Floor Statements

Mr. President, after many long years of flawed budget policies that have eroded our Nation's infrastructure and recklessly taken from the health and safety of American working families, the Senate finally has an opportunity to change course.

The President has submitted a grossly inadequate budget request for the fiscal year 2008, built around the erroneous premise that tax cuts are sacrosanct. I reject that argument. I hope that my colleagues will reject that argument.

The President's budget includes $2 trillion of new tax cuts, many of which will benefit those who least need them. In order to fund those tax breaks, the President cuts the programs that working Americans rely on the most. The President proposes to cut the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, which provide health care to seniors and children. He proposes to cut funding for housing for the elderly in rural America. He proposes to cut funding for first responder programs, jeopardizing the safety of our firefighters and law enforcement officers, and those of us whom they protect. He proposes to cut funding for our children and schools, for health care research and rural hospitals, and for our communities and economic development.

The President is proposing to take an awful lot from working American families in order to pay for his tax breaks. His budget cuts are not funding the troops overseas, or being used to pay down the national debt. The president's own budget tables show that the gross federal debt will continue to increase to record levels, $12 trillion in the next five years, even if his spending cuts are enacted into law.

I reject the argument that seniors must give up their health care, and that children must give up funding for their schools, in order to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy in America.

The President's budget continues the dangerous practice of chipping away at domestic priorities, and trying to get away with spending as little as possible on critical infrastructure. There are consequences-- sometimes significant consequences, and sometimes deadly consequences-- when the administration tries to hide the impact of its budget cuts in order to fund more tax cuts.

H.G. Wells wrote that human history is a race between education and catastrophe.

The Congress must get into the race to avert the next catastrophe. The squeeze on domestic discretionary spending these past years has done a lot of damage to the infrastructure of our Nation. It has resulted in budgetary shortfalls that are wholly irresponsible, and they must be addressed.

Look at FEMA's inability to respond to natural disasters. Look at the shortfalls in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistant Program, LIHEAP, affecting so many of our States. Look at the shortfalls in our homeland security, where glaring vulnerabilities along the border are left to linger year after year after year. Look at the shortfalls in the funding for our veterans. The problems at Walter Reed did not happen because our military is not committed to caring for its wounded. It happened because we have an administration that is trying to cut corners in order to pay for its tax breaks for wealthy Americans.

Look at the Department of Labor, where the administration chipped away at the mine safety budget for 6 years until it had lost 217 inspectors, undermined the enforcement of the Mine Act, and left coal miners underground with inadequate safety equipment. It is no coincidence that mining deaths increased to record numbers last year, while the administration cut the coal enforcement budget, reduced the number of safety inspectors, and reduced the severity of enforcement actions against habitual violators.

Gas and energy prices are on the rise again, and, still, the President's budget does not adequately address our Nation's congested roads, our overcrowded transit and rail systems, or the energy bottlenecks causing higher prices and electricity failures and power outages. These are the festering signs of our Nation's infrastructure slowly being starved.

When the catastrophes come, they are Hurricanes that brutalize our cities and people, or scandals that surface at our Nation's veterans facilities, or tragedies that take the lives of our coal miners underground due to lack of sufficient Federal inspections.

I reject the administration's tactics of cutting funds and hiding the consequences until a catastrophe hits. I reject that kind of Russian roulette. I reject the notion that the health and safety of the American people is less important than extending a tax cut. Today, the Congress has an opportunity to reject that approach, and I hope that it does reject it.

We must have a budget that sets realistic spending levels. That is the only way to real budget enforcement and discipline. The last Congresses pinned their expectations to pie-in-the-sky, fantasy spending levels that were totally disconnected from reality. When those budgets proved inadequate and the appropriations process stalled, the Congress was forced to consider massive off-budget supplementals and end-of-the-year continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills that exempted hundreds of billions of dollars of spending from the oversight of the regular appropriations process. The result was always higher deficits, and less accountability to the American people.

The budget before the Senate today rejects that approach. It sets realistic spending levels that would allow the Congress to consider the annual appropriations bills in a timely manner, and subject those bills to debate and amendments in the Senate. That is the best kind of enforcement mechanism--full and open debate and amendments. This budget sets a discretionary spending level of $949 billion in the fiscal year 2008, $16 billion above the President's request, and above the President's requested freeze at fiscal year 2007 levels for domestic programs. The Congress must address the unacceptable cuts in health care, veterans programs, and other critical priorities that have been proposed by the President.

This budget is practical, and it is tough. This is not a budget lacking in enforcement mechanisms, and they would apply equally and fairly to all pieces of the budget revenues, mandatory entitlements, and discretionary spending. This budget caps discretionary spending in the fiscal year 2008, subject to a 60-vote point of order. It caps advance appropriations in the fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and it creates a 60-vote point of order against both emergency defense and nondefense spending, to limit the kind of budget gimmickry that has been used in the past to circumvent the discretionary spending caps. On the revenue and mandatory entitlement side of the ledger, this budget restores pay-go budget enforcement, subjecting new mandatory spending and tax cuts that are not offset to a 60-vote point of order. It also creates a 60-vote point of order against reconciliation legislation that worsens the deficit, causes a deficit, or reduces a surplus by decreasing revenues or increasing spending. Here, more than anywhere else, is where the budget process has been abused the most. Budget reconciliation has been used to shield controversial tax cuts from debate and amendments in the

Senate, which have added trillions of dollars to the national debt. This budget will stop such egregious practices from continuing.

This budget gives the Congress the flexibility it needs to address the gross deficiencies in the president's request, and it demands savings from every piece of the budget--revenues, discretionary, and mandatory--in order to do it. This budget is evenhanded and fair, and its spending levels can be enforced.

I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for writing a budget that sets a new course. I hope that the Senate follows the lead of our chairman. He is trying to address the next catastrophe before it happens. He is trying to set enforceable spending limits to rein in this administration's budget deficits. He is doing the right thing with this budget. It deserves the support of the Senate.

Mr. President, once again, we welcome in the Spring.

Blows the thaw-wind pleasantly,

Drips the soaking rain,

By fits looks down the waking sun:

Young grass springs on the plain;

Young leaves clothe early hedgerow trees; Seeds, and roots,

and stones of fruits, Swollen with sap put forth their

shoots; Curled-headed ferns sprout in the lane; Birds

sing and pair again.

There is no time like Spring,

When life's alive in everything . . .

--Christina Rossetti.

March 21 is the vernal equinox, when the day and night are, briefly, in perfect balance. It is the first day of spring. This year, of course, the early switch to daylight savings time has created the illusion of an earlier spring with the artificial and arbitrary establishment of darker mornings and longer evenings. I, for one, am happy to welcome an early spring. It is my favorite season, full of new hope and untarnished promise.

West Virginia has seen some snow this winter. The snow was welcomed by skiers and farmers, but those of us who neither ski nor plow view snow more as a nuisance--something to be moved out of the way, something that complicates our commutes and closes the schools. Snow makes the world monochromatic, a palette that ranges along a single line from blinding white through the shades of gray to the tired black of grime-crusted snow along the roadways. We are ready for spring, ready for some light and for lots of vibrant color around us.

This year, the March winds again worked their artistry, blowing away the flotsam and jetsam of winter to uncover a clean canvas with just the sweeping curves of earth and the angular armature of tree limbs sketched in charcoal, awaiting the Master's hand to apply delicate springtime washes of color. Over the past weeks, we have seen the Master's skill at work in the first creeping stain of green across the lawns and fields, the soft blush of blossoms in the wild plum trees, the deepening blue of the sky. Each day, the colors have grown darker, richer, and more vibrant, as if the warm breezes carried them to us from some distant sunny clime. Bright details have begun to take shape in the scattered spangles of violet and yellow crocus and the bright accents of hardy daffodils amid their grass green leaves. Oh, daffodils--the poets write of you! The Boston poet Amy Lowell (1874- 1925) wrote of you:

Thou yellow trumpeter of laggard Spring!

Thou herald of rich Summer's myriad flowers!

The climbing sun with new recovered powers

Does warm thee into being, through the ring

Of rich, brown earth he woos thee, makes thee fling

Thy green shoots up, inheriting the dowers

Of bending sky and sudden, sweeping showers,

Till ripe and blossoming thou art a thing

To make all nature glad, thou art so gay;

To fill the lonely with a joy untold;

Nodding at every gust of wind to-day,

To-morrow jeweled with raindrops.

Always bold

To stand erect, full in the dazzling play

Of April's sun, for thou has caught his gold.

Mr. President, spring would not be spring without the daffodils. Their delicate beauty and seemingly fragile petals belie their toughness. Year after year, the daffodils spread, competing with the grass and the tree roots to expand their beds. They manage to deter the onslaught of determined squirrels and other wild creatures who unearth and consume dainty and expensive spring bulbs like so many canapes at a reception. They push their way up into the sun through frozen ground and choking mats of fallen leaves. They defy howling winds and frigid nighttime temperatures. They survive people and houses to bloom on around the decaying foundations of long ago farmsteads. And they do it all with effortless beauty, inspiring us and filling us with joy. The first daffodil, like the first robin, is akin to the dove that brought the olive branch back to Noah--a reassurance to worried man

from God that the spring, like the land, will return.

I do not want to take up too much of the Senate's time. We have important matters before us, matters of war and peace, matters of spending and accounting. But even in the heat of debate, we can each find joy in those first spring days. We can each feel peace in the steady warmth of the springtime sun, calm in the soft breeze that carries the scent of hyacinths, and delight in springtime flowers. The first day of spring is truly a time to stop and smell the flowers.

There is no time like Spring,

When life's alive in everything,

Before new nestlings sing,

Before cleft swallows speed their journey back

Along the trackless track--God guides their wing,

He spreads their table that they nothing lack,

Before the daisy grows a common flower

Before the sun has power

To scorch the world up in his noontide hour.

--Christina Rossetti.

Mr. President, I oppose Social Security privatization-- unequivocally and without question. The language in the DeMint amendment, which would encourage the Finance Committee to report legislation that would embrace private investment accounts within Social Security, is something that I cannot support. Therefore, I oppose the DeMint amendment.

Mr. President, I am concerned about the use of the so- called function 920 account to offset amendments to the budget resolution.

The budget resolution sets the aggregate level of discretionary spending for the coming fiscal year. Within that maximum level of discretionary spending, the budget resolution displays certain nonbinding levels of discretionary spending that are divided between 20 major functions, including function 050 for defense, function 150 for international affairs, function 400 for transportation, function 550 for health, and so on. Function 920 is a kind of catch-all account, which displays the budget effects from initiatives that cannot be easily categorized into the other budget functions, such as an across- the-board spending cut.

When a Senator offers an amendment to increase spending in one discretionary account, such as function 400 for transportation or function 550 for health, and then directs the Appropriations Committee to find unspecified savings in the function 920 account, it creates an expectation for increased resources when none are produced. Such amendments do not increase the maximum level of discretionary spending allowed by the budget resolution falsely raise expectations that more money is available for certain spending programs. In reality, this is a shell game amounting to shifting funds around without any actual consequence.

Function 920 has a legitimate accounting purpose. That purpose, however, is not to create the illusion of progress for public consumption and a press release.

Mr. President, at Andrews Air Force Base in 1990, I helped to craft the first statutory firewalls as part of the budget summit that resulted in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. That act created three categories of discretionary spending--defense, international, and domestic discretionary.

At the time, the device of the three separate caps to protect each category from being raided by another category made sense. There was a definable military threat, and nondefense funds did not contribute significantly to the defense of the Nation. That is not the case anymore. The September 11 attacks blurred the line between defense and nondefense spending. Military threats can no longer be viewed as matters that are fought solely through the Defense Department. The enemy may attack our troops overseas or civilians here at home. Within a matter of weeks, the focus of our war against terrorism can shift from military efforts abroad, to our homeland security efforts here at home, and then back again.

To respond to this threat, the Congress should maintain maximum flexibility to shift funds to where they are needed most--whether for our homeland security needs here at home or for our troops overseas or for our veterans who need health and medical care. With so much uncertainty regarding the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, it makes no sense to limit how those funds can be spent.

Senators should know that firewalls in the past have forced the Congress to resort to all sorts of machinations to pass its annual spending bills. Firewalls were used in past years, as part of a partisan budget process, to hold nondefense discretionary spending at unrealistically low levels. These spending levels were set early in the year under different fiscal circumstances and at levels that neither the administration nor the Congress expected to stay within. The result was always unnecessary delays in the appropriations process and even more spending as nearly all budgetary discipline evaporates in the push to pass an end-of-the-year omnibus bill.

These kinds of budget gimmicks undermine the people's confidence in the Congress to manage the Nation's spending priorities.

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

Mr. President, Robert Browning, a brilliant British poet, once wrote a stirring poem about an unpleasant subject, namely: Rats.

A key section of the poem reads as follows:

Out of the houses the rats came tumbling.

Great rats, small rats, lean rats, brawny rats,

Brown rats, black rats, gray rats, tawny rats.

Grave old plodders, gay young friskers,

Fathers, mothers, uncles, cousins,

Cocking tails and pricking whiskers,

Families by tens and dozens,

Brothers, sisters, husbands, wives--

Followed the Piper for their lives.

Mr. President, it is gotten so that, every morning when I open the paper and see another story describing the administration's incompetence or wrongdoing, Robert Browning's vision of administration wrongdoers tumbling out of the house comes into my mind. ``Brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives,'' who followed the misled Piper--in this case, the President, ``for their lives.'' And they may pay dearly, as a result. Just as the entire country is now paying dearly for the arrogant, reckless and misguided policies of this Administration.

We see more clearly, every day, that the executive branch of our Government is in dire need of a thorough housecleaning, to rid itself of the conniving agents lodged in its bureaus, who apparently will stop at nothing to grab power for the Executive at the expense of the Congress and the People who send us here to represent them.

Last year, in one of several bills reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--all of which I voted against--a small provision was added by the then- Republican majority. It enabled administration officials to fire any U.S. attorney whose politics they did not like and replace them with what in Las Vegas are called ``shills.'' The word shill is defined by Webster's Dictionary to mean, ``one who acts as a pitchman''--in this case, for the administration.

The provision, which was tucked into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, permits the administration to fire and appoint new U.S. attorneys, whose term in office can be indefinite and never subject to Senate confirmation. What an abomination!

I was one of only ten U.S. Senators who voted against the legislation that made this possible, and, in retrospect, I am feeling quite proud of that vote.

A U.S. attorney is supposed to be the chief Federal law enforcement officer in his or her state. It is critical that U.S. attorneys be able to enforce the law and perform their duties, free of political pressure to achieve a partisan end. Federal law is to be applied fairly and objectively; not to fuel a political witch hunt or to feather the nest of a political contributor.

This White House has made it crystal clear that it has no respect for the separation of powers; no respect for our constitutional system of checks and balances; and no respect for even the rule of law, going so far as to pervert the appointment of U.S. attorneys for its own partisan purposes.

Well, key officials in this administration may be in for a rude awakening. The rule of law remains alive and well in the hearts of most Americans. If our laws apply to the American people, must they not also apply to the Justice Department? And to the White House? Imagine how baffled the American public must be to hear that the nation's chief law enforcement officer, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, defends the administration's actions as follows: in the March 14 Washington Post, Attorney General Gonzales stated that he knew nothing of the scandal surrounding this issue, because he ``was 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.''

Is that possible? Isn't that preposterous? Are we really to believe that, as head of the Justice Department, the chief law enforcement officer of the nation knew nothing about efforts to replace a plethora of U.S. attorneys nationwide? Which is worse: that he knew nothing that his Deputy was doing, or, instead, that he did know there was a scheme in place, hatched by the White House, to evade congressional oversight?

The administration's appointment of these U.S. attorneys constitutes a serious breach of the public trust. Americans don't want law enforcement officials appointed based on their good looks, family connections, or because the Republican National Committee wants to groom them to run for Congress some day. U.S. attorneys should be nominated and confirmed by the Senate based on merit. Only the Constitution affords the people the powers and the prerogatives that keep us a free nation. The constitutional doctrines of checks and balances and separation of powers are the foundations of our government, so brilliantly formulated by the Founders in 1787. My long study of constitutional history and a lifetime of public service have made me keenly aware of why so many Americans have given their lives to protect these basic principles. This is why we must continue to fight to ensure that our constitutional rights and privileges are never undermined or trampled by an ambitious, overly zealous executive branch like the one now in the White House. That is why we must enact S. 214-- to restore the Senate's role in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys. The Founders granted the Senate the power of confirmation, precisely so that we could prevent a corrupt White House from undertaking exactly the indefensible actions that this White House has embraced with respect to the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Let us put a stop to those actions right here and right now.

Let us begin today to clean the house and rid our ship of state of the pests that gnaw away at our constitutional protections.

Mr. President, along with my Democratic colleagues, I intend to vote for the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9. I have some concerns with the approach in this resolution--I firmly believe that the Congress must address the open-ended 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, which is not dealt with in this resolution--but I certainly agree with the Reid resolution's intent. There is a diversity of views in both parties about our policy in Iraq, but a majority of the American people are united in the firm belief that a change of course is long overdue. Fifty-nine percent of Americans believe that the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. Sixty percent favor withdrawing all U.S. troops by the end of next year. The American people are speaking, and finally their Representatives in the Congress are listening.

Some of us may disagree about the best way to effect a change of course in Iraq, but this debate shows one thing--it is time for a new plan, time for a real discussion, not more empty rhetoric about ``stay the course'' versus ``cut and run.'' This administration is fond of referring to the powers of the Commander in Chief, but surely the most important responsibility of any Commander in Chief is to provide solid leadership. As President Harry Truman said: ``The buck stops here.'' But we are entering the fifth year of this misbegotten war, and this President has failed time and time again to articulate a plan, a plan to give a clear reason for why we are in Iraq or to outline a strategy for bringing our troops home. Stubbornly denying that Iraq is engaged in a civil war is not leadership. The White House has abdicated its leadership on this issue, so it is left to the Congress--that is us--to speak for the American people.

The hue and cry raised from my colleagues across the aisle and from the White House is that those who do not support this disastrous war do not support the troops. Three thousand one hundred and eighty-nine soldiers have now died in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded and maimed and have come home to find outrageous and dehumanizing treatment. Truly supporting our troops means not putting them into harm's way without a clear plan for success and unless it is absolutely necessary. It means not asking our sons and daughters, our best and our brightest, to make the ultimate sacrifice without being able to articulate exactly why they are being asked

to do so and exactly what we will accomplish as a result. Supporting our troops means treating our wounded men and women with dignity. It means not sending them to recuperate in mold-filled rooms without supervision and without assistance in a morass of paperwork. It means not sending back to the front lines those too wounded to fight, as this administration is doing.

I continue to receive letters and phone calls from service men and women, troops currently serving in Iraq, thanking me for my stand--yes, my stand--against this war. The troops are not the ones criticizing our attempts to bring them home. The troops are the first to say there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq, only a political solution. The Iraqis will have to assume leadership of their own country and start making political compromises to overcome the ethnic and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart. There is no military solution, none, no military solution for Iraq. A national reconciliation is the only solution for that war-torn country, and we do not need another 3,000 young lives lost to learn that.

We were wrong--and I said so at the time--to invade. We were wrong to think that victory would be quick and easy. We are wrong to stay on in an occupation which earns us only hatred with no end, no end, no end in sight. Our young men and our young women now find themselves in the crossfire of a civil war. Nearly every one--nearly every one--except our Commander in Chief realizes that there is no military solution. To continue this ill-advised and demoralizing war only damages our wonderful country in the eyes of the world and chews up lives, both American and Iraqi. I have said it before--yes, I will say it again, yes--democracy cannot be force-fed from the point of a gun.

Let this debate mark the beginning of a way out, out, out of Iraq. Let this Congress begin to understand why the Framers of this Constitution gave the power to declare war to the Congress, the representatives of the people we send to fight and to die for our country. Let us begin to put some sanity--sanity--in our foreign policy again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of an esteemed colleague, a fine West Virginia lawyer named Mr. John Preston Bailey. Mr. Bailey hails from the beautiful city of Wheeling, WV. John Bailey has been nominated by the President for a seat on the Federal bench in the Northern District of West Virginia.

Mr. Bailey is a splendid choice for this judgeship. He is senior partner at the firm of Bailey, Riley, Buch and Harman. Not only is Mr. Bailey well-versed in administrative law, he is also a successful litigator, competent in both civil and criminal litigation.

John Bailey graduated from West Virginia University's College of Law in 1976, where he was a member of the West Virginia Law Review. He was admitted to the State Bar of West Virginia that same year and clerked for 2 years thereafter with the Honorable Charles H. Haden II, who, at that time, was the U.S. district judge for both the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia.

Mr. Bailey is extremely well qualified to be confirmed as a Federal judge. He worked as an assistant prosecuting attorney in the mid-1980s, and he served as chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in West Virginia from 1985 to 1991. He sat on the executive council of the West Virginia Bar Association for 6 years and was elected to be president of that association in 1992. He was thereafter elected and served as president of the West Virginia State Bar from 2003 to 2004. Before that, he served as vice president of the state bar and as a member of the bar's Board of Governors.

More recently--in fact, just last year--he was also bestowed the honor of ``Fellow'' by the West Virginia Bar Foundation. In bestowing that honor upon Mr. Bailey, Tom Tinder, the executive director of the West Virginia Bar Foundation, stated that Mr. Bailey is a ``true leader'' of his community. John Preston Bailey has been a member of the Order of the Coif, the Order of the Barristers, a member of the Moot Court Board, the Ohio County Bar Association, the West Virginia Trial Lawyer Association, and a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys.

I can attest to the fact that Mr. Bailey comes highly recommended by West Virginians of varying legal viewpoints. He is a smart, independent thinker. He is hard working. He has had over 30 years of experience as a licensed attorney. As a result, he recognizes the solemn responsibility with which a Federal judge is charged. He must interpret--impartially, and with proper contemplation of, and respect for, the three, separate branches of our Government--provisions that have been approved by the Congress and signed into law the President.

Mr. Bailey has an excellent reputation and a keen intellect. Based on my understanding of Mr. Bailey's character and impressive credentials, I believe that he will make a fine Federal judge. For all of the reasons that I have mentioned, I am pleased to urge my colleagues to support his nomination to be a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Mr. President, 46 years ago, President John F. Kennedy proposed to the Congress one of the most successful and influential programs in the history of our Nation. It was on March 1, 1961, that President Kennedy asked the Congress to establish the Peace Corps.

In making that request, President Kennedy pointed out that the program would be of great benefit to struggling nations that were in ``urgent need for skilled manpower.'' The program has helped meet that need as more than 187,000 volunteers have served in the Peace Corps since its inception, in 139 countries.

President Kennedy also explained that the program would benefit developed nations as well. ``The future of freedom around the world,'' President Kennedy explained, ``depend[s], in a very real sense, on the ability to build growing and independent nations where men can live in dignity, liberated from the bonds of hunger, ignorance, and poverty.'' In pursuit of the Peace Corps mission of helping people help themselves throughout the world, Peace Corps volunteers have served as school teachers, economic development advisers, agricultural and environmental specialists, and in various capacities as skilled laborers. These dedicated Americans have helped developing nations with health and sanitation projects and have assisted them in increasing their agricultural production. They have helped these nations to combat diseases, including malaria and HIV/AIDS, that have, for too long, plagued underdeveloped nations. Because of the outstanding work of its volunteers, the Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of the American commitment to freedom through the encouragement of the social, as well as the economic progress of all nations.

And, in proposing the creation of the Peace Corps, President Kennedy forthrightly acknowledged that American self-interest was involved in the creation of the program. ``Our own young men and women,'' he explained, ``will be enriched by the [Peace Corps] experience . . . an experience which will aid them in their future careers.'' And it did. Members of the Senate, Senators Paul Tongas and Chris Dodd, came to

this Chamber as Peace Corps veterans. My good friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller had worked for the Peace Corps in Washington, DC, where he served as the operations director for its largest overseas program in the Philippines. Members of my staff, like Zach Pusch, and even the mothers of members of my staff, like Mrs. Dorothy Corbin, have served in the Peace Corps. I have heard all of them, on a number of occasions, discuss how their lives and careers were enhanced by their service in the Peace Corps. Their experience in the Peace Corps inspired them to persevere in making this world a better and safer place in which to live, work, and raise families, long after they had left the program.

It is through the Peace Corps that the dreams and the policies of the great and beloved President John F. Kennedy live on.

On this 46th Anniversary of the Peace Corps, and in celebration of National Peace Corps Week, I want to congratulate everyone and anyone ever involved in this unique organization for your service to our country. And, I want to commend you for your efforts in promoting freedom around the world.

Mr. President, more than 11 million cargo containers enter the United States each year. One hundred percent of the shipping manifests are screened to determine their risk. Approximately 17 to 19 percent of those containers determined to be high risk are examined by screening machines using xray or gamma ray technology, and only 5 percent of containers are physically opened and examined. This is not satisfactory. Clearly, much more needs to be done to increase the number of containers that are screened prior to entering this country. Only a more robust system will provide the deterrence necessary to make America safer.

I have been a leader in the effort to provide additional funding to purchase screening equipment and hire the personnel to perform these inspections. Nevertheless, I voted to table the amendment of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. I believe we must set realistic goals. There is a process which has been set in place by the SAFE Port Act to get us to the ability to conduct 100 percent inspections. I will continue to do all in my power to provide the funds to ensure that we reach an achievable goal as rapidly as possible.

Let's hear something about the amendment.

I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have the attached rules and subcommittee memberships for the 110th Congress printed in the Congressional Record.

Madam President, over 3,000 Americans are dead--dead, dead--and over 23,000 Americans are wounded as a result of the war in Iraq. Our military leaders say that our Armed Forces are stretched almost to the breaking point. We have spent almost $400 billion, and the number continues to go up, up, up. But the United States Senate is mired incredibly in a debate about the ability even to have a debate about our Nation's future course in Iraq. Surely, no one in this Senate can be so fearful of debate on a nonbinding resolution concerning the President's plan to send some 40,000 additional troops to Iraq that they fail to hear the voices of over 70 percent of the American people out there who now oppose our involvement in this war. But apparently some in the Senate are afraid of such a debate.

Some of my colleagues have indicated that they will vote against the motion to proceed to debate on this straightforward resolution, which expresses disagreement with the President's plan. While our brave fighting men and women put their lives on the line in Iraq, this Senate stands paralyzed--paralyzed, paralyzed, I say. The United States Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the whole world--is probably the only place in this wonderful land of America where this debate is not--is not--taking place.

How can some express unwavering support for the troops if they quake in the face of a debate about their safety? Our troops are stretched thin. They are weary after deployment and redeployment. Post-traumatic stress disorder and mental problems--yes--are rife in the troops. Lost limbs and physical mutilation have scarred many of these young people for life. Scores of families weep--yes, they weep--every night for their lost loved ones. And yet many in this Senate claim to support the troops, while those same many steadfastly refuse to debate an ill- advised escalation--yes, an ill-advised escalation--of this war which almost nobody but nobody supports.

Can one claim support for the troops while acquiescing in a policy that only sinks our forces deeper into a civil war? Can any of us look in the mirror while we stonewall the concerns of the American people and engage in some political fandango to prevent discussion of our engagement in Iraq?

Madam President, if it will help to bring our soldiers home, I will work every Saturday for the rest of this Congress. I will stand here, right here on this floor, of this Senate every day, 24 hours every day if it would mean one less family without a son or a daughter. Hear me.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes.

Nothing, I say to my friend. I would not see anything happen to the Senator's time.

Madam President, this is the most important issue facing America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I stand with my colleagues today to say enough, enough stalling, enough obfuscation. It is time for the people of America--yes, you people out there in the mountains, the valleys, and across the rivers, across the mountain ranges, yes, the great Rockies--you people, it is time for you to know where every Senator stands on this war.

I will cast my vote with pride this afternoon, Madam President, in favor of proceeding to this debate, and I hope that every one of my colleagues joins me.

I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

I don't.

Yes.

Madam President, how long may I be recognized for? Two minutes?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

Madam President, I thank our distinguished friend from Illinois. And I thank my longtime friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

I only rise to say that I have a binding resolution to bring our troops home. I hope to see the day when we may vote on my resolution to bring American troops home--home, home.

Yes.

Right.

Shame.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I just want to interpose a point here.

I think I heard the Senator make reference to the majority leader having the right to fill the tree. No, he doesn't. He does not. He has the right if no other Senator seeks recognition. But once the majority makes a motion or sends an amendment to the desk, at that second he loses the floor until the Chair states its business, and while he has lost the floor, another Senator can seek recognition. I merely make the point the majority leader does not have ``the right.'' No other Senator has ``the right'' to fill the tree. If other Senators do not intervene, then of course he will fill it.

Yes.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. I have this comment. First of all, I wish to congratulate the Senator. He is very observant. He is concerned about the Senate. He understands the rules. But while he understands the rules, we do not need any more rules. We have rules. Senators need to insist on their rights as Senators and they ought to speak up so they can be heard and they ought to pay attention. We don't need new rules. We have rules that have been here for many years, and they have been tried and tried and tried again. We need to read the rules. Senators should read the rules and Senators should understand that they are Senators and they should be proud of that fact. We should demand that the rules be observed. I could do that. Every Senator can. We don't need new rules. We simply need to understand the rules we have. We need to insist on those rules, and the Chair ought as well to insist that the rules be observed.

No Senator needs to seek recognition to have the rules observed.

Mr. President, President John F. Kennedy was fond of quoting the Biblical passage of the New Testament:

For unto whomsoever much is given of him shall be much

required.

That was quoted from the 12th chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, verse 48, the King James version.

When I think of that passage, I think of the life, the career, and the accomplishments thus far of my dear friend, my dear friend and colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, who will turn 75 years old--Oh, to be 75 again--he will turn 75 years old, on February 22. The Senate will be out of session on February 22.

When Ted Kennedy came to the Senate in 1962, I would already have been here 4 years. So when he, Ted Kennedy, came to the Senate in 1962, much had already been given to Senator Ted Kennedy. He had been born into a wealthy and remarkably, remarkably talented family. His father, a financial genius, had been an Ambassador to England--think of that, Ambassador to England--and the very first Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

One of his brothers, one of Ted Kennedy's brothers, had been a Senator--I can see him now, as it were--and was then President of the United States, but had been a Senator. Another brother was the Attorney General of the United States, and would eventually join Ted in the Senate in 1965.

As for Senator Edward ``Ted'' Kennedy, himself, he had attended two of our country's premier educational institutions, Harvard College, and, yes, the University of Virginia. And he, Ted Kennedy, had already accumulated a lifetime of political experience by the tender age of 30 when he came to this Senate. How remarkable--just burst upon the landscape. I remember. Therefore, as the Scripture tells us, we had a right to expect much from Ted Kennedy when he came to the Senate. We had a right to expect much. What about our expectations? He delivered. He delivered.

In the Senate, Ted Kennedy became the heart and the conscience, yes, of American liberalism. And he has been one of the most effective--I know. I have been here. I have watched him. I did not particularly like him at the beginning. He did not like me. Each of us knew that. We did not care who else knew it. It did not matter.

In the Senate, Senator Kennedy became the heart and the conscience of American liberalism. He has been one of the most effective national legislators--read the Record; read the history of the Senate--he has been one of the most effective national legislators of the 20th century. And as one who knows something about American history and the history of the Senate, he has been one of the most effective national legislators of all time in the Senate. I have not lived all time, but I know something about all time. I know something about the Senate and know something about the history of the Senate.

Ted Kennedy has been one of the most effective national legislators of the 20th century or of all time as far as this Republic stands. His imprint is on nearly every piece of progressive legislation crafted during the past 45 years. I will read that again. I want to make sure I believe that myself. His imprint is on nearly every piece of progressive legislation crafted during the past 45 years: the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA; the Voting Rights Act; the Age Discrimination Act; the Freedom of Information Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; health care reform; increases in the Federal minimum wage. These are but a few of his, Ted Kennedy's, legislative monuments. Additionally, he has been among those few at the very forefront of promoting women's rights and women's equality.

He, Edward M. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, is the Senate's Mr. Health Care. He is the Senate's Mr. Civil Rights, to a great extent. He is the Senate's Mr. Human Rights. As his Senate record reveals, Senator Kennedy is a man--a Senator--of remarkable compassion, who has labored mightily on behalf of his fellow citizens.

Although born to a life of privilege, Ted Kennedy has dedicated his life--if

I ever saw a dedication to public service--dedicated his life to public service.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, has spent more than half of his life in the Senate. I have done that, too. I was just contemplating and figuring in my head. Yes, that is a long time. He has spent more than half of his life in the Senate, yes. Yes, I have spent more than half of mine, but I am not the subject of this.

He, Ted Kennedy, is now second in seniority in the Senate. He, Ted Kennedy, is the third longest serving Senator in the history of the United States of America.

As I wish my dear friend Ted Kennedy the happiest of birthdays, perhaps I should point out that our relationship--his and mine--did not begin--I think I have already hinted at that--on the friendliest of terms. I first encountered Ted Kennedy during the bitter and famous 1960 West Virginia Democratic primary. Ted Kennedy was in the State helping his brother John F. Kennedy, who was running for President. I, Robert C. Byrd, was supporting the other guy.

In 1971, he, Ted Kennedy, was running for reelection to his position as the Senate Democratic whip. Again, I supported the other guy--me.

In 1976, I was running for the position of Senate majority leader. This time, he, Ted Kennedy, was supporting the other guy.

This hardly seemed the beginning of a beautiful relationship, but it was.

During our service together in the Senate, I came to admire Ted Kennedy--yes, I came to admire him--as a dedicated Senator of incredible tenacity and admirable legislative skills. I found him to be an indefatigable worker who could accomplish, yes, what seemed to be legislative miracles. Sometimes they were.

I, personally, will always be grateful for the support, the unstinting support, that Senator Ted Kennedy gave to me during the years that it was my privilege to serve, yes, serve as the Senate Democratic leader. And I was. I was the leader, the Senate Democratic leader. When times got tough, as they sometimes do for a Senate leader, I knew that I could always count--I could always count; yes, even without asking him, I knew where he stood--I could always count on him. It may have been a needed vote. It may have been his assistance in building support for a legislative proposal. Whatever was needed, he, Edward M. Kennedy, Ted, was there. He was there, he was always there for me, and I am grateful. As a result, our friendship has developed and strengthened.

Today I am proud to call Ted Kennedy one of my best and dearest friends. I have to say he is my best and dearest friend. I will always value his friendship. I especially appreciate the way he has extended that friendship not only to me but also to all the people of West Virginia. And he did much of that before he became a friend of mine.

I close this brief statement about admiration for Ted Kennedy with these words:

``How far away is the temple of fame?''

Said a youth at the dawn of the day.

He toiled and strove for a deathless name;

The hours went by and the evening came,

Leaving him old and feeble and lame,

To plod on his cheerless way.

``How far away is the temple of good?''

Said another youth at the dawn of the day.

He toiled in the spirit of brotherhood,

To help and succor as best he could

The poor and unfortunate multitude,

In its hard and cheerless way.

He was careless alike of praise or blame,

But after his work was done,

An angel of glory from heaven came

To write on high his immortal name,

And to proclaim the truth that the temple of fame

And the temple of good are one.

For this is the lesson that history

Has taught since the world began;

That those whose memories never die,

But shine like stars in the human sky,

And brighter glow as the years go by,

Are the men who live for man.

Senator Ted Kennedy is a public servant. He is a dedicated legislator. He is a great Senator of our times who endeavors to live for his fellow man.

Happy birthday, Ted Kennedy. God bless you. Because of you, we are a better country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Senate today gave final Congressional approval to a comprehensive $463.5 billion funding resolution. The vote today was the culmination of many weeks of determined effort by Senators and Members of the House from both parties, and from their talented staffs.

I take a moment to thank Senators for their support for this legislation, and to the members of the Appropriations Committee, Democratic Senators and Republican Senators, for their determination and effort to reach this milestone.

This was not easy legislation to craft. Members and staff took on the difficult task of wrapping the funding of every domestic department and agency into a single bill, without Congressional earmarks and within very austere budget limitations. It was one of the most complex processes that the Appropriations Committee has undertaken in recent memory. But it was a challenge that we met in a smart, innovative way.

I thank the Appropriations Committee staff: Staff Director Terry Sauvain; Deputy Staff Director Charles Kieffer; Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA clerk Galen Fountain; Commerce, Justice, Science clerk Paul Carliner; Defense clerk Charlie Houy; Energy and Water clerk Doug Clapp; Financial Services clerk Marianne Upton; Interior clerk Peter Kiefhaber; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education clerk Ellen Murray; Legislative Branch clerk Nancy Olkewicz; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs clerk Christina Evans; State and Foreign Operations clerk Tim Rieser; and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development clerk Peter Rogoff; their associate staffs; Communications Director Tom Gavin and Communications Coordinator Cindy Huber; Deputy Chief Clerk Elnora Harvey; and professional staff members Jack Conway and Bob Knisely. Senators know the value of a strong staff, and this staff is, in my opinion, the best on Capitol Hill. Each of these men and women devoted long hours to this legislation. But it was not just a commitment of time; it also was the application of their years of experience and their dedication to this country that helped to craft this funding resolution and help see it through the Senate.

This was a bipartisan effort, and I want to pay tribute to Senator Thad Cochran, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, his staff director Bruce Evans, and the Republican subcommittee staffs. They were partners in producing this balanced funding legislation, and their ideas and input were invaluable.

Not only was the writing of this legislation a bipartisan process, but it also was a bicameral one. House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey and his staff, and Ranking Member Jerry Lewis and his staff, were integral to the success of this legislation.

This final funding package is an example of how the Congress can work together, without regard to party lines or partisan positions. this legislation focuses not on Democratic priorities or Republican priorities, but rather on national priorities of health care; law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts; education, medical care for our troops and our veterans; and energy independence. We invest resources wisely in an effort to meet the country's needs today while building the foundation for a stronger America tomorrow.

I thank Senators for their support of this legislation, and I look forward to continuing this bipartisan effort on the Fiscal 2008 appropriations legislation.