Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, for her kind words. I commend her and the chairman of the committee, Senator Shelby, for their outstanding work on this conference report. I know it was under very difficult circumstances.

There are many good features to the report, as the Senator has just described. Again, I thank her for her leadership and her tenacious fighting on behalf of these efforts, whether they were successful or whether they were not.

Tragically, however, the House and the administration largely prevailed in this conference report in cutting funding for the law enforcement programs to only 38 percent of the Senate's position. Senator Chambliss from Georgia and I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill that passed the Senate unanimously, which increased the Byrne grant funding from $900 million for fiscal 2006. Yet the House and administration, in the conference, slashed that appropriations to $416.4 million, which is a one-third reduction from fiscal year 2005.

Byrne grants fund local law enforcement to combat the most urgent public safety problems in their own communities. In my own State of Minnesota, Byrne grant programs have provided the critically important funds to fight the scourge of methamphetamine, which is an illegal drug crisis in many States, as the distinguished ranking member has outlined. She has been in the forefront in efforts to increase the Federal funding to fight this catastrophe that is afflicting our citizens, afflicting people of all ages--I am told by chiefs of police, those as young as 10, and senior citizens in their eighties, from all parts of Minnesota and from all walks of life and backgrounds. While the burdens on local police and sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials have been increasing, Byrne grants to Minnesota have decreased from over $8 million in 2000 to $7.5 million last year. This year's cut in this conference report will mean that Minnesota's share of Byrne grant funding will drop to less than $5 million next year, which is a 40-percent reduction from the year 2000.

In addition, the COPS grants in this report are cut from $606 million to $416 million, another one-third reduction, with zero dollars provided for the hiring of new law enforcement officers, which was the program's original goal. Byrne grants and COPS are the two most important sources of Federal funds to boost police and sheriff forces throughout our country, to increase the drug prevention programs or drug court interdictions. They are programs that keep our neighborhoods safer, our communities safer, and our rural counties safer.

Why do the administration and the House want to drastically cut Federal support from local law enforcement; to cut funds from the brave men and women who are on the frontlines against the forces of evil in our society, who are risking their lives day and night to defeat the evil predators who are destroying the lives of our citizens? Why? It is unconscionable, it is incomprehensible that the House and the administration are defunding local law enforcement.

Here we have an administration that preaches national security but will not fund it at home. It is an administration that preaches the war against terrorism but will not fund the war against drug-dealing and drug-pushing terrorists on our streets and in our schools. How mistaken, how shortsighted, how wrong-directed could anyone be?

Again, I thank the Senate's chairman and ranking member for doing their best against the administration, which would like to eliminate these programs because they were the good ideas of the previous administration and their allies in the House. Congress should be providing more money, not less, but more money to strengthen local law enforcement in their fight against organized crime, drug dealers, and other predators. For that reason, I regretfully cannot support this report.

The citizens of America deserve better law enforcement and more Federal support to make it possible--not the lower, the cut position of the House and administration.

I yield the floor.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to deceive the chairman. My remarks are related to the remarks of last Veterans Day rather than the bill directly. I ask either that be accommodated or I speak as in morning business for a period of up to 12 minutes.

Mr. President, last Friday, on Veterans Day, President Bush attacked those of us who questioned or criticized his conduct of the Iraq war. Once again, he tried to portray his critics as opposing our own troops or aiding their enemies. Once again, he was wrong. Once again, he tried to blame others for his mistakes and for the failures of his policies--mistakes and failures that have trapped 158,000 of America's best and bravest soldiers in Iraq for over 2\1/2\ years, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, with no end in sight.

Let's be clear that every person in this Senate supports our troops 1,000 percent. We provided every dollar requested for defense authorizations, appropriations, and supplementals with overwhelming bipartisan and often unanimous support. Some of us have tried to provide more funding than the administration would support for our

returning troops and veterans. We have never accused them of being against our troops or un-American.

Together, on the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I am proud to sit, Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly asked our civilian and military commanders: What more do you need to win this war as soon as possible? What do you need to bring our troops home as safely and quickly as possible, with the victory that they won in 3 weeks in the spring of 2003 secured, finally, by the Iraqis? Tell us what you need, and it is yours.

This Senate has not failed our troops. This Senator, a critic of your policies, has not failed our troops. You, sir, have failed our troops; and you, sir, have failed the American people by the failures of your policies in Iraq.

Last Friday, President Bush stood in front of a banner that said: ``Strategy For Victory.'' Two and a half years ago, he stood on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln before a banner: ``Mission Accomplished.'' Unfortunately, he had the banners mixed up. If he had a ``Strategy For Victory'' 2\1/2\ years ago, we would have ``Mission Accomplished'' today.

The President accuses his critics of rewriting the history of this war. Nonsense. The history of this war was clearly enunciated by this administration and is available for all to reread. The President, the Vice President, and their top advisers repeatedly presented their rationales for this war and predicted its outcomes, and they were repeatedly wrong. On just about everything, they were wrong. I say that with sorrow because when the President of the United States is wrong, all Americans suffer the consequences.

There is no better or worse summary of the administration's prewar fallacies than the transcript of Vice President Cheney's appearance on ``Meet The Press'' with Tim Russert the Sunday before the invasion began. I excerpted those remarks for brevity but without altering their meaning.

The Vice President said on the program, as he had said repeatedly during the past 7 months:

We believe Saddam Hussein has in fact reconstituted nuclear

weapons.

We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear

weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with

various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaida

organization.

When Mr. Russert queried:

And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said

he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

Vice President Cheney replied:

I disagree, yes. . . .We believe he has, in fact,

reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly

is wrong.

Mr. Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not

treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis

begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the

American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody

battle with significant American casualties?

Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to

unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we

will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of

Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the

White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is

there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam

Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States

when we come to do that.

Mr. Russert: The army's top general said that we would have

to have several hundred thousand troops there for several

years in order to maintain stability.

Vice President Cheney: I disagree. . . . But to suggest

that we need several hundred thousand troops there after

military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't

think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.

Mr. Russert: We have had 50,000 troops in Kosovo for

several years, a country of just five million people. This is

a country of 23 million people. It will take a lot in order

to secure it.

Vice President Cheney: . . . There's no question but what

we'll have to have a presence there for a period of time.

It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly

want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting

military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein's

regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian

assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things

that are required to have Iraq up and running again. And

we are well-equipped to do that. We have got a lot of

effort that's gone into that.

Mr. Russert: Every analysis said this war itself would cost

over $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about

$10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens

that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year

involvement.

Vice President Cheney: I can't say that, Tim. . . . In Iraq

you've got a nation that's got the second-largest oil

reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will

generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get

back to their production of roughly three million barrels of

oil a day, in the relatively near future.

On every one of those key assertions, Vice President Cheney was wrong. Whether he was misinformed, misguided, mistaken, or knowingly misleading the American people, I cannot say. I can say that he was consistently wrong. And because he and the President were wrong, over 2,000 of our best and bravest Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Many thousands more have returned home wounded or maimed for life. Hundreds of thousands more have been separated from their families for years, with more separations for more years still to come.

Because the Bush administration's assumptions and expectations were wrong, because their preparations for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq were wrong, and because their predictions before and after the war began were wrong, America's standing in the world is worse than before. The terrorist organizations that hate the United States are stronger than before, and our national security is tragically and terribly weaker than before this war began.

When I voted against the Iraq war resolution in October of 2002, I said I hoped I was wrong and the war's proponents were right because the stakes were too high for partisanship. When I disagreed with President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March of 2003, I said I hoped I was wrong and he was right because the stakes were too high for anything but patriotism.

I deeply regret when he has been wrong. I deeply regret the mistakes of his policies and the failures of his practices because a President's mistakes and failures become America's mistakes and failures. And America, the greatest Nation on Earth, the leader of the world's hopes and opportunities for peace and prosperity, America cannot afford mistakes and failures in this difficult and dangerous world, and this world cannot afford America's mistakes and failures.

Two and a half years after our troops toppled Saddam Hussein is too long for 158,000 of Americas's soldiers, the world's best and bravest, to still be doing the patroling, the policing, the fighting, the bleeding, and the dying in Iraq--too long, and there is no end in sight. It is because we support our troops, because they are our sons and daughters and we love them, that we want to bring them home safely as soon as possible with their military successes of 2\1/2\ years ago secured by Iraqis, not Americans.

The President and the Vice President could show their support for our troops by telling them and us what the strategy for victory in Iraq really is and how and when we will achieve it and what are the timetables and measures of that success or lack of it so our courageous fighting men and women and their families and their fellow Americans can know how they will win, when they will win. Those are the answers they and we deserve.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Luke Ballman of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on this authorization bill.

To speak on two amendments already included in the managers' package.

Amendments to the bill that are in the managers' package.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member, who are two of the finest public servants I have ever had the privilege of knowing, for their leadership of that committee on which I serve and for their leadership on this important legislation before the Senate, which I support. I also thank them for including two of my amendments in the bill, the first of which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I am proud to coauthor with Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Collins of Maine, that says the Department of Defense must honor its promise to pay reenlistment bonuses to members of the Army National Guard. I was told yesterday that the Pentagon has reversed its position and has now approved the National Guard's payment of those promised reenlistment bonuses.

My second amendment authorizes an additional $50 million for childcare for Active-Duty military families and an additional $10 million for family assistance centers. The committee bill already provided for increased funding for these two vital programs, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to these further authorizations which parallel the increased funding that I added to the Senate's 2006 Defense appropriations bill.

Our military families are facing increased pressures as husbands and wives are deployed in faraway war zones and thus separated from their families for up to 18 months at a time. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has reported that some 38,000 children of Active-Duty families are being denied childcare in military facilities due to the lack of funding for the centers and for the spaces needed. This imposes an unfair additional hardship on these wonderful American families. The extended absence of a parent is compounded by the lack of available, reliable childcare. For the same reasons of extended absences, emotional and financial stresses, and the understandable need for support, the military family assistance centers are more important now than ever. They are especially valuable for the families of Reserve and Guard men and women whose wife or husband is called to active duty and then deployed in adjusting to extended absences and then readjusting to the spouses return or, in the worst case, to the spouse's not returning home alive, or returning home seriously wounded or maimed for life. When we talk about supporting our troops, which all of us truly want to do, two very important ways are through childcare and family assistance services.

I wanted to take this opportunity to address briefly a related area, one vital to our national security. Last week the Washington Post reported that the CIA is operating secret prisons in up to eight other countries, including one in a former Soviet gulag in eastern Europe. These are so-called ``black sites'' where reportedly the CIA's ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' some of which are prohibited by U.N. convention or U.S. military law--in other words, torture--are being used against unidentified subjects for indefinite periods of time. They are reportedly being denied lawyers or any opportunity to defend themselves against whatever charges of wrongdoing have brought them there.

At the same time, the Vice President has reportedly given ``one of the most impassioned pitches he has ever delivered'' to Republican Senators at last week's caucus lunch opposing the McCain amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 9, that would prohibit the use of torture against detainees. The President has reportedly threatened to veto the entire 2006 Defense appropriations bill if it contains the McCain amendment. The Vice President was reportedly urging that the prohibition against torture be stricken, or at least an exception be given to the CIA.

Now we know why the President and the Vice President are so adamantly opposed to the Senate's ban on the use of torture or want an exemption for the CIA. It is because the CIA is operating secret prisons in other countries where torture is allegedly being used. Why else would they be against prohibiting torture, if they weren't doing it or intending to do it?

In response to the Post story, Republican congressional leaders sent a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees requesting them to ``immediately initiate a joint investigation into the possible release of classified information to the media alleging that the United States Government may be detaining and interrogating terrorists at undisclosed locations abroad. As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and would imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.''

Well, with all due respect, I say that the Republican leaders have the right idea but the wrong focus. There ought to be a congressional investigation, but it ought to be on the existence of those secret prisons, on who is being held there, why, for how long, and how are they being treated, whether torture is being used, and why these ``black

sites'' are being hidden from Congress. I know my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, has just proposed an amendment to this legislation that would require disclosure of these secret sites.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of his amendment.

The oversight responsibilities of Congress have tragically been emasculated by this administration, and too many Members of Congress have acquiesced. They have bowed to this administration's wishes or demands that it be able to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, and to whomever it wants. And then, if they are caught doing it, they say it is part of the war against terror, or that it is essential to our national security.

You don't defeat terror with terror. You don't stop those inhuman beings who would commit atrocities by committing atrocities against them. And you don't make our citizens more secure by taking away other people's brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers to secret gulags and torturing them for months or years. Of those torture victims themselves, if you release them, does anyone suppose that they will not be filled with hatred and revenge towards the United States? After they have been tortured, you keep them secretly locked up forever so they can't torture Americans in return?

These are not only hideous, horrible, and inhuman practices, they are stupid policies, shortsighted, misguided, and immoral policies which, if not illegal, should be, and which, to use the CIA's term, will blow back or boomerang against our own citizens in the years ahead.

Yes, there should be a congressional investigation into how unelected people with no accountability to the American people or to the civilized world can usurp the powers and responsibilities which are this Congress's by law, and why this Congress has let them get away with it and continues to look the other way while they blacken America's great name, debase our good values, and endanger our national security with their depravity.

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

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

We need to discuss the amount of time on the Ensign amendment.

No objection.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Burns, Thomas, Enzi, Dorgan, and Hatch be listed as original cosponsors of amendment No. 2448, which was agreed to yesterday by unanimous consent.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking member for ceding me this time. I call up amendment No. 2244.

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

Mr. President, recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent to 42 million Medicare beneficiaries this handbook, ``Medicare & You,'' to describe a myriad of plans providing prescription drug coverage. There are an enormous number of plans in Minnesota--over 40 plans. I have tried to go through the book myself. I have had my staff try to explain it to me. I think I am a reasonably intelligent American, but this is extremely complicated and it will be very challenging to many Medicare beneficiaries. That is going to be compounded by the fact that there is a very serious error in the tables that will apply to 17 million Americans whose incomes are low enough that they qualify for partial subsidy for their premiums.

The question in the column heading is ``If I qualify for extra help, will my full premium be covered?''

Under every single plan, the answer is listed as ``yes.'' That is incorrect. Only about 40 percent of the plan offerings--those with premiums below the regional average--will be covered. The other 60 percent will be only covered up to that amount, and anything above that the beneficiary has to pay, but that is incorrectly described here. Yet CMS refuses to correct the error by a subsequent mailing.

My amendment requires them to do so and would transfer such funds as necessary from their administrative accounts so it is offset. It is essential to all beneficiaries and the integrity of the plan.

Amendment No. 2245

I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2245.

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

This amendment increases the Federal funding for IDEA, special education, to what was promised 28 years ago, 40 percent of the cost of State and local governments.

I can only speak for my State, but that money would be desperately needed and very well used. It would amount to about $250 million in additional Federal funding for K-12 education for my State to keep the promise that has been broken. It has cost about $12 billion above what has been committed so far.

I recognize the distinguished chairman and ranking member have made this a priority and have increased funding, and we have made some progress in the last few years. But we are still less than 20 percent-- less than half--of the commitment for special education made almost three decades ago.

Amendment No. 2289

Finally, I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2289.

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

This amendment provides additional funding to State governments and agencies involved with Americans with disabilities to allow them access to vote. The Help America Vote Act of 2003--landmark legislation, bipartisan legislation--unfortunately, has not been funded to the level necessary to help States and local governments comply with this requirement. This is a modest amount, $15 million, offset by the increase in the administrative costs, so it would result in a reduction for administration but would be money we committed that has not been forthcoming.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2239

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business.

I ask unanimous consent, the previous order notwithstanding, that I might speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business to eulogize my former colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone.

Mr. President, 3 years ago today a chartered plane crashed in northeastern Minnesota killing Minnesota's senior Senator, Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and their daughter Marcia. Also on board were Mary McEvoy, our State Democratic Party's associate chair; Tom Lapic, a long-time Senate staffer; a young aide, Will McLaughlin; and two pilots. There were no survivors.

They were flying to Minnesota's famed Iron Range to attend a friend's father's funeral when the plane crashed just before landing and before Senator Wellstone's reelection just 11 days away.

Paul and I were political allies and personal friends for over 20 years, and he was my colleague and mentor during my first 2 years in the Senate. In 1982, Paul was the Democratic Farmer-Labor or DFL candidate for State auditor in Minnesota, while I was its candidate for the Senate. We both lost.

Eight years later, we switched. Paul ran for the Senate; I ran for auditor. We both won. In between, we officed and worked together on energy and economic development programs for the Governor of Minnesota and became good friends. When Paul ran for reelection to the Senate in 1996, I agreed to be his finance chair. Paul hated fundraising as much as I did, so we made quite a team. Fortunately, Paul's great popularity in Minnesota and his nationwide reputation as champion for important, progressive causes prevailed, and he won a decisive reelection victory. Four years later, Paul helped me win my election to the Senate.

Everyone who knew Paul and Sheila Wellstone knows that they were extraordinary, unmatchable, and irreplaceable. Marcia, Mary, Tom, and Will were very accomplished and special people in their own rights, and their losses were as searing to their families and friends as Paul's and Sheila's.

Senator Paul Wellstone was unique. He was the leader, the heart, and the soul of Minnesota's Democratic Party. He had more passionately devoted followers, supporters, and political organizers than anyone else in Minnesota, perhaps more than anyone in our State's political history, for Paul Wellstone was truly a man of, by, and for the people, especially, as he jokingly referred to himself and to them, the little fellers. He stood for, spoke for, and worked for the many against the powerful, the wealthy, and the narrow special interests.

In 1990, he pulled one of the greatest political upsets ever by defeating a well-entrenched Republican incumbent, despite being outspent by 7 to 1 and being 40 percent behind in the polls at Labor Day. He came to Washington, immersed himself in the work of the Senate, and over his 12 years, won respect and friendships on both sides of the aisle.

Whether they agreed or disagreed with Paul, everyone knew that he truly believed his position was right, that he passionately cared about the people he was trying to help, and that he had the unflinching courage of his convictions. He also had the oratory eloquence to win skeptics to his side and the genuine good humor to keep even his opponents his friends.

He used his skills, his terrific mind always absorbing new ideas, his nationwide network of friends and advisers, his growing seniority in the Senate, and his passion and persistence to accomplish much more than time permits me to recount. During his first term, he authored and passed the landmark ``gift ban'' legislation that virtually eliminated all lobbyist gifts to Members of Congress and staffers. He was an original cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. In Paul's own words, he said:

I am proud to be a politician because I believe strongly in

democracy. My father, a Jewish immigrant from Russia whose

family had to move from town to town because of czarist

persecution, taught me to cherish free elections and the idea

of ``government of, by, and for the people.'' But I am not

proud of the current state of campaigns and politics in our

country.

The ethical issue in our time is that money has come to

dominate politics and the democracy my father so deeply

believed in is so severely compromised. Campaigns match

image-makers against image-makers, pollsters against

pollsters, and millions of dollars against millions of

dollars. It is a superficial, trivialized politics of attack

ads, manipulated advertising and 9 second sound bites. Most

importantly, money corrupts the process. This is a much more

serious corruption than the wrongdoing of a single

individual. This is the kind of corruption which results in

too few people having too much wealth, power, and say and too

many people being denied a voice. It is the politics of

democracy for the few, not democracy for the many.

Paul also worked tirelessly for years in partnership with Senator Domenici to enact mental health parity, requiring that mental illness be treated similar to any other illness. This important cause pitted Senators Wellstone and Domenici against very powerful and profitable special interests--insurance companies and for-profit health providers, whose profits increased by not providing or not paying for needed health care services.

The two Senators succeeded in winning Senate passage of their amendment to the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance health protection bill with 70 votes in favor. Unfortunately, their amendment was defeated in the conference committee.

The two Senators continued working together to enact their historic legislation. Tragically, the Senate effort has lagged since Senator Wellstone's death, despite the present majority leader's pledge in his remarks on the Senate floor of October 24, 2003 ``to ensure that mental health is appropriately addressed in this Congress.'' That legislation has not been voted on in the Senate, either in the last session of Congress or in this one.

It would be the best possible commemoration of Senator Wellstone's life, and the giving of his life in the service of his country, for the Senate to pass that legislation and insist that it becomes law.

There is so much more that Paul Wellstone achieved, such as protecting women and children from domestic abuse, on which he and his wife Sheila worked closely together, and which he wanted to achieve before his life was tragically ended.

His uniqueness recalls the words of Ernest Hemingway:

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their

fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their

society. Moral courage is a rarer quality than bravery in

battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential,

vital quality of those who would seek to change a world which

yields most painfully to change.

Paul Wellstone dedicated his life to change the world for the betterment of people. That is why he and Sheila meant so much to so many people in Minnesota and across the country.

All of us--their family, friends, and admirers--still feel their loss. They and Marcia, Mary, Tom, and Will all had so much life left to live. We will cherish them forever.

I close with a brief passage from Paul Wellstone's political autobiography, ``The Conscience of a Liberal.''

When I am in coffeeshops with people, no one asks, Are you

left, right or center? No one cares. What people want is that

your politics be about them.

Tip O'Neill once declared, ``All politics is local.'' But I

would go further. All politics is personal. These are people

who more than anything else yearn for a politics they can

believe in. They want politicians whom they can trust and who

are at least most of the time on their side.

With Paul Wellstone, people had the very best on their side all of the time. He will always be missed. May his life--all of their lives-- be an example and inspiration to us all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2123 for immediate consideration.

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

This makes it a felony to raise oil or gas prices more than 15 percent during a natural disaster and other emergencies, and gives the U.S. Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General the authority to prosecute violators. This creates an exception for cases in which a price increase is directly attributable to additional costs incurred by the seller.

Currently, no Federal laws exist to address gasoline price gouging. Only 13 States have such laws to prosecute those who raise prices arbitrarily during times of emergency.

On September 1, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush said in response to the price gouging that was underway:

There ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law

during an emergency such as this, whether it be looting or

price gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking advantage of

charitable giving or insurance fraud.

On September 6th of this year, I wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney General in which I said, in part:

I respectfully urge the Justice Department to follow

through on the President's warning and to investigate the

sudden spike in gas prices nationwide, following Hurricane

Katrina.

I further wrote:

I am deeply concerned that oil suppliers have used

Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to grossly overcharge

consumers, regardless of whether fuel is in short supply. The

Administration has a responsibility to protect consumers from

anyone who would exploit catastrophic circumstances for

outrageous profit,

and I respectfully urge you to investigate this matter.

I ask unanimous consent my letter be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Almost 7 weeks later, I have not received even the courtesy of a reply from the U.S. Attorney General. More importantly, I am not aware of anything that he has done to investigate collusion among the oil companies, the refiners, and the gasoline distributors whose post-Hurricane Katrina price escalations parallel one another.

Gasoline prices nationwide are 36 percent higher than 1 year ago. Natural gas prices are 145 percent higher. That means that current natural gas prices are almost 2\1/2\ times what they were a year ago.

The price of home heating oil in my home State of Minnesota now is 63 percent above a year ago. Americans everywhere are being ravaged economically by energy companies, as the citizens in Louisiana and Mississippi were ravaged by Katrina--although, obviously, their physical and economic devastation was even worse.

While we have properly come to the aid of hurricane victims, Congress has done nothing to help the victims of this energy price disaster. Apparently, the Bush administration has failed them, also.

My amendment is an opportunity to do something to stop energy price exploitation, to make price gouging as illegal as it is immoral.

Actions speak louder than words. Now is the time to act against exorbitant energy prices, not just talk about them. The vote on my amendment will show who is serious about driving energy costs down for all Americans, and who is not.

Exhibit 1

September 6, 2005.

Hon. Alberto Gonzales,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Attorney General: On September 1st, President Bush

said, with respect to price gouging following Hurricane

Katrina, ``There ought to be zero tolerance of people

breaking the law during an emergency such as this, whether it

be looting, or price-gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking

advantage of charitable giving, or insurance fraud.''

I respectfully urge the Justice Department to follow

through on the President's warning and to investigate the

sudden spike in gas prices nationwide, following Hurricane

Katrina.

In my home state of Minnesota, gas prices rose by 52

percent--from $1.97 to $3.01 per gallon--in the three-month

period from June 1st to September 1st. In three days alone,

from August 29th to September 1st, Minnesota gas prices

surged 45 cents per gallon. I understand that storm damage to

oil operations off the Gulf Coast has caused part of the

problem. However, most of Minnesota's oil supply originates

from Canada.

I am deeply concerned that oil suppliers have used

Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to grossly overcharge

consumers, regardless of whether fuel is in short supply. The

Administration has a responsibility to protect consumers from

anyone who would exploit catastrophic circumstances for

outrageous profit, and I respectfully urge you to investigate

this matter.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Sincerely,

Mark Dayton.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the standing rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing of my intention to move to suspend Paragraph 4 of Rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the Bill, H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill, the following amendment: No. 2143.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent it be so modified.

The staff is working on slight adjustments to the amendment so it meets the concerns of the chairman. I thank the chairman for his willingness to consider the amendment as part of the managers' amendment as modified. It needs to be further modified to conform to the desire of the chairman to have the language read up to the particular amounts which are $40 million for the increased antinarcotics efforts of the National Guard, $50 million for increased funding for childcare, and $10 million for increased funding for family assistance centers.

If it is agreeable to the chairman, I will spend about 5 minutes discussing the amendment at this time, and I will proceed on that basis and recognize the amendment itself is still subject to further discussions.

I thank Senator Stevens for his support and assistance in this matter. I thank him and the ranking member and members of the committee and acknowledge in every one of these three areas the Senate Committee on Appropriations has added funding already above the President's recommendation. I recognize, also, that the committee is dealing with the budget constraints that were imposed upon it by the Senate budget, but conditions in the real world do not always conform to those constraints. This funding is essential to address these critical areas, beginning with an additional $40 million for the National Guard counterdrug efforts which would enable State coordinators to increase their border security, to increase reconnaissance, and to expand their effort to interdict the flood of illegal drugs into our country.

These National Guard antidrug efforts are under the control of the Governors and Adjutant Generals so they do not violate Federal passe comitatus laws. Yet they are essential to our national security.

Other than international terrorism, there is no greater threat to the safety, the health, and the well-being of our citizens than the increasing flow of illegal drugs into our country, into our neighborhoods, into our schools, and into our homes. They are destroying lives, they are destroying families, and they are destroying communities.

In my home State of Minnesota I am told by local law enforcement leaders there are direct pipelines of illegal drugs now, especially methamphetamine from Mexico, right into the State of Minnesota.

Border security is not just a Southern State crisis or a Northern State problem. Homeland Security is not just a Federal agency with increased priorities.

As I listen to local law enforcement officials throughout Minnesota, they say we are losing the war against these narcotics terrorists. We are losing because our resources are being overwhelmed by their resources. These are battles that are going on not halfway around the world but right here at home, right within our own country, every day and every night.

These are narcotics terrorists. They are drug-dealing gangs. They are dangerous predators. They are preying on Americans, young and old, rich and poor. They are pouring highly dangerous, very addictive, and corrosively expensive drugs into our country and our citizens' lives, and we are letting then get away with it.

In many cases they get away with it entirely scot-free and leave the country with millions and millions of our dollars. These are very dangerous, destructive, evil people who are winning the war on drugs in this country because we--all of us, collectively, all of us Americans collectively--do not have enough good guys out there on our behalf who are fighting them. My amendment brings more money for the good guys to win this terribly destructive battle.

Second, $50 million would go to increase the childcare services for military families. Again, I commend the committee, Chairman Stevens, for increasing the President's recommendation in this critical area. My amendment would add another $50 million because the Office of the Secretary of Defense currently estimates that 38,000 children of Active-Duty military families are not able to access military childcare because of the lack of spaces and facilities. This is especially critical because so many of these family members are being deployed for 12 or 18 months, leaving their spouses as single parents, financially strapped, needing to work and therefore needing quality childcare even more than before.

Finally, my amendment adds $10 million for family assistance centers and personnel who are responding to the increased needs of military families--Active-Duty, Reserves, and National Guard, whose families are being seriously and severely impacted by the increased number of deployments for extended periods of time.

The stresses of those long separations, the constant anxieties and uncertainties about the well-being of their loved ones abroad, the financial pressures, the difficulties emotionally of single parenting all add up and have put additional needs for these family assistance centers and their personnel for families while their loved ones are serving and after they have returned. And some wounded and seriously maimed are causing enormous family stress and strains for the next number of years.

I thank, again, the chairman, and I thank the ranking member for his willingness to consider taking this amendment into the managers' package. I commend them for their leadership in these very important areas. I hope this amendment will be seen as constructive to that, and I hope the conference committee will see fit to include these increases because I can assure all the Members that it will be very much needed and very well used.

I yield the floor.

No, I have no objection.

I do.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Dayton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1756 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence, headed by a Cabinet-level Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence. While I am loath to add another agency to the already oversized Federal bureaucracy, it is imperative that we elevate peace to at least the same level as war within the Federal Government, inside the President's Cabinet Room, and in our national policymaking.

The Department's mission is set forth in section 101 of the proposed legislation. It says:

The Department shall--

hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service

to every level of American society;

endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to

expand human rights;

strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;

promote the development of human potential;

work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed

conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new

structures and nonviolent dispute resolution;

take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of

policies that promote national and international conflict

prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful

resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;

address matters both domestic and international in scope,

and

encourage the development of initiatives from local

communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental

organizations.

The legislation mandates that an amount not less than 2 percent of the Department of Defense's annual appropriation be expended for those peacemaking and peace-advancing efforts, which does not affect the Department of Defense's level of funding.

Now is clearly the time to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. The continuing war in Iraq, a war which I opposed, a war initiated before all attempts at peaceful resolution had been made, should teach us again that war is not the answer. Despite the incredible heroism of the men and women in our Armed Forces who have fought, patrolled, and helped so well and for so long in Iraq, 138,000 of them are still there with no end in sight. More of them are wounded, maimed, and killed every day. Terrorism activities against our troops and against Iraqi citizens are continuing and even increasing in their lethality.

Tragically, wrongly, but unavoidably, anti-American hatred also continues to grow throughout the Arab world. Who can doubt that some of the sons and daughters of Iraqis killed during the past 2\1/2\ years of war will grow up to become vicious terrorists, hell-bent on revenge against America. Our leaders did not intend to create this anti- American backlash, what the CIA calls ``blowback.'' However, they are ignoring it at our peril.

Our Nation possesses a military might that is unprecedented in the world's history and unparalleled in the world today. We must remain so.

Yet, if we are to remain the world's leader and if we are to lead the world into a more secure and a more prosperous future, we must become better known and more respected for our peacemaking successes than for our military forces. Peace is far more than the absence of war, although that is the starting point. Peace, to have any lasting value, must be advanced, expanded, and strengthened continuously. Doing so requires skill, dedication, persistence, resources and, most importantly, people. We need thousands of American emissaries of peace at home and abroad. We need our embassies to become centers for peaceful initiatives worldwide, and we need advocates for peace- promoting policies here in Washington.

This country was founded by a Revolutionary War, a necessary war for independence. But our Nation's Founders wanted this to be a nation of peace. President Thomas Jefferson said, in 1801:

That peace, safety, and concord may be the portion of our

native land, and be long-enjoyed by our fellow-citizens, is

the most ardent wish of my heart, and if I can be

instrumental in procuring or preserving them, I shall think I

have not lived in vain.

Mr. President, 158 years later President Dwight Eisenhower, himself no stranger to war, said:

I think people want peace so much that one of these days

governments had better get out of the way and let them have

it.

To further that goal, in 1984, Congress passed legislation and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law, creating the U.S. Institute of Peace. Today, the Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan organization funded by Congress to promote peace and curb violent international conflict. The last 20 years have shown that the Institute, and all of us, have much more to do to create and to sustain a peaceful world.

Similar to Thomas Jefferson, peace, safety and concord for our fellow citizens is the most ardent wish of my heart. If I can be instrumental in procuring or preserving them, I think that I shall not have lived in vain.

A peaceful world, inhabited by people throughout the world who have learned how to keep peace better than how to make war, who want peace, who know its benefits and who insist that their governments let them have it--that would be the best world and the greatest inheritance we could give to our children and our grandchildren and generations that will follow them. Without it, nothing else is reliable. With it, everything else is possible.