Floor Statements

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, Senator DeWine and I have introduced a bill to address the atrocities and human rights abuses inflicted by the Government of Sudan upon its citizens living in the western region of Darfur.

By now you are aware of the terrible violence being perpetrated against civilians by the Government of Sudan and its allied militias in Darfur, Sudan. As many as 30,000 black Africans have been killed. Rape has routinely been used as a weapon of war by the Sudanese Government's janjaweed militia proxies. The Government of Sudan has obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance--as a result, over 300,000 people are expected to die of disease and malnutrution. Entire villages have been razed to the ground. Crimes against humanity have and are taking place with frightening regularity. Any reasonable person would agree that at the very least, we are witnessing ethnic cleansing. However, I believe that what we are actually seeing is genocide, and that the burden of proof should be on those who deny that such is the case.

Secretary of State Powell visited Darfur at the end of June. I applaud him for going. His visit as well as that of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan served to shine a much needed international spotlight on Khartoum's brutal actions.

However, I am disappointed in the actions taken by the administration in the wake of the Secretary's visit.

The administration is circulating a draft United Nations Security Council resolution which puts sanctions on the janjaweed. I do not think pursuing a resolution which would impose an arms and travel embargo on the janjaweed will improve the security situation in Darfur. I am sure there must be a strategy behind this resolution, but on its face, it is hard to see. The janjaweed is not a state actor. It is not even an independent actor. It certainly is not accepting arms shipments from foreign governments. The janjaweed is armed and supplied by the Government of Sudan. And last I heard the only place the janjaweed has traveled is across the border into Chad to further harass its victims. I was not aware that militia members applied for visas to do so. So I would like to know what exactly the thought process behind pursuing such sanctions is.

I would also like to know just why the administration does not believe the Genocide Convention has been triggered. Article II of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or substantial part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Let's consider what we know to be the case in Darfur and compare it to the criteria set out in the Convention.

Is there an intent to destroy a national ethnic racial or religious group? A U.N. interagency fact finding team found in April that while villages populated by black Africans were destroyed, villages in the same area populated by Arabs were undisturbed. In some cases the villages that were left undisturbed were less than 500 meters away from those that were bombed and burned to the ground, its residents murdered, raped or tortured, its wells poisoned, its food stores and crops destroyed. This seems to me to be a pretty profound indicator that black Africans are being deliberately targeted. The scorched earth policy of the janjaweed makes it virtually impossible for those who live through the attacks to survive. One can reasonably assume that they were not meant to.

We know that the Government of Sudan, through it janjaweed proxies, has murdered an unknown number of people--perhaps 30,000--because of their ethnicity.

We also know that the militia has caused serious bodily and mental harm to black Africans in Darfur. According to the Convention only one or the other is necessary to qualify as genocide, but the janjaweed and the Sudanese military have done both. As a recent Washington Post article points out, the text of which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, the janjaweed have engaged in widespread systematic rape in an effort to populate Darfur with Arab babies.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 15, 2004, as ``National Mammography Day.'' I am pleased that 51 of my colleagues have endorsed this proposal by agreeing to be original cosponsors. I might note that I have submitted a similar resolution each year since 1993, and on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution.

Each year, as I prepare to submit this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2004, it is estimated that nearly 216,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and slightly more than 40,000 women will die of this disease.

In past years, I have often commented on how gloomy these statistics were. But as I review how these numbers are changing over time, I have come to the realization that it is really more appropriate to be optimistic. The number of deaths from breast cancer is actually stable or falling from year to year. Early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 97 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. So I am feeling quite positive about our battle against breast cancer. A diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, and I encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer nearly daily.

In recent times, the newspapers have been filled with discussion over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. It seems that much of this controversy relates to new interpretations of old studies, and the relatively few recent studies of this matter have not clarified this issue. Most sources seem to agree that all of the existing scientific studies have some weaknesses, but it is far from clear whether the very large and truly unambiguous study needed to settle this matter definitively can ever be done.

So what is a woman to do? I do not claim any expertise in this highly technical area, so I rely on the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography, and I endorse the statements of these distinguished bodies.

On the other hand, I recognize that some women who examine these research studies are unconvinced of the need for periodic screening mammography. However, even those scientists who do not support periodic mammography for all women believe that it is appropriate for some groups of women with particular risk factors. In agreement with these experts, I encourage all women who have doubts about the usefulness of screening mammography in general to discuss with their individual physicians whether this test is appropriate in their specific situations.

So my message to women is: have a periodic mammogram, or at the very least discuss this option with your own physician.

I know that some women don't have annual mammograms because of either fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some women to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what they will find. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable.

Then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only

comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where ``National Mammography Day'' comes in. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible.

And to those women who are reluctant to have a mammogram, I say let National Mammography Day serve as a reminder to discuss this question each year with your physician. New scientific studies that are published and new mammography techniques that are developed may affect your decision on this matter from one year to the next. I encourage you to keep an open mind and not to feel that a decision at one point in time commits you irrevocably to a particular course of action for the indefinite future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 15, 2004, as ``National Mammography Day.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, along with Senators Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Hollings, and Allen. Today's bill is a revised version of legislation Senator Specter and I introduced last year, S. 1587. The bill benefits from the expertise of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Senators Kyl and Feinstein. My colleagues have their own bill on this subject, S. 746, and I am grateful that they are original cosponsors of today's measure. The Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, my good friend Senator Hollings, has also been a leader in this area and today's bill incorporates suggestions made by him and his able staff. Senator Specter and I have worked long and hard on this issue, and it is my sincere hope and expectation that the bill we introduce today is a consensus measure that will swiftly pass the Senate this year.

Today, almost three years after the devastating attacks of September 11, our Nation's transportation infrastructure remains vulnerable to terrorist activity. American ports are critical to the nation's commercial well-being, and we must do all that we can to ensure that our laws keep pace with the threats that they face.

Recently, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge traveled to the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach to announce that the Untied States was in full compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and that his department was working to meet the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. I welcome those announcements, but there is more we should be doing to protect our ports and close existing gaps in our criminal code. The bill Senator Specter and I introduce today starts to close those gaps.

Our bill will double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront. The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports concluded that ``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism, sabotage or theft. Our bill will help deter those who seek unauthorized access to our ports by imposing stiffer penalties.

Our bill would also increase penalties for noncompliance with certain manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated. An estimated 95 percent of the cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and Mexico, arrives throughout seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets for terrorist attacks.'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous, but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo. Increased penalties can help here.

The legislation we introduce today would also make it a crime for a vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by a federal law enforcement officer; for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by federal law; or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information to a federal law enforcement officer. The Coast Guard is the main federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. This bill would create that offense.

In addition, the Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. They could be inviting targets for terrorists. Our legislation would make it a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard; place in the waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime commerce; or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters, with the intent to endanger human life or welfare.

Each year, thousands of ships enter and leave the U.S. through seaports. Smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people into this country. This legislation would make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist act. The bill would also make it a crime to damage or destroy any part of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload cargo and passengers; commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime facility; or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the safety of a vessel. In addition, the Interagency Commission concluded that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes, including cargo theft, at seaports. Our legislation would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and similar venues.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this measure, and I look forward to its prompt consideration by the full Senate.

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

Mr. President, last week I had the honor of joining with 52 of my colleagues in introducing a resolution, S. Res. 401, expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans' Day this year be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' This marks the fifth year in a row that I have introduced such a resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on all previous occasions.

The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. This goal takes on particular importance and immediacy this year as we find ourselves again with uniformed men and women in harm's way in foreign lands.

Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our armed forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current armed forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 15 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was in place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining.

The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. Even though the Iraqi war has been prominently discussed on television and in the newspapers, many of our children are much more preoccupied with the usual concerns of young people than with keeping up with the events of the day. As a consequence, many of our youth still have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations.

This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the armed forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces, and to its critical role throughout our history, can make decisions that have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the armed forces and even throughout the population at large.

The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contributions of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf.

The importance of this issue was brought home to me five years ago by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, DE. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans''? Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for department store sale, and we don't want to become a nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower.

National Veterans Awareness Week complements Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service

of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week also presents an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty.

Mr. President, last year, my resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week had 66 cosponsors and was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Responding to that resolution, President Bush issued a proclamation urging our citizenry to observe National Veterans Awareness Week. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our children's children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Madam President, I wish to join my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, today in support of the nomination of an old friend, Jack Danforth, to be Ambassador to the United Nations. As many of us, I have known Jack for a lot of years, and I have an inordinately high regard for him. The one point I continue to marvel at, but I am not at all surprised at, is that he keeps answering the call. Every tough job he is asked to do--in or out of government--he steps up to the plate and he does it. I think having Jack Danforth at the United Nations is going to be a very positive thing.

People say we should have professional diplomats. Jack Danforth is a professional diplomat. Jack Danforth is the ultimate professional diplomat. Jack Danforth knows how people think. From his years as an ordained minister, as a Senator, and an attorney general of his State, he knows how people think and feel and move. But, Madam President, do you know what I like best about Jack Danforth going to the United Nations? He will be absolutely straight--absolutely straight.

I have an incredibly high regard for Ambassador Negroponte, for whom I voted to become Ambassador to Iraq, probably the toughest job in the bag these days. This is not meant as a reflection on Ambassador Negroponte. But Jack Danforth has the stature to go to the President and say: Mr. President, I disagree; I think you should not. Or ``I would recommend the following.'' He has the stature, just because of who Jack Danforth is--just because he knows. There are some men and women who just possess it. He possesses it. He has the stature. We know the expression, ``command presence.'' Jack Danforth has command presence. What makes me feel good is the President is going to get unvarnished advice from Jack. Jack is a team player. Jack is a supporter of the President. Jack feels strongly that the President's mission is correct. But Jack will also, if he disagrees, not hesitate one minute to, in my view, privately tell the President. I think every President is best served when he has women and men around him with the conviction to tell the President honestly what they think.

When you walk into that White House, when you walk into that Oval Office, it is an intimidating place if you do not walk in with your shoulders back, your head up, and understand what your responsibility is. That is the quality in Jack that I am excited about in his going to the United Nations.

He also has stature, in my view, to turn to the French or Chinese or British Ambassadors, for example, and privately say: Look, cut this stuff this is what we have to get done. This is how we should try to work this.

I think stature matters in this job--at this moment, at this time, and in this administration. I think Jack Danforth has always stepped up to the critical moments in recent history. As the June 30 deadline for transfer of sovereignty in Iraq occurs very shortly, Iraq is one of many urgent issues on the United Nations agenda. There are many others: Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, just to name three.

The administration seems to have finally discovered the virtue of the United Nations. That sounds like a bit of a snide remark for me to stand here and say that the administration ``finally discovered.'' But literally, I say ``finally,'' because this administration ran for office and came to office expressing verbally, in writing and in their actions--it would be extreme to say ``disdain'' but not a particularly high regard for the United Nations. However, since then, the President has honored the United Nations by going to it and making clear America's position on the most urgent issues of the day.

Now the administration is back in the United Nations with both feet and is trying to rally international support in a way that, quite frankly, I hoped and wished we had done a year ago, or longer.

The reason I mention this is not to highlight when the administration should or should not have done it. I mention returning to the United Nations because it coincides with Jack Danforth being at the helm there. I think that his being there is good for this country. The administration, in its successful and unanimous vote on Security Council Resolution 1546 on June 11, moved in a direction in which it had been hesitant to move, in my view, before. That is good news because we have squandered a number of meaningful opportunities to share the burden in Iraq. I hope we do not miss any more. I know Senator Danforth's leadership can make a real difference on that front.

Last weekend, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader from South Dakota, and I traveled to Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The trip confirmed to me that turning over sovereignty on June 30 in Iraq is a starting point. It is not a turning point in the transition to self-government. I remain absolutely convinced that we can still get this right in Iraq and that we have to try because of the profound stakes we have in a successful transition. There is so much to lose if it fails.

We have to start leveling with the American people about what is and what is not happening on June 30. We are handing over sovereignty, but we are not handing over capacity. That is not a criticism. It is not as if we should be in a position to be able to hand over capacity. I think we could have been in a position to hand over much more, but it is not a criticism.

By ``capacity,'' I mean the ability of the Iraqis to provide security for themselves, to defend their borders, to defeat insurgency, to deliver services, to run a government, and to begin to set a foundation for economic success. What is so frustrating is that because of a series of very wrong judgments, we lost at least a year in effectively building that capacity. As a result, we have made an inherently difficult mission even harder.

If there is anyplace where humility is in order, it is in suggesting how we should proceed in Iraq. I remember when the distinguished chairman, Senator Hagel, and I visited Iraq last August and we sat with Ambassador Bremer. My friend may remember my looking at Ambassador Bremer in the only room in that whole facility that had air- conditioning and saying: Mr. Ambassador, I want to make it clear to you I think if the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of this conference table and gave you the precise answer to the next 20 critical decisions you have to make, we still only have a 65-percent chance of getting this right.

Nobody has ever done this before. The Ottomans could not get it done. The Persians could not get it done. The Brits could not get it done. And they are not even dealing with what the country is today. Iraq is a polyglot made up of essentially what was left over in the region of three groups of noble people.

The fact is, this is a hard job by any standard. The central question is what we can do between June 30 when the sovereignty is handed over, and December of 2005 when a constitutionally elected Iraqi government is supposed to be seated. What can we do in that interim to help build that government that will be seated in December 2005? What can we do to help build the capacity for it to stand on its own? I think this should not be the sole responsibility of the United States.

The international community, through a unanimous vote on Security Council Resolution 1546, made clear that Iraq is the world's problem. All of the Security Council voted in favor of that. They voted for elements of the whole. One of the elements, for example, just to note parenthetically, says that there will be provided a brigade, 4,000 troops, to protect the U.N. when they go back in. What was not stated is who will provide the troops.

There are many other elements that the unanimous resolution laid out in the Security Council. The Permanent Five, and other members of the Security Council signed on. They did not just sign on saying the United States can stay. They signed on saying that Iraq is the world's responsibility.

The reason I go into this is to describe that it is going to take a man of Jack Danforth's stature--while we are working it from State, while Negroponte is working it from Baghdad, while the President is working from the White House--to work out the problem of how we get the world's major powers, Iraq's neighbors, and leading international institutions such as NATO, to pick up empowering the Iraqis to govern.

In a nutshell, I believe we are going to have to, and Senator Danforth is going to have to play a part in getting other nations to help us train and equip Iraqi security services--including the police and the army--commit to defeat the insurgency, and provide security for Iraqi elections, which is going to require a surge of forces, not a reduction of forces. They should not all be U.S. military forces. The rest of the world has to get in on the deal, preferably with NATO and other foreign troops.

We need civil affairs experts from our allies, and more special forces and intelligence assets from America. We

have to provide, as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1546, a special brigade, ideally from NATO, to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq, whose presence is critical for successful elections.

I know the Presiding Officer knows this but maybe not all of our colleagues have not focused on this: Thousands of polling places are going to have to open up. There are going to be U.N. people going into villages and going into towns throughout Iraq, over the next 6 months, to set up for the first election. That is going to be dangerous business. You have Zarqawi and others announcing that they are going to try to kill not only the interim government, but anybody who participates in making this work. So we need to assist the U.N. in doing its job--which is essential for our ultimate exit strategy--which is to support a secure Iraqi government--secure within its borders, not a threat to its neighbors, and not harboring weapons of mass destruction or terrorists.

How do we get from here to there? Jack, Senator Danforth, is going to have his hands full. We have to deploy an army of technical experts, primarily from other countries, to help Iraq run its government, and deliver essential services like electricity, water, and sanitation. By the way, I am not just talking about the major projects. The Russians pulled back from what seemed to them a pretty good contract, a contract to go out there and build electrical power capacity. Their folks were getting shot and killed, so they pulled back.

But there are thousands of little projects that are going to determine whether we succeed or fail in Iraq. One of the most impressive commanders I have met, and I spent a couple of hours with him in a briefing--is the Commander of the First Cavalry, an incredibly proud unit.

He said to all of us: Senators, look, I leave my tanks back in America. My tank drivers are now infantrymen. My infantrymen I had associated with this are now engineers.

On his big screen during this briefing he showed us Humvees. He has Sadr City as his responsibility. He showed Humvees going through sewage literally up to their hubcaps.

There is a company out in California that has done a remarkable job. It has created overlays for a number of things, such as utilities, that you would think were disparate and had nothing to do with one another. The overlays show where the greatest physical needs are, in terms of pollution and water problems, for example. Then the company overlaid, on top of that grid, a diagram of where the most fighters are coming from, and where the most terror is coming from.

This commander of the First Cavalry said: Take a look. In the places where we have gone in and done relatively small projects, such as getting potable water to homes, I don't have people coming out of and killing my guys and women. He said, Do you know what I need? I need a better mix of troops--not better troops but a better mix of troops and capability. He said there is about $450 million worth of projects that he has agreed and laid on, in Sadr City.

This is a commander who can shoot straight and kill. This is a serious guy. He said: You help me clean up the sewer, I will clean up Sadr City and I will get us peace in that area.

We have a lot of needs. The U.N. resolution, in my view, signs on the international community. Now it is time for them to sign up to take on some of these responsibilities.

The other thing we have to do, in which Senator Danforth is going to have to play a major part, is insist that other countries follow through on their financial pledges for more assistance, and demand that they provide significant debt relief. As a matter of fact, as my colleague brought up in a very important meeting this morning, we have to get money in there quickly. We can't wait to begin these major projects. We voted for about $18 billion for Iraq to rebuild it. We have spent a pittance of that. It has not been spent. None of it has happened. Less than a half billion dollars, less than $500 million of the $18 billion we appropriated, has been spent on projects. That is tragic. That is not particularly good management, in my view.

Furthermore, Senator Danforth will have to bring other Security Council members together to develop a viable U.N. strategy for dealing with this great tragedy that is occurring in western Sudan. If our U.N. Ambassador doesn't take the lead in the Security Council then, in my view, little is going to happen.

Senator Danforth was called to get involved, and he did a brilliant job in negotiating the north/south crisis in the Sudan. Over the past several years he has worked very hard as a special envoy to support the peace process between the Government of Khartoum and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement.

With the signing of the last three protocols on May 26, that peace process is on the verge of a success and it is truly a significant achievement for the President and for Senator Danforth. But the impact of that agreement has almost completely been undermined by the horrific attacks on the civilians in Darfur by the Government of Sudan and its allied militias. These attacks have precipitated what the U.N. and U.S. officials call the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.

We have already witnessed ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Already as many as 30,000 people have been killed. Mr. Natsios, the administrator of the Agency for International Development, stated 3 weeks ago: ``Under optimal conditions, we could see as many as 320,000 people die'' in Darfur by the end of the year as a result of this violence, disease, and famine.

The U.N. factfinding team:

. . . identified . . . massive human rights violations in

Darfur, perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and its proxy

militia, which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes

against humanity.

I believe it is genocide.

The violations reported by the U.N. include the targeting of civilians during military strikes, the widespread rape of women and girls, destruction of homes, food stores, livestock, crops . . . the razing of villages, forced displacements, and disappearances.

The administration has responded with humanitarian aid and raised the issue of Darfur repeatedly in Khartoum, and the President told us this morning at breakfast that he raised it at the G-8 meeting as well. The U.N. sent teams out to investigate. These are all important steps, but they are not enough. The international community must condemn Khartoum's actions unequivocally. It must insist that Khartoum stop attacks on civilians by government troops and militia, and provide unfettered access to Darfur for humanitarian workers.

I will soon introduce legislation that our U.N. Representative, I hope, will push for in a U.N. Security Council resolution which reimposes sanctions on Khartoum if the attacks in Darfur do not stop. This action may not resolve the situation, but it will help. Senator Danforth knows more about this crisis than I do, and do most of us in this place. I hope he will pursue such a resolution as one of his first actions as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Congress has to do its part. The United States should bring real money to the table to respond to the crisis, rather than empty promises that the money is on the way. I am working on an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill that would provide money for Darfur which Mr. Natsios pledged earlier this month the United States will provide. But bilateral action by the United States is not enough. We need our international partners to assist in pursuing Khartoum to stop the terror campaign in Darfur.

There are many other pressing issues facing the United Nations in New York. We have a lot of diplomatic work to do to repair relations. We have a new team at the top in Jack Danforth and, assuming she is also confirmed, his deputy, Anne Patterson. But I think the President has chosen very well.

By himself, Jack Danforth cannot repair relations between the United States and other nations at the U.N. But he said in the confirmation hearing that the reason he finally took the job that he initially didn't want to take is that he saw that as his mission, the single most important thing he could do. A recognition as to how important that belief is, is in and of itself an important message to be sent around the world.

Jack Danforth is the right person at the right moment to help repair the

breach, if the administration is committed to do so. And I am confident with Jack's leadership they will be able to do so.

In closing, I would like to extend my gratitude to Jack Danforth for agreeing to take on this difficult assignment. I thank his wife Sally for supporting him. I know I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and, I suspect, although I wouldn't presume, the entire Senate. I speak for all us when I say, Thank you, Godspeed, count on us. I know you can count on the chairman of this committee, Senator Lugar, and me to do all we can to help you make your mission at the United Nations workable and doable.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Republican manager, the chairman of the committee, suggested that I move forward with my amendment, which will not take long at all. I can do this in less than 5 minutes.

Amendment No. 3520

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I know it is getting late in this process, and I will try to make this as quick as possible. There has already been a significant amount of discussion on this floor, in this town, and actually, quite frankly, this morning in the meetings some of us had with the President of the United States on the situation in Darfur in the Sudan.

I want to begin by saying I respect the effort made by my friend, Senator DeWine. I understand the managers are going to accept a proposal for $90 million or thereabouts to deal with this problem. There are already as many as 30,000 dead. Mr. President, 1.2 million people have been chased from their homes, and 200,000 refugees have fled to Chad. The civilians have been bombed from planes and helicopters by the Government of Sudan. And there are continued reports of systematic rape, murder, and torture by the Sudanese Government as well as by allied militia troops.

Now, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report in which the U.N. investigators indicate they believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Darfur.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that the State Department is contemplating whether Khartoum is engaged in the genocide. I think when they, in fact, finish they will conclude clearly that it is.

The Agency for International Development and its leader, Andrew Natsios, as well as U.N. officials, have said that what has happened in Darfur is the ``worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.''

They point out that under the best circumstances--not the worst, the best circumstances--according to Mr. Natsios, 320,000 people will die. That is the best they hope for. If everything turns around, there are going to be 320,000 dead. And he made that public statement on June 3. He said ``more resources are desperately needed.''

Now, to have to respond in a manner that is commensurate with the suffering seems to me to be our obligation. The President of the United

States said he brought this to the attention of the G-8. We had this discussion this morning in the Cabinet Room, and he, quite frankly, indicated that he was not getting the kind of response that was warranted. Some of us suggested--and I was not one because others spoke first--that this is of an urgent need, and we have to lead.

Now, I know that my friend from Ohio has called our attention to this and, in fact, has gotten roughly $90 million appropriated or agreed to. But the fact is, Mr. Natsios pledged, in Geneva, in the first week in June, that the United States would come up with $188 million. That is the pledge this administration made in Geneva in June.

Now, the reason I bother to mention that is, the President pointed out this morning that the G-8 nations and the rest of the world do not seem seized with the same sense of urgency as we are, and that we have to lead.

If we have announced we are going to do $188 million, and we are trying to get the rest of the world in on the deal, and then we come out of here with less than half of that, it seems to me it undercuts the very point that is trying to be made by the President of the United States.

Now, I am not speaking for the President and implying that he is for or against this $188 million. I do not know. I assume he must have been for it or the head of his AID, under his administration, would not have pledged $188 million.

Now, this is $188 million as emergency money in this fiscal year. Most of the money Natsios pledged was 2005 money that has yet to be appropriated. In other words, he pledged money he does not have and may not get for quite some time for what he calls the ``worst humanitarian crisis in the world today,'' where, if things go well, 320,000 will die.

The House bill gives less than half the money, only $70 million. I understand that--again, I am not being critical of my friend from Ohio, but as he said to me, he got what he could. That is good. It is better than nothing.

But keep in mind, the $188 million pledge was made, according to AID officials, in advance of the U.N.--in advance of the U.N.--issuing the revised numbers about how many people will be affected. Those numbers have increased.

So the House bill provides less than half of what might be an inadequate pledge to begin with.

I was asked not to offer this amendment because we give about half. Apparently that is going to be agreed to by the managers. But the Senate has the power to do a lot more than that. So let's give the administration what it said it will need to provide an emergency response in Darfur. If we do not, make no mistake about it, no one else is going to step to the plate.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, I might add, this is an unusual position to be in. I do not usually come to the floor on matters and try to lead an initiative on which I am not the guy who has done the most work. I have not done the most work on it. There are others, including Senator Leahy and others, who have been out in front on this issue. But I do not want to see us go through this wrap-up without us actually facing up to the facts.

Let's know what we are doing. Mr. President, $90 million is better than nothing, but it is not the $188 million, which is probably too little anyway, that we already pledged. I am worried about the impact that will have on the rest of the world as we try to generate support because we need support.

Now, look, our former colleague, Senator Danforth, who we just confirmed today, played a leading role in the Sudan in helping settle one of the real difficult issues, which was the north-south problem. Now we have an east-west problem.

The fact is, he got the international community to step up and come forward in order to deal with this incredibly humanitarian crisis. It seems to me that notwithstanding the fact Mr. Natsios was forced to make the pledge for money to get the first piece done, the north-south piece, it is not going to inspire any contributions from our partners and donor communities. The Congress has to provide these emergency funds. This money will not stop the attacks. It will not do all we need to do. But it will give essential assistance to the victims of Khartoum's atrocities.

How many times have we stood around this floor, those who have been here for the better part of the last decade, and lamented our failure to act in the last catastrophic African crisis with the Hutus and the Tutsis? How many times have we talked about it? Bill Clinton writes about it: We wish we had done more. President Bush talks about it.

Let's not do this. Let's not step back. Let's not be here 5 years from now, 10 years from now saying: If we only had acted.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. At the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. The chairman of the committee indicated he had a very important commitment that required him to be off the floor but wanted me to make my statement and get it moved on. I will not engage in anymore debate on this issue.

At the appropriate time, when the chairman or whoever is going to respond to this amendment makes that response, I am ready for a vote.

In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am going to send a modification to the desk in a moment. I will take 60 seconds to explain it. My staff had drafted the amendment for $188 million, which was a pledge by Mr. Natsios, before Mr. DeWine's $90 million was accepted. So I am not asking for $188 million on top of that. The amendment I am sending to the desk asks for an additional $118 million above the 90 which, in fact, apparently the committee has already accepted.

So I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified to say $118 million instead of $188 million.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support of S. Con. Res. 83, a resolution that I introduced in support of the establishment of a Democracy Caucus within the United Nations. In particular, I thank Senators Lugar, Hagel, Lieberman, and Coleman for their co-sponsorship of this resolution. I also want to thank Chairman Lugar for permitting the resolution to come to the floor today.

I am pleased that the Bush administration also supports the establishment of a U.N. Democracy Caucus, and that significant progress was made on this front in Geneva at this year's Commission on Human Rights. In particular, Peru, Romania, East Timor, Poland, Chile, South Korea, India and Italy have been very engaged in collaborative democracy-promotion initiatives. I am encouraged by such joint efforts. The broader the international support for a caucus, the more effective it will be.

The establishment of a U.N. Democracy Caucus is not merely a project supported by Congress and the State Department. It is also endorsed by a broad-based coalition of U.S.-based organizations and advocacy groups such as Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the American Jewish Committee, the American Bar Association and the Council for Community of Democracies. I also thank them for their work and advocacy on this issue.

The idea of establishing a Democracy Caucus within the United Nations makes extraordinary good sense. The basic principal is this: democratic nations share common values, and should work together at the United Nations to promote those values. We will be more effective in doing so.

Working together with like-minded nations in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations is a logical and practical way to conduct foreign policy. We build coalitions in American politics, in legislatures across the land and here in the Congress. Similarly, we should build coalitions of like-minded states in the United Nations, particularly to bolster global democratic principles, advance human rights, and promote international security and stability.

The administration has recently re-discovered the virtues of working in cooperation with other nations at the United Nations. There we are just one nation, though a very powerful one. We only have one vote, whether in the General Assembly or the Security Council. Other democratic states should be natural allies on many

issues; a caucus of democracies will facilitate such cooperation. Forging a coalition of democracies is not merely a statement that nations have shared values; it is a hard-headed diplomatic approach. By joining forces to make common cause, the democracies can be more effective in the U.N. and other world bodies.

The unanimous passage of this resolution demonstrates the strong support of the Senate for the creation of a Democracy Caucus. I hope the Senate's action gives democracy-building efforts in the United Nations an important boost to this idea. I thank my colleagues within and outside the Senate for supporting this resolution.

I would like to take a moment to engage the Senator from Michigan in a discussion about information operations in the Air National Guard. Before we begin, I would also like to thank my colleague for his willingness to have this discussion on an issue of great importance to national security and to many of the Air National Guard personnel in my State.

Let me start by saying that I think most of my colleagues understand that while the world today has changed, some things have stayed the same. When you are trying to stop terrorists, just like organized crime, you have to follow the money. These days, in order to follow the money, you have to have the very best in information operations skills. You have to understand the computerized financial networks and security systems used by financial institutions. In addition, you have to be able to protect your own information. This is a critical aspect of the war on terrorism and one where the Government needs more capability.

Last year, the Defense Authorization Conference Report provided 30 additional Air Guard personnel that we had hoped would be used to stand up a new unit in Delaware to do this mission. This year, Senator Carper and I had hoped to finish that work by providing a total of 60 personnel for that unit. Unfortunately, we are not able to do that because the Department of Defense has not evaluated this proposal to determine whether it is a mission that should be assigned to the Air National Guard.

We understand that the Department of Defense has an established process for assigning missions and determining the manning necessary to support those missions. Expanding the information operations capability of a unit or units within the Air National Guard has not been considered through this process.

I hope that we can agree that the Department's review should include an examination of using the Air National Guard for emerging missions like information operations.

I also hope that we will have their input regarding the mission and its suitability for the Air Guard before we take up next year's Defense Authorization bill. I would also like to make sure that the consideration of this particular mission takes into account the unique skills present in the Delaware Air National Guard and the work that they have already done in this area.

I thank my colleague for those assurances and look forward to working with him over the next year to make sure our information operations needs are met.

Now, let me explain why I think it is so important to stand this unit up in Delaware.

Delaware is uniquely situated to provide the skills needed for information assurance and financial tracking. Delaware is host to 7 of the top 10 banking institutions in the U.S. Delaware also has the highest amount of computer networking per capita of any State. In addition, major research companies like DuPont and Astra-Zeneca make their headquarters in Delaware. Last, Delaware has the highest number of

scientists and engineers per capita in the U.S.

All of those statistics mean that many members of Delaware's Air National Guard have civilian employment in banks or other institutions. They understand what is required to protect financial information and to track it. They are on the cutting-edge of information protection today.

Their skills cannot be used by the Government, however, because banks and financial institutions are very sensitive about the employees of other banks reviewing their financial transactions. To do this type of work, a person must be a Government employee. One of the best ways to provide the benefit of these private sector skills to Government agencies fighting terror is through the National Guard. Guard personnel stay on the cutting edge of these skills because of their private sector jobs. They can then provide that knowledge to the Government, something that a civilian government employee cannot do.

In 2003, the National Security Agency and the Air Intelligence Agency recognized their shortfalls in information assurance and tracking skills and started asking some of these Delaware Guardsmen and women to help them meet their requirements. NSA will have spent $945,000 between 2003 and 2004 to make use of the Delaware Air Guard's expertise. They would like to spend an additional $900,000 in 2005. AIA is spending $150,000 in 2004 on these missions. They are spending this money because a real need exists.

Last year, the Senate, and then the full Congress, agreed that this mission needed support and a full-time unit. Thirty personnel were added to the Air National Guard's end-strength to create this new information operations unit. This year, we had hoped to finish the job by providing the full complement of 60 personnel needed for the mission and the $3.997 million needed to fully fund this unit. That is $2.75 million for personnel costs and $1.247 million for operations and maintenance. Unfortunately that will not be possible.

Some may wonder why we sought an amendment to add the personnel and funding needed. The reason is simple. The Delaware Air National Guard is too small to move people to this mission and still do their primary tactical airlift mission. The 166th tactical airlift wing has had its C-130s fully tasked to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When I wrote Lieutenant General James at the Guard Bureau about standing up this new unit, he replied that he thought Delaware's Guard was well- postured for the mission, but his ``end strength cap makes it challenging to resource new initiatives.'' Our amendment would have taken care of that challenge.

Up to now, the personnel who have been working with NSA and AIA so far have been working three jobs. Let me say that again, three jobs. It is simply not sustainable. They cannot continue to do their regular Air Guard mission in the 166th tactical airlift wing, their civilian job, and the third job of helping NSA and AIA. With a new unit, we can provide the critical information operations skills needed to fight terrorism without harming the on-going tactical airlift mission that is supporting troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know end strength increases are controversial, but we need to look at the big picture. Remember, Congress agreed that a new unit was needed to do these missions last year. The facts on the ground have not changed. This is exactly the type of new mission the Air Guard should be doing. Only with the Guard can you get the commercial expertise and cutting edge knowledge needed to protect information systems and to track financial transactions. I look forward to hearing the Pentagon's thoughts about this new mission.

Again, I think it's important to stress that information assurance and financial information operations are critical to the war on terrorism and to a transformed military. This is a growing area, not a shrinking one. We have looked carefully at all of our opportunities to provide the needed highly-skilled personnel to the fight. It is my belief that we can only do this if we create a unit to take advantage of the experienced and knowledgeable personnel available. No matter how patriotic people are, they cannot continue to work three jobs for years on end. Creating the new 166th information operations unit in the Delaware Air National Guard will enhance national security. It was the right thing to do last year and it's still the right thing to do. I hope that the Air Force will recognize that as we move forward in the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin Act. This bill will authorize the U.S. Mint to produce a limited edition silver coin, in two designs, to honor the achievements of Benjamin Franklin, America's distinguished scientist, statesman, inventor and diplomat.

In 2006, the United States will host a worldwide celebration marking the 300th anniversary of Franklin's birth on January 17, 1706. Activities, lectures and exhibits are being developed through the efforts of the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission, as ordered by the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission Act, Public Law 107-202. The Commission, on which I serve with other elected officials and private sector partners, is responsible for providing a proper tribute to one of our most remarkable founding fathers. Surcharges on the sale of the coin would help the commission pay for activities it plans for celebrating Benjamin Franklin's birthday.

During the American Revolution, Franklin designed the first American coin--the ``Continental'' penny--and, until 1979, he was the only non- President of the United States whose image graced circulating coin and paper currency. it is only fitting that we honor Franklin's legacy through issuance of a commemorative coin.

This bill is the Senate companion to H.R. 3024, which was introduced by my colleague from Delaware, Congressman Mike Castle, and it presently enjoys 326 cosponsors. As celebrations for our great leader are planned, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting a commemorative coin for this important American. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Will my colleague yield for a couple questions?

Mr. President, I ask my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, how big was the deficit in the budget you brought to the Senate floor, the budget you voted out of committee?

We are already starting off with the Senator recommending a vote for a budget that has $400 billion-plus.

I ask the Senator if he wants to respond to that comment.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, I didn't want to debate it. I was trying to get the facts. The facts are that, notwithstanding what he suggested he has saved by budget points of order, he brought a budget to the Senate floor that is in deficit over $400 billion.

Surely.

Again, I am not here to debate this. The facts are that he brought a budget to the floor of the Senate that is over $430 billion, and some believe it is over $500 billion in deficits. I agree with my friend that we should be careful about putting in entitlements. Entitlements, in a sense, if you think about the effect on the budget--I know the Presiding Officer is a former Governor--there are two types of expenditures: direct expenditures and tax expenditures.

My friend also wants to essentially, in layman's terms, make an entitlement of the tax cuts; in other words, make them permanent. They do not want to make permanent the ability of veterans to have what this amendment calls for. I understand that. It is a logical argument. I do not begrudge that. I think it is an intelligent argument to make.

I want to point out this is about values and priorities. If you want to know what a country values, if you want to know what a company values, if you want to know what a nonprofit values, look at its budget, and you will know. You will know what it values, on what it puts the highest value.

I can understand one can make the argument, and there is truth to the argument, that tax cuts spur the economy, everything gets better, and it works out better. I got all that. Believe it or not, after 30 years here, I figured that out, and there is some truth to it. Really, this is a values debate, not wanting to put something permanently into the law that is an entitlement in the case of what veterans now and in the future would be entitled to. It is not a lot different fundamentally in its effect on the actual budget, the numbers in the budget, than essentially making permanent tax cuts from now infinitum. And they are big numbers.

Again, the disagreement is real, genuine, and intellectually is defensible, but it is a difference of perspective. The reason the Senator from Delaware comes to the floor, very seldom my colleagues will notice, is that in this case, when you think about a budget that I voted against--I do not support the budget, I do not support the priorities within the budget by the Budget Committee--to turn around and say that when I vote not to sustain a point of order that somehow I am the one increasing the budget, it is a little bit like my saying to you: Here is the deal. What we are going to do in the family, we are going to have one car, drive it 22 miles a week, and not drive it any further than that. We are not going to turn the thermostat up over 60 degrees. And, by the way, we are going to build a new swimming pool in the backyard.

If I do not get a vote on that--it seems to me when I come along and say we should be able to drive the car to church more often because the kids are not going to church because the church is 14 miles away, we should have more money for gas in the car, we should not have built the swimming pool--we do not get a chance to do that.

I get a budget, which is legitimate, shoved on me because you guys run the show, the Republicans run the show. I got that. I understand it. I do not complain about that. More people voted for Republican Senators than Democratic Senators. But the idea that somehow when I suggest we should have a different priority and seek to change the budget I am busting the budget when, in fact, what has happened is the priorities that the chairman of the Budget Committee has placed in the budget--and very successfully, and he has led that committee very successfully and he has led it unanimously; there are no diversions on his side from what he proposes--is a little bit disingenuous in terms of the average person listening to this.

It is as if I have to accept we are building a swimming pool instead of providing more gas in the car to get the kids to church. So I want to get more gas in the car to get the kids in church. I do not want to build a swimming pool. I do not want to do that.

The only vehicle I have as a Senator is to vote for changing the budget that I do not want. What these are attached to is we say: What you put down in the budget, these tax cuts and the way they work and you are seeking to make them permanent, all those things, they are not my priorities. So the way I want to pay for that is I do not want to build a swimming pool.

Now, you have built a swimming pool, but what I do not want to do is keep it open because it costs me a lot of money to keep it open. The money I can save by not filling the pool, not having a pool service come, not having to buy the chlorine, not having to buy the equipment is enough money for me to get the gas to get the kids to church on Sunday. That is what I want to do. That is what I am doing here.

The fact is, the difference between 1993 and now is we are at war. My friend will say a lot of veterans who are going to benefit from this proposal are ones who are not at war now. One of the things we are trying to do in an All-Volunteer Army is make it more appealing for people to get into the service, to stay in the service, so that, in fact, when they volunteer to get in this Army, there are benefits that flow from it. They make enough sacrifices already in this Volunteer Army.

We had trouble getting money early for bulletproof vests for these guys. I was just in Iraq, and I met a young man in Kuwait. Our generals introduced him to us. We had dinner, and they said: These are the heroes; these are the kids who drive the transport trucks from Kuwait City all the way up to Baghdad. Do my colleagues know what they are doing because we have not provided them what they need? They have been given the authority to augment their vehicles any way they want. I was joking with them. A lot of them are becoming spot welders. They are literally getting scrap metal and welding it to their vehicles. They are given the authority to do what they want because they are getting shot dead.

We were out there, and these kids were on this incredibly dangerous mission. We said: Do the mission, but we realize you have to improvise.

So they are telling me: I got this piece of steel, and I put it on my side door and welded it on. What I wanted to do was get some underneath so that when the bombs blow up, they don't blow through the seat. It is amazing.

My point is, we are asking these kids to do all this. Right now in category 7 and 8, there are 400,000 veterans seeking VA help who are told: Don't apply. To the best of my knowledge--I do not claim to have a real expertise in this area--but there are 90,000 veterans under the present system waiting for admission to get into veterans hospitals, and there are 40,000 who wait 2 to 6 months just to get a doctor to sign off on them qualifying to get prescriptions from their local VA hospital at the lower price.

Whether or not this proposal that has been put forward is the answer to any of this, I cannot guarantee, but there is

something wrong in Denmark. Something is wrong here. Something is not working. If you wonder if I am telling the truth, go home and ask your Democratic- or Republican-registered veterans. Ask them if they are happy with the way things are working right now. Find out how many of those 400,000 people are told do not apply, and 90,000 are trying to get into the hospital.

Again, I acknowledge, based on the fact we decided to build a swimming pool in this budget instead of doing this, this will increase the deficit. I got it. Just like the administration budget initially proposed did not even include money for Iraq. Does anybody think $25 billion is going to get us through next year in Iraq? Raise your hand. Come to the floor and tell me. Anybody. I want you to stand here and go on record and say: I believe that $25 billion is going to cover the nut in Iraq and Afghanistan for next year.

Let's get a little truth in budgeting here. I understand the Senator. I got it. I respect him. He has made a basic value judgment. He believes very strongly--and there is some evidence for his belief--that if, in fact, we have these massive tax cuts, the bulk of which go to the wealthiest, it will, in fact, trickle down. He will argue--and there is some evidence to it--that some of it has already started to happen, and the best way to help veterans, poor folks, IDEA folks, and all those folks is get the economy roaring. That will bring in more revenue. I got it. That is a legitimate argument. But the basic fundamental argument we have is the die are not even cast. The table has been set, and I either sit down and sup at the table when I do not like the menu and refrain from trying to change the menu, or I attempt to change the menu.

So this notion that the VA health care system is in good shape, that we have done so much for veterans--which we have done more--we are creating a whole heck of a lot more veterans now, a whole heck of a lot more, and the need is going to increase more because we are at war and we are likely to be at war for a while.

Again, I do not want to belabor the point. I respect my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee. I respect the fact he has little choice but to ask us to vote for a budget that is already, by his standards, $435 billion or so out of whack. I respect that.

I respect the fact that he believes, notwithstanding the fact that his own outfit points out a significant portion of that deficit last year and this year relates to the tax cuts, we will earn it all back; we will be able to cut the deficit because of the economic growth and all of that. I have that. But I have also been through this once before. I went through this once before in the Reagan era. It did not work then. Reagan came back and raised taxes. I do not think it is going to work now.

I will yield the floor with one final comment.

Was there a time? There is a time. Well, I respect that, and I thank my friend from Oklahoma. We just have a difference in our priorities and the way in which we value our value system.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to explain why I cannot support either the Warner or the Lautenberg amendment regarding the return of the remains of military personnel to Dover Air Force Base.

The Warner amendment was an endorsement of the current policy, which prohibits any news coverage. The Lautenberg amendment would allow for news coverage in all cases. I do not believe either approach is correct.

In terms of the Warner amendment, I do not agree with the current policy. It denies the sacrifice made by the brave men and women of our military. Anonymous photographs of flag draped coffins tell a real story about honor, courage, and sacrifice. The current Defense Department policy suppresses that story.

However, when those coffins are individually and respectfully taken from the transport plane to the mortuary, then the families should decide. At the point that caskets are being transported to the mortuary or when they are beginning their journey to their final resting place, each fallen hero is honored individually. In some cases, family members may be present. In most cases, they are not. Either way, the honor being paid to their loved one is for them to share or not. Some families may wish to honor their loved one by having the press present and others may find that same press coverage intrusive. It should be their decision. The families should have a clear veto authority and a clear ability to agree to press coverage of their loved one's transport at and within Dover Air Force Base. Unfortunately, the Lautenberg amendment does not clearly provide that authority.

For me, it is simple. We must not turn away from honoring our war heroes, but we must also recognize that each sailor, soldier, airmen, and marine is somebody's son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, or sister. When they die in the service of this Nation, they have made the ultimate sacrifice and it is the family that must bear the ultimate loss. The least we can do is let the family decide how much of that experience they wish to share.

Madam President, Senator Levin's amendment will shift funds from extra, untested interceptor missiles to programs that will detect and stop the most urgent threat facing our country: the risk posed by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Not only is that the most urgent threat, it is also a much more likely threat than the possibility that a rogue state, such as North Korea, will lob a missile at the United States and risk being annihalated by us.

Who will send a missile with a return address and face sure destruction? Not a nation-state. Terrorist groups, with no return address, from no state against which the United States could retaliate, are not deterred by our massive nuclear arsenal.

Many experts believe that terrorists would be capable of creating a nuclear weapon if they took possession of fissile material. Even the simpler gun-type design, the type of bomb exploded at Hiroshima, could kill up to a million people if detonated in a large city.

Two years ago, I asked the heads of our nuclear laboratories to show us how terrorists could build an atomic weapon with parts available on the open market--other than the fissile material.

A month later, they returned to the Senate and showed us the weapon they had made, minus the fissile material. I cannot go into details, but all of us knew instantly that this was within the capabilities of a sophisticated terrorist group. You don't have to be a great power to cause great damage--if you have the fissile material.

Terrorists are also known to be interested in radiological material for a so-called dirty bomb, also known as a radiological dispersion device. An attack with a dirty bomb would not cause many fatalities, but it could render large areas uninhabitable and cause long-term economic and psychological damage. These weapons could be smuggled in a suitcase, or in a shipping container entering one of our ports.

Clearly, then, the threat of terrorist weapons of mass destruction is urgent.

But where is the sense of urgency in responding to this threat?

We have a bill before us today that proposes to spend $10 billion on missile defense--against the less likely threat.

The amendment by my colleague, Senator Levin, redresses the balance by taking just 5 percent of that amount--$515 million that is essentially unnecessary at this time to buy 10 more untested interceptors for the administration's scarecrow ground-based missile defense system--and applying it instead to urgent, unfunded homeland security needs.

Senator Levin's amendment will take the money saved and apply it to detecting, intercepting, and stopping the use of weapons or mass destruction by terrorists. It also shifts funds to programs to keep fissile material out of the hands of terrorists.

Just a few weeks ago, the Senate passed amendment to this bill sponsored by our colleague, Senator Pete Domenici.

I cosponsored the amendment, which authorizes a program to accelerate U.S. efforts to remove, secure, store, or blend down fissile and radiological material.

Senator Domenici's amendment complements the Global Threat Reduction Initative that the Secretary of Energy announced on May 26, to repatriate Russian and American highly enriched uranium or HEU, from research reactors around the world, to repatriate the spend fuel, and to convert those reactors to use low enriched uranium instead. Too often, HEU provided by the Soviet Union or the United States sits at poorly guarded research facilities that are a dangerous temptation to thieves or terrorists.

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative reportedly will cost $450 million. Senator Levin's amendment provides $211 million or it.

In addition, the Levin amendment will provide funds for nuclear weapons detectors at major seaports; technology to detect chemical, biological, and radiological materials at a distance; and technology to detect and stop low-flying aircraft, such as crop-dusters, that terrorists might use to disperse weapons of mass destruction across a wide area.

The Levin amendment will help address the most urgent threats to our Nation, but it will not delete funds for the 20 untested interceptor missiles that the administration plans to field in October.

It will simply prevent the Defense Department from spending more money on 10 additional missiles before we know if the first 20 even work.

That is a sensible approach and one that is consistent with ``fly before you buy'' laws that require operational testing prior to full- rate production, as well as with recommendations of the General Accounting Office.

We need to set our funding priorities to respond to the most urgent threats we face. The Levin amendment is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, in a few months, the administration will announce that a national missile defense has been fielded in Alaska. Nobody in this body will be fooled by that announcement. We know smoke and mirrors when we see them, and that is what the so-called ``rudimentary'' missile defense will be.

The Bush campaign will say that he kept his promise to defend America against an attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles, but they won't admit that it doesn't work. And they won't mention the price, both in dollars and in the diversion of high-level attention from the truly pressing threats to our national security.

For those reasons, it is absolutely vital that we approve the amendment offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island. No complex weapons system should be deployed with as little evidence as we have today that the system could ever succeed in wartime. It is astounding that the President's desire to field a system by this October takes precedence over the need to ensure that the system will work. The administration's pursuit of missile defense has been anything but smooth.

First, it put on hold the program inherited from President Clinton. Then it decided on a defense remarkably similar to that one, but with a requirement that a so-called ``Alaska test bed'' be made operational by October 2004. After a test failed in December 2002, the administration actually reduced the number of intercept tests to be conducted before deployment, in order not to delay the deployment date. It

has not conducted a single intercept test since then, let alone one using the intended booster, the actual kill vehicle, the planned radar, the space-based infrared satellite that would be vital to the success of this system, or anything approaching a realistic test geometry or target set.

Very little, if any, of this will be accomplished before the administration claims its schedule-driven success. General Kadish has already said that the next test might be delayed until the fall.

Mr. Thomas Christie, Director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, wrote in his most recent annual report:

Delays in production and testing of the two booster designs

have put tremendous pressure on the test schedule immediately

prior to fielding. At this point, it is not clear what

mission capability will be demonstrated prior to initial

defensive operations.

In February, the General Accounting Office wrote:

No component of the system to be fielded by September 2004

has been flight-tested in its deployed configuration.

Significant uncertainties surround the capability to be

fielded by September.

Two months ago before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Christie agreed with Senator Reed's statement that:

At this time, we cannot be sure that the actual system

would work against a real North Korean missile threat.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted that, given the limited capabilities of the Cobra Dane radar in Alaska and the SPY-1 radar on a ship in the Pacific Ocean, this system would leave Hawaii essentially undefended. In fairness, there is a precedent for the administration's approach. It is a very old and famous precedent. You can find it in Chapter 1 of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes.

Don Quixote checks out his old helmet, which he has been restoring:

In order to see if it was strong and fit to stand a cut, he

drew his sword and gave it a couple of slashes, the first of

which undid in an instant what had taken him a week to do.

The ease with which he had knocked it to pieces disconcerted

him somewhat, and to guard against that danger he set to work

again, fixing bars of iron on the inside until he was

satisfied with its strength . . .

So far, so good. This is what we do whenever an interceptor fails to hit its target in a flight test. My guess is that this is what the Missile Defense Agency did after the December 2002 test.

But note what Don Quixote does next:

. . . and then, not caring to try any more experiments with

it, he passed it and adopted it as a helmet of the most

perfect construction.

Does that sound familiar? The Missile Defense Agency did about the same thing: they decided to do fewer intercept tests, rather than more, and to defer nearly all of those tests until well after this missile defense ``helmet'' is fielded. So let's give the Pentagon credit where credit is due: they are downright literary. I do wonder, though, whether they ever got beyond Chapter 1. If they had read Chapter 11 of Don Quixote, they would have discovered that his helmet was demolished in its first encounter with an enemy. That is why Don Quixote ended up putting a barber's washbowl on his head.

There is a clear lesson here, and it is a lesson that Cervantes understood fully 400 years ago. Testing is not a one-time exercise. After you make your corrections to the system, you have to test again. and the reason for testing is so as not to field a system that will fail.

The administration will say that it is employing ``spiral development,'' under which weapons are deployed in an initial configuration that is then improved through regular upgrades. That concept assumes, however, that the initial configuration is at least workable. In missile defense, it is not clear that we have even made it to the barber's washbowl.

To declare that a system protects the American people when none of its real components has been tested realistically is really to deceive the American people. The decision to decrease near-term testing in order to maintain a deployment date weeks before the next election demonstrates neither realism nor wisdom.

The administration's fixation on missile defense has also blinded it to the opportunity costs of its pursuit of that goal. As Richard Clarke later reported, the administration was so focused on missile defense and the ABM Treaty in 2001 that it paid too little attention to the growing threat of al Qaeda terrorism.

It also put on hold, throughout 2001, our important nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union, which help to keep Russian weapons, materials, and technology out of the hands of rogue states or terrorists.

In the wake of September 11, when the administration was given a choice of spending $1.3 billion on missile defense or on countering terrorism, it still opted to spend the funds on missile defense. The difficult situation in which we find ourselves today regarding North Korea may be yet another result of the administration's missile defense fixation.

The administration inherited a mixed, but hopeful, situation from President Clinton: North Korea's spent nuclear reactor fuel, except for enough to make one or two nuclear weapons, which had been illegally reprocessed in the 1980s, was being safely canned and stored under U.S. and IAEA observation. American access to a suspect underground site had created an inspection precedent that might be enlarged upon in other agreements. Negotiations were proceeding on a deal to end North Korea's long-range missile sales. And while North Korea was engaged in an illegal uranium enrichment program, that was apparently still at an experimental stage.

But the administration refused to build on President Clinton's work. It delayed any engagement with North Korea throughout 2001, insulting South Korea's President and undercutting our own Secretary of State in the process.

There were persistent rumors that administration officials viewed missile defense, rather than negotiations, as the real answer to any North Korean threat. The North Korean threat was, in turn, a widely cited justification for pursuing a national missile defense and withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

So here we are in 2004, and what do we have? The North Korean missile threat is still uncertain, since there have been no further flight tests of long-range North Korean missiles. But if North Korea ever does field an ICBM, there is a much better chance now that it will carry a nuclear weapon. Four years ago, we guessed that North Korea had one or two nuclear weapons; now we reportedly think they have at least eight, with perhaps more on the way.

Has this administration's policy made us safer? It doesn't look that way to me. What has happened, however, is that the stakes in missile defense have gotten higher. If faulty missile defense were to let a North Korean missile through with a high explosive warhead, or even a chemical weapons warhead, that would be one thing. But if a missile gets through with a nuclear weapon, then say goodbye to Honolulu or Seattle or San Diego.

That gets back to the matter of realistic testing. it is one thing to have ``spiral development'' of a new bomb, or even a new airplane. The loss of life in the ``learning by doing'' phase will be tragic, but limited.

It is quite another thing to tell the American people to put their trust in a ``rudimentary'' missile defense that could well permit the destruction of whole American cities. The Reed amendment won't stop missile defense. All it does is redress the balance, a little, between feckless deployment and desperately needed testing.

Whether we like our missile defense program or not, we should all vote in favor of testing it. If we need a missile defense, then we need one that does more than raise a ``Mission Accomplished'' banner in Alaska. It is time to stop acting like Don Quixote and start heeding the wisdom of Cervantes.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Reed amendment.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment with Senators Reed, McCain, Hagel, Corzine, and Akaka.

I understand that we have accepted the Senator from Virginia's amendment paying for these additional 20,000 soldiers in the supplemental.

While I think the Army would be better served by an end strength increase that is not subject to repeated supplementals, I am pleased that we are all in agreement that we need more troops today.

I think it is very simple. Soldiers provide stability. Without adequate numbers of boots on the ground, you can't get security and stability.

That is true in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and the Balkans.

As Senator McCain and I have both said repeatedly, we need more troops in Iraq to achieve stability. If we had put more troops into Iraq after major combat operations, the situation might be very different. I don't believe it is too late. I still think that additional troops are needed.

I also believe that it is my obligation to back that up with some relief for those soldiers serving today. We shouldn't have to keep issuing ``stop-loss'' orders, forcing soldiers to stay in the Army.

Let's give the Army what it needs.

What my colleagues and I hoped to accomplish was to reassure today's soldiers and their families that they will not have to keep looking at extended deployments and stop-loss orders. Instead, we want them to know that we are committed to making the Army large enough to do the missions America is asking it to do.

Some of our colleagues believe that the need for additional soldiers is temporary. I disagree.

It is true that the Army is planning a major restructuring. This may mean future efficiencies, but we don't know that yet. Like any other major change, more resources are needed during the change. In this case, more soldiers are needed as the Army moves to a more capable brigade structure.

I would rather plan for the clear needs of the next decade in the regular budget. I don't think we should be relying on supplementals to provide the right sized Army.

If I and my colleagues are wrong, then we can revisit these numbers and cut end strength like we did in the beginning of the last decade. I would rather take the cautious approach and err on the side of our soldiers and their families.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which takes us closer to that goal.

May I have 10 seconds on the Reed amendment?

Mr. President, I can't think of a more important amendment we are going to vote on than the Reed amendment. I am a principal cosponsor. I believe it is overdue. I hope to the Lord we go ahead and do the right thing here and support this amendment.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is the Biden amendment in order at this moment?

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there a copy of the amendment at the desk?

Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to amendment No. 3379.

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

Mr. President, with regard to amendment No. 3379, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Carper, Clinton, Corzine, and Feinstein be listed as cosponsors.

Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple and straightforward. It is no different in its intent than the amendment I offered when the President some months ago requested $87 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as the support of American forces.

The bottom line is it says we should stop borrowing to cover the cost of our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. If this mission is as important as the President says it is--and I believe it is--then we should pay for it. We should not make my kids pay for it. We should not make my grandchildren pay for it. We should pay for it.

Before I get into the details of the amendment, because it relates to my finding the money to pay for the $25 billion asked for in this authorization by the President, let me remind people what the state of the Tax Code is now relative to the highest bracket.

In the year 2001, the highest bracket of individual taxpayers was 39.6 percent.

With President Bush's tax cut that was passed, that bracket, along with others, was reduced from 39.6 percent to what it will be and what it is in 2004, 35 percent. So it has come down from 39.6 percent to 35 percent.

The way the Bush tax cut proposal works, when it became law--and I see the chairman of the Finance Committee here who, as the old joke goes, has forgotten more about the Tax Code than I am going to know--is that top bracket will stay at 35 percent in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. In the taxable year of 2011, under the present status of the Tax Code, it will go back to 39.6 percent.

I realize there is a move in the House and among many here to ``make the tax cut permanent'' so the 35-percent tax bracket would remain in 2011, 2012, 2015, 2018, and so on, but right now, unless it is made permanent in the taxable year 2011, it will go back to what it was in 2001, 39.6 percent.

One other statistic, to be in this top tax bracket, the people in the 35-percent tax bracket, which used to be 39.6, have on average a taxable income of a million dollars a year. Now, obviously, there are people in there making a billion dollars a year, but no one is in that bracket unless their taxable income is $319,000.

That means after all of the deductions are taken, after all of the things one is able under the law to deduct, so one is likely to have an income of closer to $450,000 or $500,000, they end up with a taxable income of $319,000. OK? So it is taxable income.

That is after one deducts for medical costs they are able to deduct, deduct for their children, for all the things one is entitled to deduct, and people in that category can deduct for a lot of things that average folks do not get to deduct.

So what does my amendment do? How do we have $25 billion so that these bright young pages--and I am not being solicitous; I am not joking--sitting down at the base of the podium there, whose average age is probably 16 or 17 years old, how do we act responsibly enough to say that they should not be paying for this war, that those of us who voted for it, my generation, those who are paying taxes now, should pay for it?

What happens with this $25 billion? It is essentially paid for by the deficit. This all goes to the deficit. This is going to be paid for. It is going to be added. I predict before the year is over--and I do not claim to be an expert on our budget, but I have been around long enough that I think I am pretty knowledgeable--this year's deficit will end up being closer to $600 billion than $500 billion. Everybody knows it is going to be over $500 billion. So why are we going to ask them, why are we going to ask my granddaughters, who range from age 3 to 10, to pay for this war, when we are fully capable of doing it?

One might say: OK, Biden, how are you going to pay for this war? Are you going to take money away from education? Are you going to take money away from things that affect these kids? No.

I am going to ask my colleagues shortly to do what I think every patriotic American is fully prepared to do. At the United Way they talk about, this guy gave at the office, but what do we give at the office in this war? What are any of you people, and what am I, giving at the office?

None of us are in Iraq. We are not in the military. We are not getting shot at. We are not away from our families. We are not that National Guardsman or Guardswoman who is taking a pay cut of 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent to serve their country right now.

I mean, this is never a healthy thing for a nation. We are in the midst of a war when the bulk of America is not asked to do anything about it. There are very few people sacrificing for this war. Like our grandparents or our parents, no one has asked us to put tape over our headlights when we drive at night or use ration cards or have to pay higher taxes to support the war. There is no draft.

So what happens? Well, there are a lot of patriotic, young women and men--and some not so young, meaning in their thirties and forties--who are over in Iraq right now. What are we doing?

The idea that if we ask the wealthiest Americans among us to contribute to the war effort, that they are unwilling to do that is preposterous.

I sometimes get mad at some in my party--not those on the Senate floor but some in my party--and some liberal commentators. What frustrates me sometimes is they assume that only poor, middle-class people are patriotic; that they are the only ones willing to make sacrifices for their country. I am here to say that wealthy Americans, the wealthiest among us, the wealthiest 1 percent, are as patriotic as the lowest 1 percent.

In the last time out, when I tried to do this--and I will get to the detail in a minute--to pay for the $87 million, I happened to be with a group at an exclusive country club in Wilmington, DE. We are a wealthy little State. We have some very wealthy people in our State. All States do, but as a percentage we have some very wealthy people. I happened to be with a group of them for an outing. We got to the time that we had the buffet, and it was outside. A couple started asking me about the war. The next thing I know, as every Senator knows and as every staffer has observed their Senators being engaged, all of a sudden it was like a roving press conference. It went from 1 press person to 2, to 5 to 10 to 15, and all of a sudden there was a group of people standing around. Before I knew it, literally, standing outside on this beautiful evening, on this patio of this magnificent club, there were no fewer than 40, mostly men, who are among the wealthiest--not literally the wealthiest, but some were probably in the top 20 or so in my State-- some of the wealthiest people in my State, and they are asking about the war.

I said: Let me ask you all a question--and in fairness I want to acknowledge, maybe they were intimidated because no one wanted to be the one to say, no, do not count me in, but I said I am going to go down to the Senate, and I am going to offer an amendment that would require you people right here on this outside patio to give up 1 year of the 10 years of your tax cut to pay for this war. Does anybody here think that is unfair?

I give my word, my honor as Biden, not one person raised their hand. Then people started to chime in. They said, no, it is fair. They started talking about what other people are doing.

When have we ever gone to war when we simultaneously have suggested, as we have gone, to say this is going to be a long, tortuous undertaking to fight terror, and at the same time any President in the past, some 200-plus years, has said: And by the way, as we go, I am going to give you the biggest tax cut in the history of the United States of America?

Now, again, try to be objective about this. Let's assume--I do not, but let us assume for the sake of argument that we badly needed this tax cut in order to spur on the economy. Let me accept that as a given for the sake of this debate.

I asked these people: Does anyone here think if the top 1 percent of the people paying taxes in America were to forego 1 year of the tax cut that, in fact, that would slow the economy? The economy would stall? Sputter? Assuming they were the reason it was growing. I didn't hear anybody tell me that. I have not heard any reputable economists tell me that.

So here I am, back on the floor again, finding it fascinating, absolutely fascinating--and I expect this will be voted on party lines again--why the overwhelming number of my colleagues, for whom most of these wealthy people likely vote, are unwilling to do what the wealthiest among us are fully willing to do.

This time around what I am suggesting is even less ``painful.'' In order to come up with $25 billion to pay for this piece of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, you know the only thing you have to do? You have to say: In the year 2005, the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, who in fact cannot have a taxable income less than $319,000, will go back up from 35 percent to 36 percent. The 1-percent solution.

I can't fathom any wealthy person in America, even at the low end-- and, by the way, the average income of this top 1 percent is over $1 million. I can't fathom a single one of these people not having enough patriotic instinct to say: No, no, no, no, I am unwilling. I am unwilling to pay, in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, 1 percent more than I would otherwise have to pay.

What does that mean? Does it mean 1 percent less investment in their portfolio? Does it mean they buy a Lexus instead of a Mercedes? What does it mean? What does it mean?

While we are now saying, as I think the President probably has no choice, to the people who signed up volunteering in the military: No, no, you are staying another year because your patriotic responsibility is we need you. The President is probably right about that.

Or he is saying to what will be approaching 40 percent of the forces on the ground being shot at or subjected to car bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan who are reservists and National Guard: You have to go twice.

He is saying to the physician who is in the Guard, whose income may have been $150,000 or $200,000 whose pay as a colonel may be $80,000 but he still has the same mortgage payment, the same tuition payment, the same ``nut'' to pay, as they say: It's your patriotic responsibility.

How can we in this country at this moment say we can ask that of those people and we can't say to people whose average income is $1 million: Do us a favor, pay 1 percent more to pay for this installment on the war?

What have we become? Can you imagine that being said in 1943? No, no, no, no, don't ask it of them.

Can you imagine that being said if the income tax had been in place in 1915 or 1916?

Can you imagine that being the case in the Korean war? Can you imagine that?

What is the second logical argument as to why this is a bad idea? If you all agree with me that these Americans are as patriotic as anyone else and that it could not possibly hurt them in any material way, then you have to say: Here is the deal. This will slow economic recovery. This is bad for the economy.

I got a letter from the Chamber of Commerce saying this is going to hurt small business.

My friend from Iowa is here, the chairman of the committee. As the old thing goes--in this case, it is true--he is my friend.

The Chamber of Commerce says it is going to hurt small business. What they mean by that is there are some small businesses that pay their taxes as if they were individual taxpayers. Do you know how many of them pay at the top 1 percent? Of all the small businesses in America? For every 100 small businesspersons in America who claim and pay as individuals, 2 percent--t-w-o percent--of them are in this category where they would be affected.

I am sure the Senator will be able to tell me--I suspect he is here to engage in debate--how taking 1 percent of the American individual taxpayers and asking them to pay 1 percent more in the next 5 years, and taking 2 percent of the small businesspersons in America and asking them to pay 1 percent more for the next 5 years, when each of them fall in a category where they have a taxable income of at least $319,000 a year--how this is going to slow the economy.

I have said this to the President and I have said it publicly-- Senator McCain was on the floor earlier--what I am about to say. Senator McCain was on the floor earlier talking about the end strength amendment of Senator Reed. He said we need this. He said mistakes happen in war. That is why--and he went on from there.

I believe, and I am confident, this President has made some very serious mistakes in the conduct of this war. I am also confident were I President I would have made mistakes. I am confident, had it been President Gore, he would have made mistakes. I am confident that Senator Kerry will make some mistakes if he is President. I don't think this President will be judged harshly for the mistakes he has made.

But I do think history will judge him fairly harshly for the opportunities he has squandered. One of the opportunities squandered here is the ability to have united this Nation in common purpose after 9/11.

Let me ask a rhetorical question. Can you imagine if immediately after 9/11, when the President had that big economic summit down in Crawford, TX, or near Crawford, with some of the most prominent, significant, and patriotic businessmen in America, and some of the most wealthy men and women in America--what do you think would have happened, as that broke up, if he said: By the way, I want to ask the following of all of you. I would ask each one of you in the spirit of unity and harmony in this country, when you leave this room after hearing me speak, I strongly urge you--I ask you to take out your cell phone and call your accountant at home and ask him to go out and find four of the most worthy young women and men, eligible for college, who are unable to pay for college for 4 years, and commit to pay their tuitions.

Would any of my colleagues on the Senate floor think there would have been a single solitary man or woman in that room who would not have walked out, dialed up their cell phone, and said to their accountants, find those people? I mean it sincerely. I am not joking about this. I can't fathom that group of women and men not responding to the call for unity--not just to deal with the war on terror but to deal with healing and uniting this country. Nothing has been asked of these people, not because they have refused, not because they are unwilling, but because of an ideological disposition that somehow in any way to alter the tax structure beyond what we have just done is ipso facto wrong, bad, counterproductive. We are a slave to ideology on this floor.

There is not a single person in here who can say this $25 billion because it is all fungible is not going to be added to the deficit. Why don't we pay for it

fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly? When have we ever succeeded in the great noble causes of this country without engaging all segments of society?

I would make the rhetorical point--I suspect you will not do this, but I will make you a bet. If you were to call your State's 10 wealthy people who fall into this category and ask them whether they would support having to pay at a 36-percent rate rather than a 35-percent rate to pay for the war, I am willing to bet you that 8 out of 10 or more of them will say, I am willing. I am betting--and I trust all of my colleagues would--if you do that, you will come and tell me you found in your State more than 2 out of 10 said they wouldn't do that, I will buy you dinner anywhere you want to go to dinner. It is on me. My financial disclosure statement shows, unfortunately, that I am one of the least well positioned in this body to pay for dinner.

There is something wrong, there is something not sensible about failing to be more responsible. How can it be called responsible to say we are going to make these pages, these kids, pay the $25 billion? I don't get this. Every one of us, Democrats and Republicans, comes to the floor of the Senate and talks about the need for a culture of responsibility. I truly don't get it, other than ideology.

I respectfully suggest that if, in fact, we do this to set a precedent that engages more people in the outcome of this war on terror--I am not making a populist argument--the group that is in the top 1 percent will get, out of the total tax cut of $1.8 trillion, $88.9 billion.

Again, I am not making a populist argument. That may be arguably justified on the merits. But it is the idea that 1 percent can't give up 1 percent of $688.19 billion. It is not even 1 percent; it is actually $688.19 billion over 10 years--that they will not give up 1 percent for 5 of those years. It is the equivalent of asking them to give up one-half of 1 percent of that number when 99 percent of the American people pay--not all 99 percent; some don't pay taxes--but 99 percent of the American people get a tax cut of about $1.1 billion dollars.

A couple of my Republican colleagues have said it is unfair to pick on the wealthy. It is not picking on anybody. I am trying to find the most equitable way to do this. What I am trying to do is make sure we are in a position to act responsibly, and it is not responsible to pile the debt upon our children for an endeavor we chose to undertake when it is fully within our power to pay for it without in any way being unfair to any single group of taxpayers and without having any rational argument that it will, in fact, negatively impact on the economy.

Were I in my 27-year-old populist mode, I would say it is greed. But I have learned a lot in my 32 years here. It is that we have not asked. For every wealthy group of businessmen and businesswomen in my State that I have approached, I have yet to have one tell me there is something unfair or unequitable about this.

I urge my colleagues. I will conclude this portion by saying I urge my colleagues to let us be responsible, what I define as responsible. It doesn't mean if you disagree you are irresponsible, but let us be responsible here. Let us pay for something we can easily pay for and not pile more debt for an elective judgment we made in this body--and I made it as well--to take on the dictatorship and the maniacal leadership of Saddam Hussein, to take down the Taliban, and to seek al- Qaida in its hovel.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am told by leadership staff that we have not been able to clear that at this moment on the Senate floor. So I would suggest the Senator withhold briefly until I find out why there is some doubt. I object, and I say to my friend from Missouri that I will find out why in a moment.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he doth protest too loudly. I am not taking it out of the tax bill. This is good stuff on the Constitution, but I think my friend voted for the JOBS bill and just violated the Constitution, by his definition, because we had a revenue measure in there. It didn't get blue-slipped, and he apparently violated his oath, by his definition. I don't think he violated his oath at all.

But the truth is this: In the JOBS bill, what did we do? We changed the Tax Code. So this is great rhetoric, and my friend from Iowa went through this whole thing about--

Yes.

The Senator did vote for the Senate bill, correct?

He would be able to do the same thing with this bill if he used his ingenuity, would he not?

But it doesn't have to any more than the last Senate bill had to stay a Senate bill. I have been here 32 years. I may not be in the No. 2 position in my party, as my friend was, but I don't need an education on how we do this. This is malarkey, as they say--this argument being made about the Constitution. Let me move on, if I may.

My friend references President Reagan, and I might note that I voted for the Roth-Kemp tax cut. Then I watched President Reagan and voted with him when he raised taxes three times after that because he was a responsible fellow. He raised taxes three times after that out of necessity. I also was here--and we talked about World War II. The President says this is the equivalent of World War II. My friends talk about World War II. We raised taxes through the ceiling in World War II. I don't know whether they didn't teach the same history in Oklahoma and Iowa as they did in Delaware, but we raised taxes in World War II.

Also, this notion about all these other programs--the Senator, because he is so busy and has extensive responsibilities on his side of the aisle, did not have an opportunity--he didn't miss much--to hear my speech on the front end.

There are two purposes in my doing this: One is to unite this Nation, for everybody to get in on the deal. Many other people are being asked to sacrifice. You know, this is a war. People are dying. Some people are sacrificing. People are having their incomes radically changed-- those in the National Guard and Reserves. They are contributing at the office.

The other part is--I will say this again, and I said it last time-- would any wealthy American--and I hope every one of my kids becomes a wealthy American. By most people's standards, based on my salary, most people think I am wealthy. I don't have stocks, bonds, debentures, and savings accounts. I am not bragging about that, but that is a fact. Most Americans think I am wealthy based on the salary I get paid. But I say to the top 1 percent out there, call me, give me your name, and tell me you are not willing to pay 1 percent higher for the next 5 years in order to make sure these kids sitting here don't pay.

War is different than education. Part of the purpose of a leader, when you go to war, is to unite the Nation, share the responsibility, engage in the sacrifice.

The other point I will make is that my friend from Iowa talks about the fact that this tax cut generated economic growth. I don't disagree with that. But the real question is, is taking one-tenth of 1 percent of the total tax cut going to stop economic growth? Is the Senator making that argument? Well, if he is right, this is a bad idea. One- tenth of 1 percent is the total cost of the total tax cut of this amendment--$25 billion, one-tenth of 1 percent. That is going to bring this economic growth to a screeching halt? Give me a break.

Let's talk about the small business people. I didn't make the assertion that all small business people are sitting back clipping coupons. I am not saying that. I just tell you what the facts are. The facts are, as the Senator knows, that small business owners have to be in the top 1 percent of wage earners to fall into this bracket. Only 2 percent of all the small business owners in America fall into this bracket. That does include some people with passive incomes participating in investment and small businesses. This is not the hands-on, mom-and-pop business owners by any stretch of the imagination. If you look at only sole proprietor returns, those with hands-on owners, they are less than 2 percent. So I can understand my friend disagreeing with me. That is a logical position he takes. He may believe that it is unfair to have them pay 1 percent more and not ask people making $100,000 to pay 1 percent more. I can understand that. That is just an honest disagreement.

I can understand my friend from Oklahoma in his argument on why are we taxing corporations more. That makes sense, too. We can do that. If he wants to go that route, I will help him.

There are other ways to do this. I tried to pick the most painless, unifying mechanism I could find to do a responsible thing: make sure these kids in the blue suits don't pay for this war. They are still going to pay for the war, by the way. We have already spent over $200 billion on this war. I am not complaining about that. I am arguing that we need more troops.

My Lord, all these specious arguments: My God, the mom-and-pop grocery store owners are going to be put in jeopardy by this amendment; this is going to slow down economic growth; this is unfair.

Then the irony is that my friend from Iowa, who always says he is not a lawyer--as I pointed out to him, he is smarter than any lawyer on that committee. Be careful of this good old boy from Iowa, who says: Golly, gee whiz, I am not a lawyer. He knows more hard case law than anybody I know on the Senate floor. Yet he stands up there straight faced and says: You know what, this $25 billion tax increase--and it is--paid for by the top 1 percent is bad for the economy, but I, Chuck Grassley, am out there making sure corporations pay more. I am finding loopholes and closing them.

I congratulate him. Guess what it means. It means you are going to have more people pay more taxes. Is that going to slow down the economy? When my friend takes out of the tax stream or adds to the tax stream by shutting loopholes that do not belong in the law, guess what. More money is coming to the Government. More money than $25 billion I am talking about.

He is a very bright guy. So let's be logical. Let's set up a little syllogism here. If his thesis is my $25 billion is going to slow down the economy, $25 billion now is in the hands of people out there, or will be over the next 5 years out in the hands to be spent by Americans, what about the $25 billion, $35 billion, $100 billion he is looking to take out of the economy over the next 5 years that will be spent by corporations, being spent by, maybe unfairly, but being spent--that is not going to slow down the economy, but my $25 billion is?

Again, to use the expression of my granddaughter, give me a break. I may not be the brightest candle on the table, but I am a relatively logical guy. There is no logic in the argument.

So, look, there are three good reasons to be against Biden: One, you ideologically think this is a bad idea because somehow you think--and I am being a little facetious--that the top 1 percent of the American public pays too much of a burden and is put upon, and to add anything else on them is just unfair to the rest of the American public. OK. Got it. It is a straightforward argument, logical.

The second logical argument is, if there is any merit to it: You ought to spread this out, Biden. If, in fact, you are going to add to the deficit by paying for Medicare or the prescription drug bill--which I voted against and which a lot of you voted for; it cost a lot more than you promised it was going to cost, raising the deficit, spending that I did not vote for--it is better to say unless you are going to pay for this spending, you should not pay for it with revenues. OK. I got it. It is a straightforward argument.

Or lastly, one might argue: Psychologically this is dangerous because after cutting taxes, to now raise them for 5 years by 1 percent for 1 percent of the population, it is going to inject some uncertainty. I don't know what that means. That could be an argument one could make.

With all due respect, you cannot make the argument mom and pop are going under; mom and pop are slowing down; that the loss of revenue is going to stifle economic growth; that this portion of the population is put upon; that this is no different than education or health care or highways, because it is. It is war.

By the way, when I introduced this proposal on a larger measure--$87 billion--a while ago, according to the national polls, 56 percent of the Americans polled on the last version of this amendment said pay for the war from the tax cut.

This is all about values. This is about value differences. And the value that I am espousing--and I am not being so moralistic to suggest that I know it is superior to the value my friends are proposing, but it is a different value. I value the necessity of a greater sense of national unity and a greater contribution from all sectors of the economy in winning this war. I value the notion that when we are clearly able, without doing any harm to the economy or being unfair to any one segment, that we should pay, when we can, rather than make our children and grandchildren pay.

The difference between war and education is on education we made a judgment that we should have an educational system, and we do not control the population. So as children are born, the responsibility to keep a commitment we made exists. It is not elective. War, in this case, was elective. I elected to go to war. That is not a societal responsibility that rests with a generation that has not even come of age yet; it is a responsibility of ours, just as World War II was the responsibility of the greatest generation in the history of mankind, the World War II generation. They did not say: Make my son, Joe, make my daughter, Valerie, make my son, Jim or Frank, pay for this war. They valued responsibility. They stepped up to the ball. As to the idea that this even calls for any serious sacrifice, if that is the case, my Lord, we have lost our bearings.

I have seen not one scintilla of evidence that this will slow economic recovery; that this is a burden upon a group of people who strongly resist taking on the burden; that this is, per se, unfair. This is something I believe--and I cannot prove it because I have not conducted any national poll--that if the people who will be affected by this, again, whose average income is $1 million a year, who have to have a taxable income of $320,000 a year even to get in the game, and if they are small business, 98 percent of them will be not affected one single little way by this, my guess is, if they know it is really going to pay for the $25 billion needed next year for the war, they would pay it, proudly pay it, and rightfully should pay.

My dad, who passed away long ago, used to have an expression. My dad was, I guess, probably like the mom or dad of Senator Grassley and Senator Nickles and others, a generation that had a different view. My dad's table was a place where you had dinner, you sat down, and two things were demanded. One, you had to have good table manners, and the other was you had to engage in conversation. Our table was a table where you sat down and had conversation and incidentally ate, rather than sat down, ate, and had incidental conversation. It was the one place the family got together with certainty every night, and friends were always included.

I will never forget my father in a discussion with my uncle, Bill Scheen, talking about a particular tax. My dad looked at him and said: Bill, there is no price too high to pay to live in this great country.

I am not asking for a big price. I am just asking for people to do what in their heart they know is right.

I understand my friends, what they have not said--and I may be wrong, but I suspect part of their concern about this amendment, because at least four Members on that side have come up to me and said: I would like to vote for this, Joe, but here is my fear--I give my word this is true--this is my fear: My fear is this would be a foot in the door. If you make this argument and it has catches, I am paying for the war, then your guys are going to come back and say: Look, we ought to raise taxes on the wealthiest corporations to pay for health care, or to pay for whatever. I think that is a legitimate concern on the part of my Republican friends. I understand that. Maybe that is the reason why, not the people who have spoken but some of the people who have spoken to me, who share my concern about not passing this on to these kids are not going to vote with me. I think it is a shame. I just cannot think of how we are able to communicate to the American people that we are in mortal combat for what will be an extended period of time with an enemy that does not wear a uniform but has the capacity to do overwhelming harm to us but that there is no need to rally the entire Nation to contribute a little bit at the office in order to win that war.

Again, the example I gave of what if the President had said go out and pay the tuition of two or four people in your neighborhood, for those of you who can afford it, that is not going to help the war. If anyone thinks that is what I meant, they missed the whole point.

The point is, we should use this time of crisis to unite the country, to talk about the things where we can help one another, where it is not paid for, where it is not unfair. That is the point I am trying to make, and I guess I am not being articulate enough because I do not think a lot of my friends get it.

It is probably my fault because maybe I am not explaining it well enough, but just to make sure everybody understands, how does one convince people that this is as tough a deal as it is if, in fact, we have this incredibly large tax cut? How does that square? It is like my saying to my kids, when they ask me can they go to a summer camp, and my saying I cannot afford to do that, and I drive up the driveway the next day in a brand new Lexus; it is tough times, kids, I cannot afford to send you to that college, you are going to go to the State university, and we buy a summer house. I mean, how does one do that?

By the way, this war is going to cost us a couple hundred billion dollars more before this is over.

Well, I have said all I want to say. I wish I could have said it better but I think this is fair. I think it is equitable. I think it is necessary, and I hope my colleagues will see it that way. I understand if they do not.

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

If my colleagues are finished responding, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and at whatever time appropriate, vote on the amendment.

I yield back the time.

Amendment No. 3352, As Amended