Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Maryland for her support and partnership in reauthorizing this very important piece of legislation, and I appreciate the assistance we received from Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi, as well as the administration and our House colleagues. Early detection of breast and cervical cancers saves lives

and is essential to our fight against these devastating diseases. The national early detection program has given millions of disadvantaged women access to vitally important cancer screenings, and I am proud of our commitment to continuing the Federal investment in these services. I hope that the new waiver demonstration project will provide the small number of States seeking to fully leverage private contributions the ability to capitalize on those fund expand access and services to even more women. I also look forward to the information CDC gathers in its report to help guide us in ensuring we provide the most screenings for our Federal investment. I thank my colleagues for working with us to expand this important program in our fight to reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States.

Mr. President, let me ask for 2 minutes. I thought the last time the Chair announced the time it was 6\1/2\ minutes after Senator Warner.

I understand. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 minutes, after which the leader will then be allowed his 5 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me say that the distinguished deputy leader on the other side said that if the Cochran amendment passes, it will be the same strategy, nothing new, nothing changed.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the President heard what the people said in the elections of last year. The President has changed the policy. We have confirmed a general to go over there and direct a new strategy, which, by all accounts, is beginning to have some hope of success.

If we do what is in this bill, by not passing the Cochran amendment, it says that the President must commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of this act. That puts a bulls-eye on our troops on the ground. It says we are not committed to do what we said we would do, to stand with Iraq to have a stable democracy in their country. It says that we are just going to leave.

We are not stating any benchmarks; we are not stating any success strategies; we are saying 120 days and we are gone. What do you think that does to our troops on the ground? What does it say to our allies? Most importantly, what does it say to the enemy? It says the greatest country in the world is going to be there as long as it is not very hard. But when it gets too tough for America, we will leave and we will walk out.

That should not be the message of the greatest country on Earth, and I hope we will pass the Cochran amendment and do what is right for our country for the long term.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will unanimously pass S. 474, a bill I introduced to award a Congressional Gold Medal--the highest civilian award which may be bestowed by the United States Congress--to my dear friend, Dr. Michael DeBakey. I thank my colleagues for joining me in recognizing and honoring Dr. Deakey for his lifetime of medical achievement and public service. I would especially like to thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu. She joined me in circulating a letter to our Senate colleagues on this bill, and she was very helpful in gathering key co-sponsors needed to pass this legislation today.

Dr. DeBakey is currently in Texas recovering from the very type of heart operation he pioneered. At the age of 98, he is the oldest survivor of the operation he developed to repair a damaged aorta, the main artery from the heart. I certainly wish him well as he continues to recover from this major operation. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank him once again for his lifetime of commitment and service not only to the medical community but to the world and strongly encourage my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Dear Colleague letter for S. 474 be printed in the Record, and I request that Senator Landrieu be added as an original cosponsor of this bill because without her help, this bill would not have passed.

I have.

Madam President, I have the modification to my amendment, and I would send it to the desk and ask that it be the replacement for my amendment.

Madam President, we can have a vote on my amendment or we can have a voice vote, at the pleasure of the chairman.

Madam President, I would say to the distinguished chairman that I appreciate his willingness to work with us. It is a very important amendment to eight States in this country. Senator Cantwell was very much a part of the whole negotiation, and I commend her and her staff for helping us to do this, and I appreciate the fact that it has passed and is now a part of the budget. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Senator Cornyn, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator Corker, Senator Alexander, and Senator Ensign.

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

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

Mr. President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senator Cornyn, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Enzi. This is an amendment that also has sponsors of bills to legislatively produce the same result: Senators Alexander, Ensign, Cornyn, Enzi, Corker, Martinez, Stevens, Thune, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Murray, and Reid. This is an amendment that would extend the sales tax deduction in Federal income taxes for the period of this budget. This would perpetuate the law that is today but which expires at the end of this year. It is fully offset with the 920 budget function allowances. It would cost $13 billion over the 5- year period, and this account will absorb that loss.

My amendment provides for the extension of the sales tax deduction for States that do not have an income tax. It is an issue of fairness. We have fought for this since 1986, until 2004, when we corrected the inequity. I hope we will be able to correct this inequity on a permanent basis.

State and local governments have various options for raising revenues. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and some do both. Citizens of States that levy income taxes have long been able to offset some of what they pay by deducting their State income tax on their Federal tax returns. In essence, we are not making people pay taxes on their taxes, which is fair.

Before 1986, all taxpayers had that capability, whether they were taxed with sales taxes or income taxes. From 1986 until 2004, the residents of States that didn't have a State income tax but had a sales tax were not allowed to deduct their State's revenue mechanism, thereby penalizing them because of their State's choice to collect revenues through sales taxes.

Eight States--Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas--have been penalized in those years for exercising their independence in choosing their method of collecting taxes. It was unfair.

Congress rectified this unequal treatment when we passed the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004, providing taxpayers with the option of using the sales tax for their deduction or the income tax. If someone lives in an income tax State, they can also choose the sales tax instead of their income tax deduction, so it is a benefit for every taxpayer in America to have this option. But it especially affects these eight States that have no option, without the ability to deduct their sales taxes. Why should they have to pay taxes on their taxes, when people who pay income taxes do not? Of course, they should not.

A family of four in Texas that itemizes will save $310 a year in Federal income taxes, on average. This deduction, which we extended through this year, 2007, will expire if we don't provide for this extension in the budget.

Sales tax deductibility is not only an issue of fundamental tax fairness but is also an economic stimulus. It can create jobs in the States, where lowering taxes does make a difference in the investments businesses make, which does create new jobs. Fifty-five million Americans live in States which do not have income taxes but which have hefty sales taxes. Last Congress, three-fourths of this body voted overwhelmingly to make the sales tax deduction permanent.

My amendment is fully paid for through reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can have equity for all of our citizens and options for all of our citizens to choose which of the State and local taxes they would prefer to deduct.

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

It is $13 billion over 5 years.

That is correct.

The discretionary side.

Mr. President, I appreciate what the distinguished chairman of the committee has said. Let me say three things: First, I would be happy to work with the chairman to find another offset that would be acceptable, because I certainly want it to be offset, and I think the basic fairness of treating every taxpayer in America fairly is one we should absolutely adhere to. I cannot imagine that we would go forward next year and put eight States at such a disadvantage. So I want to work with the chairman.

The second point is it doesn't have to be discretionary. The reason I said discretionary--and it is not in the amendment that it would be discretionary, and perhaps we can work in another area of spending that would be acceptable. The reason I chose discretionary is my third point, which is the OMB rating analysis--the PART assessment--working with that PART assessment, Senator Allard said there was $88 billion in program spending that was rated as ``ineffective'' over the next 5-year period. So I thought the $88 billion provided plenty of leeway for programs that were not fully operational to use what they have in the budget.

I don't think anyone would take from the veterans account, of course, because we have increased the veterans amount to make sure that veterans' health care is fully covered. I am the ranking member of the Veterans Appropriations Committee and I added $1.5 billion in emergency funding last year to assure that the veterans accounts would be fully funded. In the rating analysis of OMB, there are other funds that cannot fully utilize their line items and, therefore, I think there would be leeway in this discretionary account.

I would be pleased to work with the chairman. I hope we can provide for this in the budget, because I think we have to treat every American taxpayer fairly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk again to the resolution pending on the floor. I look forward to having the debate continue on the other options for the resolution.

I am against the resolution on the floor because I do not see a purpose. I do not see a purpose for a nonbinding resolution that makes America look irresolute. What could we be thinking to try to take something across the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives that would give any signal to our allies or to our enemies that we cannot finish a job, that the war on terrorism is important but not important enough to see it through?

I think of the young men and women who have died in this war. They are giving their lives, the ultimate sacrifice, as part of their legacy to our country. They are leaving something for our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.

If we pass nonbinding resolutions that undercut the mission and the purpose for which they have given their lives, which is the war on terror, to keep freedom in America, we would be doing a great disservice that is undeserved for those great patriots. Our young men and women throughout the years have been willing to go into the volunteer service. The people who are fighting in this war are volunteers.

We have had volunteers and even people who didn't volunteer in past wars to make sure that America stood strong for freedom. I cannot imagine that the Congress during World War II would have passed a nonbinding resolution to say: We don't think our troops should be in Europe.

We are sinking to new lows. I hope we can resist the political winds that have caused us to get to this point. The only reason we would pass a nonbinding resolution is to send a political message. I don't think the Senators who have stood on this floor for decades before us would have passed resolutions that meant nothing except to send a message that would undercut our troops in the field.

Do the people who want to pass a resolution such as this believe this isn't an important war? We are fighting for our children's futures every bit as much as we have in any conflict in which we have been engaged. We are fighting to keep terrorists from coming back to America and threatening our way of life and the opportunity that America offers for our children. If we look irresolute, if we look weak, if we look as if we can't be strong, we will put a blemish on the sacrifice that has been made already by so many of our young men and women, and we will undercut those who are serving right now in the theater in Iraq. I can't imagine, when we think this through, that that would be the course that a deliberative Senate would take.

The President of the United States knows we have not achieved the success we hoped to. For that reason, he is taking a different course. Any one of us in Congress might have done it a different way. There is no question that many in Congress are concerned about the mission. That does not mean we take the step of a nonbinding resolution that says we don't support the Commander in Chief. The Constitution didn't provide for Congress to command our military. The Constitution provides one Commander in Chief, not 535. It would be so wrong for 535 people to second-guess the Commander in Chief, who has announced that the plan he has put forward is one that was made in the military.

Many of us talked to General Petraeus. We asked questions, because there are questions about embedding our troops in the field outside the protected zone. General Petraeus totally defends the plan. He takes the responsibility for the plan. He believes it will work. In fact, there are signs things are getting better. There are signs the Iraqi Government is strengthening its measures to crack down on insurgents, militias, any of the groups that have been killing innocent people. There are signs that there are ways this could succeed.

During one of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, Senator Lieberman asked General Petraeus if a resolution such as we are voting on today would give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people were divided. General Petraeus answered:

That is correct, sir.

We have been talking about this for the 2 months-plus that we have been in this session of Congress. We certainly talked about it all last year. We will continue to talk about it. I hope what we say on the floor is carefully crafted so we can disagree with people who do support this resolution, and we can do it based on the Constitution, on principles of war, on the relationship that Congress should have with the President. All of these are legitimate. There can be disagreements about what is the best approach for finding success, but what we cannot disagree about is that we must win the war on terror, we must show America's commitment, and we will not undercut our troops who are in harm's way today.

I have seen all the iterations of the resolutions that have been proposed by the majority. They have changed many times. Some of those resolutions even set deadlines for us to withdraw troops. What do my colleagues think that does for the troops who are there right now? If our enemy knows we are going to start the withdrawal of troops on a certain deadline, what does that do to their treatment of the people who are on the ground right now? They would consider that we have put a bull's-eye on every one of our young men and women with boots on the ground right now. It would be akin to saying: We are going to leave here so whoever is here now is not going to have the support needed to finish this job. If we are not going to finish the job, why wouldn't they step up their efforts, which is exactly what they would do.

We have to look at the reality. No matter what kind of front we would put on a resolution that shows that we do not have the resolve, the commitment to see this through, it will embolden the terrorists. When the terrorists think we are going to leave or that we can't take it, that we have to start an exit without regard to the success of the mission, then what would keep them from beginning to take over Iraq, make it a terrorist haven, make it the training ground from which they could proliferate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists all over the world? We have already seen that in many specific instances. This would give them a bigger field in which to train, one that is not going to be necessary to hide. It will give them more revenue to produce weapons that could hurt even more.

I have cosponsored S. Res. 70, the McCain resolution, which renews our commitment to defeating the terrorists in Iraq and winning the war. That is a resolution that we should all support. Congress has the right to cut off funds, but I cannot imagine that responsible Members of this body would vote for a resolution that would cut off funds and say we are not going to give the troops who are there the equipment, training, and protection they need to do the job. That would be unthinkable. That is one of the resolutions also pending for us to address.

Losing this war will not make America safer. This is a war that must be fought. It must be won, not just for the sake of the Iraqi people. It is for the sake of America. It is for the sake of freedom. It is wiping out terrorists where they are so they do not harm innocent people in America again.

I hope cooler heads will prevail. I hope this deliberative body that has a great history for our country and in the world will see we should not be taking the political position. We should not be testing the political winds because what we say has consequences. What we say can be used as propaganda against our troops who are in harm's way. Most certainly, it can be used to embolden those who are training right now to attack America.

I hope, in the end, we will defeat the Reid resolution, that we will take up some of the other resolutions, and we will keep in mind that what we say and the longer we talk about it, the more dangerous it can become for our troops and for the likely success of the mission that is before us. We want the Iraqi Government to take the responsibility for the safety and security of the Iraqi people. What do Senators think the Iraqi Government is going to do to make that happen, if they think America's resolve is wavering, if they think we might set a deadline in which to leave, if they think we might start a graceful exit before they have the ability achieve security?

We can't let the Iraqi Government think we are going to plan for an exit before we have won the war, secured Iraq, kept the terrorists from having a training ground and revenue to harm more innocent people in the world or we will not be standing for the traditions and the spirit and the commitment to freedom that Americans have made throughout the generations of our country.

That is not a legacy I think any Member of the Senate would want to leave. I certainly do not want to leave that legacy for my children and grandchildren, nor for the children and the next generation of the State I represent and love so much, the State of Texas, nor for the children and grandchildren of Americans, the country I am serving. I hope we will not forget exactly what our legacy will be if we do the political thing rather than the right thing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about Latin America. I think this has been highlighted by the President's trip there and the focus the President is putting on Latin America.

It is so important that we not forget our own hemisphere and some of the problems we are facing in our hemisphere.

President Bush, of course, is in Mexico right now. He is holding discussions with Mexican President Calderone. Immigration, reducing poverty, fighting drugs, and strengthening our economic relationship are all items on the agenda. This is the President's final stop on a five-nation trip that included Brazil, Uruguay, Columbia, and Guatemala.

But the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has been conducting his own tour, deliberately instigating protests and riots to disrupt the President's peaceful mission.

It is very important that we focus on Mr. Chavez and what is happening in South America because it will affect the stability of our whole hemisphere.

The problem starts in Venezuela, a nation which once enjoyed 50 years of democratic traditions but now is in the early stages of a dictatorship. Last month, elected representatives in Venezuela abdicated their responsibility and gave the Venezuelan leader sweeping power to rule for 18 months to be able to impose economic, social, and political change. These dictatorial powers would be alarming in anyone's hands but particularly dangerous in the hands of Hugo Chavez.

This strong man rules an oil-rich nation that exports 1.1 million barrels of oil to the United States per day, roughly equivalent to what we import from Saudi Arabia. President Chavez has already colluded with other OPEC nations to raise oil prices, and when he nationalizes multibillion dollar crude oil projects, that is going to make the prices rise again. This could have a severe impact on the pocketbooks of American families. According to some economists, every time oil prices rise by 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their jobs.

Mr. Chavez has used his nation's windfall oil profits to buy political support at home and to stir trouble abroad. He says Venezuela has a ``strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage'' and ``it is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States.''

In his struggle against U.S. imperialism, President Chavez has found a useful ally in the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the Government of Iran. He is one of the few leaders in the world to publicly support Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Iranian mullahs have rewarded Mr. Chavez's friendship with lucrative contracts, including the transfer of Iranian professionals and technologies to Venezuela.

Last month, President Chavez and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi- Nejad revealed plans for a $2 billion joint fund--$2 billion--part of which they say will be used as a ``mechanism for liberation'' against American allies.

This could help achieve the vision that Mr. Chavez has stated:

Let's save the human race; let's finish off the U.S.

empire.

Mr. Chavez has grown bolder by interfering in the elections of several Latin American countries and his own brand of politics has made some gains.

Bolivia's newly elected President, Evo Morales, has nationalized the energy industry, rewritten the Constitution, and promised to work with Mr. Chavez and Fidel Castro to perform an ``axis of good'' to oppose the United States.

The former Soviet client, Daniel Ortega, has returned to the Presidency of Nicaragua. During the 1980s, Mr. Ortega ruled his country with an iron fist until U.S.-backed freedom fighters ousted him from power. Nicaragua's democracy prospered for the next 16 years, but now he's back.

In response to the Ortega victory, Hugo Chavez said:

Long live the Sandinista revolution.

Then, in his first week as President, Mr. Ortega met with President Ahmadi-Nejad from Iran and told the press that Nicaragua and Iran share common interests and have common enemies.

Left unchecked, Presidents Ahmadi-Nejad and Chavez could be the Khrushchev-Castro tandem of the early 21st century, funneling arms, money, and propaganda to Latin America, endangering that region's fragile democracies and volatile economies. If these two succeed, the next terrorist training camp could shift from the Middle East to America's doorstep. We need to face reality. We need to confront this threat head on.

At the pinnacle of the Cold War, President Reagan seized the initiative and repulsed Soviet efforts to set up camp, in our hemisphere, with Cuba. We should follow that lead. We should dust off the Cold War play book and become active in helping our friends to the south.

Specifically, we should adopt a three-pronged approach: Energy independence would be No. 1. We should confront the Chavez threat head on by reducing imports to the United States from Venezuela. How can we do that? We can do it by increasing our domestic energy supply and production and

accelerate innovation for renewable fuels--wind power, solar power, ethanol, biodiesel, even wave energy. Using the currents in the sea can always produce energy, and research is going on in that effort.

There is so much we can do to make our country independent from people such as Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad and others who would try to affect our economy by raising the price of oil or cutting off the supply.

No. 2, free trade. We should try to reduce heartbreaking poverty by approving free trade agreements with friendly Latin American countries, those Latin American countries that have democracies, that want to increase their economic prosperity.

We need to reauthorize the President's trade promotion authority which expires on July 1. Free trade and working for economic prosperity in these countries is the best way to keep them free.

And No. 3, debt relief. We should help stabilize Latin America's fragile democracies by reducing their crushing debt burdens. This would empower their newly elected governments, or their elected governments that have been elected many times before, to use their revenue on education and health care for their people, strengthening their democracies.

Energy independence, free trade, and debt relief would go a long way toward helping us strengthen our whole hemisphere.

As we are looking at so much volatility around the world, it is important we remember that if we strengthen our hemisphere, if we increase the prosperity and the living standards of people throughout our hemisphere, it will not only help us have stronger economic ties, which will be good for our country and other countries, we create export markets for our goods as well as importing the goods from overseas, from Latin America, but it also is a security issue for our country. The idea that we would have terrorist training camps set up in countries that are hostile to America in South America is one I don't even want to anticipate. It would be very harmful for the security of America to have more of these dictatorships setting themselves up as an ``axis of good'' to thwart American freedom and democracy.

I am glad our President has gone to Latin America. The President of Mexico acknowledged that the President of the United States, after 9/ 11, had security threats that had to be addressed and, therefore, he was not able to do the innovations working with South America he had hoped he would be able to do in his first term as President.

But now the President is trying to renew that promise and go to South America and Mexico and talk about what binds us together. Land binds us together. Borders bind us together. We need good relations with Mexico and Central and South America. We want friendly borders. It is important for our security.

I hope the President's efforts are not for nought. I hope we can enhance what he has started by promoting free trade, by giving him the ability to negotiate free trade agreements with more of the South American countries that are friendly to America, by promoting independence in energy supply for our country so we don't have to depend on any foreign source for energy to make sure our economy stays strong, and to try to help them be relieved of debt that would allow their countries to invest more in education and health care for their people and their children.

This is an initiative whose time has come. Maybe it is an initiative whose time has long since come but is now beginning to become a viable option for our country. I hope the President's efforts are rewarded with Congress stepping up to the plate and helping America become more energy independent, helping America have more free trade agreements to build up economies in these foreign countries. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to support H.R. 584, a bill to name the Department of Education headquarters in Washington, DC, as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building. I am the Senate sponsor of the bill, and Senator Cornyn is the cosponsor.

Lyndon Johnson was the first President to be elected from the State of Texas, and a man, who throughout his over three decades in public life, contributed immensely to improving and enhancing education for all Americans.

President Johnson was born in Stonewall, TX on August 27, 1908. After graduating from high school, and spending a year as an elevator operator, he began his career in the field of education. In 1927, he borrowed $75, and started attending the Southwest Texas State Teachers College in San Marcos.

After graduating in 1930, he devoted a year to teaching mostly Mexican children at the Welhausen School in Cotulla, ninety miles south of San Antonio. Decades later, when he was in the White House, President Johnson reminisced: ``I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was closed to practically every one of those children because they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my mind that this Nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any American.''

Lyndon Baines Johnson never did rest--and after serving as a teacher, a principal, and as head of the Texas National Youth Administration, in 1937, he ran for, and won, a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

He was subsequently re-elected to the U.S. House in every election up until 1948, when he was elected to the United States Senate. Later, in 1961, he resigned from the U.S. Senate to become Vice President; and on November 22, 1963, a date that none of us will ever forget, Lyndon Johnson became the 36th President of the United States.

In 1965, President Johnson signed two landmark education bills: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (which authorized the first real Federal assistance to grade school education) and The Higher Education Act (which funded scholarships to undergraduate students).

In the same year, President Johnson launched Project Head Start as an eight-week summer program to provide preschool children from low-income families with a comprehensive program to meet their emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs.

During his six-year presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson signed a combined total of over 60 education bills. In a very real sense, he was America's first ``Education President.''

After leaving office, President Johnson continued his involvement in education by teaching students while he wrote his memoirs.

President Johnson passed away on January 22, 1973, and even though it's been 34 years since his passing, he still doesn't have a Federal building in the District of Columbia named after him.

I believe it is time that President Johnson's distinguished service, and particularly, his outstanding work on behalf of education, be recognized in our Nation's capital.

Naming the Department of Education headquarters in Washington, DC, as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building is a fitting honor for this smalltown Texas teacher who, after decades of service, went on to become our ``Education President.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate so much the leadership of the Senator from California. We have talked about this many times, ever since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security being created by Congress and requested by the President. But the fact is, I think the distinguished Senator from California has laid out the case very well. We have certain areas that, with our intelligence and with the activities that have been uncovered, we know are high-risk areas.

It is in the interest of all Americans, of every State, that we allow the Department of Homeland Security, with its intelligence grid, to determine where the needs are greatest from a risk perspective. That is exactly what the Feinstein amendment does. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn; Senator Feinstein; Senator Boxer. Many States that have the problems that we see are understanding of the need for this amendment.

I will give you one example. Texas is, as Senator Feinstein said, the second largest State in population, the second largest State in area as well. We are second behind Alaska in area and second behind California in population. But more important than that is we have many areas that could be terrorist targets. In particular, I point out the ports, and the Port of Houston especially. Texas has 29 ports. Four of these are among the 10 busiest in the Nation. The Port of Houston is one of the most important ports in the world. It ranks first in the United States in foreign waterborne tonnage, second in total tonnage. It is the sixth largest in the world. It is also home to one of the biggest petrochemical complexes in the world. It is also part of our Nation's U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the world's largest oil stockpile.

Due to the volume of hazardous materials, a terrorist attack in the Port of Houston would be an enormous disaster. An attack in the Port of Houston could disrupt our Nation's energy supply, delivering a blow to our economy at a time when we cannot afford such a disruption. It has been estimated that as much as 18 percent of our Nation's refined petroleum products come through the Port of Houston chemical complex.

We saw what happened after Katrina and Rita came ashore in 2005, where America's energy coast was heavily damaged. Imagine the impact to the economy if 18 percent of our refining capacity was disrupted. It would be a huge economic and financial and, of course, human loss.

The amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Feinstein would require that Federal homeland security funds be allocated to States according to a risk-based assessment. Of course, that is the way these funds should be allocated. It would cover the major first responder grant program administered by the Homeland Security Department. It is only by doing this that all of our country and the people of our country will be the most safe. It is also consistent with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to distribute homeland security assistance based upon threat and vulnerability assessment.

This amendment is aligned with the Department of Homeland Security's goals for the increased allocation of grant funding based on protecting national priorities. I hope that all of our colleagues will see that protecting our Nation's highest priority areas will be in the interest of every American, rather than getting into the State-by-State squabbles, when, frankly, the big States usually lose because there are fewer big State votes in the Senate than small States. So if we go to the parochial interests of people from their States wanting more security grants, it is going to be hard to do the right thing.

I submit to my colleagues that we should be looking at where the terrorists might strike and hurt all of our citizens, and that should be the basis upon which these risk-based grants would be awarded to the States.

I thank my colleague from California for taking this initiative because it is so important for our country that this amendment be passed.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join our distinguished Majority and Minority Leaders in introducing and cosponsoring the America COMPETES Act. This is an essential and important first step in addressing critical challenges facing our Nation in an increasingly competitive global economy. America must be a leader in scientific research and education. It is in the best interest of both our national and economic security.

This bill renews and expands our national focus on strengthening key areas of research, education and innovation. It is the product of a truly bipartisan effort, undertaken with the blessing and encouragement of the Senate leadership and by the leadership of the three principal committees with jurisdiction over these matters: the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Mr. President, I am proud to be part of this bipartisan initiative to provide new resources to support these competitiveness programs.

This legislation increases research investment by doubling the authorized funding levels for the National Science Foundation (NSF) from approximately $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. It doubles funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science over 5 years, from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Another vital focus of the bill is to strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and critical foreign languages. It authorizes competitive grants to States to promote better coordination of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in post-secondary education, the workforce and the U.S. Armed Forces. Another key emphasis is strengthening the skills of thousands of math and science teachers through support for the Teachers Institutes for the 21st Century Program at NSF.

As Ranking Member of the Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, and a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, I am especially pleased that this legislation ensures that both NASA and NSF are able to expand their strong traditional roles in fostering technological and scientific excellence. The language we have crafted increases essential NASA funding to support basic research and foster new innovation by calling for full use of existing budget authority that we provided within the 2005 NASA Authorization Act. Under the terms of this legislation and the previous authorization, the Congress could provide an additional $1.4 billion dollars in fiscal year 2008 for application towards these activities, above what has been requested. By directing NASA's full participation in inter-agency efforts for competitiveness and innovation, this legislation points the way for the Administration to now make use of that additional authority in supporting projects that can help meet these important competitiveness and innovation goals.

This bill represents an important first step in our efforts to meet the increasing challenges to our Nation's competitive posture. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this bill and working with us at the appropriate time to ensure its passage by this body and its enactment into law.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join our distinguished Majority and Minority Leaders in introducing and cosponsoring the America COMPETES Act. This is an essential and important first step in addressing critical challenges facing our Nation in an increasingly competitive global economy. America must be a leader in scientific research and education. It is in the best interest of both our national and economic security.

This bill renews and expands our national focus on strengthening key areas of research, education and innovation. It is the product of a truly bipartisan effort, undertaken with the blessing and encouragement of the Senate leadership and by the leadership of the three principal committees with jurisdiction over these matters: the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Mr. President, I am proud to be part of this bipartisan initiative to provide new resources to support these competitiveness programs.

This legislation increases research investment by doubling the authorized funding levels for the National Science Foundation (NSF) from approximately $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. It doubles funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science over 5 years, from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Another vital focus of the bill is to strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and critical foreign languages. It authorizes competitive grants to States to promote better coordination of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in post-secondary education, the workforce and the U.S. Armed Forces. Another key emphasis is strengthening the skills of thousands of math and science teachers through support for the Teachers Institutes for the 21st Century Program at NSF.

As Ranking Member of the Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, and a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, I am especially pleased that this legislation ensures that both NASA and NSF are able to expand their strong traditional roles in fostering technological and scientific excellence. The language we have crafted increases essential NASA funding to support basic research and foster new innovation by calling for full use of existing budget authority that we provided within the 2005 NASA Authorization Act. Under the terms of this legislation and the previous authorization, the Congress could provide an additional $1.4 billion dollars in fiscal year 2008 for application towards these activities, above what has been requested. By directing NASA's full participation in inter-agency efforts for competitiveness and innovation, this legislation points the way for the Administration to now make use of that additional authority in supporting projects that can help meet these important competitiveness and innovation goals.

This bill represents an important first step in our efforts to meet the increasing challenges to our Nation's competitive posture. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this bill and working with us at the appropriate time to ensure its passage by this body and its enactment into law.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment, as they are talking about the way to proceed further, to read a letter I have read every year since I have been in the Senate on or around March 2, which is Texas Independence Day. Today is the 171st anniversary of the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence. This is a document that declares that Texas would be a free and independent republic. This is a tradition that was started by my colleague, Senator John Tower. It is a most historic time for Texas because we celebrate Texas Independence Day every year because we know that fighting for freedom has made a difference in what our State has become. We love our history. We were a republic for 10 years, and then we came into the United States as a State.

The defense of the Alamo by 189 courageous men, who were outnumbered 10 to 1, was a key battle in the Texas Revolution. The sacrifice of Colonel William Barret Travis and his men made possible General Sam Houston's ultimate victory at San Jacinto, which secured independence for Texas. Sam Houston and Thomas Rusk, who was the Secretary of War for the Republic of Texas, were the first two United States Senators to serve from the State of Texas.

I will read the letter that was sent by William Barret Travis from the Alamo, asking for arms.

Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a

thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have

sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours

and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender

at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the

sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with

a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the

wall--I shall never surrender or retreat.

Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism

and of everything dear to the American character, to come to

our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving

reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or

four thousand in four or five days. If this call is

neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as

possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due

to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death.

William Barret Travis,

Lt. Col., Commander.

As everyone knows that battle did continue. Colonel Travis did not receive any help, but it was the delay of those brave soldiers, numbering under 200, that allowed Sam Houston to reinforce his own army and take a stand at the battle of San Jacinto that happened April 21 of that year and did, in fact, determine that Texas would become an independent republic.

Madam President, the first reason to vote no on this motion to proceed is that we have no ability to amend or an alternative that would be allowed by the majority to reflect a different point of view. When I hear people on the other side say don't let the minority thwart the efforts of the majority, what the majority is saying is we only want one resolution, our resolution. Whatever happened to amendments? Whatever happened to the ability to have alternative resolutions?

This is the tenth time in this very short period that this Congress has been in session that cloture has been used to stifle minority rights. It is unprecedented in this body. I hope we will go to a time when the Senate will be able to work together in a bipartisan way, agree and disagree civilly, have the ability to exercise minority rights, and then have a majority vote. We don't have to have only one procedure that allows for one view but does not allow for alternatives and amendments. That is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate.

The second reason to vote no on this motion is the resolution itself. The resolution says we support the troops who are there now and the troops who were there in the past but not those who will come in the future. Presumably the majority is saying that we will not support future troops because they don't support the President's plan. But troops who are rotating in to replace troops leaving would also not be supported. Since when do we select which members of the armed services we will support and which ones we will not in the middle of a mission? It is untenable on its face. We should never allow this flawed resolution to go forward without any alternative and without any amendments.

The third reason we should use every procedural avenue to derail this resolution is, we are undercutting the Commander in Chief and the troops who are on the mission right now. This is a rare departure for the Senate to undercut a mission of our military while troops are in harm's way performing the mission with a nonbinding resolution. The purpose of doing this can only be to undercut the Commander in Chief to the rest of the world because it will not stop the mission itself.

As was said earlier today, there is not a Member of the Senate who doesn't believe this is a risky proposition. It is. We are all worried about it. I have talked to General Petraeus about it, as have many of my colleagues. How, General Petraeus, do you see this working? He is the commander and he is the one who is putting this proposal together to fight a type of war we have never had to fight before, with an enemy that is willing to kill themselves in order to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis.

We have had to adjust; there is no doubt about it. I don't think anybody is saying that we believe we are in a good situation in Iraq. But the idea that we would pass a nonbinding resolution which undercuts our troops who are valiantly performing the mission is something I cannot remember that we have ever done.

I will quote from the Senate Armed Services hearing when Senator Lieberman asked General Petraeus if such a resolution, a nonbinding resolution condemning the strategy, would give the enemy encouragement, some clear expression that the American people were divided. General Petraeus answered: ``That is correct, sir.''

Yes, the American people are divided. It is a very different matter for the Senate to pass a resolution with no alternative that says we support the troops who are there now and the ones who served in the past but not those who will be coming after the resolution is passed. It is unthinkable.

I hope we will come to our senses. I hope we will be able to talk freely, to debate but not to pass a resolution that says to the world, to our enemies, as well as our allies, we do not have faith in those who would go to perform a mission going forward, faith in the military who created this plan.

I hope the Senate doesn't pass this. I hope we will have an agreement that will allow alternatives, as we have always done since I have been in the Senate, and many years before me. I hope our leaders will be able to sit down and craft a resolution that opens the process so that everyone will have a voice, not just a few in the majority. Maybe it is 51. Maybe it is 52. Maybe it is 53. But we should have 41 Senators standing up for an alternative resolution that would allow other people to have the ability to vote for the support of our troops, whether they are there now, whether they were there in the past, or whether they will be there in the future. That is the difference between this resolution the majority is trying to get passed without any alternative or any amendment, and what we would put forward, which is to say: We will support all the troops today or tomorrow, and we will win this war, for there is no substitute for victory, if our children are going to live in freedom.

I yield the floor.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the continuing resolution before the Senate, H. J. Res. 20, to point out some of the flaws in the bill. Because we have the potential for a Government shutdown, I believe it is my responsibility to vote for the legislation.

I am reluctant to be in the position of voting for a $463 billion spending bill with no capability for amendment. We passed appropriations bills out of the Senate last year. They reflected the Senate's priorities. Yet this measure changes many of the priorities that were set in last year's bills, and we haven't had the opportunity for hearings, committee markups, or to offer any amendments from the floor. That is not the way the Senate has done business, certainly not the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee has been quite bipartisan throughout the time I have been a member.

I don't like to see this type of precedent being set. The last time Republicans took over from Democrats, there were 11 appropriations bills not yet finished. We didn't do a continuing resolution and fill up the tree so there couldn't be amendments. We did an Omnibus appropriations bill. We debated it for 6 days. We timed it so that people had full access to amendments and the process. We had 100 amendments. That was 2003. I am very concerned about this type of process. But we are now 1 day before the end of the previous continuing resolution, which means we could see a Government shutdown if we can't come to agreement.

I said last week that we had time for amendments and to confer with the House. The amendment I put forward with 27 cosponsors, the Hutchison-Inhofe amendment, would have fully restored the $3.1 billion that was taken out of military construction that was preparation for the movement of troops home from overseas, as well as many other base changes that were going to be made. I asked for the restoration of that with 27 cosponsors, and my amendment was ruled out of order.

I know there was bipartisan support for those many military construction projects. And since I am the ranking member and previously the chairman of that subcommittee, I know how important they are. I know they were so important that the chairman of all the services, plus the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote a letter saying: Please do not fund with a continuing resolution the military construction projects because there will not be enough to fully cover our needs. The Secretary of Defense said the same thing.

We are not going to be able to do what is right for our military because $3 billion was taken out of the Senate-passed appropriations bill and converted to other projects. It was spread around throughout the other agencies, and the military construction was the pay-for. I tried to correct that, and I have to say that the distinguished majority leader did make an effort to work with the House to make my amendment in order. He was not able to do that. I accept that, and I accept that he tried. I do believe he tried. I think Senator Reid did make an effort. But we have a process here which is not one anyone can be proud of; that is, a $463 billion spending bill, taking $3 billion away from military construction, putting it into other priorities, and not allowing amendments. It is not right, and I protested.

I am going to vote for the bill. I think we have to do it.

I am very concerned about the NASA funding. There is money taken out of the ongoing, very important priority of getting the crew return vehicle that is the successor to the shuttle online on time. I cannot imagine we would take money out of that program, which was done in this bill, which would potentially delay us years down the road from having the crew return vehicle that is set to replace the shuttle. The shuttle is set to go out of existence in 2010, possibly 2011. We need the shuttle to finish the space station. But the Administrator, Michael Griffin, has said we need to retire the shuttle as soon as possible. We have to finish the space station. The new crew return vehicle will not be able to carry big parts up to the space station. It will not be heavy enough. But we need to close the gap so we don't have a time when the United States is not able to send people into space, and that is what is going to happen if the crew return vehicle is not able to be produced when the shuttle goes out of existence.

I think we are putting NASA in jeopardy. I met with Senator Bill Nelson, the chairman of the NASA Subcommittee, of which I am ranking member. We met with Michael Griffin and members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee who assured Michael Griffin he would have the ability to transfer money out of other accounts to go there. But I am concerned about it. Why was the money moved out of that account in the first place? That doesn't seem like the proper way to do business. But we are going to watch that very carefully.

Senator Nelson and I are very bipartisan in our approach to NASA. We both believe it is most important for us to have human spaceflight capabilities for the United States of America. It is a national security issue as well as a scientific issue that we stay in the forefront of science, and the lead we have had by going into space early is unmatched by any other country. Our lead is so important for our national security and the dominance we have had in space. The ability we have had to guide missiles from space is a phenomenal advantage America has been able to achieve by conquering space. If we don't have the ability to put humans in space for some period of time-- 3 to 5 years--what are we going to do? Are we going to go and beg the Russians? Who knows, by 2010 or 2011, whether the Russians would even give us space on their shuttles, much less give us the accommodations we would need and perhaps the secrecy we would need.

I am concerned about this bill. If we were not facing a potential shutoff of the Government and many important programs, including benefits to veterans and military pay, I would vote no, just as I did vote against cloture because I thought we still had time to do this right. We should have had time

to do it right, but we didn't, so we are faced with the Hobson's choice of shutting down the Government or trying to do this bill in the right way with no amendments. I don't consider it a good choice.

Mr. President, I will vote for the bill. I do not think this is the Senate's finest hour. I do believe the Senate majority leader made an effort. I think he heard the merits of our bipartisan amendment with 27 sponsors. I hope he will, as he has promised, work with us to get the full funding of these military construction projects in the supplemental appropriations bill. However, we have the chance right now. I hate to give up the bird in the hand for one that might see some delays, that might see many changes. I will be right on top of it. As the ranking member of this subcommittee, I will certainly expect that we have the ability to amend the appropriations bill that comes forward as a supplemental, just as we have always had in this body. I hope we will not have to worry that we are going to have a filled up amendment tree and cloture filed on the supplemental appropriations bill.

We can do business the right way in the Senate. We have for most of the years of this great institution. I will be disappointed if we start seeing us bring bills to the floor and not allow amendments--there is no reason to have 100 Members if that is the way we are going to do business. We could just have 51 or we could just have 1 if all the decisions are going to be made in that fashion.

That is not what the Constitution intended, and I hope it is certainly not what the new majority intends as a way to do business.

I am going to hold out hope that the word is kept, that we can have the amendment process, that we can fund the military construction projects that are so important for quality of life and training capabilities for the great men and women who are serving our country and putting themselves forward to give up their lives, if necessary, for freedom for future generations of Americans.

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