Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we mourn the loss of a great Texan and certainly a trailblazer in our State. Former Governor Ann Richards passed away last night after a long battle with cancer. Today, I want to pay tribute to her because she really made a mark on our State and our Nation.

Ann Richards was the second woman to hold office in Texas as Governor and the first to be elected in her own right. When she was Governor of Texas, I was State treasurer, and we certainly had a very strong and positive working relationship. She embodied the Texas spirit as well as anyone I have ever known, and her enthusiasm for life was evident in everything she did.

I didn't agree with her on issues--sometimes I did and sometimes I didn't--but you could always respect her because she spoke straight. She told you what she could do and she told you what she couldn't do. She gave some pretty good advice along the way.

She could have chosen another career--that of entertainer--and been quite successful. She was one of the best. But instead, she chose politics--and she chose to try to make a difference in government, in our State and Nation. She was successful at that as well.

Ann Richards was born on September 1, 1933 in Lakeview, TX, very near Waco. She did grow up in Waco.

She graduated from Baylor University in 1954. She attended on a debate scholarship.

She was the mother to four children and the grandmother to eight.

One of the things she will always be remembered for is how she tried to bring women into public office--and certainly to the table--to make sure that women were represented well.

I was so struck with her after she lost the Governor's race. She, of course, lost the Governor's race the second time she ran against Governor George Bush, who became President George Bush. But I think it was the way she handled the loss that showed the real spirit that she had. She just turned the page and kept right on going.

She had a career in New York and never gave up her home in Texas. But she took New York by storm too. She was a commentator on television, always with the witty saying that people would remember.

I remember after she left the Governor's office, I was in Istanbul, Turkey. I walked into one of the markets there, and who did I see looking at rugs but Ann Richards. She was having the best time. Whatever she was doing at the time was her total absorption. She was finding out everything about those rugs.

I saw her sometimes up here in Washington when we would be working on something that would be for Texas where we would agree. She would take her side and I would take my side, working for the same cause but trying to make sure that we covered all of our respective bases.

I knew, of course, that she had cancer. I wrote her a note after the diagnosis became public.

She wrote me a note back. It was vintage Ann Richards. It was: This is just one thing you get through in life, and I'm going to get through it. She was very upbeat, very positive, just the way she would always be, tackling the task of the moment and doing it with gusto.

I did not know she was so near the end. I was sorry that it came so quickly. She will be someone whom no Texan who has ever known her or who has lived in Texas during her service will ever forget. I want to make sure the tributes to her are worthy of the contribution she made.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to voice my support for the Senate resolution designating September 16, 2006, through October 16, 2006, as Hispanic Heritage Month. Hispanic Americans are our largest ethnic minority, and I am a cosponsor of this resolution because I believe it is an appropriate way to recognize the contributions made by our Hispanic American community.

Hispanics have migrated to the United States from all over the world. They have added to our national security by serving valiantly in the U.S. Armed Forces; many have paid the ultimate price and sacrificed their lives for freedom.

In my home State of Texas, Hispanic women and men shaped our Republic in its early years, and to this day, subsequent generation of Texans continue to enjoy the liberty for which our Texan and American ancestors fought so courageously.

Americans of Hispanic origin have contributed to the econmy with their notable work ethic and have served honorably at all levels of government. Three of my Senate colleagues find their roots in Hispanic origins.

It is because of these contributions and their love of equality, justice, and independence that I am proud to support the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, and my other Senate colleagues in designating September 16, 2006, through October 16, 2006, as Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, amendment No. 4931, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, my amendment would increase the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers by 275. This would bring the total of new U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in this bill to 1,000.

In my State of Texas, the Customs and Border Protection officers are assigned in the Houston region are responsible for the seaports along the Texas coast from Port Arthur to the Port of Corpus Christi. Some of these officers are also assigned to Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The CBP officers work at the Port of Houston in the morning and leave the port in the afternoon to go work at the Houston Intercontinental Airport. Sharing these U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers between port duties and airport duties is unacceptable.

With increased security demands being placed on our Nation's ports and the desire to increase the number of containers inspected as they enter the United States, local port officials have long expressed the need for additional personnel in order to carry out the tasks that are so critical to our Nation's economy. With an unprecedented 11 million containers entering the United States annually, cargo doesn't stop when there isn't a Customs agent there to inspect the incoming shipments. What happens, of course, is that the cargo is not inspected. So I hope we can pass my amendment.

I believe the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 is a very good bill, and I particularly commend the leaders of the respective Senate committees for working together to bring all of the port security bills that have been introduced in Congress into one comprehensive bill so that we can address this issue.

In the last 5 years, we have significantly strengthened our national defense. I think we saw yesterday that so many things have been done to keep our country safe and secure, because yesterday, of course, was the 5-year anniversary of the attack of 9/11. We have engaged the enemy before they have reached America since 9/11 of 2001. We have improved our homeland security. We have passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement officials the tools they need and the resources necessary to protect our Nation. We must remain vigilant in pursuing terrorists who seek to harm our country. An integral aspect of our national defense and our economy is the security of our ports.

Our Nation has more than 360 federally regulated, thriving ports, any one of which could be a target for our enemies. One terrorist incident at a U.S. port could impact an entire coast, and the financial impact of closing one of these ports could be devastating.

Texas is home to 29 ports, including 4 of 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, and 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 also disrupt our Nation's energy supply, delivering a blow to our economy at a time when we cannot afford such a disruption.

For years, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for more stringent port security. In the 107th Congress, my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Kyl, Snowe, and I introduced the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002. This bill called for container seals and tracking numbers for goods being shipped to the United States. It also called for a plan to increase inspection of merchandise at foreign facilities as well as for a shipment profiling plan to track containers and shipments of merchandise imported into the United States that could be a threat to security.

In the 107th Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act. This bipartisan bill was landmark legislation that closed a large hole in our national security. I was an original cosponsor of this bill as well. However, when it passed the Senate, I made the point of saying the legislation only laid the foundation for port security and more needed to be done.

The following year, I introduced the Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. This was comprehensive legislation, and I am pleased that many of the key provisions in that bill, such as the random inspection of containers, the establishment of minimum standards and procedures for securing containers in transit to the United States, and the implementation of an improved container targeting system, have been incorporated into the legislation before us today. I thank Chairman Stevens and Cochairman Inouye for working with me in the Commerce Committee on these provisions.

In addition, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have added so much to make this bill even more powerful and more helpful in our overall goal of securing the ports in our country.

This legislation calls for the Department of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan for random inspection of containers in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection. This significant provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan to conduct random searches of containers in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection of the containers as required by law. This would allow the U.S. Customs inspectors to do more at the point of embarkation with the random sampling of different cargo that has been inspected.

Another important provision in this legislation is the establishment of minimum standards for securing containers in transit to the United States. The Secretary of Homeland Security is encouraged to promote and establish those minimum standards for the security of containers moving through the entire international supply chain. This is a key element and I am hopeful the Secretary will take this action. We cannot inspect every piece of cargo, or our international commerce as we know it today would come to a grinding halt. However, if we have better technology, such as a seal which is tamper-proof, we will know when the contents of the cargo have been altered.

My amendment would add to the numbers of Customs and Border Protection officers. A thousand new officers, when you have more than 360 federally regulated ports in this country, is not asking a lot.

We must do more. We must do more at the point of embarkation, the point of origin, at the point where ships come into our U.S. waters, and at the ports themselves. We need more inspectors to be authorized in order to do that.

I am asking that my colleagues support my amendment to raise this number to 1,000. We cannot afford, as we are passing this major legislation, not to do it right, not to authorize everything we need and give the Department of Homeland Security the tools they need to do the job of securing our ports.

We have done a lot. We have passed maritime security laws since 2001, since our country was attacked. But this bill adds to the measures that we know are lacking in the system today. We are taking more steps every week, every month, and every year to secure our country.

I thank Chairman Stevens and Cochairman Inouye, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their leadership in this area. I appreciate that they have come together. It is very difficult in this Congress, when more than one committee has jurisdiction over a major part of the Government of this country. In homeland security we find that the Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee do have overlapping jurisdiction.

This bill could have been brought down with in-fighting among the committees, but it has not been brought down because of the leadership of the committees on a bipartisan basis. I appreciate what we are doing today. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, while we are waiting, I would like to respond to the Senator from Maine and thank her. She and I have had a conversation about the situation at the Port of Houston. It is particularly dire, in that it is such a busy port and one that has so many unique features. I think the fact that she is supporting the amendment will go a long way toward getting us to the point we need to be.

I think her point is very well taken that giving the Secretary of Homeland Security the capability to reallocate personnel within this mandate that we are giving is also the right thing to do, just as we should be allocating our resources for homeland security based on terror threats, based on needs, not based on politics or anything else. We need to secure our homeland, and we need to do it in a professional way. I think this bill goes a long way in a very bipartisan spirit toward giving our Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs to do the job. I am very hopeful we will be able to agree to my amendment and go forward to conference and send this bill to the President very shortly.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment No. 4931.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kyl and DeWine as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It increases the number of Customs and Border Protection officers by 275 for a total of 1,000.

In my home State of Texas, where the Port of Houston is the sixth largest port in the world, we have officers who have to leave the port at noon and go out to the airport. Because of this, we don't have enough officers to cover our ports.

This amendment will add just 275 officers for a total of 1,000 new officers.

I think this is an amendment that is very important to add for the overall security of our ports. I urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. President, as the Senate prepares for final passage of H.R. 5631, the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill, I would like to thank my colleagues for accepting an amendment that I cosponsored which addresses the growing concern of a number of veterans returning from combat operations overseas that may have traumatic brain injury, TBI.

According to reports, preliminary research by the center shows that about 10 percent of all service personnel, and up to 20 percent of frontline personnel, suffer concussions during combat tours. Like any medical condition, early diagnosis is the key to successful intervention and treatment.

Unfortunately, many are not being properly screened for this serious and debilitating condition. TBI clinically presents many of the same signs and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. These two serious but very different medical conditions require separate and distinct treatment programs.

Because it is so important that our veteran care facilities have the proper training to distinguish between these two illnesses, I included language in the fiscal year 2007 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill requesting the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a separate education program to better diagnose

Mr. President, I was listening to the debate, and I heard the Democratic leader call this a ``do-nothing Congress.'' He said that several times. I have heard it before. Yet here we have a bill that will go directly to the President. This is a bill that brings together pieces of legislation that have been worked on for years in this body, a chance to score a huge victory for all sides, that gives a minimum wage increase of over $2 that we have been trying to do, along with tax cuts for small businesses so that it is a balance for years in this Congress. We have been trying to permanently ease the burden of the death tax ever since I got to this Senate.

It is the small businesses; it is not Bill Gates, it is not Warren Buffett who is worried about the death tax. It is the farmer who is going to have to sell his farm when he dies or his children who will because his children can't pay the taxes because the farm is more valuable than they can earn and produce to pay the taxes. It is the small business that has been built by a family. It is the restaurant owner that is going to have to sell the business that we are fixing tonight.

This is a bill that would take away the ability to call this a ``do- nothing Congress.''

Why is it that almost every Republican is going to vote for it and almost every Democrat is going to vote against it?

I think this is an excuse to make this a ``do-nothing Congress'' and we are turning our backs on the middle class and the poor people of this country who depend on the minimum wage and death tax relief.

I thank the leader for his comments and his offer of assistance. I am told that the House majority leadership is aware of this matter and has given a commitment to work with interested colleagues to reach a resolution that assures no bias on the part of Congress toward any of the four airlines involved in this issue.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Kansas to yield for a unanimous consent request that I be placed in line after the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Washington to speak on this bill?

If the Senator yields, can I then make that proposal?

I ask unanimous consent I be recognized after the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. I was very encouraged by the strong vote to proceed to debate on this bill. I hope we can do this for the people of America to begin to see the energy prices in this country start coming down.

I am a cosponsor of this bill. It is a compromise and reflects much hard work from all of the gulf coast producing States, including Florida. I especially want to mention Senators Landrieu and Vitter from Louisiana, who have pushed for a long time for this kind of proposal.

The people of America are not interested in political rhetoric. They want Congress to take action on the rising energy costs in this country. This is a potential near-term solution for a long-term problem.

For too long, we have neglected our own resources in this country, including those in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill will bring access to more than 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and natural gas, with the production in leases 181 and 181 south. It will provide access to over 1.26 billion barrels of oil in these areas.

To put this in perspective, the average annual fuel consumption for cars and light trucks, according to the Federal Highway Administration, is 14.5 barrels of gasoline; that is, 607 gallons. This 1.26 billion barrels of oil is enough energy to fuel approximately 87 million vehicles for a year.

We cannot afford to stand by and allow our import costs of oil to continue to increase. Since 2001, those prices have gone up 150 percent. Additionally, the bill will provide access to 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

To put that figure in perspective, it is six times the amount of LNG we import every year, three times the amount of gas currently in storage, and enough natural gas to serve 107 million households.

America's yearly natural gas bill has risen from $50 billion to $200 billion over the last 6 years. This increase impacts farmers, ranchers, business owners and households. We must continue to discover and support alternative energy proposals. Congress has done that. Congress passed a bill last year, signed by the President, that focused on other sources of energy besides oil and gas. We gave credits for solar power, biofuel, ethanol, wind energy, all of which are renewable sources of energy that are safe and environmentally clean. That has made a difference. Even wind energy has now become almost 10 percent of the electricity used in my home State of Texas. We know if we put together a number of different kinds of renewable sources of energy such as corn and soybeans, it can be an alternative that takes a tremendous burden off oil and gas, which has been the largest supplier.

I am also encouraged that some of our largest integrated oil companies are moving toward those kinds of alternative fuels. I opened a biodiesel plant

in Galveston, TX, a couple of weeks ago. That is a step in the right direction. It was being opened by Chevron. We are doing some good things.

The global demand for oil and natural gas is rising at a rapid rate. That is what is causing the prices to go up. We have to look to our own resources. One of those major resources is the Gulf of Mexico. I also hope we eventually will look at other resources, such as Alaska, which contains comparable resources to that of the Gulf of Mexico.

We can do something ourselves with the resources of our own country if we combine the research and new emerging sources of energy as well as the old standard oil and natural gas sources we also have. If we don't act, we are jeopardizing our economic and national security.

This bill also helps the States that are allowing drilling to mitigate the costs this production brings to their States. In my State of Texas, we have 367 miles of coastline which has sustained impacts from production. Texas has helped finance and support much of the gulf coast production. The entire Nation has benefitted from lower fuel costs due to these investments. This production, however, has had an impact on my State and the coastal areas of my State. This bill will begin to help mitigate those impacts. It provides the gulf producing States, beginning in 2007, with 37.5 percent of revenues. Fifty percent will go to the U.S. Treasury, and the rest, 12.5 percent, will be shared among all the States of our country. Every State is going to benefit from passing this legislation.

Today, a barrel of oil is selling above $74.

Every American is feeling the impact. This is a piece of legislation that can have a very positive impact very quickly. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let's send it to the President. Those leases will soon be ready for bid. It is our responsibility to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the House has passed and sent to the Senate, H. Con. Res. 448, which commends NASA and the crew of the Space Shuttle Discovery on the successful completion of the STS-121 mission earlier this week.

I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to join with me and provide the Senate concurrence to this resolution. I also note that the House passed this resolution on July 20, the 37th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, adding special significance to the action we are being asked to endorse.

The resolution recognizes and applauds the very successful STS-121 mission, which accomplished all of its test objectives regarding on- orbit repair procedures, as well as delivering 14 tons of equipment and supplies to the International Space Station, and a third space station crew member. This restores the space station to its full crew complement since the Columbia accident and allows for additional crew time to be spent doing on-orbit research.

The mission also demonstrated that changes made to the external tank, while still not fully completed, resulted in the least amount of foam shedding during lift-off and the cleanest, most undamaged underside of the shuttle yet seen.

The successful completion of this second Return-to-Flight test mission is especially significant because it means the Shuttle Program is once again on the threshold of completing the important work of assembling the International Space Station.

If all goes as expected, the next mission to the Space Station will take place in just a little over 5 weeks from now, near the end of August. That mission will deliver additional supplies and equipment to the space station, including a new structural truss element and an additional set of solar arrays. Once the solar arrays are deployed, they will not only provide additional power to the space station, which can be used for an increasing number of scientific experiments during the ongoing assembly period, but they will begin to make the space station one of the brightest objects in the night sky. By the time the space station is completed, it will be brighter than any other object in the night sky besides the Moon, an ever-present reminder that we are a species no longer confined to the Earth and able to make use of that unique environment of low-Earth orbit for research that can benefit all of humanity.

I applaud the crew of Discovery and the team at NASA who all worked together to restore this Nation's ability

to conduct the human exploration and utilization of space.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to talk as in morning business regarding the resolution that will be on the Senate floor later tonight or tomorrow regarding condemning Hezbollah.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a resolution the Senate is expected to soon consider, and which I have cosponsored, along with Senator Frist, who is the lead sponsor, and Senators Reid, Biden, Santorum, Nelson of Florida, Kyl, Bond, and Levin. It is a resolution that condemns Hezbollah and expresses support for Israel's right to self defense.

All of us are watching in horror what is happening there, and I think it is important that the United States Senate speak forcefully in support of our President. The G-8 leaders have spoken this week to condemn Hezbollah and terrorist activities and to ask the Government of Lebanon to help find the Israeli soldiers who are being held hostage and free them and to disarm Hezbollah.

Mr. President, there should be no misunderstanding. Israel has fully complied with the United Nations mandate. They have no forces in Lebanon and yet they have continued to withstand attack after attack from Hezbollah.

We watched with sadness last year when Lebanon's former Prime Minister was assassinated by terrorists.

I think we have to put the blame where we believe it lies. We know Iran and Syria are infiltrating Lebanon with support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

We know Hezbollah and Hamas are committed to the destruction of Israel. Since 1948 it has been forced to continually fight for its very existence, and yet in the middle of this it has stood as a democratic form of government, with a free economy. Israel has never backed away from its fundamental commitment to freedom and human liberty.

So, Mr. President, I think this is something the United States Senate should stand firm with this bipartisan resolution that says we do support our President and the G-8 leaders and condemn Hezbollah. We encourage the Government of Lebanon, to stop these attacks on Israel, and locate and return the soldiers who have been taken hostage. Let's add our voice to that of the unified leaders of the world who are saying this should not be allowed to happen.

We must speak together, we must stay together, we must support Israel's right to self-defense and understand that they should have the support of a unified world community, saying to the terrorists and the governments that are supporting the terrorists--Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria supporting them--that the world is not going to sit by and let people be terrorized. This is a global war on terror, and we must speak.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for allowing me to speak. I know I am speaking during the stem cell debate. The resolution will be considered soon, and I wanted to speak on the floor because I think it is so important what is happening in the world today, and we must speak as a unified voice in the Senate.

Mr. President, I have listened to part of the previous presentations. I think the impression has been given that if we just had a Democratic Senate we could accomplish so much more. But I think in the process of making such a presentation many things have been overlooked or not quite stated in a factual way.

Let me start by saying what has been said--that Republicans have cut $12 billion from college student aid, frozen Pell grants for higher education. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican Congress, since President Bush has been in office, has dramatically increased the absolute commitment to helping lower income students, many who are first-time college graduates in their family, and we are helping at the Federal level to an extent never seen before.

For instance, Pell grants will grow by $240 million. The number of recipients will increase by 59,000 to 5.3 million students. Funding for Pell grants rose from $8.8 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006. In 2006, the Department of Education expects to make over $77 billion in grants, loans, and other aid to over 10 million students. It is a fact that we are increasing Pell grants. We are increasing the number of students who are eligible for Pell grants. We need to be honest when we are talking about what the difference would be if there were a Democratic Senate versus the Republican accomplishments.

In addition, the Department of Education in 2006 will make or guarantee more than $60 billion in new student loans, a $4 billion increase over the previous year. That is a huge accomplishment in just one year.

In addition, one of the things this Senate is focusing on currently is trying to get more of our students into the areas of math, science, and engineering because that is where the jobs are in the future. To make sure our students from low-income areas are able to pursue this type of career and to give them special attention, we have added a SMART grants program for Pell-eligible students that will give them a bonus if they pursue a degree in math or science, or a foreign language deemed to be critical for national security. We have taken steps so low-income students, only Pell grant-eligible students, will get this bonus to move in the direction of good jobs in our country.

It is important to stay on the facts and talk about some of the things we have tried to do. ``Tried to do is key.'' Many of the things I have heard in the last hour about what the Democrats would do if they were in charge were somewhat amusing because we have tried to do those very things; it is the other side of the aisle who has kept us from achieving those goals. Consider association health plans--small business health plans that would give millions of workers the opportunity to have affordable health care. Because they work for small businesses--maybe 10 employees or 20 employees--that employer cannot afford to offer health insurance options because the options are too expensive, and employers are not eligible for the big plans that bring the cost down.

We brought to the Senate floor, after trying for years, we passed legislation out of committee and brought to the Senate the small business health plans that would give millions of employees of small businesses the opportunity to have affordable health care. It was the Democrats, by an overwhelming majority of their caucus, who voted against association health plans again and again.

Making health care more affordable is a goal we have. One of the most important things we can do this year is to broaden the number of people who have health care coverage in our country. If the Democrats would sit down and work with us, we could do that. We cannot do it by ourselves. I am very concerned when it is implied that a Democratic Congress could produce this when it is the Democrats who have obstructed Republican initiatives.

Border security. I live in a border state. We have a northern border and a southern border. Since I came to the Senate, we have probably quadrupled the number of Border Patrol agents in both the northern and the southern sectors. We have put billions into more border control facilities, into surveillance techniques that extend the reach when you cannot have a person every mile. You cannot have a person every mile, but you can certainly extend your reach with infrared and UAVs. This is very helpful. We have put our money into this area, and we have made it a focus. Securing our border is going to continue with a Republican Congress.

Tax cuts. I have heard many people say: How can you have tax cuts when we have deficits and so many needs in our country? Let's put the facts on the table. Every time in recent history when we have had tax cuts in this country--from President Kennedy, President Reagan, and President Bush--the revenue of our country has increased. It happened again after the tax cuts of 2003. When people can keep more of the money that they have worked for and earned in their pocketbooks, they will either reinvest it in capital, which will increase jobs and prosperity and, therefore, revenue to our country; or they will save it, which does the same thing; or they will spend it and create new opportunities for jobs in the manufacturing sector.

That is exactly what has happened when the Republicans, over the objections of the Democratic caucus, did push through tax cuts giving marriage penalty relief, giving lower tax brackets for every American who pays taxes, giving a 15-percent capital gains and dividends rate, giving relief across the board to the people who are earning the money in this country that has caused a revenue increase.

Therefore, the deficit of this country is going to be $100 billion less this year than we thought might happen. If we do not continue the tax cuts, it will be a tax increase, and that will stall the economy. We will see the jobless rate rise and our economy will be adversely impacted. So tax cuts are a difference that we will see with a Republican-controlled Congress.

Now I will talk about energy. One of the things we have done in this Congress, which has not gotten very much play, is the Energy bill that was passed through the leadership of Senator Pete Domenici as chairman of the Energy Committee. For the first time in 10 years, we passed a significant Energy bill last year through this Republican-led Congress. The focus was on renewables, tax credits for renewables, increased investment in research into renewable energy.

Anyone who has filled up a gas tank, anyone who runs a small business and has higher costs of electricity and natural gas knows we have an energy crisis in this country. One of the reasons why is because we are over 60 percent dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. These foreign sources are unreliable. We need to do what Americans do. That is, stand up and take control of our destiny. That means we are going to create energy that is renewable and clean, that protects the environment, energy such as biodiesel, made from soybeans; energy such as ethanol, made from corn. Wind energy is producing almost 10 percent of the electricity in my home State of Texas and Texas is a big State. It is very important that we have the wind energy credits we passed in that tax bill because it has enhanced energy resources

in our country. This is a significant contribution to diversifying our energy sources, and it is so important for our country.

My point is this: This Republican Congress has been a steady hand at the wheel. We have supported America's commitment in the war on terror. We have made it a policy that we will not leave when our commitment is not fulfilled. And when it is, and when the generals on the ground say Iraq can secure itself and Afghanistan can do it by themselves, we will then leave. We want to do that. We do not want to stay indefinitely in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we want to keep the terrorists where they are. We will keep our commitment to lower taxes and clean energy. We will keep our commitment to the small business people who are working in America and contributing to the economy. They are the heart of our country. That is what a Republican Congress would do. That is what we are going to continue to fight for.

I hope, rather than saying a Democratic Congress would do it differently, when they have blocked so many of the things we have done, they would cross the aisle and say: Let's do these things together. We can do something bipartisan. People in this country do not care about Republicans or Democrats. They want results. We can do it if we work together across the aisle instead of making so many issues political that do not need to be.

I yield the floor.

I call up amendment No. 4377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would require the Department of Defense to clarify in the Quadrennial Defense Review the homeland defense and civil support missions of the National Guard and Reserves.

The QDR is a comprehensive examination of national defense strategy, force structure, force mobilization, and modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plans--all elements of the defense program. It is the planning that goes on every 4 years. The QDR is in process now for the next 4 years. The goal of the QDR is to determine the defense strategy of the United States and its established defense programs for the next 20 years, and it is updated every 4 years.

For decades, homeland defense has been a mission of the Department of Defense. However, only after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 did this very important mission really come to the forefront in defense planning. Unfortunately, the present QDR lacks sufficient guidance for the Guard and Reserve components in this very important mission they have.

The amendment I am proposing would require the Department of Defense to include in the QDR a definition of the homeland defense and civil support missions of the National Guard and Reserves. The Department has not really formalized the requirements for the role of the National Guard and Reserve in homeland security. We know the President has ordered the deployment of Guard and Reserve to our borders to try to secure our borders, so we need a really comprehensive look and guidance for the Reserve component, particularly the Guard, concerning their roles and how they will be able to train and equip for homeland security missions.

Today, the National Guard and Reserve must debate the merits of their initiatives and their equipment procurement. That is not the way it should be. Our Guard and Reserve do a fabulous job. They are on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan today. They have gone through several cycles of deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a Texas Guard unit in Bosnia in command and control today, continuing the peacekeeping mission there. They are doing their jobs, they are being called up at a level that is very high, but ambiguities remain in their homeland security mission.

Competition for resources continues, and there is a lack of clarity about what role the Department actually expects them to have. This omission was painfully obvious after 9/11. After Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and now with the deployment to the border, which I totally support, their mission is once again expanding. This amendment will provide the DOD with the information it needs to determine the role the National Guard and Reserves should have, must have, and will continue to have, but with more clarification, in the defense of our country.

This is a very important amendment. I believe it will add to their responsibilities, and they will be able to get the equipment and the training they need to do the jobs we are asking them to do in homeland defense and for the other civil emergencies we have.

Mr. President, I ask for the support of my colleagues for this amendment.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the National Biocontainment Lab, NBL, at the University of Texas Medical Branch, UTMB, in Galveston is an important tool in our continued fight against bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases. As a Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases Research, RCE, for Federal Region VI, UTMB's lab is able to research and develop new therapies, vaccines, and tests for microbes that might be used as weapons by terrorists, as well as naturally occurring diseases such as SARS and West Nile virus.

I was happy to support UTMB in 2003 in their efforts to establish the NBL in Galveston. In letters and conversations with Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of National Institutes of Health, I conveyed the importance of this facility and the benefits to housing the NBL at UTMB.

Once again, I am pleased to support the NBL and UTMB with this amendment. By understanding the staffing

and training requirements needed at this new facility, our doctors and scientists will be better prepared and more able to recognize a bioterrorist attack.

Amendment No. 4222

Mr. President, Social Security numbers are included on all military identification cards including the service member, military spouse, and all dependents over the age of ten. In light of the recent theft of millions of veterans' personal information from the Department of Veterans Affairs, all federal agencies must take measures to protect crucial information. To this end, I have introduced an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to conduct a feasibility study on prohibiting the use of Social Security numbers on all military identification cards.

When the Department of Defense began using Social Security numbers on identification cards in 1967, identity theft was not a problem most Americans worried about. Electronic transactions were, for the most part, non-existent, and we did not have the kind of access to personal records that we have today. By simply gaining access to someone's Social Security number, a malicious person could attempt to open a line of credit, obtain a false driver's license or passport, or completely steal another person's identity. Our military men and women should not have to worry about these problems while defending our country.

We cannot wait until an incident occurs within the Department of Defense that compromises the security of our military members. The federal government must be proactive. The feasibility study I have proposed has a reasonable finish date of six months from enactment and would give the Department ample time to study this issue and find a self-imposed solution.

Social Security numbers are not included on driver's licenses or passports. Colleges and universities are using generic numbers for student identification rather than Social Security numbers. It is time the Department of Defense provides this important safeguard for our troops.

amendment no. 4398

Mr. President, I want to start my remarks in opposition to this resolution by sharing the story of Marine First Lieutenant David Lewis from Spring, TX. Following participation in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University, he was commissioned on August 10, 2001. He wanted to serve his country, and he found very quickly after he graduated that he would have that opportunity.

Lieutenant Lewis has served two terms in Iraq, two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom I and II. During his second tour, on August 5, 2004, Lieutenant Lewis was badly wounded in Najaf, while leading his platoon of 35 Marines into conflict against a group of insurgents. A rocket- propelled grenade grazed off his helmet and exploded, leaving him blinded and severely wounded. He survived the blast, and following numerous surgeries after returning home, he has regained partial vision in one eye. He was awarded the Purple Heart, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with V for his service.

But he still wanted to serve his country. He was frustrated by the negative image of the war portrayed by the media. So Lieutenant Lewis came to Washington and applied for a job on my staff. And I am very pleased to report that he is sitting with me on the floor today, a valuable member of my staff.

Lieutenant Lewis, like so many of his brothers and sisters in the Armed Forces, has sacrificed for our country, none more than the three who were ambushed just last week and have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Private First Class Menchaca from Houston, TX, Private First Class Tucker from Madras, OR, and Specialist David Babineau from Springfield, MA. We are horrified by what we have heard of the deaths of Private First Class Menchaca and Private First Class Tucker. My thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families. But I cannot imagine anything worse than what has already happened to those two people and their families, along with Specialist Babineau and Lieutenant Lewis, I cannot imagine anything worse than for us to pass a resolution that says we are going to stop our commitment because we just can't take it anymore. It is like saying, the cause for which they have paid such a price really wasn't worth sticking with it.

This war on terror must be won at all costs. If we step back and say we are willing to walk away because times are too tough, we have jeopardized the 2,502 who have given the ultimate sacrifice in this war on terror. Furthermore, we are giving away the security of future generations. We are saying that we are not going to protect freedom because it might be too tough.

If we did this, the terrorists would surely be emboldened. They attacked us, according to Osama bin Laden, on 9/11 because of our reaction to previous attacks: The USS Cole, the bombings of our embassies in East Africa, Somalia, the bombing of Khobar Towers, and the first attacks on the World Trade Center. We treated it like this was going to be a criminal case, and we had to have justice in court. The terrorists got the message that America's attention span wouldn't last very long, not long enough certainly to see through an entire war on these people who would take away the freedom of our children.

I cannot imagine telling the terrorists that if times get too tough, if you are too horrible, if you do things that we cannot even imagine because we are a civilized society, we are going to turn around and run away. I cannot imagine saying that America will not have the stamina to stand up and fight and win a war at all costs for the freedom of future generations.

That is the message we would send to our enemies. What about the message we would send to our allies? You know, this resolution and previous resolutions have called on President Bush to get more international involvement in the war on terror. I know President Bush has tried to get international involvement, and we have international involvement. But what country would ever step up to the plate and be by the side of the United States of America in the future if we say: We are going to set a timetable, and if it gets too tough we are going to leave, but we sure appreciate your coming and being with us, until it gets too hard? That cannot be the role of the greatest country on Earth. If we show that kind of weakness, we will no longer have allies, and we will certainly have plenty of enemies.

If we establish a timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq by the end of the year or by July of next year, we are handing the enemy our playbook. We would be saying that in 194 days our commitment is going to end. Why they picked 194 days to say that our attention span would last, I don't know. But it would be 194 days for the Government of Iraq to get up and going, for the security forces to be trained, 194 days to root out the insurgency, and 194 days to stand beside our allies and by the Government that is forming in Iraq. That is not the role of the United States of America.

It has been mentioned on the floor that there is an opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday from an Iraqi adviser saying Iraq needs to learn from its mistakes and Iraq needs to stand on its own. No one wants Iraq to be able to stand on its own more than the United States of America. We have shown that. But does anyone in this body believe that Iraq is totally in control of Iraqis today? Does anyone believe there are not insurgents and agitators from other parts of the world? Al-Qaida? Iran? Other terrorist organizations that have come into Iraq for the specific purpose of destabilizing that country?

If you do believe it is just Iraqis who are there and if everyone else leaves they will be able to settle their differences, then this resolution would be just fine. But that is just a fantasy. Of course there are insurgents from other parts of the world. Of course there is al-Qaida right in the middle of Iraq. The last thing the terrorists want is a stabilized Iraq. That is why they are fighting so hard. So we would say to this fledgling Government that has just been able to get on its feet but is still struggling, that has trained soldiers but not nearly enough because the insurgents continue to bomb their police headquarters and recruiting headquarters, we would say to them: We are going to leave you on your own and hope for the best.

Can you imagine what would happen in Iraq if America says we are leaving at the end of this year, we are going to start to pull out troops, and then we are going to finish by July of next year or whatever date would be determined by the authors of this amendment? Who would be in control of Iraq? Anybody who believes that it would be Iraqis, with the condition they are in, is just not looking at the reality. So I cannot think of anything worse that I could say to the family of Private Menchaca, from Houston, TX, or his 18-year-old wife who is with her family, than--the very week that this young man paid a terrible price for a cause he believed in--that we are not really committed to the cause. I cannot imagine anything more disheartening to Lieutenant Lewis, who has already served twice in Iraq and wanted to come and do more for his country, than to say: I am glad you are committed, but the Senate just isn't there with you.

No. No. The United States of America and the Senate representing the 50 States of this Nation must not pass a resolution that would walk away from our commitment to the cause of freedom for the citizens of the United

States, because that is what is at stake here. It is not the Iraqi people alone in this fight. We are fighting terrorists on their turf. We have not had an attack in the United States of America because we have been vigilant in keeping them on their turf, containing them on their turf, and building up our homeland security at the same time. We must keep the word and the commitment of the greatest Nation on Earth, and we must keep the trust of the people that we are going to keep the will to fight for freedom for their children and their children's children. That is what is at stake in this resolution.

I urge my colleagues to think of the consequences of cutting and running from a fight that is much bigger than the stabilization of Iraq. It is for the freedom and the way of life of Americans and our allies throughout the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was first elected to the Senate in 1993 in a special election to fill the remainder of Lloyd Bentsen's term. Bob Dole, like my predecessor Lloyd Bentsen, is a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' --the generation of men who never wavered in answering the call to duty, fighting in distant lands to protect the free world, and returning home to build the greatest Nation on Earth. Bob Dole epitomizes the ``Greatest Generation,'' not only for his heroic service in battle, but also for what he did when he came home, ultimately serving in the U.S. Senate.

When I first arrived in Washington, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas was the only other female Republican Senator. Fortunately, our leader Bob Dole understood the unique and important voice women brought to the Senate. He graciously welcomed me from the first day, and I enjoyed working with him as he ascended from minority leader to majority leader. He was great in both roles, and I appreciate the leadership and support he provided in my early days.

One of my first discussions with Bob was committee assignments. I told him I wanted to serve on the Armed Services Committee, as there are more military members serving in Texas than any other State. I hoped to carry on the great tradition of helping our men and women in uniform like so many Texas Senators before me. He understood why this committee assignment was important to me and realized the unique perspective I would bring to the national discussion. I was the first woman to sit on this committee in over 30 years. Today, there are three women serving on the Armed Services Committee, including Bob's wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who was elected after Bob retired from her home State of North Carolina.

On the 10th anniversary of Bob Dole's retirement from the Senate, I am proud to honor him for his many accomplishments and tireless service to our country. While we all regretted to see him go, we are grateful for the legacy he left behind, and I hope we can carry it forward for generations to come. He was a giant during his time

in this institution, and when the history of the Senate is written, I am confident that he will be fondly remembered as one of our great leaders.

I wanted 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia for allowing me to take this time to speak about the supplemental appropriations bill. I certainly want to start by saying that I think the authorization bill that is before us is a good bill that will authorize the spending for our troops in the field. I plan to speak separately on that later in the week.

Today, I want to talk about the supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate will pass at 10 o'clock tomorrow because this is a very important emergency supplemental. Obviously, the majority of this bill, $70.4 billion, is for our military. It is to make sure that we support our men and women in the very important mission that we have asked them to do. I cannot imagine sending our troops into harm's way and not assuring that they have the equipment they need to do the job. So we are doing that in this bill--$70.4 billion for uparmoring of vehicles, for more aircraft, and the Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades that they so desperately need.

I am going to take this opportunity to say what a tremendous achievement we have had this week with the death of Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi, the head of the operation in Iraq that was behind the heinous crimes on the streets of Iraq day after day after day that we have been seeing. The man who was the mastermind of those atrocities is now gone. It is a significant victory for the intelligence capabilities of our country and our military personnel who achieved this remarkable feat. I hope this will begin another phase in the stabilization of Iraq.

Clearly we need to assure that our troops have what they need to do the job. Part of what is in this supplemental appropriations bill is money for training of Iraqi troops, because if we are going to stabilize Iraq, it is going to be with Iraqi security forces. That is what the Iraqis want, it is what we want, it is what our allies want, and it is certainly what the people of the world who believe in freedom want for the people of Iraq.

The other part of the bill is one that is very important to my home State of Texas, as well as to Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and the other States that have suffered so much from hurricanes last season. We have never seen the ravages of a hurricane like we saw after Katrina and then Rita following so closely after that.

This bill, for the first time, has begun to acknowledge the part that my home State of Texas played in this recovery effort. We had a situation we have never had before in the history of our country. The first hurricane, Hurricane Katrina, did not hit Texas, but Texas had a major part in the disaster recovery. That is because 500,000 people were moved from Louisiana to Texas almost overnight. It was the biggest migration from one State to another in our country's history.

It has been a costly endeavor for the people of Texas, one which they have stood up and handled with grace beyond any imagination. But it is time that we reimburse the people of Texas because some of our communities are having to increase taxes to carry the burden, and that is not right. It was a natural disaster for which Texans stepped up to the plate, because we are a neighboring State, to try to handle, and now we have suffered the consequences. This bill helps us in that recovery effort.

The first part that is so important for us is the equity in reimbursement rates for the communities hit by Hurricane Rita. Since Hurricane Rita hit in September of 2005, the counties on the Louisiana side of the Sabine River have been able to put up 10 percent, with a 90-percent Federal reimbursement. This has been very helpful to the people of Louisiana. But on the other side of the Sabine River, where the same hurricane hit, our counties have had to put up 25 percent of the cleanup. The result is that much debris has never been cleaned up.

Furthermore, we have infrastructure that has not even begun to be repaired. Some counties, in doing the original cleanup, contemplated bankruptcy. They have talked now about having to raise the property tax rates to pay for the cleanup, and some have borrowed money and issued bonds to try to do the cleanup. Bond issues should never be used for that kind of an emergency or any kind of operational expenditure.

Bonds are for capital expenditures. They knew that it was not good public policy, but they had no alternative because these are counties which are rural, not rich in property values, and it was a huge strain.

In this bill, those 22 counties in East Texas will get the reimbursement rate that has been given on the Louisiana side. I am so grateful to the Senate for doing this in a way that does allow equity for the first time since last September. This has been such a relief to these counties. I have had calls from mayors and county judges who were almost giving up hope because they did not know how they would manage this crisis, and now they see light at the end of the tunnel.

I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. I know the bill will pass. I particularly thank Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Specter, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kennedy. It was these Senators who helped us get through the equity in reimbursement that will so help our East Texas counties.

The other part of this hurricane relief bill is in the educational area. When we had half a million evacuees, we were looking at, of course, educating their children. After an initial enrollment of 43,000 children, mostly in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, some in the East Texas counties that also were hit by Rita, we did agree in a previous supplemental to reimburse these school districts. We authorized impact aid of $6,000 per student to cover the cost of education for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina. However, they were only able to do the reimbursement at a rate of $4,000. So these school districts were taking a hit of $2,000 per student. The current supplemental bridges that gap, which is a huge help for these communities.

Just to give one an idea of the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Texas, it is normal to see a two-page ad in a newspaper that advertises polling locations for elections. One would see in any normal election in a county all of the polling places on election day. This newspaper I am holding up doesn't seem to look that unusual. It is a list of polling places for the New Orleans mayor's race. What is interesting is this is the Houston Chronicle. This same ad over two pages appeared in the Dallas Morning News. That is because the number of Katrina evacuees who were going to vote and did vote in the New Orleans mayor's race was significant enough, with a 500,000-person migration after that hurricane, to make a huge difference.

There is also a picture on the front page of the Houston Chronicle just before that mayor's race with a billboard for New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin.

We can tell just from these anecdotal pieces of evidence that this is an evacuation which is affecting Texas to a huge extent.

The $235 million in this bill will help these school districts make up for the deficit they have been funding all year and, again, raising property taxes in Texas to pay for it will not now be necessary.

We are going to monitor the enrollment of the number of schoolchildren in these school districts this fall to see if we have large numbers of displaced schoolchildren--because schools are not yet fully open in New Orleans--and we will come back and ask for more supplemental funds for the Katrina evacuees who are not planning to make a permanent home in Texas but are still in our education system.

Because of the fairness of the conference committee--and I particularly mention Congressman Kevin Brady, Congressman Ted Poe, Congressman Hal Rogers, and Congressman Henry Bonilla for helping us put forward the case that needed to be made for Texas to show that we had to have some equity in the East Texas counties that were hit by Rita, as well as the educational community that was so affected by the evacuees who came to our State immediately after Katrina. This is going to go a long way toward helping them.

We are also hoping to have some of the money for infrastructure reimbursement after Hurricane Rita that is also included in this bill, but it is at the discretion of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

This is a balanced bill. It is the first time we have been able to recognize that though a State wasn't hit by the first natural disaster, it nevertheless had a huge impact on the economy of the State. Our State stepped up to the plate, and this bill begins to equalize the burden our State has carried.

I appreciate my colleagues listening to me. I appreciate their help in the original Senate bill. I appreciate the members of the conference committee who did so much to help, and I certainly appreciate the chairman, Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Specter, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kennedy for helping us create the equity that will exist when this conference report is agreed to tomorrow.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.