Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as Congress reconvenes this week after our observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, we find a brisk wind blowing through the streets of the Nation's Capital. As cold temperatures begin to grip the country, Americans are turning up the heat in their homes, but the elected leaders of our country should seize the opportunity to turn down the heat in Washington.

Three days ago, in his weekly radio address, the President placed the blame at the feet of Congress for the delays in enacting 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. But finger pointing does nothing--nothing, zilch--to solve the impasse, which began with White House threats to veto 10 of those funding bills. With 3 short weeks left in this session of Congress, it is time to close down the political posturing and recognize we have a responsibility to govern.

As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, it is clear to me that Congress is working with great diligence to find a way around our budget conundrum. Working hand in hand with Members of the minority, we are crafting an appropriations package that I expect will garner bipartisan support. This package contemplates a reduction of $10.6 billion from the spending levels approved by Congress in this year's budget resolution. And $10.6 billion is a lot of money. In addition, various controversial matters, some of which have been the subject of veto threats, are eliminated.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are attempting, in good faith, to find a way around the veto threat demagoguery that has been emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for months. Now the White House needs to put aside politics and recognize it is time to govern in the responsible manner that is expected by the American people.

I urge the President--and he is my President, too, and I say it respectfully--to stop the stale veto threats that have been the albatross around the neck of responsible budgeting for months. The fact is the needs of this Nation have changed since the budget was submitted way back in February. That should come as no great surprise.

The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, has recognized these needs, and events have made them crystal clear.

The crumbling state of our infrastructure was punctuated by a deadly--and I mean deadly--bridge collapse in Minnesota. The Senate passed a bill containing funds for the bridge replacement and for repairing bridges across the Nation by a vote of 88 to 7. That was the responsible thing to do.

Soaring oil prices mean a cruel squeeze on low-income heating assistance. The Senate approved by a vote of 75 to 19 a bill providing increased heating assistance. That was the responsible thing to do.

Investigations into the treatment of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have underlined greater demands on the VA health care system. Legislation to increase funding for our veterans passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 1. That was the moral thing to do.

More money is needed to improve the security of our borders. An amendment to provide such funding passed the Senate 89 to 1. That was the smart thing to do.

In July, the administration released its latest National intelligence report that concluded al-Qaida has regrouped in Pakistan with the intention of attacking the United States again. The Senate passed a Homeland Security bill to increase funding for first responders by a vote of 89 to 4.

Rising crime rates in this country highlight the wisdom of additional funding for law enforcement. The Senate passed legislation providing such funding for cops on the street by a vote of 75 to 19.

The rising cost of food means that there must be more funding for the

Women, Infants and Children Program or 500,000 people will lose important nutritional support.

Yet despite all of these developments since the President submitted an inadequate spending proposal in February, the White House continues to demand an arbitrary and irresponsible ceiling on spending. The White House continues to stubbornly oppose bipartisan initiatives to invest money to solve the real problems that face the Nation.

Soon, the first session of this 110th Congress will draw to a close, but there is still time to craft an appropriations proposal that makes a sincere attempt to meet the President in the middle of the road. I thank Senator Thad Cochran and his ranking members for their efforts as we move forward in completing the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process.

So the choice is clear--as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky. The President and the Congress must recognize that the people of this country expect their leaders--that is us, the people downtown at the other end of the avenue and those across the Capitol--to actually govern and address the real problems facing the country.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress are willing to work to resolve differences and complete a fiscally responsible package of appropriations bills. But to do the people's business, the Congress must be joined by a White House willing, at last, to jettison its political posturing, stop its political posturing. The tyranny of the veto threat has already dangerously delayed the Nation's priorities for far too long.

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

Mr. President, I have some comments. They will be short, but I will save them for next Tuesday, which the Lord willing, at that time I will say a few things. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator. I thank all of the Senators. I thank all the Members and the staff who make it possible for us to do our work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good Thanksgiving.

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

Madam President, today the President, our President, demonstrated once again that he values political posturing more than making America a safer, healthier, more economically strong nation.

This morning, President Bush vetoed a bipartisan, fiscally responsible Labor-HHS-Education bill that increases funding for programs to improve student performance, makes college more affordable, supports lifesaving medical research, and provides relief for families coping with rising home heating costs.

The bill also provides money for veterans employment programs, homeless veterans, and research to help those veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

The President, in an effort to convey the appearance of fiscal discipline, has threatened to veto 10 of the 12 appropriations bills-- 10 out of 12.

Today the President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill because Congress chose to increase funding by 5 percent. The hypocrisy of the President's political posturing became even more clear today. This morning, the President signed the Defense appropriations bill which provides a $40 billion, or 10-percent, increase for the Department of Defense. Also, this morning, the President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education bill because Congress chose to restore irresponsible and shortsighted cuts proposed by the President.

As part of the President's political message, he describes the 5- percent increase for Labor-HHS-Education programs as ``bloated'' spending. I call it responsible investments in research in cancer, heart disease, diabetes, in educating our children, in providing access to health care to rural America, and to heating the homes of low-income elderly Americans.

The President proposed to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health by $279 million for studying cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Under the President's budget, the National Institutes of Health would have to eliminate 717 research grants that could lead to cures or treatments for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases.

Congress restored those cuts and provided an increase of $1.1 billion. I ask the question: Is increasing spending for the National Institutes of Health by 3.8 percent ``bloated'' spending? Is it? Of course not.

The President proposed over $3 billion in cuts for educational programs, including special education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and improving teacher quality. Congress--that is us--restored those cuts. Is increasing by 3 percent to educate our children bloated spending? I ask the question again. Congress restored those cuts. Is increasing funding by 3 percent to educate our children bloated spending? No.

The President proposed cuts of nearly $1 billion from health programs, such as rural health, preventive health, nurse training, and mental health grants. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, restored those cuts. I ask the question: Is providing an increase of $225 million for community health centers bloated spending? Is it? Certainly not.

The President--our President--proposed to cut low-income home energy assistance by $379 million. Congress restored that cut and provided an increase of $250 million. With the price of a barrel of oil reaching $100, does anyone really think increasing low-income home energy assistance is bloated spending? No.

No Senator will be cold this winter. I will not be cold this winter. You on that side of the aisle will not be cold this winter. We on this side will not be cold this winter. No Senator will be cold at home this winter. The President will not be cold down at the White House. No. Yet the President wants Congress to slash such assistance.

President Bush's Budget Director, Jim Nussle, with whom I met several weeks ago, indicated he would be prepared to negotiate in good faith with Congress over our differences in spending. To my dismay--to my dismay--Director Nussle has not reached out to the leadership of the Appropriations Committees in the House and the Senate in a genuine effort to find common ground.

Now, what is the problem? Why, Mr. President, why, Mr. Nussle, is the $40 billion increase for the Department of Defense fiscally responsible while a $6 billion increase to educate our children and improve the health of our citizens bloated spending?

Now, let's stop--please, let's stop--this charade of political gamesmanship. I say this most respectfully to our President. Let's move forward for the good of the American people. They deserve more from their elected officials.

I suggest to this White House that it stop its intransigence and help us--the elected Representatives of the people in Congress--to enact this vital legislation. Let's sit down together and work out the problems in this bill. Providing for our people's needs should not be a game of us versus them. It should not be a Republican White House versus a Democratic conference. People's lives should not be fodder for ego-driven political games.

Homeless veterans, veterans in need of health care, children in need of education, these must not become the target in a foolish game of kickball. I urge this White House--I plead with this White House--to sit down with the Congress and address the growing unmet needs in this country. If we can build schools and hospitals in Iraq, we can certainly provide health care and education for our own citizens. Nobody wins in a game of chicken, and surely the White House can and ought to work with us--us, in Congress--to stop this charade.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. President, this Sunday, November 11, will be Veterans Day. On this Sunday, our Nation will honor all veterans of all wars. It will be a day, this Sunday, to thank every man and every woman who wears or who has ever worn the uniform of one of the U.S. Armed Forces.

It will be a day to remember and to honor the dedication, the professionalism, and the courage of every individual who has been prepared to defend our people, our Nation, and our Constitution by taking up arms against our enemies.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 89 years ago, in the dark year of war that was 1918, the armistice began. Tired troops laid down their weapons against muddy trench walls, weary gunners lowered their sights, the thundering cannons fell silent, and the fragile calm of peace was broken only by the crisis of celebration and the prayers of Thanksgiving. The United States had taken part in the largest war that history had ever witnessed, and it was finally over.

The carnage of World War I was of a scope and scale that shattered the soul. Battles took place across the globe and on the seas. It was the first war to take to the skies, the first war to see chemical weapons used on a large scale, the first war to see tanks and other heavy armored weapons employed. Pandemics of influenza had swept the globe on the winds of war, extending the suffering to new areas and into civilian arenas, taking my mother to her grave.

World War I caused the disintegration of four vast empires: the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire. In just over 4 short years, more than 20 million people were killed and more than 20 million people were casualties of that war. It was truly the cataclysmic end of the existing world order. But November 11, then called Armistice Day, became forever a day to be grateful for peace, thankful for democracy, and thankful for the men and the women who had done so much to preserve both.

People called World War I the Great War. They called it the War to End All Wars. Many people believed that no war could have been worse. But, alas, World War I was neither the greatest war in terms of size and complexity, nor was it the war to end all wars. Since World War I, the United States has taken part in World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam conflict, the first Persian Gulf conflict, and now the second Persian Gulf conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. troops have also come under fire in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. Millions more American men and women in uniform have joined with their battle-hardened brethren from World War I to share in the honored title of ``veteran.'' In 1947, the November 11 Armistice Day celebrations were renamed ``Veterans Day'' to honor all veterans of all wars.

This Veterans Day, with the Nation's men and women in uniform again in harm's way, the Nation will again mark with a moment of silence the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. In that silence, during that peaceful moment, we shall send our love, our prayers, and our thoughts to the men and the women who will know no peace in the dust and heat of battle. We will send wishes of strength, of courage, and of luck. We will send our love, we will send our prayers, and we will send our thoughts to their families as well, and we will wish for them the strength to endure the long separation and the strain of worrying about their soldier. In that peaceful moment, we shall give thanks to all who serve and all who have served.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, every day that the Defense appropriations conference report is delayed, it delays a $40 billion increase for the Department of Defense, delays $11.6 billion for mine-resistant vehicles for our troops in Iraq and a $2.9 billion increase for our veterans.

The Defense appropriations conference report passed the House of Representatives 400 to 15. I urge all Senators to support the conference report and send the measure to the President of the United States today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I certify that the information required by Senate rule XLIV, related to congressionally directed spending, has been identified in the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, Department of Defense appropriations bill, 2008, House Report 110-434, filed on November 6, 2007, and that the required information has been available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending conference report.

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

Mr. President, I support the motion to waive rule XXVIII. If the motion to waive is defeated, the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill will be stricken from this conference report.

Frankly, I am a little bit tired of the political games the administration plays with the health care of our veterans. It is the President's veto threats that necessitated the combining of the Labor, HHS, and Education bill and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill. The President has threatened to veto 10 of the 12 appropriations bills--10. This President is insisting that Congress strip $22 billion for homeland security, for educating our children, for NIH, and for fighting violent crime from the 12 bills. President Bush's budget request simply did not meet the needs of a veterans population that is suffering from the pressures of war.

The number of disabled veterans, the type of injuries, and the mental health services needs produced by this horrendous Iraq war are well beyond the President's shortsighted budget request. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, recognized that the President's request for veterans programs was out of touch with reality, and we increased funding above that inadequate request by $3.7 billion. The President's own bipartisan study found that the veterans health care system is in need of dramatic reform. Yet President Bush, our President, has not requested one thin dime, not one thin additional dime for veterans health care to implement much-needed reforms. When faced with the dire political consequences of this bad budget decision, the President, our President, President Bush, did a political dance and finally agreed to the additional spending approved by Congress for our veterans. But--the conjunction ``but''--the President insisted that Congress find $3.7 billion of savings to pay for it in other bills.

Did the President--our President--cut his request for a 12-percent increase in foreign aid to pay for it? No.

Did the President, our President--your President, my President--did the President reduce his--the President's--request for a 10-percent increase for the Department of Defense to pay for it? Did he? No.

Did President Bush identify $3.7 billion of savings from his meager and inadequate budget for education or the National Institutes of Health to pay for it? No.

President Bush, our President, brandishes his veto pen and refuses to participate in any attempt to correct his failed budget. Meanwhile, veterans health care, our children's education, vital health research, and other programs important to our citizens are at risk. As long as the President--our President, President Bush--as long as the President links veterans funding to his demand for cuts in other vital domestic programs, Congress has no choice--none--but to bundle these bills together.

His plan, the President's plan, to veto the Labor-HHS and Education bill, and sign the Military Construction-VA bill would force Congress to make dramatic reductions in such areas as education funding, funding for the National Institutes of Health, and funding for low-income home energy assistance.

Those decisions would be very bad decisions, and every Member of the Senate knows it or ought to know it. The Labor-HHS and Education bill passed the Senate by a vote of 75 to 19. The Military Construction- Veterans Affairs bill passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 1.

Bundling these bills is not an effort to jam the Senate with controversial legislation. These bills were fully debated. Any Senator could have come to the floor to offer amendments to reduce funding in the bill. Any Senator who votes ``no'' on the motion to waive has a responsibility to come down to the floor and show down on the $3.7 billion of cuts that Senator would propose for such programs.

This bill could be on the President's desk tomorrow. Any Senator who votes ``no'' on the motion to waive rule XXVIII has a responsibility to explain to veterans why that Senator refused to tell the President of the United States that he needs to sign this legislation. I urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to waive rule XXVIII.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached list of subcommittee assignments for the Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record, to supplant the list printed in the Record on February 27, 2007.

Madam President, what is the matter before the Senate?

I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business, and I speak out of order.

Madam President, I commend and offer my wholehearted support for the resolution that Senator Durbin has submitted. His resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, is a simple, clear statement of a fundamental constitutional principle; namely, that the Congress and only the Congress has the power to declare war. As this resolution states:

Any offensive military action taken by the United States

against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before

such action may be initiated.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. But the President of the United States, although Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, is not a dictator. The President is not an emperor. He is President, who, like all Presidents, takes an oath of fealty to the Constitution of the United States.

It is the American people--the American people--who pay the price of war in blood and in treasure. And it is the American people, through their representatives in Congress--that means us--who must give their approval--the approval of the American people--for such a momentous decision. That is the system that George Washington recognized when he presented his resignation to the Continental Congress. That is the system that the wise Framers of the Constitution created when they drafted our most basic and sacred document. That is the system that every Senator takes an oath to defend.

Today is a fitting day to discuss the issue of Iran. Today is All Hallows Eve--Halloween--a day when people don masks and costumes to frighten others. The White House has been busy unleashing its rhetorical ghosts and goblins to scare the American people with claims of an imminent nuclear threat in Iran, as they did with Iraq. But while few people doubt the desire of some in the Iranian regime to attain a nuclear bomb, there is little evidence that Iran is close to acquiring such a weapon. Fear, panic, and chest-pounding do not work well in the conduct of foreign policy. This is a time to put diplomacy to work. There is ample opportunity to coordinate with our allies to constrain Iran's ambitions. But instead of working with our partners, the Bush administration has unveiled new unilateral sanctions against Iran. Instead of direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran, the Bush administration continues to issue ultimatums and threats.

We have been down that path already. We know where it leads. Vice President Cheney recently threatened ``serious consequences''--serious consequences--if Tehran does not acquiesce to U.S. demands--the exact phrase that he, the Vice President, used in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. The parallels are all too chilling. President Bush warned that those who wished to avoid World War III should seek to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted in the press that the Pentagon has drafted plans for a military option in Iran. The President's $196 billion request for emergency war funding included a request for bunker buster bombs that have no immediate use in Iraq. Taking all of this together--the bellicose rhetoric, the needlessly confrontational unilateral sanctions, the provocative stationing of U.S. warships in the region, the operational war planning, and the request for munitions that seem designed for use in Iran--these are all reasons for deep concern that this administration is once again rushing headlong into another disastrous war in the Middle East.

The Bush administration apparently believes it has the authority to wage preemptive war. It believes it can do so without prior Congressional approval. That is why the resolution of Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois is so critical--namely, the White House must be reminded of the constitutional powers entrusted to the people's branch--that is us, the House of Representatives and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me on this important resolution and halt--halt--this rush to another war. Let us not make the same disastrous mistake as we did with Iraq.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today marks the 84th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Turkey. It is an auspicious occasion to commemorate the abiding and enduring partnership between two great nations.

In 1923, following the collapse of the 600-year-old Ottoman Empire and a 3-year war of independence, a Turkish World War I hero, Mustafa Kemal, helped found the Republic of Turkey. Kemal, who was later given the name Ataturk, meaning ``father of the Turks,'' rejected the crumbling structures and outdated modes of empire and embraced instead a platform of reform and modernization, a legacy that continues in Turkey to this day and to this hour.

Today Turkey is the most successful example in the Muslim world of a secular representative democracy. Turkey's economy has grown at a record pace in recent years to become the world's 19th largest. Literacy and education rates continue to climb, as life expectancy has improved and poverty rates have declined. Turkey stands as an inspiration to reformers in the greater Middle East and throughout the world.

Turkey has been a consistent and loyal ally of the people of the United States. From World War II, when Turkey entered the fight on the side of the allies, to the cementing of the United States-Turkish alliance in the 1947 Truman doctrine to Turkey's accession to the North American Treaty Organization in 1952, Turkey has been a friend of the American people.

During the long Cold War, Turkey was a bulwark on the edge of the Iron Curtain, and it was a critical ally. Turkey later helped the United States to

patrol the no-fly zones over Iraq after the first Persian Gulf war and aided the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

Turkey, which has the second largest army in NATO, commanded the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan twice, in 2002 and 2005, and Turkish troops continue to contribute to security efforts there.

It is difficult to overstate the critical importance of Turkey's cooperation with United States missions in the region. United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently estimated that 70 percent--let me say that again, 70 percent--of the air cargo deployed into Iraq to support United States troops there transits through airbases in Turkey.

I perhaps should say that again. It is difficult to overstate the critical importance of Turkey's cooperation with United States missions in the region. United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently estimated that 70 percent of the air cargo deployed into Iraq to support United States troops there transits through airbases in Turkey.

Turkey, as a predominantly Muslim country with an important bilateral relationship with Israel, seeks to play a constructive role in Middle East peace negotiations and continues to be an important ally in a dangerous and turbulent region. Turkey occupies a strategically critical territory between Europe and Asia, bordering such challenging neighbors as Iran, Syria, and Iraq.

Furthermore, I say, as the United States increasingly looks to diversify its sources of energy, it is important for us to remember that Turkey forms a crucial energy corridor to the West, capable of bringing oil and natural gas from the steppes of Eurasia to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

Turkey is, in short, central to the interests of the United States. Now is a good time to be reminded of that fact, as tensions build in the Kurdish region and tempers flare over the proper words to use to describe a century-old tragedy. Whatever one's views may be about that tragedy--politically, economically, geographically, strategically, and militarily--as our soldiers--our soldiers, U.S. soldiers, American soldiers--are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States can ill-afford to lose such an important friend and ally as Turkey.

This is a critical moment for Turkey. The Turkish people recently elected a new government, led by Prime Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul. Let me say that once more. This time I think I can say that better. This is a critical moment for Turkey. The Turkish people recently elected a new government led by Prime Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul. These decisive elections demonstrated the vibrant and healthy spirit of Turkey's democracy and the commitment of Turkey's people to the democratic process. However, the young government is facing a number of serious challenges as it simultaneously seeks to guard against a very real threat from Kurdish terrorists, assuage Turkish nationalists and the military, and maintain the secular character of the State, all while continuing Turkey's bid for European Union membership. We should offer the Turkish Government all the support we can give in these noble endeavors.

Much like the United States, Turkey continues to struggle with the darker moments of its history. The terrible treatment of Armenians prior to and during the first World War, as well as the treatment of other minorities, including Greeks, Alevis, and Kurds, is a matter that continues to haunt the people of Turkey. In recent years, however, there have been encouraging signs: historians conferences, attempts to improve relations with Armenia, and growing acceptance of the Kurdish language.

This is what free people and open democracies do. They debate and they examine their history and the conscience of their people. Given time and patience, their past can be confronted in a truthful and candid way. Many of us would like to see more progress from Turkey in this area. There continue to be issues about which our two countries disagree. This should be no surprise. Members of the same family disagree at times, and our best friends are often those who criticize us most openly. But there is a time for criticism and a time for praise, and criticism can be constructive. Today is a day to celebrate the great Turkish nation and its people and to acknowledge the strong ties that bind our countries together. That is the reason I am cosponsoring a resolution with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith--to affirm the friendship and the alliance of the American and Turkish peoples. May our ties continue to grow stronger with the passage of time.

Mr. President, 5 years ago today, our country lost a good man. Now, I am mindful of what the Scriptures say in that there is no man who is good. I am mindful of that. But this is a statement I am making, and in the context of the thoughts I wish to express, I am going to say: Five years ago today, our country lost a good man. It lost an outstanding Senator. It was 5 years ago today that Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila and their daughter Marcia perished in a tragic plane crash.

Paul Wellstone died tragically, but he lived heroically. Paul Wellstone was unique. I knew him. Paul Wellstone was priceless. Paul Wellstone was irreplaceable. Paul Wellstone was a Senator of remarkable integrity and remarkable courage.

Only a few days before his tragic death, I witnessed firsthand the integrity and the courage of that Senator, Mr. Paul Wellstone.

Paul Wellstone was in the late stages of a close campaign for reelection. Paul Wellstone had been targeted for defeat by the George Bush-Karl Rove political machine. And this Senate was about to vote on the Iraq war resolution. I was here.

At that time, granting President Bush the authority for an invasion of Iraq was the political thing to do. The White House had convinced most of the country that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was poised to use those weapons.

Many Americans had been frightened by a steady drumbeat of White House rhetoric about mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction. Many Americans had been convinced that the war would be brief and that our troops in Iraq would be welcomed with open arms.

Despite the then-prevailing view that voting against the Iraq war was political suicide, Senator Paul Wellstone--God rest his soul--Senator Paul Wellstone proudly and defiantly--do you hear that word ``defiantly''--announced he would vote against it. I will never forget his words.

Seldom have I been so impressed with the courage of a colleague. Senator Paul Wellstone took a principled stand, a stand that would undoubtedly cost him votes, and maybe his reelection.

Did Paul Wellstone flinch? No. He did not let that sway him. He stood against the White House. Paul Wellstone stood against the easy, popular winds of the time. Paul Wellstone stood against the rush to war.

Senator Paul Wellstone placed the good of our country and the lives of young Americans far above his own reelection. That was Paul Wellstone.

We needed more Senators like Paul Wellstone.

Paul Wellstone exemplified the courage of his convictions. Senator Paul Wellstone stood proudly against the rush--the rush--to war. Senator Paul

Wellstone was brave. He was passionate. He was ever true to his conscience and to the people he represented. Despite the pain and the difficulty of multiple sclerosis, Paul Wellstone carried on and made us all feel humbled and proud by his bravery.

When the Senate lost Senator Paul Wellstone 5 years ago today, the Senate and the country lost a man of remarkable integrity. How I wish our country had more men like him--Paul Wellstone.

I close this statement with a poem, a remarkable poem--a remarkable poem for a remarkable man.

God, give us men!

A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true

faith, and ready hands.

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie.

Men who can stand before a demagogue and brave his

treacherous flatteries without winking.

Tall men, sun-crowned;

Who live above the fog,

In public duty and in private thinking.

For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,

its large professions and its little deeds,

mingles in selfish strife, Lo! Freedom weeps!

Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.

God give us men!

Men who serve not for selfish booty;

But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty.

Men of dependable character; men of sterling

worth;

then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the Earth.

God give us men!

Thank You, almighty God, for this remarkable man, this man of great honor, this remarkable man, Paul Wellstone. Whence cometh another?

Would the Senator inform the Senate as to what the subject of his amendment is?

Reserving the right to object, the Senator has an amendment?

Does he wish to have it read?

Will the clerk read the amendment.

Madam President, would the Senator read his amendment again, please, for the edification of the Senate.

Yes, please.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, first, I commend Senator Harkin for his skillful management of this bill. The Labor, HHS, and Education bill requires tough--did you hear me say that word, tough?--tradeoffs between critical programs that serve our Nation well. I thank Senator Specter for his many contributions to this legislation, which is bipartisan, and I urge Senators to vote no on the motion to commit the bill to the committee for the purpose of reducing the bill to the President's request.

Hear me now. Hear me now. Listen. I am going to pose a question. You will have an opportunity to answer it. If such a motion to commit were approved, the bill would need to be reduced by $9 billion. To any Senator who intends to vote for the motion to commit so as to reduce the bill by $9 billion, I ask: What programs would you cut? What programs would you cut?

The President proposes to cut National Institutes of Health funding by $279 million for studying cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Under the President's budget, the National Institutes of Health would have to eliminate 717 research grants that could lead to cures or treatments for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. Should we reduce funding for the National Institutes of Health? How about it? Do I hear a response? Ask yourself before you vote: Where would you cut? Where would you cut?

The President proposes over $3 billion in cuts for education programs, including special education, safe and drug-free schools, and improving teacher quality. Should we reduce funding for educating our children? Should we? Which educational programs shall we cut? Step up to the plate.

The President proposes cuts of nearly $1 billion in health programs such as rural health, preventive health, nurse training, and mental health grants. Should we reduce funding for programs that improve the health of our Nation? Should we? Ask yourself, which program--which program--should be cut?

Silence. The record will note silence in answer to the question.

The President proposes to cut low-income home energy assistance by $379 million. Winter is coming on. It gets pretty cold in those West Virginia hills. As winter approaches and home heating oil prices rise, should we reduce funding for home energy assistance? No Senator will be cold this winter at home. I won't be cold at home. I am a Senator, proud to be a Senator. By how much should we slash low-income home energy assistance? By how much? Those who want to cut, now is the time to answer the question. By how much should we slash low-income home energy assistance?

Mr. President, it is easy to demand cuts until one has to say just what will be cut. Whose ox--whose ox, yours or mine--whose ox will be gored? Who will be left out in the cold?

To all Senators listening, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to commit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.

I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.