide in Darfur.

Even as we speak here this afternoon, in the closing days of this week's work, we are moving backwards in Sudan. Earlier this week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan sounded the warning that Darfur is about to enter a new phase of needless bloodshed and suffering on a catastrophic scale. I do not think we ought to let this happen. It is not just our responsibility but certainly the United States should and can take a leadership role here in marshaling the forces to stop the events as they unfold to these poor, poor people who are caught in this dreadful situation.

The blame lies squarely, of course, first and foremost, with the Sudanese Government's intransigence and murderous Darfur policy. Since February of 2003, when rebel groups attacked government outposts, the Sudanese Government has used the janjaweed militia to systematically decimate tribal groups of African descent in Darfur.

The warfare has exacted a tragic toll. Men, women, and children have been slaughtered in front of their families. Women and girls are regularly raped. Entire villages are routinely destroyed and property looted by marauding militias.

Estimates suggest that the conflict in Darfur has killed as many as 300,000 people and driven 2.5 million people out of their homes. The United States has rightly labeled the Sudanese Government's actions ``genocide.''

I remember, with great clarity, former Secretary of State Colin Powell appearing before a Senate committee on which I served calling the actions in Darfur genocide, loudly and clearly. And I commend him for it. He was one of the earliest voices to do so. We know what the word ``genocide'' means and its full ramifications.

Yet there was a glimmer of hope for the violence to end in May of this year with the conclusion of a peace agreement brokered in large part by the United States. The agreement called for a cessation of hostilities between the Sudanese Government and one of three major rebel groups in Darfur.

But it is time to face the facts in Darfur. The peace is over. In fact, it never really had a chance. Hostilities between the government and the other two rebel groups never ended and are

heating up again fast in that part of the world. Thousands of Sudanese troops are massing for a fresh offensive against rebel groups. The International Rescue Committee has noted an upswing in sexual violence around refugee camps.

Meanwhile, from the very beginning, the Sudanese Government has thrown up obstacle after obstacle after obstacle in the path of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

A New York Times report earlier this week describes these obstacles and the mission's lack of funding and authority in Darfur. A telling example is that every evening, the African Union soldiers have to turn over control of the main military airstrip in Darfur to government troops. These troops steal jet fuel from the mission and use the strip to launch attack helicopters while the African Union troops stand by helplessly. Sudanese officials have also managed to reduce the mission's already limited patrols and humanitarian efforts in Darfur.

The mission's courageous yet failing efforts to maintain the peace led the United Nations to issue Security Council Resolution 1706 on August 31 of this year. This resolution calls for the deployment of a more robust, 20,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force.

Yet precisely because such a U.N. force would have teeth, Sudan's President has rejected it on the grounds of sovereignty. This is a flimsy excuse. There are nearly 10,000 U.N. troops stationed in southern Sudan to maintain a separate peace agreement. And now the Sudanese Government has asked African Union troops to leave by September 30--a few short days from today--when the mission's mandate expires, unless they are able to raise additional funds.

It is all too clear that the Sudanese Government is not interested in peace in Darfur. And why should it be? Sudan has friends like Russia and China who place a far greater premium in their commercial interests in the Sudan rather than on their responsibility to stop this genocide. In 2005, China purchased more than half of Sudan's oil exports, and is one of its largest suppliers of arms. Both countries, Russia and China, abstained in the most recent vote on deploying U.N. troops. They continued to give political cover to the Sudanese Government.

Yet it is also clear that the United States and the international community have a responsibility to protect and prevent genocide in Darfur. The world's heads of state affirmed this precise commitment last September as part of the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The document calls on the international community to protect people from ``genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity'' on a case- by-case basis should their own governments fail to do so.

What could be more clear? What could be more precise? What could be more important for us to respond to?

The case for Darfur is painfully clear. And yet a year after making this commitment, we and the rest of the international community are already on the verge of reneging on it. Our ability to act remains hostage to a government that continues to perpetrate terrible crimes on its own people.

Yet instead of tightening the screws on this government, our administration, the administration here in the United States, unfortunately, is not doing what it ought to be doing. We are dangling the incentives of talks with President Bush before the Sudanese President in exchange for his accepting a U.N. force. It is almost unbelievable.

The administration refuses to talk directly to Iran and North Korea about their nuclear programs. And yet here it is bandying Presidential talks with the head of a regime that our own Government has declared guilty of genocide.

This is typical, unfortunately, of the administration's bumbling approach to diplomacy. It simply does not know when to talk and when to brandish the stick. Clearly, the stick is necessary here. Days and hours stand between us and an incredible mass of genocide.

The fact is, we need to take a harder approach on Sudan. So what can we do from here on? How do we ratchet up the pressure on the Sudanese Government and get it to stop?

First, I think the United States needs to expedite the appointment of a special envoy to Darfur.

Let me add, by the way, Senator Brownback mentioned Bob Zoellick. He did a fantastic job, by the way, but he is out of government now. He is in the private sector. Unfortunately, we do not have a Bob Zoellick within the administration right now who understands it and cared about this issue to the extent he did. But I believe there are people who could be asked to perform this appointment of a special envoy from the United States. That might be enough in the short term, to begin to put the brakes on.

I recently joined colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush calling for his immediate attention. With the departure of Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, who played a very important role in negotiating the May peace agreement, a vacuum has emerged that needs to be immediately filled to ensure a coordinated, focused, and effective policy.

Our Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs was made to wait 3 days--3 days--before meeting with Sudan's President, only to hear him reject the U.N. force. This special envoy must be someone of greater stature and seniority who can command an audience and forcefully convey a message. Moreover, the envoy and President Bush himself must, in concert with our allies, publicly reject Sudan's demand that African Union troops leave and insist on the deployment of U.N. forces.

Secondly, the United States needs to convince states like China and Russia and the Arab League to apply pressure on the Sudanese Government to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force. Unless Sudan feels the heat from its business partners and friends, my fear is they will not budge.

Thirdly, the United States needs to ensure that the United Nations moves forward with deploying a peacekeeping force. Should Sudan continue to put up a wall, then I think we must implement a tight sanctions regime against the Sudanese Government, rebel forces, and others responsible for the atrocities that are being committed there.

We must also consider deploying troops regardless of Sudanese consent. For many this may raise a red flag, but, again, it is an international commitment and a moral obligation agreed to under U.N. auspices.

Should the U.N. fail to rapidly muster the requisite troops, I believe we ought to deploy an interim NATO force with U.S. participation to Darfur. At a minimum, NATO forces, which already provide logistical support to the African Union mission, should enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591 to prevent military flights over Darfur.

U.S. participation, even in a limited capacity, is critical to showing the world that the U.S. is not just about fighting terrorism when it serves our interests but also about fighting injustice, terrorism and mass murder when it affects others far away from us; that the U.S. will fight for the principles of respect for human dignity and life, and not just lecture others about them.

Fourth, despite this administration's absurd rejection of International Criminal Court, the ICC can and must play a critical role in bringing to justice those responsible for committing genocide in Sudan. Last March, Darfur became the first-ever case to be referred by the U.N. Security Council to the International Criminal Court for investigation.

The U.S. unconscionably abstained on this vote. My country abstained. When it comes to conducting an investigation of the Sudanese Government for what our own Secretary of State has called genocide, we abstained.

And we wonder why public opinion of the United States around the world is dipping. One reason is because the administration talks the talk but does not walk the walk when it comes to upholding our Nation's principles. From military tribunals that don't allow due process of law to warrantless surveillance, the administration simply thinks it is above domestic and international law. Its doublespeak continues to squander our country's political and moral authority. The U.S. needs to lend its full support to the ICC's efforts to bring to justice those found guilty of genocide in Sudan.

Mr. President, 12 years after Rwanda--and I am glad my colleague from California raised Rwanda, and Senator

Brownback has as well, along with others in this body--we remain haunted by the massacre which occurred. Former President Bill Clinton publicly expressed his deepest regret at the U.S. and the international community's collective inaction to stop the killings in Rwanda. Twelve years from now, none of us in this body or the administration want to be forcing the same regrets about Darfur.

Yet, if we fail that--and it is not a matter of weeks or months, it is a matter of hours--then the very kinds of genocidal mass murder that occurred in Rwanda will continue to occur in Darfur and grow worse.

Sudan has been wracked by four decades of violence and instability. The scars of that war cut deep throughout their country. Currently, it is experiencing what the U.N. has described as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis. We stood by during Rwanda. We cannot stand by this time. We must not let history repeat itself. We must act. The international community has a responsibility to protect and the U.S. must lead by example. Let us not fail this time.

I yield the floor.

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 I be allowed to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, at this moment in history our Nation faces enormous challenges from terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories, Sudan's Darfur region, Iran, North Korea, Syria, HIV/AIDS, global health generally, climate change, energy security, and the list seems endless. These are all important issues that call out for important action and leadership from the United States.

America's capacity to respond to this global clarion call has been seriously circumscribed, in my view, by the Bush administration's preemptive war of choice in Iraq--circumscribed militarily, politically, and economically. The options have become fewer since March 19, 2003, as the world has become more dangerous, and the reputation and global standing of the United States has become weaker.

Our friends know this. More importantly, so do our adversaries, apparently.

That is why it is imperative that we make the most of the options still available to respond to these challenges. Diplomacy is one of the few options that remain available with a reasonable political and minority pricetag. As John Kennedy said so eloquently more than 45 years ago, this Nation should never fear to negotiate but never negotiate out of fear. It is going to take effective and pragmatic diplomacy to build the kinds of international partnerships and coalitions to address the challenges that confront us so that America can feel safe and be safer and more secure.

While the United Nations isn't the only forum for the conduct of that diplomacy, it is very clear that President Bush has placed much more reliance on the United Nations Security Council in his second term in office than he certainly did in the first. Be it Iran, North Korea, Darfur, or Lebanon, the United States has turned to the Security Council to respond to humanitarian crises and other threats to international peace and stability.

That is why, more than at any other time in recent years, since the founding of the United Nations, that it matters who sits in the United States chair on that Council. In my view, Mr. John Bolton does not fit the bill.

Based on information developed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year from unprecedented committee testimony by former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford and more than 30 staff interviews of then-current and former colleagues of Mr. Bolton in the Bush administration--in the Bush administration, I might add--the Senate made the decision not to act on that nomination.

Carl Ford and 12 of those interviewed were extremely critical of Mr. Bolton, including retired COL Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary Powell; Thomas Fingar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; former Deputy Director of the CIA, Stuart Cohen; and Robert Hutchings, former acting head and head of the National Intelligence Council, respectively; and Jamie Miscik, former Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA.

These are not light people; these are serious people, all of whom served in the Bush administration. Here is what some of them had to say about this nomination. Again, these were Bush appointees, people who served in the Bush administration. Listen to Carl Ford, the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Mr. Bolton is a ``quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.''

Mr. Bolton has ``a bigger kick and it gets bigger and stronger the further down the bureaucracy he's kicking.''

Mr. Bolton is a ``serial abuser.''

I have never seen anyone quite like Secretary Bolton--

doesn't even come close. I don't have a second and third or

fourth in terms of the way that he abuses his power and

authority with little people.

I consider myself to be a loyal Republican and conservative

to the core. I'm a firm and enthusiastic supporter of

President Bush and his policies, and I'm a huge fan of Vice

President Cheney, who I worked with when he was Secretary of

Defense.

With respect to the Bolton's treatment of Westermann, Mr. Ford went on:

The attitude, the volume of his tone, and what I

understand, the substance of the conversation, he was so far

over the line that he meets--he's one of the sort of

memorable moments in my 30-plus-year career [in public

service for the Federal Government.]

Again, this is a Bush appointee about whom we are talking.

Listen further. Larry Wilkerson, lieutenant colonel, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in a telephone interview, Lieutenant Colonel Wilkerson said:

Do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the

United Nations? Absolutely not.

He is incapable of listening to people and taking into

account their views.

He would be an abysmal ambassador.

Listen further to Mr. Wilkerson:

I differ from a lot of people in Washington, both friend

and foe of Under Secretary Bolton, as to his ``brilliance.''

I didn't see it.

I saw a man who counted beans, who said ``98 today, 99

tomorrow, 100 the next day,'' and had no willingness--and, in

many cases, no capacity--to understand the other things that

were happening around those beans. And that is just a recipe

for problems at the United Nations.

Lastly, Mr. McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the CIA, responding to a question as to whether other policymakers had sought to remove CIA analysts:

No. This is the only time I had ever heard of such a

request . . . I reacted strongly to it. I didn't think it was

appropriate.

I will return to that particular point in a few minutes, this idea of attempting to fire intelligence analysts.

These are just some of the quotes, again, of people who served in the Bush administration commenting on the nomination of John Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations.

There have been some excellent U.S. representatives to the United Nations over the years: Henry Cabot Lodge, Adlai Stevenson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or former colleague Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Richard Holbrooke, just to name a few. Each and every one of these individuals possessed a certain skill and ability to work with others, our adversaries as well as our friends, in order to stretch the U.N. as an institution in ways that supported U.S. interests. None of them were shrinking violets, to put it mildly.

It is very clear that Mr. Bolton does not possess that skill set. Over the years, Mr. Bolton evidenced great skepticism and disdain for the United Nations and multilateral diplomacy generally.

Nothing he has said or done since assuming his current position in New York suggests that he has altered his views on the United Nations or on multilateral diplomacy generally.

Once again, it is those who have worked most closely with him who are his biggest critics. More than 30 ambassadors with whom Mr. Bolton serves at the United Nations--all supportive of U.N. reform--questioned his leadership abilities.

In a July 21, 2006, New York Times article, one U.N. colleague characterized Mr. Bolton as ``intransigent and maximalist.'' Another suggested that Mr. Bolton's ``high ambitions are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving the United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it.'' A third has essentially written off working with Mr. Bolton. ``He's lost me as an ally now, and that's what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the United States are saying.''

Mr. Bolton's response to a question posed by Senator Coleman at his July nomination hearing was stunning to me. Our colleague, Norm Coleman, asked the following question:

Mr. Coleman. You knew the organization, you were involved

in it, then you were on the outside. Now you're there. Is

there--has your impression of the U.N. changed? Has there

been anything that surprised you in the last year?

Mr. Bolton. Not really.

That is a response of an individual who is so entrenched in his views that he is incapable of the kind of openness and flexibility that I think most in this Chamber believe is essential if the United Nations Security Council is going to be made to work to serve our interests around the globe.

Mr. Bolton clearly has an aversion to being diplomatic. He has even been called a bully by some of his harshest critics. Mr. Bolton's personality is really not the issue as far as I am concerned. There are a lot of bullies in this town, and I suspect in New York as well. My objection isn't that he is a bully, but that he has been an ineffective bully. He can't win the day for the United States when it really counts. He isolates the United States rather than builds consensus around U.S. positions.

Mr. Bolton showed his colors, in my view, as soon as he arrived in New York after receiving his recess appointment last August 2005. After the U.S. mission had worked for months to negotiate a 2-year reform effort that was to be endorsed by President Bush and other heads of State 2 weeks later, Mr. Bolton almost destroyed the consensus

around the document by tabling 705 separate amendments to the text. It took the involvement of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to cobble the agreement back together at the last minute at a price of losing some of the provisions that the United States had sought be included with respect to management reforms.

The Bush administration has made the ongoing crisis in Darfur a key concern. Yet when in June of this year members of the Security Council visited the Sudan to send a signal to the Government of Khartoum that it was on the wrong track, Mr. Bolton thought it more important to travel to London to deliver a U.N. bashing speech to a private think tank rather than join his colleagues on a visit to Sudan and carrying on a message of how important we think the genocidal behavior is.

On another occasion, prior to a vote last July on a U.N. Security Council resolution intended to sanction North Korea for its provocative Fourth of July missile launches, Mr. Bolton publicly assured anyone who would listen that he could get support for a resolution with teeth, with the so-called chapter 7 obligations. It turns out he couldn't. The resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council fell far short of that.

Last September, Mr. Bolton told the House International Relations Committee that the negotiation of an effective Human Rights Council was a key objective of the United States and that it was a ``very high priority, and a personal priority of mine.''

There were 30 negotiating sessions held to hammer out the framework of this new Human Rights Council, and Ambassador Bolton managed to attend just one or two of those sessions.

In the end, the United States was one of four countries to vote against the approval of the U.N. Human Rights Council.

When the tally is taken on how effective Mr. Bolton has been at the U.N., in my view he gets a failing grade overall.

These are key positions that help to strengthen the United States, and yet in case after case, from reform, to Darfur, to North Korea, to the U.N. Human Rights Council--critical issues to strengthen the United States--our ambassador has failed in getting the kind of results that are critically important.

But there is more.

On the basis of those issues, I urge my colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton, but I am going to go a step further because I believe other actions taken by Mr. Bolton are so outrageous that Mr. Bolton does not even deserve a vote, in my view.

There is Mr. Bolton's well-documented attempts to manipulate intelligence to suit his world view and seek the removal of at least two intelligence analysts who wouldn't play ball. When these analysts refused to support intelligence conclusions not supported by available intelligence, Mr. Bolton mounted a concerted effort to have them fired. The fact they were not removed does not excuse his actions.

I don't mind a heated debate. I don't mind people having serious disagreements with conclusions. But when you attempt to fire lower level employees who are responsible for gathering intelligence for the United States because you don't like their results, that is dangerous business indeed.

I do not care in which administration you may serve. Any individual, in my view, who attempts to doctor evidence to fire people whose conclusions they disagree with when it comes to intelligence gathering does not deserve to be promoted to the high position of ambassador to the United Nations.

His behavior, in my view, endangers our national security because it goes to the very heart of what we depend upon to protect that security--unbiased professional intelligence collection and analysis. Mr. Bolton stepped away and he stepped over the line and committed an offense so grievous, in my view, it warrants that this Senate deny him an up-or-down vote on his nomination.

In concluding, Mr. President, I return to the point I made earlier; namely, that Mr. Bolton has largely burned his bridges with his colleagues in New York and is not likely to be an effective diplomat when his diplomacy is increasingly becoming the coin of the realm in protecting and advancing U.S. interests at this very unstable moment in this country.

Fifty nine former U.S. Ambassadors and diplomats who have served in five administrations, Democratic and Republican, agree. Yesterday, they sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strongly opposing this nomination--59 former U.S. Ambassadors.

I mentioned earlier the number of people in the Bush administration who are outspokenly critical of this nomination. What more do we need to hear, what more do we need to hear that this is a bad nomination and one that is going to jeopardize the interests of the United States? Those Ambassadors recognize, as do I, that at this critical moment in our Nation's future, the President should put the Nation's interests first and nominate an individual with strong diplomatic skills who believes in diplomacy rather than placating his conservative base by continuing to push for the nomination of an unsuitable nominee.

I believe it is time for the Senate to send that message loudly and clearly to the President by rejecting efforts to ramrod this nomination through in the closing days of this session.

I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a former colleague and dear friend, Robert Giaimo, who passed away on May 24 of this year. He served the people of Connecticut and the United States as a Member of the House of Representatives for more than 20 years, and I want to speak to my colleagues today about the life and legacy of this dedicated public servant.

Bob Giaimo was born in North Haven, CT on October 19, 1919, son of the late Rose and Rosario Giaimo. He attended North Haven public schools, and graduated from Fordham University before receiving his law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1943. During World War II, Bob served as a commissioned officer in the United States Army. When he returned, he served as the chairman of the State of Connecticut Personnel Appeals Board, as a member of the North Haven Board of Education, North Haven Board of Finance, and as third selectman of the town of North Haven.

Bob Giaimo's public service culminated with his tenure in the House of Representatives. Elected in 1958, Congressman Giaimo represented Connecticut's third congressional district until his retirement in 1980. During his eleven terms in office, Representative Giaimo served as a member of the House Education and Labor Committee between 1959 and 1963, and went on to serve on the House Appropriations Committee. When the House Committee on the Budget was established in 1974, Representative Giaimo was elected to serve as a member, and was elected chairman of that committee in 1979. He was the first Connecticut Democrat and the first Connecticut Member of Congress since 1931 to chair a congressional committee.

One of Congressman Giaimo's greatest legislative achievements was undoubtedly his 1965 sponsorship of the bill that created the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, separate grant-making agencies that support our nation's painters, sculptors, writers, poets, and historians, among others. His dedication to this legislation has made an enormous contribution to America's cultural heritage.

When I was elected to Congress in 1975, Bob was already a senior member of the House. But he very graciously took an interest in showing this newcomer the ways of that institution. With me, as with all who knew him, Bob was a public figure who led by example. Never one to seek the spotlight, Bob remained dedicated to the working families, the poor, the elderly, and others who cannot afford to buy a voice in Washington and who instead rely on their elected officials to look out for them in the corridors of power. The quality and caliber of this leadership will be missed and continues to inspire those of us who knew him and who serve in public life.

My wife Jackie and I offer our deepest condolences to his wife Marion, his daughter Barbara, and his granddaughter Tracey. They have lost a beloved member of their family. And the people of Connecticut and our Nation have lost a dedicated public servant and an exceptional man.

I was honored to attend Representative Giaimo's memorial service on June 1, and found the eulogy, delivered by Reverend Hugh MacDonald, to be particularly moving. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the eulogy be printed in the Record.

Eulogy: Robert Giaimo

(Reverend Hugh MacDonald, June 1, 2006)

The great cathedrals of Europe are a glorious part of our

Christian heritage--towering testimonials to an Age of Faith.

But anyone who now visits these sublime buildings soon

realizes that they also have a history as cemeteries for the

celebrated.

Whether interred in the basement crypts or encased in

magnificent tombs scattered around the sanctuary and aisles,

the famous dead almost vie for attention with our living

worship.

My personal favorite among cathedral tombs is in the

Cathedral of Saint Richard in the city of Chichester on the

southern coast of England. In the north aisle of that elegant

church is a massive stone sepulcher containing the remains of

the fourteenth-century Earl of Arundel and his countess. Side

by side, atop the monument, lie their carved stone

likenesses.

A famous warrior, he is clad in medieval armor, and his

feet rest up on a lion--the symbol of bravery. On his right,

his wife is shown in nun-like robes, her feet resting on a

small dog--symbol of fidelity.

Purely as sculpture, the Arundel tomb is not all that

impressive, and six centuries have blurred the once precise

details of the carved faces. But what finally rivets your

attention is their hands! The universal custom in pious

monument-sculpture is for the hands to be stiffly folded on

the chest, pointing heavenward in a gesture of everlasting

prayer.

Not so with the Arundels! His left arm lies at his side,

and in that left hand he holds the empty glove (or gauntlet)

for his right hand. So, immediately your eyes seek out that

right hand. His right arm is also relaxed at his side, and

the hand is thus concealed by the overlapping folds of the

countess's robe as she lies beside him. But if you go to the

foot of the monument and stoop down a bit, you can discover

their touching secret. Under the carved armor and the pleated

dress, their hands are clasped in tender love!

I find that detail enormously moving. We know almost

nothing now about the once famous exploits of this heroic

earl and nothing whatsoever about his wife. And in the

cathedral that houses their bones, the centuries have

witnessed violent religious wars and the cruel ravages of

time. But through it all and despite it all, those clasped

hands are a reminder of what is noblest in our lives and in

our legacy. The poet Philip Larkin put it beautifully in the

final line of his meditation on the Arundel tomb when he

wrote: ``What will survive of us is love.''

Those words sprang to my mind on Monday after I had talked

on the phone with Barbara about the shining love her parents

shared. Robert and Marion were married here at Saint Barnabas

sixty-one years ago. Sadly, poor health prevents Marion from

being here with us this morning for this Mass of Christian

Burial.

But in fact every celebration of the Eucharist reminds us

that nothing can truly separate us from our love of the Lord

or our love

of each other. Not miles or years or even death! Love is

always present tense, and love never comes to an end!!

Clearly, what God asks of us is not just theoretical love,

love-in-the-abstract. Not at all! God challenges you and me

to flesh out our love in acts of living prayer and lives of

authentic service. Unless our hands are clasped in love,

nothing else really matters.

Robert Giaimo understood that challenge, and he lived that

faith with sincerity and simple conviction. Harry Truman (God

bless him!) once said that the politicians of his era used to

pour God over everything--like ketchup! (By the way, I don't

know what President Truman would have to say about the

current level of religiosity in our political discourse, but

I for one would dearly love to hear it!!!)

But Bob Giaimo's faith was never showy or self-

congratulatory. He didn't preach sermons, he just served

people.

This was a man who regularly walked the corridors of power,

but never forgot his roots, his heritage, his humanity. His

towering stature made him an imposing presence, but his

genuine humility made him a caring person and a lasting

friend. And, of course, a deeply devoted husband, father, and

grandfather.

The pulpit is not a place to assess his political

achievements, but I can't resist a heartfelt ``Thank you!''

to the man who was so influential in creating the National

Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. He firmly believed

that the arts not only enrich our lives but actually instruct

us how to live. (That's one of the reasons I began this

eulogy with that Arundel anecdote.)

Our brother has now passed beyond our sight but not at all

beyond our reach. He is quite literally only a prayer away.

And on each day of our continuing journey of faith, he will

continue through the power of his prayer to reach into our

lives: to touch us, to lead us, to help us. Because, for

Robert Giaimo it has always been quite personal!

And isn't that precisely the point Jesus is making in

today's gospel selection? Notice the Lord did not say to His

anxious Apostle: ``Thomas, I will show you the way, I will

teach you the truth, I will give you life.'' No: it's

absolutely personal. ``Thomas, I AM the Way and the Truth and

the Life.''

No one was ever saved by words or rituals, by laws or

creeds. We are saved by the powerful Person of the Lord, and

we show our acceptance of that great gift by cherishing all

the precious people who share our journey.

So, when all is said and done, Bob Giaimo's gift to us was

not a legacy of laws but of loving service. Power passes, and

fame is fleeting. ``What will survive of us is love.''

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a gifted musician, successful entrepreneur, devoted wife and mother, constituent, and friend, Helen Armstrong, who passed away on April 28 of this year. Helen was an international virtuoso violinist who dedicated her life to enriching the lives of others through music.

Helen Armstrong was born on March 16, 1943, in Rockford, IL. Her career as a violinist began at the age of 3. Before long, she was enrolled at the Juilliard School where she quickly caught the eye of renowned instructors Ivan Galamian and Dorothy DeLay. She was among the select few chosen to study under them in pursuit of a solo career. Other violinists in this group include Helen's childhood friend Yitzhak Perlman and Pinchas Zuckerman. In 1976 Helen made her Lincoln Center debut and went on to perform with various orchestras including the Boston Pops, the Indianapolis Symphony, and the New Polish Philharmonic. She has also toured North America, Europe, and Asia as a recitalist.

But Helen Armstrong was not content to be a successful and highly accomplished musician. She was also an entrepreneur and philanthropist who brought music into the lives of others through performance and education. She founded Armstrong Chamber Concerts, Inc. and served as its artistic director for more than 22 years. What began one summer as a way to lure musicians out of New York City to perform in Helen's home in Washington, CT became a thriving enterprise encompassing performance series in Litchfield and Fairfield counties as well as Carnegie Hall recitals, corporate events, and educational programs in schools in Connecticut and New York City. At the heart of ACC is Helen's artistic vision to broaden public interest in chamber music through performance and education, and its primary focus has been to bring musical education to public and private schools through its unique Students' Music Enrichment Program. Over 100,000 students have benefited from this program thanks to Helen Armstrong's remarkable vision an dedication to this cause. One of the most noteworthy examples of Helen's benevolent spirit were her performances at a prison in Danbury. She counted those performances as some of her most rewarding outreach experiences, and said the music made the inmates feel that life was worth living. Helen dedicated her life to spreading her love of classical music, and she has touched the lives and hearts of countless citizens, including my own. I had the privilege of seeing Helen perform, and was truly captivated by her immense talent and passion. Her performance moved me to act as an honorary chairperson of the concert series she organized, and I am honored to have been associated with her organization.

Helen Armstrong was a remarkable woman in several respects. Along with her accomplishments as a solo violinist and founder of a successful nonprofit chamber music organization, she was a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. She was widowed by her first husband, Alan Cohen, in 1978. Despite this terrible loss, Helen continued to promote ACC's mission and to perform while raising her two children. After a long relationship, she married Ajit Hutheesing in 1996. In addition to him, she is survived by her children Debbie and David, her grandchildren Brenden, Tyler, and Cailey, her sister Nancy, and her brother Robert. I offer my deepest condolences to all of them. They have lost a beloved member of their family. Helen's great talent and generous spirit will be sorely missed by them and countless others.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concerns with a bill before this body, H.R. 5970, that unnecessarily links a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage and a broadly-supported package of tax extenders to an unaffordable and irresponsible cut in the tax on multimillion-dollar estates.

This so-called ``trifecta'' bill sends a clear message to the American people about the priorities of the leadership on the other side of the aisle--priorities that are badly out of step with the needs of ordinary Americans.

Many of us in this body support fiscally responsible reform of the estate tax. But compared to most reasonable proposals, the one in this bill would cost nearly twice as much, while adding very little additional value.

Over the last several years, the number of Americans affected by the estate tax has fallen dramatically as the exemption level has been raised. In 2000, with an exemption of $675,000, there were 50,000 taxable estates. That number has fallen to only 13,000 today, with the exemption level now standing at $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple. In 2009, the exemption will rise to $3.5 million--or $7 million for a couple--and only 7,000 estates will be subject to the tax. These 7,000 taxable estates represent the largest three-tenths of 1 percent of estates in America, all of which exceed $3.5 million in size. By 2009, only this small fraction will owe even a cent under the estate tax.

Compared to current or 2009 rates, this ``trifecta'' bill would provide a tax cut for only the largest 8,200 estates in the country. And the average size of the tax benefit received by each of these estates would be $1.4 million. Out of a nation of 300 million people, only the wealthiest 8,200 would gain from this bill's estate tax proposal, but it would cost the American people $753 billion over the first decade alone once it has been fully phased in.

The leadership on the other side of the aisle knows that this body would rightly reject such a gratuitously irresponsible proposal if it were offered as a stand-alone bill. So the majority leader in this body and his counterparts in the House of Representatives have decided, in what amounts to political blackmail, to attach this estate tax measure to a moving vehicle, the package of tax extenders that includes provisions like the research and development tax credit that supports innovation by America's businesses, the tax deduction for college tuition that helps students and their families pay for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, and the tax deduction for teacher classroom expenses, among many other important items.

In effect, the supporters of this ``trifecta'' bill have decided to hold hostage these important tax provisions, which benefit families and businesses across the income spectrum, to an estate tax measure that, on its own, would otherwise be rejected. And in a misguided attempt to ``sweeten the deal'' or provide political cover, they have added a provision to raise the minimum wage that, itself, is flawed due to the wage cut it would force upon many employees who earn their pay through tips.

Many of us in this body have been fighting for years to increase the minimum wage, only to have our efforts blocked repeatedly. America's lowest-wage workers have waited far too long for a raise--it has been 10 years, almost to the day, since this body last voted to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour.

In the time since then, the minimum wage's real buying power has fallen to its lowest level in 51 years. For a full-time worker, a wage of $5.15 per hour translates to a yearly income of $10,700--an amount that is nearly $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. These are working adults, with full-time jobs, who are living in poverty.

At those wages, these working Americans can barely afford housing and food. They certainly can't afford adequate health care, child care, or education needed to lift them out of a low-wage job. With gasoline prices and other energy costs rising, one wonders how people make ends meet.

Unfortunately, too many are falling behind.

And too often, the victims are children, whose only fault was to be born into the wrong family. More than a third of the 37 million Americans currently living in poverty are children. Through no fault of their own, these voiceless Americans live day-to-day without adequate food and shelter, forced to choose between food and rent or medicine or utilities.

In my State of Connecticut, we have a population of about 3.4 million people and the perception is that we are a rich State. But we are not exempt, in Connecticut, from the scourges of poverty and hunger. In fact, more than 280,000 people in my State, many of them children, are food insecure--meaning they don't have access at all times to the food necessary to lead a healthy life. Two of the largest food banks in Connecticut provide food for more than 350,000 different people each year. Working people make up 25 percent of those using those emergency feeding programs. People are working hard and they can't even feed their families--how is this acceptable?

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour would directly boost the earnings of 6.6 million working Americans. It would also indirectly benefit an estimated 8.3 million additional workers who currently earn close to $7.25 per hour and would likely see their wages rise in response to a minimum wage increase.

Some of my colleagues have argued that raising the minimum wage would harm employers or reduce overall levels of employment, but study after study has shown these claims to be unfounded. A recent Gallup poll found that 86 percent of small business owners do not think the minimum wage negatively affects their business. And a substantial body of research by well-known economists finds no significant harm to overall levels of employment based on changes to the minimum wage. So while a minimum wage increase would dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans, the potential costs would be small.

America's lowest-earning working men and women desperately need a raise--even a small one. But this bill, by tying an increase in the minimum wage to a costly ``virtual repeal'' of the estate tax, has the potential to cancel out the good that would be done. By adding $753 billion to the national debt--which already stands at $8.4 trillion-- this estate tax proposal would

force deep cuts in services for all Americans, regardless of income. But those who earn the least would likely be hurt the most.

No one who supports raising the minimum wage or approving the bipartisan package of tax extenders should be fooled into thinking that this bill represents a serious attempt to help American workers, businesses, or taxpayers.

The estate tax proposal that has been attached to these important measures is unaffordable and unnecessary. It would drive us deeper into debt with foreign creditors, force damaging funding cuts during already tight budgetary times--not to mention during a time of war--and increase the burden on our children and grandchildren of paying for our excess.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I cannot support this irresponsible legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. The majority leader is here, and my friend from Pennsylvania has very adequately--more than adequately--described the history of this legislation. It has been a journey of some time here to bring this legislation to the point we are this evening, to the final adoption unanimously by this body. I am very grateful, as well, to the chairman of our committee, Mike Enzi, who has been tremendously helpful, along with Senator Kennedy and other members of the committee who voted unanimously to report this bill out on a bipartisan basis.

As the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed out, the majority leader and minority leader have been tremendously helpful, along with the majority and minority leader staffs who have helped us on the Senate floor work through some final little knots on this bill that had to be worked out before we could bring this bill to the consideration of the full body.

There are some very special people who worked very hard. The autism community is a large community. It is a diverse one. There are many points of view that have been represented by various people. It has been critically important that there has been an effort to come together. They have done that in part because of the leadership of Bob and Suzanne Wright, who played a very instrumental role, who are grandparents of an autistic child and who work tirelessly with the organization they helped found, Autism Speaks. Senator Santorum also mentioned Deirdre Imus, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, who is tenacious in her commitment to issues she gets involved in and has certainly been tenacious on this one. If there were one individual outside of the Members and staff of this body who worked so hard on this, she probably deserves it more than anyone for keeping the flame burning on this effort on behalf on the autism community.

Mr. President, 1 out of every 166 children in this country are born with autism spectrum disorder. It is a growing

problem, Mr. President. The problem has increased in my own State of Connecticut by close to 1,100 percent since 1993. We don't know exactly what causes this. But this bill will allow us to examine all questions--and I mean every question--arising of what may be provoking this rapid increase in autism. Clearly, our diagnosis, diagnostic efforts, are better today. But that doesn't explain to most of us why the dramatic increases have occurred.

So we believe there may be other reasons out there that deserve full examination and exploration. Certainly, looking at ways to treat this issue is also critically important, how to support these families who have an autistic child. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on families who are confronted with this issue. They handle it very well, and many of these families will tell you that while one may look at it from afar as a disability, in many cases you will be amazed how many view it as somehow a blessing in a way. I know that sounds strange to many of my colleagues to hear this, but for families with autistic children, it is difficult, but it is impressive to see how well they handle this. It is inspirational to watch how many families deal with this issue.

So tonight is a special night. It is late. We have major bills we have just passed on pension reform, and we are not suggesting this bill is more important than that bill in significance, but I want to tell you something. To an awful lot of families out there tonight who don't know anything about this late hour or what has happened here earlier, we are making a difference in their lives, and we may make a huge difference down the road in the lives of future children and families because we may get to the cause of this and make a difference in trying to stem the reach of autism spectrum disorder.

So I am deeply proud we have been involved. We hope we can get, of course, this bill signed into law fairly quickly. But, again, I thank my colleagues. I thank, particularly, Senator Santorum, who has been terrific on this issue and who has been a chief sponsor with me, along with the other Members whom I have mentioned.

In conclusion, hundreds of thousands of families across America struggle each and every day with autism spectrum disorder, ASD, one of the fastest- growing developmental disabilities in the United States. While we used to think of ASD as relatively rare, today it is diagnosed at a rate that is 10 times that of a decade ago. In my home State of Connecticut, we have witnessed an increase in diagnoses of ASD of close to 1,100 percent since 1993. What these numbers tell us is that ASD diagnoses are rising at truly alarming rates and we simply must provide more answers to all those affected by this devastating condition. As a nation, we need to support the families that are struggling to raise a child with ASD.

There are many theories as to why the prevalence of ASD has increased. Some have suggested that it is a reflection of better diagnostic tools and measures. Other theories focus on genetic or environmental factors. But the fact is that when it comes to autism spectrum disorder we just don't know for certain what causes it, we don't know exactly how to diagnose it, and we don't know how best to intervene so that individuals with ASD can achieve their highest potential. It is absolutely vital that we do more for families struggling with this disorder, which is why the Combating Autism Act is so important.

ASD affects as many as 6 out of every 1,000 children, and the economic cost to this country due to autism spectrum disorder is staggering. Healthcare for individuals with ASD over their lifetimes costs an estimated $35 billion per year. Schooling alone can cost as much as $100,000 each year. By 2015, the annual cost of care will be about $300 billion, but we know that this figure can be cut in half with early diagnosis, services, and intervention. As many as 40 percent of new ASD cases are identified in our schools each year, and a child is likely to be nearing his or her 10th birthday before a diagnosis is made. This means that interventions and services that could help these children achieve their full potential are not made available to them during the critical period of early development when interventions are most successful and cost-effective. As a country, we need to do a better job of diagnosing children before they start school. That means training pediatricians, early childhood educators, and day care providers to recognize the early indicators of ASD so that at-risk children are referred to specialists for diagnosis and services as early as practicable.

The Combating Autism Act will promote early detection, early evidence-based interventions, and services for individuals with ASD. It also significantly increases our investment in the National Institutes of Health for autism-related research. This legislation will also reauthorize the epidemiologic surveillance programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most importantly, this legislation will mean answers for the families that have been so deeply affected by ASD. For that reason, more than any other, I am grateful that the Senate is voting to pass the Combating Autism Act today.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Santorum, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and their staffs for their extraordinary hard work on this bill. I also wish to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all of the individuals who are personally affected by autism spectrum disorder--and the many advocacy groups who represent them--for their continued dedication and passionate commitment to this legislation. Without their commitment, we would not be here today on the verge of Senate passage of this critical legislation that will greatly advance our Nation's efforts to address the many issues surrounding autism spectrum disorder and to serve those per * * *

Mr. President, I suspect that Don Imus is so dedicated to raising awareness of this issues because of the work of his wife. That is why he does this, more than anything else. We are delighted to have both of their support and commitment to this important issue.

On my own staff, I wish to thank Jim Fenton, Tamar Magarik, and Elizabeth Hoffman; Jen Vesey with Senator Santorum; Shana Christrup and Steve Northrup of Chairman Enzi's staff, and Caya Lewis with Ranking Member Kennedy's staff.

We have had some wonderful people on all sides work on this, and I am pleased to recognize them and add their names to the Record.

As my colleagues are well aware, the prevalence of ASD in the U.S. is 10 times greater than a decade ago. In my own State of Connecticut, ASD diagnoses have increased by close to 1100 percent since 1993. What these numbers tell us is that ASD diagnoses are rising at truly alarming rates and we simply must provide more answer to all those affected by this devastating condition.

We must also create a larger pool of experts in the field so that families can be directed to nearby specialty clinics for confirmation of diagnosis, care and services. Waiting lists at the Nation's top developmental disability centers are as long as 2 to 3 years, and families are often forced to travel far from home to receive needed care and to participate in clinical research studies. Increasing the number of trained physicians and allied health professionals who can provide a medical home for individuals with ASD will enable all those affected to receive the optimal and timely care that they deserve.

It is my sincere hope and expectation that by expanding the federal response to ASD and other developmental disabilities through the Combating Autism Act, we will see improved research on ASD, including its causes, and families across America will get the services they so urgently need. In our search for the cause of this growing developmental disability, we should close no doors on promising avenues of research. Through the Combating Autism Act, all biomedical research opportunities on ASD can be pursued, and they include environmental research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components and ASD.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution about the current outbreak of violence in Israel and Lebanon. I do so for myself, Senators Levin, Sununu, Stabenow, Chafee, and Kennedy. I know that all of us here want to see a peaceful conclusion to the current situation-- peace for Israelis and for Lebanese. The tragic deaths of 57 Lebanese civilians--37 of them children--in the village of Qana on Sunday highlight the urgency for doing so.

This resolution would express the sense of the Senate that the United

States and international community must work urgently with the Governments of Israel and Lebanon to achieve the following six goals: attaining a cessation in the hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel; effectuating the safe return of Israeli soldiers held in Lebanon; disarming Hezbollah, removing Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon, and replacing those forces with Lebanese army and security forces; reaching agreement to create and deploy an international stabilization force with a robust mandate to enforce a permanent ceasefire and to fully implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559; organizing an international donors conference to solicit and ensure the provision of international resources for the reconstruction of Lebanon; and ensuring that all parties remain engaged to promote peace and security for Israel and Lebanon and the greater Middle East.

I believe that it is important to mention a few points up front. As my colleagues know, the current situation began when two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that is based in Lebanon but supported by Syria and Iran.

These soldiers were kidnapped from Israeli soil, and during those kidnapping operations, innocent Israelis were killed, and some northern Israeli cities were shelled with rockets.

These facts are very important to remember as we consider the current situation because despite any other frustrations that some people might have with the derailed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it wasn't Israeli actions which started the cycle of the current bloody situation in which more than 400 Israelis and Lebanese have died.

I would also say unequivocally that I believe that Israel is currently acting in self-defense as a response to attacks on its soil and the kidnapping of its citizens. No country that experienced similar attacks would do anything less--certainly not the United States. And I support fully Israel's right to defend its borders and its citizens.

All violent confrontations, however, must eventually come to an end-- including this one. I think what we are all hoping--Americans, Israelis, Lebanese--is that a resolution of this flare-up will come quickly and without any additional loss of innocent civilians in Lebanon or Israel, so that a climate conducive to tackling the many complex problems confronting the region can exist. Clearly, that climate does not exist at the moment while fighting is ongoing.

However, long-term peace necessitates certain actions. First, I believe that an international stabilization force with real teeth to act against Hezbollah militia and any other terrorist elements will eventually need to be deployed in southern Lebanon. On this point, we must learn from the failures of the current United Nations Stabilization Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and give any future force the size and mandate to actually fulfill its mission.

Second, long-term peace will require full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls on the Lebanese Army to deploy to protect the southern border, as well as for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Long-term peace will also require Israel to cease its attacks in Lebanon, consistent with the Lebanese Government and international community's ability and willingness to stop terrorist elements from launching attacks on Israel. I would remind my colleagues that Israel withdrew voluntarily from Lebanon in 2000--a move that was recognized by the United Nations Secretary General and Security Council as fulfilling completely the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425. To that end, I doubt very much whether Israel would like to stay in Lebanon even one day longer than is absolutely necessary to stop the terror and return Israeli citizens to safety.

My belief in the need for a quick cessation of hostilities is rooted in my concern that the current violence between Israel and Hezbollah is greatly strengthening the hands of Iran and Syria. This is true especially with respect to Iran, which wants to divert international attention away from its nuclear program as well as position itself as the leader of the Arab Muslim world.

Indeed, as the body counts rise, we are seeing the gulf between moderate Arab regimes and their citizens widen dramatically. At the same time, Iran's position as the main backer of Hezbollah is giving it a newfound legitimacy in the eyes of many Arabs. It is critical that we avoid these outcomes because current Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions pose a threat to Israel, to moderate Arab regimes, to the United States, and to the international community alike.

Moreover, long-term peace will be impossible unless the international community gets both Iran and Syria to shut off and cut off Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. By ``shut off,'' I mean that Iran and Syria must send a clear signal to Hezbollah to stop its violent terrorist attacks against Israel. By ``cut off,'' I mean that these countries must stop financing, supplying, and providing safe haven to terrorist groups and their operatives. The international community must also send a strong message to Iran and Syria that they need to stop preventing Lebanon from deploying its army to disarm Hezbollah and protect the border.

But the current situation will not begin to wind down unless, first and foremost, the Israeli hostages are released unharmed.

After that, the short-term goals should be the deployment of an international stabilization force with real teeth in the south and some kind of international monitoring of land, sea, and air crossings to ensure that Hezbollah will not be rearmed by Syria and Iran.

The long-term goals are obviously that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 is fully implemented. Full implementation of that resolution means, among other things, that an effective Lebanese Army is deployed along that country's southern border and that Hezbollah is disarmed.

It is quite apparent that after decades of operational and financial support from Syria, and especially Iran, Hezbollah's military wing is currently too strong for the relatively weak Lebanese Government to deal with. So to the extent that Israeli actions weaken Hezbollah's capabilities, they also create the possibility of strengthening the Lebanese Government's hand to reign in militias and terrorists. But there might be a point of diminishing returns where Hezbollah is somewhat weakened while Iran and Syria are greatly strengthened--an outcome that it is essential to avoid. Hopefully, the combination of the current attacks against Hezbollah, a quick cessation of hostilities, and the immediate deployment--concurrent with the end of hostilities--of an international force with real teeth will make that the case.

I realize that there are many voices in the Arab world who accuse the U.S. of ignoring the plight of the innocent Lebanese citizens who have been caught in the crossfire because Hezbollah militants have shamefully hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. I do not believe that this is the case. And I think that the U.S. could help to prove this by organizing an international donors' conference as quickly as possible to assist the Lebanese in rebuilding their country.

As I said before, I think we in Congress all share a desire to see peace in the Middle East. I would hope that once all of the steps I have talked about today come into place that the United States would take a lead role in bringing about that peace because U.S. leadership, and our active and high-level engagement, have always been an essential part of the Middle East peace process.

I believe that this resolution will send a strong signal that the world needs to support the Lebanese people, respect Israel's right to defend itself, and be tough with Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. These are the necessary signals that we need to send in order for there to truly be hope at the end of this tunnel. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I ask that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Will the Senator yield?

I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for raising this issue, particularly the point he raised about how long we have known about this.

I commend to my colleagues a report dated March 28 of this year, Army Equipment RESET Update to HAC-D.

I further ask my colleague, just to make the point, this has been known for some time. The fact that the

Commander in Chief did not send up a budget, including the necessary resources knowing exactly what my colleague from Rhode Island has described, is troublesome. I commend him in joining our colleagues who offered the amendment last evening, although I would still suggest we are still in excess of $6 billion short of what our uniformed services are telling us they need.

It might be appropriate here to have an amendment that would include a soft mark that would allow the military, if they are able to do it, have the resource capability to fill in the gaps that are necessary. The amount we are talking about here, based on what we presently know, would allow them to meet what they can do with the money that has been appropriated, yet there is a significant shortfall still, but to make sure the units are going to be combat ready. Lord forbid they are called upon to respond to a crisis in the Korean Peninsula or elsewhere.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Rhode Island. I will have some comments myself, and then discuss the possibility of an amendment that might require the soft mark that would not require the spending to occur, but if the military could use those resources, we ought not to deprive them of the cash they need if the units are ready. I do not know if he has any additional comments to make.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes, if I can, and speak on similar subject matter. I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alaska and my great friend from Hawaii who brings a wealth of knowledge and information, including his personal experiences, of the importance of adequate equipment.

America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are courageously waging wars on two fronts against terrorism and militant insurgents, with 19,000 U.S. servicemembers still engaged in combat in Afghanistan and 132,000 of our troops in uniform in Iraq, as we speak this morning on the floor of the Senate.

No other military service bears the brunt of these military operations more than the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. And no other Americans are sacrificing more in these wars than the soldiers, marines, and their families involved in these conflicts.

It is therefore critically important, as Senator Reed from Rhode Island has pointed out, and my colleagues on the floor--Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--that we pay particular attention to their uniformed leadership when these leaders speak out about equipment shortfalls that they warn could jeopardize our missions and our military's overall combat readiness.

When the U.S. Army's Chief of Staff repeatedly sounds the alarm in testimony before Congress--repeatedly--that the budgets drawn up by the civilian leaders at the Pentagon and the White House have left them with a $17 billion shortfall in vehicles and equipment they need, then we should take heed and listen to what they are saying.

And when our Army and Marine Corps' top leaders are telling us such shortfalls are so severe that major portions of their forces are unprepared for combat duty, then I think we need to take action.

I am deeply concerned, as I think others are, that we are not meeting our obligations to these men and women in uniform. Amendments may serve as a first step toward addressing the needs of our soldiers and marines. Out of the $17 billion identified by the Army Chief of Staff that is needed to address equipment shortfalls, the amendment that was adopted last evening would add $7.8 billion on top of the $2.5 billion that is also included in the underlying bill, and another $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps.

Nonetheless, I remain concerned, as I hope my colleagues are as well, that there remains almost a $7 billion shortfall of what we are being told by the uniformed military leaders we need to address the Army's outstanding requirements, as expressed by GEN Pete Schoomaker, the Army's top general.

As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, these shortfalls have been known for months. The report that I included in the Record a moment ago is dated March of this year. They were not suddenly discovered last evening or in the last few days. I have a slide presentation that the Army provided to the House Appropriations Committee on March 28 of this year that specifically identifies all of these shortfalls without exception. And yet, despite that briefing in March, the administration and Congress did little or nothing about it.

Today, I do not think we can stand by--in the remaining days of this Congress--and allow this Congress to proceed further without addressing our Nation's major and most pressing needs, particularly as our men and women in uniform continue to defend America in combat operations each and every day.

We are not talking about arbitrary budget numbers that we pulled out of

thin air. These are very specific allocations requested by our top leaders in uniform--leaders such as General Schoomaker and his deputies: LTG James Lovelace and LTG David Melcher. They have testified repeatedly--repeatedly--that the Bush administration has once again proposed a Defense budget that falls far short of what our troops need.

As far as this Senator is concerned, the days of sort of nickel and dimming our national defense needs should be over when it comes to these soldiers in uniform. We can no longer afford to continue down the path the Bush administration has brought us.

Regrettably, this is not the first time we have had to address the administration's poor budget planning for this war. But I hope it might be the last. I have come to the floor to try to address, in the past, some lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of this conflict.

In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets, to equipment for deactivating high explosives--all of them are listed as priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide in their initial budgets.

I offered an amendment, in 2003, to the emergency appropriations bill to resolve those problems. Unfortunately, the administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated, despite the fact that our top uniformed military leaders were asking otherwise.

In 2004, we tried a different approach, in an amendment I offered requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for their military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections from the Secretary of Defense, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, the President signed that bill--the larger bill which included those amendments--into law.

We approved similar legislation last year because the Pentagon did not act on them, despite the fact that Congress had voted overwhelmingly in support of those provisions and the President signed them into law. And on the very day I offered a new amendment, I received a call from the Pentagon saying on that day--a year later-- they were beginning to implement the legislation as required under law.

This year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls pose a far more serious problem. The ones I identified earlier, which my colleagues will recall--having servicemen stand up and admit they were rummaging--rummaging--through garbage dumps in Baghdad to provide equipment to up-armor their humvees and other equipment because they were not getting it from the Pentagon. These were not some dissidents, some activists outside complaining. These were our men and women in uniform telling us what they had to do in a theater of war to protect themselves because they were not getting it from the Pentagon

Well, today the problems are more serious. The ones that Senator Reed has identified are real. And the concerns are being expressed by our top military leaders. It is disgraceful it takes an amendment being offered on the floor of Congress to try to provide for these needs rather than coming from the leaders at the Pentagon, the civilian leadership or out of the White House.

We are not talking today about a shortage of flapjackets or gun scopes. Today, the challenge is that our Army's entire fleet of tanks, aircraft, and vehicles are wearing out. And we are not doing enough about it.

Recent media accounts have indicated that the administration's failure to fund the replacement and repair of this critical hardware is greatly affecting America's overall military readiness. The Associated Press reported on July 26 that up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls.

In other words, if America does not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Force's ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed, to put it mildly.

Maintaining a wartime military is very different from business as usual--something I am afraid that the Rumsfeld Pentagon does not seem to entirely understand, after 5 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having 16 to 18 combat brigades deployed in combat at one time over the last year 3 years, in addition to other U.S. forces, has placed tremendous stress on the military's equipment.

In Iraq, U.S. tanks are being driven over 4,000 miles per year--five times the expected annual usage of 800 miles. Army helicopters are experiencing usage rates up to two to three times their planned usage. The Army's truck fleet is experiencing some of the most pronounced problems of excessive wear, with usage rates of five to six times the normal rates, further exacerbated by the addition of heavy armor.

This increased use, obviously, shortens the life of equipment and demands much earlier and larger investments in maintenance and procurement. On top of that, our equipment is being further degraded by the sand and extreme heat in that part of the world, which harm the mechanical and electronic systems, not to mention rocket-propelled grenade and explosive attacks that are causing grave harm and loss of equipment at an alarming rate.

As this chart I put up shows, just a few years in combat will age military equipment dramatically. These statistics are coming from the U.S. Army. They are not ones I made up. So my colleagues can appreciate what we are talking about here.

For example, the Abrams tank, listed up here--it may be hard to read on the TV screen--but the first item here, the Abrams tank, usually has a lifespan of 20 years before it needs to be overhauled. It is seeing its lifespan being cut short to just over 5 years because of where they are.

The flatbed truck, which we have listed here as well--this item here--normally has an expected lifespan of 20 years. It is getting 3.3 years today--substantially less than would normally be expected to be the case.

The humvee has a 15-year normal, expected lifespan. And 2.5 years is what we are getting here.

The semitrailers and trailers--all 20 to 15 years--but the actual numbers they are getting is in the range of 2.5 to 3.3 years

This is what we are being told and have been told repeatedly. These numbers didn't pop up yesterday or the week before. We have been told repeatedly by top military leaders that this problem has persisted and is growing.

Recently, Army officials testified before Congress that it will cost $36 billion to fully reset the force due to this situation. But this estimate assumed that the United States would fully draw down its forces by the end of 2007. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker conceded that if the Army continues to operate in Iraq at its current pace, the reset cost will total over $72 billion and will eventually require steady reset expenditures for a full 2 years after the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq. These estimates do not even take into account the Marine Corps' reset requirements. In the meantime, the Army intends to leave over 280,000 major items in theater and will not redeploy this equipment to be reset until forces draw down in Iraq.

The situation in the Army National Guard, which my colleague from Rhode Island who is knowledgeable on these matters has pointed out, is particularly alarming. In late 2003, the Army began to direct redeploying Guard units to leave their equipment in theater for use by deploying forces. Under current regulation, the Pentagon requires the Army to replace equipment transferred to it from the Guard. But under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, the Army has not tracked much of the Guard equipment left in theater nor prepared to replace it.

The National Guard and Reserves comprise 40 percent of the forces now fighting in Iraq. If you consider that the National Guard began the Iraq war with less capable equipment than the Active Force to begin with, it only seems reasonable to assume that they have lost ground as the occupation has continued. The Army claims that the

National Guard has been directed to transfer more than 75,000 pieces of equipment, valued at $1.7 billion, to the Army. But the Army does not have a complete accounting of these items. An independent analyst at the Government Accountability Office put the cost of resetting the Guard at $20 billion. Since much of the stay-behind equipment is relatively old, I presume it will never return to the United States.

The drawdown of the National Guard equipment in the United States to support the war effort is so extensive that it raises doubts about preparedness for homeland defense. As the Senator from Rhode Island pointed out, we are now going into the hurricane season and the problems that can ensue there. I don't think the National Guard is going to be ready to respond to those situations because of the situation we are in today.

For that reason, I am joining my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in supporting an amendment he will be offering to provide necessary funding for the National Guard that for too long has been neglected by this administration. On Tuesday of this week, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG H. Steven Blum, admitted that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are now not combat ready due largely to the vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct. General Blum addressed the situation this way:

I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than

the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just

have a higher fever.

In spite of all the administration's rhetoric that we have turned a corner, I think many of us believe that the insurgents are not in their last throes, as the Vice President said only a few months ago, or that the mission is accomplished, as others have suggested. Our military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq have only grown, as we are hearing now additional requests for troops to protect the Baghdad area, to the point that our forces are now larger in number in these countries than they were when we started the wars in 2001 and 2003. And there is some indication that our forces in Iraq may increase even more. Now it seems that the effect on our own forces has been devastating. Our forces are stretched thin. Our fleets of aircraft, tanks, and trucks are wearing out. But the administration's only answer for Iraq and Afghanistan is to stay the course.

I can tell you, with today's situation, that is not an option. If we are going to maintain America's edge in the war on terrorism, retain the ability to respond to other future threats, then we need to provide some relief to our Armed Forces and start putting critical investments into rebuilding these forces.

During two Presidential election campaigns, the Bush-Cheney team sold its candidacy to the American people as a solution to all of our Nation's security needs. A vote for that ticket, we were told, would shore up our Nation's vulnerabilities at home and keep us on the offensive overseas. Sadly, I submit, the policies of this administration have only left our Nation weaker, as the administration shortchanges the needs of our Armed Forces and fails America's National Guard personnel.

The 2000 campaign disparaged President Clinton' stewardship of the Armed Forces, and it was leaked that two of the Army divisions were rated C-3 and C-4, the lowest levels of preparedness and readiness, the lowest category, according to the Army's own scale, decrying that ``two Army divisions could not report for duty.'' The then-Governor of Texas pointed out that he promised help was on the way. Instead today, as a result of the administration's strain on our forces, the situation is dramatically worse.

According to the Army's own accounts, our forces are being drained of critical resources to meet our homeland security needs in the United States and to stay prepared to address our military threats in the future.

While the sheer size and scope of U.S. Army readiness remains classified, one thing is for certain, our military hardware is stretched thin. Our fleets of aircraft, tanks and trucks are wearing out. Those are the facts. The military leaders are telling us that in clear, uncomplicated voices. U.S. military experts and media reports have long been sounding the alarm about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and their impact on military readiness.

The Washington Post recently said the following:

The unexpected heavy demands of sustained ground combat are

depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be

fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in

needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of

units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated

deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and Army

Reserve.

That was from a year and a half ago. Things have only gotten worse since then. The administration's failures are literally breaking the back of the U.S. Armed Forces. I am worried about it. I know my colleagues are. In addition to the amendment we have adopted, and while the Senator from Alaska is correct, the amount of money they can receive and actually spend is constrained. But I am hopeful our military leaders will be able to do a better job. I ask them to consider the possibility of what we might call a soft mark that would provide the resources now, not wait until next spring, and that if our military leaders can find the way to expend the dollars to increase the readiness of this equipment, we ought not wait another almost year to do so. If they can't spend the money, then it doesn't get spent. It comes back to the Treasury. But I wouldn't want them saying we could have used the money, but you didn't appropriate it on an emergency basis for us.

So while I appreciate the amendment that was adopted last night, as I pointed out, we are still $7 billion short, according to the military leaders testifying before Congress in the last number of months. I think it is not only appropriate but required of us here to provide those resources, put them in place. And if they can be spent, they ought to be spent to make sure this equipment we are falling so short on is going to be replenished and repaired so that our units can be combat ready, not only for the present crises but also for future ones we may face.

Again, my compliments to the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, who historically have placed the needs of our military very high on their agenda. My criticism is not focused on them. It is focused on the fact that the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief should have been having these numbers in the budget coming up here, not requiring us to ask them to do a better job. That is what the two Senators did last night. They should have been telling us how the leadership of the Pentagon and the White House put the numbers in and that we were supporting them, not requiring an amendment to be adopted out here to fill the needs.

I am urging my colleagues to take a look at some additional funding we may need in order to meet these requirements.

I am happy to yield.

I thank my colleague.