Floor Statements

Mr. President, if we are going to open up an opportunity for additional amendments, I have an amendment that has been sitting here.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 839. I offer this amendment to this bill to protect the integrity of government science and research on global climate change. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Reid of Nevada, Lieberman, Jeffords, and Corzine.

We hear a lot of rhetoric these days by those who challenge climate change and the science that they supposedly use to back up their arguments. But the problem is that much of what they present is not science but, rather, fiction. And what we want to talk about tonight, as has been said many times, is the facts, just the facts, please.

When I see what is being presented to us, I want to show this placard. It is called ``the Cooney Triangle.'' It is an alliance between the American Petroleum Institute, the White House, and ExxonMobil. Cooney used to be a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. Put simply, his job at the White House was to cast doubt on the scientific evidence that our climate is changing.

In 2001, Mr. Cooney went to work at the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. His mission at CEQ included editing reports by government scientists on global warming. And he tried to muddy the waters by interjecting uncertainty where, in fact, there is consensus.

About 2 weeks ago, Mr. Cooney left the White House to go to work for ExxonMobil, the most outspoken of all the oil companies in its rejection of the scientific evidence that global warming is occurring. I call this unholy alliance between API, the White House, and ExxonMobil the Cooney triangle.

What happens in the Cooney triangle is threatening our country. Bouncing from industry to government, back into industry--that is not new in Washington. We have had a revolving door policy for a long time. What is unprecedented is that industry lobbyists, such as Mr. Cooney, are no longer asked just to try to influence policy. Now they are given free rein to tamper with and distort the findings of professional scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences.

How it works is displayed in an article in the New York Times printed on June 8, 2005. It provides a graphic example of strikeouts and changes in the

wording of a report. While working at the White House, Mr. Cooney, who is not a scientist, edited out entire sections of U.S. reports on climate change. He didn't just alter the words, he altered the meaning of what government scientists had written. An example is included, obviously, in these revisions.

Mr. Cooney deleted an entire paragraph, taking out a description of global warming impacts widely accepted by scientists, calling it ``speculative findings,'' ``amusing,'' to use his quotes.

In the next example, he adds a made-up sentence about the need for research to reduce the significant remaining uncertainties associated with human-induced climate change.

Contrast that heavy-handed editing with what scientists are saying about global warming. In January, Oxford University led a number of world-renowned universities in the largest climate change experiment ever conducted. The researchers found that the threat of global warming appears to be worse than previously thought and that the Earth is warming at twice the rate previously understood.

There is a statement here from the National Academy of Sciences issued just 2 weeks ago. They say:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other

national science academies today in calling on world leaders,

particularly those of the G8 countries meeting the next month

in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change

is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to

prepare for its consequences.

The date is June 7, 2005, not a month ago, put out by the National Academy of Sciences, a fairly respected group.

When taxpayers pay for objective scientific studies, they don't want the findings altered. We expect scientists to go where the facts lead them, not to follow predetermined ideologies. Yet the administration has an alarming tendency to disregard or even distort scientific research. We have seen it in these reports. Nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to global warming.

The front-page headline in USA Today last week said it all: ``The Debate is Over. The Globe is Warming.''

Our planet is warming up. It is being documented by scientists. But instead of addressing the real problem, the administration wants to edit the problem away by tinkering with scientific reports.

My amendment would help protect government reports on global warming and climate change from being altered for any reason, political reasons in particular.

Under my amendment, if a government report about climate change is altered by the White House, then a draft of the preedited version has to be made available at the same time that the final report is released. This way people can determine for themselves whether the scientific evidence about global warming is being ignored or disregarded by the administration. The amendment also extends whistleblower protection for government scientists. It is too bad they have to have that, but we want to be sure that they are free to speak up. It is time to make sure everybody knows about this war on science, especially when it comes to global warming.

The bottom line is that the oil industry lobbyists should not be rewriting scientific conclusions. My amendment will discourage such tampering in the future.

In a national survey last year, two-thirds of the Americans surveyed said government science should be insulated from politics. Nobel laureates, former Federal agency directors, and university presidents have all called for legislative action to restore scientific integrity to Federal policymaking. It is time to smash the Cooney triangle. It is time to demand greater transparency, a hallmark of democracy, on all scientific reports on our planet's climate.

As Russell Train, who served as EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, put it, the ``interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts.''

Under my amendment, if the administration wants to fly in the face of peer-reviewed science, it can still do it. But when the administration publishes a bogus report on global warming, my amendment will make it easier for the American people to separate science from fiction.

Mr. President, it is fairly obvious, by all kinds of physical evidence, that there is a warming taking place. If we see what happens in Antarctica or in the Arctic, and we see places changing their character, going from glacially covered ice mountains into pools and areas bare of any evidence of winter--the facts are there. They cannot be refuted. Yes, they can be altered. But we just want to know when the facts are changed. When the information is distorted in any way, we say, OK, you want to change them, but let the public know what the change is you are making.

I yield the floor, and I ask, how much time is left?

I thank the Chair.

If the Senator from New Mexico would want to yield time, I am happy to yield the remaining time that I have.

We yield back our time.

Mr. President, first let me say to my friend and colleague from New Jersey how much I admire his commitment to our State and to the things that protect our environment and our well-being. I am very proud of Senator Corzine. I have mixed feelings about whether I want him to win the race in New Jersey because it is nice to have a hometown boy around.

I join Senator Corzine in this attempt to protect our State from being affected by drilling for oil off our shore line. When I was a boy, I had occasion to spend time at the New Jersey shore. It was, for me, a matter of almost paradisiacal value to be able to get to that shore and never think about whether we were going to step on plastics, needles, oil spills, or anything like that. It was so much a part of our culture that to change it in any way that we do not have to is an act of poor judgment.

The top of the list, as far as we are concerned, is the New Jersey shore. We call it ``the shore.'' In the summertime, few things are better than a day at the beach, watching your children or your grandchildren play in the surf or go out on a fishing boat or learn something about marine life. We have seen times when a spill occurs how it spoils an entire area.

We are at a time now where in desperation we are searching for ways to make up for our profligate use of oil. We are looking around, trying to find ways to substitute for the bad judgment we used for so many years, for letting it go, for not requiring cars to meet standards for oil consumption or gas consumption.

Hurting our environment, having oil ruin our most delicate and precious resources. It is just not right.

If one wants to fish or walk along the boardwalk, those from New Jersey go to the shore. If you want an evening's recreation, you go to the shore. It is nearby. It is part of our life. It is part of what we think of as the periphery of our State: 127 miles of shore line, the major economic engine for New Jersey.

Tourism, as we heard from my colleague, is a $30-billion industry and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. Seventy percent of all the State's tourism revenues originate at the shores. Our shores are very important to us. But it goes beyond the economy. It goes beyond all kinds of things that one might think. When you look at the marine ecology, when you see what happens with clam beds or shellfish beds, we cannot fish them any more because of contamination, because of toxins. Those affect our everyday lives.

For 35 States in this country, the coast is at our door, the shore is right there for us--for 35 coastal States. Of course, it includes the States in the Great Lakes area. They too have an interest in protecting their waters. So when anyone proposes something that could put our shores at risk, we take it very seriously.

Of course, that brings us to the bill we are currently considering. There has been a great deal of discussion about violating our longstanding prohibition against offshore drilling by allowing States to opt out of the moratorium. Now, what would that mean? We recently had a spill in the Delaware River. Did it do more damage to New Jersey than it did to Pennsylvania or Delaware? It damaged all of them. Oceans know no boundaries, unless we put up a seawall that extends beyond the borders of our State way out into the ocean and say: OK, you can drill on that side but not the other.

I see the majority leader and Democratic leader looking at me so wistfully, and I wonder if it is in admiration or whether it is something else they had in mind.

I yield, provided I do not lose the floor.

Mr. President, the point I was making just a few minutes ago was that we ought not permit States to opt out of this moratorium, this prohibition against offshore drilling because what happens in a neighboring State, whether it is Delaware or Maryland or New York State or Connecticut or Massachusetts, affects what happens in my State very often. The same is true on the Pacific side of things. The same is true for the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot simply say: Let a State do the drilling. They may be more interested in the income than in the protection of the environment. But we are not. I can't emphasize strongly enough the importance of protecting the sensitive marine areas off the New Jersey coast and other coastal States.

For more than two decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have respected the moratorium on leasing and preleasing activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. But now we are talking about doing away with this protection. It would be foolish and shortsighted. One only needs to look at the list of accidents at sea and see what happened to neighboring States or neighboring communities not at all connected to the place where the accident happened. We just ought not permit it.

The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service estimated in the year 2000 that the waters off New Jersey might hold enough oil to supply the country with 10 days of oil. What does it mean in the scheme of things? Ten days of oil and run the risk of destroying marine life and a culture that is associated with coastal States? It is a part of our lives. Heaven forbid that it changes from being part of our daily lives.

Do we want to risk hundreds of thousands of jobs for 10 days? I don't think so. Do we want to risk changing the culture of our society, our coastal society? I don't think so.

The people of my State and the residents of all coastal States do not want oil and gas rigs marring their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. The occupant of the Chair, coming from a beautiful coastal State, tiny though it is, but so much dependent on the sound and the ocean, I am sure understands the risks of having oil rigs out there that could damage the culture of the State as well as the marine life and the ecology. We don't want that to happen. I don't mean to speak for the Presiding Officer, but I know that Rhode Island has similar problems to States such as New Jersey.

Drilling poses serious threats to our environment and to our economy. Drilling requires onshore infrastructure that can harm sensitive coastal zones. The massive amounts of mud it displaces when drills go down into the earth must be dumped somewhere else.

The constant risk of oil spills cannot be minimized.

I was chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations about 15 years ago when the Exxon Valdez ran aground. Because I had Coast Guard in my subcommittee, I took the opportunity to get up to the place where the vessel was floundering within 3 days after it ran aground. It was in some way kind of a mystical allure. You could see the sheen on the water, and it spread with all of its color but all of its menace at the same time. I saw brave people from our Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife getting off on these tiny islands with helicopters and small boats and taking the birds out and fish and trying to clean them up one by one wherever they could. It was devastating. I visited there at that time. I find out that today, 16 years later, that disaster is still taking a toll on the environment.

When I take my grandchildren to the beach, I don't want them to discover oil underneath a rock, as one still does in the area where the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I don't want them to see birds or mammals sickened by their inability to breathe properly as a result of a coating of oil. I don't want to hear about the coral destruction that provides the nutritional base for our fish and marine life.

The Exxon Valdez spill was one of the largest oil spills we have suffered, and it was only one of many. According to the Department of Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from offshore operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. It is an average of about four incidents a year, more than 40,000 gallons of oil per spill. That is more than enough oil to ruin a beach town's tourist season for years to come.

We cannot afford to damage our shorelines--and we should not be asked to do it--or the marine life that inhabits our coastal waters. Nature has been good to us. It supplies us with the seas and the water and the land and the mountains. We ought to try as much as possible to keep that intact.

Ending the moratorium in any State completely undercuts the position our Nation has upheld for many decades. It clearly undercuts the stated wishes of coastal States that would incur the

greatest damage. The United States needs new sources of energy. I agree with that. But where have we been in these past years as the consumption of oil increased? Buying it from people who aren't even friends of ours, but who are always asking us to protect them in moments of trouble. And some of those states we know have been accused of and it has been established that they support terrorists who fight against us. Did that cause us to say: Hey, we ought to change things? No. It didn't. We simply said: Get bigger cars and use more gas and let the devil take the high road. It ought not be that way. The United States needs new sources of energy.

Fortunately, our Nation has many energy sources that are vastly underutilized. One of those sources for finding our way out of this mess is to continue to invest in alternative methods for producing energy in universities and research institutes. We can bolster our Nation's energy security without drilling offshore. A day at the beach should mean fun, clean water, natural beauty, not oil slicks or drilling rigs. We need to keep the existing prohibition on offshore drilling in place. That is what Senator Corzine and Senator Bill Nelson and other Senators from coastal States and I intend to do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, on Tuesday--for the record, today is Thursday--President Bush gave a speech in which he complained that Democrats are obstructionists because we are not accepting his entire agenda.

The President also said that we say no to everything. I listened to him and I watched him on TV. But look at all the things he says no to. President Bush said no to Tony Blair when the Prime Minister was here to ask for more help for Africa, to help with AIDS, hunger, and loan reduction. He said no.

President Bush says no to kids with juvenile diabetes, autism, or other childhood diseases, when they ask to be permitted to do stem cell research to see if we can prevent those diseases from plaguing these youngsters for life.

President Bush said no to parents and teachers who want education fully funded.

President Bush said no to a real Patients' Bill of Rights.

President Bush said no to making polluters pay for Superfund environmental cleanups, a program that has been very successful. I was author of the second iteration of Superfund in 1986. It was a program that needed some time to get going. But now we can look at lots of sites that have been cleaned up and are put to useful purposes that don't threaten children or families who live in the area. President Bush said no to making the polluters pay. He said yes to making the taxpayers pay for the cleanup problems the polluters created.

President Bush said no to getting tough with the Saudi Arabians, so we can really bring down oil prices. The Saudis said no to us when we asked for help in keeping oil prices down. Look what has happened to oil prices. I remember so vividly in the last Presidential campaign, when Senator Kerry challenged President Bush. The thing that came out of the White House--the statement most clearly was: If Senator Kerry becomes President, you are going to see taxes on oil prices. If you want to see taxes on oil prices, just look at what happened. The only difference is these taxes are being paid to Saudi Arabia and other places that are not friendly to the United States. But the public is paying for it. Gasoline has gone from $1.20 to, in some places, $2.50, which I paid recently. I don't hear the President saying no to them when they call and say they want help from us.

And the President calls us the obstructionists? I find that label very interesting. What it means is, if you oppose any of President Bush's policies, you are an obstructionist. Frankly, in a democratic Nation, that is unacceptable. It is a disastrous line of thinking. In my view, if you don't like challenge, then you don't understand democracy. This is not a nation where we have a dictator. There should not be a time when simply because the President of the United States thinks it is a good idea that we avoid debate or challenge that we should. No, not on your life. That is how we get ideas and how we challenge the public in this country to say something about the programs in which we are engaged.

The President says: If you don't like my programs, then you are an obstructionist.

Tell that to the people whose pensions are fading in front of their eyes. Tell that to the people who work 25, 30 years for a company and see their jobs ended, without the prospect of coming anywhere near the salary they were earning. No, he doesn't say no to the people he ought to say no to. The President proposed the other day--yesterday--that the tax rate that has done us so much good is something he wants to make permanent--I wish he would say no to that--so that the wealthiest among us don't go ahead and wait for their airplanes to be delivered after 3 years. If you order a private airplane--a $25 million or $30 million airplane--if you want to buy one, sorry, there is a line. If you want large yachts, 100 to 200 feet, you have to wait 2 years. What a pity it is for those rich guys to have to pay their share of taxes. I am one of those who have been so fortunate in America. I created a business that got to be very big, along with two other friends who grew up in the poor neighborhood in which I lived. I am more than willing to pay more taxes because, if I do that, I have more money left.

I wish the President of the United States would say no to those people and yes to the people struggling to make a living; yes to the kids who cannot afford to pay for college tuition; yes to those people and don't accuse the Democrats of being obstructionists. Saddam Hussein didn't have to worry about obstructionists in his country. He killed them or jailed them. Mr. President, leaders who are free of obstructionists are also known as dictators.

Our constituents elected us to represent them and their viewpoints in the Senate. One thing I knew when I came to this Senate--now over 20 years ago--I wasn't elected by all the Republicans, by a long shot. I am not even sure I was elected by all of the Democrats. But I won. When I stood and took my oath, I never thought once

that I don't have to pay attention to those who did not vote for me-- the Republicans, typically. When I won this seat and the responsibility, I accepted the responsibility, and I had an obligation to every citizen in my State and the citizens of this country to listen to them and try to understand their needs. That is what you get in a democracy. You get the opportunity to represent all of the people. It is not just the rubberstamp of the President's initiatives. The Constitution created the Senate as a check on Presidential power. The Founding Fathers created the Senate in order to obstruct the President, when necessary.

Mr. President, throughout history, so-called obstructionists have been the champions of democracy. Looking at these photos of people like this who resisted tyranny, are they obstructionists? Are the people who stood up against tyranny in so many other countries obstructionists? Are they people who are fighting for a cause, or are they obstructionists? This picture looks like Boston. Can those people be called obstructionists as they tried to defend their land? I don't think so. If we look further, there were people who disagreed with some of the Founding Fathers' views, who obstructed the King of England with our Declaration of Independence. It was a pretty good idea, one would have to assume. There was another time when an obstructionist stood up with incredible courage; her name was Rosa Parks. She obstructed immoral rules in her State, and in the picture you see her being fingerprinted before she goes to jail. Obstructionist? There was a former Republican Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. She spoke so eloquently in 1950 in the Senate in order to obstruct the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, with his bullying, sadistic kind of approach. Is that an obstructionist or is that a heroine? Women fought for the right to vote. The young women who are here tonight cannot think about times like that. Imagine a woman not being allowed to vote. Were they obstructionists?

Mr. President, the signs in the picture say, ``How long must women wait for liberty?'' And ``Mr. President, what will you do for woman suffrage, for the right to vote?'' Yes, they obstructed immorality.

So obstructionism, per se, is not an evil force if you are on the side of the people.

I say here today, in light of our democracy's heritage of productive obstructionism, I will be proud to obstruct some of President Bush's proposals this year.

I am happy to obstruct the President's plan to privatize Social Security and throw our retirement security into the stock market. I will be happy to obstruct those. If people want to take a chance, if they want to gamble, they should go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, but do not do it with your pension because when you need it, it is liable not to be there.

A few months ago the President presented an unrealistic and flawed budget to Congress, and I hope to obstruct many items in the President's misguided budget proposal. For example, I hope to obstruct President Bush's plan to cut Medicaid by $60 billion over 10 years. Cuts that hurt the poor and the elderly, our Nation's most vulnerable populations. They need that help for their health and for their families. I am not going to stand by and not obstruct those cuts.

President Bush wants to take health care away from lower income families and lower income senior citizens. Is there any compassion there? I do not think so.

If we look at Amtrak, the Nation's premier rail service, the President wants to leave it without money, zero fund Amtrak, shut down the system. You better believe I am going to be there to obstruct that plan whenever I can. Shut down the system that took 25 million riders to their destinations last year?

The President also wants to slash community development programs. He proposes cutting funding to these programs by more than a third. Nearly $4 billion will be taken out of communities across the country. I want to obstruct that.

In regard to protecting our homeland, President Bush has proposed reducing homeland security block grants, cutting them by $253 million. America's soil, America's land, it is a second front in this war against terrorism, and our soldiers are paying a price for their fight there, a terrible price, because the President said no to having enough soldiers to do that job right from the beginning. There are great generals who now reflect on the mission and say: We could have used more soldiers there. One very senior general got fired for suggesting we need over 300,000 troops there.

The President said no to them, but he should not say no to having homeland security financed sufficiently to protect our citizens when they go to work, go to school, go to the library, or travel about our country. I hope everyone in this Chamber will obstruct that cut. I would like my colleagues to say no to that.

On the issue of airline travel, President Bush wants to increase the airline passenger tax by $3 for each leg of a flight. A family of four traveling with a layover each way could see their taxes increase by up to $64 for their round trip.

People are already paying too much in airline passenger taxes. I will obstruct, yes, obstruct President Bush's tax increase.

On our environment, President Bush's budget cuts environmental and natural resource programs by $2 billion. With child asthma cases increasing and other environmental dangers increasing across the country, why would we reduce environmental protection?

I have a grandson who is 11, and he happens to have asthma. He is the oldest of my 10 grandchildren. He is a very good athlete. But whenever my daughter takes him to compete in a baseball game or a soccer game, she always checks where the nearest emergency clinic is in case he has an asthma attack. Childhood asthma is growing in this country by leaps and bounds, and it is because the air is bad and we are not doing enough to clean it up. Asthma and other environmental dangers are increasing across the country. Why would President Bush say no to environmental protection? President Bush, I do not know why you want to obstruct funding for those programs.

Obstructionism is all that separates democracy from dictatorship. Sometimes obstruction is necessary, and in the case of President Bush's agenda, it deserves a healthy amount of obstruction. I hope my colleagues on this floor, regardless of party, will look at each of the President's programs and say: Remember that President Bush obstructed funding for teaching, for schools, for stem cell research, for research on Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Remember, he obstructed funding for those programs. He took care of the rich, who are only getting richer.

If you looked in the New York Times about 2 weeks ago, there was an article about how the richest in this country are leaving the rich behind, about how 90 percent of the people in this country who work to keep their families together own only 10 percent of the assets of the country, and it is just the reverse on the top side.

In the case of President Bush's agenda, it deserves a healthy amount of obstruction, and I hope the people in this Chamber have the courage to stand up and say: No, I obstruct those terrible cuts and that mean, unhelpful disposition to make it tougher for hard-working families in this country to be able to support themselves, their children, and their needs.

Mr. President, before the people of New Jersey elected me to the Senate 23 years ago, I worked in the corporate world.

I helped start a company from scratch, and when I left, we had about 20 thousand employees.

I learned a few things about hiring people.

I learned that a person might be an intelligent human being. They might be proficient at many things. They might have a lot of interesting ideas.

But if they don't fit the description for the position you need to fill, they are not the right person for the job.

If you need a carpenter, you don't hire someone who can't use a hammer, even if they know a lot about houses.

If you need help with your taxes, you hire an accountant, not a music teacher.

And if you need someone to represent the United States to the other countries of the world, you hire a diplomat, not an ideologue.

We are talking about the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

This is not an entry level position. This job calls for an experienced diplomat.

What does that entail? Webster's Dictionary defines ``diplomacy'' as: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations for the attainment of mutually satisfactory terms; the procedures, methods and forms employed in conducting such negotiations; the skillful or successful settlement of differences between peoples; and, adroitness or artfulness in securing advantages without arousing hostility.

That definition does not sound like the Mr. Bolton we have heard about.

If we send Mr. Bolton to the United Nations, we would be sending a go-it-alone ideologue with open disdain for the U.N., exactly what our country does not need.

Around the world today, polls show that even citizens of our strongest allies have a generally unfavorable view of the United States.

I realize that many Americans say, ``why should we care what other nations think?''

And the answer is, the attitudes of other nations affect our national security.

We recently celebrated VE Day. It was a day I will never forget, because I was serving in the Army in Europe. I celebrated the end of the war with my Army buddies, as well as British soldiers who were our allies.

As much as we might like to think that we don't need anything from any other country, it certainly was good to have allies in World War

Mr. President, I am pleased for our country and for this body that the Senate soundly rejected an abuse of power that would have done irreparable harm to Congress and to our Nation's system of checks and balances. I salute my Republican colleagues who were able to stand up to their leadership and my Democratic colleagues who labored long and hard to prevent the majority from launching the so-called nuclear option. I am especially thankful for our Democratic leader, Harry Reid, who showed a steady leadership hand through these troubling days.

As part of the agreement reached Monday night, Priscilla Owen, President Bush's nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, will get an up-or-down vote. It

appears that she will be confirmed, which I hoped would not take place.

Consistent with my voting record, while I respect my colleagues who worked hard to preserve the filibuster, I voted against invoking cloture on the Owen nomination yesterday and today I will vote against confirming her and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I want to make it clear that I have nothing against her personally. Too often, Members on the other side of the aisle have depicted opposition to their radical nominees as a personal animus or a bias based on the nominees' sex or race or religion. That could not be further from the truth, which is obvious if one looks at my voting record. I want to try to keep Priscilla Owen off the bench because she has a troubling record on civil rights, reproductive rights, employment discrimination, and the rights of consumers.

Our Federal courts touch the lives of every American and ensure that our individual rights are upheld. It is imperative that all nominees for the Federal bench are individuals of distinction with a record of fairness and impartiality. Unfortunately, Ms. Owen just has not demonstrated those qualities while on the Texas Supreme Court.

Ms. Owen has routinely dissented on rulings regarding the rights of employees, including the right to be free from invidious discrimination. She joined in dissenting opinions which effectively tried to rewrite a key Texas civil rights law. If she had prevailed, she would have made it much more difficult for workers to prove employment discrimination. Ms. Owen has sought to override jury verdicts, and to diminish and undermine their role in cases involving consumer protections. She has repeatedly and--in my estimation-- unfairly ruled in favor of big business at the expense of workers and consumers. She has gone so far as to write and join in a number of opinions that severely limit the ability of working people to recover damages under lawsuits involving on-the-job injuries. In almost every reproductive rights case decided by the Texas Supreme Court during her time there, Ms. Owen has sought to restrict a woman's right to make her own personal decisions.

Ms. Owen's views are far outside of the judicial mainstream--even by the standards of the conservative Texas Supreme Court. President Bush's own White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who was a fellow Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, referred to one of Ms. Owen's dissenting opinions as ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''

On September 5, 2002, the Judiciary Committee wisely rejected reporting Ms. Owen's nomination to the full Senate. I have seen no evidence in the intervening time that makes her more suitable now than she was in 2002 for a lifetime appointment to such an important position.

The Federal courts play a critical role in upholding the fundamental rights and protections of all Americans. It is imperative that nominees to the Federal courts have a clear understanding of the importance of constitutional rights and statutory protections, and of the role and responsibility of the Federal courts in upholding these rights and protections. She has not exhibited that understanding. Consequently, I do not believe she is an appropriate nominee for the Fifth Circuit. Accordingly, I will vote against her confirmation.

It would be relatively easy for President Bush to send judicial nominees to the Senate who would enjoy overwhelming or even unanimous support. I hope he will stop trying to pack the Federal courts with extremists such as Priscilla Owen. Until he does, I have no choice but to do my duty to uphold the Constitution and oppose them.

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

Mr. President, as we approach this weekend, I thought I would give some thought to what occasions this commemorative holiday and what I think about as we approach Memorial Day. I want to recall some of the incidents, the results of war and its consequences.

It has been a historic week in the Senate. We averted a showdown that could have permanently damaged this institution and destroyed the unique American system of checks and balances that makes our Government the greatest in the history of the world. This was the topic of nonstop television coverage and a forest worth of newspaper articles.

In short, the story about the Senate's procedure for approving judicial nominees totally dominated the news, but there was another story this week, a story that did not receive much attention. It was the story of at least 14 brave American soldiers who died in Iraq since Sunday. These deaths came as a wave of bombings and suicide attacks engulfed Baghdad and other cities.

While we go about our business in the Senate, while other Americans go

about their daily lives, the war in Iraq drags on. It has been a month since the Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his new government, and during that time at least 620 people have been killed in Iraq, including 58 U.S. troops. During that time, it has been a painful recognition for families across America and across my State. Sadly, the American people have become so numb to these deaths that they are no longer considered major news, and the administration has not helped matters by continuing its questionable policy of banning photographs or video images of the flag-draped coffins of our heroes making their final trip home.

I have to ask a question: Is the purpose of this policy to hide the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families? I am hard-pressed to think of any other reason. This is an issue I have discussed on the floor of the Senate before. It stuns me that at the moment of the return of the remains of a family member, that casket covered in honor by the flag of our country is hidden from the public. No photos are allowed, no photographs allowed, and no attention paid.

As a veteran of an earlier war, I am very conscious of our responsibility to veterans and to those who are fighting the battle for all of us, and I wonder why the administration continues its policy of banning photographs or video images of the flag-draped coffins of our heroes making their final trip home. It seems as if they want to conceal the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families. I am hard pressed to think of any other reason.

As have most of my colleagues, where there has been a loss of life in the State that they represent, we have gone to a funeral or a ceremony acknowledging the sacrifice that these individuals have made and the pain their families undergo. I was at a funeral ceremony at Arlington when one of our New Jersey soldiers was buried. His family was present, mother and father. He was a young man, in his early twenties. I watched the ceremony as the Honor Guard escorted his coffin to the place of burial. It was covered with a flag. The Honor Guard was so precise and so immaculate in their appearance, so honorable. They took the American flag and folded it so gently but ever so precisely until through eight escorts and the captain of the Honor Guard, they made the folds so carefully until they got it into a triangle, and the captain of the Guard walked over to the man's mother and presented it to her. It was such a touching ceremony, this recognition of honor, this understanding of what this soldier who perished had done for his country.

I cannot understand why it is that we are not allowed to photograph these coffins when they come home with the remains, when they come to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before they go to the mortuary where the families have an opportunity to make certain that it is their family member who is being buried. But there is no identification of name, there is no ceremony. No family needs to feel as though its privacy is being invaded.

So I question that. I think it would be appropriate on this Memorial Day to start off after the Memorial Day recess and say, yes, anyone who is returned in a flag-draped coffin is entitled to receive the honor and the respect of the country that sent them there, our country. It is appropriate.

The pain goes on almost every day--reports of car bombings, roadside bombs, suicide attacks. They kill soldiers, they kill civilians, they kill children, sometimes in the double digits in a single incident, 20, 30 people. What they are trying to do is crush the spirit of the Iraqis who have been through so much at this point. Our people continue on bravely serving their country, serving the orders that they get from their Nation.

Within the last week, military leaders, however, had a change of tune when the leading general in charge of our operations in Iraq described as a sober assessment the situation in Iraq. That is the first that we have heard about that. We have heard continuously that we have enough troops to do the job, that the Iraqis are learning what they have to do to take over. It is not true. I was in Iraq approximately a year ago and saw how slowly the job of preparing policemen to take over was going. It was painfully slow. Often the recruits were found to be hopelessly untrained for the assignment, without the ability to drive a car, no driver's license, not literate. They were training something like 80 every 6 weeks.

So it is going to take a long time at the rate of 80 in 6 weeks to get 50,000 policemen trained.

According to the assessment that we heard from the commanding general, the bottom line was that American troops will probably be there for years to come. For the 140,000 who serve there today, there is no quick end in sight.

I do not take the floor to debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or the way it has been prosecuted. Today I speak to honor the more than 1,600 American soldiers who have given their lives in Iraq and more than 170 who have died in Afghanistan.

In front of my office in the Hart Building there are pictures of those fallen heroes identifying them by name as a reminder of what is going on even as we discuss issues of some critical relevance and some not so important. The most important thing is that we have people who are in their young years paying with their lives for the battle in which we are engaged in the Middle East.

Monday is Memorial Day. It is a day when our Nation honors the fallen heroes of all of our wars. I hope every American will pause for a minute during the day and reflect on the price that is being paid for our freedom and on those who have paid that price. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far have claimed 56 sons of New Jersey, sons who died pursuing the battle in Afghanistan. Thirty were killed since last Memorial Day. Eleven have died this year. The wars have produced funerals and wakes and I have met the grieving families.

One of the most recent funerals I attended was for PFC Min Soo Choi. Here is a picture of the young man. His family came to America from Korea 5 years ago, in search of a better life. I have met his parents. I saw them this week again.

His story struck a chord with me because many years ago my parents were also immigrants, and I also enlisted in the Army as a young man. I enlisted when I was 18 years old. Min Soo was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq on February 26. He wasn't even a U.S. citizen, but he loved this country and what it stands for.

At Min Soo's funeral I heard about what a unique individual he was. I felt the void that his death had left in the lives of his family and friends, and that is true of every 1 of the 1,600 who have died in this war. Each death leaves an ache that will never heal in the heart of a parent or spouse, brother or sister, or a small child. So on this Memorial Day I will pause not only to remember our fallen soldiers but also the loved ones they have left behind.

Mr. President, I know the hour is late, but I hope you will indulge me by allowing me to read into the Congressional Record, where they will be enshrined for all times, the names of the 56 soldiers with New Jersey connections who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan:

SGT Steven Checo, Elizabeth; Corporal Michael Edward

Curtin, Howell; Specialist Benjamin W. Sammis, West Long

Branch; Staff Sergeant Terry W. Hemingway, Willingboro;

Specialist Gil Mercado, Paterson--The city I was born in;

Specialist Narson B. Sullivan, North Brunswick; Specialist,

Kyle A. Griffin, Emerson; Sergeant First Class Gladimir

Philippe, Linden; Specialist, Richard P. Orengo, Perth Amboy;

First Sergeant Christopher D. Coffin, Somerville; Petty

Officer First Class David M. Tapper, Atco; Captain Brian R.

Faunce, Ocean; Staff Sgt. Fredrick L. Miller Jr., Jackson;

Specialist Simeon Nathaniel Hunte, Essex; 2nd Lieut. Richard

Torres, Passaic; Sergeant Joel Perez, Newark; Specialist

Marion P. Jackson, Jersey City; Specialist Ryan Travis Baker,

Browns Mills; Major Steven Plumhoff, Neshanic Station; Staff

Sergeant Thomas A. Walkup, Millville; Specialist Marc S.

Seiden, Brigantine; Second Lieutenant Seth J. Dvorin,

Pennington; Private First Class Bruce Miller Jr., Orange;

Specialist Adam D. Froehlich, Pine Hill; Second Lieutenant

John Thomas Wroblewski, Oak Ridge; Lance Corporal Phillip E.

Frank, Cliffwood Beach; Specialist Frank K. Rivers, Newark;

Specialist Phillip I. Spakosky, Browns Mills; Sergeant Frank

T. Carvill, Carlstadt; Specialist Christopher M. Duffy,

Brick; Sergeant Ryan E. Doltz, Mine Hill; Sergeant Humberto

F. Timoteo, Newark; Chief Warrant Officer Nicholas P. DiMona

II, Barrington; Sergeant Alan D. Sherman, Ocean; CPL Terry

Holmes Ordonez, Paterson; Lance Corporal Vincent M. Sullivan,

Chatham; Specialist Anthony J. Dixon, Lindenwold; Army

Special Forces Michael Yury Tarlavsky, Clifton; Specialist

Yoe M. Aneiros, Newark; Specialist Bryan L. Freeman,

Lumberton; Corporal Tyler Ryan, Gloucester City; Private

First Class Stephen Benish, Linden; Specialist David P.

Mahlenbrock, Maple Shade; Lance Cpl Brian P. Parrello, West

Milford; 1st Class Sgt. Paul Karpowich, trained in

Pennsauken; Specialist Alain Kamolvathin, Blairstown;

Sergeant Stephen Sherman, Neptune; Corporal Sean P. Kelly,

Pitman; Lance Corporal Harry Raymond Swain III, Millville;

PFC Min Soo Choi, River Vale--his picture is here; Captain

Sean Grimes, Mother lives in Dover; Major Steven W. Thornton,

based at Fort Monmouth; Private Robert C. White, Camden;

Major John Charles Spahr, Cherry Hill; Staff Sgt, Anthony Lee

Goodwin, Mt. Holly; Lance Corporal Jourdan L. Grez, Long

Branch.

I also want to mention two civilians from New Jersey who were killed while supporting the war effort in Iraq: Paul M. Johnson of Eagleswood, and Thomas Jaichner of Burlington City.

I know each of my colleagues will join me this weekend in paying tribute to the brave soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for our country.

I didn't hear that.

No objection.

Mr. President, the debate bounces back and forth, and we hear the complaints about the change in the system, one that has been in existence for some 200 years. It was formally adopted in the early part of the 20th century.

I see the fact that the traditions and rules of the Senate are, frankly, in deep jeopardy. The current majority leader is threatening to annihilate over 200 years of tradition in this Senate by getting rid of our right to extended debate. The Senate that will be here as a result of this nuclear option will be a dreary, bitter, far more partisan landscape, even though it obviously prevents us from operating with any kind of consensus. It will only serve to make politics in Washington much more difficult.

One has to wonder, what happened to the claims that were made so frequently, particularly in the election year 2000, when then-candidate Bush, now President, talked about being a uniter, not a divider? It has been constantly referenced. ``I want to unite the American people, not divide them.''

With this abuse of power, the majority is about to further divide our Nation with the precision of a sledgehammer.

I want the American people to understand what is going to happen on the floor of the Senate if things go as planned. Vice President Cheney, whom we rarely see in this Chamber, is going to come here for the specific purpose of breaking existing rules for the operation of the Senate. He is going to sit in the Presiding Officer's chair and do something that, frankly, I don't remember in my more than 20 years in the Senate. He could intentionally misstate, if what we hear is what we are going to get, the rules of the Senate.

Think about the irony. Vice President Cheney gets to help nominate Federal judges. Then when the Senate objects to the administration's choices, he is going to come over here and break our rules to let his judges through. Talk about abuse of power. The Founding Fathers would shudder at the thought of this scenario. It runs counter to the entire philosophy of our Constitution. Our Constitution created a system that they thought would make it impossible for a President to abuse his powers.

Tomorrow, we are going to see what amounts to a coup d'etat, a takeover right here in the Senate. The Senate, just like society at large, has rules. We make laws here and we brag about the fact that this is a country of laws. We make laws here and expect Americans to follow them. But now the majority leader wants the Senate to make it easier for the Republican Senators to change the rules when you don't like the way the game is going. What kind of an example does that set for the country? Some may ask if we don't follow our own rules, why should the average American follow the rules that we make here?

If the majority leader wants to change the rules, there is a legal way to do it. A controversial Senate rule change is supposed to go through the Rules Committee. Once it reaches the full Senate for consideration, it needs 67 votes to go into effect. But rather than follow the rules, Vice President Cheney will break the rules from his position as the Presiding Officer and change the rules by fiat. In other words, we will see an attempt to overthrow the Senate as we know it.

Hopefully, some courageous Senators will step forward, vote their conscience, and put a stop to this once and for all. There are several people who disagree with their leader on the Republican side, and they have expressed their unwillingness to go through with this muscular takeover of the Senate.

It is unbefitting the body. President Bush and the majority leader want to get rid of the filibuster because it is the only thing standing between them and absolute control of our Government and our Nation. They think the Senate should be a rubberstamp for the President. That is not what our Founders intended. It is an abuse of power, and it is wrong, whether a Republican or a Democrat lives in the White House.

I say to the American people: Please, get past the process debate here. Let's not forget how important our Federal judges are. They make decisions about

what rights we have under our Constitution. They make decisions about whether our education and environmental laws will be enforced. They make decisions about whether we continue to have health care as we know it. And sometimes, let us not forget, they may even step in to decide a Presidential election.

The Constitution says the Senate must advise and consent before a President's judicial nominations are allowed to take the bench. It doesn't say advise and relent. It doesn't say consent first and then advise. As Democratic leader Harry Reid recently said: George Bush was elected President, not king.

The Founding Fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, did not want a king. And that is why the Constitution created the Senate as a check on the President's power. With terrible ideas like Social Security privatization coming from the President these days, the American people are thankful that we are here to stop it.

President Bush once famously said:

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot

easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

I am hopeful that President Bush was kidding when he said that. But the President's allies don't seem to be. They want the Senate to simply approve every Bush nominee regardless of the record.

We have confirmed 208 of President Bush's nominees. But there are several we objected to because we believed they were too extreme. They voiced their opinions. This was not based on hearsay. It was based on things they said. They are too extreme to sit on the Federal bench.

The Republican side of the aisle calls this the tyranny of the minority. But in the Senate, who is the minority and who is the majority? When you do the math on the current Senate, you will find that the majority is actually in the minority. The minority is the majority. Here is what I mean: Majority or minority. Current Senate: Republican caucus, 55 Senators, they represent 144,765,000 Americans. The Democratic caucus has less Senators, 45 as opposed to 55, and they represent some 148,336,000 Americans. So where is the minority here?

In this chart each Senator is allotted one-half of his or her State's population, just to explain how we get there. What you find is that the minority in this body, the Democratic caucus, represents 3.5 million more people than does the majority. That is exactly why the Founding Fathers wanted to protect minority rights in the Senate because a minority of Senators may actually represent a majority of the people.

How do you discard that and say: Well, we are the majority? You don't own the place. It is supposed to be a consensus government, particularly in the Senate.

I make one last appeal to the majority leader: Don't take this destructive action.

I want the American people to understand one thing: The big fight here is because the people who will get these positions have lifetime tenure. That means they could be here 20, 30, or 40 years.

I have faith in the courage of my colleagues across the aisle. I hope they are going to put loyalty to their country ahead of loyalty to a political party.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Today I wish to pay tribute to one of New Jersey's most acclaimed advocates of social justice, mayor and State senator Glenn D. Cunningham, on the 1-year anniversary of his passing.

Although Glenn's life was tragically cut short by a heart attack, his extraordinary legacy of public service lives on. His remarkable accomplishments are surpassed only by the love he felt for his family, friends, and the people in the community he served.

A lifelong resident of Jersey City, Glenn demonstrated his sense of duty early in life, enlisting in the United States Marine Corps after he completed high school. He served his country with distinction for four years, and then continued his commitment to public safety by joining the Jersey City Police Department in 1967.

Aided by a strong work ethic and intelligence, Glenn rose through the ranks of the department over the next 25 years, attaining the position of Captain. Realizing the value of education and the power of ideas, during this same time period he attended Jersey City State College and earned a bachelor's degree, graduating cum laude in 1974.

Glenn had a passion for helping people and the ability to take on many diverse responsibilities and perform many tasks at once. He expanded his public service career in 1975, serving as a Hudson County Freeholder until 1978. He was subsequently elected to the Jersey City Council, where he served two consecutive terms, including one term as city council president.

Upon his retirement from the police department in 1991, Glenn was appointed the director of the Hudson County Department of Public Safety.

In 1996, President Clinton appointed Glenn as United States Marshall for

the State of New Jersey. This appointment broke a barrier for African American leaders in our State, and I was proud to support Glenn for the position, knowing that he would do a great job.

Never one to be complacent or satisfied with the status quo, Glenn set his sights on another historic milestone, and in 2001 he became the first African-American mayor of Jersey City. Adding to his already impressive list of ``firsts,'' Glenn's 2004 election to the New Jersey State senate marked the first time a mayor of Jersey City has simultaneously held State office.

Glenn's illustrious career in public service was marked first and foremost by his unwavering commitment to the citizens of Jersey City. Like Frederick Douglass, Glenn battled to improve the lives of the people he represented even if his efforts hurt him politically.

Glenn's constituents could always approach him with their problems or concerns, and he made time to listen to them. His genuine care for others inspired hope, and his courage, dignity, and fierce determination helped reinvigorate a once-distressed city.

The effects of his reform-minded, progressive initiatives continue to resonate today. As a friend, a dedicated public servant, and a groundbreaking pioneer, Glenn is sorely missed by many. His memory, however, lives on, and will continue to inspire others to work for the same positive social change that was so close to his heart.

Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, our Nation was engaged in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. But now, 22 years later, this Senate is experiencing its own cold war. It is a cold war across the aisle that separates the two parties, and it has escalated with the threat of this nuclear option.

As the name suggests, the result of this threat is nuclear, but in many ways it is also a timebomb. It is a timebomb because, while the action will be visible now, it will do irreparable damage to the future of this country.

Its potential effects on the operations of the United States are well known. But here I want to address my comments to the American people because they are going to pay the price for the change if it takes place here. The majority leader insists on breaking the rules in order to give several people, some of whom deserve far greater review, lifetime appointments as high-ranking Federal judges. They could be on the bench for 30 or 40 years, and they will make decisions about your lives, your families, your rights, and the future of your children. They will make decisions about our lives, such as: Will clean air rules be enforced against polluters. I hope so. I would like to know my grandchildren can breathe the air and not be harmed by it. I have one grandchild who is asthmatic. My daughter, when he goes to play a game or engage in a sport, always checks to see where the nearest emergency clinic is.

So do we want to leave our kids with air that is polluted, with drinking water that is contaminated? Will we have health care? Will we still have strong constitutional rights? That is what this is about. We got lost in how long the filibuster rule has been in effect and how devastating it will be on the process. But it goes much deeper than that. These are critical questions, and these are the judges who will be answering those questions. They might even one day be asked to help elect a President.

When I was a soldier 60 years ago and we dropped the earliest version of the nuclear bomb, called the atom bomb, we celebrated. We knew we could save thousands of Americans from dying in the fight to vanquish our then enemy, Japan.

With this nuclear option, the majority leader is threatening to annihilate over 200 years of American tradition in the Senate by getting rid of the right that challenges decisions made by a slim majority over a minority of over 140 million people's representatives here in the Senate.

Extended debate, or filibuster, is an American tradition that goes back to the earliest days of the Senate. While the written rules establishing the Senate filibuster were not adopted until 1806, the practice existed even in the first Congress. Historical records indicate that in 1790, Senators from Virginia and South Carolina engaged in a filibuster, and it has continued since then.

The first well-documented filibuster was conducted in 1825 by Senator John Randolph of Virginia. For several days, Senator Randolph filibustered President John Quincy Adams' economic agenda. That was in 1825. During the 19th century, there wasn't even an option of a cloture to end the filibuster. It continued as long as people had the breath and stamina to continue. There was no way to stop determined Senators from engaging in an unlimited debate. Then, in 1917, the cloture rule was adopted, which established a procedure to end debate only upon a vote of a supermajority. Through all of these years, through every crisis, the American tradition of the filibuster has endured. It endured through the War of 1812, the Civil War, Reconstruction, two world wars, the Great Depression, the civil rights movement. Yet because of a few of President Bush's judicial nominees, we are being asked to throw out the filibuster safeguards of the huge minority. It makes no sense.

We have heard claims that it is unprecedented to mount a filibuster on a judicial nominee. It can be said, but it is wrong, and the evidence is on the Senate's own Web site.

I quote from a statement made earlier by the senior Senator from Missouri. Mr. Bond said:

Mr. President, I think the facts are clear. You have heard

this many times. Almost everything has been said but not

everybody has said it, so I want to go over some of the facts

that I think are very, very important. For 214 years,

judicial nominations have come to the Senate floor and have

been considered without filibuster.

I ask unanimous consent that a table that shows there were 14 judges whose nominations were filibustered since 1968 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate Web site points to one incident from 1964 to the present time. October 1, 1968: ``Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment.'' Why don't our colleagues on the other side take their heads out of the sand, open their eyes, read the record, and tell the public the truth?

In 1968, Abe Fortas, Supreme Court Justice, was filibustered. The Senate failed to invoke cloture on Fortas. There were only 45 votes for cloture. Some say this is proof that a majority of the Senators did not support Fortas. But President Johnson thought otherwise, noting that 12 Senators were absent for the cloture vote. And here from 1968 is a page 1, first-page headline in the Washington Post. It says: ``Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment.''

A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the

Senate yesterday against the motion to call up the nomination

of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice.

The public ought to know what is being said. Unfortunately, in the urgency to get this done, they are not being accurate in the things that are said by the Republican majority.

So in 1968--note this, people across the country--on a nomination to be the most influential judge in the country, there was a filibuster. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that those who say this has not happened before are guilty of factual negligence. The right to filibuster is fundamental to the Senate because the Senate was created by our Constitution to protect the rights of the minority.

Just this weekend, one of the most distinguished Members of the Senate, our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, explained it very well. Senator McCain said:

The Senate was designed to protect the minority. That is

why Wyoming has two votes, and that's why California has two

votes. That's why Rhode Island--

Another small State--

had two votes among the original 13, and New York and

Massachusetts and Virginia had two votes.

The modern Senate reflects the same types of disparities in population as the original Senate. My home State, for instance, New Jersey, has a population that is greater than Alaska, Wyoming, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Mississippi combined. But New Jersey only gets two votes in this body, and each one of those States I mentioned also gets two votes. So it is not surprising that when you do the math on the current Senate, you find that the majority is actually in the minority, and the minority is the majority.

Here is what I mean very simply put. The Republican caucus with 55 Senators and with each Senator getting half of the vote in that State represents 144 million people. The Democratic caucus with 45 Senators represents 148 million people. The first one, 144 million; the second one, 148 million--that does not look like much of a minority to me. That is what we are looking at.

Mr. President, what you find is the minority in this body, the Democratic caucus, represents more than the majority, and that is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to protect--minority rights in the Senate--because a minority of Senators may actually represent a majority of the people. So it is corrected by a process we have here. The Democratic caucus on this side of the aisle represents many more Americans than the Republican side. That is why we have a filibuster rule. That is why we generally operate by unanimous consent.

The right to filibuster is not just some obscure rule in the Senate. It is part of our American heritage, and it has been celebrated by our culture and our folklore. As many Americans know, the filibuster was immortalized in the film ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' Here we see a picture of Jimmy Stewart as he played Senator Smith. He used the filibuster to protect the interests of his constituents back home. This image shows Senator Smith in the midst of his filibuster.

From some of the things we have heard from the majority leader, you might think Mr. Smith was the bad guy in that film. No, Mr. Smith, as a filibustering Senator, is not only the good guy, but he is the hero of that film. That film is a celebration of our American democracy. It is a celebration of this Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body. But if the majority leader is successful in ending the filibuster, in ending the representation that the huge minority deserves, we will move from the world's greatest deliberative body to a rubberstamp factory.

The Constitution gives us an active role in the nomination process. The Senate is not a mere formality under the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a check on the President's power. We hear our colleagues on the other side pleading for a majority vote; let the Senate act as it should.

The Senate is responsible for the quality of people we put on the courts, and if there is a challenge, so be it. Let the majority party make the case, convince us that these people are not what we think they are in terms of their activist views. Is it an inconvenience to the President to contend with the Senate? Perhaps. But direct your complaints to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and our Founding Fathers. You will find they had their hands full, and they knew how to deal with it.

I know our majority leader has said:

We can keep the filibuster for legislation, just not on

nominations.

But the American people know you cannot sort of end the filibuster. If this

nuclear option goes into place, citizens across our country understand that their rights will be taken away in large part by those who have expressed themselves before they were nominated in matters dealing with gender, dealing with marriage, dealing with all kinds of issues on which the American people have a right to have a view.

No, this now says we are just going to do it for the judges. Beware, once that barn door opens, we are going to see all kinds of changes. You cannot sort of end the filibuster. You either have to keep the filibuster or you end it.

Would the majority leader like to rename the Jimmy Stewart film, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Except for Judges''?

Speaking of popular culture, the biggest film of the year is opening this week, ``Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.'' This is one of the characters in that film. He is portrayed here on this chart. He is the leader of the Senate in a far-off universe. In this film, this leader of the Senate breaks rules to give himself and his supporters more power, and after this move from the Senate leader, another Senator states:

This is how liberty dies.

One film critic described this film as a story of ``how a republic dismantles its own Democratic principles.''

As millions of Americans go to see this film this week and in the weeks ahead, I sincerely hope it does not mirror actions being contemplated in the Senate. I say to my colleagues, do not let liberty die. I urge my colleagues, on behalf of the American people--and I ask the American people to express themselves on this--do you want to give up your rights, do you want to give up your rights to protect your children against a foul environment? Do you want to give up your rights to be able to work in a safe environment? Do you want to give up your rights to decide on questions such as war and peace? I urge do not let it happen. I urge my colleagues to oppose any attempt to break the Senate rules and destroy over 200 years of American tradition. We must save the United States and the interests of our country as a whole.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the recognition. I will talk about my amendment No. 619 to crack down on our most dangerous, highest risk drunk drivers--repeat-offender, high-blood-alcohol-content drivers, drivers who have had so much to drink they have nearly double the legal limit of alcohol in their system.

I am proud to have the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, as a cosponsor of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent Senator Corzine be added as a cosponsor.

Our amendment updates the current Federal repeat offender law so that it can be based on measures that have been proven to be effective in preventing drunk driving. It requires alcoholism assessments and treatment when necessary. It would require a 1-year license suspension with at least 45 days of no driving. The rest requires the use of an ignition interlock, a device that only lets the car operate when you blow into it and no alcohol is detected.

As for repeat offenders, it keeps current requirements for short-term jail time, closes a loophole for community service. The National Transportation Safety Board states that from 1983 through 1998 at least 137,000 people died in crashes nationwide involving higher risk drunk drivers. The research funded by the alcohol industry itself showed that 58 percent of alcohol-related deaths in 2000 involved drivers with BAC levels of .15 or above. That is outrageous. That person is totally without ability to function properly. This is consistent with government research that shows for drivers 35 and over, those with a .15 BAC or higher, they are 382 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a sober driver.

It is important to note that our amendment does not create any new penalties for States. It merely updates the current program.

Our amendment does not affect a social drinker and is aimed squarely at higher risk drivers who are the core of the drunk-driving problem in this country. The National Transportation Safety Board, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and even groups funded by the alcohol industry, all agree we need to do more when it comes to repeat offenders and drivers with blood alcohol content levels twice the legal limit.

I understand the managers of the bill have agreed to accept the amendment as modified. I am grateful. I thank the managers, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and Senator Baucus, for working with Senator DeWine and me. The amendment will make a meaningful difference in the number of lives we save each year from the epidemic of drunk driving.

In my early days in the Senate when President Reagan was in office, when Senator Dole was then-Secretary of Transportation, we put in a restriction on age and driving, age on alcohol and driving. We have saved 1,000 young people from dying on the highways every year for more than 20 years.

What a wonderful thing it is for a family not having to mourn the loss of a child, not having to see a policeman at the door in the dark of night.

MADD has been a stalwart ally. Together we will continue to save lives. I am very grateful to Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and the committee for their support on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the passing of former Congressman Peter Rodino and also to celebrate his life.

The son of hard-working Italian immigrants, Peter Rodino grew up on the streets of Newark, NJ, and rose to become a prominent and respected figure during a defining moment in our Nation's history.

Serving as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Rodino was charged with managing the impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon. He had chaired the committee for less than a year when the hearings began, and those who did not know him wondered how he would respond to such a monumental challenge.

He soon put all doubts to rest. He conducted the hearings patiently, thoroughly, and fairly, and in doing so he helped guide our Nation through a difficult test of our Constitution.

By the time the committee had heard all of the evidence about the Watergate break-in and coverup, its members approved several articles of impeachment by overwhelming bipartisan margins. By this action, they proved that our system of government is greater than any one person or political party.

Most of the Nation got to know Congressman Rodino during the Watergate hearings, but I had known him for years through his tireless work on behalf of the people of his district and New Jersey. He loved the city of Newark and the people of Newark, and he always had their interests at heart.

Whether he was helping to pass the 1966 civil rights bill, extending the Voting Rights Act, or leading the effort to make Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, Peter Rodino worked tirelessly to make this Nation as great as it can possibly be.

After I came to the Senate, I had the privilege of working with him to help the people of New Jersey. We served together for 6 years, and I was always amazed by the energy and determination he brought to his job.

He had tackled every challenge with that same energy and determination, from his service in World War II with the 1st Armored Division to his work at Seton Hall law school, where he shared his love of the law with students.

Every now and then, someone comes along who is an inspiration for us all, regardless of political party, religious faith, or ethnic background. Peter Rodino was just such a fellow. While I will miss him very much, I will always treasure his friendship with me and remember all the good he did for New Jersey and its people.

Reserving the right to object, will the Senator repeat the unanimous consent request?

Make it 11:30. Then I would have no problem with it, and we will try to use time as quickly as we can.

Yes. No objection.

Mr. President, I start by commending the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his work on behalf of getting the funding raised for the Transportation bill.

It is critical. There is not a State that would not like to see more money for highways, transit or whatever else they do--perhaps even for long-distance rail service.

The manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, had to wrestle with not only his conscience, but colleagues who felt differently. There were over 20 ``no'' votes. I wonder if those Senators would forgo the extra money that resulted from the increase in the size of the bill. Perhaps that could be polled.

I thank my colleague, Senator Corzine, for generating this amendment which I share in sponsoring to ensure integrity in highway contracting. My friend and colleague from New Jersey has always fought against corruption in public activities and contracting. I am proud to stand and fight alongside him to make sure every State has the right to make choices about how it conducts its campaign financing laws and how it looks to better management of the process so corruption is avoided. That is what this is about.

One has to look at the bill. It is relatively simple. Frankly, I thought it would be something that could be accepted on its face by unanimous consent. There is no punitive measure in here.

I understand our colleague from Missouri said I was big on sanctions. How right he is. I am big on sanctions. We raised the drinking age to 21. When our colleague, Senator Dole, was the Secretary of Transportation under President Reagan, we sanctioned States who did not put that into law.

Guess what the outcome is. Twenty thousand young people have been saved over the last 21 years. That is what the sanctions did. Would it be better to not have sanctions and have the freedom for the teens to get on the highway and kill themselves? I don't think so. It

worked. We tried the carrot. But there were not enough carrots to take care of it, so we had to use the stick. That is what you do. That is what the red lights are for. It is a stick. It says: Do not cross over when traffic is going the other way, et cetera.

We are a nation of laws. That is what the structure of our society is. There are sanctions against those who would try to buy a gun permit when they are spousal abusers. There are sanctions. They go to prison. Yes, I like that kind of sanction.

When we look at what we are trying to do, unfortunately, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it should not happen, it reduces competition. Nothing could be further from the truth because now the little guys who, in their judgment, make a campaign contribution--we foster that notion around here: Contribute if you can. Contribute even if you cannot, we sometimes say. But it happens. Money flows. So we say to some small contractor or some attorney or some engineer who has a two- person business: Well, maybe there is an exemption for small business. But, on balance, they are saying the smaller companies cannot make a contribution because then they would be barred from competing. Competing with the big guys? It is outrageous.

So this amendment fixes a problem in Federal highway law that actually prevents States from taking effective steps to curb contracting abuses.

Earlier this year, the Federal Highway Administration withheld some $250 million in highway funding from the State of New Jersey. It had already been allocated. What happened? We had to change the law. We had to open a loophole so people could contribute, even though our Governor at the time and the legislature agreed: No, we should not permit it. I am not defending it. I am saying I defend States rights. And many of the people here, particularly our friends on the other side, defend States rights. I think the State ought to be able to decide whether it wants to clean up the campaign finance laws.

Spokesmen for the FHWA said a State contracting rule designed to prevent actual and potential corruption was ``inconsistent'' with current Federal law. I do not know where they get that one.

What had New Jersey done? The State had simply banned certain large political contributions by recipient of State contracts. Its mission was to ensure fairness and transparency in the contracting process, and our State ought to be commended for it. Instead, New Jersey was punished for exercising its own judgment. The Governor signed it. The legislature passed it, the Governor signed it, and it became law. Why cannot we do that?

The relevant Federal law, section 112 of the highway title, calls for competitive bidding. The administration has taken the strict view that if some bidders are excluded, that could limit competition. Would we say that in the vetting of a company's executive leader, if he had a criminal past and they did not make a contribution, it would be all right? No, it certainly would not be all right for that company to start doing State business. But the fact is, if the playing field is tilted toward one company, there is no true competition. Maybe the big guys can afford to do that. They can rule the roost. But that is what our State wants to protect against.

States should not have to choose between receiving Federal highway dollars they need and restoring public confidence in the Government contracting process. What an anomaly we had here a little while ago. We had people voting to increase highway spending when it is threatened that the President is going to veto it, and we are way over the limit the White House proposed for the highway bill. Seventy some Senators said: Oh, yes? Impose limits? Well, we are not going to stick with your limits. We are going to raise the limits because our States need bridges and highway fixing and investments in transportation. That is what we want--70 some Senators. So it was not all Democrats. It was a mix.

It is hypocritical to continue to prohibit States from taking effective measures to maintain the integrity of their contracting process. Federal law already prohibits political contributions from Federal Government contractors. So why shouldn't States be allowed to do it, if they want to--one State by itself, any State that wants to do it? This amendment simply allows States to enact similar reforms when they so choose.

The House of Representatives has already approved a similar provision in its version of the transportation bill. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to promote good Government, to promote competition. It is a vote for States rights, and a vote against corruption in public contracting.

Once again, I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, for his initiative.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 625.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment to address motorcycle safety on our roads. In 1995, Congress repealed the motorcycle helmet law, which I authored in 1991. Since the law has been repealed, motorcycle deaths have nearly doubled, and my amendment would simply reinstate the helmet law.

Head injuries are one of the leading causes of death in motorcycle crashes. Under my amendment, States that do not require motorcycle riders to wear helmets would have funds, but they would have them shifted to motorcycle safety programs.

Last month, the Department of Transportation released preliminary findings that over 3,900 people were killed in motorcycle crashes last year. This is almost double the number of motorcycle crash victims of 10 years ago when the Federal helmet law was repealed.

If we look at the chart, we see what happened since 1996, the year of operation after the law was repealed. We had a much smaller number, and it grew on a regular pattern up to 2004, the last recorded year.

This is not just a matter of more riders on the roads. The rate of deaths per mile traveled has almost doubled as well. We have learned an important lesson from this data: Helmets save lives. Repealing helmet laws have led to more deaths.

By coincidence, I had a talk with one of our colleagues before when we were voting on the previous amendment. He recalled for me the fact that he had a motorcycle accident. During the time of the fall, he said, as he bounced around the pavement, he thanked the Lord that he was wearing a helmet that had a face piece to it. It saved him from what they said would have been almost instant death.

Funny enough, when people look at me and they see the white hair, they can't believe I am an expert skier, having done so for 59 years. I have two children who are competitive skiers, one lives in Colorado, and I have a granddaughter who is on her way to becoming a competitive skier. We are skiers. Skiing is in our blood, and we ski fast and hard. I had a fall 2 years ago, 2 days after I bought a helmet. I hadn't worn it for the 50-some years before that. When I fell, I fell so hard I did a tumblesalt in the air--and I'm not an acrobat--and I landed on my head. I didn't realize, for a month, I was hurt, until my vision started to blur and my balance was unsteady. I was rushed to a hospital--I was with my wife in New York City--and the next day on an operating table and had what they call a hematoma. Doctors had to go on two sides of my head with

a drill or whatever they use to get there and drain the fluid that had gathered. I thank God regularly that I am in the condition I am after that kind of accident. But the difference was that helmet. I had the helmet 2 days.

I went back to the ski shop, and I said: I thought this was supposed to prevent my getting hurt. He pointed to a tiny crack in the helmet, and he said to me: If you hadn't been wearing this helmet, that crack would have been through your skull, and we would not have been here talking about it. So I am a confirmed user of helmets.

I had been on the board of a hospital in New Jersey and worked very closely with our principal medical school and its hospital. I talked to the emergency room physicians. I know that much of the head and neck trauma that comes about comes about as a result of motorcycle accidents.

A Transportation Department survey showed that from 2000 to 2002, helmet use among motorcycle riders dropped from 71 percent to 58 percent nationally. They stopped using helmets, mostly.

The Transportation Department found that in those States where universal helmet laws had been repealed, helmet use plummeted from 99 percent to 50 percent. In other words, where helmet laws are on the books, almost every rider wears a helmet. Where there is no such law, only about half of the riders are protected against head injury.

My amendment, to be simply understood, would reinstate the minimum safety standard which first was enacted in 1991. This is not a matter of ideology or so-called States' rights. It's a matter of doing what is right. Helmets save lives. Universal helmet laws work.

No matter what some people might suggest, riding without a helmet is not a victimless indiscretion. Motorcycle crashes burden our health care system and the taxpayers unnecessarily. The Transportation Department estimates that unhelmeted riders involved in crashes cost taxpayers $853 million in the year 2002 alone.

Riders without helmets are much more likely to suffer brain injuries, which obviously are often slow healing, with long-time hospitalization. It costs twice as much to treat a patient who does have brain injuries.

I don't think taxpayers ought to be saddled with the costs of motorcyclists who sustain serious injuries because they want to feel the wind in their hair. I urge my colleagues to vote to help save the lives of so many of their constituents who are motorcycle enthusiasts. I once rode a motorcycle. In my earliest moments, I slipped and fell and picked gravel out of my legs for about 2 weeks thereafter. But we don't want to stop the sport. We want to spare the families of the motorcycle riders and their friends from needless loss and to spare taxpayers from bearing the costs of risky behavior.

I want to read a comment that we received. It is by Joe A--to protect his testimony. This is his testimonial to his NXT helmet.

On May 13th, 2004, I was riding my Harley through the small

college town of Newark, Delaware, when a distracted student

in the oncoming lane decided to make a left turn about 15

feet in front of me. I was going about 25 miles per hour and

she appeared to be doing the same. In an instant, I collided

head on, flew off my bike and into her windshield.

I did a `head plant' which took out the windshield, rolled

me over the car and onto the roadway beside the car. This

left about a 4-inch gouge in my helmet but no serious head

injuries. The paramedics were amazed . . . that I was able to

carry on a lucid conversation with them. Thanks to your

superior product, I was able to walk out of the hospital

about an hour and a half later with no serious injuries.

My doctor told me that without my helmet I would have been

dead or had severe brain injury and it's an impressive fact

that I'm able to write this e-mail and send pictures three

days after the accident. I have no doubt that without your

helmet the outcome would have been very different for me.

Mr. President, it makes sense to do what we can to protect the public. Again, this is not telling anybody that they should ride or should not ride. We say, when you ride, don't spend my money, please. Don't burden the Medicare or health care insurance programs with your lingering injury or your death or other family problems. Don't burden us. You have no right to do that.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. It promotes the minimum safety standard for motorcycles, significant funding which can be used for other health care essential studies on childhood diabetes, asthma, autism, and many other afflictions that wreak havoc on families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was heartened at the beginning of the remarks by my colleague from Oklahoma and couldn't wait to hear the rest of it. Then I realized I could have waited.

My colleague is an adventurous fellow who sometimes flies airplanes without fuel. He is quite a daredevil. I support some of the enthusiasm he has for a chance-taking. It is amazing I got as far as I did in life, but here I am with a few broken things here and there.

In all seriousness, there is no transfer of funds; there is no loss of funds. Any money that is not used to promote helmet wearing is used for motorcycle safety within that same State. I was pleased to hear there is a way to protect lives besides using helmets. But when we saw what happened when the helmets came off, they were not blinded by any helmet problems for the most part, they were just killed.

The United States DOT has a helmet design that will not impair vision but will promote safety. That is the critical issue.

I hope between now and the time a vote occurs that the intelligent leader of the committee, who cares about people, will see a difference in view than that which was initially expressed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to praise a group of my constituents working toward the noble goal of peace. This group is called South Mountain Peace Action, and its members are active in Maplewood and South Orange, NJ. Peace Action members have circulated a petition in their community about the war in Iraq. The petition was signed by more than 1,200 concerned New Jerseyans, so I think it is important for Congress to take note of their actions.

The Peace Action petition discusses the staggering costs of the Iraq War, both in terms of American lives and taxpayer dollars. As of today, more than 1,600 American troops have died and nearly 12,000 have been wounded in action. We have now lost over 50 people with ties to New Jersey. I have attended several funerals for New Jersey's fallen soldiers, and each funeral is a difficult, emotional experience. I have also been to Walter Reed Army Hospital and I have seen firsthand the debilitating injuries suffered by our troops.

The taxpayer costs of the war are also staggering. So far, the war and reconstruction of Iraq have cost more than $200 billion, and the spigot of taxpayer funds continues to run. Originally, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us that war in Iraq would cost ``under $50 billion,'' but due to a lack of planning and terrible decisions by the Bush administration, the costs are skyrocketing.

This war is tainted by the faulty information that the President provided the Nation and the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. But our troops are there and we must support them. And, in my view, we must work to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

Thanks to groups such as Peace Action, our communities are speaking up about the costs of this war. I hope that their activism will bring positive results for our Nation and for our troops in Iraq and their families.

I would appreciate having 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota and commend him for his excellent job in the presentation that he has made.

While we are talking about the budget, one cannot help but think about what is not in the budget but that the country is paying for. We are talking about emergency supplementals, costs attributed to the war in Iraq, help for Afghanistan, $80 billion recently passed. The one thing the public is not fully aware of is we are not paying in the traditional manner for these costs.

It is painful to see how much we are devoting to the war, what the losses are, while our soldiers and other service people conduct themselves bravely in a very difficult situation. I hope what I am going to say is not the condition, but this could go down as one of the most painful of the wars that we have seen. We are not talking about the numbers. What we are talking about is the morass we have gotten ourselves into.

The confusion was confirmed and the failure to do what we were supposed to was confirmed when on April 25, a few days ago, there was a front page story in the New York Times and the headline is, Bloodied Marines Sound Off About Want of Armor and Men. Now, these are brave men. They have been in combat.

I will take the liberty of reading a couple of paragraphs from this article, May 29, 2004, about a year ago.

A station wagon that Iraqi insurgents had packed with C-4

explosives blew up on a highway in Ramadi, killing four

American marines who died for lack of a few inches of steel.

The four were returning to camp in an unarmored Humvee that

their unit had rigged with scrap metal, but the makeshift

shields rose only as high as their shoulders . . .

There was a picture of the humvee shown, and shrapnel from

a bomb that was used to attack them went over the top level

of the armor.

``The steel was not high enough,'' said Staff Sgt. Jose S.

Valerio, their motor transport chief, who along with the

unit's commanding officer said the men would have lived had

their vehicle been properly armored. ``Most of the shrapnel

wounds were to their heads.''

Among those killed were Rafael Reynosa, 28-year-old lance

corporal from Santa Anna, Calif, whose wife was expecting

twins, and Cody S. Calavan, a 19-year-old private from Lake

Stevens, Wash., had the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fidelis

tattooed across his back.

The point of my remarks is a reflection of a trip I and several other Senators took in March of 2004. The soldiers we met with at that time pleaded for three things: One, body armor. One of them said to me: Senator, the vests you are wearing are the best vests that can be purchased. That vest is the most protective, but we don't have those vests, Senator. Members of the coalition have them.

He said, Senator, I will tell you what else we need. We need armor on our humvee. We don't have it, and we pay a terrific price for it.

Another soldier said there is a new rifle, an M-4, a substitute for the M-16. It is the best weapon you can get, and it has electronic sighting and can hit a target 600 feet away. It is light and easy to carry. We don't have them.

We are now with a group of soldiers, Marines, talking about what they experienced in this period. It was painful to read, and yet when one considers the amount of money we have spent on the war effort, the amount of concealment when this money is put in the form of a supplemental--a ``supplemental'' for the information of those who do not understand the jargon, supplemental is an emergency supplemental. It is money spent that does not have to be paid for by an assignment from regular revenues or other sources of funding. It is kind of a concealed thing.

When I think about what is being concealed from the American public with this war going on, now over 1,500 have lost their lives, thousands of our soldiers, sailors, Marines--I include all of them when I say soldiers--having severe wounds from the dastardly attacks with roadside bombs and grenade launchers.

The subject came up just now that relates to an amendment I introduced last year, an amendment to the defense authorization bill, to permit dignified media coverage of the return of flag-draped coffins to our Nation. I offered this amendment because the administration banned media coverage of the ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware when those fallen heroes were brought back to American soil.

In my view, these soldiers deserve to have the honor of public acknowledgment of the price they have paid, of having those families able to look at something that reminds them their son or their daughter paid the price for our democracy. And they were hiding that information.

Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated in the Senate. But that was not the end of the issue. Since the Pentagon was not allowing the press to photograph these ceremonies, a professor of journalism filed, under the Freedom of Information Act, a request to get the Pentagon to hand over the official photos from these ceremonies.

Just this week the Pentagon, under essentially court order, finally handed over hundreds of these photos. These photos were changed. In fact, they were defaced by the Pentagon. The question is, if you look at these photos, and you see the honor guard that was carrying the casket, flag-draped coffin to a place of rest, to a place of honor, they had their faced blacked out. Were they doing something shameful? Picture after picture, there is a whole contingent of service people, all with their faces blocked out.

I wanted to distribute these photos to every Senator's office if they do not already have them. We look at row after row of soldiers with their faces blocked out--heroes. Why are they hiding their faces? Because they don't want the truth told about this war.

A picture of a flag-draped coffin. Shouldn't it be seen by the public?

I have a photo gallery, I call it, in front of my office door, showing proudly the faces of those who paid the supreme price for their loyalty to country. People look at those photos. They see they are young people. They see they are people who come from every State in the country. We want it to be known who these people were and what they did on behalf of their country.

The honor guard, the soldiers at these ceremonies, had black squares covering their face as if they were embarrassed to be there. It is an honor to participate in that ceremony. They would not want their faces hidden.

Frankly, I don't understand the thinking. When I go to the funeral when one of our people have fallen, it is a dignified, beautiful commemoration of the person we were honoring. We should honor those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have now lost over 1,500 troops. They deserve honor.

This is not a political issue. It is an issue of respect. The soldiers we have lost overseas are more than numbers. They are sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives. Of course, in my service in the Senate, I have had the honor of attending funerals for the fallen from New Jersey, in New Jersey and at Arlington National Cemetery. The honor guard, dignified, looking strong, fit, determined, perfect unity and discipline, perform the same ceremony for every soldier, whether it is in a small town in New Jersey or at the cemetery of our heroes at Arlington.

The Honor Guard meticulously lifts the flag off the coffin, folds it carefully in precise form, and hands that folded flag, folded into a triangle, to the surviving spouse or parent. It is a very somber and powerful experience.

I watched the flag being handed from a top cover on a coffin in Arlington Cemetery, brought over to the mother of this young man, and she hugged it like she was hugging her son.

After the 1983 terror attack in Beirut, Lebanon, 243 flag-draped coffins of fallen marines were met by President Reagan on the tarmac at Dover. The ceremony was open to the press, and the American people had a chance to witness it.

We need to follow that example now. I have a simple message for the President and Secretary Rumsfeld: Honor our soldiers. I urge President Bush to reverse course and allow the American people to join in honoring our fallen troops. Let's not block the cameras. Let's not block the faces. Let's not distort the truth. Let's honor our men and women in uniform together as a country.

Let it be known that there is a sacrifice that touches families across this country. The face of a young man or a young woman who gave their life for their country ought to be recognized and not in any way hidden, whether in life or when the remains are returned to this country. Let the American people see the price that some families have paid for this war.

I yield the floor.