Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that we return to the consideration of Dorgan amendment No. 2133 for a moment.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment to enhance the Free File Alliance. The Free File Alliance is a partnership between the Internal Revenue Service and the private technology industry.

This voluntary program was created in 2002 after the IRS tried to create its

own tax preparation software and e-filing program at the taxpayers' expense. Such a program would have needlessly duplicated the resources and investments of the private sector. Instead, the Free File Alliance came into being, helping preserve voluntary compliance.

This Alliance provides free electronic tax preparation and e-filing services to lower income, disadvantaged and underserved taxpayers. In its first 3 years of existence, the Free File Alliance has donated some 10 million tax returns to American taxpayers and has helped significantly increase the number of e-filed tax returns. The success of this unique public-private partnership has been achieved at no cost to the taxpayers.

This alliance has benefited the American public. It has allowed the IRS to focus its resources and efforts on its congressionally authorized mission and objectives. The budget simply does not have room for waste or duplication, and the Free File public-private partnership has met an urgent need in the most cost-effective way possible.

There are long-standing program management issues that need to be corrected in the IRS oversight of the Free File program. For the first 3 years, the Service failed to make necessary management reforms. Congress has provided specific direction in terms of taxpayer protections, but the needed reforms have still not been put in place.

This amendment is fully consistent with all of the previous Congressional direction. It provides that the IRS and the Department of Treasury do not waiver from this direction. It will also ensure that the IRS does not provide all aspects of tax functions, including tax preparation services. That kind of conflict of interest cannot ever be permitted. The American people expect us to look out for their interests in such matters, to ensure fairness and balance in the system, and to protect their rights to voluntary compliance.

This amendment and accompanying report language should get the Free File program on track to achieve its intended purposes and objectives, and ensure that the IRS keeps its energies and resources focused on critical core missions, rather than spending precious public funds to try to expand them.

This is a basic good government, taxpayer-focused measure, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Notice of Intent

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of every person in America who owns property and to speak on behalf of everyone working toward the American dream of homeownership. That dream is being threatened today, and that threat comes from our own government and court system. Since the birth of our Nation, property ownership has been a fundamental and guarded right. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to protect citizens from the heavy and greedy hand of government. This is why the Bill of Rights includes the fifth amendment's ``takings clause.''

Unfortunately, 200 years of upholding property rights was not enough to protect some Americans from the excessive use of government power. In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that economic development was a sufficient reason to take a person's property. In this case, the city of New London, CT wanted to tear down private homes and redevelop private property into an industrial complex. It is important to understand that the city did not want to tear down these homes because the neighborhood was blighted. The city did not want to redevelop the property because the homes were being used by drug dealers. The homeowners were middle-class families living in a middle-class neighborhood. So why would the city want to redevelop these properties? City officials believed this would create jobs and increase the city's tax revenue. When the homeowners refused to sell to the city, the city began condemnation proceedings. The homeowners sued the city and argued that this ``taking'' violated their fifth amendment rights.

The fifth amendment states that private property cannot be taken except for a ``public use'' and only then if the owners are justly compensated. The owners believed, as I do, that creating jobs and increasing tax revenue is not a public use. The Supreme Court, despite the plain meaning of the fifth amendment, ruled against the homeowners. As bad as that is, it gets worse for these homeowners. The city of New London is demanding that the homeowners, those who fought to protect their fifth amendment rights, must now pay back rent. For the Kelo family, that means $57,000 in rent owed to the city.

This cannot be what the Founding Fathers intended when they adopted the Bill of Rights. The Kelo decision has highlighted a serious problem with how government has taken more power at the expense of the people. The Supreme Court's decision favors big corporations and persons with political clout over homeowners and regular people.

Congress is partly to blame. Congress has created incentives for government to redevelop property in a never-ending quest for more and more tax dollars. New London, CT is the perfect example of these incentives. To Americans, the Kelo decision means that no matter how hard you work and no matter how hard you save, government can come in and take it all away from you. No person's home will be safe if Congress does not act to restore the fifth amendment. The property owners who lost their homes as a result of the Kelo decision paid their Federal taxes, paid their State taxes, and paid their local taxes. They played by the rules. Ironically, it was these taxes that made it possible for their government to steal their homes. As a result, Congress must step in to limit the use of Federal dollars.

Just as our country's Founders sought to protect private property by amending the Constitution, I feel Congress must act to protect those rights. That is why I am introducing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, legislation to protect and preserve the American dream. This bill will curb government power and return it where it belongs, to the people.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of every person in America who owns property and to speak on behalf of everyone working toward the American dream of homeownership. That dream is being threatened today, and that threat comes from our own government and court system. Since the birth of our Nation, property ownership has been a fundamental and guarded right. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to protect citizens from the heavy and greedy hand of government. This is why the Bill of Rights includes the fifth amendment's ``takings clause.''

Unfortunately, 200 years of upholding property rights was not enough to protect some Americans from the excessive use of government power. In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that economic development was a sufficient reason to take a person's property. In this case, the city of New London, CT wanted to tear down private homes and redevelop private property into an industrial complex. It is important to understand that the city did not want to tear down these homes because the neighborhood was blighted. The city did not want to redevelop the property because the homes were being used by drug dealers. The homeowners were middle-class families living in a middle-class neighborhood. So why would the city want to redevelop these properties? City officials believed this would create jobs and increase the city's tax revenue. When the homeowners refused to sell to the city, the city began condemnation proceedings. The homeowners sued the city and argued that this ``taking'' violated their fifth amendment rights.

The fifth amendment states that private property cannot be taken except for a ``public use'' and only then if the owners are justly compensated. The owners believed, as I do, that creating jobs and increasing tax revenue is not a public use. The Supreme Court, despite the plain meaning of the fifth amendment, ruled against the homeowners. As bad as that is, it gets worse for these homeowners. The city of New London is demanding that the homeowners, those who fought to protect their fifth amendment rights, must now pay back rent. For the Kelo family, that means $57,000 in rent owed to the city.

This cannot be what the Founding Fathers intended when they adopted the Bill of Rights. The Kelo decision has highlighted a serious problem with how government has taken more power at the expense of the people. The Supreme Court's decision favors big corporations and persons with political clout over homeowners and regular people.

Congress is partly to blame. Congress has created incentives for government to redevelop property in a never-ending quest for more and more tax dollars. New London, CT is the perfect example of these incentives. To Americans, the Kelo decision means that no matter how hard you work and no matter how hard you save, government can come in and take it all away from you. No person's home will be safe if Congress does not act to restore the fifth amendment. The property owners who lost their homes as a result of the Kelo decision paid their Federal taxes, paid their State taxes, and paid their local taxes. They played by the rules. Ironically, it was these taxes that made it possible for their government to steal their homes. As a result, Congress must step in to limit the use of Federal dollars.

Just as our country's Founders sought to protect private property by amending the Constitution, I feel Congress must act to protect those rights. That is why I am introducing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, legislation to protect and preserve the American dream. This bill will curb government power and return it where it belongs, to the people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of John Roberts' nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The debate that the Senate will have this week is truly historic. In our Nation's history there have only been 16 previous Chief Justices. The opportunity to vote on a nomination for Chief Justice is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity and should be undertaken with recognition of its importance. The importance of this vote simply cannot be overstated.

I believe that our Nation is best served when we confirm individuals who appreciate that the role of a judge is not to make laws but to uphold the Constitution. We need judges who understand that their oath requires them to follow the Constitution and to apply the law in a modest fashion. Judges do not serve in the legislative branch. They should not make the law. As Senators, that is our job.

Under our Constitution, judges are appointed to interpret the law. They should apply the law without prejudice. Judges must be open to the legal arguments presented by each of the parties before them. They must fully and fairly analyze the facts and faithfully apply the law.

I have carefully considered John Roberts' record and his qualifications. I believe that his record reflects a proper understanding of the role of judges. I met with him and discussed face- to-face his views on the role of Supreme Court Justices. Judge Roberts possesses the highest intellect and integrity. He has also demonstrated that he is fair-minded. He possesses the necessary experience, as an attorney for the government, in private practice and as a judge, to serve on the high court. By any objective measure, John Roberts is qualified to sit on the bench, and he deserves to be confirmed.

Judge Roberts, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee and in his writings throughout his career, has presented himself as a man with a clear view of the role of a Supreme Court Justice: to interpret the law and to uphold the Constitution. His answers to specific questions have been necessarily and appropriately limited so we must trust, as we have with past nominees to the Court, that Judge Roberts is presenting himself and his views honestly. I believe he has, and for the sake of our country, I hope so.

Today, throughout the judicial branch, judicial activism is impeding and restricting freedoms the American people should expect to enjoy as envisioned by our Nation's founders. Recent and significant rulings have established standards created not by elected Members of Congress but by activist judges. These rulings have infringed on Americans' rights to exercise their religious beliefs; to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; and to own property without fear that the Government might seize that property for economic gain.

Now more than ever we need justices who will stand against this type of judicial activism, adhere to the proper role of upholding the Constitution, and leave the task of creating laws to the Congress. John Roberts is representing himself as someone who believes in a return to what our founders intended and we hope his portrayal of his views is honest and true.

Historically, the Senate has confirmed a nominee when the nominee is found to be well qualified. John Roberts certainly meets this criterion. Historically, the Senate has based confirmation on a nominee's record, writings, and prior decisions. There is ample documentation on which my colleagues can make a decision with respect to John Roberts' nomination. And the documentation supports confirmation.

John Roberts deserves to be confirmed, and America deserves a Chief Justice like John Roberts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts that the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member have made on this legislation. They are working hard to help out the people who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina on the gulf coast. All of our hearts go out to the people in the gulf region. The devastation that region has experienced simply cannot be put into words. The issue we are considering tonight is not what kind of assistance should be provided to evacuees but how that assistance should be provided and whether this should be done by unanimous consent.

The administration has taken administrative steps to provide necessary medical care to evacuees. They have provided Medicaid waivers to certain states. Secretary Leavitt has pledged additional waivers to states that request one if the request is reasonable. For its part, Congress has already approved $62 billion for the recovery of victims and their care. I am concerned that this bill involves new spending rather than reprogramming a part of the $62 billion Congress has already appropriated. This bill would add an additional $8.9 billion in spending on top of the money FEMA has already been given.

We should make some changes to this bill. I have serious concerns about four provisions included in this bill. First, this bill provides for temporary expansion of Medicaid. Second, it requires that the federal government provide 100% FMAP for Louisiana, Mississippi and affected counties in Alabama. This is a dangerous precedent and removes any incentive for these states to keep Medicaid costs down. Third, it holds 29 states harmless from a scheduled FMAP reduction in 2006. This means the federal government continues to pay more of the costs, even in states with few or no Hurricane Katrina evacuees. My final concern is that this bill also increases spending by $8.9 billion and probably unnecessarily so given the steps that Congress and the Administration have already taken.

Any legislative proposal should be well thought out and fiscally responsible. If these services can be provided administratively, which HHS says they can, we should allow HHS to do so. Congress does not, and should not, alter the Medicaid formula as this bill seeks to.

We, as a Congress, need to get a better handle on the money being spent. We have an obligation to those affected by the hurricane as well as to those Americans we are asking to help pay the costs of relief. We must ensure this money is spent wisely.

I object to the unanimous consent.

Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may offer an amendment dealing with horse inspection and that no second-degree amendments be in order.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I withdraw my previous unanimous consent request and I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1726.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleagues, Senators Byrd, Landrieu, Graham, Lott, Stabenow, DeMint, Feinstein, and Lautenberg, to submit an amendment to the 2006 Senate Agriculture appropriations bill.

The goal of our amendment is simple: to end the slaughter of America's horses for human consumption overseas.

I graduated from Colorado State with a degree in veterinary medicine. I have been concerned with animal welfare since my earlier days as a youth and pursued those interests as a practicing veterinarian.

Our Nation's history and cultural heritage is strongly associated with horses. George Washington is pictured many places with horses. We are reminded of the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express in the West. The Depression era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the morale of our country during desperate times.

The owners who sell their horses at auction are often unaware that those horses may be on their way to one of the three remaining horse slaughterhouses in America. These slaughterhouses--two in Texas and one in Illinois--are owned by French and Belgium companies. They slaughter American horses almost exclusively for one purpose--exporting the meat overseas for human consumption.

Workhorses, racehorses, and even pet horses--many young and healthy-- are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where their meat is considered a delicacy. The profits, along with the product, are shipped overseas. These horses are slaughtered in America and shipped to Japan, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany for human consumption.

Last year, nearly 100,000 American horses were slaughtered for human consumption overseas. Sixty-five thousand of these were sent to three slaughterhouses in the United States, and more than 30,000 were shipped across our borders to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Our amendment effectively stops this practice. It restricts the use of Federal funds for the inspection of horses being sent to slaughterhouses for human consumption. Without these inspections, required under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, horses cannot be slaughtered, or exported for slaughter, for human consumption overseas.

Strong support for our amendment is reflected in the House of Representatives, where an identical measure was passed by a vote of 269 to 158 this past June.

We have several articles and editorials from around the country that have been written in support of our amendment. Articles have appeared in the Washington Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Charleston Gazette, and the Louisville Courier-Journal, just to name a few. I ask unanimous consent to have these articles printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Ensign-Byrd amendment also has strong support from some of the people most familiar with the slaughterhouses. Paula Bacon, the mayor of Kaufman, TX, which is home to the Dallas Crown Slaughterhouse, recognized the importance of ending this slaughter.

She stated:

My city is little more than a doormat for a foreign-owned

business that drains our resources, thwarts economic

development and stigmatizes our community. There is no

justification for spending American tax dollars to support

this industry.

That is Paula Bacon, mayor of Kaufman, TX, home to the Dallas Crown horse slaughterhouse facility.

Members of the local community would like to see this slaughterhouse closed, as well.

Concerns have been raised about what will happen if this slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner. Some horses will be kept longer by their original owner, others will be euthanized humanely by a licensed veterinarian, and still others will be cared for by the horse rescue community. Efforts are underway to standardize practices for horse rescue organizations. Guidelines for this ever- growing sector have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries.

Statistics do not support claims that this legislation will result in more abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. In Illinois, the number of abuse cases actually dropped from 2002 to 2004, when the State's only slaughterhouse was closed due to fire. In California, there has been no rise in neglect cases since the State passed a ban on slaughter for human consumption in 1998.

Furthermore, it is illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this amendment will not lead to more orphaned horses. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, animal control agents can enforce humane laws. These animals still can be euthanized and disposed of by a veterinarian for about $225, a fraction of the cost to keep a horse. That cost is not too big of a burden to bear when no other options are available.

Our amendment is good for horses. That is why it is supported by many animal protection groups. The Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, the American Humane Association, and Society for Animal Protective Legislation--all support our legislation. We have also received support from much of the horse industry and veterinarians nationwide. In fact, congressional measures to end horse slaughter are supported by Veterinarians for Equine Welfare, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Churchill Downs, Incorporated, and dozens of owners and trainers of champion racehorses, including Kentucky Derby winners.

The time to end this slaughter is now. Please join my colleagues and me in supporting this important amendment.

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

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Lieberman amendment violates rule XVI.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as a fiscal conservative there are very few areas in which I believe Federal funding should be increased. One of those few areas, however, is that of the National Science Foundation.

Funding of the National Science Foundation should be a national priority.

Congress established the National Science Foundation in 1950 with the broad mission ``to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.'' In this capacity, NSF plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our Nation.

Basic research supported by NSF in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, genomics, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years.

For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding.

Research supported by NSF accounts for approximately 40 percent of non-life-science basic research at U.S. academic institutions while representing less than 4 percent of the Federal funding for R&D. Support for NSF's efforts to fund basic research is particularly important due to the impact of such research on innovation and global competitiveness.

To remain globally competitive in the 21st century, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages and a higher standard of living. While innovation is the key to the future, basic research is the key to future innovation. And today, the future of basic research appears vulnerable.

Over the last 30 years, Federal funding in support of basic research has remained flat in constant dollars and decreased by 37 percent as a share of GDP. Especially given increased competition from nations like China and India, failure to support the NSF and basic research creates a serious long-term risk for our nation. U.S. competitiveness in global markets and the creation of good jobs at home rely increasingly on the cutting edge innovation that stems from high-risk basic research. U.S. technological leadership, innovation, and jobs of tomorrow require a commitment to basic research funding today.

Congress approved and President Bush signed the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. That Act authorized funding for NSF at appropriate levels, but funding for NSF has consistently lagged behind the amounts authorized. In fiscal year 2005, NSF received funding that was approximately $2 billion less than authorized. In fiscal year 2006, we are considering funding NSF at levels approximately $3 billion less than authorized.

As we consider funding priorities on the CJS bill and in the future, I urge the chairman, ranking member, and my fellow colleagues to make it a priority to fund NSF and to support increased basic research.

I thank the chair and the ranking member for their leadership on this legislation, and look forward to working with both of them on promoting the basic research done at NSF in our country.

stem education funding

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about yesterday's court decision which ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. I am concerned, but certainly not surprised, with this decision. And I am very concerned with the decision's implications.

It is time for us to take a stand against activist judges who seek to circumvent the will of the American people and who issue judgments flying in the face of decency and common sense. With all that is going on in our world today, to attack the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains a reference to God is ludicrous.

Most Americans were outraged when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said that the plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case did not have standing. The Court found that, because he was not the custodial parent, he could not object to his daughter's reciting the pledge of allegiance in school.

When that decision came down, many people, myself included, knew that it would only be a matter of time before the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, would be back. We were right. Yesterday, the Court, looking to the previous ninth circuit decision, ruled that the use of the simple phrase ``under God'' was a religious act. The Court found that a school policy involving the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance had a coercive religious effect.

I strongly disagree that the pledge is coercive. I also strongly disagree with the court's decision. The Pledge of Allegiance, in addition to containing a statement of common values and patriotism, recognizes historic facts behind our Nation's founding. There are so many references in America to God, our Creator. Those references can be seen in our currency, on public buildings, even in the Declaration of Independence which is displayed a few blocks from the Capitol in the National Archives.

This recent decision further emphasizes our Nation's need for judges who are respectful of people of faith and for judges who understand that America's continued reference, and reverence, toward the Creator are very important to our common culture.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I thank both managers of the bill for their indulgence. I look forward to speaking on the amendments later, but I appreciate the ability to lay them down at this time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the Ensign-McCain amendment. Last year during the debate on the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including hiring 2,000 agents per year for border control. This bill, while it is an increase over what the President requested, only funds 1,000 new agents. What our amendment will do is fund the full 2,000. It will fund an additional 1,000 on top of what the original bill does. The offset to pay for this does not increase the deficit. It is all paid for under the bill. Some may question whether this offset makes any sense. I believe it does because we have limited resources at the Federal level, and we must spend those wisely.

As recently as this past Sunday, a CBS News report did a segment on how some local governments were spending their dollars. These funds have been used to purchase defibrillators used at high school basketball games, not for national security, trailers to haul lawnmowers to annual lawnmower races. The program has been used to purchase Segway scooters at a computerized towing service.

I urge our colleagues to support strengthening our borders and not using the money in wasteful ways.

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment 1104.

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

I send a modification to that amendment to the desk.

I understand both sides have agreed to the amendment, as modified, and I ask unanimous consent this amendment be agreed to.

I call up amendment numbered 1124 for its immediate consideration.

Yes. I send a modification to the desk to that amendment.

Mr. President; last year when the Senate was considering the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

One of those recommendations was to hire an additional 2,000 new custom and border protection agents each year for the next 5 years.

This body agreed with the recommendation. We agreed that our national security depended on such an investment, and we enacted that recommendation into law.

We are now considering the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The bill that was reported out of committee includes funding for 1,000 new agents in the coming fiscal year. I understand there are problems with training 2,000 agents.

My amendment as modified would provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with the discretion to shift $367 million to hire 2,000 new agents next year. This amendment is fully offset. I rise today to urge the Senate to adopt my amendment so that we can keep the commitment that we made to the American people last year. I thank John McCain for cosponsoring our amendment.

The threat of illegal border crossing by people who wish to kill us is very real.

The 9/11 Commission found that many of the 19 hijackers that attacked on 9/11 could have been placed on watch lists. But without adequate staff and coordinated efforts, the terrorists were allowed to enter the United States. Once here they learned how to fly airplanes at American flight schools. They conducted surveillance to assess our weaknesses. And they attacked.

In order to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must improve every aspect of our Nation's security. Our security is truly only as strong as our weakest link.

For too long, the lack of funding for border agents has been a weak link. By funding additional agents, we protect both our southern and our, often neglected, northern border. This will make it harder for terrorists to enter the United States and attack us.

There have been several news reports recently that I want to bring to my colleagues' attention.

A few months ago, intelligence officials confirmed that the terrorist Zarqawi plans to infiltrate America through our borders. He plans to attack targets such as movie theaters, restaurants, and schools. My amendment commits the resources to make sure that this does not happen.

Just last month, in Detroit, a Lebanese national named Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, who was in the United States illegally, pled guilty in Federal court to conspiring to raise money for a recognized terrorist group. He was in the United States raising money to fund terrorists. That is outrageous. But what is equally outrageous is how he came into the United States in the first place.

Kourani took advantage of our porous border. Kourani paid a Mexican consular official in Beirut $3,000 for a visa to enter Mexico. Once in Mexico, he snuck across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001 and settled in Michigan.

According to Federal prosecutors, Kourani and another member of his family are heavily involved with the same group that killed 214 marines in Beirut in 1983 and which is also responsible for bombing two U.S. embassies.

While in the United States, Kourani also helped harbor other illegal immigrants. Thankfully, he was prosecuted before he could inflict any direct harm on any American.

Given how easy it is for people like Kourani to enter the United States, I believe that my amendment is imperative to our national security.

My amendment does not require any additional spending. It gives the Secretary discretion which, if used, is completely offset. This amendment is paid for.

Homeland security spending must be based on priorities. The fact that terrorists would use our borders to gain access to the United States to attack is a real threat. So we must provide funds for customs and border protection.

Three and a half years ago it only took 19 people to change the course of this country. We must do everything that we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil.

The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the terrorists used our open and trusting society against us. We cannot allow a repeat of that tragedy.

This amendment will help those who guard our frontiers by providing the necessary, and I stress necessary, tools to ensure the safety of our citizens.

In conclusion, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Gregg, for the job he has done prioritizing what we are doing in the area of Homeland Security. His is a very difficult job. We have limited resources. It is a question of where are we going to manage our risk with the limited resources we have in this global war on terrorism. Chairman Gregg has a huge, huge task ahead not only this year but in the years to come.

This year's bill is going a long way to reprioritizing what we need to do to defend ourselves against the terrorists. Although the bill goes in the right direction, our amendment takes the bill that much further toward protecting our national security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for taking the time to engage in a colloquy to discuss a program funded in the Legislative Branch appropriations measure that is important to many Nevada educators.

In this bill, the Library of Congress is slated to receive $4 million for continued development of the Adventure of the American Mind program. AAM facilitates the incorporation of digital collections into school curricula. AAM provides teacher training so they can learn how to use primary resources in their classroom instruction. I think it is important to give educators and students--regardless of where they live--access to what the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, calls ``the world's largest repository of knowledge.'' I commend the chairman for his support for AAM.

I know that he is aware of two Nevadans who have performed extensive work to develop AAM. I am proud of my constituents. George and Carolyn Breaz of Las Vegas have traveled all over the country to train teachers in the five States that participate in the AAM Consortium. I believe it is through an oversight that my State of Nevada was not included as a member of the consortium. It was perhaps my staff's oversight for not communicating my support for Nevada's participation to the previous chairman, Senator Campbell, during the expansion of this AAM consortium.

I think that participation in AAM should be based on merit. I am not asking for special treatment for Nevada. Some states may get special treatment. I don't know. I do know that Mr. and Mrs. Breaz have worked hard to get this program to where it is today, and I believe that taxpayers have a right to expect that technical experts are developing AAM. The Breazes were quite devastated when they were not invited to participate in the AAM consortium, particularly given the amount of work they devoted for the past 5 years.

It is my understanding that the chairman and his staff will advocate Nevada's participation in this important project, whether it is through a legislative or administrative solution, prior to the Legislative Branch appropriations bill becoming law. Is this correct?

Thank you for your support and for your personal commitment to be as helpful as possible. I appreciate very much your assistance and the hard work of your staff.