Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to express my pleasure and support for the confirmation of Ms. Renee Bumb to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.

Ms. Bumb is one of four accomplished individuals from New Jersey who have been nominated to vacancies on the district court.

Just before we left for the Memorial Day recess, the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Susan Wigenton for the district court. Judge Wigenton has been a Federal magistrate judge since 1997. She also worked at a law firm, served as a public defender in Asbury Park, NJ. She has been a first-rate magistrate judge. She will be an excellent district court judge. She served the public well. We are pleased to have her join the bench in New Jersey.

Now we discuss today's nominee, Renee Bumb. She is exceptionally well qualified and will be an excellent addition to the court. She is currently attorney in charge of the Camden--our southernmost city--U.S. Attorney's Office. She is a gifted prosecutor and has handled cases ranging from drug trafficking to white-collar crime.

For 6 years, Miss Bumb has supervised all of the attorneys in the Camden U.S. Attorney's Office. At the same time, she has tried cases herself, especially those dealing with public corruption.

Ms. Bumb is from south Jersey. We are pleased she will be sitting as a Federal judge in Camden. There have been

openings there for some time. The people of south Jersey deserve judges who understand that area of the State and the unique communities therein. Ms. Bumb fits that bill.

When people look at tiny New Jersey on the map, they envision a small State but they are wrong. While we are relatively small geographically, we have the 10th largest population in the country. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. While physical distance between north and south Jersey is not significant, there are differences between the two areas politically, economically, and culturally. The Federal Government needs to respect these distinctions.

Thus, we have Renee Bumb, who is a judge from South Jersey. She will dispense justice with the unique character her community brings--not having the large cities, and with the population density much less than the north. They also lack some of the services immediately available in the northern part of our State. Ms. Bumb will represent the Federal Government and represent the Judiciary extremely well.

At the same time, we have two other excellent nominees for vacancies on the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. One is Noel Hillman, another is Peter Sheridan. These nominees have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. They are ready to go. We should not delay the confirmation of these nominations past this week.

I offer thanks to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for moving these nominees so efficiently through the process. I am confident these four individuals will serve the people of New Jersey extremely well on the Federal bench. They will bring distinction to the court. We urge their quick confirmation in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I start off with a question. The question is, Why are we spending time on the floor of the Senate discussing this issue at this time? Is there anyone here unaware of the fact that Americans are bleeding in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why aren't we talking about that war?

I will not at this point accept a question. I want to make my remarks just as the Senator from Oklahoma had a chance to make his remarks. Perhaps when we are finished I will be able to accommodate the Senator.

Why are we not focused on soaring gasoline prices and the toll it takes on family budgets? People who plan their lives in my area, New Jersey--a very crowded area--have had to buy their houses some distance from their jobs because they couldn't afford the housing. They calculated the fact they would have to drive an hour each way--not unusual--10 hours a week behind the wheel of the car. Now, with gas prices as they are, the advantage they had by buying a home at a distance is evaporating in front of them. Why aren't we talking about that?

Why aren't we talking about 46 million Americans without health insurance, every one of them worried about whether the next sickness is going to deprive them of their job, deprive them of their ability to feed and clothe their children and take care of them? Why aren't we talking about those things?

Why aren't we talking about extending stem cell research? I don't know whether other Senators have had the same experience that I have. Families come in with children who are sick with juvenile diabetes. If you ask those children what they want out of life, they say: I want to stop having to stick my finger all the time with a needle. I want to be able to do things just like other children.

I had a group of families with children with diabetes. I seated them around a table. By the way, the faces on these children are so beautiful. In their expressions they say: We would love you if you can help us. That is what they say. That is how I respond.

I am a professional grandfather. I have 10 grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 12 and the youngest of whom is 2. What do I want? My whole life is focused on what I can do for those kids as they grow and develop. When I look at those children, I ask the parents: Why are their faces so beautiful? They say: Because they are faces of want and need in a child, expressing that in that kind of face.

It tells you something about what we ought to be talking about and not spending our time on depriving somebody of an option that they are free to choose in this life. Why aren't we debating a measure to make sure the Government is ready for the next Katrina? They are worried about levees in California. They are worried about levees in other low- land States where they have some exposure. We are not talking about that. Who can forget the picture of the people on the roofs of their houses begging for someone to do something to save them? No, we are not talking about that. We do not want to talk about that.

Why aren't we preparing for a possible bird flu epidemic? We know that is a very serious topic.

Forget those topics, we are told. President Bush and the Republican leadership want Congress to drop everything to debate gay marriage. I have lots of visitors in my offices in New Jersey and here. Not one of them came to talk to me about gay marriage. They came to talk to me about health insurance. They came to talk to me about their pensions disappearing. They talk to me about their inability to afford their children's education when they want to prepare for a career. They talk about the burden of gas prices. That is what they want us to do something about. They are not discussing gay marriage. They are not in there discussing opening up the Constitution to amendment.

If we pass this amendment, history will record for the first time ever that we wrote discrimination into the United States Constitution. Think about that, the first time we have ever put discrimination against anyone in our Constitution.

In the Bill of Rights, every amendment is written to expand individual rights. That is what our Constitution is about. It is a wonder, the thinking of our forefathers. The Bill of Rights was first signed in New Jersey. If you look at all the amendments to the Constitution, only once did we restrict rights. That was Prohibition. And it did not take long to repeal that. The American people were not going to obey the law.

They violated it in every way. Why create laws that cannot mean anything to people?

President Bush held an event on Monday night with supporters of this amendment. At that event, the President did something totally irresponsible. It is hard to believe a President of the United States said what he said. He rallied his right-wing audience against our Nation's court system.

Now, we talk here about separation of powers and how important it is that the three legs of Government are able to exercise their obligations. The President went so far as to say that the American courts are ``imposing their arbitrary will on the people.'' How about when the Court imposed its arbitrary will on the election of a President? What was said then? To suddenly say that the courts have no jurisdiction of their own, free of criticism from the President of the United States, is the President saying our courts do not follow the law? Could people quote the President to justify ignoring a court decision, just to score political points with a narrow interest group?

The President chooses to undermine our Nation's system of courts and laws. It is a dangerous form of political pandering.

This constitutional amendment would not just ban same-sex marriages. It also threatens civil unions, domestic partnership laws, laws passed by States to recognize relationships and conferring legal rights between partners. Is our goal to strip all of these relationships of their dignity?

Once the Federal Government starts regulating marriage, what is next? What is going to stop Congress from acting as the morality police and prohibit people from getting married unless they pledge to have children or unless they pledge to restrict the number of children they have? What is going to stop this body from outlawing divorce?

I don't think the actual motive for this amendment is morality. The motive, as I see in this amendment, is pure raw politics. Republicans have their backs against the wall. So look what the people think of the President of the United States and the job he is doing. They think poorly of him. If they had the right, they would fire him.

When I was running a company, before I was running for the Senate, if I thought so poorly of someone, I would fire him. I would not keep him.

No, this is a salvage operation for the Republican Party. We are debating this amendment now because it is an election year. That is why. Why did we have this debate in 2004 and this year but not in 2005? Let's defer this until 2007. I am willing to do that. We can discuss it in a year, when there is not an election in the offing.

This is simply political gay-bashing. That is the mission, try to ``husband'' the resources you have, the support you have, and pick on a group of people. The backers of this amendment want to drum up hysteria where none currently exists. They want to change the subject away from the issues such as Iraq and gas prices. It is a shameful attempt to divide the American people for political gain.

Today, the 6th of June, is the anniversary of D-Day. On June 6, 1944, Americans from every corner of our country fought to protect our values and our families. Today, we are tarnishing the memory of D-Day by working to amend our Constitution to restrict individual freedoms.

I was wearing a uniform that day. I was overseas. I was not on the combat line, but I knew what I was doing was good for my country. Sixteen million of us served in the military in World War II.

I had visitors just last Thursday night at my office in New Jersey, about 10 people. One person lost their son. This woman was angry. I had spoken to her when his death was announced over a year ago. She was angry. He was a second lieutenant. His assignment that day was to diffuse bombs. She said: My son was trained to man a gun in the artillery. That is what his mission was. He was diffusing a bomb and he lost his life: The country that sent my son overseas is a country that helped my son die.

There was a woman with tears running down her face: Our son has been wounded once; they say he is ready to go back to combat. He has a Purple Heart. I don't want him to go back. Crying bitterly, in front of me.

There was a couple whose son is due for a second tour of duty. People in this unit were lost in the first tour. Why, now, they ask, is he going back to this war that does not do anything for America?

No, we do not want to discuss that in the Senate. That is too serious. That brings home the toll and the anguish that exists with our time in Iraq. We ought to be talking about what we do to get out of there safely and quickly. That is what we ought to do. But, no, we are talking about gay marriage. I can just see the people in arms across this country saying, The first thing I want you to do is make sure there is no gay marriage in this country. The devil with my kids education, the devil with my need for health care, the devil with our ability to be able to afford to live now in the country. Two people working so many jobs, just about keeping their heads above water.

Every Senator in this Senate values the institution of marriage. In my view, the way to honor marriage is to provide families with economic opportunity, good schooling for their children, a clean environment to live in, health care they can afford and funding for medical research that can help fight the diseases that plague children, such as juvenile diabetes, autism, or asthma. There are so many problems we could help prevent.

The amendment before the Senate today is not about protecting marriage. It is about directing people's lives, about making sure you behave in a particular way. Those of us who are talking against this do not necessarily support gay marriage. What we support is freedom, freedom to choose your lifestyle. That is what we are talking about. In State after State they are writing their own laws, what they think is appropriate for the people in their State--not to restrict them but to open their opportunity.

I hope my colleagues will reject this divisive amendment. Let's get on with far more pressing issues facing our Nation that can improve our national health, can improve our national will, can improve our national morale.

Those are the things I would like to do instead of looking and seeing what people really think about all of us in this place, all of us, from the White House, to the Senate, to the House. What do the American people think about the work we are doing? They do not think a heck of a lot of good is coming out of here. Frankly, we give them good cause because what we are paying attention to is what matters least to most Americans. What matters most in these Chambers, unfortunately, at this time is politics and elections. Too bad, America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the young men and women who competed in the 79th annual Scripps National Spelling Bee last week. I would like to extend special praise to Miss Katharine ``Kerry'' Close for winning this demanding competition. Miss Close is an eighth grade student at the H.W. Mountz School in Spring Lake, NJ, and was sponsored by the Asbury Park Press and the Home News Tribune. Other New Jersey participants included Serenity Fung of Faith Hope Love Academy in Somerset, Joseph Reed of Deerfield Township Elementary School in Rosenhayn, Austin Tamutus of MacFarland Junior School in Bordentown, Tianqi Wang of Ramapo Ridge Middle School in Mahwah, and Nisha Sadanand Naik of St. Anne's Parish School in Jersey City. I am proud of all of them.

Miss Close--showing true grace under pressure--won in the 20th round by correctly spelling ``ursprache,'' which is defined as ``a parent language, especially one reconstructed from the evidence of later languages.'' Miss Close is a five-time veteran of the National Spelling Bee, first competing when she was 9. She tied for seventh place last year. Over the past 5 years, Miss Close has spent between 1 and 2 hours each day looking up words and their origins in order to prepare for the contests. Her dedication should serve as an inspiration to all of us.

The 2006 Scripps National Spelling Bee, which is administered by the E.W. Scripps Company and 268 local sponsors, is the largest and longest running educational promotion in the United States. This competition began with 275 competitors from across the United States, American Samoa, the Bahamas, Canada, Europe, Guam, Jamaica, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who qualified for the contest by winning locally sponsored spelling bees.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Miss Close and the other 274 competitors in this year's Scripps National Spelling Bee.

Mr. President, the position we are voting on, Secretary of the Interior Department, holds great importance for our country. The Department determines the fate of many of our public lands, including national parks and wildlife refuges. Of great importance to New Jersey, the Secretary of Interior determines what activities can take place on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Secretary of Interior implements critical laws like the Endangered Species Act, and administers some of our most important conservation programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It should be a job for somebody who believes in protecting our nation's great natural heritage, not selling it off to the highest bidder.

I served in the Senate with Governor Kempthorne, and we were members of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the same time. He is a skilled legislator and a congenial person, and I will vote to invoke cloture on his nomination, and for his confirmation. But I do want to take this opportunity to express some concerns about Governor Kempthorne's record on the environment, and about the Bush administration's record, as well.

The League of Conservation Voters has given Governor Kempthorne a lifetime score of 1 percent, meaning he voted against the environment as judged by LCV 99 percent of the time. That does not give me great confidence on how he will address issues of preserving wilderness, protecting wildlife, or defending our coastal waters. Of course, these are areas where the administration has already compiled a poor record.

I am also concerned about whether Governor Kempthorne will continue the pattern of pressuring scientists to alter their views to suit ill- advised Bush administration policies.

Last year, we learned that an administration official named Philip Cooney--an oil lobbyist before and after his White House stint--had altered scientific documents to change their conclusions about global warming. This year, we have seen numerous reports of Bush administration political appointees trying to intimidate and muzzle climate scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Similar concerns have been raised at Interior-based agencies. Twenty percent of Interior scientists who answered a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists responded that they had been ``directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a scientific document.'' Moreover, 44 percent of the respondents said that they have been ``directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that are protective of species.''

The Fish & Wildlife Service fired a whistleblower who exposed the Bush administration's use of flawed science to favor development projects over protecting habitat for the Florida Panther.

This administration's contempt for science is deeply disturbing, and it would be a great disappointment if Governor Kempthorne were to continue to pursue policies based on ignoring, suppressing, or intimidating scientists.

Our country is blessed with countless national treasures from coast to coast and, in my view, the Interior Secretary's most important job is to restore and preserve those treasures. Despite the serious reservations I have raised here, I will support this nomination in the hope that Governor Kempthorne will shift this administration's unwise policy emphasis on development over preservation, and I urge him to respect unfettered scientific inquiry in the agencies he will oversee.

Mr. President, this week we are in a rush to finish our business so we can head home for the Memorial Day Recess.

Memorial Day signals the beginning of summer, when children are out of school and families get to spend time together.

It's a time for vacations and trips to the shore, and backyard barbecues.

But most important of all, Memorial Day is also the time when we remember the brave soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

This year there are almost a thousand more names on that list than last Memorial Day.

In total 2,750 troops have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2,455 in Iraq and 295 in Afghanistan.

Almost 18,000 more have been seriously wounded.

I keep a gallery of the pictures of the fallen outside my office in the Hart building. More and more people come to visit it, and I encourage my colleagues, their staff and our constiuent guests to view it and honor the memories of these heroes.

New Jersey families have lost 71 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last year, near Memorial Day, I read the names of New Jersey's fallen troops into the Congressional Record, where they would be enshrined for all time.

Fifteen more New Jerseyans have died since then. Today, with your indulgence, I would like to read their names and hometowns into the Record:

SSG Jeremy A. Brown, whose mother lives in West Orange; SPC

Armer N. Burkart, Blairstown; PFC Ryan D. Christensen, whose

mother lives in Brick; LTC Terrence K. Crowe, member of the

U.S. Army Reserve in Lodi, NJ; SFC Michael Egan, his mother

resides in Pennsauken; SGT Clarence L. Floyd, his mother

resides in Newark; CPT James M. Gurbisz, Eatontown; SSG

Edward Karolasz, Kearny; SPC Gennaro Pellegrini, Jr., whose

father resides in Wildwood; CPT Charles D. Robinson, Haddon

Heights; LCpl Edward A. Schroeder, South Orange; SSG Stephen

J. Sutherland, West Deptford; 2LT Dennis W. Zilinski, Howell;

SSG Christian Longsworth, Newark; and SGT Matthew Fenton,

Little Ferry.

On this Memorial Day, I hope every American will pause to give thanks for the brave soldiers who gave their lives for our country.

Mr. President, I commemorate the 21st annual New Jersey Law Enforcement Memorial Service held this week in Ocean Grove, NJ. This ceremony, which is hosted by the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, NJSACP, honors the sacrifice made by law enforcement officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. Its participants represent the entire New Jersey law enforcement community, including State and local police agencies as well as prosecutors and federal agents based in New Jersey.

Events such as the New Jersey Law Enforcement Memorial Service and last week's commemoration of National Police Week are the least we can do to express our gratitude to the brave men and women who risk their lives every day in service to our communities, States, and Nation. Our Nation lost 155 law enforcement officers in 2005. Their ultimate sacrifice and the important work they did every day must never be forgotten.

I am proud that my State of New Jersey honors these heroes in the oldest statewide law enforcement memorial service in the country, and I ask that the Senate join me in commending the NJSACP for hosting this important event.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is poised to pass this resolution today honoring the invention of the charge-coupled device, or CCD, which has greatly improved our level of imaging technology.

In 1969, Dr. Willard S. Boyle and Dr. George E. Smith worked together at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, NJ, and created a basic design for a silicon-memory chip, known as a CCD. This breakthrough technology was crucial to advancing digital imaging technology and can be found in most imaging devices, including digital cameras and video recorders, space-based telescopes and satellites, and medical imaging devices.

A CCD contains a light-sensitive chip that is able to store small amounts of charges in capacitors. A group of these capacitors create a pixel, which can be combined with other pixels to generate an image. The first CCD had just six pixels while the average camera now contains four to six million pixels. It is a credit to Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith's innovation that this technology has been developed into the high resolution images we use in our every day lives.

Each year, the National Academy of Engineering honors an engineer or engineers whose accomplishments have significantly bettered society by improving our quality of life, providing the ability to live freely and comfortably, and/or easing access to information. This year, the Academy has chosen to honor Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith with the prestigious Charles Stark Draper Prize for their innovation in imaging technology and invention of the CCD.

The National Inventors Hall of Fame has also chosen to commemorate Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith's contributions to society by inducting them into their Hall of Fame. The National Inventors Hall of Fame was founded in 1973 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Council of Intellectual Property Law Associations.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in commemorating the contributions to our society and standard of living that CCD technology has made and congratulating Dr. Willard S. Boyle and Dr. George E. Smith for their justly deserved awards.

Mr. President, I wish to call attention to a saying that is kicked around here quite often: When you are in a hole, quit digging.

We are approaching $10 trillion in debt, and the majority--and I respond to my friend and colleague for whom I have great respect, the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee--is not dealing in a typically bipartisan fashion when conferences are held without the minority being invited to participate.

There is, in case no one noticed, a Republican majority Senate, a Republican majority House, and the White House is occupied by a Republican President. It is fair to say that what we see happening reflects directly the will of the majority.

As we look at approaching $10 trillion in debt--and we just approved it; it is going up to $9 trillion--the majority wants to continue the lifespan of the Bush tax cuts to add another $70 billion to our debt. I find it incredible.

None of us have an exclusivity of knowledge--none of us. One can argue about whether an additional tax cut has value in increasing revenues, about where that money is spent when it gets into the hands of those who get the largest part of it.

There is another side to this that I think deserves examination, and that is we have done the tax cut thing, and where are we? We are deeper in debt. There is a song that goes: The harder I work, what do I get? I get deeper in debt.

When I see that we just increased the debt limit and we are about to push up against it pretty closely, we now want to add another $70 billion to our debt, I think it is a subject for fair debate, whether it is good for business or isn't.

I come from the business world, and I ran a very successful company. The company I started with two other friends now employs 40,000.

We have ideas that have been thought out, and I think this is a fair place to express them.

I know the other side of the aisle likes to say these are tax cuts to help everyday people, but I want to do a reality check. Those who earn over $1 million a year get 22 percent of the tax breaks in this bill. That is a very small percentage of the wage earners in this country.

Millionaires get an average tax cut of almost $42 thousand--41,977, to be precise--while those earning from $40,000 to $50,000--I want to point this out, millionaires get an average tax cut of about $42,000, while those earning from $40,000 to $50,000 a year get an average tax cut of $46.

I got some gas the other day and one tankful cost over $60. When you get an average tax cut of $46, my advice to those who get it is: Don't spend it all in one place; $46, distribute it around; maybe buy a little boat or something so you have some fun with it.

The last time we complained about unfair tax cuts such as this, one of our Republican colleagues actually accused us of ``persecuting millionaires.'' Alas, what a pity, that we should be so biased in our statements.

If Republicans were more concerned about helping the middle class in this country, we would all be better off--all of us. The best idea we have seen from the majority recently was to give everyone $100 to help with soaring gasoline costs. Maybe that ought to be accompanied by a statement that says if you go to Las Vegas or buy a lottery ticket, perhaps you can really hit it big. Mr. President, $100, how do you use that? We now know how little $100 is, and the offer is offensive, so offensive that it was quickly withdrawn when people said: This doesn't make any sense. What do we do for people? Giving them a $100 gift certificate, if I can call it that.

Gas prices are out of control, wages are stagnant, more and more working people are losing their health insurance, and the Republican side of the aisle is admonishing us about persecuting millionaires.

I know some people who made money in their lifetime. I know if you want to buy a particular airplane, a G-5, that you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get it delivered. It costs $30 million. If you want to add some amenities, it can get up to $40 million. But there are so many people wanting to buy them, you have to wait years to get delivery. Yachts that are over 150 feet, that is a 2-year wait.

It looks like there is plenty of use for that $42,000 tax break.

President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress have lost all sense of fiscal discipline. When the President took office in 2001, he inherited a rosy fiscal picture, a better one almost than any President in history. We had a $236 billion budget surplus. We thought we would pay off the entire national debt by the end of President Bush's first term. But now we are on a track to double our national debt by 2011.

President Bush holds the Nation's credit card. We are the bank, and he keeps asking us to raise his credit limit, also commonly called the debt ceiling. In 2002, Republicans raised the debt ceiling by $450 billion, and in 2003, they raised the debt ceiling again by a record $984 billion. And despite the earlier admonition, in 2004, they dug the hole deeper by adding another $800 billion to the debt ceiling. When will this stop?

Then just 2 months ago, they squeezed through another $781 billion increase in the debt ceiling. So now we will owe the Chinese and other countries this money as we beg them to buy our bonds.

These numbers are so large that it is hard to relate to them. I think that is exactly what President Bush and Republican colleagues are counting on.

By adding nearly $4 trillion to our debt, we add a bill to every American of over $13,000 that has to be paid off in the future. Your kids, my kids, everyone's kids will have to pay it back with interest. It is time to get serious about fixing our Nation's financial condition. We can't continue to run record-setting budget deficits year after year, and we can't keep increasing our debt like it doesn't have to be paid off by future families and wage earners.

President Bush and the majority in Congress are doing long-term harm to our economy, to our standing in the world just by throwing more money at people who don't need it or, in many cases, don't even want it.

We have to stop conducting ourselves like the proverbial drunken sailor, like the guy in Las Vegas who is about to bet the family farm on the turn of a wheel. We should not be passing our endless debt on to our children and as the legacy for our grandchildren. I hope we will see votes against this irresponsible tax bill. I hope people on the other side of the aisle--and we can agree that maybe we ought to take a deep breath, step back, and not just casually increase the debt limit while we fight to give the millionaires an average $42,000 tax break. It is really something when we think about it.

Tax cuts for millionaires. We could send 1.9 million children to preschool. This tax cut that is designated to go to the millionaires could be used to give health care to 8.7 million uninsured children. Is that a better thing to do, I ask you, than to give those who make over $1 million a year another $46,000? I would rather give the health care to 8.7 million uninsured children. I can tell you one thing: There are no children of those who stand here who are without health care--not one. But there are hundreds of thousands of children--millions, I should say--who are uninsured; 8.3 million uninsured children.

Tax cuts for millionaires could send 2.8 million young people to college. Tax breaks for big oil, as we have given to them, could keep college tuition tax deductible for 6.4 million students and their families. We give tax cuts for millionaire investors instead of tax credits to help poor people save.

I hope we will stop passing along endless debt to our children and our grandchildren. Our legacy would best be shown as an indication that we want this country to be stronger domestically. We want our country to be stronger when it comes to military engagements, and we are failing that--failing that. If you read the papers--contrary to what I heard from our Secretary of Defense the other day about how everything is OK and we have enough people to do what we want to do--recruiting is way down and under pressure. So I think it would be a good idea if we got together at this point and said: OK, let's agree that our legacy to our children is going to be eliminating or reducing the debt that we are placing on their shoulders. And instead saying: If you want to go to college, you don't have to end your college career with a debt of $50,000 or $60,000 or, in some cases, much more. If we want to leave a real legacy, something of value to our children, then we have to say we want an Earth that is free of contaminants in the air that our kids breathe. We want to stop global warming. Some on the other side say it is a hoax, global warming. Ice floes are coming off of Antarctica. I was there and visited Antarctica and the South Pole. You can find there chunks of ice floating that are bigger than some States. Kilimanjaro is about to see the last of the snow that has been there since time immemorial. Glacier Park is soon to be without glaciers. What does it take? Those are the items of legacy that we ought to be talking about.

We want the air to be better so that when children are growing up, they are free from asthma attacks on their respiratory system. If we want to give our kids something to be grateful for, let's clean up the waters that surround us and make sure that we are not going to be overflooding lands across this globe, with global warming creating melting seas.

I hope we will be able to muster the courage to say: Don't increase this national debt any more than we already have done, and don't give tax breaks to millionaires who don't need or want the money--$42,000 in tax breaks if you have a $1 million income. That is a pretty sizable bite. I don't think it is fair to say that Democrats are too stupid to see the advantage of these tax breaks.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

It is my understanding that there is no request for use of time on our side, so I ask unanimous consent that I be able to use all of the remaining time.

Mr. President, we are in the midst of Health Week. Apparently, during Health Week, we don't pass any of the bills the American people want but, rather, we schedule procedural votes.

Why aren't we taking up something such as stem cell research? That is what the American people want to see us do. There is such value in the use of stem cells for research and potential treatment of all types of diseases. Despite all the promises of stem cell research, we are not working on it this week. This week we are simply doing our political stuff: posturing for the next election.

There are other important health care issues besides stem cell research that we could be taking up; namely, Medicare. We should be discussing that on the floor of the Senate. We should be passing legislation to extend the Medicare enrollment date past May 15.

Right now, under the present Medicare drug plan, if you don't sign up by this coming Monday, you will be penalized permanently for signing up late.

Millions of Americans are having serious problems understanding this outrageously complex Medicare plan, but the administration, the President of the United States is saying: Hurry up and make the choice, we are not going to extend the enrollment date. It is insulated from what reality is. It is too bad.

In New Jersey, seniors have to choose among 45 plans offered by 19 providers, and we are saying rush, rush, rush. Most people can't get through the language, no less the dates and those requirements. But the administration is saying to my constituents that even though their health is at issue, they have to rush to a decision. It sounds like this is a deadline that nothing can move and, unfortunately, that is the truth coming from this administration.

If we want to talk about health initiatives, Republican health initiatives, let's talk about the one that is in place, this horrible new Medicare plan.

We have seen the Republican model of health care, and it is not pretty. In fact, many have called it a disaster. One need only pick up the local newspapers to see this disaster play out from Maui to Miami, from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. The new Medicare drug plan is failing our seniors.

We see it demonstrated in this placard in the headlines: The Boston Globe:

Many seniors say Medicare drug plan will not help them.

Newsday:

Medicare guide is in need of Rx.

The New York Times:

Drug plan enrollment opens amid confusion.

It goes through all of these well-known newspapers, showing the opinions they are hearing from their constituents.

How did we get there? This Medicare Part D Program is an example of the majority vision for the future of health care in our Nation. One thing that is pretty clear about Medicare Part D is that whoever wrote it was clearly not focusing on the health of our seniors, and if the goal were to help our seniors, there would not be this thing called the donut hole, a gap in coverage.

Many Americans have not heard about it or don't know what this coverage gap is. When I explain it to people listening at home, they are not even going to believe it. But it is true because I have heard about it when I address people all across our State.

The way the program works is that for many people, in the middle of the year when you have spent $2,250 on drugs, which is not a lot of money considering the drug use for preserving health and for prolonging life, their prescription drug coverage will stop at $2,250. They will not have any coverage, but they will still have to pay the premium.

What does that mean? It means that sometime in the summer or fall of this year, millions of Americans will walk into a pharmacy for their medication and the pharmacist is going to ask them for hundreds of dollars in payment. When the person says, Wait a minute, I have Medicare, the pharmacist will say: Yes, but you are in the donut hole, when you don't get any benefit until you reach spending over $5,100; so you will have to pay the full price now.

It makes no sense. It is hard to understand, but unfortunately it is true and it is happening. My office has been contacted by constituents who experience this problem, and we are trying to help them, but this is only the beginning.

Another senseless component of the Republican Medicare law is the prohibition that prevents Medicare--can you believe this--prevents Medicare from negotiating prices directly with the pharmaceutical companies. The VA permits that and the discounts are significant. But you can't do that in Medicare because the focus is to protect the companies rather than it is to protect the citizens.

I come from New Jersey, home of the world's leading drug companies. And I admire these companies. Their discoveries have saved the lives of untold millions of people. To be quite honest, they are often targets of unfair criticism. But I don't see any reason to prohibit Medicare from negotiating prices with these companies. Medicare, the largest health care system in the entire world, is prevented from negotiating with these companies. The Republican Medicare law prohibits Medicare from negotiating for a good price, and there is no valid reason for it.

When I talk with my constituents about this new Medicare law, all of them ask the same question: Why is this program so complicated? That is a good question. The program is complicated because the people who wrote it were not focused on helping seniors. Rather, they were focused on promoting ideology. The Republican ideology is now destroying Medicare because it is based on the need to privatize everything, outsource Medicare.

If the goal were to help seniors get their prescription drugs, the result would not be so complicated. We can't blame seniors and their families for being confused when we present them with the kind of complex picture they see.

The Democrats invented Medicare, and when it comes to serving the American people, running an effective Government, we do know how to do it. I think it is pretty obvious now in the wake of this Medicare mess and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina that there is little ability to run our Government. It doesn't seem to work. Incompetence runs rampant.

Why can't they run a Government? Because they always want to farm out the hard work to the companies--Halliburton, the HMOs, and the list goes on and on. They even want to outsource our air traffic control system. Remember that fight? And that still looms in front of us. I will give you a real-world

example of why the Republican insistence on privatizing Medicare is hurting America's seniors. In one of my local papers back in New Jersey, the Bergen Record, there was an article about a pharmacist who has been trying very hard under tough circumstances to help his customers with this new Medicare program. One of the customers needed a 25-milligram version of a drug because her doctor found that the 50- milligram pill was causing too many side effects. When the pharmacist filled the 25-milligram prescription, the Medicare drug plan, run by United Healthcare, said they will not cover the 25-milligram, the smaller milligram, version. It is hard to understand.

United Healthcare told the pharmacist to cut the 50-milligram pills in half. The pharmacist correctly told the insurance company that it was a sustained-release drug and cutting it in half would make the pill ineffective. After waiting for some time on hold with United Healthcare, the pharmacist was told the customer would have to go back to her doctor and ask the doctor to file an appeal with United Healthcare, looking for special permission to get the smaller dose of the pill.

That is what real seniors are going through every hour, every day under this drug program.

I want to talk about United Healthcare in particular. United Healthcare paid its CEO, William McGuire, $124 million last year. That is right. The CEO of United Healthcare made almost $124 million in 2005. Now, if they were making widgets, that would be all right. But they are supplying health care to seniors and having this man walk away with millions of dollars--when the people who need health care are paying for it--it is not right. Those people are paying for that kind of a salary, that kind of an asset base.

The seniors in my State are upset, while the real beneficiaries of the Republican Medicare bill are still paid these outrageous salaries. It doesn't make sense. It is a disgrace.

The question has been asked: Should we scrap this program and do a real Medicare drug benefit? Maybe. But I would say this to the American people: As long as the same group is running this Congress, you are going to see more of the same happening. All we have to do is look at the condition that we find ourselves in over in Iraq, not knowing whether we are going or whether we are staying, and lives are still being lost. The cost for that war is going to be somewhere around half a trillion dollars before this year is over, and we are funding it with supplementals that carry all kinds of pork-laden projects. The management is terrible.

Management of the environment is terrible, when we look at what is happening and we see that snowfields in Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa that were there since the beginning of time will no longer be there in a few years, when we see that Glacier National Park will soon not have a glacier there, having had glaciers there since the beginning of time. The glaciers are melting in front of our eyes. If you look at pictures of animals up in Alaska, such as the polar bear, they are scrawny. They don't have the body size they should have when they are not getting sufficient nourishment. There is nothing being done about that. There is nothing being done about global warming as the Earth that we live on gets warmer and as the threats of flooding all over the seacoast States and communities becomes more and more apparent. So there is a question of competency that we have to look at. It is certainly not reflected in this Medicare plan.

Although it is late, I wish the President would show some good heartedness and say: You know what, seniors of America, we are going to help you. We know you can't get through this Medicare drug plan in time, so what we are going to do is delay it a few months. What is the big deal? I don't get it. Instead of permitting people to adequately review these plans so they can understand what they are getting into, there is a push to sign up. It is one that I don't understand.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Amtrak. When the first Amtrak Clocker train left New York, bound for New Jersey and Philadelphia, on May 1, 1971, it ushered in a new era of passenger rail travel in the United States. Millions of passengers from every corner of America can attest to the fact that Amtrak remains a vital part of our nationwide transportation network, and I firmly believe it's imperative that we not just preserve our nation's passenger rail system, but also develop it.

Amtrak's transformation from a tiny initiative with only 25 workers and widespread expectations of failure, to a successful national corporation with 19,700 employees in nearly every state, is one of the great success stories I've witnessed during my many years in the Senate. Every day approximately 68,000 travelers rely on Amtrak as an effective alternative to the hassles and delays of air travel, and the increasingly prohibitive gas costs and traffic congestion associated with highway travel.

Amtrak remains enormously important to my home State of New Jersey. Last year, for instance, over 3.4 million people boarded or exited an Amtrak train at the six rail stations in New Jersey, and nearly 1,700 New Jersey residents worked for Amtrak during this same time period. Approximately 110 Amtrak trains travel through my home State every day; this service, combined with the many rail lines that New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, PATH, and PATCO operate, truly makes New Jersey a national leader in passenger rail. I am immensely proud of this distinction--as all New Jerseyans are--and it would not be possible without Amtrak. The benefits of such a system are immense; without rails, our State would suffocate under extreme highway and airport traffic congestion. On Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, which stops at several points in New Jersey, the trains carry as many people as 75,000 fully loaded Boeing 757 jets each year. By contrast, there are only 102 flights between downtown Washington, DC, and the three New York City-area airports on an average weekday.

On December 11, 2000, the first Acela Express service began on the Northeast Corridor. As one of the leading proponents of high-speed rail in the Congress, it has been a marvel to see the success of this train and its example of how high-speed rail can be successful in our country. I am a frequent rider of the Acela Express between New Jersey and Washington, and I appreciate the service for the same reasons that many others do: it is efficient, it is comfortable, it is cost- effective, and it is convenient. Most tellingly, the Acela Express's operations do not require a subsidy, and I expect its ridership to continue to grow as others discover the advantages of this remarkable train.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that despite the great successes of Amtrak, it is necessary for the many defenders of the system myself included to fight for its survival at every turn. There are many within the Bush administration--and within the House and Senate--who would like nothing better than to see Amtrak wither and die, stranding millions of travelers in the process. We cannot let this happen, and as long as I am a member of the Senate, I will not let this happen. I will continue to work with a diverse set of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who realize the advantages of providing options for travelers and having a balanced national transportation system.

In short, Mr. President, I salute Amtrak for its achievements, and I extend the railroad and its employees, who are the backbone of the railroad's operation, warmest wishes for continued success through the next 35 years.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the students of East Brunswick High School in New Jersey for winning the 2006 ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition. The breadth of knowledge displayed about our government should serve as an inspiration to all Americans.

The road to the national championship was not an easy one. The students spent months researching different constitutional topics, ranging from the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution to issues currently being debated on the Senate floor. Participants then participated in mock congressional hearings where they were questioned by state judges, professors, lawyers, and journalists.

East Brunswick first won the New Jersey state competition to earn the right to participate in the national finals here in Washington, DC. In three days of intense competition, the students competed against more than 1,500 other students from every State and the District of Columbia. This is East Brunswick's third consecutive win in this prestigious competition.

I would like to congratulate each member of the East Brunswick High School team: Brian Boyarksy, David Chu, Nelson Chu, Dana Covit, Megan DeMarco, Ben DeMarzo, Craig Distel, Deborah Elson, Dana Feuchtbaum, Munira Gunja, Melinda Guo, Shelby Highstein, Evan Hoffman, Jayasree Iyer, Ryan Korn, Michael Martelo, Carol Ann Moccio, Jeffrey Myers, Ari Ne'eman, Daniel Nowicki, Aditya Panda, Sherwin Salar, Gil Shefer, Aaron Sin, Lauren Slater, Eric Smith, Merichelle Villapando, Amy Wang, and Jason Yang. Congratulations also to their coaches Barbara Maier and Joyce Lentz, and their teacher Alan Brodman.

I am confident the Senate will join me in wishing all the members of this team congratulations and much success in the future.

Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Biden's amendment to provide that none of the funds being appropriated in this emergency supplemental appropriations bill may be used by the United States to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. If we are serious about finding ways to neutralize the insidious insurgency that has killed over 2,400 American service men and women in Iraq, we must state clearly, unequivocally, and without further delay that we do not

intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Permanent U.S. military bases are a temptation for terrorists and would be a continuing symbol of U.S. occupation.

The U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on March 24, 2006, that the United States ``has no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'' Senior-level officials regularly promise that the United States will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. But the facts tell a different story.

General John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, testified before Congress earlier this year that he couldn't rule out the possibility of permanent bases in Iraq. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has requested more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq, nearly double what the United States has spent in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates combined. This very bill we are considering includes $348 million for more base construction. This begs the question, if the U.S. Government doesn't plan to occupy Iraq for any longer than necessary, why are we spending billions of dollars to add onto and build more bases?

At the end of March, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said, and I agree, that ``we must . . . show that we will not become a permanent force of occupation . . .''. Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded that the Bush administration had probably made ``thousands'' of ``tactical errors'' in Iraq. Let's not compound the problem by establishing permanent bases in Iraq.

I say it again: if we are serious about finding ways to neutralize the insidious insurgency in Iraq, we must convince the rest of the world--especially the Muslim world--that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Approving the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Delaware will help us send that message. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment to prohibit the United States from building permanent military bases in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today, life in America is tough. People are working very hard to make ends meet. In so many cases, families have to earn two incomes to meet their basic needs: mom working one shift, dad working another shift.

It is a mystery to me, and I am sure it is to so many people in our country,

how it is that the inflation index is so modest when everything costs more, whether it is milk, whether it is electric, whether it is housing, whether it is prescription drugs, whether it is school, whether it is college and university tuition.

I am reluctant to talk about my age, but since the days the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and I were in college, the tuitions have become such an expensive proportion of a family's income that it is hard to imagine how working people can get their kids into college and not have them drowning in debt by the time they finish.

That is life in America today. No matter where you turn, it costs more. Look at ball game tickets. Look at theater tickets. Look at the pleasant amenities, see how much they cost, and one can understand why few people can afford to take advantage of these things. As a consequence, most Americans agree that this Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Who can blame them?

We saw the Government's bungling and ineptitude in response to Hurricane Katrina. The administration's missteps in Iraq are costing Americans dearly in lives and dollars, and gasoline prices are out of control.

Gas prices have gone through the roof. This chart shows in December of 2001, President Bush's first year in office, the national average price of gas was $1.06 for regular gas, $1.25 for supreme gas. Now we are at a much different point, $1.06 for regular has gone to $2.92, almost a $1.85 increase in the price. That is almost a 200-percent jump in price from 2001 when supreme was $1.25. Supreme now is $3.07.

It is unconscionable. The American people are upset. Members are receiving e-mail messages, phone calls. Our constituents will tell Members what they think of these prices.

Gas prices were low in 2001 when two oil men in the White House got together with their friends and the oil industry. They convened a secret task force to develop an energy policy. Then our friends, the Republicans in the Congress, passed the so-called Energy bill which was mostly a bunch of giant tax breaks for big oil and the wealthiest among us. They did not construct that, but that is what happened.

What is the result of all this work by the Bush-Cheney administration and the Republican majority in the Congress? The average price of gasoline this week, as I said, is $2.92 for the lowest octane.

What is the Republican answer to this problem? How about this: Give everyone a $100 tax rebate. Whoopee. What a celebration, 100 bucks. If you have a 20-gallon tank in your car, you get 2.5 fills before using your $100. In fact, the average family cost in gasoline today is up $1,800. Everyone knows this is a silly idea when they hear it. With gasoline prices at this rate, what is $100 going to do? Practically nothing; $100 is not going to do anything as long as the Republican Party is a subsidiary of big oil.

Here is an example. To pay for the $100 rebates, the Republican Party, the Republican majority said they will close tax loopholes that oil companies enjoy. But the oil companies said: Wait a minute, don't get tough with us. So today we hear the Republicans have backed off that plan, holding their heads in wonderment like scolded schoolchildren.

We all know about the obscene retirement package that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond received. His retirement package--get this-- was almost $400 million. When they recalculated his earnings over the period of time he served, his average income was $145,000 each and every day. How many people in this country earn over $145,000 a year, no less per day? It is incomprehensible. And the public has been justifiably outraged by this outlandish compensation package at the expense of the American people.

Listen to what the now-ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said on the ``Today Show'' this morning. I heard it. He was asked if his company would offer his fellow Americans some relief this summer and discount gasoline prices. His answer was: ``We are in the business to make money.'' He said that was his job.

I was CEO of a pretty big company, and I understand the business world. But when you deal in a commodity you have to be cognizant of your ethical and civic responsibilities to your country. Gasoline is not some run-of-the-mill product. It is vital to our entire society. It is critical. ExxonMobil is part of the American community and its neighbors are suffering. Businesses and American families are having real problems just affording gasoline. There are families who may decide not to go to the doctor this week for a sick child. They may postpone it. Small businesses are losing lots of money with higher fuel costs.

Big oil needs to recognize the impact their commodity has on everyday Americans' lives. Mr. Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, needs to understand their special role in our functioning as a society.

And the Bush administration needs to stop acting helpless. President Bush and Vice President Cheney often say: There is not much we can do about high gasoline prices. I do not see it that way. There are things they can do.

There is something we can do here. We can get tough with the Saudis and get rid of their OPEC cartel. The OPEC oil cartel has one purpose-- to keep oil prices high by restricting exports or output. Their activity is a blatant violation of the GATT agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Not only is the President not getting tough with the Saudis, the administration is pandering to them. A year ago, when gasoline prices had already spiked well past $2 a gallon, the Saudi ruler visited the President at his ranch in Texas. What we saw was not the President getting tough but, instead, being very friendly, strolling through a flower garden with the Saudi leader. It looked like a friendly gathering, not a tough negotiation.

Then, last week, President Bush's Energy Secretary traveled to an OPEC nation in the Middle East and praised the oil cartel. And this week, with the Saudi Oil Minister here in DC, the administration is putting down the red carpet and telling the Saudis and OPEC what a great job they do.

What the President should do is tell the Saudis, point blank: Disband your OPEC cartel or we will file a complaint against you in the World Trade Organization.

Under international law, OPEC is an illegal cartel aimed at keeping oil prices high. We need to force the Saudis and their friends to play by the rules. And that means no cartel. Forget about it.

Mr. President, I say this: The next time the Saudis or one of the countries in the cartel has a problem with a belligerent neighbor, they should not dial 911 because there will not be anybody to answer that phone, not if they continue the pattern of behavior they have started.

To the President: The American people have had enough. They want a change in leadership in this country. We need leaders who will stand up to the Saudis and the big oil companies. It is one of the only ways we can get oil and gasoline prices under control.

We have to hunt for other sources of energy, for other ways to use the energy. We are seeing it now in hybrid cars. We are seeing now that in Brazil almost 75 percent of the people there are using an ethanol mixture, saving substantial--substantial--amounts of oil. And we have to be creative. We have the genius in this country. Why don't we turn it loose and make sure they have the incentives, the economic incentives, the market incentives to do those things that can save oil?

I do not hear anybody saying, I do not hear the President of the United States saying--and I have not heard it in a long time--join in the sacrifice. We are at war. Join in conservation. We do not have enough. Help this country get through this crisis. And let the oil companies know the American people are in charge, not they. But that message is not sounded. The alarm is not rung. And that is the way life is here.

I make this plea to the President of the United States and colleagues here: Step up to the plate. Really take an action to get that price reduced and not be satisfied with excuses like: Oh, that is the marketplace. Baloney; that is what the American people will tell you. They do not want to drain their limited resources out the window by these outrageous prices for gasoline.

We have to work together. But the only way we are going to work together is if there is some concerted leadership that says: Hey, we have to get on to this problem, and not pretend this problem will kind of go away by itself.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I acknowledge three significant days of commemoration that fall around this time each year. Today is the 58th anniversary of David Ben Gurion's declaration of Israel's Independence and the end of the British Mandate in Israel. As a Jewish American, I am proud to be one of the cosponsors of the concurrent resolution the Senate will pass celebrating Yom Haatzmaut, Israel's Independence Day.

Yom Haatzmaut is usually observed on the 5th of the Jewish month Iyyar; this year it falls on May 3rd. In Israel, Yom Haatzmaut is always preceded by Yom Hazikaron, Israel's Memorial Day for fallen soldiers. The proximity of the dates is a reminder that Israelis owe their independence to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for it. The official switch from Yom Hazikaron to Yom Haatzmaut is signaled when the flag is raised from half staff to the top of the pole in a ceremony on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem after sundown.

Last week, the Senate commemorated Yom Hashoa, Holocaust Remembrance Day, with S. Res. 445, which I also cosponsored. Yom Hashoa is when the Jewish community solemnly remembers the suffering caused by the Nazi Holocaust led by Adolph Hitler during World War II. During the Holocaust, over six million Jews perished, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, and other victims of Nazi genocide.

Yom Hashoa is observed every year on the 27th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar, a week after the seventh day of Passover, and a week before Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut. Yom Hashoa became a national holiday in the State of Israel in 1959. Each year, throughout the streets of Israel, the sound of sirens on Yom Hashoa stops traffic and pedestrians for 2 minutes of silent devotion.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the U.S. Senate is adopting these important measures.

Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to review for a moment that this is an anniversary date of some significance which I believe ought to be recognized. It is 3 years ago this week that President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln in front of a banner that declared that our mission in Iraq had been accomplished. He told our troops and all Americans that major combat operations in Iraq have ended 3 years ago this week. At the time, we had lost 139 people, 139 troops in Iraq. Today, we have lost more than 2,400 American troops there, and 2,258 have died since ``Mission Accomplished'' was pronounced. In other words, 95 percent of the United States fatalities in Iraq occurred after President Bush said major combat was over, and tens of thousands of young Americans have suffered injuries, including severe head injuries and lost limbs, that will change their lives and the lives of their families forever.

One need only visit Walter Reed Hospital and see what the ravages of war have done to so many. The only thing that was accomplished that day was a photo opportunity for the President's reelection campaign. When we look back at that publicity stunt on that aircraft carrier, we realize how wrong the President was. But that was hardly the only major conduct error in the judgment of this war.

Recently, a number of retired generals have come forward to say what many in the military have been thinking for years. These officers know that our men and women in uniform have been let down by the miscalculations and the incompetence of the Bush administration. The troops on the battlefield pay with their lives, but nobody in the administration has been held accountable.

The generals say we can't move forward without accountability. They say that the Secretary of Defense must go. The generals are right. Secretary Rumsfeld has made too many mistakes to stay in that job. As the old expression says, when you are in a hole, stop digging.

Let's recount the miscalculations of the Secretary of Defense. Before the war, he said, ``We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Bagdhad, and east, west, south and north, somewhat.''

But now we know there was no solid evidence before the war that Iraq had any WMDs. None were found when the United States invaded the country in March, and none have been found since. That was over 3 years ago.

Secretary Rumsfeld also said that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that the Iraqi resistance would be limited. Obviously way off. Not only did Secretary Rumsfeld fail to build coalitions with our allies, he flippantly, arrogantly dismissed them as ``old Europe,'' alienating these allies when he should have been reaching out to them. The result of a failure to build a real coalition is that our troops are bearing the risks and suffering the casualties.

There were other serious miscalculations. Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. On February 7, 2003, he said:

The war could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.

Secretary Rumsfeld also rejected calls for a larger number of troops. He even pushed out GEN Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, when General Shinseki, a distinguished leader, a military leader, suggested that postwar Iraq would require many more forces than the 100,000 troops we had on the ground. As I remember, he said over 300,000.

Secretary Rumsfeld was also way off on the cost of the war. He said it would cost at least $10 billion but no more than $100 billion. We now see the actual costs coming close to $500 billion.

Despite all of the funds devoted to the war, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to equip our troops properly. After more than 3 years, thousands of Army and Marine Corps personnel still do not have adequate body armor or sufficient armor for their humvees. When I was there over 3 years ago, I heard the plea then from soldiers from New Jersey: Give us the flak vest, Senator, that you are wearing, the latest technology. They will protect us. Please let us have that.

We know what happened with the humvees and the resulting serious injuries because of inadequate armor for the humvees.

In December 2004, in a meeting with U.S. troops in Kuwait, some soldiers raised these concerns with Secretary Rumsfeld. His response was offensive; humiliating for our troops who are serving there. He said, ``As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.''

I don't know what was meant by that statement but it certainly is a slur in many ways.

I must say that what I find incredibly offensive is this administration still will not allow photographs of flag-draped coffins when they return to our shore and come into Dover, DE, which is the repository for the remains. It is such an honor to recognize the sacrifice made by having a flag draped over the coffin. Yet that honor of our fallen troops is shielded from the American people by the order of the President of the United States.

It doesn't make sense to me, and I know it doesn't make sense to those families.

It isn't just civilians upset by these events. We have now heard eight retired generals call for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation, citing gross mismanagement and profound errors in judgment.

Retired Army MG Paul Eaton, in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, recently wrote in the New York Times that Rumsfeld ``has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically . . . Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.''

Retired Marine GEN Anthony Zinni, an outstanding leader, former head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes the Middle East, last month called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign.

Other military leaders who have called for Secretary Rumsfeld to go include retired Marine LTG Gregory Newbold; retired Army MG John Riggs; retired Marine GEN Paul Van Riper; retired Army MG John Batiste; retired Army MG Charles Swannack, former Commander of the 82nd Airborne in Iraq; and retired U.S. Army GEN Wesley Clark.

In addition, we are now seeing people of lower ranks who are upset with the way that campaign has gone and are expressing their dissatisfaction.

We see also a phenomenon we haven't seen before; that is, people filling out their obligatory term at the Academy and a third of whom do not stay on. They finish their obligatory terms of 5 years and they are gone. It is a serious problem in many ways. Morally, I think it is a serious problem, but also functionally we don't have the personnel supporting the war in the way we had hoped. Whole branches of services over there are as courageous as can be. It is very dangerous territory, and they serve bravely. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

The fact is the Bush administration has made serious mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq, and our soldiers have paid the price. Our troops deserve better.

On the third anniversary of President Bush's ``Mission Accomplished'' fiasco, I hope that the President finds the strength to make real changes. And those changes need to start at the top.

I urge the President to be more specific about what our assignment is. He has already said it will be up to another President to take care of what continues there. Unfortunately, we have to believe that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Menendez amendment to adequately fund port and container security.

Our ports are vulnerable to a terrorist attack. We know this.

We only inspect about 5 percent of the shipping containers that enter our country.

Terrorists could smuggle themselves, traditional weapons, and nuclear or chemical weapons into a harbor.

From there, they could potentially launch an attack even more devastating than 9/11.

In my home State of New Jersey--where we lost some 700 victims on 9/ 11--Federal officials have identified the 2-mile stretch between Port Newark and Newark Liberty International Airport as the most dangerous target in the United States for terrorism.

But port security is not just a local concern. Our ports are essential to the flow of goods and commodities in our national economy, and vital to our military; 95 percent of all goods imported into this country arrive by ship.

Mr. President, this administration's mishandling of the Dubai Ports deal has highlighted the fact that our ports are still vulnerable.

We need a way to ensure that 100 percent of the containers coming into our country are WMD-free.

The Bush administration has said that we can't check all containers coming into the U.S. for WMD's.

But we check every airline passenger for weapons. We do not just look at an airline passenger's ticket and say ``OK, on paper, this guy looks fine.''

That is the Bush administration's current idea of port security--just a simple look at the paperwork.

Mr. President, we need to check containers for WMDs. The amendment of my friend, Senator Menendez, will give us the tools we need to do this. It will adequately protect our ports, our economy and our lives.

I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.