Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think my friend, the distinguished majority whip, is talking about things that really do not exist. We have now in the Senate a bipartisan agreement on how to approach the Hamdan decision, the detainee problem. We had all Democrats and four Republicans--far more than a majority in the committee--who voted yesterday to bring the matter to the floor that would solve this problem.

It is not a problem at this point that has been solved by the European courts. It has been solved by the U.S. Senate. We certainly know that the document that has come from the Armed Services Committee is imperfect, and we can always try to work to improve that. I think we should move forward on this issue. I think there is certainly nothing in the mind of the American people or the American public that what the President has suggested is final.

Certainly, he is not infallible, as indicated by Colin Powell--four- star general, general in the Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State for a number of years. He says the President's approach is wrong. He is not talking about the European courts determining what we should do. He is saying that the approach of Senator McCain and others is the proper way to go.

I would also say--without a long discussion--we have the same situation at this stage in the Senate dealing with domestic spying. We have a bipartisan solution to this issue. Members of the Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, voted to bring a bill to the Senate. Again, I am sure that bill is not perfect, but it certainly is a bipartisan solution to a problem that exists, one that is in compliance with the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, the Iraq war has been a diversion on the war on terror, and that seems pretty clear.

Mr. President, changing subjects just for a minute, prior to the August recess, Republicans attempted to win support for their attempt to repeal the estate tax by attaching that to a flawed minimum wage increase that was only meant for show and not to actually accomplish anything. And they also tied to it popular tax provisions, referred to as extenders.

Now, keep in mind the extenders were all agreed to by Democrats and Republicans. They had agreed to this, and the only thing that was not there was the signature, and that was to take place at 8 o'clock at night in the Capitol. When people came back to sign the conference report, word had come from the White House: Do away with this agreement. So that is why they came up with the so-called Trifecta: estate tax repeal, extenders, minimum wage.

Republicans were very clear regarding their strategy. Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee claimed that Democrats had been ``outfoxed.'' Well, of course, this bill did not pass because it was flawed. It was so unfair to the American people that you would do away with all these important tax provisions for the middle class in an effort to get a repeal of the estate tax that would affect the richest of the rich: 8,100 Americans.

The strategy of holding the extenders hostage to their estate tax giveaway put these important provisions in jeopardy of not getting enacted ever. As if to emphasize this point, Senator Judd Gregg said-- and I quote--``[i]f you don't kill the hostage, there's no threat.'' How about that.

Now, Senator Baucus yesterday--on more than one occasion--requested unanimous consent to delink the extenders, which have broad bipartisan support, from the Republicans' ill-fated attempt to repeal the estate tax for a small number of the wealthiest families in America.

American families and businesses are paying the price for this Republican do-nothing Congress's failure to extend these tax breaks. Millions of families and individuals are facing higher taxes today as a result of this failure.

Mr. President, this is just not Harry Reid, a Democrat, speaking. Look what was said yesterday by the chairman of the Finance Committee, a Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa:

A delay of legislative beyond the anticipated recess date

of September 29, 2006, will cause hardship, tax compliance

problems and confusion for the millions of taxpayers who

claim these widely applicable tax benefits.

According to a memo from Senator Grassley's office, after consulting with IRS officials, the IRS contracts with several printers to produce 1040 and 1040A income tax return forms are in jeopardy. It also said that IRS must finalize the information it is to submit to these printers by October 15 in order to ensure forms will be printed in time and be distributed to taxpayers at the beginning of 2007; that if Congress has not passed extenders legislation by that time, the forms will omit lines instructing taxpayers to compute State and local sales tax, college tuition, or out-of-pocket classroom expenses into their tax liability.

American families and businesses are paying the price because of this do-nothing Congress. They refuse to extend important tax breaks. Families who recently took their sons and daughters to college now wonder whether the tuition deduction Republicans allowed to expire last year will get reinstated.

What are these tax extenders? The State and local sales tax deduction. In States all over the country which have an income tax, they are allowed to deduct that from their Federal income tax. Now that the Republicans failed to act in States where individuals pay sales tax, they are not able to do this.

The tuition deduction is another one which allows parents and students to deduct all tuition and related expenses

from their taxable income. It benefits 3.6 million taxpayers nationwide and 26,000 in Nevada.

The teacher classroom expenses provision gives teachers above-the- line deduction of as much as $250. Mr. President, 8,100 people are seeking to benefit from the repeal of the estate tax, which is millions and millions of dollars. So why should we be concerned about some schoolteacher for $250? Because $250 is what teachers pay out of their own pockets to get supplies for the classroom that school districts don't pay for. They can deduct as much as $250 for personal funds spent by them to buy classroom supplies. This benefits 3.3 million teachers nationwide and about 22,000 teachers in Nevada.

There are many other items that are important in these extenders.

America needs a new direction, one that puts the interests of the hard-working families ahead of special interests. How can we be working on the Oman Free Trade Agreement and let this go? I don't understand this. The priorities are upside down. We need a new direction, and we are not getting any direction from the administration or certainly from the Republican-dominated Congress.

That is right.

What is the matter before the Senate?

Mr. President, last Friday the Senate Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan report that discussed Iraq's links to terrorism and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. These reports provided the American people with important insights into these critical issues.

Unfortunately, the administration chose to redact--that is a word used around here meaning to black out--important portions of these reports that a bipartisan majority of the Intelligence Committee believes could have and should have been released to the American people.

Last night, I handed a letter to the distinguished majority leader informing him of my intent to offer an amendment to declassify one of these sections.

I will, at an appropriate time, ask unanimous consent that I have the pending amendment set aside to offer my amendment. I am not going to do that right now.

I do ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to Senator Frist be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, again, before I get to the need for this amendment, let me be clear. This is about good government. It has nothing to do with politics. I notified the distinguished majority leader of my intentions to speak this afternoon, well in advance--not today; I advised him yesterday--so the majority leader--indeed, every Member of the Senate--knows this is not a partisan effort but, rather, a serious effort to ensure the Senate fulfills its responsibilities to the American people.

I sincerely hope that the majority leader has had time to think about this important amendment and will join with me today to get it agreed to.

The fact is, the White House was wrong to classify portions of the phase II report, as both Republicans and Democrats on the Intelligence Committee have said.

This chart states as follows:

The committee disagrees, however, with the Intelligence

Community's decision to classify certain portions of the

report's findings and conclusions . . . the Committee

concludes that the Intelligence Community's

decision to classify this information is without

justification.

This was made public last Friday from the report.

For the record, this is not my conclusion. This is not a Democratic conclusion. This is a bipartisan conclusion of the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee.

Again, here is what they said:

The Committee disagrees, however, with the Intelligence

Community's decision to classify certain portions of the

report's findings and conclusions . . . the committee

concludes that the Intelligence Community's decision to

classify this information is without justification.

A majority of the Republicans and Democrats in the Intelligence Committee came together and concluded that the administration's decision to keep information from the American people was without justification.

We talk about redaction. It is a word we use more often than I would think we should, but we are using it here today. I will show everyone in this chart what a redaction looks like. Here is the information I had in a letter to the majority leader where I said everyone should go upstairs and look at what these redacted sentences say.

This is not just any redaction. Although, obviously, I cannot discuss the specific content of this, the Intelligence Committee's report does contain some publicly available information that I can discuss.

According to unclassified sections of the committee's report, this section contains information from a CIA document about the alleged meeting in Prague between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. That is from page 135 of the report on terrorism, page 174 of the Democratic additional views.

As we all know, the alleged meeting referenced here was an important part of this administration's case for going to war. To this day, the meeting continues to be used by the administration officials to justify why we are still engaged in a war in Iraq. Obviously, this is an important piece of information as we assess how we got where we are today in Iraq and what we need to do to go forward in Iraq.

For all my colleagues, though, I want you to know, as important as it is, I would not be here today pressing the declassification of this information if I thought disclosing it to the American people would compromise our intelligence sources and methods. It doesn't.

A number of members of the Intelligence Committee who know exactly what this blacked-out section says, and have heard the administration's case for classifying it, have told me that significant portions of this passage can be declassified immediately with no harm to our national security, no revealing of sources and methods. Nor would I be here today if I thought the process of declassifying information spelled out in S. Res. 400 would work in this case.

S. Res. 400 talks about how we declassify information. As anyone who has taken a look at S. Res. 400 will quickly see, the process is a very lengthy process--so long, in fact, that it is impossible that the Senate would be permitted to express its views on an issue prior to the majority leader's announced adjournment date.

This amendment, the Reid-Rockefeller-Levin amendment, would provide the American people with information they have a right to know now. This amendment would not harm our national security. To the contrary, it will help ensure that we have a better informed Senate debate and a better informed American public, a critical underpinning of any effective national security policy.

I express my appreciation because he has just come to the Senate, to the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I want the Record to be spread with the fact of how much I appreciate, the Democratic Senators appreciate, the Nation appreciates, the Senator's dedicated work.

It has been tough sledding. The Senator has been dignified in his approach. I so appreciate the tireless efforts of the Senator. Most Senators are in the public eye. That is our job. The Senator's job is not to be in the public eye. The Senator spends days of his legislative life in a room in the Hart Building, in secret proceedings. Nothing can be said that goes on in that room. That is where the Senator spends his time. I so appreciate the Senator's dedicated service to our country.

Before I offer this unanimous consent request to set aside the pending amendment and have my amendment heard, I ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia if he has some remarks he would like to make.

Mr. President, Senator Levin would be here, but he is, to say the least, tied up in the Armed Services Committee. He has been working with others to get a bipartisan measure to the floor so we can deal with the detainee problem that was brought to a head by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan decision.

I do wish to say that Senator Levin, during Senator Rockefeller's incapacity, was a real stalwart working with us. He kept Senator Rockefeller informed at his home on a daily basis as to what was going on in that committee. We very much appreciate Senator Levin's efforts. He is really overworked. He had his responsibilities for Armed Services, but he filled in very well for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We are glad Senator Rockefeller is back and in better shape than when he left. He is stronger than ever, and we are very fortunate to be able to work on this side of the aisle with these two wonderful Senators.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that amendment No. 5005, to declassify certain text of the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Post-War Findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, still be in order.

Mr. President, is there an objection or not?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I regret the decision of the majority. I really do. There will be ample time for my friend from Missouri to speak. I wish to speak for a few more minutes. No matter the issue or the costs to the American people, I am sorry to say, partisanship is the order of the day in this Republican Senate. On such an important matter as this, I had hoped we could set aside our partisan differences and work together. This is not the case.

Our amendment will not be adopted, but it is not we who will pay the price. The real consequences will be paid by this institution and the American people.

The Senate has lost and the American people have lost once again because the Republicans have chosen to rubberstamp a bad decision by the Bush White House. They have put the administration's political standing ahead of this body's constitutional obligation and their own political interests ahead of the Nation's interests.

Again, the American people have lost because, again, they have been denied an opportunity to fully understand the facts behind President Bush's rush to war in Iraq. The decision to keep this revealing information from the public represents an abuse of classification authority by the Intelligence Committee. They have shielded the White House at the expense of America's security.

More than 3 years into the war in Iraq--longer than it took in World War II in the European theater--the principal underpinnings of the administration's case for war have been undermined, if not obliterated, by events on the ground and Friday's Intelligence Committee report.

We learned long ago that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction, that he did not have stockpiles of chemical weapons, that he did not have stockpiles of biological weapons, and that he did not have nuclear capabilities.

Further, we know definitely from the Intelligence Committee report on Friday that another administration claim--that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida--is totally and completely unfounded. Of course, that does not stop this administration from repeating this charge. This next chart shows exactly what I am talking about. Look at what has been said in recent weeks. And the colloquy between the distinguished whip and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee certainly showed this and will show it again.

Here is what was said:

[Saddam Hussein] had relations with Zarqawi.

President Bush said this in August of this year, late August of this year.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report:

[T]he Regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or

turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.

This did not stop the President from saying ``[Saddam Hussein] had relations with Zarqawi.'' This is not a truthful statement.

On September 10, just last Sunday, the Vice President said, on ``Meet The Press,'' at 10:30 in the morning--he was asked the question by Tim Russert, ``And the meeting with Atta did not occur?''--keep in mind, this is after the report was made public Friday, 2 days before this-- and the Vice President said, ``We don't know.''

The Senate Intelligence Committee report says no such meeting occurred. It is against this backdrop that I offered the Reid- Rockefeller-Levin amendment. We have an administration that continues to misstate the record and prevent the public from getting additional information that will shed further light on their misstatements. And ``misstatements'' is an understatement. We have a Republican-controlled Congress that actively aids and abets the administration in these pursuits.

Mr. President, we need a new direction. For too long, this Republican Congress has put its own security ahead of the security of the American people. Today is a good example of that, and it is too bad for the American people.

I wish to express my appreciation to all the managers and particularly Senator Murray, who has worked so hard, working with these amendments through the last few days. We always say nice things about Senator Inouye, so that is nothing new. Senator Murray is a wonderful legislator who does such a great job.

We look forward to going to conference. We are going to do our very best to get a conference as soon as we can. It is not easy. We have multiple committees of jurisdiction. I talked with Senator Sarbanes earlier today. Even Banking is now interested in being on the conference. We are going to do our best to work something out in the near future.

Mr. President, I join with my distinguished colleague from Texas in expressing condolences to the bereaved family, the State of Nevada, the Democrats in the Senate and America, for the loss of Ann Richards.

She was my friend. She came to Nevada whenever I asked her to. Why did I ask her to come? Because she was entertainment plus. She was always good for a stunning speech, a stirring speech.

For those who had the good fortune this morning to listen to Public Radio, what a wonderful piece they had on Ann Richards, the many funny things she did in Texas to change the ways of Texas. She modernized Texas.

We will all miss her. It is a loss for all Americans. We are comforted to know that Ann departed this world in high spirits and humor, just as she would expect us to continue our lives.

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

Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about an important resolution that passed the Senate last week. I introduced S. Res. 561, which designates September as Rural America Month.

I first thank the majority leader and my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, for their help in passing this resolution. For me, home means Nevada. Growing up as the son of a hard rock miner in a rural community called Searchlight, far from the bright lights of Las Vegas, has shaped my love for rural America. So when I became leader, I decided I wanted to do something to show how serious Democrats are about standing up for rural America. I couldn't think of a better person to lead this effort than Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas.

I appointed her the chairman of my Rural Outreach Program, and she has done a wonderful job. She is so articulate, has that wonderful smile, and she has done things we never realized would be so effective. I publicly extend my appreciation to her for her leadership in this area. The people of Arkansas are so fortunate to have this good woman serving in the Senate.

It is our love for rural America that brings us to the Chamber today. Senator Lincoln has been here. I appreciate her remarks very much. But it is what motivates us to support 55 million people who, like us, call rural America home. These small towns and rural communities are rich in heritage and tradition, and we need to do everything we can to protect and sustain the rural way of life.

Today, as we honor rural America, I would like to talk about some steps I believe the Senate should take to enrich rural economies, bring new and better services to small towns, enhance these pieces of fabric of America we call rural America.

During the last century, our rural communities have undergone an amazing transformation. With more than 2,000 rural counties accounting for almost 85 percent of the American landscape, the definition of what is rural often depends upon arbitrary lines of distinction. As rural economies become increasingly diversified, communities strive to adapt to the demands of a constantly evolving global community and economy. Take, for example, Elko, NV. Once, Elko was a small Basque enclave. It has grown dramatically during the past decade, and for so many years it has been growing in a way we never envisioned.

Today, Elko and the immediate vicinity produces 63 percent of the world's gold. It has recognized the challenge of relying upon the highly volatile industry, but it still carries on and does so well. The people of Elko worked together to identify local resources to foster not only growth but smart growth. As it turns out, one of Elko's most valuable assets is an unused railroad spur. Today, this is being developed and will become one of the busiest transportation hubs in the West because of the mining industry and ranching industry.

That is not all. Elko is also doing something else to capitalize on the uniqueness of their setting in the American West.

One of the reasons I am so proud of this legislation is because it honors America's farmers, ranchers, and, yes,

cowboys. Farming and ranching are the foundation of rural culture in America and continue to drive the rural economy. Today, with 95 million head of cattle, beef production in the United States is an $80 billion- a-year industry. This year, Americans will consume 25 billion pounds of beef. With the livestock they raise and the responsible stewardship of public lands, American farmers and ranchers help feed families across the country and around the world. Although less than 10 percent of the world's cattle are raised in America, we produce nearly 25 percent of the world's beef supply.

For 23 years, the Western Folklife Center has hosted the National Cowboy Poetry Festival in Elko. Each year, poets, storytellers, musicians, filmmakers, dancers, and other performers descend upon the town to celebrate these American icons. The theme for this year's gathering is ``The Ranch.''

If you talk to ranchers and farmers this year, one of the first topics you hear is the rising cost of energy. The high cost of gasoline and diesel affects all Americans, but it hits rural America very hard. These are men and women who make a living driving tractors and other large pieces of equipment, hauling their grain and moving their livestock from place to place. This is one area in particular where we can help rural America, and I believe we should.

Instead of making farmers pay for dependence on foreign oil, it is time they were paid to make America energy independent. It is within our grasp. We are at a real turning point for alternative energy. Alternative energy technologies are finally becoming cost competitive with conventional energy sources such as oil and gas. In 2005, the three largest technology IPOs were, believe it or not, solar companies. By 2009, it is likely alternative energy technology will capture 10 percent of all capital venture investments. All of this is possible if we work together to take us in a new direction.

Another hardship faced by rural Americans is the loss of jobs. In the wake of outsourcing, rural communities have been left with the daunting task of retraining workers whose only training had been for jobs that no longer exist. For example, the manufacturing industry, which is so vital to so many small towns, has been hit the hardest, with as much as 30 percent of that sent abroad. It is not unusual for someone to work their ranch or farm but also have another job, and that has been very hurtful, with these jobs being shipped overseas. It has been particularly devastating for low-skill workers who make up more than 40 percent of all rural workers.

The problem is made worse when young unskilled workers leave the workforce in search of opportunities only available beyond the county line. While it is clear rural communities need to be more aggressive in attracting new industries, the task is easier said than done.

Prospective employers need to be assured they have a pool of talented workers. With the exodus of skilled workers and an untrained workforce, few companies are willing to roll the dice. That is too bad.

Living in rural America is something that you do not see on a balance sheet. It is only a live experience. More people should experience the joy of living in rural America.

Just as good jobs are hard to find, so is good health care and good emergency response. In many parts of the country, such as Ely, NV, when there is an emergency--whether it is a small brush fire or national catastrophe--we look to our neighbors to keep our families safe. We rely on volunteer firefighters and police officers. This fact was made painfully clear after Hurricane Katrina.

That is why I feel so strongly that the Senate must do everything it can to make sure our first responders have the tools they need to get the job done right. Volunteer fire departments depend on programs such as Fire and Citizen Corps grants. Every day, rural law enforcement officials rely on the funding that the Byrne and COPS Programs provide.

Often, when we talk about veterans issues, we are talking about rural issues. Rural America is home to many U.S. veterans. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, rural and nonmetropolitan counties account for the largest concentration of veterans.

This is true for my home State of Nevada. With more than 250,000 veterans, Nevada has the third largest population of veterans, and it continues to grow. During the last decade, Nevada saw its veterans population increase by more than 30 percent--the highest increase in the country.

That is why for so many years now, I have been pushing Congress to revisit the injustice in compensation for our nation's veterans--the ban on concurrent receipt.

As too many are well aware, disabled veterans face the obstacle of forfeiting retirement pay dollar-for-dollar if they receive disability compensation. This policy is unacceptable, and I am committed to securing fair policy to provide our veterans with the entirety of their earned compensation.

I have been fighting for five years to allow for full concurrent receipt, and despite veto threats from the administration, we have made many great strides towards fair compensation for our veterans. In 2003, Congress passed my legislation allowing disabled retired veterans with at least a fifty percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt over a ten-year period. This measure passed despite veto threats from the Bush administration.

Most recently, I have introduced legislation--S. 558--which would provide concurrent receipt to military retirees, with 20 or more years of service, who are rated less than 50 percent. It would also eliminate the 10-year phase-in period for veterans who draw their disability and retirement pay; it will also change my 2003 bill to give full concurrent receipt to all veterans with service connected disabilities. There are currently 29 cosponsors to this legislation.

Additionally, the CARES commission on veterans' health care recognized the need for a Community Based Outpatient Clinic--CBOC--in Fallon and an expansion of services at the Reno VA Medical Center. I am committed to providing Nevada's veterans with more access to quality health care options, including a new CBOC in Elko.

And finally, no discussion of helping rural America would be complete without a discussion of Broadband.

For rural America, competition and active participation in the local and global marketplaces not only means having a computer, but also access to high-speed internet services.

Rural areas are consistently left behind urban areas when it comes to federal investment in the infrastructure systems that are essential for any economy to thrive--including telecommunications systems.

Although the Internet has touched the lives of billions of people around the globe, most of rural America has been left behind even the least developed countries.

Less than a decade ago, the Internet meant email and chat rooms. Today, access to broadband Internet is so much more. With high speed internet, incredible amounts of information can change fingers at the speed of light.

However, even in rural areas where broadband access has been introduced, problems such as affordability and adoption rates remain huge obstacles to progress/leaving dial-up the only realistic option. Affordability and adoption rates are the biggest obstacles we have.

Broadband Internet has proven itself to be a potent catalyst in job creation, economic development, and a critical component of education and public safety. In fact, the deployment of broadband service to our rural areas may be as important to economic development as rural electrification was during the Great Depression.

And so, my colleagues and I are committed to investing in innovative broadband technologies so that rural communities can begin to form new kinds of partnerships, and reach new levels of connectivity.

For example, Senator Clinton has worked to link local businesses in St. Lawrence County to global markets using eBay. Many parts of St. Lawrence County are remote, and businesses have a hard time finding customers. But not on eBay. eBay also offered training to small business owners and their employees.

Senator Clinton has also previously secured Senate passage of tax incentives for telecommunications companies to deploy broadband to rural

areas. This technology will allow small businesses around New York to compete for customers around the globe.

We have seen how one small business has worked with several communities to bring free wireless internet service to nine cities in Eastern Oregon. The service is now being used to track cargo shipments on the Columbia River, monitor a munitions depot, and has improved the efficiency of the police department.

I have spent the last few moments talking about the joys and challenges felt by rural America.

As I've cited in examples today from Elko and Ely, Nevada, rural communities are coming together to create new opportunity themselves. But we here in Washington need to do everything we can to help them succeed.

We need solutions that make sense for the whole country--not just for Washington, D.C., but for places like Winnemucca, and Aurora, NE.

We can do it. And we'll be a better, stronger nation as a result.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a momentous occasion in the history of Nevada and one of my favorite pastimes: boxing.

This September 16, 2006, marks the 100th anniversary of the longest boxing match in history fought under Queensbury rules. For more than 3 hours, 2 of the greatest boxers in the country squared off for 42 rounds in the booming mining community of Goldfield, NV. This fight's tremendous length might be important to the ``Guinness Book of World Record,'' but for Nevada, it was also an important moment in race relations during a tumultuous period in our country's history.

Boxing promoters throughout the country billed the fight as one of epic proportions. Oscar Battling Nelson was one of the toughest fighters in the land. He was nicknamed ``The Durable Dane'' for his resilient and hard-hitting style. Rather than defeat his opponents with skill, Nelson preferred to absorb the blows of his opponents and outlast them in the ring. One biographer even went so far as to say that Nelson ``gave new meaning to the word tough.''

With such fabled abilities, Nelson was the early favorite to defeat his opponent, a 32-year-old African American named Joe Gans. The Baltimore native was the reigning lightweight champion and the first American-born Black man to win a boxing title. His style was a sharp contrast to The Durable Dane: Gans was quick and fast on his feet and known as ``The Old Master.'' Rather than relying on brute strength, Gans tried to beat his opponents with skill.

Such a marquee match-up was a boxing promoter's dream and was expected to promote gold stock in the area. With a record $30,000 purse prize, the fight brought national attention to Goldfield, the largest city in Nevada at the time. But a sharp issue hung over the bout like an ominous cloud. That was the issue of race.

Before the fight began, rumors floated that Gans had thrown fights as a youth in Baltimore. So persistent were the rumors that Gans' promoter, a local saloon owner named Larry Sullivan, feared for his safety should his fighter lose. Others worried that a win by Gans could start a riot in the town.

The hostility of the town quickly evaporated once the citizens of Goldfield had an opportunity to meet Joe Gans. It was his unassuming manner--and some say a love of the craps tables--that endeared Gans to the town. Prefight negotiations only served to steer more public support to Gans' corner. Gans gave into every one of Nelson's demands, including lowering his own share of the $30,000 purse to $11,000 win or lose. He also agreed to drop his weight to 133 pounds--well below his normal fighting weight of 142 pounds.

The change in support was clearly evident to referee George Siler. He wrote: ``The men who wield the pick think that Gans has been imposed upon by Nelson's manager, and they want to see him win.'' The Goldfield News reported the shift in support saying ``. . . the camp finds itself in the unique position of wishing to see a Negro defeat a white man.'' By the start of the fight, the odds were 2-1 in favor of Gans.

The fight started in the afternoon under the hot Nevada sun. Some estimates place the ringside temperatures at more than 100 degrees. Nevertheless, more than 6,000 people--and an unprecedented 1,500 women--paid the pricey sum of $5 to watch the fight.

Surely, none of the spectators knew that they would witness one of the greatest fights in history. As usual, Nelson tried to outlast his opponents' barrage of uppercuts, hooks, and jabs. By the end of the seventh round, Nelson was bleeding from both ears and Gans knocked him to the mat. But the Durable Dane would not give up. He tried to pin Gans against the ropes, and again Gans knocked him to the mat in the 15th round. Nelson bounced back, winning the next three rounds. After almost 20 rounds, the sun began to set over the Columbia Mountain and it was clear that the fighters were tired.

But neither man would yield. Gans broke his hand in the 27th round but refused to go down. He continued to fight back against Nelson, showing little sign of the injury. At the end of the 30th round, Nelson hit Gans after the bell, causing uproar in the crowd. The referee, who had warned Nelson about fouls throughout the fight, gave him yet another warning. Finally, the Durable Dane began to lose his famed endurance, while Gans continued to pummel him. In the 42nd round, Nelson landed an intentional low blow on Gans. The referee called the fight in Gans' favor.

The telegraph wires carried the result of the fight across the country. And the town's support for Gans held strong. That night, the residents of Goldfield did not see Black or White: They saw a winner. Joe Gans, with his modest manner and stylish boxing, had won the town over. Siler wrote: ``Goldfield is a vast camp of hero worshippers tonight, and its hero is Joe Gans . . .''

This Saturday, the boxing clubs from the University of Nevada, Reno, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, will fight 42 rounds in honor of the Nelson-Gans match. The sounds of the closing bell for each of those 42 rounds will be from the original 1906 bell from the fight. And later that evening in nearby Tonopah, the audience will be able to watch video footage of the historic bout.

Mr. President, the accomplishments of Joe Gans and the citizens of Goldfield are worthy for recognition before the Senate. I am pleased have the opportunity to honor this important anniversary today.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, shortly there will be a debate on an amendment that was offered on my behalf and a number of other Democrats.

It is an amendment that would implement all 41 recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

The amendment would equip our intelligence community to fight terrorists. In effect, what it would do is go back to what we have been doing for 27 years; that is, allow the Intelligence Committee every year to have a bill before this body, to allow them to update what needs to be done so they can proceed with intelligence activities in our country and around the rest of the world. We did not authorize the Intelligence Committee's work for the first time in 28 years last year. Now, this year, we have not done it again. This amendment would put that in effect.

Third, the amendment would secure our ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants, and mass transit systems.

Fourth, the amendment would refocus America on the war on terror. I went into that in some detail yesterday.

Fifth, the amendment would provide better, updated tools to bring terrorists to justice.

Finally, the amendment would change course in Iraq. Certainly that is something the American people deserve and want.

Yesterday in Iraq, 65 Iraqis were found dead, a number of them beheaded, one with a note saying: Anyone that cooperates with Americans, this is what is going to happen to them. In addition to that, scores of others were killed in bombing incidents around the country. Two American soldiers were killed.

So the amendment would change course in Iraq. Americans deserve real security. This bill is real security. The amendment is real security. I ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this amendment.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, with this last vote, the senior Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, casts his 10,000th vote. He has entered into very good company having cast his 10,000th vote. Senator Sarbanes, Senator Lugar, and Senator Hatch are in the company with him.

I applaud and congratulate my friend, Max Baucus. He has served a lifetime representing the people of the State of Montana. He was elected to the Montana State Legislature in 1973, the House of Representatives of the United States the next year, in 1978 elected to the Senate. He has a compelling background. He was raised on a ranch near Helena, MT.

One of the fascinating things that speaks of Senator Baucus's personality, he did not know as a young man what he wanted to do. So to get his thoughts together and his head on straight, as he said, he decided he would travel the world. And he did that, by himself, hitchhiking and catching rides, and when he had a few dollars, he would catch some type of public transportation. He traveled the world over. He got very sick on an occasion or two drinking water that was not like water in Helena, MT.

I repeat, it speaks of who Max Baucus is. He has an outstanding education. He was educated in one of the finest university's in the world, Stanford, for both his undergraduate work and for his law degree.

When I was elected to the Senate, the first person to reach out to me socially was Max Baucus. He invited me to his home, where I met his lovely wife Wanda. Now, in the years since, because of our Senate schedules being as busy as they are, we have not done a lot of things socially. I speak to Wanda a lot on the telephone, trying to find Senator Baucus. She is, to me, a fascinating woman--whether she is doing her painting or writing a book, she is always doing something intriguing. They have a wonderful son Zeno.

We all shared in the tragedy that occurred in Senator Baucus's life during the past few weeks when his nephew--who to Senator Baucus was like a son--United States Marine Corpsman Phillip Baucus, was killed in Iraq serving our country.

I am almost embarrassed to talk about Max's athletic accomplishments because mine so pale in comparison. I always feel kind of good about the fact that I have run a lot of marathons. Marathons are nothing for Max Baucus. He has run 50-mile races, 100-mile races. Remember, a marathon is only a little over 26 miles. But in one race, he has run four times the marathon that I and others run.

Senator Baucus has been chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, chairman of the Committee on Finance, ranking member now. He set a great example to me as I

was then a junior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the first highway transportation bill, working with him and Senator Moynihan.

One of the things I recognize with Senator Baucus is he has been a great leader for our caucus and the Senate, from Social Security to the economy. Generally, we look to him for guidance.

One of the things I also appreciate and admire in Senator Baucus is the working relationship that he has with Senator Grassley. They do not always agree on issues, but they have a real partnership in that Committee on Finance. I think they set an example for what all Senators should do, and certainly all chairman and ranking members. I so appreciate their working together. I repeat, they do not always agree, but they never are disagreeable in their disagreements.

I know I speak for all Montanans, and I know I speak for all Democratic Senators, and I am sure Republican Senators, in expressing our admiration and respect for Senator Baucus in casting his 10,000th vote.

Mr. President, I was honored to join with President Bush and others at the Pentagon yesterday to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11. I was pleased, also to join my colleagues on the east steps of the Capitol last evening in an emotional tribute to those who died on that fateful day 5 years ago.

Mr. President, 9/11 was one of the darkest days of this Nation's history. It brought America together. We were inspired by the bravery of our fellow Americans. We stood shoulder to shoulder with the President. And when he stood upon the mound of rubble at Ground Zero, with a bullhorn in hand, he spoke for all of us.

Last night, however, the President, in his address to the Nation, spoke for himself, for his administration, and not for the Nation. No bullhorn, only the bully pulpit of his office, which he used to defend an unpopular war in Iraq and to launch clumsily disguised barbs at those who disagree with his policies.

By focusing on Iraq in the manner he did, the President engaged in an all-too-familiar Bush administration tactic: conflate and blur the war in Iraq with the response to 9/11.

Despite definitive and repeated findings that there were no ties between Iraq and al-Qaida--a finding most recently echoed by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee--the President continued to deliberately lump and blur al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Iraq, and 9/11 together.

This is a political move designed to tap the overwhelming public sentiment to destroy al-Qaida as a way to bolster sagging public support for the war in Iraq.

Despite the President's best efforts, the American people can see through this ploy--as we have seen with the pundits' comments following his speech and editorials all across the country today. The American people understand that Iraq is largely a sectarian struggle and that the longer we are bogged down in the streets of Baghdad, the easier it is for al-Qaida and its affiliates to reconstitute in places such as Afghanistan and Somalia.

Americans understand that this administration's ``stay the course'' strategy is hurting our security and moving Iraq in the wrong direction. Unemployment in Iraq is high. It is 40 to 50 percent unemployment, at least. Some places, it is 70 and 80 percent.

News accounts today say that inflation is now 75 percent in Iraq. An average of a thousand Iraqis are dying each month in Iraq. Is that a civil war? I think so. News accounts, the last couple of days--one, in fact, today said: ``Iraq conflict worsens.'' The General Accounting Office, the watchdog of Congress, a nonpartisan organization, said that the Iraq conflict worsens.

We heard two days ago an Army general saying that the Anbar province is lost. We have a general, even before he

is retired, saying that Secretary Rumsfeld said he would fire anyone who tried to develop a plan after the soldiers went into Iraq. He would fire them. There was no planning as to how the peace would take place.

The American people deserved better last night. They deserved a break from the politics that honored the spirit of 9/11, a chance to reclaim that sense of unity, purpose, and patriotism which swept through our country 5 years ago--feelings only the Commander in Chief could have inspired, that he should have tried to inspire. He didn't. Last night was not the time for a political partisan speech. Sadly, it was a missed opportunity for President Bush, who obviously was more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election year partisan politics than changing the direction for this wonderful country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate the individuals responsible for bringing this bill to the floor. No one is more responsible than the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. She has talked about this for years. This was a difficult bill because it had multiple jurisdictions--the Homeland Security Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Commerce Committee. The bill is here and I am glad it is here. It is long overdue. But this is a small slice of what we need to do to make America safe. We need to do much more. Five years after 9/11,

America is not as safe as it could be and should be. In my opinion, failures by this White House and inaction by this Republican-dominated Congress have left our ports and borders vulnerable, our chemical plants open to attack, our nuclear power facilities unsafe, our mass transit systems unsecure, and our military stretched to levels not seen since Vietnam. We need a new direction to keep America safe, and we need it now.

Amendment No. 4936

(Purpose: To provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on

terror)

Today, I intend to offer the Real Security Act of 2006 as an amendment to the port security bill. The Real Security Act provides an aggressive plan to make America safe. It takes nothing away from the port security legislation before this body. It is based on the real lessons of 9/11, more than 5 years ago, that occurred, lessons that for too long have been ignored by this Congress. This Democratic amendment would get serious about all facets of security--not only on port security but also on rail, aviation, and mass transit.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk tough about national security. Today we will see if they are serious about taking the required steps to actually keep America safe by joining with us in supporting a tough and smart plan to protect our families.

This Real Security Act would, first of all, implement all 41 recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

In a report card last year, the 9/11 Commission gave Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration D's and F's in implementing its recommendations. The amendment would provide the adequate resources for first responders, improve intelligence oversight and homeland security funding, and improve our tracking of material that can be used in nuclear weapons.

An additional section would equip our intelligence community to fight against terrorists. With all the tough talk from this Republican Congress about terrorism, it is striking, stunning to find that for the first time in 27 years, this Congress did not authorize the Intelligence bill for our intelligence community--the first time in 27 years. This year, again, there is no authorization, and we have 18 days remaining in this session of Congress. This Real Security Act would, in fact, adopt the Intelligence authorization bill that needs to be passed.

Third, the amendment will secure not only our ports but our rails, our airports, and our mass transit systems. In addition to that, it would protect our chemical plants. And this is real money here to protect our chemical plants, real money to protect our nuclear power facilities. Our nuclear generating facilities--it is no secret--have their independent security systems. Some have referred to them as ``rent-a-cop'' programs. What they do is put out the security of these nuclear power facilities to the lowest bidder. We have to have standard protection for our nuclear power facilities. That would be done with this amendment which we are going to offer.

As I indicated, this legislation will do some good things, in section 3, that I have talked about.

Customs and Border Protection, which we talk about a lot--this would actually give a half a billion dollars, $571 million, for necessary expenses for border security, including for air asset replacement and air operations facilities upgrade, the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of vehicles, construction, and radiation portal monitors that Border Patrol tells us are absolutely essential, and they do not have them after 5 years.

It would give $87 million to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As I have indicated, it would give an additional $55 million for air cargo security, including cargo canine teams and inspectors. It would give $250 million for aviation security, including--very importantly--after all these years after 9/11, we still do not have explosives monitoring equipment. The Coast Guard would be given $184 million--these are real dollars; these are not authorized dollars--for necessary expenses for the Integrated Deepwater Systems Program. The Coast Guard says this is essential. This section is important, as I have indicated, for making our country safer.

The fourth provision of this amendment would focus resources on the war on terror. Bin Laden's trail has gone cold, as we have seen in the papers in recent days. The administration has taken its eye off the war on terror and gotten our country bogged down in Iraq. This amendment will change this by increasing substantially our special forces operations to capture terrorists, to kill terrorists. It would improve our relationships with the Muslim world so we can help stop recruitment of new terrorists.

Fifth, the amendment would provide better, updated tools to bring terrorists to justice. We have a sense of the Senate on FISA. As we speak, there is good bipartisan work being done on domestic surveillance. Senator Feinstein and others have worked on a bipartisan basis. It is my understanding she has, on the Judiciary Committee, at least two Republican Senators who will support her amendment. That is important.

As to the Hamden decision, the Supreme Court said we need to do something. And we do need to do something. Senators Levin and Warner and others have worked on a bipartisan basis to do something about that. It would bring terrorists and detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other places to justice by listening to our military experts and helping to create tough tribunals that will lock up terrorists while respecting the Constitution and maintaining America's integrity. It is important we do this.

Finally, this amendment would change the course in Iraq. Our amendment would include the Levin-Reed resolution to move in a new direction in Iraq. There would be a transition of the U.S. mission in Iraq to counterterrorism, training, logistics, and force protection. No immediate withdrawal, nothing like that. It would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year, as called for by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We would work with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Iraqi Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources.

We would convene an international conference--which has been called for by Senator Biden for years now, and others--and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, preserve Iraq sovereignty.

It is very important that this amendment be adopted. We have talked a lot about terrorism, homeland security, talked about doing something about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment would do that. I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would allow us to adopt this amendment. I believe it is essential. We have waited too long. It needs to be done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that is now pending be laid aside.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

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

Mr. President, thank you very much.

I now yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Five years and a day ago, we rarely saw flags flying at every door. Five years and a day ago, men in suits rarely wore flag pins. Today, 5 years after September 11, from sea to sea, flags fly proudly in our front yards, on our suit lapels, and in our hearts.

The acts of terrorism that September morn lit for all Americans a lamp blazing through the smoke and pain and tears and flames. Even as our hearts ached, our hopes soared, inspired by the selfless courage and devotion of ordinary people performing extraordinary feats of courage and devotion.

Men and women--good, kind, loving moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters--died that day. For that, we can never cease to grieve. But the light that shone on September 11 cannot die. It cannot be dimmed. It cannot fail. It cannot fail because it is the light of their spirit and of ours. It is the light of a great republic, of a free and democratic people.

September 11 will always be our burden. Our minds, our souls, our hearts cannot forget. We must not forget. But we must also always remember that our fallen children in those fallen towers relit a lamp that outshines the evil done to us. In their loss, and in ours, they remind us, as could nothing else, of that for which we stand--that liberty is our central value, that freedom is our cardinal virtue, that we love our country and our flag and our people for the light we shine, on ourselves, to the world, and for the future of humanity.