Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the very able and distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for his characteristic courtesy.

Mr. President, this morning, we return to the consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, produced a balanced and responsible bill.

The bill includes significant resources for border security, for enforcing our immigration laws, and for improving security at our airports. We include--we include, may I say--significant new resources for implementing the SAFE Port Act. We also restore cuts in the first responder grants program.

Last week, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Hear me now. I will say that again. Last week, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. That is right here, the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report. This is not just Robert Byrd talking.

Let me say that again. Last week, the administration released its latest--I am talking about the administration, the Bush administration, the administration in control of the executive branch--the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report:

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.

That ought to make us sit up and take notice. I am going to say it again. Hear me.

Last week, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report:

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist

groups to adapt and improve their capabilities. . . .

[W]e judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put

operatives here.

Let me repeat that word--here, H-E-R-E.

Yesterday, in light of this latest threat assessment from the Government's most senior intelligence analyst--I better read that again. Yesterday, in light of this latest threat assessment from the Government's most senior intelligence analyst, I urged the President to reconsider his veto threat of this bill. This morning, we received the White House's response. The President has said he will veto this bill because he, the President--President Bush--regards the additional spending for border security, port security, aviation security, and for first responder grants as excessive.

The President has every right to make this threat, but, in my view, the view of this West Virginia mountaineer, the threat is irresponsible. Let me say that again. In my view--and I am a U.S. Senator--the threat is irresponsible.

If the President is going to scare the Nation by issuing intelligence estimates that say the threat of a terrorist attack is persistent and evolving, he, the President--President Bush--has a responsibility to back it up with resources to deter that threat. The Appropriations Committee recognizes the threat, and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate has responded responsibly.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy dated July 25, 2007.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Maryland, the able Senator, for yielding.

I rise to discuss the Graham amendment. In total, in fiscal year 2008, the bill includes $11,377,816,000 for border security programs within U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is $1,288,302,000, or 12.7 percent, above fiscal year 2007, and $338,846,000 above the President's request. That is 3 percent over the President's request.

With these funds, by the end of fiscal year 2008, there will be a total of 17,819 Border Patrol agents, 31,500 detention beds, and more than 12,700 immigration enforcement and detention personnel. Additionally, the combined funding in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology is more than $2.5 billion.

Including the funding provided in this bill, since 2004, on a bipartisan basis under the leadership of Senators Byrd, Craig, and Gregg, Congress will have increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 7,000, the number of immigration enforcement personnel by 2,546, and the number of detention beds by 13,150.

The President has threatened to veto this bill because of what he considers to be ``excessive'' spending. However, it is not ``excessive'' when we provide funds to secure our borders. I support continued bipartisan efforts to provide funding for real border security. We do not yet have the amendment, but I look forward to reviewing it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will proceed to the Homeland Security bill. I speak in advance of that happening.

In every State of the Union Address since the terrorist attacks on 9/ 11, the President has raised the specter of another attack. This past January, the President said--hear me, the President said:

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the

shoreless ambitions of this enemy . . . I wish I could report

to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. It remains

the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper

tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military

action to do our duty . . . to protect the American people.

Let me say that again. The President said:

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the

shoreless ambitions of this enemy . . . I wish I could report

to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. It remains

the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper

tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military

action to do our duty--

To do our duty--

to protect the American people.

And yet despite the President's warnings and the President's promises, the President's budget failed to commit significant resources to address these dangers. Too often the Department of Homeland Security settles for security that looks good on paper but leaves serious gaps in the defense of our homeland. There is too much rhetoric on homeland security and too little action; too much wind--too much wind--and not enough wisdom.

Despite the August 2006 arrests in Britain of terrorists determined to blow passenger aircraft out of the sky over the Atlantic, we still don't have proven technology to detect liquid explosives.

I wish to say that again. Hear me now; hear me. Despite the August 2006 arrests in Britain of terrorists determined to blow passenger aircraft out of the sky over the Atlantic, we still don't have proven technology to detect liquid explosives.

On an average day, 7,500 tons of cargo is placed in the holds of passenger aircraft at our Nation's airports, little of which is screened for explosives and virtually none is screened for radiation. Our seaports remain vulnerable. Our police, firefighters, emergency medical teams, and emergency managers remain understaffed and underprepared to handle the challenges of the times.

The White House--hear me down there--the White House talks a good

game, but talk is cheap, cheap, cheap. But security is not cheap. The White House asserted that its budget proposes an 8-percent increase for the Department of Homeland Security. However, after sifting through the gimmicks, we found that it is a 1.7-percent increase above current funding. That is barely enough to cover inflation for existing programs. More paper security; more paper security. More failed promises; more failed promises. We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility; yes, we have a responsibility to the people of this country to do better, and this legislation meets that responsibility.

For border security, the bill provides the funds to hire 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. The bill also includes $1 billion for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology. Our bill adds funds for 4,000 new detention beds, 3,050 more detention beds than are requested by the President. Get that? We commit the funds that are essential for a coordinated, comprehensive border security effort.

Real security cannot be done on the cheap. Hear me. Real security cannot be done on the cheap.

For aviation security, the bill invests funds that will help save lives, and it may be your life, it may be your life, it may be your life, maybe someone's life whom you know, it may be some child's life, but it cannot be done on the cheap.

Despite a documented need for $3.6 billion to purchase and install explosives detection systems, the President--get this--the President, the President of the United States, proposes to cut, the explosives detection program by 17 percent. The bill provides $89.4 million above the President's request to purchase and install explosives detection equipment at airports. That is for you, the people of this country, to install this equipment at airports for your security.

We take on the challenge of screening cargo before it is loaded onto aircraft, which you, the people of this country--the passengers--will board.

The bill includes $66 million, $10 million above the request--$10 million above the President's request--to deploy 70 additional canine teams--God bless them, those good, great dogs--to deploy 70 additional canine teams, and more screening technology at airports nationwide, at airports where the people of this country will board nationwide.

Funds are also provided to establish 20 radiation screening teams at key U.S. international airports to inspect aircraft and cargo. You, the people out there, will be boarding these aircraft. Let me say it again. Funds are also provided to establish 20 radiation screening teams at key U.S. international airports to inspect aircraft, which you will board, and cargo, which will be boarded by you, the people. All of this money is well spent. It will protect human lives and cargo and aircraft.

In this legislation, we also speed up the work on disaster preparation. Two years ago--how soon we forget--just 2 years ago, Hurricane Katrina demonstrated our dismal failure in dealing with a major disaster. Hurricane Rita showed that we do not know how to organize an effective mass evacuation. I want to say that again. Hurricane Rita showed that we do not know how to organize an effective mass evacuation. Now, we better get on it. We better get with it. I am going to say it once again: Hurricane Rita showed that we--that is you and that is me--do not know how to organize an effective mass evacuation. That is hard to believe.

Maybe it isn't so hard.

The White House After Action Report on the hurricanes concluded, and I quote from that report. I am quoting from the White House After Action Report, not my report.

We are not as prepared as we need to be at all levels

within this country.

We are not as prepared as we need to be at all levels within the country. What an understatement. What an understatement. Yet the President's budget proposes a $1.2 billion cut--a cut--in vital homeland security grant programs, including funds for disaster preparations and first responder training. Where, oh where, is the sense in that?

According to the Department of Homeland Security's own estimates, two-thirds of the States and urban areas do not have adequate plans to respond to a catastrophic event. This legislation rejects the proposed budget cuts and puts us on the right track--planning and training for a catastrophic event.

The bill that is before the Senate increases first responder funding by $644 million. The President signed the SAFE Port Act last year with great fanfare. Yet 9 months later, his budget--the President's budget-- includes no additional funds for the new security requirements contained in the law that the President signed. This bill makes good on the promises of the SAFE Port Act, hiring specialists to help inspect the 11 million containers that come into the United States every year. The bill commits funds directly to our ports to tighten security.

Let me say that again: The bill commits funds directly to our ports to tighten security--security for you, the people out there--at the ports. Port security grants are increased by $190 million to the fully authorized level of $400 million. We double the frequency of unannounced Coast Guard inspections at our port facilities.

Get that? You better wake up out there. I am going to say it again: We double the frequency of unannounced Coast Guard inspections at our port facilities, and we fund the installation of radiation detection equipment at our ports to guard against nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. I will say that again: We fund the installation of radiation detection equipment at our ports to guard against nuclear weapons and dirty bombs.

The threat at our ports needs to be addressed now. It is foolish to delay any longer. In order to restore the ill-considered cuts proposed by the President for equipping and training our first responders, and to fund the increases that I have described for border, port, and aviation security, the bill exceeds the President's request by $2.25 billion.

Incredibly, President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill. Why? Because of what he, the President, labels as excessive spending. Excessive spending. That is what President Bush said. Let me read that again: President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill--that is for you, the people out there in the hills and valleys of this great land. Why? He has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill because of what he labels as excessive spending.

The $2.25 billion increase in this bill is about what we spend in 1 week--1 week--in Iraq. Let me say that again. Now listen to me. Hear me now. Incredibly, President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill because of what he labels as excessive spending. Yet the $2.25 billion increase in this bill is about what we spend in 1 week in Iraq.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security was quoted as saying that it was his gut feeling that the United States faces an increased threat of attack this summer. Now, that is not Robert Byrd making that assertion. Let me say it again. Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security was quoted as saying--did you hear that--he was quoted as saying that it was his gut feeling--that is pretty deep--that our country faces an increased threat of attack this summer. That is now, isn't it? This is July. This summer.

On the heels of the Secretary's warnings, the administration, our administration, the Bush administration, has released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Where is that? Here, the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report. This is not Robert Byrd talking, this is the report, the National Intelligence Estimate, concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland.

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qaida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the Homeland--

That is my homeland. That is your homeland.

and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt

and improve their capabilities. . . .[W]e judge that al-Qaida

will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

Where? Not out there, here. Here is everywhere in our homeland.

As a result, we judge that the United States currently is

in a heightened threat

environment. . . .We assess that al-Qaida's Homeland plotting

is likely to continue to focus on prominent political,

economic and infrastructure targets with the goal of

producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction,

significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S.

population.

These are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our Government. Those are the words that should force our Government, both in the executive and in the legislative branches, to reevaluate the priority that we are giving to funding to stop terrorist attacks against this country, our country--my country, your country, our country.

I call on the President--yes, I call on the President of the United States--to reconsider his veto threat in light of the concerns raised by his own administration.

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is critical to the safety of our citizens. The potential threats are enormous. The Congress must strike a balance that preserves our cherished freedoms and provides for enhanced security.

We need to stop squabbling and pass the Homeland Security bill for the President's speedy signature. This is no time to jockey for political points or to argue over minor differences. The Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, has produced a balanced and responsible bill which needs action now.

I thank Senator Cochran and his able staff for their support in producing this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I yield.

Yes, Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague. The Senate needs to hear the other side; all sides, all sides. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 2381

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, I call up a committee substitute which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this morning, I gave my opening remarks for consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, has produced a balanced and responsible bill which needs action now.

The bill includes significant resources for border security, for enforcing our immigration laws, and for improving security at our airports. We include significant new resources for implementing the SAFE Port Act. We also restore cuts in first responder grant programs.

I thank Senator Cochran and his able staff for their support in producing this legislation.

Just last week, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I am going to quote from the report.

I will say that again so that the audience out there in the homeland will understand just exactly what is going on here.

Just last week, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. We are talking about the Bush administration's latest National Intelligence Estimate. I will quote from the report. Hear me, I am quoting from the report of the administration, the Bush administration, from its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Hear me:

We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the U.S. homeland and a continued effort by these

terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities. . .

. [W]e judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put

operatives here.

Let me say that again. Listen. Just last week, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. That is right here--not somewhere else--the U.S. homeland. And I will quote from this report from the Bush administration:

We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist

groups to adapt and improve their capabilities. . . . [W]e

judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put

operatives here.

Not somewhere else--here. Those are the words that should force our Government, both in the executive and in the legislative branches, to reevaluate the priority that we are giving to funding to stop terrorist attacks against this country--our country, your country, my country. I look forward to a good debate.

Mr. President, I thank my able friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for his comments related to securing our chemical plants. He and I will work together--as we always have, as we always do--to ensure that the Department has the resources it needs to enforce the new chemical security standards.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to thank and I do thank--I don't just want to say I want to thank, I do thank Senator Murray for her kind remarks. She has made important contributions. She always makes important contributions. And she has made important contributions to this critical legislation. Senator Murray has developed expertise in the field of homeland security, particularly with regard to port security.

Let me say that again. Senator Murray has developed expertise in the field of homeland security, particularly with regard to port security. That takes time, that takes effort, that takes work. You just don't develop expertise by rising on the Senate floor and saying ``I've got it.'' No. It takes time, it takes labor, it takes toil, it takes work, it takes thought. Senator Murray has developed expertise in the field of homeland security. That is your security. That is my security. That is your security, I say to the people out there in the homeland, in the great mountains and valleys of this country.

Senator Murray has developed expertise in the field of homeland security, particularly with regard to port security. I have come to rely on her expertise and I look forward to her assistance as we process this very important bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

What does this mean, that the Senator just said? Tell us.

And what is this bill?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Say that again, will you please, Senator. I want the people of America to hear what you just said.

The point is very simple. There is an urgency in this appropriations subcommittee bill that I think is beyond the importance of other bills. Why? Because we have been told in recent weeks there is a gut feeling on the part of the person who heads our Homeland Security Agency that we may be attacked again.

We have been told by the National Intelligence Estimate that the al- Qaida organization has reconstituted and regenerated itself and is the most serious threat to attack the homeland of the United States of America. If that is the case, and we have been warned--let me describe, again, the August 2001 Presidential daily briefing was headlined this: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.''

That is what the President received in August of 2001.

Now, you say the President. What are you talking about?

Senator, I think that is worth hearing again. I want the American people to hear what you have said.

Who is the chairman and ranking member?

Something wrong, yes.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Let's do it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Adam Morrison, a detainee from the Coast Guard to the Homeland Security Subcommittee, be given the privilege of the floor throughout floor consideration of

Mr. President, last Thursday night, in an embarrassing display, the Senate engaged in the perennial and painfully ridiculous budget vote-arama.

This is the process where the Senate considers either a budget resolution or reconciliation bill, and, under the rules of the Budget Act, Senators are permitted to offer and secure votes on amendments after the statutory limitation on debate has expired. By consent, Senators are usually allocated 2 minutes to describe their positions for and against an amendment before the Senate votes. Because Senators are not required to file their amendments in advance, far too often, Senators cannot read an amendment before a rollcall vote begins. We cannot even get an inkling of some of the mischief contained in many of these amendments. Many times, the amendments being considered would require sweeping changes to current law, and Senators are forced to cast their votes on these complex matters without the benefit of debate, an understanding of the costs, or even the chance to peek at the text of the amendment.

In recent years, the budget vote-arama has come to signify an absolute breakdown in the deliberations of the U.S. Senate. The vote- arama is a degrading process that sullies the reputation of the Senate every time it occurs. I can only imagine, and I cringe at the thought of, how the Senate must appear to the American people, voting on matters without debate, and without even something as simple as a copy of the amendment.

Last Thursday night, during the debate on the Higher Education Access Act, the so-called education reconciliation bill, the process deteriorated even further, into something appalling. The Senate fell into a political tit-for-tat, with Senators offering, at first, an unrelated amendment regarding the Federal Communications Commission, and then a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then an unrelated amendment to alter the collective bargaining rights of American workers. The free-for-all further deteriorated when an amendment was offered urging the President not to pardon the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, and then a retaliatory amendment was offered regarding the pardons granted by President Clinton. And on it went.

Amendment after amendment was offered, each completely unrelated to the education bill before the Senate, and subject to multiple violations under the Budget Act. And, yet, each side continued to raise the stakes, taking political shots at the opposing side, while the Senate suffered through a humiliating night of political ping-pong. Cooler heads finally prevailed, thanks to the intervention of the majority leader, and, at least, the amendments regarding Presidential pardons were withdrawn. Nevertheless, the soap opera of last Thursday night underscores the dangers of the budget reconciliation process-- where bills are considered under expedited procedures, where debate is almost nonexistent, where vote-aramas occur, and where Senators are called upon to cast votes on nearly anonymous amendments that amount to little more than colorful sloganeering.

The spectacle also underscored the absolute necessity of the Byrd Rule. Section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--prevents extraneous matter from being added to reconciliation bills, and being jammed through the Senate on party-line votes, like the ones we saw last Thursday night. The Byrd Rule was designed to prevent passage of exactly the kind of amendments that were being offered.

As the hours ticked by, I believe that many Members were embarrassed by the performance of the Senate, as it got dragged into a political game of tossing zingers. In hindsight, we have to admit that matters got carried away, and that this body drifted far from its constitutional responsibility to legislate for the American people, and not the political media. Last Thursday night, the Senate displayed an utter lack of seriousness and appreciation for the depth and complexity of the issues before this country. I opposed every amendment that violated the Byrd Rule--regardless of whether it was offered by a Republican or Democrat, and regardless of how I viewed the subject matter--because I was so appalled by the deterioration in the Senate's deliberative processes. I can say honestly that I took no part in the message-mongering amendments that were extraneous to the underlying bill, and that showed this institution in such a shameful light.

Last Thursday night's spectacle ought to cause every Senator to reevaluate the budget process in the U.S. Senate. I will renew my efforts to do away with these pernicious vote-aramas, and I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort.

Madam President, for several days--for several days--the news has been saturated with stories about the indictment of a well- known professional football player for running a dog-fighting operation. I am not going to comment on that particular case. The man has been accused. He has not been convicted. We must wait until all the facts are in and a verdict is rendered. The man cited in these recent news stories is innocent until proven guilty, and Lord help him if he is proven to be guilty in a court of law. We must wait for the justice system to run its course. But the facts are already in, and the verdict has already been delivered.

What is it about? What is it about, Madam President? It is about the scourge of dog fighting in the United States--dog fighting in the United States. According to the Humane Society, there are about 40,000 dog-fighting operations in the United States. The deputy manager of dog-fighting issues for the Humane Society, John Goodman, points out, ``. . . dog fighting is at an epidemic level'' in the United States. It involves urban areas as well as rural areas. It involves all sections of the country. It cuts across cultures and class and other socio and economic differences.

Dog fighting continues even though all 50 States have laws on the books prohibiting dog fighting. Dog fighting is a Federal crime. Let me say that again. Dog fighting is a Federal crime, and yet animal welfare officials report that dog fighting is more popular today than ever. Shame, shame, shame.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars have all been at stake in the breeding, the training, and the selling of fighting dogs. How inhuman, how dastardly.

Two dogs are placed in a pit and turned loose--turned loose--against each other. How inhuman, how cannibalistic, how sadistic. Let me read that again.

Two dogs--God created the dog to be man's companion--two dogs are placed in a pit--think of that--placed in a pit and turned loose against each other. And get this: the fight can go on for hours. The fight can go on for hours. Do you hear me? The fight can go on for hours. The poor dogs literally bite and rip the flesh off one another, and bets as high as $50,000 are placed. The brutality goes on until one of the poor dogs is seriously injured or killed. So the poor dog died-- died. The dog died. And for that reason, dog fighting is regarded as a blood sport. A blood sport. While bloody, Madam President, it is hardly a sport. Hardly a sport.

It is a brutal, sadistic event motivated by barbarism of the worst sort and cruelty of the worst sadistic kind. One is left wondering: who are the real animals--the creatures inside the ring or the creatures outside the ring?

The depravity of dog fighting is a multimillion-dollar business that involves training innocent, vulnerable creatures to kill--to kill--and putting them in a ring to be killed or to kill for the entertainment and/or the profit of their owners and other spectators.

I have seen one individual in my lifetime electrocuted in the electric chair--in my time. It is not a beautiful spectacle. So I can say I could witness another one if it involves this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business of training innocent and vulnerable creatures to kill.

Undercover investigators who have infiltrated the dog-fighting ring have found blood-soaked dogs with life-threatening injuries that are left to die as soon as they are no longer able to compete. Undercover investigators have found dogs with ripped ears, torn lips, genitals dangling from their bodies, eyes swollen shut, and faces riddled with punctures so severe that they were barely able to breathe. How inhuman, how inhuman, how sadistic.

Dogs that survive a fight often die days or even hours after the fight from blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion, or infection. What a shame. What a shame.

If the losing dog survives the ordeal--get this--it is usually so mangled that it is no longer of any use and, therefore, it is put to death--put to death.

I have seen a human being put to death for killing another human being, but why a poor dog--a poor dog? If the losing dog survived the ordeal it is usually so mangled that it is no longer of any use. How sad, sad, sad. It is put to death. Even the winner of a dog fight commonly suffers from massive bleeding, ruptured lungs, broken bones, or other life-threatening injuries.

The training of these poor creatures--weigh those words--the training of these poor creatures to turn them into fighting machines is simply barbaric--barbaric. Let that word resound from hill to hill and from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley across this broad land-- barbaric. May God help those poor souls who would be so cruel. Barbaric. Hear me. Barbaric. Such practices as starvation of the poor animal to encourage malice, and beatings to build endurance are common. It involves teaching the dog to maul by using smaller animals, such as cats or rabbits or small dogs as training bait.

The result of this most cruel business reaches beyond the fighting ring itself. There are cases of dogs trained to kill that have broken loose and mauled human beings to death. It is reported that dog fighters often involve their children in their bloody activities, with severe damaging psychological impact. What a sin. What a sin. Studies have revealed that children exposed to dog fighting develop a greater acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behavior. They are taught to believe that violence--violence--is entertaining, and that it is OK to inflict the cruelties they have observed. Dog fighting, reports the Houston Chronicle, simply breeds violence.

Madam President, as a dog owner and a dog lover, I cannot even begin to understand how human beings can be so cruel to man's best friend. Over the centuries of time, these creatures of God have made a place in our hearts as well as in our homes. Dogs have endured as our devoted companions. They provide important emotional support to humans so that the mere petting of these social creatures can lower blood pressure in humans. Get that, Madam President? The mere petting of these social creatures can lower blood pressure in humans. The affection that a dog provides is unlimited, unqualified, and unconditional. Ever the loyal companion, dogs protect us, assist those of us with afflictions, and provide hours of enjoyable companionship. Therefore, I take great satisfaction in knowing that if the people allegedly involved in this outrageous business are found guilty, they will have to answer to our judicial system--and may God help their souls. Congress has made it a Federal crime to engage in dog fighting.

God, the one, eternal, everlasting God, made man caretaker of the Earth. God gave man the responsibility of tending to the natural world with dominion over animal life. We honor God when we treat all of his creatures responsibly and with decency and with respect.

The Book of Proverbs in the Holy Bible, King James Bible, tells us:

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the

tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

The immortal Dante tells us that Divine justice reserves special places in hell for certain categories of sinners. I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Global Warming and Climate Change Legislation

Madam President, I opposed the Ensign and Stabenow amendments regarding Social Security and illegal immigrants, because those amendments violated section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--which prohibits extraneous matter on budget reconciliation bills.

I oppose providing Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. I have supported and will continue to support legislation to help ensure that Social Security benefits are not provided for work unlawfully performed by illegal immigrants.

Madam President, I opposed the McConnell amendment regarding detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba, because it violated section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--which prohibits extraneous matter on budget reconciliation bills.

So was I.

No.

Mr. President, as the Senate turns its attention to the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, every Member of this body is focused on the security of our Nation and the safety of our troops in Iraq. Senators Levin and McCain, along with the other members of the Armed Services Committee, have worked hard, very hard, to put together a bipartisan bill that provides our troops with the resources they need and sets priorities for defense spending for the year ahead.

This is a strong bill. I was proud to support it in committee. But it is incomplete--incomplete because we cannot possibly claim to have truly provided for our Nation's security until we have addressed the situation in Iraq.

It is now more than 4 years since President Bush declared the mission in Iraq has been accomplished. Since ``mission accomplished,'' more than 3,400 U.S. soldiers have died, died in Iraq. A sectarian civil war is now deeply entrenched, deeply entrenched and raging.

The political compromises that for years we have been promised by the Iraqis seem to be more distant than ever. Civilians are dying in ever greater numbers, and every day more American troops are hurled into the crossfire.

It is time, yes, far past time, for the Congress--that is us--to have a real debate about this war and about where our national security interests ultimately lie. We must start by sunsetting the outdated and open-ended 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq and requiring the President to request a new authorization that outlines the new mission which our troops are being asked to perform.

The amendment Senator Clinton and I are offering does exactly that. It will end the 2002 authorization on its 5-year anniversary, October 11, 2007. That authorization which was passed to confront the threat that we were told faced us from the government of Saddam Hussein is no longer relevant. Our troops have toppled the dictator. The Iraqis have voted in a new government. No weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Meanwhile, American soldiers continue to die, die in the crossfire of another country's civil war, while the President fails to clearly articulate our mission, our strategy or our goals for continuing our occupation of Iraq. He must clearly explain his vision, his vision to an increasingly skeptical public, the American people, those people out yonder, the American people.

We were told this year would mark a turning point, a new direction in this war with a new strategy intended to give Iraq's political leaders breathing room in order to forge a political consensus. Unfortunately, that is not the way events have unfolded. Despite the addition of more than 20,000 American troops into Baghdad, civilian deaths have actually increased as the insurgents have engaged in a surge of their own--a surge of their own--far from creating breathing room for peace.

The President's current course appears to be pumping oxygen into the fire of sectarian violence. The decision to go to war--the decision to go to war--to send our sons and daughters into the line of fire, to ask them to kill and be killed on our behalf, is the weightiest decision that a Member of Congress can ever, ever, ever make.

It is wrong, wrong I say, it is wrong for Congress to continue to fail to reassess that outdated authority without a real debate about where the occupation of Iraq is headed. The authorization that Congress passed in 2002 to give the President authority to go to war in Iraq was rushed through here 3 weeks before Congressional elections--yes, rushed through.

It was passed in the shadow of warnings of mushroom clouds and the not-so-subtle implication that anyone who voted against the war could not be trusted with matters of national security.

It was a hasty and unconstitutional abdication of Congress's authority in matters of war. It is time to bring that authorization to a close--yes--and have an honest debate about the way forward. We do our troops a disservice if we do not take a fresh look, and the President should welcome the opportunity to solicit our renewed support for his policy. We must think of our national interest and think again--yes--of our brave troops. We must put politics aside.

At a recent Senate hearing, I asked Defense Secretary Gates if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response, may I say, was surprisingly candid:

I don't know.

I believe the answer to that question is clear and that it is time for the President to make the case to the Congress of the United States and to the American people of the United States for the U.S. military's changed mission in Iraq. Our country will benefit from the debate.

This amendment puts the ball right back in the President's court, requiring him, the President, to request a new authorization for the new mission that challenges our military. The White House has repeatedly asserted that General Petraeus needs until September to assess the progress of the security escalation in Iraq. This amendment gives him that time. But this amendment also ensures that Congress and the people will have the opportunity to examine that progress to determine our course in Iraq. It is a simple, commonsense approach that reestablishes the congressional authority decreed by the Constitution of the United States. It also respects the President's role as the Commander in Chief.

It is important to emphasize to all of my colleagues that supporting my amendment does not preclude voting for any other legislative options. This amendment addresses the legal foundation for this horrible war. We are a nation of laws, not of men. My amendment simply states the obvious truth, that the facts on the ground do not match the open-ended authorization that is still in force. Any Senator wishing to vote for legislation mandating a withdrawal date or to restrict the war funding or to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group should also support the Byrd-Clinton amendment.

As the President himself said earlier this year:

The fight we are in is not the fight that we entered.

I couldn't agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized. I urge this body to schedule a vote on the Byrd-Clinton amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on an amendment offered by Senator Cornyn, amendment No. 2100, that states, in part, that it is the Sense of the Senate that the ``Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.'' I opposed that amendment, but my vote should not be viewed as a lack of concern for the consequences of a failed Iraqi state.

I agree that it is not in the interest of the United States for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East to devolve into total chaos, and no one in this body argues differently. However, I opposed the amendment because it suggests that the United States Senate will be bound to a policy of supporting an endless U.S. military involvement in Iraq. By implying that it is our military's responsibility to prevent a failed state in Iraq, the Cornyn amendment suggests that it is up to our service men and women, now and into the future, to undo the missteps of an ill-conceived adventure directed by a reckless President.

The amendment fails to define what exactly a ``failed state'' is, nor how the U.S. military should go about preventing one. Some may not have noticed, but Iraq is perilously close to a reasonable definition of ``failed state'' already. In the third annual ``failed state'' index, analysts for Foreign Policy magazine and the not-for-profit Fund for Peace said Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world. Its standing deteriorated from last year's fourth place on a list of the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and worsening conditions.

Mr. President, I feel that we should be relentless in our efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice and to vanquish the al-Qaida terror network. This amendment, however, does not say anything new, and it does not imply a change in U.S. policy. What it does, however, is suggest that if the failing situation in Iraq does not improve, if the Iraqi government does not step up, if the sectarian violence that has persisted for over a millennia does not abate, the U.S. Senate should not take action that would allow us to modify the mission or withdraw forces--ever. That, Mr. President, is an extremely unwise and imprudent statement and an even more unwise policy.

Mr. President, may we have order?

May we have order?

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Presdient, I rise today to express my surprise that there is actually an objection to taking up the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Appropriations bill today. The bill, which was reported by the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 29-0, provides $37.6 billion to help secure the homeland. That includes funds to secure our borders, funds to hire 3,000 more border patrol agents, and funds to provide 4,000 more detention beds. It includes funds for the men and women of the Coast Guard to guard our ports and seaways. It includes funds to protect 2 million citizens who travel by air every day, including money to inspect air cargo on passenger aircraft. There are funds to implement the SAFE Port Act. We include funds to equip and train our police, fire, and emergency medical personnel to deal with any disaster.

Incredibly, the President has threatened to veto the Homeland Security Appropriations bill because it exceeds his request. Today, we have heard an objection to even debating the bill from a Member on the President's side of the aisle.

Just last week, the Secretary of Homeland Security publicly said that it was his ``gut feeling'' that the United States faces an increased threat of attack this summer. Shouldn't that wake us up to the need to pass this bill?

On the heels of the Secretary's warnings, yesterday, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report:

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist

groups to adapt and improve their capabilities . . . . [W]e

judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put

operatives here. As a result, we judge that the United States

currently is in a heightened threat environment. . . . We

assess that al-Qa'ida's Homeland plotting is likely to

continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and

infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass

casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant

economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population.

Those are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our Government. Is anybody listening? Hear me. Is anybody listening? Let me say this again to see if anybody is listening. Pay attention. I will quote again from the report. This is the latest national intelligence estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Man, you better listen to that. You better listen. Hear me out there. I will quote again from the report.

We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years.

You better pay attention.

The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and

cells, especially al-Qaida, driven by their undiminished

intent to attack the homeland--

Our homeland. Your homeland. My homeland.

and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and

improve their capabilities. We judge that al-Qaida will

intensify its efforts to put operatives here. Here.

Not somewhere else, here.

As a result, we judge that the United States currently is

in a heightened threat environment. We assess that al-Qaida's

homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent

political, economic, and infrastructure targets, with the

goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic

destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear

among the population.

Those are the words, not by Robert C. Byrd, these are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our Government. Is anybody listening? Is anybody listening? I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, bless his heart, he is one of the greatest Senators of all time, is anybody listening? You can bet the American public is listening.

My hope, the people out there looking at this floor, they are listening. The people out there on the highways and the byways, the mountains, the valleys, those warnings should compel our Government, both in the executive and legislative branches, to get our priorities straight.

It is the safety of the American people that matters here. Let me say that again. It is the safety of the American people, that is all 300 million of them, it is the safety of the American people that matters here, not some political ping-pong between the President and the Congress. Our mission must be to prevent terrorist attacks against this country.

In light of the concerns raised by his own administration about the threat of another terrorist attack, I call on the President, I call on the President to pull back on his veto threat. Pull back. I plead with all the Senators to allow this body to do the people's business and to proceed to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The peoples' safety is at stake. Delay is foolish.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter to the President, dated today, on this matter.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on an amendment offered by Senator Sessions, amendment No. 2024, that stated the policy of the United States on the protection of the United States and its allies against the possible threat from the potential development of Iranian ballistic missiles. I supported that amendment, but my vote should not be misconstrued as a blanket endorsement of missile defense installations, nor as support for military action against Iran.

The amendment by Senator Sessions noted Iran's continuing work on a nuclear program despite the many concerns voiced by the international community, as well as Iran's development of ballistic missiles of increasing range and sophistication. Iranian success in these two areas might eventually pose a threat to the forward-deployed forces of the United States and NATO allies in Europe. In the longer term, an Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program could perhaps pose a threat even to the U.S. mainland. I must state clearly and unequivocally, however, that the best way to confront these possible long-term threats is diplomatically. Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs are not an imminent threat to United States security by anyone's reckoning. The best defense against an Iranian nuclear weapon is for that weapon never to have been developed. We have time, working together with the international community, to direct Iran toward a more peaceful path. I note the good news being reported in today's newspapers that Iran has agreed to allow IAEA inspectors in to inspect its nuclear facilities. This is a step in the right direction, and we should support these efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations. We will not tolerate an illicit nuclear weapons program, but neither should we rush headlong into militant provocations.

The Sessions amendment stated the policy of the United States to ``develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, in conjunction with its allies and other nations whenever possible, an effective defense against the threat from Iran described in subsection (a)(1) that will provide protection for the United States, its friends, and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. . . .'' Further, the amendment stated that deployment of these defenses should be complementary to any missile defenses that might be deployed by NATO in Europe.

This amendment does not say anything new, and it does not imply a change in U.S. policy. The United States and its allies have been developing missile defenses for many years now. The bill to which this amendment was offered contains an additional $315 million to accelerate several missile defense programs aimed at protecting the United States and its allies. The Aegis program, the Patriot PAC3, and the THAAD system program will all benefit from those additional funds. Importantly, the underlying bill limits the availability of authorized funding for missile defense installations in Europe until two conditions have been met: one, approval is given by the countries in which missile defense components are to be located; and, two, 45 days have elapsed since Congress receives a report from the Secretary of Defense on the proposed deployment. These requirements will help to ensure that ballistic missile defense programs

are not put in place hastily or unwisely.

I voted for the amendment because I agree with its underlying sentiment, which is that the United States should prepare defenses against foreseeable threats. What I fear, however, is that the votes in favor of this amendment will become fodder for attempts to further increase funding for missile defense programs that are already more than adequately funded and which history has shown us time and again are technologically challenging and cannot be rushed. Over the years, I have seen this tactic used time and again for missile defense programs. It does not matter how much more money is thrown at them, the technology cannot be rushed. Given the demands for funding for troops in harm's way now from mortar rounds, bullets, and IEDs, we must be cautious of attempts to further bloat a program intended to confront a far-off threat that may never materialize. My vote in favor of a policy of adequately preparing for a long term threat over the long term should not be interpreted as support for excessive spending on missile defense development and deployment. Further, it must not be interpreted as a vote suggesting that the situation at this time justifies the President to use military force in Iran.

Madam President, next Wednesday is July 4, Independence Day, the grand national celebration of our Nation's beginning. The Senate and the House of Representatives will be quiet, in recess so that Members can join in Independence Day celebrations around the country with constituents, families, and friends.

On July 4, summer is approaching its zenith. The days are hot and sunny. Water in all forms lures children into the heat--in the country, shady streams offer relief; in urban areas, fountains or even fire hydrants answer the call, while across the country, swimming pools offer watery fun with an accompanying musical soundtrack of splashing and laughter. Even summer thunderstorms do their bit to cool things down while displaying nature's power and majesty as the lightning cracks and the thunder booms.

Fourth of July celebrations are a wonderful time to glory in all that is good about the United States. Flags and fireworks, picnics and parades, mellow afternoons and martial music--everything about Independence Day is grand. As we join together to remember the bravery that led our Founding Fathers to draft the Declaration of Independence, the long struggle to win our freedom, and the enlightened wisdom that resulted in our unique and wonderful Constitution, the love of our Nation that is the true spirit of patriotism is renewed. Surrounded by the happy faces of our diverse population enjoying their small town parades, music under the stars, family picnics and the grand finale of the fireworks displays, we can be sure that our Founding Fathers chose well when they gambled on a new nation in which ``all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.''

On Independence Day, when laughing children run with their sparklers to compete with the fireflies, we are also reminded of our own obligation to preserve for them all that is good about these United States. In this, we may also look to the Declaration of Independence, which ends with ``a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.''

For our Founding Fathers, this pledge was not mere rhetoric--their signatures on the declaration that hot summer in 1776 put at risk their families, their fortunes, their worldly possessions, and their lives. Some, like Edward Rutledge, age 26, were young men, with all of their life's promise ahead of them. Others, like Benjamin Franklin, age 70, were no longer so young, and the prospect of being hunted down for treason could not have been very appealing. Still, he did not shirk from signing and has even been quoted as saying that ``We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately,'' his witty way of warning the signers that any failure to remain united could result in each of them being tried and executed for treason. History has shown that his warning was not needed.

Through the years of war, even as some of the signers lost their homes or put their fortunes into the war effort, not one of them backed down. For that, we may all be thankful.

Even as the years of war passed, the signers of the Declaration of Independence continued to serve their new Nation. They served as ambassadors for the new United States, as Presidents and Vice Presidents, as Cabinet members, and as a source of inspiration and industry for the fledgling Nation into their old ages. It is fitting that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, third President of the United States, Vice President, Secretary of State, Minister to France, Governor of Virginia, colonial and State legislator, founder of the University of Virginia, farmer and philosopher, died at the age of 83 on the Fourth of July, 1826, on the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. He worked and wrote prolifically until the very end of his life, always for the betterment of the Nation.

On the same day, July 4, 1826, John Adams passed away at the age of 91. President, Vice President, Member of the Continental Congress, farmer, and philosopher, Adams remains the longest lived person ever elected to both of the highest offices in the United States. Until his record was broken by Ronald Reagan in 2001, Adams was the nation's longest living President, at 90 years, 247 days. The record is currently held by former President Gerald Ford, who died December 26, 2006, at 93 years, 165 days. Adams and Jefferson's correspondence during their later years remains an invaluable historical record of the early days of our Republic, and their respect for each other was unmatched. Even as he died, Adams is said to have breathed, ``Thomas Jefferson survives,'' in what may have been his final earthly comfort knowing that his friend remained to watch over the young Nation.

Madam President, it is a great privilege to be able to call oneself a citizen of these United States. It is my great privilege to serve the Senate and the people of West Virginia and the United States. I feel that privilege every day but especially on the Fourth of July. I am inspired by our Founding Fathers and by the great documents that are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Like Jefferson and Adams, I am inspired to continue serving the land that I love to the very best of my abilities for the whole of my years.

Madam President, I close with a poem by Walter Taylor Field, entitled ``Flag of the Free.''

Flag of the Free

Look at the flag as it floats on high,

Streaming aloft in the clear, blue sky,

Rippling, leaping, tugging away,

Gay as the sunshine, bright as the day,

Throbbing with life, where the world may see--Flag of our

country, flag of the free!

What do we see in the flag on high,

That we bare our heads as it passes by,

That we thrill with pride, our hearts beat fast, And we cheer

and cheer as the flag goes past--The flag that waves

for you and me--Flag of our country, flag of the free?

We see in the flag a nation's might,

The pledge of a safeguard day and night, Of a watchful eye

and a powerful arm

That guard the nation's homes from harm.

Of a strong defense on land and sea--

Flag of our country, flag of the free!

We see in the flag a union grand,

A brotherhood of heart and hand,

A pledge of love and a stirring call

To live our lives for the good of us all--Helpful and just

and true to thee, Flag of our country, flag of the

free!

Flutter, dear flag, o'er the lands and seas!

Fling out your stars and your stripes to the breeze, Righting

all wrongs, dispelling all fear,

Guarding the land that we cherish so dear, And the God of our

fathers, abiding with thee, Will

bless you and trust you, O flag of the free!

Mr. President, I feel compelled to address head on, I mean head on, the news stories in recent weeks that have pointed out the shocking discovery, yes, shocking discovery, that I am growing older. Did you get that? Shocking discovery that I am growing older.

I find it no surprise, but then I have had some time to become accustomed to the increasing distance between the year of my birth and the current date. I may not like it, but as Maurice Chevalier put it:

Old age is not so bad when you consider the alternative.

A recent Associated Press story ran in West Virginia's Charleston Daily Mail. The headline read: Dramatic change in signatures shows that age is catching up with Senator Byrd. The newspaper offered as proof the signatures on my Senate financial disclosure forms from last year and this year. It is true that this year's signature looks like I signed it in a moving car. Some days, the benign essential tremor that I have had for years now is worse than on other days, just as it is for the approximately 5 million other people in the United States who suffer from similar tremors. It is annoying, but it is hardly evidence that I am at death's door.

Nor should it come as a surprise that I use canes to help me get around or that I am not always as fast as I once was. I am not aware of any requirement for physical dexterity in order to hold the office of U.S. Senator. The often grueling hours working in the Senate requires are tough on far junior Senators, and I am no longer one of the younger Senators.

But to worry in print that I have missed one vote this year? Really. Out of more than 18,000 votes in my career, to miss one vote or two votes every now and then is surely excusable. Even old people can be allowed a sick day or two now and then, can't they?

That is really the crux of the matter. In this Internet-savvy, media- infused culture, we have forgotten that people do get older, even, dare I say it, old, old. Television is full of pretty young people. The few white-haired heads that one sees on television are made up and glamorous. Off camera, though, most bear little resemblance to their TV persona.

In a culture of Botox, wrinkle cream, and hair dye, we cannot imagine that becoming older is a good thing, an experience to look forward to, a state worthy of respect. If I were 50 years old and used canes due to some injury or had a disease-related tremor, the newsletter stories would be about my carrying on despite my adversities. But my only adversity is age. Age.

In real life, the lucky ones among us do get old. We move down the steep slope, to the far right of the bell curve of age. The really lucky ones, and I almost count myself among them, get to be aged, into their nineties or even older, a distinction that I think is naturally paired with the wisdom borne of experience. We do get white hair, yes. And we do get wrinkles. And we move more slowly. We worry about falling down because we do not bounce up the way we used to.

Our brains are still sharp, but our tongues are slower. We have learned, sometimes the hard way, to think before we speak. I hope, however, that what we have to say is worth the wait.

Many good things are worth the wait. Grandma Moses did not take up painting until the age of 75. She painted some 1,600 paintings, 250 of which she painted after her 100th birthday. Michelangelo was still working on frescos and sculptures when he died at the age of 89.

Age is no barrier to accomplishment. When the spirit and the mind are willing, the creative juices continue to flow. I like to think that I still have a few things left on my to-do list. I also like to think that someday our rapidly aging society will get over its fear and its denial of aging. We had better get over it quickly because the demographics tell us our senior population is rapidly growing.

If my colleagues still show deference to me, as the news article reported, I hope it is due to my experience, my position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and my ability as a Senator. If they are patient with me as I turn the page, I hope that is an example of the Golden Rule; that they show patience with my minor adversities of age as they hope that someday others will show to them.

After all, the Senate is not exactly full of spring chickens. You better believe it. It is not supposed to be. The Senate was designed to give age and experience a chance to flourish, and the rules give slower speakers--the rules give slower speakers a chance to be heard.

Five percent of Senators date from the roaring 1920s. All of them served in World War II. The Senate will truly lose a great generation when they decide, if ever, if ever, to retire.

Almost a quarter of Senators date from the 1930s, including many seasoned committee chairmen and ranking members. I am sure my younger colleagues on the Appropriations Committee appreciate the opportunity to play a larger role as appropriations bills move through the Senate, as the recent articles reported.

As I have gotten older, I have learned to have great trust and great respect for my colleagues, many of whom I have worked with for many years. Why is that decried as a bad thing? Why should not these fine Senators, now in their fifties through their eighties, get to spread their wings while the old wise Byrd watches?

Abraham Lincoln once rightly observed:

In the end, it's not the years of your life that count.

It's the life in your years.

My only adversity--my only adversity is age. It is not a bar to my usefulness as a Senator. I still look out for West Virginia. I still zealously guard the welfare of this Nation and its Constitution. I still work every day to move the business of this Nation forward, to end this reckless adventure in Iraq, and to protect, to preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all those who would reshape it to suit partisan agenda. I will continue to do this work until this old

body just gives out and drops. Do not expect that to be anytime soon.

I believe all ages and all occupations should be part of a truly representative body. I also believe society works best when the energy and idealism of youth, youth, youth, pairs with the experience and wisdom of age.

America is the land of opportunities. I don't think our some 36 million citizens over the age of 65 are disqualified from participating in the life of the country that we--we--helped to build. Our country rejected those kinds of arbitrary barriers long ago, and this Senator loudly and proudly rejects them now.

Mr. President, on May 15, 2007, President Bush nominated LTG Douglas Lute as Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. In that position, Lieutenant General Lute is to be charged with coordinating the efforts of the executive branch to support our commanders and senior diplomats on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am voting against the nomination of LTG Douglas Lute, not because he is unqualified for the position but because the White House refuses to permit him to testify before those Members of Congress responsible for the oversight and funding of these conflicts. Article 2, section II of the Constitution makes it clear that the power to appoint certain officers involves the advice and consent of the Senate. I can imagine no circumstance where the President may require policy advice and guidance from an Active Duty military officer regarding ongoing conflicts and issues relevant to Congress's oversight responsibilities to which Congress should not be equally capable of hearing in either public or closed forums as appropriate. To do otherwise may raise popular suspicion that all is not on the ``up and up'' with the way the President is conducting this war.

I am also concerned that putting a general in this position will leave the military open to inferences by the administration that it is the military, rather than George W. Bush, who is responsible for the failed policies in Iraq. After 5 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, the President, his Cabinet, and his existing staff should have long ago figured out how to coordinate executive branch support to our commanders and senior diplomats in the field, without needing to put a military officer in charge of coordinating the civilian arms of government.

Repeatedly, the President has appointed a new military officer to a leadership position and Congress has allowed the nomination to proceed without objection. The White House then turns the cooperation of Congress into yet another sound bite to prolong the prosecution of the President's failed policy. How many times have we heard that General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously and that we ``just need to give him time''? The President has had 4\1/2\ years to show progress. Instead, the situation continues to worsen in Iraq.

I, for one, will not vote to give the President another military officer to blame or another unanimous vote to exploit to delay bringing home our troops. I will not accept the President's claim that a military officer advising the President on two ongoing conflicts should not be required to testify before Congress on the progress of this long and disastrous war.

I will, therefore, vote against the confirmation of Lieutenant General Lute to this position.