Floor Statements

Mr. President, Sir Walter Scott, in his poem ``Marmion,'' said these words:

Heap on more wood!--the wind is chill;

But let it whistle as it will,

We'll keep our Christmas merry still.

The Senate will shortly adjourn for the remainder of the year. We will return home to our families and friends and begin to think of putting up Christmas decorations and shopping for those special presents that we will give to our loved ones. We will leave much work unfinished, postponed until the new Congress convenes next January. That I regret.

Continuing resolutions allow the basic work of Government to proceed, but they do not offer clear guidance to Government offices and programs, and they postpone any new starts or major changes to programs until the regular authorizing and appropriation bills are acted upon. That is unfortunate. However, we may be grateful this Christmas that we live in a nation in which changes in Government may take place in a peaceful fashion in open elections. We may also be grateful that we live in a nation in which the voice of the people can be expressed freely, eloquently, and peacefully. Vox populi, vox diae. This Christmas, we might alter our prayers for those around the world who do not enjoy these same great blessings.

Christmastime is a time of peace and celebrating, as Christians do, the birth of Jesus, whose world-transforming message preached peace, tolerance, kindness, and love for all people. I am not quite sure where the message to shop, spend, and wrap presents came from, for it is surely not in the Bible, nor in the teachings of Jesus. These days, it takes effort to carve out enough time and energy from the ceaseless march of consumerism to find the true spirit of Christmas. But, thankfully, it is still present amid all the bright lights and cheery background music. One can see it in the piles of canned goods donated to food banks. One can see it in the response to the ``angel trees'' that let people answer the Christmas wishes of children in their communities. One can hear it in the Christmas choirs that put on magnificent performances. ``At Christmas play and make good cheer, for Christmas comes but once a year.'' So wrote Thomas Tusser, who lived from 1524 to 1580, demonstrating that some good things have changed very little over the years.

For the birth of Jesus, the angels sang, and for Him in this cold season, churches across the Nation will be filled with joyous music. The churches of West Virginia are always filled with great music, but at Christmastime the choirs are especially inspired. There are few things more uplifting than coming out of an evening church service, buoyed up by sweet traditional music, and seeing the stars of heaven sparkling like diamonds across the velvet dark sky. All of the carols that we learned as children in church, or around the family piano, sing in our heads, don't they? The three kings following the ``yonder star,'' the stars shining brightly on that holy night, the manger in Bethlehem, and the holy mother and child on that silent night. Each year, these loving memories surface from the deep well of our childhood, each time bringing with them fond memories of happy days and family members no longer with us but still very dear to our hearts.

This year, many families will look to the stars to know that far across the globe their loved ones also gaze up at the same stars to recall home and to recall the same old Christmas story. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Korea and Kosovo, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and elsewhere around the globe, many thousands of U.S. troops will be spending this Christmas season in a decidedly unpeaceful setting, proudly and bravely wearing the uniforms of this Nation. The National Guard units of West Virginia will have done and will continue to do their part, serving repeated deployments--I say again, serving repeated deployments-- overseas. Many of them will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. For our troops especially, we pray for peace, that they might be soon returned to the loving arms of their families. And to the families of our service men and women, we offer words, hopefully, of comfort, assuring them that none of us can forget that during this holiday season their loved ones are far from home--far from home and far from safety. Our prayers and our wishes are with them always.

My soul, there is a country

Far beyond the stars,

Where stands a winged sentry

All skillful in the wars:

There above noise and danger,

Sweet Peace is crown'd with smiles,

And One born in a manger

Commands the beauteous files.

Henry Vaughn in 1650 wrote those words in his poem titled ``Peace.''

Mr. President, I wish everyone in our Nation and everyone in our Nation's service around the globe a beautiful and peaceful Christmas season. Wherever the demands of the Nation may send you, in your hearts and in your memories you can hear the music and relive the family traditions that make Christmas so very, very special.

As this year closes and a new year dawns, we are filled with kind thoughts and bold resolutions. For some, it would be a time also filled with a certain buyer's remorse, as the Christmas bills come due. For others, New Year's resolutions will lead them into gymnasiums in fresh attempts to exercise and work off rich Christmas cookies and cakes. I applaud everyone with such determination. Each new year is a new chance to address our pressing individual issues, be they health related or economic.

The new Congress must also be filled with resolve--resolve to respond to the clear messages sent by the people of the United States. We will have much work to do if we are to successfully deal with the situation in the Middle East, the mounting national deficit at home, the rising costs of health care, and myriad other problems. Our resolve must last longer than most introductory gymnasium memberships if we are to set our national house in order.

In January, Lord willing, I will begin my ninth term as a United States Senator from the beautiful State of West Virginia, whose motto is ``Mountaineers are always free.'' I have been here long enough to know that we have done it before, and we can do it again. I again thank the people of West Virginia for their votes of confidence in me, Robert C. Byrd, to continue in their service.

Mr. President, I close with a favorite poem of mine by James Henry Leigh Hunt, who lived from 1784 to 1859. This is a poem familiar to all of us, to me from my very earliest days in a little two-room schoolhouse. This favorite poem of mine by James Henry Leigh Hunt is entitled ``Abou Ben Adhem.'' During the Christmas season, and especially as we brave the crowds and the traffic at the shopping malls and in the grocery stores, it is good to remember that the true message of the season is to love the Lord and to love our fellow men.

``Abou Ben Adhem'':

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)

Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,

And saw, within the moonlight in his room,

Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,

An Angel writing in a book of gold:

Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,

And to the Presence in the room he said,

``What writest thou?'' The Vision raised its head,

And with a look made of all sweet accord

Answered, ``The names of those who love the Lord.''

``And is mine one?'' said Abou. ``Nay, not so,''

Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low,

But cheerily still; and said, ``I pray thee, then,

Write me as one who loves his fellow men.''

The Angel wrote, and vanished. The next night

It came again with a great wakening light,

And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,

And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest!

Mr. President, I wish you and I wish all Senators and all peoples everywhere a very merry and peaceful and pleasant and memorable Christmas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

I thank this friend of West Virginia, this friend of mine. I shall always remember as long as I live--however long that may be--I shall carry in my heart a very warm feeling for him. He is our neighbor. He represents the people of Ohio, our neighbor to the west of the West Virginia hills. I thank him for his friendship and for his services to his people. His people are my people. I wish him well in the days and years ahead wherever he may serve. May God always bless you, my friend, and may He always keep you in the palm of His hand.

Mr. President, I thank the able Senator. I shall do my best to help fulfill his confidence and wishes.

Mr. President, as we approach this Christmas season, our joy is tempered by sorrow over the loss in late November of one of our Senate family members. The sorrow is borne of shock and loss as we mourn the sudden departure from this earthly life of our dear friend, Mary Miller Arnold. Yet, as we grieve, we must also give thanks for her life and for the enrichment she brought to all of the lives she touched.

It has been my honor and privilege to have served in the U.S. Senate for nearly 50 years. During this time, I have come to greatly appreciate and revere the work of the staff of the U.S. Senate. These wonderful women and men play a sometimes invisible but always crucial role in the work of the Senate. They are dedicated, professional public servants who work long and unpredictable hours. When the Senate is in session, their families' lives suffer and their social lives are almost nonexistent.

These are noble people who contribute to the history of our country every day, but, sadly, they will rarely be mentioned in the history books. Yet their lives are perfect examples of humble attention to duty and service. Such a life was Mary Arnold's.

I came to know Mary from her previous positions in the U.S. Senate and to appreciate her work as well as to like her personally. I was pleased and proud to have the opportunity to appoint Mary Arnold to her position as a Senate doorkeeper when I was the Senate majority leader, September 1, 1987. She did not disappoint. One year later

she was promoted to doorkeeper supervisor.

Mary Arnold carried out her responsibilities superbly and with distinction, in just the same way she conducted her life. She worked professionally, energetically, and with dignity. She was a caring, thoughtful, and very special person. Everyone who worked with her loved her. Selflessness was the hallmark of Mary Arnold's personality. She was kind, thoughtful, polite, with a kind of old-world graciousness not seen so often these days. Mary exuded grace in this often graceless age. A tall woman, Mary had a quiet sense of authority about her which served her well on the Senate floor. Her elegant bearing commanded respect, and she knew just how to compel without offending. I admired her.

To me, Mary was a dear friend. I shall never forget her kindness to my dear wife Erma. Especially at Christmas, a season Mary really enjoyed, Mary's love for her friends and family lighted our lives and set her apart. She fairly glowed as she made her Christmas visitations with thoughtful notes and gifts which she must have spent hours preparing. She was a red rose among the pale lilies, and her memory will ever warm our hearts.

Her passing is a loss to the Senate, her community, and, of course, her family.

To her loving husband of 48 years, Edwin, and her children, Mary Elizabeth and Edwin, our hearts and prayers are with you.

Take comfort in knowing that Mary is now in the embrace of an all- loving God. As the Scriptures assure us:

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and

there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying,

neither shall be any more pain: for the former things are

passed away. (KJV, Revelations 21:4)

The Rose Still Grows Beyond the Wall

Near a shady wall a rose once grew,

Budded and blossomed in God's free light,

Watered and fed by the morning dew,

Shedding its sweetness day and night.

As it grew and blossomed fair and tall,

Slowly rising to loftier height,

It came to a crevice in the wall,

Through which there shone a beam of light.

Onward it crept with added strength,

With never a thought of fear or pride.

It followed the light through the crevice's length

And unfolded itself on the other side.

The light, the dew, the broadening view,

Were found the same as they were before;

And it lost itself in beauties new,

Spreading its fragrance more and more.

Shall claim of death cause us to grieve,

And make our courage faint or fall?

Nay! Let us faith and hope receive:

The rose still grows beyond the wall.

Scattering fragrance far and wide,

Just as it did in the days of yore,

Just as it did on the other side,

Just as it will forevermore.

Mr. President, I rise to announce the retirement of a longtime public servant and former staff member of the U.S. Senate. After 40 years of Federal service, Anthony J. ``Tony'' Zagami will retire as the longest serving general counsel in the history of the U.S. Government Printing Office.

Tony arrived on Capitol Hill just as I was completing my first term in the Senate. Before Tony's arrival, I had the privilege of knowing and working with his late father, Dino, a member of the Senate's Official Reporters of Debates staff. Dino retired in the early 1970s, while Tony went on to serve the Congress, moving to the GPO in 1990.

Over the years, Tony Zagami became a valued and trusted staff member of the Congress in many different capacities. His strong skills and commitment to public service were well recognized, not just on the Hill but also throughout the legislative branch. As he departs the GPO for a well-deserved retirement, I thank him for his service and wish him all the best.

Mr. President, in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, ``Profiles in Courage,'' Senator John F. Kennedy extolled the virtues of political courage. ``Surely, in the United States of America, where brother once fought brother,'' Senator Kennedy wrote, ``we do not judge a man's bravery under fire by examining the banner under which he fought.''

For 7 years I have watched and admired the courage of Senator Lincoln Chafee, who sits on the other side of the aisle, and who will be leaving us at the end of the 109th Congress.

I have watched and admired his firm stands against his own political party, the Senate leadership, and the Presidential administration as he followed the dictates of his conscience. ``A man does what he must,'' wrote Senator Kennedy, ``in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality.'' This was the basis of Senator Chafee's tenure in the Senate.

Senator Chafee was appointed to the Senate in 1999 upon the death of his father, the beloved and respected Senator John Chafee. He immediately proved himself to be, to use an old cliche, a ``chip off the old block.'' Senator Lincoln Chafee proved himself to be a Senator of immense integrity, great dignity, and high principle. And, like his father, he proved himself a Senator of incredible courage.

He was the first Senate Republican to oppose the Bush tax cuts in 2001.

He was a Senator who helped preserve the Senate as the institution that was planned and handed down to us by the Framers of our Constitution, and all the great lawmakers who served in this Chamber before us. Senator Chafee was one of the seven Republicans who composed the so-called gang of 14 that was ready to block the majority leader's use of the ``nuclear option'' that would have destroyed the

U.S. Senate as a unique and sacred institution by curtailing the ability of the minority to filibuster.

I, of course, will always remember, admire, and appreciate Senator Chafee as the only Senate Republican to vote against the Iraqi war resolution. He was one of the immortal 23 Members of this Chamber who stood against popular opinion, stood up to the President of the United States, and threw himself against the forces of war in voting against the resolution to launch an unprecedented military assault on Iraq. If only there had been more Senators like him, we would not find ourselves in a bloody quagmire in Iraq.

In voting against the war resolution, Senator Chafee was determined not to hand over to President Bush, or any President, the power to declare war. That power, according to our Constitution, belongs to the Congress. With his firm belief in our constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers and checks and balances, Senator Chafee opposed many of the worst provisions of President Bush's efforts to create an all powerful Department of Homeland Security. He opposed, for example, the administration's plan to reduce the civil service protections and dissolve the collective bargaining rights of federal employees in the newly created agency.

Although he will soon be leaving Congress, there is a bright side. Senator Chafee will now have more time to spend with his wife Stephanie and their three children and to ride his horse Trapper. I wish all of them happiness and success in their future endeavors, and many happy hours in the saddle.

Mike DeWine

Mr. President, with the conclusion of the 109th Congress, Senator DeWine will be leaving us.

I do not want to say farewell to him, but to thank him for being a congenial colleague and an outstanding Senator, a Senator who truly appreciated this chamber, its traditions, and the way it is supposed to work.

For 12 years, he was an effective Senator, a Senator who built a long, impressive list of legislative accomplishments on a wide range of issues, largely, I believe, because of his willingness to reach out, and to work with Members on this side of the aisle. In a true bipartisan spirit, he worked with my dear friend, Senator Kennedy, to increase Federal regulation of tobacco.

He worked with Senator Dodd for a bill to provide health screening for newborns.

He worked with Senator Paul Wellstone on legislation that revamped job training programs, and with Senator Lautenberg on bills to crack down on drunk drivers.

With Senator Clinton, he promoted legislation to ensure that drug companies do a better job in studying the effects of their products on children.

For nearly a decade, whether in the majority or the minority, Senator DeWine cooperated with Senator Kohl in running the Antitrust Subcommittee on a bipartisan basis, and in the process, helped provide Americans with cheaper phone service, more choices on television, and direct flights home for the holidays.

He teamed up with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in promoting legislation that changed the government's emphasis in child custody cases from preserving family strucure to protecting the best interests of the child.

Indeed, caring for and protecting America's children was a major focus of his tenure in the Senate, and I applaud him for it. His concern for children, among other concerns, led him to successfully push for legislation to improve school bus safety and tougher child pornography laws.

I, of course, know Senator DeWine best from his service on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He chaired the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, which I know from personal experience, is no easy chore. It is one of the most difficult and thankless tasks in the Senate, and he did it very effectively. One of his objectives in this position was to reform the District's child welfare system--and, again, I know from personal experience, just how difficult and thankless reforming the District's welfare system can be. Senator DeWine worked at it, and had some outstanding successes.

Senator DeWine and I worked together to enact and defend the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, a trade law that returns to injured companies and workers the duties that are collected by Customs on unfairly traded imports. He also supported the enactment of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program--a program that has kept Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel in business and over 3,000 people employed for decades. It is well recognized that, if the program had not provided Wheeling-Pitt with its loan guarantee, the company would no longer exist.

I will always remember Senator DeWine as a Senator who took the risk to help preserve the Senate as it was handed down to us by the Framers of our Constitution, and all the great lawmakers who served in this Chamber before us. Senator DeWine was of the seven Republicans who helped form the so-called gang of 14 to help block the majority leader's determination to use the ``nuclear option'' that would have destroyed the U.S. Senate as a unique institution.

I know this effort cost him support from Members of his own party, and from folks back home. It reminds me of the words of Senator John F. Kennedy, who wrote:

If the American people comprehended the terrible pressures

which discourage acts of political courage, which drive a

Senator to abandon or subdue his conscience, then they might

be less critical of those who take the easier road--and more

appreciative of those still able to follow the path of

courage.

For 12 years Senator DeWine took the path of political courage.

Mr. President, shortly after coming to this Chamber, Senator DeWine remarked, ``when you go to the Senate, you don't know how long you'll be there. So you want to use your time wisely.'' In his two terms in the Senate, Senator DeWine used his time wisely and effectively. As he leaves the Senate, he should take pride in the knowledge that his presence here may well have saved this sacred institution, and from the bottom of my heart, I thank him for it.

I wish him and his wife Fran health, happiness and never-ending success as they begin the next phase of their lives and careers.

conrad burns

Mr. President, the great State of Montana is Big Sky Country. It is the land of open space, grizzly bears, gray wolves, and ponderosa pines. It is a land of vast grasslands and the magnificent Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks. It is the land of Senator Conrad Burns who will be leaving us at the end of this session of Congress.

His service in this Chamber was the capstone of a fascinating, multifaceted career. A Marine veteran, Senator Burns had worked for two different major airlines, and had worked as a firefighter, a livestock fieldman, commissioner of Yellowstone County, and an auctioneer.

He had also served as a radio announcer, a farm broadcaster on the Northern Agricultural Farm Network. A member of my staff grew up in Great Falls, MT. She remembers, as a child, waking up very early on cold, Montana mornings, going out to feed the horses, and coming in to hear Senator Burns giving his ``ag'' report on television, telling the people of Montana the price of pork bellies, hard red winter wheat, and other commodities.

With his boots, wide belt buckles, and folksy mannerisms, few people would have expected that this Montana cowboy would become one of the Senate's leading experts in high-tech telecommunications.

During his service on the Committee on Commerce, Science, Senator Burns embraced and fostered new communications technologies. He chaired the first interactive hearing on Capitol Hill and cofounded the Congressional Internet Caucus. As chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, he helped bring the Nation's communications laws into the digital age as he helped broaden the use of the Internet. Indeed, he has been praised as ``one of the fathers of the modern Internet.''

To the relief of, perhaps, millions of American Internet users, Senator Burns tangled with mass marketers to help secure enactment of antispam legislation.

With his interests in telecommunications, he enhanced 9-1-1 services throughout the country, and worked with Senator Clinton in sponsoring legislation to upgrade technology on cell phones.

On the Senate Appropriations Committee, he chaired the Interior Subcommittee, and this is where I came to know and appreciate him. As a Westerner, Senator Burns brought an important perspective, as well as a wealth of experience and knowledge to the diverse and difficult issues that came up in the Interior Appropriations bill that were important to his state, and to his region of the country.

In 2001 and 2002, when I chaired the committee, it was a pleasure to have Senator Burns serving as ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee and to work with him and his able staff. His dedication to duty, his willingness to work in bipartisan fashion, and his always gracious manner made my work infinitely easier. It was simply a pleasure to work with and to serve with Senator Burns on this subcommittee.

I must now say good-bye to my good friend and colleague. I wish Senator Burns and his dear wife Phyllis happiness and success as they now prepare for the next phase of their lives.

In honor of and appreciation for the Senate's Montana cowboy, who was at one time in his career an auctioneer, I offer the following verse:

the touch of the master's hand

`Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer

Thought it was scarcely worth his while

To waste much time on the old violin,

But held it up with a smile.

``What am I bidden, good folks,'' he cried,

``Who will start bidding for me?

A dollar, a dollar''--then, ``Two!'' ``Only two?

Two dollars, and who'll make it three?

Three dollars once; three dollars, twice;

Going for three--'' But no,

From the room, far back, a gray-haired man

Came forward and picked up the bow;

Then, wiping the dust from the old violin,

And tightening the loose strings,

He played a melody pure and sweet

As a caroling angel sings.

The music ceased, and the auctioneer

With a voice that was quiet and low,

Said, ``What am I bidden for the old violin?''

And he held it up with the bow.

``A thousand dollars, and who'll make it two?

Two thousand! And who'll make it three?

Three thousand, once; three thousand, twice;

And going, and gone!'' said he.

The people cheered, but some of them cried

``We do not quite understand

What changed its worth?'' Swift came the reply:

``The touch of the master's hand.''

And many a man with life out of tune,

And battered and scarred with sin,

Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd,

Much like the old violin.

A ``mess of pottage,'' a glass of wine;

A game--and he travels on.

He's ``going'' once, and ``going'' twice,

He's ``going'' and almost ``gone.''

But the Master comes, and the foolish crowd

Never can quite understand

The worth of a soul, and the change that's wrought

By the touch of the Master's hand.

--Myra Brooks Welch

Bill Frist

Mr. President, yesterday the Armed Services Committee conducted a thorough hearing on the nomination of Dr. Robert Gates to be the next Secretary of Defense. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their leadership in holding a hearing which may be regarded as one of the most informative, important hearings to take place before that committee in recent years.

Dr. Gates also deserves credit for the forthright tone of the hearing. His testimony to the committee was marked by candor and a serious discussion of the complex challenges before our country. In a refreshing change, rather than toeing the administration's line, Dr. Gates's testimony appeared to reflect his own views on the situation in Iraq, our Nation's approach to the Middle East, the difficulties facing our military, and a number of other issues.

He sensibly acknowledged that real changes are needed in the administration's policy toward Iraq, that long-rumored plans of an attack on Iran or Syria would have dramatic consequences that would further endanger the region and the world, and that our military is being strained by the war in Iraq.

Dr. Gates appears to be set to be confirmed by the Senate as the next Secretary of Defense, but he will be walking into a buzz saw. The current leadership of the Pentagon, in its arrogance

and disdain for the Constitution, has alienated Congress and has seriously undermined the credibility of the Defense Department in a time of war. One of the first orders of business for the next Secretary of Defense will be to demonstrate to Congress and to the American people that the Defense Department is not a power unto itself, but it is a servant of the people. I have urged Dr. Gates to take that mission to heart and to make meaningful consultation with Congress, as the people's branch of Government, an absolute priority.

I have worked with Dr. Gates before, during his years of service in the Central Intelligence Agency. But this experience alone would not be sufficient to secure my support of his nomination. My primary concern with his nomination was not whether Dr. Gates had performed well in the past, but how he would approach the challenges that are before him.

Mr. President, I will support the nomination of Dr. Gates based upon the candor and independence that he displayed at his nomination hearing. I caution, however, that Dr. Gates must be on guard against becoming the moderate face of an administration which may yet be reluctant to make any real change in its deeply flawed policies toward Iraq. The American people need more than a pragmatic spokesman for administration policies, the people deserve a leader who will work to change the administration's dangerous course.

I urge Dr. Gates to carry out the candor and fresh thinking that he demonstrated at his confirmation hearing, and I hope the administration will follow Dr. Gates in this new approach.

Mr. President, one of Congress's most fundamental duties is to make careful choices about how to spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are now over 67 days into the fiscal year. The Senate has passed only 3 of the 12 appropriations bills. Only two of the bills have been signed into law. The operations of government for 13 of the 15 executive branch Cabinet departments are being funded by a very restrictive continuing resolution. This dismal performance is not the result of the work of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations did its work and on a bipartisan basis reported all 12 of its bills by July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job in leading the committee. Yet the appropriations process, once again, has fallen victim to politics.

Before the November election, the Senate majority leadership decided that the Senate should not be given an opportunity to debate critical issues facing the Nation, so 8 of the 12 bills never came before the Senate. When it comes to the funding bills for domestic agencies, with the exception of Homeland Security, the majority leadership--and I say this respectfully--is apparently satisfied with a mindless continuing resolution. When it comes to the education of our children, the health of our elderly citizens, the ability of our deteriorating infrastructure to sustain a growing economy, the majority leadership apparently wants no debate, just a rubberstamp of a formula-based continuing resolution for 13 of the 15 departments.

The majority leadership made a specific choice to delay bringing the domestic appropriations bills to the floor because it wished to avoid an open debate in the Senate about many issues confronting Americans in their daily lives.

The President submitted a budget for domestic programs that cut funding by $14 billion below the level necessary to keep pace with inflation. The President's proposal to increase fees on our veterans for their health care is indefensible. The White House proposed cuts in education and in programs to fight crime. The President's budget is not sustainable. Yet behind closed doors the majority leadership inserted an $872.8 billion cap on spending at the level proposed by the President's budget. This was done by jamming a cap on spending in an unamendable conference report intended to provide disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to fund the efforts of our troops serving heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To avoid debate on the domestic appropriations bills, the Senate majority leadership kept the Senate operating at a snail's pace all summer. In July, the Senate had rollcall votes on just 9 days. In August, we voted on only 3 days. How about that? In September, we had votes on just 10 days. So in the 3 months in which the Senate should have been in overdrive to finish the appropriations bills, we had votes on only 22 days. That is a pathetic, a sorry performance.

Why? Apparently the majority wants to avoid debate about its broken promises concerning the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's budget proposed the largest cut to education funding in the 26-year history of the Education Department--a $2.1 billion or 4 percent reduction. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children, the American people's children.

The Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill underfunds the title I program, the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act, by a whopping $12.3 billion. Rather than increasing funding to meet this commitment, the bill freezes funding for this program. As a result, this bill leaves behind 3.7 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the level promised by the No Child Left Behind Act. I offered an amendment in the committee markup to increase title I funding by $6.1 billion, half of this year's shortfall. What happened? The Republican majority rejected it. Was the Senate, the full Senate, given an opportunity to debate the need to invest in the education of our children? No. Let me repeat: Was the Senate given an opportunity--I am talking about the whole Senate, the full Senate--to debate the need to investigate the education of the country's children? No.

In June, the FBI released its violent crime figures. The FBI found that murders in the United States jumped 4 percent last year, and overall violent crime was up by 2.5 percent for the year, the largest annual increase in crime since 1991. Yet what happened? The President proposed to cut law enforcement grants to State and local governments by $1.2 billion and to eliminate the COPS hiring program. Was the Senate given an opportunity to debate how best to respond to the largest annual increase in crime in 15 years? No.

On July 19, the Commissioner of Social Security wrote to me a letter in which she stated that the level of funding in the Labor-HHS bill ``would require employee furloughs of approximately 10 days Agency- wide.'' That is what she said: ``would require employee furloughs of approximately 10 days Agency-wide.'' Has the Senate, the full Senate, the 100 Members of the Senate, had a chance to debate whether our elderly citizens want long lines at our Social Security offices? No.

The Environmental Protection Agency projects that our communities need in excess of $200 billion for clean and safe drinking water systems. Yet the Interior appropriations bill would cut funding from a level of $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $687 million in fiscal year 2007, a cut of 38 percent. Has there been any debate in the Senate about the need for safe and clean drinking water in our communities? Has there? The answer is no.

If there is one lesson we all should have learned from Hurricane Katrina,

it is that there are consequences to starving Federal agencies. FEMA, which performed marvelously after the North Ridge earthquake, the Midwest floods, and the September 11 attacks, simply was no longer up to the task when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast last year.

Now, which other Federal agencies are going to be the next FEMA? I wonder. I wonder which other Federal agencies will be the next FEMA. Could it be the Food and Drug Administration? Has the Senate had an opportunity to debate whether FDA has the resources and the leadership it needs to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? I will ask the question, again. Has the Senate, the full Senate, had an opportunity to debate whether FDA has the resources and leadership it needs to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? No.

The cost of attending a public 4-year college has increased 32 percent since the beginning of this administration. Yet the maximum Pell grant award has not been increased since 2002. Has the Senate discussed the wisdom of making it harder for our children to afford a college education? Hear me. No.

On the heels of the first cut to funding for the National Institutes of Health since 1970, the President proposed level funding of NIH in fiscal year 2007. As a result, the total number of NIH-funded research project grants would drop by 642 or 2 percent below last year's level.

The President's budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 Institutes of Health. Funding for the National Cancer Institute would drop by $40 million, and funding for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute would drop by $21 million. Has there been a debate about the wisdom of these cuts? No.

When the Congress returned to session after the elections, Senator Harry Reid and I urged the Senate Republican leadership to complete the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process prior to adjourning sine die. Apparently, this request fell on deaf ears. Even with the elections over, the Republican leadership could not bring itself to govern, to make choices.

Instead, apparently, the House Republican leadership has decided to send the Senate a third continuing resolution that will last until mid- February--mid-February. Instead of making careful choices, they, apparently, have chosen to punt--to punt--the funding decisions for 13 departments, for over $463 billion of spending, to the next Congress.

What a sad mess. What a sad mess.

Under the continuing resolution, 500,000 veterans will have to wait longer for their health care or not get health care at all. Lines at our Social Security offices will get longer. Our elderly will find it more difficult to get answers to their questions about the new prescription drug benefit or about their retirement benefits. Commitments to address our clogged highways with more funds for highway construction will have to wait. Efforts to protect the food supply will be undermined by furloughs of meat and poultry inspectors. This is no way--this is no way--to do our Nation's business.

When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee from 1989 to 1994, and in 2001, the Senate debated and passed every appropriations bill but one. And it takes persistence, determination, and a commitment to the Senate to debate and approve all of the bills. Chairman Cochran has that determination, and he was successful last year in bringing every bill to the Senate floor. However, the majority leadership, apparently, does not value that persistence, that hard work, that determination. Apparently, in an election year, the only thing of value was the politics of the moment.

Mr. President, the irresponsible actions of the Republican leadership are setting the stage for the beginning of the 110th Congress next year. In January, the new Congress will be faced with approving funding for 10 leftover bills for fiscal year 2007, a large war supplemental, and 12 bills for fiscal year 2008. Where the Republican leadership could do no more than pass two annual appropriations bills all year, the Democrats will be expected to pass 22 annual bills and a supplemental.

And this will be a huge, a huge--I would say a whopping--challenge. However, in the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to meet this challenge.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, next week, Americans across our great land will be celebrating one of our oldest and most beloved holidays, Thanksgiving.

What a great and glorious holiday this is--a truly and uniquely American holiday. It is a day for giving thanks. A day devoted to family, to country, and to God. A day of eating turkey, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, dressing, and pumpkin pie. It is a day of parades, football games, and the beginning of the Christmas holiday season.

It is a day of family gatherings. Unfortunately, in too many homes this year, and as in the past 5 years, there will be too many empty seats at the dinner table. I hope everyone listening will join me in praying for our sons and daughters who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, in praying for the eternal salvation of those who have died in these costly conflicts, and in praying for the speedy recovery of those who have been wounded. While we cannot hope to fill those empty chairs, we can hope that our prayers and our love and support will help to ease the sorrow at those tables.

Even with the turmoil of the past year and with so many of our sons and daughters in faraway lands, we still have so much for which to be thankful.

We are thankful for the Pilgrims--that courageous group of men and women who, in 1621, left their homes, crossed a mighty ocean, and settled in a strange, unknown wilderness so they could go to church so they could worship God as they pleased.

After months of privation, suffering, hunger, sickness and death, these men and women had a great feast to thank

God for being good to them. Think about it. With all the brutal hardships they had endured, with all the death and suffering they endured, they took time to have a great feast to thank Almighty God for being good to them. In the process, they gave us our first Thanksgiving

We are thankful for the heritage of liberty bequeathed to us by our ancestors. We are thankful for the wisdom and the foresight of our Founding Fathers who bestowed to us a form of government unique in history, with its three strong pillars of executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each balanced and checked against one another.

In fact, Mr. President, that is the very point I want to emphasize. The very first national observance of Thanksgiving, which came in 1789, was to thank Almighty God for His role in creating our great country, and His assistance in the forming of our Constitution.

This happened when, in the very first Congress in 1789, Representative Elias Boudinot of New Jersey moved that a day of thanksgiving be held to thank God for giving the American people the opportunity to create a Constitution to preserve their newly won freedoms.

The resolution, as approved by both Houses of the Congress, requested that a ``joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the president of the United States, to request that he recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving.''

On September 26, 1789, the first Senate agreed to the House resolution, and a few days later a joint congressional committee delivered to President Washington a resolution ``desiring the president of the United States to recommend a day of general thanksgiving.''

Within a few days, on October 3, President Washington issued the first national thanksgiving proclamation. Our first and perhaps our greatest President proclaimed Thursday, November 26, 1789, to be a day of national thanksgiving.

That proclamation is a fascinating and informative document. It begins by proclaiming that, ``it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor.''

The Father of our country left no doubt about his belief that our Nation was not simply the creation of mere mortals but was, in fact, guided by a Divine Hand. As if to emphasize this point, his proclamation went on to praise ``that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.'' He exhorted the people of his young Republic to express their gratitude to Almighty God for his protection of them through the Revolutionary War. He wrote: ``We may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation.''

That was George Washington. That was the basis of our first national Thanksgiving.

But he was not through. This was a Thanksgiving proclamation, so he proceeded to give thanks. He asked the American people to be thankful to Almighty God for ``the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.''

And he asked the American people to be thankful ``for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted.''

I hope everyone caught that. President Washington was thanking the Good Lord for the Constitution that created the American Government.

At the request of our first President, citizens throughout the land assembled in churches on November 26, 1789, and thanked God for their government and asked Him for His Guidance in the years ahead. As for President Washington, he spent the day worshiping at an Episcopal church in Manhattan.

As you celebrate this Thanksgiving, enjoy your families. Enjoy your Thanksgiving feasts. Enjoy your football games and your parades.

But like President Washington, you might want to think about attending church on this great and glorious day and give thanks for our many blessings. Like President Washington, you may want to thank God for watching over the United States and for His assistance in the creation of our Constitution, our Nation's most basic and sacred document, which has guided and protected our country for more than 200 years, through world wars, great depressions, and bitter, divisive elections.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist and Senator Reid and all other Senators.

Mr. President, there are only 2 days--2 days--remaining in the fiscal year, and the Senate has passed only 2--only 2--of the 12 appropriations bills. The Senate just adopted a continuing resolution to continue the operations of Government for 14 of the 15 Departments.

This dismal performance is not the result of the work of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee did its work and, on a bipartisan basis, reported all 12--all 12--of its bills by July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job, a remarkable job in leading the Appropriations Committee.

Yes, the Appropriations Committee did its work, did it well. Yet, here we are, just 2 days--2 days--away from the new fiscal year, and not one--not one--appropriations bill has been signed into law. And as everyone knows, the most vital bills that have to be done before we go home are the appropriations bills or the Government will stop running. Only two are likely to be sent to the President before the majority leader recesses the Senate for the elections.

The appropriations process has once again fallen victim to politics. The majority leadership designated September national security month. As a result, conferees have completed actions on the Defense bill and on the Homeland Security conference report. These are good, bipartisan bills. But not one other appropriations bill has come before this body, the Senate of the United States.

When it comes to the funding bills for domestic agencies, with the exception of Homeland Security, the majority leadership is apparently satisfied with a mindless continuing resolution. When it comes to the education of our children, when it comes to the health of the elderly, when it comes to the ability of our deteriorating infrastructure to sustain a growing economy, and the fiscal health of our farms, the majority leadership wants no debate--no debate--no debate--just a rubberstamp of a formula-based continuing resolution for 13 of the 15 Departments.

The majority leadership made a specific choice to delay bringing the domestic appropriations bills to the floor because it wished to avoid an open debate in the Senate--in this forum, where debate is free and open and one may speak as long as his or her feet will sustain him or her--it wished to avoid an open debate in the Senate about the many issues confronting Americans in their daily lives. That is what we are talking about.

The President submitted a budget for domestic programs that cut funding by $14 billion below the level necessary to keep pace with inflation. The President's proposal to increase fees on our veterans for their health care is indefensible. The White House proposed cuts in education, cuts in programs to fight crime. The President's budget is not sustainable. Yet, once more behind closed doors, the majority leadership inserted a cap on spending at the level proposed by the President's budget. This was done by jamming a cap on spending in an unamendable conference

report--unamendable conference report--intended to provide disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to fund the efforts of our valiant troops serving so heroically, yes, so heroically in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

To avoid debate--get that: to avoid debate; to avoid free and open debate--on the domestic appropriations bills, the Senate majority leadership has kept the Senate operating at a snail's pace all summer-- all summer.

In July, the Senate had rollcall votes on only 9 days. In August, we voted on only 3 days. In September, we have had votes on just 10 days. So in the 3 months in which the Senate should be in overdrive to finish the appropriations bills, we have had votes on only 22 days. That is a pathetic--that is a pathetic--sorrowful performance.

Why? Why? The majority wants to avoid debate. The majority wants to avoid free and open public debate about its broken promises concerning the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's budget proposed the largest cut--hear me now--the President's budget proposed the largest cut to education funding in the 26-year history of the Education Department--I was here--the 26-year history of the Education Department, a $2.1 billion, or 4 percent, reduction. How about that.

This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children. Hear me. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children. The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill underfunds the title I program--the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act--by a whopping $12.3 billion. Mr. President, $12.3 billion--that is $12 and 30 odd cents for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Get that: a whopping $12.3 billion; the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act, by a whopping $12.3 billion.

It freezes funding for this program, even though the law calls for an increase of $2.25 billion--$2\1/4\ billion. As a result, this bill would leave behind 3.7 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the level promised by the No Child Left Behind Act.

I offered an amendment in the committee markup to increase title I funding by $6.1 billion--half of this year's shortfall--but the Republican majority rejected it. Was the Senate given an opportunity to debate the need to invest in the education of our children? No.

In June, the FBI released its violent crime figures. The FBI found that murders in the United States jumped 4 percent last year and, overall, crime, violent crime--violent crime--was up by 2.5 percent for the year, the largest annual increase in crime in the United States since 1991. Yet the President proposed to cut law enforcement grants to State and local governments by $1.2 billion and to eliminate the COPS hiring program.

Was the Senate given an opportunity to debate how best to respond to the largest annual increase in crime in 15 years? No. No.

More than 30 farm groups--ranging from the National Farmers Union and the American Farm Bureau Federation to the American Sugar Alliance, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, and the Independent Community Bankers of America--are pressing the Senate to enact agriculture disaster relief. Sixty-six percent--66 percent--of all counties in the United States have been declared disaster areas by the Agriculture Department this year, and 88 percent--88 percent--of the counties were declared disaster areas in 2005.

The Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, adopted a $4 billion disaster relief package back in June--back in June. Has the Senate had an opportunity to debate whether that relief package meets the needs of our farmers for disaster relief? No. No.

On July 19, the Commissioner of Social Security wrote me a letter in which she stated that the level of funding in the Labor-HHS bill: `` . . . would require employee furloughs of approximately 10 days Agency- wide.''

Has the Senate had a chance to debate whether our elderly citizens want long lines at our Social Security offices? No. American seniors-- yes, American senior citizens, the elderly--are dealing with a serious health crisis. At issue is how to cope with the burden of high prescription drug prices. Seniors should not be asked to skip doses. Seniors should not be asked to split pills in half. Seniors should not be asked to choose between food and medicine in order to make ends meet. No. Never. Never, I say.

According to a research report released by the AARP, the average annual increase in the cost of a senior's medication is $300. Has the Senate had an opportunity to debate a provision in the House version of the Agriculture bill to allow drug reimportation? Has it? No. No.

The Environmental Protection Agency projects that our communities need in excess of $200 billion for clean and safe drinking water systems. Yet the Interior appropriations bill would cut funding from a level of $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $687 million in fiscal year 2007, a cut of 38 percent. Has there been any debate? No. Has there been any debate? No. Has there been any debate about the need for safe and clean drinking water in our communities? Has there been any debate on the Senate floor, in this forum of free speech--free, unlimited speech and debate? No. No. No.

If there is one lesson we all should have learned from Hurricane Katrina, it is that there are consequences to starving Federal agencies. FEMA, which performed marvelously after the Northridge earthquake, the Midwest floods, and the 9/11 attacks, simply was no longer up to the task when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast last year. I wonder which other Federal agencies could be the next FEMA. Could it be the Food and Drug Administration? Has the Senate had the opportunity to debate whether the FDA has the resources and leadership necessary to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? No.

The cost of attending a public 4-year college has increased 32 percent since the beginning of this administration. Yet the maximum Pell grant award has not been increased since 2002. Has the Senate discussed the wisdom of making it harder for our children to afford a college education? No.

The Labor-HHS bill cuts funding for the Centers for Disease Control's immunization program--one of the most cost-effective tools in preventing disease. For every dollar spent on vaccines, we save up to $27 in medical and societal costs. Has the Senate had the opportunity to debate the value of investing in the health of our children? No.

On the heels of the first cut to funding for the National Institutes of Health since 1970, the President proposed level funding of NIH in fiscal year 2007. As a result, the total number of NIH-funded research project grants would drop by 642, or 2 percent below last year's level. The President's budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes. Funding for the National Cancer Institute would drop by $40 million, and funding for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute would drop by $21 million. Has there been a debate about the wisdom of these cuts? No.

The summerlong hiatus from our legislative duties makes us wonder why we bothered to keep the lights on in this Chamber.

After the coming recess, when the Congress returns in November, the prospect for the domestic bills is just as grim. Last week, under a veto threat from the White House, the majority agreed to carve another $5 billion out of the domestic bills. Nothing but another monstrous omnibus bill or a long-term continuing resolution is on the horizon for all of the remaining domestic bills.

When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, from 1989 to 1994 and in 2001, the Senate debated and passed every bill but one. It takes persistence, it takes determination, and it takes a commitment to the U.S. Senate to debate and approve all of those bills. Chairman Cochran of Mississippi has that determination, and he was successful just last year in bringing every bill to the Senate floor. However, the majority leadership does not, apparently, value that persistence and hard work. He does not value that persistence and hard work and determination. In an election year, the only thing of value is spend and win.

Mr. President, I regret that we have, once again, so markedly demonstrated in the Senate that keeping our jobs far outweighs the desire to do our jobs and do those jobs well for the American people. Make no mistake, the American people will judge us accordingly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this is a day I hoped would never come. This is a speech I hoped I would never give. These are words I hoped I would never say. The senior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes, the longest serving Senator in the history of his great State, Senator Paul Sarbanes, is retiring. Now I must say goodbye.

I am so sorry to say those words to my good friend, my true friend, and greatly esteemed colleague. More than once, in fact, I have found myself hoping Paul Sarbanes would change his mind. But the senior Senator from Maryland must do what is best for himself and his family, and I wish him the best.

The retirement of Paul Sarbanes from the Senate brings to a close a fascinating and extraordinary Senate career. This son of Greek immigrant parents grew up on the Eastern Shore of

Maryland, where he worked his way--yes, he worked his way through school by waiting on tables, washing dishes, and mopping floors in the Mayflower Grill in downtown Salisbury. From there, it was on to Princeton, that great university, for an undergraduate degree, to Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar--as a Rhodes scholar--and then on to Harvard Law School.

Paul Sarbanes began his career in public service in 1966. I had just begun my second term as a Member of the U.S. Senate 2 years before when Paul Sarbanes was elected to the Maryland State Legislature in 1966. In 1970, Paul Sarbanes was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, he introduced the first article of impeachment against President Nixon.

That was Paul Sarbanes. After three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, in 1976 he was elected to the U.S. Senate--yes, this body--where his career became even more fascinating and extraordinary.

In the U.S. Senate, Paul Sarbanes has served as chairman of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. And he was chairman of the very impressive and influential Maryland Congressional Delegation, which includes Senator Barbara Mikulski and the House Democratic whip, Steny Hoyer. Paul Sarbanes has also been a very effective member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Budget Committee.

Senator Sarbanes has authored and sponsored important legislation, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which has been called the most far- reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I have always admired the quiet but effective way in which this unassuming, brilliant--I mean brilliant--and most reasonable lawmaker has performed the Nation's business. Paul Sarbanes. The Greeks taught the world to think. I don't know whether that is original or not, but that is the way I feel about it, in any event. The Greeks taught the world to think. I have always thought of Paul Sarbanes as a thinker--a thinker--a thinker. On the Senate committees on which we have served together, I have observed how he listens carefully, speaks--not often, but when he speaks, he speaks so softly, and then gets right to the crux of a matter. What a mind. What a brain. Yes, what a thinker. In his own subtle way, he can dissect even the most powerful and most arrogant witness. Let it be a Senator, he is the same.

I will always remember and always appreciate the great support that Paul Sarbanes gave to me during the time I served as the Senate Democratic Leader. During the most troubling times, during the most difficult votes, during the most controversial debate on matters, I could always count on Paul Sarbanes being there--with his friendship, his assistance, and his advice. I always called on Paul Sarbanes as I gathered the chairmen of the committees when I was the majority leader of the Senate and when I was the minority leader. I would call my Democratic chairmen around me. They were my board of directors, the chairmen of the various committees when we were in the majority. I always called Paul Sarbanes--he and some others, like Wendell Ford--but I am talking about Paul Sarbanes. I cannot begin to describe how important his support was and how much I appreciated it.

As I have said before, every leader would be fortunate to have a Paul Sarbanes, this Greek--and I say that with great pride--this Greek thinker. When I see the statue of ``The Thinker,'' with his fist under his chin, I think of Paul Sarbanes. Yes, I think of Paul Sarbanes. I was always so fortunate myself to have Paul Sarbanes as a colleague to whom I could go and seek advice and counsel.

Senator Sarbanes was one of just 23 Members of this Chamber who was willing to defy popular opinion--yes, to stand up to the President of the United States and to throw himself against the forces of war in voting against the resolution to launch an unprecedented preemptive assault, military assault, military invasion of a country that had never attacked us, never attacked our country; a country that did not pose a preeminent threat to our national security--Iraq. If only there had been more Senators like Paul Sarbanes, one of the 23 immortals. I like to think of it in that way.

I am in my 48th year in the Senate, and I was 6 years in the other body, making more than half a century in the Congress of the United States. I have always, since that vote, felt that was the greatest vote that I have ever cast. I have cast more than 17,000 rollcall votes in the Senate. I will always look upon that vote as the greatest vote, the vote in which I take the most pride, during my 54 years in the Congress of the United States--the greatest vote I ever cast. I cast that vote with 22 other Senators, one of whom is now gone. He died in a plane crash.

When Senator Sarbanes announced his retirement back in March 2005, I remarked that he ``will be missed'' and that he ``will not be replaced.'' While Paul Sarbanes will be missed, I might have to qualify the latter portion of that statement. Just a few weeks ago his son, Paul Sarbanes' son John--John, what a name--won the Democratic primary in the 3rd district in Maryland to become a Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives. Therefore, come January we might have another Sarbanes serving with us in the Congress--praise God. If so, it will be fascinating to watch that son follow in his father's footsteps.

As the old saying goes: A Sarbanes goes and a Sarbanes comes, and Congress, like Tennyson's brook, goes on forever. That is not really an old saying. I probably just made it up. But I like it; yes, I like it.

Let me close by simply saying thank you, thank you Senator Paul Sarbanes. I thank you.

I remember Paul Sarbanes years ago when we were thinking and talking about and debating the Panama Canal treaty. I was against that treaty in the beginning, and then I read ``The Path Between The Seas'' and I changed my mind. I studied the matter. I did what Paul Sarbanes did, I studied the matter. I thought about the matter. I changed my viewpoints.

Paul Sarbanes, I thank you. I thank you for being a true friend. I thank you for being a truly esteemed colleague. I don't say these words lightly. I have been here a long time. I know a good man or woman, a good Senator when I see a good Senator. And I know this man is one of the finest of all Senators and a great American.

I thank you, Paul Sarbanes, for everything that you have done for your State and your people and country our people. I wish you and your lovely wife Christine nothing but ambrosia and nectar as you enter the next phase of your lives.

God, give us men.

A time like this demands strong minds,

Great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie.

Men who can stand before the demagog

And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking.

Tall men, Sun-crowned;

Who live above the fog.

In public duty and in private thinking.

For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,

Its large professions and its little deeds,

Mingles in selfish strife,

Lo! Freedom weeps!

Waits, and waiting justice sleeps.

Wrong rules the land, I say, and waiting justice sleeps.

God, give us men!

Men who serve not for selfish booty;

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

Men of dependable character;

Men of sterling worth;

Then wrongs will be redressed and right will rule the Earth.

God Give us men--

More men, yes, men like Paul Sarbanes, the Greek scholar, the Greek thinker, the Rhodes Scholar, a Senator of whom I am proud and will always speak with great pride.

Yes, I yield.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend. I shall always cherish the words thus spoken and always reflect upon this Senator, Paul Sarbanes, with great pride.

Mark Dayton

Mr. President, I say farewell to Senator Dayton. Seldom has a freshman Senator made more of an impression on me than has Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota who has announced that he will be leaving us at the end of this session of the Congress.

From the start of his service in this Chamber, I have been struck by Senator Dayton's determination to learn the rules, to learn the traditions, to learn the customs of the Senate.

When Senator Dayton presided over the Senate, which is one of the responsibilities of freshman Senators, he always did so with attention and dignity. His demeanor was inspiring. It reassured my belief in the future of this great institution.

When I meet with new Senators, as I often do, about the duties of the Presiding Officer, I urge them to use that gavel on that desk vigorously to bring the U.S. Senate to order.

I recall one instance when Senator Dayton banged the gavel so hard that he nearly fell out of his chair. That is the way it should be. I thought to myself: Bang that gavel, bring the Senate to order so that the Senate can conduct the Nation's business.

I am also impressed about the reverence that Senator Dayton shows for our Nation's most basic, most important document, the Constitution of the United States.

Many people who have served in this Chamber will have to answer to history for the way they have ignored and trampled upon our Constitution. As President Lincoln once reminded the Members of Congress: ``We cannot escape history.''

I am confident that history will hold Senator Dayton in high regard.

Time after time, this freshman Senator has stood with me and the Constitution of the United States on the important issues before us. Senator Dayton was one of the lonely 23 Senators who voted not to go to war with Iraq. I have been, as I say, 48 years in this body, and it is the greatest vote I ever cast, the vote of which I am most proud of all the 17,000 and more votes that I have cast.

Senator Dayton was willing to defy public opinion and the forces of war because he, Senator Dayton, was determined not to hand over to President Bush, or any President, Democrat or Republican, any President, the power to declare war. No. Why? Because the Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

With firm belief in our constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers and checks and balances, Senator Dayton was the only person on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee who voted against the flawed Department of Homeland Security bill that this White House pushed.

How I have admired the courage and the fortitude of this man, Senator Dayton, this Senator and his firm belief in our constitutional system.

How I have wished that he would change his mind. I have spoken to him numerous times about that. I wish we had more like him, more who would say: Come one, come all, this rock shall fly from its firm base as I.

I thank Senator Dayton for standing shoulder to shoulder and toe to toe with me on so many constitutional issues, and I thank him for the reverence he has shown this institution, the U.S. Senate.

Senator Dayton is a descendent--get this--Senator Dayton is a descendent of Jonathan Dayton, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 from the State of New Jersey. I know that Jonathan Dayton is up there somewhere today looking down and smiling upon his kinsman who has worked so hard to preserve and to protect the Constitution, the sacred document that he, Jonathan Dayton, helped to create along with George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.

Senator Dayton has brought to the Senate a vigor and a vision of public policies that is both refreshing and needed; yes, needed.

Mark Dayton has devoted his life to public service. And why he ever decided to leave the Senate is beyond me. I have done the best I could talking with him time and time again, but he remains firm.

His public service included teaching school in the lower east side of New York City, also known as the Bowery, and serving as a social worker in Boston, the great city of Boston. Senator Dayton's social and political activism landed him on President Richard Nixon's infamous ``enemies list''--which he, Senator Mark Dayton, probably considered a badge of honor--and on the staff of Senator Walter Mondale, one of our fine Vice Presidents.

Senator Dayton brought his concerns for the less fortunate and the powerless with him to the Senate. As a freshman Senator, he proposed a new farm bill to help struggling family farms. He proposed a prescription tax credit plan to help Medicare beneficiaries offset the costs of their medications. He established a health care help line to assist working families in his State in getting health coverage from their insurance companies that they had paid for. He proposed a global trade agreement to limit the President's ability to negotiate trade deals by giving the Congress the power to reject parts of negotiated trade deals if they violated existing laws.

I expected great things from this Senator. He had been serving in this Chamber for only 2 years, when on March 13, 2003, I predicted that Senator Dayton would have a ``long career, if he wishes to make it a long one.''

I was surprised, I was disappointed, I was saddened to learn that he has chosen instead to make a short career in the Senate. I hope he does not retire from public life because our country--especially our less fortunate--will always need public servants like Mark Dayton.

But whatever he chooses to do, I wish him happiness and success. And I will always be grateful for my friendship with Mark Dayton and the work--yes, the work--that we have done together.

I do yield.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield to the Senator 2 minutes. Is that sufficient?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I will always cherish, as long as I live, his words.

Jim Jeffords

Mr. President, unfortunately, when Congress meets again in January of 2007, this Chamber and our Nation will be without the services of our esteemed colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords.

Senator Jeffords has announced that he is retiring so he may spend more time with his lovely wife Elizabeth. May I make clear that Elizabeth's gain is the Senate's loss.

For 32 years, Jim Jeffords has proudly and superbly represented his beautiful State of Vermont and our great country in the U.S. Congress.

From 1975 to 1988, he was Vermont's lone Member in the United States House of Representatives. Now having served three terms in the Senate, he has decided to retire. I regret his departure. He is a Senator I have admired. He is a Senator I respected since he first came to this Chamber.

Through his hard work and his dedication to this institution, he has helped to make the Senate a better place. For that I have been grateful and thankful. He is a polite, friendly, mild-mannered man whom it is always pleasant to be around. He is a U.S. Navy veteran who has never failed to demonstrate his love for our great country.

This Senator is a great American who possesses a passion to do the right thing no matter what the consequence. He is a U.S. Senator who has always displayed a reverence for this institution, the Senate of the United States.

While he has a natural, easy-going manner, he is a Senator who will work feverishly, who will work tirelessly for the causes in which he believes. Seldom has the Senate seen a stronger or more avid defender of the environment. He was one of the founders of the Congressional Solar Coalition. He has chaired the House Environment Study Conference and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In Congress, he has constantly sought to broaden and to strengthen the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and he has worked to ensure that important agency does its job.

His efforts to protect our environment have earned him recognition and awards from a number of environmental organizations, including the prestigious Sierra Club.

Senator Jeffords has been one of the Senate's foremost promoters of the rights of disabled Americans. Senator Jeffords has worked to open opportunities for them. He is coauthor of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. For his efforts on behalf of disabled Americans, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, NMSS, honored him as its ``Senator of the year.''

Senator Jeffords has been a promoter of the arts. He was a cofounder of the Congressional Arts Caucus, and not long ago as head of the Senate committee that oversees the National Endowment for the Arts, Senator Jeffords--yes, Senator Jeffords--was able to block a House effort to abolish the NEA.

Senator Jeffords has been one of the Senate's biggest and best promoters of education. I have read some criticisms of Senator Jeffords for his continuous efforts to seek more and more funding for educational programs for America's youth, America's young people, especially special educational programs. He has even been accused of ``bartering his vote'' on legislation for his own pet educational projects. I think this was probably meant as a criticism. If it were, I am sure that it is a criticism that Senator Jeffords wears with pride.

I don't think there is anything more important to Senator Jeffords than seeing that all of America's children have every opportunity to fulfill their educational pursuits. For this, he certainly has my respect and my admiration. I applaud him. Yes, I applaud Senator Jeffords.

Throughout his congressional career, Senator Jeffords, son of a Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court and graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, has always displayed an independence of spirit, an independence of spirit for which he has been labeled a loose cannon. Knowing Senator Jeffords as I do, I know that his independence stems from an unrelenting determination to place doing the right thing above political or personal interest.

While in the House of Representatives, Senator Jeffords was the only Republican to vote against President Reagan's tax cut bill because he charged it would increase the national deficit. And it did. In the Senate, he was one of two Republicans who voted against President Bush's first round of tax cuts because those cuts were irresponsible and favored the wealthy. Senator Jeffords was the only Republican Senator to cosponsor President Clinton's effort to overhaul our national health care system.

I remember Senator Jeffords for being one of only 23 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. I have been in this Senate 48 years this year. I have cast 17,752 rollcall votes. I will say it again, 17,752 rollcall votes. And of all these votes--I have said it before--I am most proud of that particular vote, the vote against that arrogant and reckless charge to war in Iraq.

The Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war. It does not say that ``one person,'' it does not say that the President of the United States, be he Republican or Democrat, shall have the power to declare war.

So, 23 Senators, including Robert Byrd and Jim Jeffords, voted to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That was the greatest vote ever cast in my 48 years in the Senate. If we only had more Senators with the courage, the determination and the character of Jim Jeffords, we might have avoided becoming involved in the bloody mess in which we now find ourselves in Iraq--with no end in sight. The Senate needs more Jim Jeffords.

In September 2000, Congressional Quarterly included a nice profile of Senator Jeffords. That article discussed his willingness to take independent positions even on the most partisan issues. It also discussed his black belt in the martial arts and how he had joined with other esteemed colleagues--Senators Lott, Craig, and Ashcroft--to form that magnificent vocal group ``The Singing Senators.'' Congressional Quarterly pointed out that Senator Jeffords ``calls his own tunes,'' and I say he does. He calls his own tunes.

Eight months later, CQ proved prophetic. In May 2001 came an event for which Senator Jeffords will often be remembered in his 32 years in Congress, the event that he has called his own personal ``declaration of independence.'' He followed his conscience and followed the path best for him. As I said before, we need more Senators like Jim Jeffords.

I am sorry to have to say goodbye to this unassuming, fiercely independent man. As much as I would prefer that he stay, I understand and I respect his wishes.

I wish Senator Jeffords and his lovely wife Elizabeth the blessing of Almighty God as they begin the next chapter of their lives.

I, for one, will definitely be interested to see how the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are progressing on WHTI implementation. And we will be able to do so because we mandate that the Departments provide quarterly briefings on the progress being made on WHTI implementation and that the first briefing should be no later than December 1, 2006.

Mr. President, on the 5 year anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, many our Nation's commentators asked the same question: Are we safer today than we were on 9/11? Well, I must say to my colleagues, that is the wrong question. America was not safe on 9/ 11.

So in my book, being safer than we were on 9/11 is not saying much. We must set a higher standard.

Regrettably, the President has set a very low standard. The President is comfortable with cutting grants to first responders 3 years in a row at the same time that our police, fire, and emergency medical personnel still cannot talk to each other on their radio systems. The President is comfortable with cutting grants to equip and train our heroic firefighters by 46 percent and with proposing to eliminate the program to hire more firefighters. The President is comfortable with a Homeland Security Department that is so bureaucratically lethargic that $173 million approved by Congress to secure our ports sat in the Treasury here in Washington for 11\1/2\ months.

This President is comfortable with a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul approach to homeland security. When the Department was faced with a shortfall in funding for securing Federal buildings, the administration proposed to cut funding for developing effective countermeasures for explosives. A month later, Britain arrested potential terrorists who wanted to blow up planes over the Atlantic with liquid explosive. What an embarrassing, short-sighted proposal from the administration. I was pleased to join Chairman Gregg in rejecting the proposal.

This administration was comfortable with shutting off federal funding for the FEMA program that provides long-term healthcare to the brave first responders who tried to save lives and look for survivors at the World Trade Center on 9/11. It was the Congress that came forward with funds to continue providing healthcare to our first responders.

Well, I am not comfortable with the state of our homeland security.

It has been 5 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It has been nearly 5 years since Richard tried to blow up a plane bound for Miami. It has been 2\1/2\ years since hundreds were killed in the Madrid train bombings. It has been over 1 year since 752 were killed or wounded in the London train bombings. Just this summer, potential terrorists were arrested in Britain, who were planning to blow up planes over the Atlantic. Our aviation sector remains on high alert. There is no question about a continuing risk of attack.

So, 5 years after 9/11, has the Department of Homeland Security taken the steps that it needs to take to help make Americans safe?

Five years after the 9/11 attacks, 11 million cargo containers arrive in the United States each year. Any one of them could carry a nuclear bomb, or nuclear material to make a bomb. Yet only 5 percent of these containers are opened and inspected. Only 17-19 percent are examined with imaging equipment. Only 73 percent are screened for nuclear material.

Five years after the 9/11 attacks, many of our first responders still cannot communicate with each other on their radio systems.

Five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we still have no system for verifying the identities and backgrounds of the thousands of workers who have access to our ports, boats, cargo containers, or air cargo.

Five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we still do not have a reliable system for inspecting the 23 billion pounds of air cargo that is placed on passenger aircraft every year.

Annually, 500 million people cross U.S. borders via ports of entry-- more than 330 million of them are noncitizens. One of the key findings of the 9/11 Commission is that we do not have a system in this country for tracking aliens who pose a risk and remain in this country undetected. Five years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we still do not have a system for knowing when, or if, aliens have left the country. Nor do we have a 10-fingerprint system to reliably verify the identity, or the criminal or terrorist background, of aliens coming into this country.

The EPA has estimated that there are 123 chemical plants across the country that could each endanger more than 1 million people if attacked. Yet 5 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we have no regulations directing the chemical industry to improve security.

Five years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we have a Department of Homeland Security, but it is a department rife with management problems. The Department has become a contractor's dream. Over $11.5 billion of the Department's budget was executed through

contracts, a 60-percent increase over 2004. Yet only 18 of the 115 major DHS contracts are managed by certified program managers. What an incredible opportunity for waste. It is no wonder that the GAO found $1.4 billion of waste from Katrina spending.

The Department has the dubious distinction of being investigated 525 times by the GAO since its inception. The vast majority of the GAO reports cited poor management and leadership practices.

According to the Rand Corporation, between 1998 and 2003, there were approximately 181 terrorist attacks on rail targets worldwide. Five years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Department has no plan for helping State and local governments to secure rail and transit systems. $150 million that Congress appropriated for rail and transit security sat at the Department for 11\1/2\ months. Since 2001, I have offered eight different amendments to fund rail and transit security, and all of them were opposed by the administration and defeated.

The recent terrorist plot to blow up commercial airplanes crossing the Atlantic Ocean has highlighted a known vulnerability. Five years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we do not have technologies that can detect liquid explosives.

The Department recently published a Nationwide Plan Review that found that the majority of State and local emergency operations plans are not fully adequate, feasible, or acceptable. Can you imagine? Five years after 9/11, the Department's own data indicates that State and local governments are not ready to deal with a catastrophic event. The Department has not even published a congressionally mandated National Preparedness Goal.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 should have been a wake-up call; but, apparently, the Department of Homeland Security, which was created in response to 9/11, somehow did not get the message.

Given these continuing vulnerabilities, I am pleased to say that the conferees have set a higher standard than the White House or the Department.

The conference agreement contains many improvements to the President's request, particularly, with regard to border security and port security. Were steadily increasing funding for Emergency Management Preparedness Grants, despite the President's proposed cuts each year. We have restored proposed cuts in grants to fire departments for needed equipment, and for hiring firefighters. The conferees have also mandated that grants be awarded within certain timeframes so that dollars intended to make Americans safer do not sit in the Treasury for an entire year.

The conference agreement also includes important reforms in the organization of FEMA. Hurricane Katrina proved that the Administration's approach to breaking FEMA into pieces was a failure. This legislation will help put FEMA on sound footing.

In addition, the conference report contains many provisions that provide clear guidance to the Department about how to improve its operations.

I am particularly pleased with the improvements in funding for border security. Over the pass 2 years, starting with an amendment I offered with Senator Larry Craig to the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental--with the support of my Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gregg--this Congress, and especially this Senate, has added 4,000 new Border Patrol agents and 9,150 new detention beds to the fight for border security. And, as a result of our efforts, there are 1,373 new detention personnel and 526 new Customs and Border Protection officers at our ports of entry.

With Congress leading the way in a bipartisan manner, this administration has finally awakened and realized that this country faces a true illegal immigration crisis. There are 12 million illegal aliens currently living in this country--with more than 500,000 new illegal entering each year. And, as of this past January, there were an estimated 558,000 alien absconders--illegal aliens who have been ordered to be removed from this country, but who have thus far escaped detection. These individuals must be found and removed.

I am pleased that the conference report before us makes great strides at achieving that goal. We are ending the short-sighted practice of ``catch and release'' and replacing it with ``catch and remove.'' This conference report supports 27,500 detention beds.

We have increased the number of Fugitive Operations teams from 16 in fiscal year 2005 to 75 teams in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2005, these teams apprehended over 15,000 illegal aliens including 270 sexual predators and 11,200 fugitive aliens with judicial orders of removal against them. Adding an additional 23 more teams--for a total of 75 teams--will make a real difference in removing from this country those individuals who have been ordered removed and who are here illegally.

We are also increasing funding for the criminal alien program, which identifies illegal aliens currently serving time in U.S. prisons and begins removal proceedings against them while they are in jail. There are an estimated 630,000 criminal aliens in all Federal, State, and local prisons--of whom 551,000 have not yet been identified for removal from the country. Of these, 275,000 are here illegally. Additional attention is also focused on worksite enforcement.

I commend my excellent Chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, for his outstanding knowledge of this bill and for his leadership. I thank him and his able staff, and I thank my staff, for their work on this legislation. This is a good agreement.

Mr. President, every year, the University of Notre Dame presents its annual Rev. John J. Cavanaugh, C.S.C., Award to one of its alumni for extraordinary accomplishment in the field of public service. This prestigious award, which was established in 1985, is named in honor of the University's 14th president, the Rev. John J. Cavanaugh.

I am most pleased and proud to announce that the 2006 Cavanaugh Award is being presented to one of the Senate's very own, Mr. Terrence E. Sauvain, the minority staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Terry graduated from Notre Dame in 1963. He is tremendously proud to be a graduate of that great university. In fact, I have often referred to him as ``the man from Notre Dame.'' Notre Dame is the university that has given us such American legends as Knute Rockne, George Gipp, and the Four Horsemen. Now, up there with them on Notre Dame's roll of honor will be Terry Sauvain.

After graduating from Notre Dame, and earning a master's degree from George Washington University, Terry worked for several Federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In 1973, Terry worked as a clerk on the DC Appropriations Subcommittee in the service of Senator Birch Bayh, and that launched his remarkable career on this important Senate committee. He has performed in a number of capacities on the Appropriations Committee, including serving as the majority staff director, when I was chairman between 2001-2003. Terry is only 14th person to hold that position since the creation of the Appropriations Committee in 1867.

I have been indeed fortunate to have Terry on my staff for so many years. In every task I have asked him to undertake, including 2 years of service as the Secretary to the minority leader, Terry has performed his duties with courtesy, dedication, efficiency, and diligence. In every position, he has gone above and beyond the call of duty in performing the work of the Senate, and for that, I am truly grateful.

His outstanding service to the Senate has earned him a variety of honors and recognitions. A few years ago, he was awarded an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia. Last year, he received the Nyumbant Medallion of Hope for his work in assisting me in the humanitarian fight to bring relief to children with HIV/AIDS in Africa. He is a perennial selection to Roll Call's ``Fabulous Fifty'' list of top congressional staffers.

In addition to his work in the Senate, Terry served our country for more than 30 years--1963-1994--in the US Coast Guard, where he attained the rank of captain. Once again, he has been the recipient of various honors. He has earned the National Guard's Eagle Award for his role in the U.S. Coast Guard-U.S. National Guard Counter-Drug Program, and the Coast Guard's Meritorious Service Medal.

I have always maintained that, ``there are three things that drive Terry Sauvain: his family, his service to our country . . . and Notre Dame.'' Now Terry receives this well-deserved, prestigious award from his beloved alma mater. I know he is thrilled. I am thrilled for him for his lovely wife of 38 years, Veronica, and their three children, Marie Robertson, Catherine, and Terry, Jr.

Mr. President, I sincerely thank the University of Notre Dame for honoring Terry for his years of dedicated public service to the Senate and to our country. And I congratulate him for being the recipient of this distinguished award.

Mr. President, the military commissions bill before us would strip from the U.S. Constitution of one of its most precious protections: the writ of habeas corpus. The Great Writ. The bill would deny those who are detained indefinitely--even those who may be innocent--the opportunity to challenge their detention in court.

Habeas corpus is a procedure whereby a Federal court may review whether an individual is being improperly detained. The concept of habeas corpus is deeply rooted in the English common law and was specifically referenced in the Magna Carta of 1215, which stated:

No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised

of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be

outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we

pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his

Peers, or by the Law of the Land.

The legal procedure for issuing writs of habeas corpus was codified by the English Parliament in response to concerns by the British people that no monarch should be permitted to hold innocent people against their will without due process of law.

It is precisely because the Founders of the United States feared elimination of the writ that, when they enumerated the powers of the Congress in the very first article of the U.S. Constitution, they included specific reference to the writ of habeas corpus and sought to protect it. The language they included in article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, also known as the ``Suspension Clause,'' reads as follows. It states:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be

suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the

public Safety may require it.

I wonder whether those who drafted the provision in this bill to eliminate habeas corpus have read this clause of the Constitution. Inconceivably, the U.S. Senate is being asked to abolish a fundamental right that has been central to democratic societies, including our own, for centuries. The outrageous provision we debate today could imprison indefinitely, without access to the courts, not just suspects picked up overseas but even those taken into custody on U.S. soil.

Some persons detained at Guantanamo may be terrorists guilty of plotting against the people and the Government of these United States. Of course terrorists must be properly detained and prosecuted for their evil deeds. But some detainees may be innocent. Some may be persons simply swept up because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can we know which truly deserve to be held and tried as enemy combatants if we abolish the legal right of the incarcerated to fairly challenge their detention in court?

The provision in the bill before us deprives Federal courts of jurisdiction over matters of law that are clearly entrusted to them by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is clear on this point: The only two instances in which habeas corpus may be suspended are in the case of a rebellion or an invasion. We are not in the midst of a rebellion, and there is no invasion. It is notable that those who drafted the Constitution deliberately used the word ``suspended.'' They did not say that habeas corpus could be forever denied, abolished, revoked, or eliminated. They said that, in only two instances, it could be ``suspended,'' meaning temporarily. Not forever. Not like in this bill.

How can we, the U.S. Senate, in this bill abolish habeas corpus by approving a provision that so clearly contravenes the text of the Constitution? Where is our respect for the checks and balances that were built into our system by the Framers? They included an explicit prohibition against blanket suspension of the writ of habeas corpus precisely to protect innocent persons from being subject to arbitrary and unfair action by the state.

This flagrant attempt to deny a fundamental right protected by the Constitution reveals how White House and Pentagon advisers continue to chip away at the separation of powers. They relentlessly pursue their dangerous goal of consolidating power in the hands of the Executive at the expense of the Congress, the judiciary, and, sadly, the People. How can we even contemplate such an irresponsible and dangerous course as this de facto canceling of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Constitution of the United States is a time-tested contract between our people and their Government, for which thousands of American military men and women have died. Why would we seek to violate its terms? Aren't we fighting the terrorists precisely to preserve individual liberties and the rule of law? If we as a people jettison the very democratic ideals that have made our Nation great and we become, instead, exactly like those whom we seek to imprison--standing for nothing and capable of anything--then what are we fighting for? And if we indefinitely and illegally detain innocent parties of other nations, with what credibility can we request that they release our own?

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the amendment that has been offered to preserve the writ of habeas corpus.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I also thank my very able and distinguished friend from Virginia.

Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment today that provides a 5- year sunset to any Presidential authorization of any military commission enacted under the legislation currently being debated. This amendment which I shall offer is essential to the ability of the Congress to retain its power of oversight and as an important check on future executive actions.

As I stand here now, Members are readying themselves to beat a path home to their States--I understand that--so they may get in their final politicking. Unfortunately, though, in the feverish climate of a looming election, the most important business of the Senate may suffer. I have seen that happen over the years. This is no surprise. We have seen before the fever of politics can undermine the serious business of the Congress once November and the winds of November draw nigh. We have seen the mistakes that can come when Congress rushes to legislate without the benefit of thorough vetting by committees, without adequate debate, without the opportunity to offer amendments.

Likewise, when legislation is pushed as a means of political showboating--we all know what that is--instead of by a diligent commitment to our constitutional duties, the results can be disastrous.

In fact, there have been various proposals to bring congressional oversight to the military tribunals which were first authorized in November, 2001. Senators Specter, Leahy, and Durbin were instrumental in attempting to push back against unilateral actions by the President to establish these commissions. These attempts were to reassert the power of the Congress--yes, the constitutional duty embodied in Article I of this Constitution that is vested in the Congress and in the Congress alone, to make our country's laws and specifically to make rules concerning captures on land and water.

Let me say that again. I will repeat the verbiage of the Constitution: to make our country's laws and specifically to ``make rules concerning captures on land and water.''

Nothing came of these proposals. Since then, the Congress has ignored its responsibilities and this most important issue has been shoved aside.

What is this new impetus spurring congressional action and a renewed interest in the issue? Did Congress find its way back to embracing its Article I duties? No. Did the executive branch wake up to realize it is not within its purview to dictate the laws of the land? No. It was the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case.

While the President grabbed the wheel and the Congress dozed, the Court stepped in to remind us of the separation of powers and the constitutional role of each branch, thank God. Yes, thank God for the separation of powers envisioned by our forefathers. Thank God for the Supreme Court. Yes, I said this before; I say it again: Thank God for the Supreme Court.

It is no coincidence that the traditional pathways of legislation through the committee and amendment process and ample opportunity for debate are the best recourse against the enactment of bad, bills.

This is the way the Senate was designed to operate and this is how it separates in the best interests of the people.

Unfortunately, because of the timing of the Supreme Court's decision and the charged atmosphere of the midterm elections, we are again confronted with slap-happy legislation that is changing by the minute.

The bill reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which I supported, was the product of a thorough process, a deliberative process. Unfortunately, this bill's progress was halted by the administration's objections, and the product suffered mightily. Then, in closed-door negotiations with the White House, many of the successes announced less than a week ago in the previous version were trashed.

When the administration met stiff opposition to its views by former JAG--judge advocate general--officers and previous members of its own Cabinet, it realized it must come back to the table. Last Friday's version of the bill was superseded by Monday's version, and changes are still forthcoming. In such a frenzied, frenetic, and uncertain state, who really knows the nature of the beast? This bill could very well be the most important piece of legislation--certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation--this Congress enacts, and the adoption of my amendment, which I shall offer, ensures--ensures--a reasonable review of the law authorizing military tribunals.

There is nothing more important to scrutinize than the process of bringing suspected terrorists to justice for their crimes in a fair proceeding, without the taint--without the taint--of a kangaroo court. Those are the values of our country. We dare not handle the matter sloppily. The Supreme Court has once struck down the President's approach to military commissions, has it not? Do we want the product of this debate subjected to the same fate? Do we want it stricken also?

The original authorization of the PATRIOT Act is a case study of the risks we run in legislating from the hip--too much haste--and how, in our haste, we can place in jeopardy those things we hold most dear. Apparently, the Senate has not recognized the error of its ways. This legislation is complex. This legislation defines the processes and the procedures for bringing enemy combatants to trial for offenses against our country, and it involves our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. This bill defines rules of evidence, it determines defendants' access to secret evidence, and it seeks to clarify what constitutes torture. We cannot afford to get this wrong.

As with the PATRIOT Act, my amendment offers us an opportunity to provide a remedy for the unanticipated consequences that may arise as a result of hasty congressional action. Along with the sweeping changes made by the PATRIOT Act, the great hope included in it was the review that was required by the sunset provision. Everyone knows the saying that hindsight is 20-20, but the use of this type of congressional review gives us the opportunity both to strengthen the parts of the law that may be found to be weak, and to right the wrongs of past transgressions.

So if we will not today legislate in a climate of steady deliberation, then let us at least prescribe for ourselves an antidote for any self-inflicted wounds. Let us prescribe for ourselves the remedy of reason--the remedy of reason. Let this be the age of reason once more. Sunset provisions have historically been used to repair the unforeseen consequences of acting in haste. You have heard that haste makes waste. If ever there were a piece of legislation that cries out to be reviewed with the benefit of hindsight, it is the current bill.

My amendment, which I hold in my hand, provides that opportunity through a 5-year sunset provision. Now, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that--a 5-year sunset provision. And I thank Senator Obama and I thank Senator Clinton for their cosponsorship of my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, the Senator knows my great respect for him. It is an abiding respect. When I look at him, I see a man--a Member of this Senate--who has had vast experience and worn many coats of honor. I see a man who stands by his word, who keeps his word, and is always very meticulous in criticizing another Senator or criticizing legislation. He is most circumspect, most respectful to his colleagues, and most respectful to the Constitution. But I am abhorrent--I cannot write very well anymore. I would like to be able to write down words that other Senators say in a debate. But I cannot write. So I may have misinterpreted, or I may misstate the words. But I cannot understand why this legislation would not be in the best interests of my country.

I believe the Senator said--he certainly implied strongly--that this legislation would not be in the best interests of our country. If I am wrong, I know the Senator will correct me. Let me read, though, the amendment:

On page 5, line 19, add at the end the following: ``the

authority of the President to establish new military

commissions under this section shall expire on December 31,

2011. However, the expiration of that authority shall not be

construed to prohibit the conduct to finality of any

proceedings of a military commission established under this

section before that date.''

Mr. President, what is wrong with that language? How would that language not be in the interest of our country? I think we are all subject to

error. Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden because of error. So from the very beginning of history, the very history of mankind, this race of human beings, there has been evidence of errors, mistakes. People did not foresee the future, and this language is a protection against that.

What is wrong with providing an expiration date for the authority given to the President in this bill, after a period of 5 years? Can we not be mistaken? Might we not see the day when we wish that we had an automatic opportunity to review this? Five years is a long time. Five years is ample time.

So I must say that I am somewhat surprised that my friend, the great Senator from Virginia, would seek to oppose this amendment. Let me read it once again. This is nothing new, having sunset provisions in bills. I think they are good. We can always review them, and if mistakes have not been made, we can renew them. There is that opportunity. But it does guarantee that there will come a time when this legislation will be reviewed. Only the word of Almighty God is so perfect that there is no sunset provision in the Holy Writ. No. But the sunset provision there is with us, and the time will come when all of us will take a voyage into the sunset.

Absolutely. I will yield right now.

We are not dealing with the treaties of 1949.

Mr. President, I am almost speechless. I listened to the words that have just been uttered by my friend. My amendment does not affect, in any way, the portions of this bill that relate to the Geneva Conventions.

It sunsets only the authority of the President to convene military commissions and, of course, the Senate can renew that authority. That is done in many instances here. I think it is insurance for our country and the welfare of our country and the welfare of the people who serve in the military.

We say 5 years. Do we want to make that 6 years? Do we want to make it 7 years? Fine. It will expire at that time. It simply means that the Senate and the House take a look at it again and renew it. What is wrong with that?

Mr. President, it could be a Democratic President, as far as I am concerned. I think this is wise on the part of the Senate in conducting its constitutional oversight, to say that we will do it this far and then we will take another look at it in the light of the new day, in the light of the new times, the new circumstances; we will take another look at it. We are not passing any judgment on that legislation 5 years out.

I am flabbergasted--flabbergasted--that my friend would take umbrage at this legislation.

I only have a few minutes left.

Yes, I yield 3 minutes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I have 4 minutes remaining; do I?

I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Virginia, may I have 10 seconds?

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. I merely wanted to thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, for his statement. I think it was well said, I think it was wise, and I thank him for his strong support of this amendment.

I also close by asking that the clerk once again read this amendment. I will then yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

Friends, Senators, lend me your ears. Friends, Senators, lend me your ears. I voted to report a fair and balanced bill from the Armed Services Committee, but the legislation before the Senate today bears little resemblance to that legislation. It has been changed so many times, we don't know the real implications of this ever-changing bill. The Byrd-Obama-Clinton-Levin amendment sunsets the authority of the President to convene new military commissions after 5 years. There is nothing wrong with that.

This amendment ensures that Congress will not simply stand aside and ignore its oversight responsibilities after this bill is enacted. This amendment will not stop any trials of suspected terrorists that commence before the sunset date. It simply forces Congress to revisit-- revisit--the weighty constitutional implications of this bill in 5 years' time and then be in a position, on the basis of new knowledge and experience, to make a decision again.

It is a very reasonable amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

This amendment will not set any terrorists free. Let Senators who are here 5 years from now take a new look on the basis of experience and make a decision in the light of the then circumstances. That is all I am asking. This is nothing new.

Mr. President, I support cloture on H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act. The sooner the Congress passes this bill, the sooner the Congress can put aside the misguided amnesty legislation passed by the Senate earlier this year. The American people have listened and rejected the call to offer U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens. They have said NO to amnesty! Hallelujah!

Comprehensive immigration reform is a euphemism for amnesty, and I oppose it absolutely and unequivocally. I voted against the amnesty bill passed by the Senate, and I will continue to vote against amnesty as long as I am in the Senate.

I have seen how amnesties encourage illegal immigration, with the amnesties of the 1980s and 1990s corresponding with an unprecedented rise in the population of unlawful aliens.

I have seen how amnesties open the border to terrorists, with the perpetrators of terrorist plots against our country taking advantage of amnesties to circumvent the regular border and immigration checks.

I have seen how amnesties afford special rules to some immigrants. Amnesty undermines that great and egalitarian American promise that the rules will be applied equally and fairly to everyone.

We are a nation of immigrants to be sure, but that does not mean that we are obligated to give away U.S. citizenship. According to immigration experts, until 1986, the Congress never granted amnesty to any generation of immigrants. The Congress encouraged immigrants to learn the Constitutional principles of our Government and the history of our country. Immigrants learned English, and tried to assimilate. U.S. citizenship was their reward. The Congress did not reward illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship.

Now that this idea of amnesty has been rejected by the Congress, perhaps the administration will begin, at long last, to focus its efforts on actually reducing the number of illegal aliens already in the country. Such an effort will require a significant investment of funds to hire law enforcement and border security agents, and to give them the resources and equipment they need to do their job. In the years immediately after the September 11 attacks, those funds had not only been left out of the President's annual budgets but had been continuously blocked by the White House in the appropriations process. I and others tried to add funds where possible, but not until recently did the administration begin to respond to the inadequacies along the border. So much more is required and needs to be done.

The bill before the Senate today is a good bill. It would authorize two-layer fencing along the southern border where our security is weakest, and set timetables to which the Congress can hold the administration. But this bill will amount to little or no protection without the resources to implement it. The administration must do more. Without its continued support and a committed effort to prevent illegal immigration, the protective barrier called for in this bill will amount to nothing more than a line drawn in the sands of our porous Southern border.

Madam President, what is the limitation on speeches at this point?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for no more than 30 minutes.