Floor Statements

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, each Senator--every Senator--has a responsibility to vote. The people of West Virginia expect me to do the job they sent me here to do, and I am doing it. This 18,000th rollcall vote is a testament to their faith in me and to my work for them.

I love this Senate. I love it dearly. I love the Senate for its rules. I love the Senate for its precedents. I love the Senate for the difference it can make in people's lives.

The Senate was viewed by the Framers as a place where mature wisdom would reside. The Senate was intended to serve as a check on both the House of Representatives and the Executive. The longer terms, the older age requirements, the special functions delegated to the Senate regarding treaties, appointments, impeachment--all of these are indicative of the intent by the Framers to have the Senate be the stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny, and the calmer political passions. Partisanship was not viewed as necessary or constructive in that day in time so long ago, nor, may I say, is total devotion to partisanship constructive in this day in time or in any day in time.

I have served in this Chamber for nearly five decades--nearly 50 years. Times have changed. The world has changed. But our responsibilities, our duties, as Senators have not changed. We have a responsibility, a duty, to the people to make our country a better place. The people send us here to do a job. They do not send us here to score political points or to advance our personal agenda.

If I could have one wish as I cast this 18,000th vote, it could be that the Senate could put aside the political games, roll up our sleeves, and get back to

work for the great people of this great country of America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is West Virginia's birthday. Established on June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th star in our national constellation, taking her place between Kansas, which joined the Union on January 29, 1861, and Nevada, which joined on October 31, 1864. I am pleased to offer West Virginia happy birthday wishes and to take the opportunity to share a bit about my State with the rest of the country.

I urge anyone who has not visited West Virginia to do so, to see and experience for themselves the great natural beauty, the friendly people, the exquisite art, recreation, and cultural sites and events that fill our mountain home.

As a State, West Virginia is a youthful 144 years old. As a unique piece of geography, of course, West Virginia is, of course, much older. The Appalachian Mountains that define West Virginia's geography today are but the worn remains of a once-high alpine plateau similar to Tibet, rising some 10,000 to 18,000 feet high, flanked on the south and on the east by the Allegheny Mountain Range, which may have once exceeded today's Himalaya Mountains in height.

Of course, that was a long time ago, perhaps 250 million years ago, when the great wedge of coastal sediments deposited during the earlier Devonian and Carboniferous periods were thrust up toward the heavens.

Today, a bit of that alpine experience can be found in Tucker County and in Randolph County, in an area known as Dolly Sods. Filled with upland bogs, beaver ponds, and flat rocky plains, Dolly Sods is a bit of northern Canada transplanted into West Virginia, complete with beautiful fall color and harsh winter weather.

The rock that forms West Virginia's mountains, that is seamed with the State's famous coal deposits, was laid down some 320 to 286 million years ago, when West Virginia was part of a vast complex of coastal swamplands. In this endless tropical forest of primitive ferns and towering, primitive trees formed layer after layer of peat, compressed into coal seams that average 3 feet thick but which can reach 25 feet in thickness.

When one learns that 12 inches of coal requires approximately 10,000 years of continuous peat accumulation to form, one sees a very different picture of West Virginia. The reminders of this different world can still be found in the coal, in the form of lacy, ferny fossil leaves and stems, the last farewell of a lost world.

In other rock layers, there is evidence of West Virginia's earlier days as well, in the sea creatures forever preserved and now exposed far inland and at elevations well above the sea level that they knew in life.

In the New River Gorge, visitors have the opportunity to view rock sequences from those early years, 320 to 330 million years ago. Visitors can also see a more recent phenomenon in the form of the New River Gorge Bridge, the longest single-arch steel bridge in the world, rising some 876 feet above the water below. Beautiful natural stone works of art may also be seen in the Smoke Hole area and Seneca Rocks in Grant and Pendleton Counties and in many other locations around the State.

West Virginia's natural beauty, as well as its wonderful outdoor activities, can be found in each of West Virginia's 55 counties. From hot air ballooning or soaring to spelunking, from rock climbing to kayaking, hiking, horseback riding, or off-roading, one can be as energetic as one likes. You can also fish, ride a tube down a river, sit around a campfire, or sip lemonade in a rocking chair while you rest and recharge.

West Virginia is not simply for nature lovers, however. The State is full of festivals that celebrate virtually every foodstuff, musical form, and artistic discipline known to mankind. Musical events that range from bluegrass music to symphonies to garage bands, and shopping and sightseeing to please all tastes and interests.

West Virginia is famous, famous for her quilts, pottery, and handmade crafts, but there is also plenty of modern work alongside the homespun favorites.

From rustic campsites to the luxury of the Greenbrier, West Virginia has something for everybody, something for everyone. It could easily take a lifetime to experience everything there is to see and to do. By then, of course, time and nature will have changed a few more things and created new things to see and do.

So as West Virginia celebrates, I hope that you may be inspired to pay a visit. I hope all Senators may be inspired to pay a visit. You ``ain't'' seen nothing yet like it. The daylilies are blooming in great orange rafts of blossoms above the waves of green leaves, welcoming the day. Butterflies and songbirds delight the eye with color like the ribbons on a birthday present. Cool breezes are blowing, the mocking bird is singing, rivers are tumbling between the mountains, singing birthday songs. And tonight the stars will dance for you as West Virginia celebrates.

I close with a poem about West Virginia, by West Virginian Louise McNeill, from her book titled, ``Hill Daughter: New and Selected Poems.'' Louise McNeill was born in 1911 in Pocahontas County and became West Virginia's Poet Laureate in 1979.

West Virginia

Where the mountain river flows

And the rhododendron grows

Is the land of all the lands

That I touch with tender hands;

Loved and treasured, earth and star,

By my father's father far--

Deep-earth, black-earth, of-the-lime

From the ancient oceans' time.

Plow-land, fern-land, woodland, shade,

Grave-land where my kin are laid,

West Virginia's hills to bless--

Leafy songs of wilderness;

Dear land, near land, here at home--

Where the rocks are honeycomb,

And the rhododendrons . . .

Where the mountain river runs.

Mr. President, during my half century of service in this great body, I have seen too many energy shortages and too many half- hearted efforts by the Federal Government to respond. A geopolitical crisis erupts and oil prices rise. All too quickly, our economy is destabilized. Our national security is undermined. Americans become alarmed. Politicians promise solutions. Once the crisis passes, oil prices decline, public attention fades, and nothing happens to cushion the Nation from the next energy shock. All the while, our dependence on foreign oil grows with ever-worsening implications for our economic and national security.

About 40 percent of the energy we use in the United States comes from petroleum. The majority of this oil is imported from chronically unstable countries. It is shocking to think that our transportation system and so many sectors of our economy are dependent on a constant flow of energy from these dangerous and politically unstable lands. The very security of this great and powerful Nation is vulnerable to the whims of fanatical despots. The well-being of our country is always in threat of a government coup in Nigeria, a typhoon in the Persian Gulf, or a terrorist attack on oil shipments in the Middle East.

We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In a speech I made more than two decades ago in this Chamber, I warned the Reagan administration against cutting back on our energy programs. I pointed out that there is no national security without energy security and that we have neither as long as we are dependent on foreign oil. It seems as though some things never change. As we should have learned too many times during the past quarter century, leaving the security of our country so dependent on the vagaries of the free market is too simplistic, too unrealistic, and too dangerous.

Our dependency on foreign oil strikes at the very heart of our national security. Indeed, oil dependence is the Achilles' heel of our Armed Forces. The Pentagon itself has pointed out that our military's ever-increasing reliance on oil makes its ability to respond to crises around the world ``unsustainable in the long term.'' The Air Force pays about $5 billion per year for its fuel, with the Army and Navy close behind. Even more troubling, the United States now spends an estimated $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

The money we spend on foreign oil too often finds its way into the pockets of terrorists determined to attack the United States. As former CIA Director James Woolsey put it, in buying foreign oil, ``we are funding the rope for the hanging of ourselves.'' Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan have experienced a boom in oil revenues as the price per barrel of oil has gone through the roof. Reports are that some of these profits have been used to finance training centers for terrorists, pay bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and buy weapons and explosives for the groups attacking U.S. soldiers and marines. For years now, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting terrorists while at the same time we have provided countless sums of money to our enemies through our foreign oil purchases. This is sheer madness. It must end.

It is no longer acceptable for Congress to seek piecemeal, short-term solutions that become irrelevant as soon as the price of oil declines. We need a long-term strategic commitment to the development of clean, domestic-based energy technologies. We must dedicate ourselves to the developing of sources of energy that will move us away from oil dependence and provide better energy options. Chief among those must be coal, our Nation's most abundant source of energy. The United States has 27 percent of the world's coal reserves. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, and then some. Thirty-three States have recoverable coal reserves. This means 66 Senators have a vested interest in promoting the use of coal. Our coal supplies are large enough to last for generations, fueling the electricity needs of our homes and our businesses. We don't have to ask someone else for this cheaper and abundant energy source; it is right here, like acres of diamonds, under our feet. It is there, there in the ground, for the taking. Coal can be burned cleaner and coal can be more efficiently burned today than at any time in our previous history. With the right kind of investments in clean coal technology, coal can become our lifeline. Coal can save us from foreign oil, from OPEC, from volatile summer gas prices, and from a disastrous foreign policy that revolves around protecting our oil interests abroad.

Through Federal funding, Federal research and development projects, and tax incentives, we have made great strides--great strides--both in increasing the efficiency of our coal-fired powerplants and reducing their emissions. Even with our currently underfunded clean coal technology programs, we will continue to make progress.

I know that a vocal minority would have us believe differently. They are the oil and natural gas producers who try to convince the American public that coal is not the answer. Don't believe it. No, don't believe it. They want Americans buying their more expensive oil and gas, not cheaper coal. They are interested in their profits and not the prices you and I pay at the pump or for our home energy bills.

The vast majority of Americans already use the cheap electricity provided by coal. They demand it. But with the proper support, coal could be providing other forms of cheap energy. The American military recognizes the hope that coal offers, which is why the Air Force is experimenting with using coal-to-liquids technology to fuel their aircraft. Coal has to be part, coal must be part of our energy strategy if we are ever, ever, ever to break our dependence on foreign oil. The American military recognizes it, the American people recognize it, and it is time that the Congress recognized it.

For several months now, I have been engaged in serious discussions with a bipartisan group of Senators to develop a program to promote the use of coal for transportation fuels and as a feedstock for our chemical industry. I thank those Senators and their staffs for their hard work in an attempt to reach our own version of a grand compromise on the future use of coal in this country. I particularly thank Senator Bingaman and the majority leader for their assistance with this proposal.

Even though there are significant challenges to the development of a coal-to-liquids industry in the United States, our dependence on foreign oil and the resulting cost to the country have created an economic environment that is favorable--favorable--for the industry to blossom. With a combination of tax incentives, loan guarantees, and regulatory support, along with technology-driven advances in environmental protection, we can reduce the risks associated with the construction of coal-to-liquid plants and stimulate private investment. We can and we must create a vibrant domestic marketplace for alternative fuels.

The added advantage of this proposal would be that the production of this

clean-burning fuel would provide opportunities to commercialize carbon capture and storage technologies. I believe that carbon capture and storage can help advance clean coal technologies, but we must provide both considerable funding and the key Federal guidance to hasten the arrival--in the ground--of carbon capture and storage projects that begin to implement the technology.

I hope my fellow Senators will stop, stop, stop and give serious thought to this proposal. I hope we have finally learned the lessons from the past, and that we will now seize the moment by the forelock.

Our Nation confronts an enormous challenge in breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For all too many years, we have denied--we have denied--the problem. We have delayed taking action. We have conducted endless studies--endless studies--and largely kicked the problem on down the road. We have separated it along regional and political lines and done and said everything but solve the problem.

Of course, the Senate is performing its constitutional function by debating these issues, and making sure the interests of the people and the States we represent are being protected. When the debate is over, however, it is also the responsibility of the Senate to find a workable solution. It is here that regional interests must blend into the national interest.

We have studied the matter, we have debated the issues, we have talked about the solutions, and now we must act. Now we must act. True energy independence at a time when our Nation no longer is dependent on the energy resources of unstable areas and rogue regimes will require give and take from all sides. In fact, in this most significant national quest, there can be no single winner, whether it be coal, whether it be oil, whether it be natural gas, or any environmental interest. If any one special interest wins, then the American people will lose. The American people will win if, and only if, we put aside our parochial interests, our partisan politics, and our petty differences and work together and compromise together for the national good. The time for bold action is here. Let us start to put American ingenuity to work for the benefit of America's future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I hope not.

Mr. President, today I voted in support of the NOPEC amendment to H.R. 6, which was offered by my colleague, Senator Herbert Kohl. The amendment seeks to prevent OPEC nations from continuing to conspire to limit the supply of oil and to drive up America's already exorbitant energy costs. While I recognize that this is not a perfect piece of legislation, and that it may require the addition of certain clarifying provisions to ascertain its applicability in particular circumstances, I believe that it is a fine first step toward finally holding OPEC accountable for its actions. The time is long overdue for America's working families to send OPEC the message that West Virginians in particular will no longer be content to sit quietly by the side of the road, watching OPEC drive our gas and home heating prices to ever higher levels. This amendment is meant to send a signal--a signal to OPEC nations that the American people are not going to take it anymore. We will no longer be held hostage to OPEC's self- serving energy policies, which line their pockets, at the expense of our pocketbooks.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007.

It is critical that the Congress continue to review the statutory safeguards for our Nation's coal miners. I want to do everything I can to encourage that effort.

Given reports recently about alarmingly aggressive cases of black lung around southern West Virginia, the Congress ought to seriously consider new standards for dust monitoring and control. I also support the bill's language requiring the installation of atmospheric monitoring systems in underground coal mines and requiring the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to randomly test emergency breathing devices every 6 months.

I also very much support provisions in the bill that would clarify the intentions of the MINER Act and require the Department of Labor to issue regulations mandating the installation of refuge chambers and restricting the use of belt-air ventilation.

These are all good initiatives and something that the Congress should be advocating to ensure safer working conditions for miners. Nevertheless, I do have reservations about some of the provisions in the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act, which I hope can be addressed before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee takes any action on this legislation.

The MINER Act that the Congress passed last year set a deadline requiring coal operators to install wireless emergency communications and tracking equipment by June 2009. In order to meet this deadline, the Congress appropriated $23 million through the fiscal year 2008 for NIOSH to expedite its research of emergency communications and tracking.

It is important that the Congress adhere closely to that schedule. To suddenly rewrite it, mandating the installation of technologies before NIOSH has completed its research, could undermine the intentions of the MINER Act and complicate the efforts of MSHA and the Congress to ensure timely compliance. Let us not revisit timelines that have already been resolved and where implementation has already begun. It is better for the Congress to hold operators to the schedule outlined in the MINER Act and to allow NIOSH to perform the critical research that has already been mandated and funded.

The Congress should continue to exercise its oversight function to ensure rapid implementation of the MINER

Act and also to review non-MINER Act priorities to ensure statutory safeguards are adequate. I proudly join the sponsors of this bill in that endeavor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007.

It is critical that the Congress continue to review the statutory safeguards for our Nation's coal miners. I want to do everything I can to encourage that effort.

Given reports recently about alarmingly aggressive cases of black lung around southern West Virginia, the Congress ought to seriously consider new standards for dust monitoring and control. I also support the bill's language requiring the installation of atmospheric monitoring systems in underground coal mines and requiring the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to randomly test emergency breathing devices every 6 months.

I also very much support provisions in the bill that would clarify the intentions of the MINER Act and require the Department of Labor to issue regulations mandating the installation of refuge chambers and restricting the use of belt-air ventilation.

These are all good initiatives and something that the Congress should be advocating to ensure safer working conditions for miners. Nevertheless, I do have reservations about some of the provisions in the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act, which I hope can be addressed before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee takes any action on this legislation.

The MINER Act that the Congress passed last year set a deadline requiring coal operators to install wireless emergency communications and tracking equipment by June 2009. In order to meet this deadline, the Congress appropriated $23 million through the fiscal year 2008 for NIOSH to expedite its research of emergency communications and tracking.

It is important that the Congress adhere closely to that schedule. To suddenly rewrite it, mandating the installation of technologies before NIOSH has completed its research, could undermine the intentions of the MINER Act and complicate the efforts of MSHA and the Congress to ensure timely compliance. Let us not revisit timelines that have already been resolved and where implementation has already begun. It is better for the Congress to hold operators to the schedule outlined in the MINER Act and to allow NIOSH to perform the critical research that has already been mandated and funded.

The Congress should continue to exercise its oversight function to ensure rapid implementation of the MINER

Act and also to review non-MINER Act priorities to ensure statutory safeguards are adequate. I proudly join the sponsors of this bill in that endeavor.

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

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

Mr. President, the Bible admonishes us to ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' Courtesy insists that ladies go first. Last month, the Nation honored mothers with Mother's Day. The ladies were treated to cards, flowers, phone calls, brunches, gifts, and sometimes precious handmade crafts from the preschool set. Retailers urged more extravagant manifestations of our love for our wives and mothers with a dazzling array of usually heart-shaped diamond jewelry, all of which is certainly deserved, even if not always affordable.

This Sunday, June 17, the fathers get their due. Lumpy clay bowls, aftershave lotion and cologne, odd pieces of sports paraphernalia and, of course, neckties in remarkable fashion colors constitute the classic Father's Day gift for the man who has everything. There does not seem to be quite the same level of extravagance in the gift suggestions by merchants, however, perhaps because men do not wear as much jewelry, and golf clubs do not lend themselves to heart shapes. For that I suppose we can all be grateful. Still, I am sure that most American fathers will enjoy being the center of the family's attention on Sunday. Fathers will enjoy their brunch. Fathers will enjoy a respite from lawn care and other chores. They might even indulge in an afternoon nap, a rare luxury--a rare luxury--for most family men.

Fathers deserve their day in the limelight. Good fathers are very busy men, and their contributions to the family merit recognition, just as much as their equally busy wives do. Good fathers work hard--they do--they work hard to provide for their families, but they also invest a lot of time and energy into the home. They often fulfill the stereotypical ``dad role''--they keep the house and the yard in good repair, even if it means tackling mechanical or construction activities for which they have little training. They spend countless hours coaching neighborhood sports teams so that their sons and daughters learn the values of teamwork, leadership, and good sportsmanship. They help with the homework and with assorted school projects, patiently helping to build foaming volcanoes or seaside dioramas. They teach children to set a fishing rod, paddle a canoe, ride a bicycle, or build a dog house. They urge their children to try new things to push themselves harder, to struggle, to win graciously, and to lose with honor. Good fathers want great things for their children. Good fathers help their children to achieve by letting them know that they believe in them. That is a lot to accomplish in a few precious hours between getting home from work and getting to bed each night.

The great man who raised me, the greatest man I ever knew, was my old coal miner dad. I always called him my dad. My adoptive father was just such a good man. He walked to work in the coal mines every day, and he walked home at night. Tired he was, covered with coal dust. Tired as he always was, he always greeted me with a smile, a quick smile. And sometimes he had a cake, a cupcake in his lunch box, and he always saved the cake for me.

He took pride in my school work. Even though I wanted to go into the mines like him, he always told me not to do it, but to do well in school instead. He did not want me in the mines, in those dangerous days of long ago. He wanted better for me than he had. And he put his energy into urging me to do better. His influence on me has been a resource for my whole life. He is the greatest man I ever knew. I have met with Presidents, kings, and princes. He is the greatest man I ever knew.

I was blessed with a good father. I hope that everyone's father is as special to each of you. Fatherhood is a great gift. Fathers gain new responsibilities, but also gain the joys of having children. For children, to have a great father, whether he is one's biological father or one's adoptive father

or just a father figure who influences one's youth, is a very special thing indeed.

It is certainly possible for a child to grow into a talented, accomplished, and good adult without the influence of a father figure, but good fathers and good mothers give their children an advantage. They give their children the security of knowing always that they are loved and that someone is rooting for them, someone is looking out for them. In that security, a child can find the confidence to try and to fail, and to try and to fail, and to try and to fail, and to try again, and to try and to fail again. It is a great and lasting gift that our fathers give to each of us, one that certainly deserves one day of recognition every year.

So, Mr. President, I close with a short poem by Holly Dunn called ``Daddy's Hands'' and a salute to fathers everywhere:

I remember daddy's hands folded silently in prayer.

And reachin' out to hold me, when I had a nightmare.

You could read quite a story in the callous' and lines.

Years of work and worry had left their mark behind.

I remember daddy's hands, how they held my mama tight

And patted my back for something done right.

There are things that I'd forgotten that I loved about the

man

But I'll always remember the love in daddy's hands.

Daddy's hands were soft and kind when I was cryin'

Daddy's hands were hard as steel when I'd done wrong.

Daddy's hands weren't always gentle but I've come to

understand

There was always love in daddy's hands.

I remember daddy's hands workin' 'til they bled

Sacrificed unselfishly just to keep us all fed.

If I could do things over, I'd live my life again

And never take for granted the love--

The sweet love----

in daddy's hands.

Mr. President, June 14 is celebrated in the United States as ``Flag Day.'' Flag Day is not a big holiday. Offices will not close to observe it; stores will not hold special sales; no fireworks will light the sky; no special presents or dinners will make June 14 stand out for most people. I doubt that even the holiday card makers have put out much of a selection of cards to send to loved ones, reminding them that we are thinking of them on Flag Day. But it is a special day nonetheless. One may notice more flags than usual--small ones cantilevered into the breeze next to neighborhood front doors and larger ones snapping smartly before schools and storefronts. In Washington, DC, of course, we are blessed with a plethora of flags. Flag Day is a good time to take special note of them, flying proudly above the Capitol Building and in front of all the other government offices and monuments, like those encircling the Washington Monument. They are a grand sight every day of the year, but especially so on Flag Day.

Americans honor their flag, the Stars and Stripes, or Old Glory, on June 14 because it was on June 14, 1777--230 years ago--that the Continental Congress adopted a resolution to give the United States a national flag to replace the British Union Jack. A special committee was formed assigned to suggest the flag's design in a report. The resulting proclamation was brief but inspiring. It said, simply:

That the flag of the United States shall be of 13 stripes

of alternate red and white, with a union of 13 stars of white

in a blue field, representing a new constellation.

The new flag was first carried into battle on September 11, 1777, at the Battle of Brandywine, as General George Washington attempted to prevent the British from advancing on Philadelphia.

The 13 stars on that first flag represented the 13 original colonies, but that constellation continued to grow as the Nation grew, until we became the 50 stars that grace Old Glory today. At first, the number of stripes grew as well, but that quickly became unwieldy, and the number of stripes reverted to 13, to represent the original 13 States in the Nation. George Washington is reputed to have said that:

We take the stars from heaven, the red from our mother

country, separate it by white in stripes, thus showing that

we have separated from her.

Certainly, the original congressional proclamation did not specify the symbolism of the colors of the flag, or the design, but that has only left the field of symbolism wide open for poets and philosophers, for generals and Presidents as well as everyday citizens. The red has been seen as the blood that has been shed for our Nation, as well as for the red of the British Union Jack. The white has been seen as purity or hope, while the blue has been compared to honor or to the heavens that guard over the Nation. Flags are full of symbols, and Old Glory means many things to Americans. It sums up our Nation in a single icon, and we project our love, pride, determination and even, sometimes, our frustration on it.

The American flag usually brings out the best in us, or rather, the best in us usually brings out the American flag. There are few sights more moving than the sudden appearance of so many American flags on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, and in the days immediately after. The fierce determination and unshaken loyalty to our Nation in the face of a threat was clear in the sight of the flags that appeared on homes, stores, mailboxes and cars within hours of that unspeakable event.

The Stars and Stripes are seen when we celebrate, such as on the Fourth of July or at inaugurations. Old Glory also marks more solemn occasions. The sight of the American flag draped over the coffin of a soldier home from the war, to be solemnly folded and placed in the lap of his grieving family, is a grim reminder of the sometimes great cost of serving our Nation. Those flags, sitting still folded in triangular flag cases on mantels, under shadowboxes with medals, and the small flags so carefully placed in front of the markers at veterans' cemeteries around the Nation on the last Monday in May, remind us of the close proximity between Memorial Day at the end of May and Flag Day in mid-June. But again soon, on July 4, we will see the Stars and Stripes back in party mode, flying proudly over our heads as a part of our grand national birthday celebration.

Mr. President, I like to close my observation of Flag Day with one of my favorite poems, by Henry Holcomb Bennett, entitled ``The Flag Goes By.''

The Flag Goes By

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,

A flash of color beneath the sky:

Hats off!

The flag is passing by!

Blue and crimson and white it shines,

Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.

Hats off!

The colors before us fly;

But more than the flag is passing by.

Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make

and save the State; Weary marches and sinking ships;

Cheers of victory on dying lips.

Days of plenty and years of peace;

March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice,

right, and law, Stately honor and reverend awe;

Signs of nation, great and strong

Toward her people from foreign wrong;

Pride and glory and honor,--all

Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;

And loyal hearts are beating high;

Hats off!

The Flag is passing by!

Mr. President, 28 months ago, on February 3, 2005, I voted against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United States. Hallelujah, Amen! Eight days before that, I was one of 13 Senators who voted against the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be the U.S. Secretary of State. And, if the Senate had been permitted to vote on the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, I would have voted against that nomination, too.

I am proud of my votes against confirmation of these failed architects of the unconstitutional war in Iraq. Their flawed policies have cost our Nation dearly. I shudder to contemplate the billions and even trillions of dollars and the decades of effort that it will take to correct their extraordinary errors in judgment. These are the same administration officials, led by Alberto Gonzales here at home, who have done everything they can to abolish our Nation's carefully calibrated separation of powers and to undermine Americans' civil liberties. Based on ongoing errors in judgment and mistakes made on his watch, I remain convinced that my vote against Alberto Gonzales was in the best interests of this country.

It is, therefore, not surprising that I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 14. This resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people. Frankly, he never held my confidence. Not from day one, and I will tell you why that is so.

When President Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales to be the U.S. Attorney General, the President stated that Mr. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had a ``sharp intellect,'' and that it was White House counsel's ``sound judgment'' that had, in the President's words, ``helped shape our policies in the war on terror.''

Sharp intellect and sound judgment? I have heard of damning with faint praise, but applying those words to someone who has had a major role in the reckless and incompetent way in which this administration has waged its so-called war on terror is hardly a compliment.

But don't expect Alberto Gonzales to take responsibility for what happened on his watch. Throughout his time in this administration, whenever Mr. Gonzales has been questioned about what he knows about improper conduct, his standard and repetitive response, in the words of the fictional Sergeant Schultz is simply: ``I know nothing.'' When questioned about who made the decision to fire U.S. attorneys for what appear to be purely political reasons, he implausibly states that while he signed off on the decision, he was not really responsible because he was out of the loop.

At a press conference on March 13, Attorney General Gonzales stated that he knew nothing of the scandal surrounding the U.S. attorneys, because he was, in his words, ``not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,'' and, he said, ``that's basically what I knew as the Attorney General.'' Mr. President, that is not an impressive response. Even the Attorney General now says his comment was ``too broad'' and that he ``misspoke.'' He now admits that he did have some involvement. But he said this only after the Justice Department released e-mails and memoranda which showed that he had, in fact, been involved in discussions about the firings.

He also claimed that he is not really responsible, because, in his words, ``in an organization of 110,000 people,'' he said, ``I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of justice, nor am I aware of all decisions.'' Now that seems an odd assertion, considering that he is, in fact--if you will allow me to use the President's terminology--the top ``decider'' at the U.S. Department of Justice.

When the Attorney General testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 19, 2007, he continued to argue that he was simply out of touch--an assertion that has been disputed by the two employees he had charged with filling the U.S. attorney positions with party loyalists, D. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.

On May 15, 2007, speaking before the National Press Club, Mr. Gonzales made yet another effort to shift the blame for any wrongdoing. But this time he chose a new victim. He said, ``You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations [to fire the U.S. Attorneys] reflected the views of the deputy attorney general,'' meaning Paul McNulty. But the Associated Press reported immediately thereafter that documents released from the Justice Department showed that McNulty was not closely involved in picking all of the U.S. attorneys who were put on the list. Instead, it was a job mostly driven by the Attorney General's own, two hand-picked subordinates, Sampson and Goodling.

I would invite those who believe that Alberto Gonzales did not know what was happening in his own Department to join me on a quick trip down memory lane. Let me recount a section of the speech that I delivered on the Senate floor just prior to voting against his confirmation to be Attorney General. I reminded my colleagues at that time that Judge Gonzales had admitted being physically present at meetings in his office to determine which acts against enemy combatants should be outlawed as torture.

But at his confirmation hearing, he disavowed having any role in the administration's initial decision to define torture extremely narrowly. On January 6, 2005, he was asked by a member of the Judiciary Committee whether he had ever chaired a meeting in which he discussed with Justice Department attorneys the legitimacy of such interrogation techniques. He was asked if, in the meetings he attended, there was discussion of strapping detainees to boards and holding them under water as if to drown them. He testified that there were such meetings, and while he did remember having had some ``discussions'' with Justice Department attorneys, he simply could not recall what he told them in those meetings. He stated that, as White House counsel, he might have attended those meetings, but it was not his role but that of the Justice Department to determine which interrogation techniques were lawful.

In other words, he was saying then, just as he is saying today: Don't hold me accountable! Don't blame me if mistakes were made! And, then, just like today, he didn't point the finger of blame at just one other victim. He spread the blame around. While he admitted he'd made some mistakes as White House counsel, he attempted to further deflect responsibility for his actions by saying that a number of what he called other ``operational agencies'' also took responsibility for making flawed decisions on prisoner interrogation techniques.

At his confirmation hearing, he said:

I have a recollection that we had some discussions in my

office, but let me be very clear with the Committee. It is

not my job to decide which types of methods of obtaining

information from terrorists would be the most effective. That

job responsibility falls to folks within the agencies. It is

also not my job to make the ultimate decision about whether

or not those methods would, in fact, meet the requirements of

the anti-torture statute. That would be the job for the

agencies . . . I viewed it as their responsibility to make a

decision as to whether or not a procedure or method would, in

fact, be lawful.

Whether on the issue of torture or of firing U.S. attorneys, when it comes to Alberto Gonzales taking responsibility for his actions--as Yogi Berra would say--it's deja vu all over again. One wishes that Judge Gonzales could tell us, just once, what his job is, rather than always telling us only what it is not.

Article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, as head of the Executive Branch, the President has a legal duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution does not say that the President or his officers ``should'' or ``may'' undertake that responsibility: it clearly states that the President ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' The President and his Chief Law Enforcement Officer at the Justice Department must be held accountable not only when they fail to faithfully execute the law, but also when they or their subordinates attempt to undermine, ignore, or gut the law.

The Attorney General has a credibility problem, and the American people know it. Despite his assertions to the contrary, he continues to contribute in large measure to the flawed policies and decision making that have

flowed from this administration over the past seven years. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 14.

Mr. President, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and I have joined together today to introduce legislation that would allow for the construction of a hydroelectric facility near the the City of Grafton, located in north central West Virginia. A companion measure is being introduced in the U.S.I House of Representatives by Congressman Alan Mollohan. The proposed hydro facility, to be constructed on an existing dam, would supply power to Grafton and surrounding area while also providing a significant economic benefit to the city.

Our legislation, which was passed by the Senate late last year but did not clear the House of Representatives before the end of the session, would reinstate a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, for a new hydroelectric facility on the Tygart Valley River. The City of Grafton has been considering the hydroelectric facility for many years, and first received a license for the project in 1989. However, that license lapsed in 1999 without the city making progress on the effort. The Byrd-Rockefeller-Mollohan measure would reinstate the license and allow Grafton to move ahead with the 20- megawatt hydroelectric facility.

The City of Grafton is working with a private contractor to develop the hydro project. With a new FERC license, the contractor believes that the project could be in operation as early as 2008. It is expected that the new hydroelectric facility would generate about $300,000 in annual revenues for Grafton, while creating 200 construction jobs in the process.

In 1938, the Tygart dam became the first flood control project to be completed in the Pittsburgh District of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. It remains one of the most expensive and extensive construction projects in the history of West Virginia. I recognize that the hydroelectric project has been delayed numerous times, but the Congressional Budget Office found that implementing the project will pose zero negative impact to the Federal budget. In fact, it will generate roughly $200,000 in annual licensing fees for the U.S. Treasury. Approval of our legislation will yield a return on this previous significant investment by the American taxpayer by leveraging new value out of old infrastructure.

Clean, hydroelectric power generation from an expensive dam previously used only for flood control, at no cost to the Federal Government, is the type of cost-effective, progressive action that we should facilitate and applaud at every chance. It is the right thing to do for the communities and public utilities in the rural Appalachian counties where the existing dam and lake are located. It is the right thing to do for the West Virginians all along the Tygart and Monongahela Rivers. And it is the right thing to do for the taxpaying citizens of this Nation. I respectfully request that my colleagues support our

legislation, the bill that makes these positive results possible.

Mr. President, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and I have joined together today to introduce legislation that would allow for the construction of a hydroelectric facility near the the City of Grafton, located in north central West Virginia. A companion measure is being introduced in the U.S.I House of Representatives by Congressman Alan Mollohan. The proposed hydro facility, to be constructed on an existing dam, would supply power to Grafton and surrounding area while also providing a significant economic benefit to the city.

Our legislation, which was passed by the Senate late last year but did not clear the House of Representatives before the end of the session, would reinstate a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, for a new hydroelectric facility on the Tygart Valley River. The City of Grafton has been considering the hydroelectric facility for many years, and first received a license for the project in 1989. However, that license lapsed in 1999 without the city making progress on the effort. The Byrd-Rockefeller-Mollohan measure would reinstate the license and allow Grafton to move ahead with the 20- megawatt hydroelectric facility.

The City of Grafton is working with a private contractor to develop the hydro project. With a new FERC license, the contractor believes that the project could be in operation as early as 2008. It is expected that the new hydroelectric facility would generate about $300,000 in annual revenues for Grafton, while creating 200 construction jobs in the process.

In 1938, the Tygart dam became the first flood control project to be completed in the Pittsburgh District of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. It remains one of the most expensive and extensive construction projects in the history of West Virginia. I recognize that the hydroelectric project has been delayed numerous times, but the Congressional Budget Office found that implementing the project will pose zero negative impact to the Federal budget. In fact, it will generate roughly $200,000 in annual licensing fees for the U.S. Treasury. Approval of our legislation will yield a return on this previous significant investment by the American taxpayer by leveraging new value out of old infrastructure.

Clean, hydroelectric power generation from an expensive dam previously used only for flood control, at no cost to the Federal Government, is the type of cost-effective, progressive action that we should facilitate and applaud at every chance. It is the right thing to do for the communities and public utilities in the rural Appalachian counties where the existing dam and lake are located. It is the right thing to do for the West Virginians all along the Tygart and Monongahela Rivers. And it is the right thing to do for the taxpaying citizens of this Nation. I respectfully request that my colleagues support our

legislation, the bill that makes these positive results possible.

Mr. President, I oppose the amnesty provisions included in this bill.

Nevertheless, I voted against the Coburn amendment, because it would have codified expedited procedures in the Senate for considering the Presidential certifications required by the amendment. Exempting legislation from debate and amendment in the Senate is a dangerous practice, and contrary to the constitutional purpose of this unique institution. One need only look to the legislative line-item veto or budget reconciliation process to understand how such procedures could be abused.

Had those expedited procedures not been included in the Coburn amendment, I would have supported it.

Mr. President, I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. Waiving our immigration laws, instead of enforcing them, is amnesty--no matter what the level of fines and penalties assessed. It encourages others to flout our laws knowing that they could be similarly rewarded.

Amnesties undermine the great American principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. This bill would create a separate set of rules--one for those who obey the law and one for those who do not. It is a special set of laws for those who chose not to follow the regular process that everybody else had to go through. It is a congressional pardon for lawbreakers--both for illegal aliens and the unscrupulous employers who exploit them.

Many employers are anxious to take advantage of the cheap labor that this bill would provide, but the responsibility would fall on the Nation as a whole to make the public investments necessary to absorb these workers into the economy. It is a false promise, to immigrants and U.S. citizens alike, when the infrastructure of our Nation--our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy

networks--are increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population.

I speak from experience when I say that this amnesty will not work. President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the very same promises we hear today--that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. The 1986 amnesty did not work. After 1986, illegal immigrant population more than quadrupled from 2.7 million aliens, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today. In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers.

I will not vote to make the same mistake twice.

Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took nineteen temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of September 11. The pending proposal would shove tens of millions of legal and illegal aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background check-- through our border security system over the next decade, in effect swamping a bureaucracy that is already struggling to keep its head above water. Terrorists and criminal aliens have exploited these kinds of amnesties before, and they will do so again.

The United States cannot guarantee the security of its borders, and simultaneously waive the law for those who circumvent that security. The Congress must choose between law enforcement and amnesty. I choose law enforcement. The Congress must choose between border security and amnesty. I choose border security.

I will oppose this measure, in the hope that the amnesty provisions are removed, and that the Senate quickly passes a clean border security bill.

Madam President:

I saw the sun sink in the golden west

No angry cloud obscured its latest ray.

Around the couch on which it sank to rest

Shone all the splendor of a summer day.

And long though lost to view, that radiant light

Reflected from the skies, delayed the night.

Thus, when a good man's life draws to a close,

No doubts arise to cloud his soul with gloom,

But faith triumphant on each feature glows,

While benedictions fill the sacred room;

And long, long do men his virtues wide proclaim

And generations rise to praise his name.

It is with deep sorrow--deep sorrow--that I note the passing of our colleague Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. He was my friend. He always passed here and I would say: How are you doing today, Cowboy?

First elected to the Senate in 1994, Senator Thomas was twice reelected to the Senate by some of the widest margins in his State's history, one time reaching 75 percent of the vote. It is hard to beat that.

As has already been mentioned today, he was one of the very few people from Wyoming to have represented his State in both houses of the Congress, over there and over here. Here in the Senate, I found him to be a most considerate and patient colleague. He was always willing to step aside for another Senator who sought recognition. He was a nice man, a very quiet man with a radiant smile, staying out of the spotlight, working behind the scenes, always ready to cooperate and work with others for the good of our country. He was a good, decent human being.

Yes, we represented different political parties. Yes, we sometimes held different political views, and we came from vastly different parts of the country, but we shared important common interests and objectives. With his State of Wyoming being the No. 1 coal-producing State in the Nation and my State of West Virginia being No. 2, I always appreciated his support for clean coal technologies and legislation that promoted the use of coal. I always appreciated his interest in and support of our country's beautiful and magnificent national parks. As chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he sponsored legislation that both protected and promoted these national treasures.

Just as this former marine dedicated his life to his country, he dedicated his career in the Senate to improving the quality of life for rural America. As cochairman of the Senate rural health caucus, he worked tirelessly to improve the quality of rural health care. He was truly a fine Member of this institution and a great American who will be missed by his colleagues, certainly by me, and by the people of Wyoming.

I express my sincere condolences to his wife Susan, to his sons and other members of his family, to his staff, and to the people of Wyoming. All of us will miss Senator Thomas. But we will always retain our very fond memories of him, Craig Thomas. Bless his soul. May God bless him.

I repeat these few verses in his memory:

Let Fate do her worst,

There are relics of joy,

Bright dreams of the past,

Which she cannot destroy;

Which come, in the night-time

Of sorrow and care,

And bring back the features

That joy used to wear.

Long, long be my heart

With such memories filled,

Like the vase in which roses

Have once been distilled;

You may break, you may shatter

The vase, if you will,

But the scent of the roses

Will hang round it still.

Goodbye, Craig. I will miss you. But we will meet again on that far shore where the roses never wither and the flowers never fade.

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

Mr. President, the Senator is about to speak. Other Senators should listen. So I will stand right here until we get order. May we have order in the Senate?

Look at the people up there. There are people up there. They ought not be in that well when there are votes going on. Read your rule book. Come on.