Floor Statements

Madam President, yesterday, September 17, the Nation observed Constitution and Citizenship Day. Yesterday, on the Sabbath, the Nation observed Constitution and Citizenship Day. The day marked the 219th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. On September, 17, 1787, 219 years ago yesterday, an extraordinary convention of American statesmen met in Philadelphia's Independence Hall to adopt our fledgling Nation's fundamental governing principles, codified in the new Constitution. I am happy to glory in my good fortune, the blessing of living in this Nation and under this Constitution--this Constitution which I hold in my hand. I have long been a student of the Constitution, and I do carry it with me, close to my heart. Alexander the Great slept with a copy of the Iliad, written by Homer in the 800s before Christ--a copy of the Iliad under his pillow, they say. I do not sleep with a copy of the Constitution under my pillow, but I carry it close to my heart.

Over the years, I have read deeply about our Founding Fathers and the great national debate that accompanied the development, the adoption, and the ratification of this critical document. This history is enlightening, revealing the lessons of our Founding Fathers, the great lessons of our Founding Fathers and the lessons they learned from ancient history as well as from their own experience as colonists subject to the British King.

As a Member of the Senate, I have many good reasons to want to know more about the Constitution. Yes, I am 89, but I want to know more. The Constitution affects all Americans, and I urge all Americans to learn more about the Constitution. Why? Because it remains as vital to our lives today as it was 219 years ago. That was a long time ago, 219 years. This Constitution affects the structure and operation of our government, a government of laws, not a government of men. Yes, this Constitution, this is the roadmap, this is the cornerstone of our Republic. It dictates who is eligible to run for office and hold office. It dictates who may elect government officials and how those officials--like me, like myself--must conduct themselves while in office. It outlines who does what within the Federal Government and between the Federal Government and these United States. It requires the President, the Chief Executive in the White House--who is he? He is the Chief Executive, but it requires that he, the President of the United States, report. To whom? To the people and to Congress.

The Constitution decides who may declare war. It says, ``The Congress shall have the power to declare war.'' Yes, the Congress. It decides who may appoint Ambassadors, who may levy taxes, who may decide how Federal dollars will be spent. If all of that does not affect every American, I do not know what does.

I firmly believe that our Constitution deserves greater awareness in our national life and in our everyday lives. A distressing number of studies have shown a profound ignorance of and, yes, even indifference to this fundamental document of government. This is it. I hold it in my hands. Of course, more than the Constitution is included in this fine little document that I have and carry in my pocket, but the title of this little book is the ``United States Constitution.'' That is it. This is the pillar of my liberties, the pillar of your liberties, and it is the roadmap by which those who govern shall govern.

Too many citizens have little or no knowledge of this Constitution, from the functions of government to the scope of their own rights and liberties. Did you realize that, every one of you who is within the sound of my voice throughout this great Nation? You may revere the Constitution--and most people do. Yes, they are proud of the Constitution. They revere it. But they do not know what is in it; too many do not know what is in it. Many do.

I think that may also be true of many Members of Congress, many Members of this body. As you know, there are two bodies of Congress. Two bodies make up the Congress, not one body. It may be true of many Members of these two Houses. It may be true of many Members of this House, the Senate of the United States. It may be true of the executive branch officials. Did you hear that it may be true of executive officials, many of them? It may be true of military officials, many military officials and personnel, and members of the news media. Hear me now, yonder on the back benches, those who write, those who question, those who explain: members of the news media.

Few people know why the Constitution was designed the way it was. Few people may understand what the checks and balances contained in our governmental structure are meant to do.

When the Constitutional Convention sent to the States this Constitution for ratification, in 1787, it stimulated an active political debate out there--in the mountains, the hills, and the valleys of this land. It was not a political debate such as we see today--a cacophony of short sound bites and slogans that do not answer the questions or which are aimed only at attacking a political opponent--but a real debate, a real discussion, a real looking at the structure, at the parts of the structure, at the words, at the sentences--yes, a real debate and discussion.

Supporters and opponents wrote pamphlets and published essays that were widely read. Can you imagine that? They wrote pamphlets, essays that were widely read, widely discussed? The Constitution became a topic of conversation around dinner tables and at public meeting places. Imagine, just imagine--hear me now, imagine that today.

Imagine that happening today. The Federalist Papers--may I say to the pages--read them. The Federalist Papers--not just the Constitution but also the Federalist Papers. Read them. The Federalist Papers, that great defense of the Constitution written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay--read the Federalist Papers. They were widely printed in newspapers and still more widely read and discussed. The Federalist Papers served as the centerpiece for the debate over the form of government the Constitution created, the form of government this little Constitution created. Yes. I hold it in my hand. Sadly, today there are few people outside of college classes and history and politics who have read the Federalist Papers. They should be read by all Americans who want to understand the Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. If you have read them, read them again. It is like reading the Holy Bible. Each time you read it, you will see new things, you will understand new things, new words are being said, new sentences, new thoughts are being expressed, some that you had not seen before.

Madison, Hamilton, and Jay--those great men, Madison Hamilton, and Jay--turned to the mass-communication system of their day, the newspapers. Now, in the 21st century, we have the ability to promote better knowledge and better understanding of the Constitution through the newest form of mass communication--think about that--the Internet. As an excellent resource for Americans on this vital topic, I draw attention to the considerable information about the Constitution that the United States is making available--get that--the United States is making available to the public on the Senate Web site. You hear me. It is there.

By publishing articles in newspapers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay reached out and touched an audience of thousands. Through the World Wide Web, the Senate's Web site, material on the Constitution can be accessed by an audience of millions, millions of citizens, teachers, and students--people from all around, the world.

In honor of this year's celebration of Constitution Day, the U.S. Senate has included a variety of features on its Web site--at www.senate.gov_to promote a more thorough understanding of our Constitution, the blueprint--here it is--for the Federal Government that still defines and guides us today, I say to the President who sits in the chair. Visitors to the Senate Web site will find many items related to the Constitution. The full text of the Constitution can be viewed, along with annotations and Senate-specific clauses.

There is also a feature on the Federalist Papers and a special section featuring books about the Constitution for children. There is a beautiful color reproduction of the mural unveiled in the Senate wing of the Capitol Building just a few days ago. The mural depicts the authors of the Connecticut Compromise of 1787--also known as the Great Compromise--that led to creation of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is also a Virtual Reference Desk that can guide visitors to further reading and resources to help them learn more about our--our, our--Constitution.

I commend the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and their staffs, who collected and posted this array of constitutional material in such an attractive and easy-to-use format. Their work reflects well on the Senate and offers a real service to the Nation. It embodies the spirit of Constitution Day, which I am proud to have had a hand in establishing. I also commend the many other organizations that have made an abundance of educational material available to all those seeking greater knowledge of the Constitution. Notable among these are the Web sites of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Justice Learning, the Center for Civic Education, the Constitutional Rights Center, the Constitution Project, and the Freedom Forum. They have all done fine work that deserves widespread attention.

Our Constitution is what sets the United States--yes, our Constitution is what sets the United States, a star, above other nations. Our Constitution is what makes the United States such a shining beacon, such a shining star for the people of other nations, for those still struggling to establish democratically elected representative governments.

Our Constitution empowers our leaders but also places limits on our leaders to prevent autocratic rule. ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' ``If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.''

The self-control mechanism in our Constitution and therefore in our governmental structure comes first from the competition between and among the three branches of Government, the famous ``checks and balances.'' Ultimately, the self-control mechanism in our Government comes from the powers and the responsibilities placed by the Constitution upon the people of the United States. In order to effectively play our safeguarding role as citizens, we each--each of us; you, Mr. President, me, each of us--has an obligation to be informed. The system of checks and balances between and among the three branches of Government and the ideals of freedom and of rights and liberties set forth and realized in our Constitution are our greatest contributions to the world--our greatest contributions to the world.

My hope is that observances of Constitution Day--yesterday, today, this year, and in future years--will encourage all citizens, all citizens high and mighty and low, to learn more about our Constitution and Government. Certainly there is no better way for people to start than by clicking on the U.S. Senate's Web site. I hope many people listening today, many people watching today, will be inspired to use the Internet today--yes, today--to visit the Senate's Web site and see the marvelous collection of information about the most marvelous document, the Constitution of the United States.

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

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

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for as long as I may consume, not to exceed 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for not to exceed 20 minutes.

Mr. President, September 11 has come and gone, and as we remember those who were lost, those lives that were lost on that awful day, that fateful day, and contemplate events since the horrific attack, one truth stands out: The war in Iraq has backfired, producing more recruits for terrorism and deep divisions within even our own country. It is a war we should never have begun.

The detour from our attack on bin Laden and his minions hiding in the cracks and crevices of the rough terrain of Afghanistan, to the unwise and unprovoked attack on Iraq, has been a disastrous one.

Mr. Bush's war has damaged the country because he drove our blessed land into an unnecessary conflict, utterly misreading the consequences, with the result now being a daily display of America's vulnerabilities to those who wish us ill. The United States is a weaker power now, especially in the Middle East but also in the court of world opinion. Where, where, where is the America of restraint? Where is the America of peace and of inspiration to millions? Where is the America respected not only for her military might but also for her powerful--her powerful--ideas and her reasonable diplomacy?

Our country may have deviated occasionally from its positive global image in the past, but Abu Ghraib, the body snatching for torture, euphemistically called rendition, Presidential directives which unilaterally altered conditions of the Geneva Conventions--these

are not the stuff of mere slight deviations from the America of peacefulness, the America of fairness, and the America of goodwill. These are major policy and attitudinal changes of tsunami-sized proportions--tsunami-sized proportions. Our friends shake their heads in disbelief. Our enemies nod wisely and claim they knew all the while. I cannot remember a time in our history when our elected leaders have failed the people so completely, and yet, so far, are not held accountable for costly misjudgments and outright deceptions.

Take our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for example. He misread the Iraqi situation completely and entirely. He adamantly dismisses suggestions for a larger force in Iraq. He failed to object when the White House's Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the Iraqi Army, only to have them go underground and provide fodder for the insurgency. Yes, he insisted that the Iraqi people would view our soldiers as liberators, not occupiers, and even failed to properly anticipate the equipment needs of our men and women in harm's way. Who am I talking about? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

He continues to insist that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq, despite convincing evidence to the contrary. Yet he sits comfortably in his office as the echo of his errors in judgment and strategy continue to cost thousands of lives--thousands of lives.

Then there is President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. These men continue to try to make the American public swallow whole the line that the war in Iraq is the frontline of a global war on terror which must be continued at all costs. Stay the course, they say, stay the course despite 3 years of discouragingly little progress in Iraq. The body count is approaching 2,700 for our side, tens of thousands for the beleaguered Iraqi people. We ought to think of them, too. Tens of thousands of men, women, and children, the Iraqi people, and billions-- billions, I say--billions of American tax dollars of which an embarrassingly large chunk has been wasted by irresponsible contractors and Government officials who lack the proper respect for the public purse. Many of our allies have left the field, recognizing the truth that the administration fails to see; namely, we had the weapons to win the war but not the wisdom to secure the peace.

Yet too many in the public are utterly complacent about the numerous violations of the public trust and the continuing loss of human life in Iraq. Some of our citizens have apparently been convinced that it is unpatriotic to criticize one's country when that country is engaged in an armed conflict. In fact, in our land today, there is a troubling tolerance for Government overreaching on fronts at home as well as abroad. This administration has repeatedly used fear and flag-waving to blunt the traditional American insistence on the Bill of Rights: personal freedom of thought and action, privacy, and one's right to speak and write as one pleases. Such a cynical exercise on the part of high officials of our Government is unconscionable. It is shameful behavior for which there is no excuse--no excuse, none.

The Congress, under the control of the President's party, has been submissive--submissive, a lap dog wagging its tail in appreciation of White House secrecy and deception. Yes, a lap dog Congress. Yes, we. Even the vast majority of the opposition party has been too quiet for too long, unable to find its voice, stunted by the demand to support the troops. We forget too often that there is a very real difference between support for the troops and support for an unnecessary war. The men and women of our military did not ask to go--no, they didn't ask to go to those faraway places, but they were willing. They went. They answered their country's call. We have an obligation to support them, but we do not need to follow blindly the unthinking policies that keep them mired in a country that is in the middle of a civil war.

The American public is our last best hope now. You out there who are watching through those lenses, you are our last great hope, the American people. Our people must demand more from their representatives--from me, for one--their representatives in Congress, and from their leaders in the White House. Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced by the President because he has made so many grievous errors in judgment on Iraq and because a new voice--hear me now--a new voice at the helm at the Department of Defense could be a breath of fresh air--fresh air--yes, fresh air for our policies in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement would be good--good--for our country. Yet even a sense-of- the-Senate vote of no confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership has been blocked by the President's party in the Senate. Personal accountability has been long absent from this administration, and I would like to see it returned.

One would hope that men and women who rise to positions of awesome responsibility would have the grace, the dignity, and the honor to know in their own hearts when a well-timed resignation would advance patriotic goals. But too often, the selfish love of power or some misguided show of toughness wins the day to the detriment of our country's fortunes. Donald Rumsfeld ought to step down or his President, Mr. Bush, ought to ask him to step down. There is too much at stake for any other course.

Personally, I believe the President is being derelict in his duties if he does not ask for Mr. Rumsfeld's latchkey. The bungling and the loss of life attendant to this tragic--this tragic--3-year-long debacle in Iraq have hurt this country, hurt its public image, and hurt its ability to achieve numerous other national and international goals. That kind of dangerous ineptitude should not be excused. It should not be excused. But like so many things, when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East in general, the United States of America is stuck in neutral, with the only thing showing vigorous movement--the ever- spiraling price of gasoline. We have destabilized the Middle East and handed the Mullahs a way to affect the daily lives and livelihood of every American, and the efficacy of our military might: the oil supply lines upon which our own economy and our own military depend.

Now that oil supply is the favorite target for terrorists who have learned the joys of bombing pipelines and listening to America bite its nails about the high cost of gasoline while it laments its lack of foresight in developing alternative fuels.

Now we have passed yet another anniversary of the bloody attacks which precipitated the disastrous situation in which our country finds itself today. Yet while we mourn, there are hard truths to confront. Our attention has been shifted by design and deception too quickly from the war in Afghanistan, a war that we needed to fight, a war that we needed to win. Now the Taliban is on the rise in that country. Al-Qaida continues to find sanctuary in the mountains, violence is on the rise, and peace and stability are in jeopardy.

North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption--a very unconstitutional-on-its-face doctrine--North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption and our newfound bellicosity, has increased its nuclear capability. Iran has been emboldened by our inability to stop the violence in Iraq and by the lukewarm support that we have garnered from traditional allies. Even the people of Turkey-- even the people of Turkey, one of the United States's staunchest allies, Turkey, a member of NATO, and a model, yes, a model of secular Muslim democracy--have turned against us.

A survey, conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, indicates that Iran has become one of the most popular countries in Turkey and that there is a growing willingness to identify with radical Islam. A display of ineptitude and spectacular miscalculation in Iraq has cost us dearly. Disenchantment at home with the dismal results in Iraq will have reverberations for years, much like the failure in Vietnam did in the 1960s.

President Bush insists that his war must go on. He defends warrantless wiretapping of our own citizens as essential to his cause, despite a Court decision that the President has no such authority under our Constitution--our Constitution, this Constitution. He defends torture and rendition and says that they have produced valuable evidence which has subverted several terror attacks on our country. But his

credibility is so damaged that it is difficult to believe him. He demands the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely and then to try them using military tribunals which deny basic rights, also in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. He seems convinced that he can win a global war on terror despite the demonstrated failure of his policies of unilateralism, militarism, overheated rhetoric, and a pathological dislike of diplomacy.

So it is up to the Congress--up to us, the Congress, the people's branch--to change course and to stop the heinous raiding of constitutionally protected liberties by a White House which does not fully appreciate the true meaning of the word liberty, the true meaning of the word freedom.

My fellow Senators, I hope that we may find the courage.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4975

Mr. President, the Senate is now considering a long overdue--a long overdue--authorization bill to address the security of our ports--yes, our ports. I applaud the efforts of Senators Lieberman, Stevens, Inouye, Murray, Collins, and many others for their steadfast commitment to address this vulnerability.

The administration has let the issue of port security languish for far too long--far too long. Oh, yes, the President has made a series of speeches in recent days about the threat to the homeland and the great desire and capabilities that al-Qaida possesses to attack us--yes, to attack us, the United States. Yet when one reviews the President's homeland security budget, gaping holes can be found in funding to address known vulnerabilities. After 9/11, we learned that our first responders could not communicate with one another. How about that. We learned that our first responders could not communicate with one another. How awful that was. The cost was lives, human lives.

It now appears that we have a similar problem in the White House, where the administration's speech writers and its budget writers don't communicate. They operate in alternate worlds--worlds far apart.

In his speech last Friday at Georgetown University, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff urged Congress to pass this port security legislation. He said that passing the bill:

Would be not only a fitting tribute to the fifth

anniversary of 9/11, but would also be an important set of

tools that we can use in achieving the goal that we have set

for ourselves over the next couple of years.

Now, this is the very same rhetoric and, if I may say, it is the very same hot air that we have been listening to and we have been hearing for 5 years--5 years. Yes, we have been listening to it for 5 years, the same rhetoric, the same hot air that is used for lifting balloons, lifting balloons into the heavens.

The administration, time and time again, uses tough talk when it comes to homeland security, but, sadly, that tough talk rarely is followed up with real money, cash on the barrelhead.

This month the majority leadership is once again playing a clever rhetorical game with homeland security. The port security bill that is before the Senate authorizes $400 million for port security grants. These grants would provide essential resources to our most vulnerable ports for building fences, deploying cameras and sensors, training security personnel, and for verifying the identity of the thousands of port workers who access our ports every day.

The House-passed bill which authorized the same $400 million level was adopted by a vote of 421 to 2. But, I ask my colleagues, where, oh where is the $400 million? Where is it? Right now, the Senate and House are conferencing the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. The Senate-passed version of the bill includes an amendment that I offered with the support of my illustrious, inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg, which provides an additional $648 million for port security. The amendment would appropriate the full $400 million authorization for port security grants along with critical funds for cargo container inspection equipment, for Coast Guard ships and planes, and for increased cargo inspections at foreign and domestic ports. That is real port security, but--oh, there is that conjunction here--but, regrettably, the House majority has refused to make the $648 million available to the conference. What a sad state of affairs.

Our citizens watching the Senate today are being led to believe that this bill will secure our ports. Here it is:

H.R. 4954, an Act to Improve Maritime and Cargo Security

Through Enhanced Layered Defenses, and for other purposes.

They believe this bill will secure our ports. Here is the bill. It doesn't weigh very much, but it means security for our ports. However, it will be a charade if the port security funds are not appropriated. How about that? Money. What does the Bible say about money? The love of money, what does it say about it?

Did the White House step to the plate? How about it? ``Hey, Mr. President--hello there, down at the White House.'' Did the White House step up to the plate to address security risks at our ports? No. No. One of the hardest words in the English language to say: No.

If the administration were really serious about port security, it would have voiced support for the $400 million in the Senate bill for security grants. Yet there was not one mention of port security in the administration's letter--not one mention. It has been more than 3\1/2\ years since the Coast Guard estimated that the security cost at our ports would be $5.4 billion.

Senator Collins, bless your heart, to date not a cent of that amount has been funded despite the fact that U.S. seaports handled over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security was able to fund only 24 percent of the critical projects requested by the port authorities. These funds are critical, absolutely critical for ports to improve communications, access control systems, and provide waterside security. Where, oh where has the administration been? ``Where, oh where has my little dog gone?'' Where has the administration been?

Of the $816 million the Congress appropriated since 9/11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. Did you get that? Let me say it again. Of the $816 million the Congress appropriated since 9/11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. There is an odd disconnect at the White House when it comes to port security funding.

While I applaud the efforts of my colleagues today for moving this authorization legislation forward, and hopefully to the President's desk, authorizations of funding are not worth a hill of beans unless we provide real money, real dollars to fund them. That funding is in jeopardy. Why? That funding is in jeopardy due to an irresponsible indifference from the White House and objections from the House majority.

I challenge the White House--yes, come on now--I challenge the White House and the majority, not only to talk the talk on port security but also to walk the walk by supporting the funding that will actually make us safer. Our ports are seriously vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Potentially, thousands of American lives are at stake. Think about it. If we are truly determined to tighten security at our ports, we should send the Homeland Security appropriations bill to the President with the $648 million to fund port security.

My amendment includes the funding to address many of the provisions in this bill that are being debated today. In addition to port security grant funding, my amendment includes $40 million to hire 354 additional Customs and Border Protection officers to conduct cargo container inspections at our seaports and $211 million to purchase additional nonintrusive inspecting equipment for U.S. seaport and rail border crossings.

There you have it. Currently, only 5 percent of the 11 million containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening--take a look at it by opening the containers. Only 5 percent of the 11 million containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening the containers.

The Coast Guard has only 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with the United States, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 59.

I have to say that again. I have a duty to say that again. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with the United States, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 59--59 out of 144. At the current rate of inspections, U.S. inspectors will visit countries that trade with the United States only once every 4 years. Does that make you feel safer? Think about that tonight when you are laying your head on the pillow. Think about that.

My amendment includes $23 million to double the presence of inspectors at foreign ports and increase security compliance checks at domestic ports.

Finally, my amendment includes $184 million for Coast Guard deepwater assets that are critical to securing our ports and surrounding waterways. These funds will allow the Coast Guard to address an immediate shortfall in boats and planes needed to patrol our ports and adjacent waterways. The President and Members of Congress may applaud each other and congratulate themselves for protecting lives with this port security authorization bill, but the truth of the matter is that this bill will do little to secure our ports if the President and those same Members of Congress do not provide the money--there you go again-- the money to actually scan for dirty bombs, inspect containers, and implement the security systems that are so desperately needed. What on Earth is wrong?

Can we please stop playing these dangerous political games with homeland security and actually come together to protect the precious lives of people?

Unless we provide the funding authorized in this bill, we will be playing fast and loose with the security of our people.

Hear me. Hear me now. I say it again.

Unless we provide the funding authorized in this bill, we will be playing fast and loose with the security of our people.

I yield the floor.

Shame.

Mr. President, important provisions in H.R. 5970 provide a long-term solution for the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, program as well as resolve the uncertainty of the health care needs for retired miners and their families. Right now, there are 52,320 retired miners and their families nationwide who depend on these critical funds to provide for their health care needs. At least 17,195, or about one-third of these people, are in West Virginia. I have also worked for many years to keep the AML program going for West Virginia and other coal-producing States. This important program cleans up old mine hazards and improves the environment in the coalfields. I have always been there to shore up the funding for our coal miners' health care funds, and I have always been there for the AML program. The bill before us today is an opportunity to solve these issues permanently, and I embrace it.

H.R. 5970 would also address the Federal estate tax, something that the small business owners and farmers of my State have made clear is a priority for them, and in need of reform. In the past, I have supported legislation to increase the estate tax exemption, and to lower the top tax rate, as an alternative to permanent repeal. This bill is consistent with those past efforts that I have supported.

Senators have raised concerns about the cost of this bill, and its effect on the Federal budget. The fiscal course of deficits and debt chosen by the administration is abominable, and I have advocated tirelessly that the Congress abandon it. But of the budget-busting measures endorsed by the Congress, this one does not rate top billing. The revenue loss from the estate tax portion of this bill would not begin for 3 years, and the effect on the Federal budget would not be felt until the next decade. Meanwhile, the health care needs of my State's retired coal miners and their families are immediate and urgent. I will not vote against those miners who need this assistance now, based upon budget projections that may not mean much until the next decade.

This bill would also guarantee a $2.10 increase in the Federal minimum wage within the next 3 years. Should a new Congress revisit the issue, I hope that that schedule could be accelerated.

This bill would raise wages for workers who need it the most. It would provide health care to retired coal miners

and resolve our Nation's mine reclamation needs. It would codify a compromise measure that is less than repeal and consistent with previous efforts to try to reform the estate tax to help small businesses and farmers.

This is a good bill for West Virginia, and it should receive an up- or-down vote on this floor.

Mr. President, during this hot, sultry, high-gas-price summer, I urge the American people to take a minute to observe the U.S. Senate. Take just a few minutes from the daily challenges of coping with the kids, driving them from camp to soccer grounds, going to church, worrying about how to cobble together enough money to manage even a brief family outing, and watching nightly news coverage of the Middle East imploding to focus, just briefly, on what is happening, or rather not happening, on this Senate floor.

Instead of working to pass necessary legislation like the 11 remaining appropriations bills, which are now jammed up and waiting for movement like the cars in a typical rush hour on the Washington beltway, we are engaged in yet another leadership-driven message dance. These fandangoes feature bills which are meant to drive home political points to the unsuspecting American voter.

The latest entry in this catalog of message bills is S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy bill, a bill cobbled together by the majority and then presented to the full Senate to vote on without opportunity for amendments.

To anyone in these United States who is tempted to swallow the line that this sham bill now on the Senate floor is a solution to high petroleum and natural gas prices, I say think

again. Desperate politicians eager to invent a vote which can serve as the 30-second add solution to the hot-button issue of high energy prices are out to hoodwink the public again, this time with this very bad idea.

Well, this Senator is very weary of message bills that lie to the public. Here is the plain truth about the U.S. supply of oil and the world supply of oil. We are running out, and we will reach that peak in oil in the not-too-distant future. U.S. production peaked 30 years ago. That is why the U.S. imports two thirds of the oil it consumes, and that consumption is about 20 million barrels per day. As far as U.S. supplies go, if the United States were, for some reason, suddenly dependent on only our own supply, we would hit empty very soon. That is the cold, hard truth. There isn't much oil left to pump in these United States, and pumping it will not make one iota of difference in the price of gasoline, because oil is a global commodity and is bought and sold on the international market.

After the oil is gone, the fuel of choice is another finite source natural gas. Who leads the race in that new energy game? None other than nations such as Russia and Iran, because they are the top two global natural gas reserve holders. If that makes you sleep well at night or suggests to you the emergence of lower energy prices, I would have to say I beg to disagree.

The only course of action which will lead to lower, more reliable, more secure energy and energy prices is a strong national commitment to investing in greater energy efficiency and developing alternate energy sources--and the sooner we get started the better.

The President likes to say that the solution to high gas prices is to build more refineries. I do not disagree that it would be useful to build more refineries because we have not built any since the 1970s. However that is not a short-term solution, nor is it a simplistic, long-term solution to high gas prices. It takes too long to build refineries for refineries to be a short-term solution. And we are running out of oil, so refineries cannot be a long-term solution.

The solution, of course, is the development of a variety of alternative energy sources. Crude oil currently costs something like $74 per barrel, and that price will certainly go up. Nuclear power plants can be hazardous, especially in this age of terrorism. Clean coal liquefaction technologies are promising because the good ole U.S. of A. is by far the global leader in proven coal supplies. Remember that half of all U.S. electric power comes from coal. But, there has been no real robust commitment to clean coal technologies, industrial gasification, and coal liquefaction by this administration.

Yet this bill--this message bill--this bumper sticker solution to American distress over high gas prices is a pathetic attempt to foist a fake promise upon the people, which the American people ought not swallow. It will do little or nothing to bring down gas prices or natural gas costs. It is also just very bad legislation. Let me tell you why.

This proposed offshore drilling in Florida waters is not worth the environmental risk. The total amount of oil which could be extracted from this new drilling will equal around 55 days of American consumption at current usage rates. Consider also the time it will take to develop this region--to deploy the rigs, pump, refine, and transport these products, and anyone who cogitates for just 30 seconds will clearly see that this drilling will do nothing to bring down gas prices in the near term.

Furthermore, the generous revenue sharing plan aimed at buying the votes of coastal State Senators could well have an impact on our future Federal funding needs. The robust payments to just four Gulf-producing States which will not be offset by the oil and gas generated by this new offshore drilling could cause holes in the Federal treasury which would impact programs that would benefit States like West Virginia.

This bill is a bad deal for State and 45 other States, which can offer alternative fuels to blunt our dependence on oil. We are not allowed to consider amendments to this bill. A yes vote for this bill does nothing to help coal, ethanol, solar, and wind technologies because it propagates the myth of continued dependence on oil and gas. A yes vote lies to the American public, because it says Joe Citizen can continue economically drive a gas powered automobile if only we drill a few more holes in the fragile gulf coast shoreline.

A yes vote on this bill says to the American public, don't bother to increase energy efficiency or produce alternative fuels. It says don't push the powers that be to stop gauging and start producing transportation that does not depend on a dwindling supply of scarce and ever increasingly expensive oil.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, am I recognized?

Mr. President, yesterday the Prime Minister of Iraq addressed a joint meeting of Congress. In his speech, he stressed his view that great progress has been made in his country in the past months and equated the violence in Iraq to the al-Qaida attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. With the Prime Minister's comments in mind, it is worth taking stock of how this war began 3 years, 4 months, and 1 week ago. Let me say that again. It is worth taking stock of how this war began 3 years, 4 months, and 1 week ago.

The war in Iraq, that is what I am talking about. The war in Iraq. There is a war going on there, and we are involved in it. Our men and women are over there in harm's way. They die every day. The war in Iraq was initiated on the false promise of securing our country from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. That was a false promise. There have been many efforts to try to rewrite history. You can't do it. But there have been efforts to try to rewrite history and to try to find a new justification for the invasion of Iraq. But one need look no further than the use of force authorization passed by the Congress-- when? On October 11, 2002. Look at that use of force resolution.

That resolution contains 23 ``whereas'' clauses. You can count them. Ten of those ``whereas'' clauses pertained to Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. The idea that Iraq

could threaten our country with weapons of mass destruction was the keystone of the argument for war. It was the one allegation at the center of nearly all the cases that were made for war.

I didn't fall for that. I didn't fall for that reason because I didn't believe it was there. I didn't believe that Iraq was a threat to the security of this country. I didn't believe it. I had reasons for not believing it, and I have said them many times.

The agencies that produced the intelligence to build the case for war have admitted that they made massive errors. Intelligence was massaged. Did you get that? Intelligence was massaged to remove most of the dissenting views. Dissenting views were not listened to very well. Congress, in 2004, even rushed to reorganize the CIA and the rest of our intelligence agencies based upon these massive failures--failures that built a flawed and discredited case for U.S. entry into that war.

I did not buy into the hype and the rush to war. I didn't buy into that. I didn't buy into that case. I didn't believe we had that case for war. I did not believe Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of this country. I did not believe it. I said so. And therefore I voted against turning this whole thing--lock, stock, and barrel--over to one man, the President of the United States. Congress relegated itself to the sidelines, and it has never gotten itself off the sidelines, really. We are still there.

I did not believe Congress should have passed the resolution to allow the President--any President, not just this President, any President-- to decide where, when, and why to launch an attack on Iraq. I did not believe then, I do not believe now, that one man, Democratic or Republican, or one woman, acting as the chief executive of our country, should be handed the authority to decide on his own to shed the precious blood of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives--to shed their blood.

The American people at this point should pause and reflect now on where our Nation stands in this war. Where does our Nation stand in this war in Iraq? As of today, July 27, 2,564--2,564--American men and women have been killed--dead. Upwards of $318 billion--that is a lot of money--upwards of $318 billion has been drained from our Treasury. Talk persists of more than 100,000 of our troops remaining in Iraq for many years to come--many years to come. Most ominously, the violence in Iraq appears to have entered a new phase. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ months after the killing of the terrorist leader Zarqawi, an average of 100 Iraqis are being killed every day, according to a new report by the United Nations.

Who is responsible for this violence in Iraq? Is it Osama bin Laden or some other nefarious outside force? Is it the same terrorists who plotted the attack on the World Trade Center? Is it the same miscreants responsible for the train bombings in London and Madrid? The answer is no. This wave of violence which has crashed over Iraq is the result of Iraqis fighting and killing Iraqis. Militias and death squads are carrying out a brutal campaign of violence against fellow Iraqis. Shiites are fighting Sunnis. Sunnis are killing Shiites. The Kurds of the north are under attack. No one is safe from these indiscriminate killings--not doctors, not teachers, not even children. Iraq is being ripped apart from the inside out.

Could there be any doubt that there is a civil war in Iraq? Statistics gathered by the Iraqi Government: 2,669 Iraqi civilians were killed in May; another 3,149 Iraqi civilians were killed in June. Government figures show that 14,338 civilians were killed in Iraq in the first 6 months of this year. At least 100,000 Iraqis are refugees in their own country. Yes, there is a civil war going on in Iraq. It is a civil war that has been brewing, brewing, brewing since we first opened this Pandora's box by invading Iraq in March of 2003.

I didn't vote for that invasion.

The question is, What are our troops doing in the middle of this civil war? What are American troops doing in the middle of this civil war? The American people should take notice of what is happening in Iraq. The American people--it is their sons and daughters, yes. Our troops are increasingly being thrust into this fighting with no plan for success. It is time to stop, look, and listen, and time to ask questions about where we are headed. Are our troops on the way out of Iraq or are they on their way in? Are they being drawn deeper into this civil war? Is there any chance for our troops to win a decisive victory on the battlefield or is the fate of our soldiers tied to the political fortunes of untested Iraqi politicians? Does anyone in this administration have a plan for how to deal with this civil war which is going on in Iraq?

These are not inconsequential questions. These are important questions. These are important questions for the people of our country. But instead of telling the American people how we are going to disentangle ourselves from the sectarian violence in Iraq, we learn this week that the President plans to send more American troops into Baghdad to take sides in the Iraqi-on-Iraqi fighting that is tearing that country part. The President announced on Tuesday--yes, he did-- that he is sending thousands more U.S. troops into Baghdad, which is the center of the storm of violence.

So I say to the people out there watching through those electronic lenses, is this our plan? Is this our plan for dealing with an Iraqi civil war? When I asked Secretary Rumsfeld at an Appropriations Committee hearing on March 9 about his plan if civil war were to break out in Iraq, he said, ``The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the . . . Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to.''

Those are quotations. You can look at the Appropriations Committee hearings and find these words for yourselves.

The plan to have Iraqis deal with their own civil war appears to be on its way out the window. The Iraqi Prime Minister's attempts to pacify Baghdad with Iraqi troops has failed. In fact, the Prime Minister, in his speech to Congress, pleaded for more foreign aid and urged our troops to stay until Iraqis are ready to take up the fight to defend their Government.

Sending more U.S. troops to deal with domestic strife is not the right course. What we are seeing in Iraq is mission creep, mission creep, creep, creep, creep of the worst kind. The mission to overthrow Saddam Hussein is transforming before our very eyes into a mission to take sides between warring ethnic factions. This is a plan for disaster.

Our troops have bravely served in Iraq for more than 3 years. They have done everything that has been asked of them. Our troops did not ask to be sent to war, but the call to service has gone out and our servicemembers have responded. They have fought, they have been wounded, they have bled, and they have died for what our country has asked them to do. But we owe it to our troops to be judicious in what we ask them to do. We owe it to our troops not to send them headlong into fighting when there is no plan for victory. We owe it to our troops not to send them into the center of a civil war without raising so much as a question, without raising so much as a question about whether they belong there.

We cannot allow the escalating war in Lebanon to distract us from the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Look at what is going on. Open your eyes. The fighting between Israel and Lebanon has dominated our attention, but the administration is on the verge of making irreversible decisions about how deeply our troops will be involved in Iraq's civil war.

Before more of our troops are sent to Baghdad, the Senate must ask tough questions of Secretary Rumsfeld and our military commanders about whether they have a plan for dealing with the civil war in Iraq. The Armed Services Committee on which I serve must have a chance to exercise its oversight responsibilities before more of our troops are ordered to take sides in a fight that is pitting Iraqi against Iraqi. We have seen before the disastrous consequences of ordering our troops into the middle of civil wars. Do we remember the 241 marines who were killed in Beirut in 1983? Do we remember that? Let us remember the bloody battle in Somalia in 1993.

Let us have more wisdom, more caution, and a coherent strategy before we marshal our forces to send them once more into the breach in Baghdad. We owe that much to our brave troops. We owe that much to their moms and their dads, their wives and their children

anxiously awaiting their safe return home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has always been my firm belief that minors should be required to notify their parents prior to seeking an abortion. I cannot help but believe that in nearly every case, young women do themselves, their babies, and their families well to seek guidance from their parents or legal guardians before making such a serious decision. Most parents honestly do have their daughters' best interests at heart. Consequently, how can parents not be informed when their children are confronted with making one of the most critical decisions of their lives, one which carries with it such extraordinary, expensive, and irretrievable consequences?

I have a long history of support for parental notification in such difficult circumstances. In 1991, I supported legislation that would have required entities receiving grants under Title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide parental notification in the case of minor patients seeking abortions.

While I support parental notification, I would also observe that we, as a nation, must work harder and do more to ensure that young women understand the consequences of unwanted pregnancy before they find themselves in such a predicament. We need to return to a time when abstinence was respected, not denigrated. A time when young men and women were praised and rewarded spiritually, emotionally, and financially--for doing the right thing.

Today, little girls are encouraged to become sexual at younger and younger ages by a consumer society that cares more about what it can sell than what it can teach. The entertainment culture, with its ``sleaze'' does all Americans, and particularly young women, a despicable disservice. Repulsive lyrics and morally offensive videos degrade women to the point where little girls as young as 10 or 12 years of age come to believe that their only real value lies not in themselves but in bearing the child of a teen-aged boy. How truly sad.

We all recognize that the family is, and has been, in crisis. We would all like to see a reduction in unwanted pregnancies and abortion. No one is pro-abortion. But the question remains, what are we doing to prevent these unwanted pregnancies--meaning what are all of us together, on both sides of the aisle, doing to prevent them? Aren't there more creative ways in which we could be bolstering the self- esteem of young women?

Let us not forget that the future of humanity passes through the family, and that each of us must, in our own way, fulfill our duty to preserve the family. As John Kennedy once put it so succinctly and so beautifully, ``On Earth, God's work must truly be our own.''

Mr. President, the foundation of democracy lies in a government that reflects the voice of its citizens. The Constitution, the beloved document that chartered our system of government, makes this clear. ``We the people'', are the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the people.'' This is no mistake, for our Founders sought to create a government that would reflect the will of those who send us here.

Voting is the underpinning of our democratic process. In an address to Congress, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that, ``In a free land where men move freely and act freely, the right to vote freely must never be obstructed.'' With the act of casting one's ballot, each citizen has ensured a place in the democratic process, fulfilling the civic responsibility that each and every one of us must safeguard and cherish. All citizens deserve this right, and all should utilize it.

Like so many worthwhile initiatives, safeguarding the freedoms of democracy can sometimes exact a heavy toll. Wars have been fought on our own soil to ensure these freedoms, and our country's history has been blemished with the events of a less enlightened time. But even through strife and toil, our democracy emerged intact, our Republic strengthened by the sacrifices made by the citizens who fought for equality and the right to vote.

I met yesterday with Mr. James Tolbert, President of the West Virginia NAACP, and other members of the West Virginia NAACP delegation. They were here in Washington D.C. as part of a national effort to spearhead the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I was proud to assure them of both my cosponsorship of the measure and my support for the reauthorization.

While the various reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act have forged the pathway to the polls for all Americans, the ability to vote is but half of the process. Democracy works best when the people are vigilant in protecting of their rights, and engage in the electoral process. Our democracy is strongest when there is free and open access to the polls for everyone, and when the people embrace the vote as both a right and a responsibility.

Indeed, the decades that have followed the initial passage of the Voting Rights Act have witnessed the progress of our Nation. To continue in our efforts, we have only to look to past successes for inspiration. To be ardent in the defense of our democracy is to preserve it for the generations to come.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is debating H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would allow the Federal Government to provide additional funding for embryonic stem cell research. I have received numerous heartfelt letters from constituents outlining their concerns with embryonic stem cell research. These are concerns which I simply cannot overlook or dismiss.

I know the suffering and worry that families go through when a loved one desperately needs treatment for a serious progressive illness. Easing the pain

and suffering of our loved ones, our daughters, sons, parents, and grandparents, should be at the hallmark of a caring society. The potential of finding cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, and diabetes must not be ignored.

I understand the promise for embryonic stem cell research to yield treatments and therapies for numerous diseases; however, we must not overlook the ethical concerns associated with such research. I am a great supporter and will continue to be a proponent of fully funding the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health for research into cures for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, to name a few, which is why I also support H.R. 810. However, the moral implications of embryonic stem cell research must not be discounted.

We are not just debating whether the scientific and medical communities should continue the exploration of embryonic stem cells their impact on medical conditions. If Federal funds begin to flow without also addressing moral issues such as human cloning, how long will it be before an ethical crisis of our own making erupts? This is why the Congress should also debate a framework to ensure that practices such as reproductive cloning do not take place. The Senate has taken up three bills, none of which provides guidance about stem cell research's future development. None of these bills addresses the need to examine the possibility that embryonic stem cell research might lead to potential immoral outcomes, such as the cloning of human beings for illegitimate purposes. We must not dismiss these ethical and moral undertones. A comprehensive approach must be devised to protect science and medicine against misuse and public backlash. While I will support H.R. 810 in order to help provide hope to those who suffer from diseases, the Congress must take a hard look into ensuring scientific integrity as this medical research proceeds.

Mr. President, I have grave concerns about what the coming days hold for the situation in the Middle East. The spiral of violence, which began with the kidnaping of Israeli soldiers, is threatening to engulf the entire region. Unless something is done soon to stop the escalation, all out war--the likes of which has not been seen in the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades--could soon be upon us.

Innocent lives are at risk. The rocket attacks on Israel are indiscriminate tools of terror. We know that Israeli bombs have also taken innocent lives, including those of children. How does this fighting serve any greater purpose? Can there be no other way to solve the important problems facing the region without shedding innocent blood in the process?

Let us not forget that it is not only the lives of Israelis, Lebanese, and Palestinians that are threatened by the fighting. Press reports indicate that 25,000 Americans are in Lebanon, and some believe that number is far too low an estimate. I have learned that a number of West Virginians are in Lebanon now. Two of the families of West Virginians have children with them--children as young as 4 years old. One of these families has already fled Beirut into the countryside while they await word on when they can be transported to safety.

I am hopeful that there are yet moderate voices in the international community which seek solutions to this crisis. There are calls for an international peacekeeping force to stabilize the Israeli-Lebanese border. There are also indications of behind- the-scenes diplomacy to unite all countries of the region in favor of a reasonable solution.

The resolution before the Senate is not a voice of moderation. It is a resolution that proposes only to point fingers at who is to blame for the current violence. This is the wrong response to an international crisis and a humanitarian tragedy.

Does this resolution help the Americans who are stranded in Lebanon amidst this fighting? It does not. I fear that this resolution might, in fact, unleash a violent anti-American backlash at a time when the State Department and our Armed Forces are struggling to find a way to rescue our citizens. The Senate should have more sense than to rush to pass such a provocative resolution at this time.

Mr. President, now is the time for moderation and wise counsel. We need solutions, not recriminations. Why should the Senate pass a resolution, the only possible effect of which is to further entrench both sides of the current conflict? I cannot support a resolution that does not I have the practical effect of advancing us toward an end to this tragic violence.

Mr. President, I am aware of that. I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding and without any prejudice to any Senator, to speak for 5 minutes on another matter.

Not showing an interruption at this point.

I make that part of my request.

Mr. President, yesterday, July 16, was the anniversary of one of the greatest events in American history. It was 219 years ago that our Founding Fathers were meeting at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, attempting to formulate a workable plan of Government. At the time, the young American Government was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which every day was proving to be unworkable.

For 7 weeks, the Constitutional Convention had been working to devise a better form of Government, a ``more perfect union.'' It would be a Government with three branches: an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The branches of the Government would have separated powers and the ability to check and balance one another.

The Convention delegates had already made a number of important decisions about the structure of the Congress. The Convention had set the minimum age for Members of the Senate at 30 and a term length at 6 years, as opposed to 25 years of age for Members of the House of Representatives, who would have 2-year terms.

But then came the stumbling block, how the States would be represented in

Congress. Delegates from the large States believed that because their States contributed more to the Nation's financial and defensive resources, they should have greater representation in the legislative bodies. Small State delegates demanded that all States be equally represented in both Houses.

Hours, even days, of heated, contentious debate followed. A number of proposals, including one by Benjamin Franklin, were considered and rejected. Stalemate was in the air. Failure threatened the Convention and the youthful Republic was stymied, stopped in its tracks. If the Constitutional Convention collapsed, it meant that the American Government would have to continue operating under the flawed and failing Articles of Confederation.

So maybe it was a miracle in Philadelphia. It may have been divine intervention. Who knows. Perhaps it was because there were great political leaders and they acted as mature political statesmen. Politics, it is said, is the art of compromise. And this is exactly what our Founding Fathers did; they compromised. They worked out a compromise, the Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise because it was designed by the Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. It provided a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives, every State would be assigned a number of seats in proportion to its population. In the Senate, all States would have the same number of seats.

Just 8 days after the Great Compromise was adopted, the Convention was able to elect a committee to draft a detailed Constitution embodying the fundamental principles of the proceedings.

Today, representation of the two Houses of Congress seems so logical and so accepted that we take it for granted. Perhaps it is for that reason that we pass this anniversary with very little notice, too little notice--that is a shame--and no fanfare. It was a crucial moment in history. An American moment. It should be recognized and honored and remembered.

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

We know what Master laid thy keel,

What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,

Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,

What anvils rang, what hammers beat,

In what a forge and what a heat

Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!

Fear not each sudden and sound and shock,

'Tis of the wave and not the rock;

'Tis but the flapping of the sail,

And not a rent made by the gale!

In spite of rock and tempest's roar,

In spite of false lights on the shore,

Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!

Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,

Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,

Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,

Are all with thee--are all with thee!

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. Were it not for that compromise, we would not be here today. There would be no Senate. There would be no Republic as we know it.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I must oppose the Sessions amendment because it would eliminate critical border security funds from this bill.

The subcommittee has carefully balanced the needs of our law enforcement personnel on the border, and an across-the board cut, like that proposed in the Sessions amendment, would leave our borders dangerously exposed.

I remain committed to strengthening the fencing along the border. But it is unwise to finance that fencing with cuts in our border security elsewhere.

I join the chairman in opposing this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. I commend Chairman Gregg for his leadership on this important legislation. I thank Senator Murray for her contributions to the bill this week. I also thank Chairman Gregg's staff and my staff for their excellent work on this legislation.

The bill that is before the Senate contains numerous improvements to the President's request, both in terms of funding and in giving clear direction to the Department on how to improve its operations. Regrettably the President sent a budget to the Congress for Homeland Security programs that is hollow.

This bill provides critical improvements to that request and does so in a fiscally responsible manner. Additional funding is provided for border security, port security, grants to equip, train, and hire firefighters, for the Coast Guard Deepwater program to replace its aging fleet of ships, planes and helicopters, as well as additional funding for emergency managers. In addition, we provide clear direction to the Secretary for securing our Nation's chemical facilities.

While many of the Department's legacy agencies, such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service, continue to operate effectively, the Department itself has become an ineffective, behemoth. Rather than make America safer, the Department has become a cumbersome agency, burdened by malaise.

FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been broken into ineffective pieces, separating the responsibilities for preparedness and response. We all learned after Hurricane Katrina that FEMA is no longer up to the task of responding to a catastrophic disaster, whether the disaster is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

The Department has become a haven for contractors. DHS spends millions of dollars on contractors who produce lots of paper and data dumps, that sit in file cabinets and computer files. But the Department fails to use that information to make careful choices about how to secure the Nation.

In addition to failing to address known vulnerabilities, the Department of Homeland Security is turning into a case study for failed management. The GAO and the DHS Inspector General have documented numerous financial management and procurement failures at the Department. DHS information systems are not secure. GAO alone has completed 494 evaluations of DHS programs. The DHS Office of the Inspector General is spread so thin that it was unable to follow through on 616 different allegations of wrongdoing last year.

The Department continues to allow valuable homeland security dollars to gather dust in the Treasury. Last week was the 1-year anniversary of the London train bombing; yet, under the Department's plan, rail and transit security funding that was appropriated by Congress last October will not be awarded until this September. And the same malaise applies to grants to secure our ports, our buses, for securing buffer zones around nuclear and electrical plants, and grants to hire more firefighters.

The Department, working with its contractors, put together a list of 77,000 critical infrastructure sites around the country. It is an undifferentiated list including nuclear power plants and electrical grids, an Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a fleamarket, and an ice cream parlor. How ridiculous. Without careful choices, how does that investment make us safer?

The Congress gave the Department authority to allocate first responder funds based on risk, and what did they do? They cut grants to New York by 37 percent and the Washington, DC, area by 43 percent.

Nearly 5 years after 9/11, key issues, such as fixing FEMA, establishing

chemical security standards, inspecting cargo on commercial aircraft, inspecting air passengers for explosives, securing our ports, and making sure that State and local governments have effective mass evacuation plans, are all languishing at the Department. The list of issues that are festering at the Department goes on and on.

To the Department of Homeland Security I have two words: Wake up.

To the administration, I simply say, if you are not going to lead on making our homeland safer, than follow the lead of Chairman Gregg and the United States Senate.

Chairman Gregg has done a masterful job on this bill.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. President, this year marks the 150th birthday of the town of Piedmont, WV. This little town, charted in 1856, is located on the North Branch of the Potomac River in the northeastern corner of West Virginia.

In the late 19th Century, the town of Piedmont bustled with economic activity. A period of prosperous growth began when the Baltimore Ohio Railroad established a locomotive shop complex and switching yard in the area, and the town became an important freight-generating point on the B&O line.

When local entrepreneurs persuaded surrounding railroads to turn from wood to coal for firing their locomotives, the coal industry in the region boomed.

In the 1880s, William Luke established the West Virginia Paper Company's paper mill--Westvaco--in Piedmont, which became a major source of jobs for Piedmont residents. This included native Appalachians, migrant African Americans, and European immigrants, especially Italians and Irish. Therefore, soon after the opening of the paper mill, Piedmont became a town saturated with ethnic neighborhoods. A resident of Piedmont has written that, ``Piedmont's character has always been completely bound up with the Westvaco paper mill.''

This Town of Piedmont features some unique characteristics. For example, ``Ripley's Believe It or Not'' once pointed out that Kenney House Hill in Piedmont is the only street in the world from which a person can enter all three stories of the same building!

Piedmont is also known for a number of famous residents it has produced. This includes Don Redman, a famous jazz musician and composer, who wrote a number of hit arrangements for American music greats like Jimmy Dorsey, Harry James, and Count Basie.

Henry Gassaway Davis was a giant in the coal mining and banking industries in the late 19th Century, and a two-term U.S. Senator from West Virginia. In 1904, Davis was the Democratic nominee for Vice President--he was 80 years of age at the time, making him the oldest person ever nominated for President or Vice President on a major party ticket.

Thousands of people throughout the United States know of the town of Piedmont becauce of the writings of another of the town's famous residents, the nationally renowned writer and eminent scholar, Henry Louis Gates. Dr. Gates is the W.E.B. DuBois Professor of Humanities at Harvard University and Chairman of Harvard's Department of African and African American Studies Program.

In his memoir, Colored People, Dr. Gates discusses life in Piedmont during the 1950s. The book, which reflects on his childhood in this small rural community, before and during the civil rights movement, is a vivid portrayal of the people of Piedmont, whom he describes as ``virulent nationalists--Piedmont nationalists.'' ``[N]estled against a wall of mountains, smack-dab on the banks of the mighty Potomac,'' writes Dr. Gates, ``we knew God gave America no more beautiful location. `` According to Gates, the town's credo is: ``all New York's got that Piedmont's got is more of what we got. Same but bigger.'' ``Otherwise,'' he writes, ``the advantage was all to Piedmont.''

Mr. President, I congratulate the town of Piedmont, the little town ``on the side of a hill in the Allegheny mountains,'' as Dr. Gates calls it, on its 150th birthday which the town will celebrate with its ``Homefest.'' I wish the town the best of success on this milestone event.