Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent my name be added as a cosponsor to Senator Vitter's amendment No. 4615.

Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment to strengthen chemical facility security.

As Yogi Berra once said, ``this is like deja vu all over again.'' This is the fourth appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, and every summer, I have offered an amendment to provide incentives to the chemical sector to secure their facilities by establishing a chemical security grant program.

Unfortunately, at every turn, the administration opposed my amendments and those amendments were defeated. The administration claimed that it was partnering with the chemical sector and that they were doing enough to secure their facilities.

In my State of West Virginia, there are 73 chemical manufacturing plants and 100 chemical distribution plants. If there were an attack on one or more of those facilities, the potential loss of human life and damage to the local and national economy would be devastating. The same can be said for facilities in New Jersey, New York, Texas, Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, and many other States.

The Department of Homeland Security's National Strategy for Securing the Chemical Sector states that ``the value of the sector to the Nation, as well as the potentially high consequences associated with some chemical facilities, make the Chemical Sector a potentially attractive target for terrorists.''

Despite the multitude of warnings that the chemical sector is vulnerable to attack, including its own warnings, the administration has shown a great reluctance to make security at chemical facilities a priority.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office concluded that for 93 percent of the chemical industry, it is uncertain whether facilities are improving security at all. Only 1,100 of the 15,000 chemical facilities identified by the Department of Homeland Security are known to adhere to voluntary industry security procedures.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 123 chemical plants located throughout the Nation could each potentially expose more than a million people if a chemical release were to occur.

I was encouraged last summer when the DHS Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security testified before Congress that a system to enforce and audit security standards must be put in place for the chemical sector. Unfortunately, no action has been taken since his testimony.

This year, in its National Strategy to Secure the Chemical Sector, DHS says, ``legislation that would provide the Department of Homeland Security with overarching regulatory authority for the Chemical Sector security should be enacted.'' If the administration were serious about chemical security, it would have submitted legislation to back up this tough talk. Yet, the administration has not submitted such legislation. Nor has it played an active role in encouraging the congressional leadership to work with the various committees with an interest in this matter to resolve their differences and bring a bill to the floor. This morning, the administration submitted its statement of administration policy on the bill that is before the Senate, and once again the administration is silent on this matter. For the life of me, I do not understand why this administration does not take securing our chemical facilities seriously.

I applaud the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for reporting legislation on this matter, and I thank Senator Joe Lieberman for cosponsoring this amendment.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue interim final regulations for chemical facilities that he determines present the greatest security risk. The substance of the regulations would be established by the Secretary.

I believe this is a strong first step. Any regulations issued by the Secretary under this authority would only be applicable until final regulations issued under other laws are established.

We have waited too long. The potential devastation--the terrible loss of life, the huge hit to the Nation's economy, the irreparable harm to our air and water--the potential devastation demands that we take steps now to secure these chemical facilities. There has been enough talk; it is time to act. I urge all colleagues to support this amendment.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

I agree with my friend from Michigan. I understand that Secretary Chertoff has said that the establishment of the final northern border air wings will be completed in fiscal year 2007. These funds will help the Secretary meet his goal. My amendment, which was cosponsored by the chairman of our subcommittee and adopted unanimously by the Senate yesterday, provides $105 million for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement. Certainly, $12 million of those funds could go to Michigan for the establishment of this important and final northern border air wing. I will work with the chairman in conference to ensure that the border security funds are retained in conference.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned materials be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I was just saying as I came in, I saw these young pages here--I have been around here quite a long time, but I haven't gotten used to these. Our country has put a man on the Moon and brought him back to Earth again, but it hasn't yet perfected a really good public address system. A Senator such as myself is not used to the public address system and has to learn how to use the ones we have.

As I was saying, I said the person who really introduced court reporting in the Roman Senate was Cicero, which I will discuss at another time.

Amendment No. 4557

Madam President, when the President sent his budget to the Congress in February, it was based on a false premise. The President's budget assumed that the Appropriations Committees would raise the aviation fees on airline passengers by $1.23 billion. The President and his advisers at the Office of Management and Budget were aware that the Congress would not approve this tax increase on airline passengers because the administration tried a similar proposal last year, and the Congress responded with a bipartisan no. Thus, the President's budget is kind of a hollow one--h-o-l-l-o-w, hollow. It leaves a gaping $1.23 billion hole in the homeland security budget.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, provided the subcommittee with some additional resources, but the fact remains that this bill is still $515 million below the President's request and $350 million lower than the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last month.

The amendment I am offering today attempts to rectify this discrepancy. My amendment provides an additional $350 million for border security infrastructure enhancements, and it is fully paid for.

I am pleased that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, is working with me on this amendment. As we continue to hire more Border Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement officials, we need to give them the tools they need to do their job, and we need to start paying for those tools now so they will be available as more and more Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officials are hired and trained.

The Border Patrol needs new helicopters because the average age of its helicopters is nearly 40 years. The average age of our Customs primary fixed-wing aircraft is 30 years. All of our border enforcement officials, including the newly hired officials, need more vehicles, including all-terrain vehicles, high endurance vehicles, and even more buses to transport and remove illegal aliens.

Customs and Border Protection has a requirement for 18 unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. The Senate-passed immigration bill authorizes more UAVs. Yet the only one we had operating on our border crashed in the desert this past spring.

The amendment I am offering provides real dollars for our aging border infrastructure. It provides $90 million for additional fencing, tactical border infrastructure, and facilities. It provides $105 million for air and marine items, such as new helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, the standing up of all planned northern border air wings, and the facilities to house and maintain these aircraft. It provides $55 million for replacement vehicles for our border and immigration personnel, and it also provides $15 million for the ongoing Information Technology Modernization Program at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The President's budget requested $47 million in direct appropriations for the Business Transformation Program at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Because of the hollowness of the President's budget submission, these funds were not included in the bill reported out of committee. The program is a multiyear effort to modernize immigration benefits services.

So this amendment will help to reduce the rate of fraud in the program and to ensure the security and the integrity of the immigration system. This amendment provides the $47 million requested by the President for this program.

Finally, my amendment adds $38 million for fraud detection and national security activities at USCIS. This $38 million will add 100 new positions to enable FDNS to conduct benefit fraud assessments of additional immigration benefits, including training efforts necessary to further enhance the background checking process. We must have the technology and trained personnel in place now if we are to ensure that only those individuals who are legally allowed to be in this country are obtaining benefits and other privileges.

How is the amendment paid for? The amendment is fully paid for through increases in existing fees on non-U.S. citizens.

Border security in this country must be more than just a political slogan in this campaign year. Do you know this is a campaign year? I do. I am running. Border security must be one of the Nation's top priorities. The people out there watching through those lenses will agree with that. Border security must be one of this Nation's top priorities.

The United States is on track to hire over 6,500 new Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement officers. But what happens once they are on the job? Do we send them to the border without weapons, without radios, without trucks and Jeeps? Without this amendment, without these resources, we will be telling our Border Patrol agents in essence to stem the tide of illegal immigration with little more than a polite smile--little more than a polite smile. Asking illegal immigrants to please turn around just won't cut it. Our Border Patrol must have the law enforcement resources to get the job done.

If we are truly serious about securing our borders--and not just engaging in hollow rhetoric--then we will put real dollars on the border. I commend my chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his support. I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, the President of the United States, in his January State of the Union Address, told America: ``The enemy has not lost the desire or the capability to attack us.'' He was right. I am sure the President is correct about that. But some of the speech writers and policy writers for the administration seem to be living in alternative worlds.

After the administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World to operate terminals in six major U.S. ports, the administration asserted that it has a robust, layered security system for our ports. Yet the White House has proposed for the second straight year now to eliminate the Port Security Grant Program.

How serious is the administration about port security when it decides to allow Dubai Ports World to control six major U.S. ports? How serious is the administration when it underfunds port security? How serious are they about port security when Customs and Border Protection inspects only 5 percent of the 11 million containers that come into the country each year? How serious is the administration about port security when the Coast Guard inspects only one-third of the foreign ports that trade with our country? How serious is the administration when the Coast Guard Deepwater budget for replacing its ships, planes, and helicopters will not be completed until 2026? How old will I be then, in 2026? Well, it really doesn't matter. That is 20 years away.

How serious are they when it takes over 11 months to make grant funds available to ports for needed security measures?

My amendment would provide $648 million to fill critical gaps in our paper-thin--paper-thin--do you see how thin this paper is--our paper- thin port security programs. The amendment would provide resources for more container inspection equipment and personnel, more port inspections, more Coast Guard ships, more Coast Guard planes that are essential to securing our borders, and more port security grants.

Currently, only 5 percent of all of the cargo containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening the containers. Now, this is paper-thin security. My amendment would fund 60 more cargo container imaging machines at our seaports and rail border crossings that can view inside a container. It will also fund the hiring of 354 additional Customs and Border Protection officers to inspect these containers and address anomalies in cargo containers that may be triggered by the radiation portal monitors deployed at the ports.

Currently, the Coast Guard has only 82 inspectors to conduct facility investment compliance at domestic ports and 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with our country, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 51. At the current rate of inspections, Coast Guard inspectors will visit countries that trade with the United States only once every 4 years. Now, this is paper-thin security.

Under my amendment, the Coast Guard would complete the assessment of all 144 countries every 2 years. My amendment would also provide the Coast Guard with funding to conduct random spot checks of all domestic port facilities and assess the vulnerability of our most strategic ports here at home.

Domestically, the Coast Guard inspects the 3,064 U.S. facilities that are subject to the Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations just once per year. The Coast Guard has no funding to conduct random spot checks of these facilities. My amendment includes funding for approximately 80 new positions to establish a robust spot check program at each Coast Guard sector office, an important element in any enforcement regime, wouldn't you think so?

The Coast Guard has completed vulnerability assessments at 55 militarily and economically strategic ports. Currently, no funding is available to update these assessments which were completed 2 years ago. But my amendment would allow the Coast Guard to reassess the vulnerability of approximately 10 ports.

The condition of Coast Guard ships and planes is declining rapidly. These assets spend more and more time out of service. For example, total patrol boat hours in 2004 were 25 percent lower than in 1998. Current Coast Guard maritime patrol airplanes can only provide half of the hours required to meet operational commitments. At the same time, funding constraints require maintenance on these aging assets to be deferred more and more every year.

My amendment provides $184 million for the Coast Guard to buy new patrol boats, maintain existing cutters, buy new maritime patrol aircraft, and arm its helicopters for homeland defense in U.S. ports and harbors.

Coast Guard Patrol boats are operating in theater less today than they were in 1998. Total boat hours were only 75,000 in 2004, compared to the 1998 baseline of approximately 100,000 hours. The decline in operational hours has been the result of aging assets and the loss of 8 patrol boats deployed to the Middle East for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Under the Coast Guard's Deepwater modernization plan, this gap won't be closed until 2012 at the earliest. Funding in my amendment would enable the Coast Guard to purchase 2 additional patrol boats for a total of 5 in fiscal year 2007. This will provide the Coast Guard with 6,000 desperately needed Deepwater patrol boat hours in drug and migrant transit zones.

Finally, my amendment includes $190 million for port security grants, which would bring fiscal year 2007 funding to $400 million. The Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed

through 2012 for security at our ports. To date, only 15 percent of that amount has been funded despite the fact that United States ports handle over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade. Last year, Homeland Security was able to fund only 24 percent of the projects requested. This is paper-thin security.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Association of Port Authorities supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.

The White House knew, when it sent the budget to the Congress, that the funding relied on a tax hike on air travelers--a tax hike the Congress had already rejected. The Appropriations committees lack jurisdiction to increase the aviation passenger tax, and, of course could not do so in this bill. As a result, despite Chairman Gregg's best efforts, the bill that is before the Senate does not provide the necessary resources for port security. My amendment addresses that shortfall.

Just 2 months ago, the Senate approved my $648 million port security amendment to the supplemental. Regrettably, the President threatened to veto the supplemental unless what he characterized as low-priority spending was dropped from the bill. In conference, port security funding was stricken from the supplemental. I hope that the Senate will approve this port security amendment again and that this time, it survives in conference.

The amendment is within the allocation available to the subcommittee for fiscal year 2006.

The American people expect more than just a paper-thin security plan for our ports. I thank Chairman Gregg for his support.

I thank my illustrious chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support, and I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Exhibit 1

American Association

of Port Authorities,

Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2006.

To: All Members of the United States Senate.

From: Kurt Nagle, President and CEO, American Association of

Port Authorities.

Subj: Support Port Security Amendment on the Senate Floor.

As a member of the United States Senate, I am writing to

urge you to support an amendment to the Department of

Homeland Security's (DHS) FY '07 appropriations bill being

offered tomorrow by Senator Byrd to increase funding for port

security. This amendment represents a critical opportunity to

make port security a higher priority for this nation. The

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) represents

the leading public ports in the U.S., handling most of the

maritime cargo imported or exported from this country. We

strongly endorse this amendment to provide an additional $635

million to enhance port security by providing: an increase in

port security grants, additional port security inspectors at

foreign and domestic ports, additional cargo container

inspection equipment, and improved maritime security through

expedited purchase of Coast Guard planes and boats.

Earlier this year, Congress and this nation focused its

attention on the P&O Ports/Dubai Ports World transaction,

which resulted in a nationwide debate on port security and

calls for more security funding for this critical

transportation asset. In response, the Senate and the House

began working on legislation to strengthen maritime security.

The Senate Greenlane Maritime Security Act (S. 2459--Collins/

Murray) and the House SAFE Ports Act (H.R. 4954--Lungren/

Harman) both call for significantly more funding for port

security. The Senate-based emergency supplemental followed

the recommendations in these bills, but much of the port

security funding was eliminated due to concerns over the

total spending level for the bill.

Senator Byrd's amendment is aimed at once again adopting

the funding levels in the House and Senate bills and making

port security a high priority for this country. AAPA is

especially interested in properly funding the Port Security

Grant program. The Byrd amendment would bring the funding

level up to $400 million for the year. This would help pay

for the very costly new regulations DHS has proposed

following the Dubai Ports controversy to require all maritime

workers and facilities to comply with new Transportation

Worker Identification Credential or TWIC requirements. DHS

estimates that 40 percent of the $1 billion cost of this

regulation will fall on port facilities. By supporting this

amendment, Congress will provide federal funds critical to

help co-fund this new mandate.

With 99% of our international cargo by volume flowing

through ports, we urge you to show the nation that port

security is a priority in Congress by voting ``yes'' on this

port security amendment tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be called up and the clerk state it for the consideration of the Senate.

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

Mr. President, the Senate has before it the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. I commend our chairman. I am debating whether I should say ``who has no peer.'' I think I will stick with that. He has no peer when it comes to knowledge of the subject matter and as one who cares deeply about his country, his committee, its work, and about the needs that exist for appropriating adequate funds. I commend him. I commend his staff. They have done excellent work on this legislation.

This chairman makes it his business to know what are the facts concerning the needs out there; who makes it his business, once he knows the facts, to go after the weaknesses, the soft spots, and, with a great determination, to do the task ahead.

I commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines defending America's homeland. They do serve the Nation every hour of every day. Senator Gregg has tried to allocate limited--and I say limited, I stress

the word ``limited''--resources to respond to those threats that present the greatest risk. He does not have the funds to deal with all the threats, but he has sought to respond to those threats that present the greatest risk. In doing so, Senator Gregg has included a number of improvements to the President's budget, particularly with regard to border security, baggage explosives detention, fire grants, and emergency management. However, there is a limitation to the ability of this chairman, or any chairman--a limitation to the ability of the Appropriations Committee--to address the problems in the President's budget.

The bill is $515 million below the President's request, and only 4 percent higher than last year. There are funding shortfalls for port security, border security, rail security, and first responder grants. These shortcomings are largely a result of the administration's ill- considered proposal for the Appropriations Committees to enact an increase in the aviation passenger tax. While the President claims credit for a robust budget for securing our borders, his actual budget is hollow, hollow, hollow. The White House knew when it sent the budget to the Congress that the funding relied on a tax hike on air travelers--a tax hike that the Congress had already rejected. How about that.

The Appropriations Committees lack jurisdiction to increase the aviation passenger tax and, of course, we could not do so in this bill. As a result of the President's proposal, the funding for homeland security in this bill is not only lean, it is also very lean. So I again commend Chairman Gregg for his masterful work in putting together this bill, but serious security problems remain.

The Department of Homeland Security is now in its fourth year of existence, as Senator Gregg has explained. While many of its legacy agencies, such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service, continue to operate effectively, the Department itself certainly has become the gang that can't shoot straight. Nearly 5 years after 9/11, key issues, such as fixing FEMA, such as establishing chemical security standards, such as inspecting cargo on commercial aircraft and inspecting air passengers for explosives, such as 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, and these problems are not merely bureaucratic hassles. These are issues that imperil the safety of Americans--Americans--as they go about their daily lives. That is you and you and you and you out there in the plains, the prairies, the Rockies, the Alleghenies, you citizens, the safety of you citizens as you go about your daily lives.

Only 5 percent of the 11 million cargo containers coming into this country are opened for inspection. We know that terrorists desire to bring a dirty bomb into this country. Over 6 billion pounds of cargo is placed on commercial airlines each year, and virtually none of that cargo is inspected. How about that. Do you feel any safer? How do you feel about that, now that I have said that?

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 123 chemical plants located throughout the Nation--and in particular in the Kanawha Valley in southern West Virginia--could each potentially expose more than a million people if a chemical release occurred. How does that make you feel? Yet according to the Government Accountability Office, only 1,100 of the 15,000 chemical facilities in this country are known to comply with voluntary security standards. Yet the administration has done virtually nothing to either require compliance or create incentives for the chemical industry to secure its facilities. Only 37 of the 448 airports in this country have acquired new technology to inspect airline passengers for explosives as they board airplanes. Does that make you nervous when you go up to the ticket counter to buy a plane ticket?

There are in this country, in prisons, more than 550,000 criminal aliens in prisons in this country who have not been identified by the Department for removal from the country. Does that make you feel any safer? How about that. When they get out of prison, they may be walking the streets in your neighborhood. Where? In your neighborhood. They need to be removed from this country as soon as they finish their prison terms.

The so-called millennium bomber crossed the U.S.-Canadian border in Washington State intending to blow up the control tower at Los Angeles International Airport. Just last month, 17 homegrown--get that, 17 homegrown--alleged terrorists were arrested in Toronto. Yet there are only 1,000 Border Patrol agents stationed along the northern border. That means that one lonely Border Patrol agent is responsible for patrolling 5.5 miles of the border.

Nearly 5 years after 9/11, most of our first responders still do not have interoperable communications equipment.

Can you believe that? Nearly 5 years after 9/11, most of our first responders still do not have interoperable communications equipment. Can you believe that? I have pressed for that most basic need for our first responders for nearly 5 years. This subcommittee is on top of its work, but it needs more resources.

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. According to the administration's own statistics, only 27 percent of State and 10 percent of urban area plans were rated as adequate to cope with a catastrophic event.

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. The Department of Homeland Security information systems are not secure. The GAO alone has completed 494 evaluations of DHS programs. The DHS Office of the Inspector General is spread so thinly 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 rather than getting the money out to State and local governments where the money can actually be used to secure our ports and mass-transit systems or to purchase interoperable communications equipment.

In the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations report, we directed the Department to send Congress a report by February 10 providing an expedited schedule for awarding homeland security grants. Last week, 5 months late, we got the report. The report detailed the Department's plan to award 20 different grant programs in the last month of the fiscal year. Congress approved funds last October, yet the funds will sit here in Washington for almost a year. 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. 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. What is the administration waiting for? Does there have to be another horrendous attack with thousands of deaths before this Department will shake out of its nearly comatose state?

The Department's record should cause every citizen--that is you and you and you and you--alarm. The Department's record should cause every citizen alarm. It is a record that was entirely predictable. While I supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, I voted against the legislation that created this unwieldy behemoth. In consolidating 22 agencies into 1 department, the Congress created an organization that was destined from the beginning to have failures. This was a department that was created out of political expediency in the basement of the White House, not through careful analysis.

In the months following 9/11, the President feared that the Congress was taking the initiative on securing the homeland. So the President directed a small White House team, cloaked in secrecy in the bowels of the White House, to draft a reorganization of homeland security agencies. No security experts

were present. The political wizards conjured up this witch's brew. The result was a massive governmental reorganization rushed through the Congress in a matter of months. Do you remember that? I remember it. I expressed my concerns about it.

As I said in the fall of 2002--did you get that--in the fall of 2002, 4 years ago:

If we take this giant step, our homeland defense system

will likely be in a state of chaos for the next few years.

People may begin to read in the newspapers about startup

problems in this vast new Department. These kinds of high-

profile debacles could carry over to the Transportation

Security Administration, the Customs Service, FEMA, the Coast

Guard, or any of the agencies.

That is what I said.

For this administration, the illusion of security--like seeing a waterfall in the desert, an illusion--created by this Department and spawned in the White House cellar was more important than a careful plan for actually making Americans safer. Perhaps I should say that again. For this administration, the illusion of security created by this Department and spawned in the White House cellar was more important than a careful plan for actually making Americans safer. For this administration, it is OK to do homeland security on the cheap. For years, I have come to this floor, and others have come to this floor, and documented examples of the ways in which the administration relegates homeland security to a low priority--border security, rail and transit security, port security, chemical security, funds for firefighters, and the list goes on and on.

This year, the administration proposed to cut the firefighter grant program by 45 percent. It was proposed to eliminate the SAFER Program, a congressional initiative that helps local governments hire more firefighters. The Department failed to transmit to the Congress the statutorily mandated needs assessment of our firefighters. I wonder whether the report is locked in someone's desk because it concluded that our fire departments still lack the resources necessary to purchase equipment capable of responding to a terrorist attack.

Nearly 5 years after 9/11 and nearly 1 year after Hurricane Katrina proved that our first responders are not ready to deal with a catastrophic disaster, the President proposes to cut first responder grants by 13 percent below fiscal year 2006 and 33 percent below fiscal year 2005.

There is another example of the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul approach the administration takes to securing our homeland. Last week, the administration notified the Congress of a serious shortfall within the Federal Protective Service, the agency that secures over 1 million Federal employees and visitors to our Federal buildings. Rather than request additional funding for the shortfall or increase the fees charged to Federal agencies to cover the shortfall, the administration is proposing that we cut funding for explosives countermeasures and for detaining and removing illegal aliens to pay for the shortfall. Can you imagine that? The President tells the Nation that border security is a critical priority for our national security--and he is right, that is what it is. The President pushes the Congress to get tough on illegal immigration, and then his administration proposes to cut funding for detaining and removing illegal aliens. And in a world where we see explosions of improvised explosive devices killing American soldiers every day and with the Madrid and London train bombings, the administration wants to cut funds for developing explosives countermeasures here in the United States. What kind of confusion reigns at the other end of the avenue, at the White House? Does Presidential rhetoric now excuse rolling the dice with the safety of millions of Americans?

Today, the Senate has before it the fourth Homeland Security appropriations bill that the Senate has considered since the Department was created. Under the leadership of the first chairman of the subcommittee, Thad Cochran, and under the leadership of the current chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, the Senate has striven to provide the Department with the resources it needs to do its job and to give clear direction for improving its efforts to secure the homeland. And it has been an uphill fight.

I am pleased that, in this bill, Chairman Judd Gregg included a number of provisions that will improve the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. I hope that the administration downtown will listen to his lead and that the administration will follow his lead.

Hardly a week goes by that the administration does not remind Americans of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. As we debate the bill this week, I will offer two amendments to fill some of the gaps in border security and port security that were created as a result of the administration's unworkable proposal to finance $1.2 billion of the Department's budget through increased aviation passenger taxes. I will also support amendments that will be offered to increase funding for first responders and for rail and transit security. I encourage Congress to demand more of the Department of Homeland Security and more than rhetoric from the President.

Again, I applaud Chairman Gregg for the expertise he brings to the bill, for the labor he expends, for his determination, his concern, and for the foresightedness he brings to the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, my longtime friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for his kind reference to me. I value his friendship. I value his views on the Constitution. I do, indeed, always.

Mr. President, this coming Tuesday is the Fourth of July. Two hundred and thirty years ago, in 1776, our Founding Fathers declared independence from Britain, establishing a nation on fundamentally new principles of government. Those principles, laid out in ringing tones in the Declaration of Independence and given flesh and substance in our Constitution, have stood us well for these last 230 years. That is 84,007 days, including leap years, and we are still going strong.

Already, one can see the red, white, and blue bunting decorating stores, and one can see the fireworks for sale in those places where they are permitted. People are purchasing picnic and barbeque makings at the grocery stores and filling the propane tanks that will fuel the backyard grills. Next Tuesday, the Nation's air will be filled with the sizzle and aroma of good old hot dogs and hamburgers, steaks and shishkebobs, and barbeque of infinite regional variety. Sweet, luscious corn on the cob may lay atop the grill, roasting in its own leafy wrapping. Picnic tables will groan under the weight of creamy potato salad--potato salad like they make in Tennessee--tart coleslaw, egg salad or macaroni salad. Cold slabs of watermelon--Mr. President, cold slabs of watermelon--and fresh cherries will tempt some to initiate seed spitting contests. It is hard to imagine a more all-American feast. Even Thanksgiving, with its formality and fine china, does not capture the American spirit in the same manner as a barefoot feast like a Fourth of July picnic.

And the entertainment, too, is all-American. In the morning, we line the sidewalks of countless small towns and communities to watch the parades of fire engines and floats. Small children ride on father's shoulders to get a better view, and dogs--yes, like my little dog-- circle below, tangling leashes around legs as they bark happily at the passing show. We wave at bands and we wave at the beauty queens, too, and local politicians before heading home to go boating, fishing, swimming, or just visiting with family in the cool shade of a tall tree. Americans celebrate the Fourth outdoors.

In the evening, we gather after our picnics to listen to concerts and wait for the fireworks. The air now is filled with whizzing acceleration followed by an anticipatory pause, then the bursting pop of the exploding sparks. We ooh and ahh and clap. We are, generally, filled with a pride and love of our nation on the Fourth of July. We feel patriotic--yes, we do--in a general and fuzzy sense--a patriotism borne of a full stomach and stirring martial music, tinged with the scent of black powder and wrapped in red, white and blue bunting.

This general sense of patriotism and this general sense of love of country is, of course, a good thing. We are the very fortunate few, just 299,062,710 or so of the world's 6,524,438,583 citizens as of June 25, 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That is just 4.6 percent or so of the world's population. We live in a nation richly endowed by nature, generally temperate in climate, and sparsely populated, though that may not seem true to anyone seeking to leave Washington for the beach this weekend. For 230 years--yes, two centuries and two decades-- America has expanded geographically, economically and intellectually, literally reaching the moon and the stars. We have made great discoveries in the sciences and in medicine. We look after our own and reach out to help others. Our Nation is far from perfect, to be sure, but I doubt that many of us would willingly trade it for another.

George William Custis wrote that ``A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.'' I think he is only partly correct patriotism is loyalty to that principle as well as to the homeland over which that principle governs. We love our Nation for all that it is physically, the collection of geography and peoples that we know and love.

But it is also the principles upon which our Nation was founded 230 years ago--principles to which we must always hold fast, lest they be eroded away.

Our Nation was founded on the principles of equality and the rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the job of government to ensure and protect these rights, and governments should only be based upon the consent of the people, not some powerful elite. Those fundamental principles should never be taken for granted. Even after 230 years of hearing them, they are not tired, run-of-the-mill, banal, or ordinary. Most of the other 96 percent of the world's population does not enjoy the blessings of those principles. Much of the rest of the world's population must live in the shadow of fear. Their governments have greater power and fewer restraints, and need not pay much attention to public opinion or internal dissent. In too many nations, dissenters can be jailed or simply ``disappeared'' if they dare to raise their voices to question their government's actions or policies.

We are blessed to live under a system of government established to serve all of the people. Mark Twain wrote that ``The government is merely a servant merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.'' The orders that it is to obey should come from the people, and from a consensus of what constitutes the common good. That is rare in this world, a treasure to be guarded jealously.

Our Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution to defend individual freedom and to provide opportunity for all. It is a government expressly designed to balance power so that no one person can ever become a tyrant unless the people, in their foolishness or their apathy, allow it. Abraham Lincoln once said that ``America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.''

In his book, Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, ``If once [the people] become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.'' We the people are the guardians of our own liberty.

Power and the trappings of power are as addictive as the strongest drug. When people in power come to believe that they know the interests of the Nation better than the people who are the Nation, and when people cease to listen to the people or to remember the folks back home, a dangerous situation is created.

The historian, Henry Steele Commager, said that ``Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.''

Each of us, as citizens of this great land and benefactors of our system of government, must serve as its defenders, against invasion from without, of course, but also against erosion from within. We must be prepared to criticize when government strays from our fundamental principles, when it ceases to be the servant of the people. In doing so, we must be prepared to be called unpatriotic. That is hard to do when we are fired up on barbeque and fireworks and patriotic music. That is hard to do when we have troops in the field and anxious families back home. But criticism is not unpatriotic. Far from it. When we speak up, we emulate our Founding Fathers, who were not afraid to spread criticism where it was warranted.

On the Fourth of July and on every day, Americans should feel patriotic in every sense of that word. We have every right to be proud of our Nation and our history. We Americans have every reason to look forward to a bright future, as long as we protect and

encourage the right of every American to express his or her views and keep this Nation on the track that has carried us so well for so long.

I close with a poem Arthur Nicholas Hosking, ``Land of the Free.'' I wish everyone a Happy Fourth of July.

America, O Power benign, great hearts revere your name, You

stretch your hand to every land, to weak and strong the

same; You claim no conquest of the sea, nor conquest of

the field, But conquest for the rights of man, that

despots all shall yield.

America, staunch, undismayed, your spirit is our might; No

splendor falls on feudal walls upon your mountain's

height, But shafts of Justice pierce your skies to

light the way for all, A world's great brotherhood of

man, that cannot, must not fall.

America, in God we trust, we fear no tyrant's horde; There's

light that leads toward better deeds than conquest by

the sword; Yet our cause is just, if fight we must

until the world be free Of every menace, breed, or

caste that strikes at Liberty.

America, home of the brave, our song in praise we bring--

Where Stars and Stripes the winds unfurl, `tis there

that tributes ring; Our fathers gave their lives that

we should live in Freedom's light Our lives we

consecrate to thee, our guide the Might of Right.

Mr. President, I hope that all the Senate family will have a safe, joyous Fourth of July

The Building of the Ship

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 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 three,--are all with thee!

--Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois.

We are here today, once again, to debate the wisdom of amending the United States Constitution, to outlaw the desecration of the American flag. As I have stated repeatedly and sincerely over the years, there are few acts more deeply offensive to any of us than the willful destruction of that American flag which stands there beside the President's desk.

The flag is a symbol of our Republic. It is a unique symbol of national unity and a powerful source of America's pride. I love the flag. We all love the flag and all that it represents. We revere the flag because it is a symbol of the liberties that we enjoy as American citizens. These are liberties that are protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is the instrument that provides for what that flag represents.

Now, let me say that again. This Constitution that I hold in my hand is the instrument--there it is--that provides for what that flag represents. It is the Constitution that has been and continues to be the source--the source--of our freedom. We celebrate our freedom every time we pledge allegiance to the flag, every day that this Chamber comes to order and conducts a session. So we pledge allegiance to that flag and to the Republic--not to the democracy but to the Republic--for which it stands; one Nation, one Nation under God--yes, under God-- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Think of that. Listen to that. One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Seven years ago, in contemplation of a similar moment when the Senate was confronted with a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, I spent long hours contemplating both the legal bases and the need for such an amendment. I said at that time, and I say again today, that I know of few subjects that have come before the Senate which have caused me greater anguish and consternation. I knew 7 years ago, and I know today, that many West Virginians, many of my colleagues, many of the people I represent support this amendment. But based on my continued examination of the matter, I believe that I must remain--and I shall remain--opposed to that amendment.

I oppose it not because I do not love the flag because I do love the flag. I oppose it not because I fail to respect the sacrifices made by our veterans, our law enforcement officials, and our first responders who, for the benefit of all Americans, have given their lives and who have offered their lives in defense of our country and our flag because I do. Instead, I oppose it because while I agree that desecration of the flag is abhorrent, repugnant, I believe that amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration flies in the face--the very face--of first amendment rights like freedom of speech. Men and women have died to protect that freedom of speech, that freedom to express ourselves.

Flag desecration remains a rare and isolated event in this large country of ours. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of Americans respect the flag and they fly it with pride. They do not abuse it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has not held one hearing on this proposal. Let me say that again. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not held one hearing on this proposal. It is especially troubling to me that the Senate would seek to amend the Constitution--yes, this Constitution that I hold in my hand--and the first amendment--without holding even a single hearing on the need for this amendment.

Now, I know that some who favor this amendment believe that the burning of the flag is sufficient to justify the adoption of this extraordinary--I say extraordinary--legislative remedy. And I, too, cringe, I shrink from, and I condemn any desecration of the flag. But I do not agree that it is necessary to amend the basic document, the basic organic document, the Constitution, to prohibit it.

Furthermore, this constitutional amendment provides no actual punishment of those who desecrate the flag. Plus, if protection of the flag is a pressing concern--and I acknowledge that to many people it is--why do the backers of the constitutional amendment not support pending legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, which could be enacted to prohibit desecration of the flag more quickly? As we all know, a constitutional amendment requires ratification by three-fourths--three- fourths--of all 50 States, which could take up to 7 years, and it is likely that additional legislation to enforce the enactment would have to be enacted after that.

I also would not support this constitutional amendment because it continues to be my heartfelt belief--and I wish I were mistaken--that the primary effect of the amendment will be to create more, rather than fewer, incidents of flag desecration, flag destruction. Zealous defenders of the first amendment who are offended, rightly or wrongly, by the passage of this amendment will surely cast themselves in a new role; namely, as provocateurs who, newly inspired, will deliberately seek to test the boundaries established by this proposed amendment if it is adopted.

This is more than a matter of symbolism; this is a question of respect, respect for the founding document of the Republic--oh, how precious it is, this founding document, the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law--the supreme law of the land. Any disrespect for the Constitution is a repudiation of the basic principles and laws of our country. I do not relish giving a tiny minority of troublemakers the ammunition to denigrate--yes, denigrate not only the flag but also the Constitution of the United States.

As I have stated repeatedly, this does not mean that I believe destruction of the flag is trivial or that encouraging reverence for the flag is not an important goal of our government. I simply do not believe that sporadic instances of flag burning should result in our advocating the course of amending the Constitution, amending the basic organic document on which this Republic was built and on which it stands, as a remedy. As I have recounted in prior speeches on this subject, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 debated in

much depth whether there should be any--whether there should be any-- provision for amending the Constitution. Recognizing, however, that occasional revisions might be necessary--and thank God they recognized that occasional revisions might be necessary--the Convention finally agreed upon a compromise that deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution by requiring successive supermajorities. To that end, article V of the Constitution sets up a cumbersome troublesome, two- step process to amend the Constitution.

The first step is approval either by two-thirds of Congress, or--and this has never been done--by a convention called for by two-thirds of the States. The second step is ratification by three-fourths of the States.

So given the hurdles that were deliberately and knowingly and intentionally established by article V, it is no surprise that so few amendments to the Constitution have been approved. There are 27 amendments in all that have been approved, and the first 10 of the 27 were ratified en bloc in 1791. Those 10 constitute our Bill of Rights.

Think of it: In the 216 years that have subsequently ensued, there have been just 17 additional amendments. If we disregard the 18th and the 21st amendments, marking the beginning and end of Prohibition, then we are left with only 15 amendments in 216 years. Get that. Only 15 amendments in 216 years. As I have advised my colleagues before, and as they well know, these 15 amendments can generally be divided into two roughly equal categories. One category consists of those amendments that deal with the structure--the structure and the organization of the three branches of Government--the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.

These include the 11th amendment, preventing the Federal courts from hearing suits against States by citizens of other States; the 12th amendment, regarding the election of the President and Vice President; the 17th amendment, establishing the direct election of Senators; the 20th amendment, regulating Presidential terms and related matters; the 22nd amendment, limiting the President to two terms; the 25th amendment, regarding Presidential succession; and the 27th amendment, deferring congressional pay raises until after an intervening election.

There is little need to justify the inclusion of these provisions in the Constitution; however we may feel about them personally, their subject matter--namely the structure of the Federal Government--fits perfec1y within that of Articles I through IV.

The second category of constitutional amendments consists of those that narrow the powers of government and expand or protect fundamental personal rights. These include the 13th amendment, banning slavery; the 14th amendment, which extended citizenship to all persons ``born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' and guaranteed all citizens certain basic protections; and the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendments, each of which extended the vote to new groups of citizens.

Clearly, the flag desecration amendment goes in a new direction. For constitutional purposes, as I have said before in these debates, it is neither fish nor fowl. It does not address a structural concern; it does not deal with Federal relations between the national and State governments; it extends, rather than narrows, the powers of government and it is antithetical to the whole thrust of the Constitution; and it does not protect a basic civil right. Indeed, many opponents of the amendment argue that it restricts personal liberty, namely the right of freedom of expression.

The l3th amendment forbidding slavery may be viewed as the only other amendment regulating the conduct of individuals. The 13th amendment was the product of a bitter, fiercely contested civil war, and it was necessary to end one of the most loathsome and shameful institutions in our Nation's history. This was an exceptional amendment necessitated by exceptional circumstances.

I have introduced a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment protecting voluntary prayer in school. This is also an exceptional amendment required by exceptional circumstances. Although the Supreme Court has never expressly prohibited children from voluntarily praying in school, children are discouraged from praying in school. School administrators are loathe to address the issue for fear they will be assailed, wrongly, for having broken the law. Confusion regarding the legal posture of voluntary prayer in school has created an impermissible, exceptional circumstance which, I believe, must be addressed in a way that permits school children to pray voluntarily as they deem appropriate. Consequently, I have proposed this year, as I have numerous times over the past 40 years, a constitutional amendment that simply clarifies that the first amendment neither requires nor prohibits voluntary prayer in school. This amendment would address the exceptional circumstances that afflict thousands of school children, nationwide, who mistakenly believe that prayer should not be a part of their daily lives at school.

In the final analysis, it is the Constitution that is the foundation and guarantor of the people's liberties, protecting their rights to freedom of speech and to worship as they please. The flag represents all of the cherished liberties which we as Americans enjoy--liberties explicitly protected by the text of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The flag is a symbol of all that we hold near and dear, and of our Nation's history. It is also a symbol of our Constitutional values. The flag lives only because the Constitution lives. Yet, as I have said in past debates on this issue, the Constitution, unlike the flag, is not a symbol; it is the thing itself. I think it might be well if, in addition to focusing on efforts to protect the flag against injury, injury which, though reprehensible, does not damage Constitutional principles, we make a greater commitment to learning the historical context of our flag as well as the actual text and meaning of the United States Constitution.

I do not believe that Americans can participate meaningfully in their government if they do not know the legal foundation and principles upon which it is based. I believe that greater familiarity with the provisions of the Constitution would give all Americans not only an enhanced appreciation of the flag as being a symbol of the liberties that are enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also a literal understanding of our Government's checks and balances, their purposes, and of the duties of each of our three branches of Government to protect our personal freedoms.

Finally, Old Glory lives because the Constitution lives, without which there would be no American Republic, there would be no American liberty, and there would be no American flag. We love that flag. But we must love the guarantees of the Constitution more. For the Constitution is not just a symbol; it is, as I say, the thing itself.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to congratulate my esteemed colleague, the very distinguished and able and honorable and highly respected chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the completion of his final Defense authorization bill.

He is my chairman, Mr. President. His tenure at the helm of the Armed Services Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, has been eventful and very distinguished. But then distinguished tenure is not unusual for this Virginia gentlemen--another term I use lovingly and fondly and respectfully because it means something to me, having been in this Senate now for almost 48 years, having been on the Appropriations Committee for almost 48 years, having been on the Armed Services Committee for almost that long. This is a very special man--a Virginia gentleman in every sense of the term. I say this with the utmost admiration. Distinguished tenure is not unusual for this Virginia gentlemen, whose entire life has been spent in the service to his country, to his great State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the cradle of Presidents.

Since his enlistment in the Navy at the tender age of 17, during World War II, John William Warner, Jr., has put his immense and very considerable talents completely--I say completely--at the disposal of his beloved country. He is in a long line of Virginia gentlemen who have put their talents at the disposal of this beloved country of theirs and ours. A Virginia gentleman. What more noble term could be used? A Virginia gentleman. Whether serving in World War II, the Korean conflict, as an officer in the Marine Corps, or on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, John Warner always said, ``Here am I. Send me.'' Look at your Bible. Someone else said that. ``Here am I. Send me.'' John Warner has always said that--``send me.''

John Warner's remarkable career spiraled ever upward, eventually taking him to the office of assistant U.S. attorney, then to the office of Under Secretary of the Navy, then to the office of the Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974, and finally to his present position as senior U.S. Senator from the great State of Virginia, having now won five consecutive elections to the Senate, beginning in 1978. I was then the majority leader of the Senate, yes, when he came to the Senate.

This year, my friend John Warner became the second longest serving Senator from Virginia, second only to the illustrious Harry Flood Byrd, Sr., in the 218-year history of the Senate. Senator John Warner--what a man--is currently serving his 27th year in the U.S. Senate.

What a record of achievement for his country and my country and your country, Mr. President. And what a shining example of dignity, intellect, style, integrity, and talent Senator Warner presents for the young people of his country and his State and my country and my State. He presents integrity and talent for the young people. Never given to harsh criticism--I have never heard him utter a word of harsh criticism--never given to rhetoric, never succumbing to the rank partisanship which has become so prevalent today in American politics on both sides of the aisle, John Warner is his own man. That is a lot to say. He is his own man. What more noble attribute? He is his own man, and I am proud to serve with him. I enjoy working with him. I shall miss his very steady hand on the wheel, at the helm of the Armed Services Committee. What a great position, what an honorable position-- the helm of the Armed Services Committee. But I will relish the opportunity to work with him for the good of our country in the years to come. Talk about class acts--John Warner is the classiest of class acts, and his comity, his courtesy, his unfailing good humor, and his refreshing bipartisan attitude are of incalculable benefit to this body. May we be blessed in the Senate by many more like him. I salute Senator John Warner for his patriotic service--my, look at that record--his patriotic service. How many times has he put his life on the line for the good old red, white, and blue, for Old Glory? I thank him for his patriotic service and for his selfless--selfless--selfless, I say, selfless, leadership. He is my kind of Senator. May God bless him. He is my kind of Senator.

He is the best kind of man. I could say more and more and more about him, and I could say more and more and more about his colleague who works with him on the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Carl Levin. They are two of a kind.

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 a demagogue 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!

Wrong rules the land 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!

Men like Senator John William Warner.

And I am sorry about that.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. President, when I was a boy growing up in Mercer County, WV, I made it a point to read the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. That was more than a few years ago, but I have not stopped reading the Bluefield newspaper. It is a strong instrument of information and education in the southern coalfields of West Virginia.

That paper has been fortunate to publish the insights and analysis of many fine reporters. One of the best is Barbara Hawkins, who has announced her retirement after three decades of service. She is not only one of the best reporters from the Bluefield paper; she also is one of the best reporters to walk the hills of West Virginia.

Local news media represent a community's window on the school board, city council, and county commission, the State legislature, and the Congress. The local media, more than any other resource, educate people about the issues that directly affect their lives. Barbara Hawkins knows, better than most, how vital a reporter's job is. She understands that newspapers are an instrument to inform the public about

the issues and events that affect their daily lives.

Through her work, Barbara Hawkins served as a teacher and a counselor, a defender of right and a pursuer of wrong, an advocate, a champion, and a friend to all in southern West Virginia.

Now, after three decades of service, Barbara has decided to retire from daily reporting. But, as much as we would expect, she is not giving up the art of writing and informing. Her columns and special projects will continue, allowing all of us to learn from her insights and her experiences.

Most of Barbara's work at the newspaper was in the public eye. But, more than anything else, Barbara's strength came from her deep devotion to her family. We have all walked the terrible journey with her after her daughter, Pam, was taken from this world, a victim of domestic violence more than 20 years ago. Barbara has never been shy about that loss nor about her efforts to prevent that shattering experience from touching other families. But what is not in the headlines is Barbara's incredible commitment to her daughter, Kimberleigh, her granddaughter, Pami, and all of the members of her family. While her work at the paper may be a great love of Barbara's, it pales in comparison to her love of family. Barbara's family is her source of strength and inspiration, now and always.

On a personal level, I will miss reading Barbara's daily reporting. I made a habit of looking for her byline. She has always shown a keen insight into not only southern West Virginia but also statewide and national issues. Her instincts, her institutional knowledge, and her commentary have always caused me, like so many others, to stop and think and to consider alternate approaches. Her commitment to the greater good in society is something for each of us to emulate.

I have often said that as long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure. That forum is this Senate. But the same can be said of the news media--the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and other outlets that provide information that is important to the lives of all Americans. Freedom of the press is a key of this Republic. Without it, the American people can be led to disaster without so much as a whisper. Their freedoms can be trampled; their rights can be subverted.

Barbara Hawkins defended that freedom. She exercised it every single day. And all of us are better for her work.

I thank Barbara for her many years of service to the people of West Virginia and wish her well in the challenges that certainly are ahead of her in her life's journey.

Before the Senator does that, may I inject--

I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished friend from Virginia, Senator Warner.

I have an amendment. I would at least like to debate it or have some time to speak on it. I was hoping that I might be able to speak for not to exceed 30 minutes on my amendment. I would like to throw that in the mix.

Mr. President, I have not heard all of the debate, but from what I have heard, I don't think that another Senator, this Senator, would be precluded from asking for time to explain his amendment. Now if the agreement may preclude other amendments--I don't know whether it does or not. If it does, then that is one thing. But I have an amendment, and I would like to speak on it. I wonder if Senators wouldn't allow me to speak. I have four to six pages. I can do those in 40 minutes or less.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today the Senate is debating two amendments on Iraq. The first amendment has been offered by Senator Levin. It is a nonbinding sense of the Congress that clearly illustrates that there must be a change in our policy toward Iraq. It states that it is neither in the American nor the Iraqi interest to maintain an open- ended commitment of large numbers of our troops.

Some may challenge this idea and stubbornly maintain that we must stay the course, no matter the cost or the consequences. I would point these critics to the op-ed which appeared in the Washington Post on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, written by Iraq's National Security Adviser. Here is what he said: ``The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be'' and that ``the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.''

The distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has crafted a good amendment which I will support. We need a change in our Iraq policy.

Senator Levin has put his finger directly on the key issues facing our continued military occupation of Iraq.

The second amendment which is being debated is an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. His amendment proposes that American troops be redeployed from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007. Senator Kerry should be commended for offering his amendment. It is an important amendment, and it deserves a full debate. It directly addresses the most pressing issue facing the American people today.

Last week the very distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, offered an amendment similar to that of Senator Kerry's. It was offered up as a sacrificial lamb, and a procedural motion was made to either kill the amendment or to continue debating it. I was one of six Senators who voted to continue debate on that amendment.

Some may seek to ascribe my vote as a vote for the substance of Senator McConnell's amendment. But I shall speak for myself. As I have told Senator Kerry, my vote was not for the substance of Senator McConnell's amendment. My vote was to continue debate on the most important issue in our country today. My vote was in favor of the institution of the U.S. Senate, a temple of debate and free speech.

Some may seek to hide from the controversial issue of Iraq, but I will not seek to hide from it. We Senators are sent by the people of our States to debate the critical issues facing our country, not to hide from them. My vote was in the minority on that procedural motion, but I stand by my vote which was in favor of debate on the momentous subject of Iraq.

The amendment the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, offers will likely be voted on tomorrow, and I have spoken to Senator Kerry about the substance of his amendment. I know he is seeking a change in the administration's policy toward Iraq, which is acknowledged by most Americans to be a disaster. And he should be saluted for his courage in insisting on offering his amendment, even though he will be criticized--and perhaps even called unpatriotic by some--for speaking his mind. However, I cannot support the substance of his amendment.

I do not support setting a drop-dead withdrawal date for our troops from Iraq. I do not believe that this is a wise policy. I have called time and time again for the President to begin bringing our troops home. Our troops cannot be brought home overnight.

I also have concerns that this amendment is not strongly tied to the constitutional powers of Congress relating to the conduct of war.

So for these reasons, for as much as I support his efforts to make a change in an ill-defined, open-ended, stay-the-course policy in Iraq, I will not support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

But there are other ways to effect a change in direction. So I rise today to ask that I may be given time to offer another amendment on Iraq.

There is an urgent need for the U.S. Senate to consider as many options as we can to find an exit strategy with honor for our troops. Our country is polarized. The Senate is polarized. And I fear that we have let the usual partisan warfare put blinders, such as we put on horses, on ourselves and on our purpose.

Every Member in this body, I am sure, would like to see a successful end to the war in Iraq. Every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle would like to do something that would speed the return of our troops home to the loving arms of their families.

All of us, regardless of party affiliation, want to do the best thing for our country. And we would all do well to remember that both the President, the Chief Executive, and the Congress have important roles to play when it comes to the most critical decisions that can be made by any government; namely, the decision to go to war and the decision to come home from war.

The American people are dismayed, as they should be, by this conflict in Iraq. I voted against our entry into that war. I voted against the invasion of that country without any provocation toward our country.

Most assuredly, dozens of mistakes have been made and billions of dollars have been spent. Without a doubt, our international reputation has been damaged, and we are losing the support of our own people for a drawn-out commitment in Iraq and more and more loss of precious blood, precious life.

Can we not try one more approach? Can we not? Can we not spend just a little more time on the consideration of a way out of Iraq? Can we not? Can we not? Can we not attempt to speak with one voice on the matter? Is that asking too much?

I have a third way. This is a fresh approach, I believe. It returns Congress's rightful voice to the warmaking power, yet it avoids the pitfalls of usurping the executive branch's role in an ongoing war. It is respectful of the separation of powers, but it does outline a viable exit strategy for Iraq.

The amendment I would like to offer, the amendment I would like to see debated on the Senate floor, is an effort to move the debate over the war in Iraq away from the realm of political mudslinging to the realm of constitutional responsibility.

My amendment is a simple, straightforward approach to laying out a roadmap to bring our troops home from Iraq with honor and dignity, the honor and the dignity which they deserve.

My amendment establishes the policy that the democratically elected Government of Iraq should assume responsibility for its own security. My amendment sets forth the conditions under which the congressional authority to maintain U.S. troops in Iraq would expire.

This amendment is a genuinely fresh approach to unraveling the conundrum of how to disengage the U.S. military from Iraq. My approach does not attempt to micromanage the war. It is not an attempt to set artificial deadlines. It is not based on politically motivated rhetoric. It does not preempt the authority of either the President or the Congress. What it does do is it returns the focus of the debate to the role of Congress in the authorization of war. What my amendment does do is to reassert--yes, reassert--the role of Congress to authorize--or to terminate the authorization of--the use of force.

The conditions under which the Iraq use of force authorization would expire are based on circumstances, not on timetables, and they include the following: When the Government of Iraq assumes responsibility for its own security; or if a multinational peacekeeping force were to assume responsibility for security in Iraq; or if the President certifies that the United States has achieved its objectives in Iraq; or if Congress were to enact a joint resolution to terminate the use of force authority.

Mr. President, the situation in Iraq has undergone seismic changes since the original use-of-force authorization was granted by Congress in October of 2002. Since that time, our troops have completed the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power and paving the way for the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq. The authorization under which the United States sent its military forces into Iraq--which I voted against--is now painfully outdated. So it is time to update that authorization to provide a statutory framework for returning our troops home, and to acknowledge that the war in Iraq does have an end point and is not an open-ended commitment.

Mr. President, it is most important to understand that the amendment I am proposing speaks only to the intent and authority of Congress. So it does not--hear me now--it does not infringe upon, or in any way usurp, the authority of the President. No Senator has to set aside his or her support or opposition to the war in order to support my approach.

But this amendment would send a powerful message to the people of the United States and to the people of Iraq, and especially to the democratically elected Government of Iraq. It would send the powerful message that the United States supports the security of Iraq but does not intend to become a permanent occupying force in Iraq. This is a message that the people of Iraq need to hear. It is a message that the people of the United States need to hear. It is a message that the people of the United States are clamoring to hear. My amendment is a realistic roadmap for the United States to remove its forces from Iraq in an orderly

manner--a manner consistent with our national security interests. It is a legally enforceable formulation that should be embraced by all who are truly concerned with finding a solution to the problems in Iraq, not just using the debate over the war in Iraq as a political football.

Surely, we owe the over 2,500 patriotic souls who have died fighting for our country in Iraq a little more time on this debate. Surely, we can consider the matter of the conflict in Iraq for a few more hours for the sake of the over 18,000 U.S. troops who have been wounded in that country, and the unknown numbers of Iraqi innocents who have been killed or maimed. Surely, we can discuss this matter on a level that is deeper than sloganeering like ``cut and run'' or ``stay the course.''

Mr. President, I hope our two leaders will work together to find a way for the Senate to debate my amendment and allow a vote on its merits.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on June 20, 1863, a new State was added to the Union. Today, 143 years later, we celebrate the birthday of West Virginia. I am always happy to have an excuse to share my love for West Virginia with the rest of the Nation.

The story of West Virginia is unique and fascinating, a one-of-a-kind juxtaposition of geography, history, and politics. It is a story as interesting as the State is beautiful.

The steeply folded mountain ridges that define the southern edge of the State, and her rich mineral and natural treasures that more than made up for her paucity of flat agricultural terrain, defined her early years and set her apart socially and economically from the rest of Virginia. West Virginia's natural attributes attracted a hardy, can-do breed of opportunistic settlers determined to scratch a living for their families from her rocky hillsides. They mined salt and coal, hunted and trapped, and cut small family farms out of the hillsides. These mountaineers had little in common with the gentrified, land- owning and slave-owning plantation masters of eastern Virginia's tidewater and piedmont regions. Thus, even as the issue of slavery began to strain the relations between the Nation's industrial North and her agricultural South, the contrasts within Virginia were sharp.

A child of conflict, West Virginia's birth was surprisingly peaceful. Before the Civil War, the Commonwealth of Virginia was a large State, fraught with its own internal divisions, based

largely on geography and economics. The eastern coastal plains and piedmont regions, with their large plantation economies, had much in common with the secessionist Southern States, while the mountainous Blue Ridge and Appalachian western portions of the State were populated by small farmers and woodsmen who had little use for the practice of slavery. Thus, when the convention was held in Richmond, VA, on April 17, 1861, to decide on Union or secession, the farmers and businessmen of western Virginia held with the North on the slavery question and the eastern half of the State held with the South. The matter was put to a statewide vote. Led by Clarksburg's John S. Carlile, Western delegates marched out of the Secession Convention and vowed to form a State government loyal to the Union.

From May 13-15, 1861, another convention was held, this one in Wheeling. Delegates from western Virginia decided to wait for the results of the statewide vote, which approved Virginia's secession from the Union on May 23. After the statewide vote, it was proposed that delegates from the western counties be elected to a convention to decide the matter for themselves. The convention, conducted in Wheeling from June 11-25, 1861, established a Restored, or Reorganized Government of Virginia. Francis H. Pierpont was elected Governor. President Lincoln recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate government of Virginia, and senators and representatives were chosen to represent the pro-Union Virginia.

In October 1861, residents of 39 counties in western Virginia approved the formation of a new Unionist State. A Constitutional Convention met in Wheeling from November 1861 to February 1862. At the convention, delegates selected counties to be included in the new State. In all, 50 counties were selected. Five additional West Virginia counties--Mineral, Grant, Lincoln, Summers, and Mingo--were formed after statehood to bring the total number of counties in West Virginia to its current 55.

Some eastern and southern counties did not support statehood but were included in the new State for political, military, or economic reasons. The mountain range west of the Blue Ridge became the eastern border of the new State, to provide a natural barrier to a Confederate invasion which many feared. The secessionist Eastern Panhandle counties were included in order to control the important Baltimore and Ohio railroad line. The inclusion of secessionist counties in the new State made for a certain amount of tension and any number of fascinating war stories.

Perhaps the most interesting war story involves the proclamation of West Virginia as a State. The U.S. Constitution requires that a new State gain approval for its establishment from the original State, which did not happen in the case of West Virginia. Virginia had seceded from the Union and was not, in any case, receptive to the idea of losing any part of its territory to the Union. Since President Lincoln had recognized the Restored Government of Virginia as the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862, to form the State of West Virginia.

The U.S. Congress approved the West Virginia statehood bill after amending it to assure that another slave State was not created. The Senate passed the West Virginia Statehood Act on July 14, 1862, and on December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives followed suit. President Lincoln signed the bill into law on December 31, 1862. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the 50 counties approved the statehood bill, and on June 20, West Virginia was officially established. The Restored Government of Virginia, with Pierpont continuing as Governor, moved to Alexandria, VA, from Wheeling, now that Wheeling was no longer in Virginia but in West Virginia.

The naming of West Virginia was also up for debate. Several possibilities were debated, including Kanawha, New Virginia, Western Virginia, Alleghany, Columbia, and Augusta, before the name of West Virginia was adopted by a majority of 30 votes. The runner up was Kanawha, which garnered just nine votes, including that of Mister James Henry Brown of Kanawha.

Mr. President, these few facts are but a drop of water in the lake of West Virginia's history. I invite the Nation to come and discover more in person. Our history runs deep, from the fossils hidden in the coal seams and rocks to the misnamed New River, which is, ironically, among the oldest rivers on the continent. There are historic sites across the State from frontier forts to Revolutionary War and Civil War battlegrounds.

West Virginia boasts an extensive park system that preserves the natural beauty of the State for all to enjoy. Fairs and festivals celebrate food from apple butter, blackberries, ramps, grapes, molasses and maple syrup. Sternwheelers, dulcimers, and even George Washington's bathtub merit their own festivals. People are not ignored, either, as festivals celebrate pioneers and indians, Black history and Celtic culture, as well as the heritage of counties and countries from Ireland to Italy, Greece to Lebanon. Music, from Appalachian string bands to bluegrass to gospel, comes in for its share of the fun. And the great natural treasures of West Virginia are not forgotten. There are festivals and jubilees for trees, rivers, birds, mountains, marble, coal, oil and gas, and even monarch butterflies. One can hardly mention West Virginia without thinking of the State's great craftsmen and women, renowned for stunning handmade products that are featured in many fairs and festivals as well as being available throughout the State in galleries and studios. Quilts, carvings, paintings, pottery and glass are but a few of the selections.

Larger commercial firms are also famous for their fine artistry. In honor of West Virginia's birthday, each year the Blenko Glass Company of Milton, WV, produces a limited number of special edition pieces--the number equaling the number of years the State is celebrating. The 2006 edition consists of 143 glass vases, each 11 inches high in a blending jungle green base that fades to a topaz gold mouth, rimmed in cobalt. The beautiful commemorative vase this year was designed by Hank Murta Adams. What a lovely way to mark a special day.

West Virginia is a special place. It may seem a little out of the way, but it is surprisingly close to many of the population centers on the east coast. It is full of quiet, peaceful spots--small towns with friendly people and breathtaking vistas of scenic beauty. It has churches and music, small farms and mills, rushing whitewater and still ponds. West Virginia is a place for family exploration, a place where it is easy to pull off the road and reenter the past, to stop and meet a craftsman at work, or just to eat a sandwich under a shady tree beside a cool stream. The more adventurous families might enjoy some of the whitewater rafting that West Virginia is famous for, or rock climbing, or paddling a canoe down a river canyon while watching for eagles overhead. You do not need to go on a crowded, canned cruise or to a hot, line-filled amusement park to find enjoyment. Just come to West Virginia and you will learn to love it as I do.

Roy Lee Harmon wrote a poem about West Virginia that I would like to close with. Roy Lee Harmon was from Boone County and lived in Beckley for many years. He held the post of State Poet Laureate from 1937 until 1978, some 41 years, becoming the Poet Laureate Emeritus in 1979. He wrote six books of poetry before he died in 1981. In his last book, published in 1978, he noted that after suffering from a long illness, when he died, ``I shall thank God of all creation who has allowed me to live so long in my beloved hills of West Virginia and write my poems.'' I wish the State and all of her inhabitants, my beloved Mountaineers, best wishes for another year of happiness in their mountain fastness. Happy Birthday, West Virginia, and may God continue to bless you for another 143 years.

West Virginia

This was no land for lily-fingered men

Who bowed and danced a neat quadrille,

In towns and cities far beyond the ken

Of mountaineers--who loved each rock and rill.

It was a place for lean, tall men with love

For freedom flowing strongly in their veins,

For those attuned to vagrant stars above,

To rugged peaks, deep snows, and June-time rains.

And so our State was whelped in time of strife

And cut its teeth upon a cannon ball;

Its heritage was cleaner, better life,

Within the richest storehouse of them all.

With timber, oil and gas and salt and coal,

It bargained in the world's huge marketplace.

The mountain empire reached a mighty goal;

It never ran a pauper's sordid race.

And best of all, it sire a hardy flock

Whose fame will grow with centuries to be,

Tough as a white-oak stump or limestone rock,

The mountaineers who always shall be free.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, banks of day lilies are celebrating their brief moments of glory as they turn their vibrant orange faces to the sun. The days are warm and mellow, not too hot for working in the garden or in the yard. The evenings linger, fading slowly into velvet nights filled with the trill of crickets, the sparkle of lightning bugs and the soft songs of whippoorwills. These are perfect evenings to spend on a country porch, watching the day slide into night. Late spring, almost summer--it is a lovely time of year.

On Sunday, June 18, the Nation will celebrate Father's Day. Father's Day does not arrive with quite the same fanfare as Mother's Day. To be sure, stores have been busy reminding us to shop for Father's Day, and the racks are full of Father's Day cards, but there doesn't seem to be the same level of intensity as that which surrounds Mother's Day. The long distance lines will not be as busy. Florists will not be swamped with orders. But fathers around the country will be treated to brunch or to some other family gathering. They will open presents of golf shirts, ties, or cologne bought by family members frustrated because dad always just buys what he really wants whenever he wants it. He is forgiven for this fault only because his family is fairly sure that dad is unaware of the approach of any holiday, including Father's Day. Of course, fathers will put their dramatic skills to the test in order to express their gratitude. The comedian Bill Cosby famously once said, ``Fatherhood is pretending the present you love most is `soap-on-a- rope.' ''

This is not to say that Nation does not appreciate men. Far from it. We observe the birthdays of our Founding Fathers. We celebrate the fathers and other men who brave the terrors of distant battlefields to defend the Nation. We have monuments and parks, schools and mountains named after men who have won battles, made important discoveries, or who have contributed to the growth and prosperity of our Nation. But rarely, if ever, are these memorials dedicated to the important role that men play in their own families. The role that fathers play in the lives of their children, in helping to shape the future of the Nation, certainly merits this one day of recognition. The poet William Wordsworth observed: ``Father!--to God himself we cannot give a holier name.''

Fathers carry a heavy load of duty, responsibility and worry. Every day, and during many sleepless nights, they worry about big things, like the state of the economy or the impact of trade agreements on their jobs. Will they be able to support their families and make their mortgages on time? Will they keep their job or lose it to an overseas competitor? Is their pension secure? Will they have health care--not for themselves, for men are not very good about going to the doctor regularly, but for their families. Fathers also worry about small details, like oil level in the lawn mower or that suspicious drip under the sink. Is the prime interest rate going up or down, and how will that affect their ability to pay the monthly bills? Everything that can affect their families is a concern for fathers, who take their role as providers for their families very seriously, indeed.

By June 18, children are out of school at last. In days past, that would mean long summer days to while away with swimming and in play, and idle hours spent reading a book in the shade. In today's world, however, summer vacation for children out of school is often a headache for families with two working parents. Summer becomes instead a scheduling nightmare of day camps or sitters, or of latchkey kids who must spend the day indoors behind lock and key because there is no adult available to supervise their play. Instead of two working parents meaning a better life, today two working parents may as easily signal a family working hard just to keep up. Many fathers endure long commutes between work and home so that their families can live in a nicer neighborhood than those same fathers did growing up. Fathers are often portrayed as workaholics who live for their jobs and who see families as a minor annoyance, if they notice them at all. In truth, fathers worry about their jobs because they fear that, if they do not concentrate on their work,

they will lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their families. Today's economy is too uncertain, too volatile, and too global to take for granted.

This Father's Day, so many fathers are in harm's way in Afghanistan or in Iraq facing daily dangers that have already taken too many other fathers from their wives and children. To them and to their families, I offer my prayers of thanks and of safekeeping. May God bring them safely home. The families for whom this Father's Day will be a mix of loving remembrance and painful loss, I can offer only the comforting words of sympathy and the acknowledgment of their sad, sad loss. These fathers in heaven, for there they surely are, still have an important place in the family. Like all fathers, they teach by example. In this case, their example is one of bravery and sacrifice, patriotism and service.

Clarence Budington Kelland once wrote of his father: ``He didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.'' These fathers in uniform, like good fathers everywhere, teach by the example of their own lives. ``The words that a father speaks to his children in the privacy of home are not heard by the world, but, as in whispering- galleries, they are clearly heard at the end and by posterity.'' Jean Paul Richter made that observation, and that truism captures the essence of a father's importance. Each day they gird themselves for battle, whether that battle be in Iraq or in an office or a factory. They go, and they return. They do not complain, or at least not much, about how much time they must spend away from home. They simply do the best that they can for their families, day after day, year after year. They love their children. They play with them when they can. They monitor schoolwork and behavior. They set standards and measure performance. They mete out discipline. They scrutinize their children's friends. They say ``yes'' as often as they say ``no.'' Good fathers participate in all aspects of their children's lives.

Our families are our Nation's greatest resource and greatest treasure. I am proud each year to take a few minutes to recognize the critical role of mothers and fathers on the days set aside for each of them. It reminds me to think always of how families are affected by the votes I cast here in the Senate. The votes we cast here affect the lives and well being of mothers and fathers and families. We need to make life easier for families, not harder. We should not send fathers into battle without good cause. We should not add to the burden of debt without good cause. Our spending decisions should add to the prosperity and well-being of the Nation and our families, first and foremost.

I close with a favorite poem of mine, one that I often recite for Father's Day. I learned it as young boy, and the words and the lesson have come to mean more to me with each passing year:

That Dad of Mine

He's slowing down, as some folks say,

With the burden of years from day to day;

His brow bears many a furrowed line;

He's growing old--that dad of mine.

His shoulders droop, and his step is slow;

And his hair is white, as white as snow;

But his kind eyes sparkle with a friendly light;

His smile is warm, and his heart is right.

He's old? Oh, yes. But only in years,

For his spirit soars as the sunset nears.

And blest I've been, and wealth I've had,

In knowing a man like my old dad.

And proud I am to stand by him,

As he stood by me when the way was dim;

I've found him worthy and just as fine,

A prince of men--that dad of mine.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would bring the total amount of funds appropriated for the war in Iraq to $318 billion. That is $318 for every minute--every minute--since Jesus Christ was born. Think of it. That is a staggering amount of money. The total amount of funds appropriated for the war in Iraq is $318 billion. But that is not the whole story.

According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, the monthly cost of the war in Iraq is going up, up, up, right into the stratosphere.

During the opening phases of the war, the cost of the war was estimated to be $4.4 billion per month. According to the new CRS estimates, that pricetag will rise to an average of $8.1 billion for each month of the next year $8.1 billion. In other words, $8.10, or more, for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. How can this be? How is it that after 3 years of war the cost of operations in Iraq has gone up by 80 percent?

Part of the problem is that funding for the war is being hidden--yes, hidden. Where is it?--hidden from the normal budget authorization and appropriations process. Instead of the President providing Congress with an estimate of how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--there are two of them--how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost each year, the administration has chosen to hide those costs. Where? In emergency spending bills.

Since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, the Congress has enacted eight emergency supplemental appropriations bills. None of these measures received the full scrutiny--the full scrutiny--that is so necessary for such massive expenditures. The President refuses to include the full cost of these wars in his regular budget request. Instead, the President sends to the Congress emergency requests with little or no detailed justification.

Five times I have offered amendments in the Senate urging the President to budget for the cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five times. And five times those amendments have been approved, most recently on April 24, 2006, by a unanimous vote--hear me, a unanimous vote--of 94 to 0. However, the White House has shown no sign that it will take the fiscally responsible course of beginning to budget for the cost of the wars.

There are two wars going on. One, I supported the war in Afghanistan. The other war in Iraq, I did not support our invasion of Iraq for constitutional reasons.

I am pleased to work with my colleague, Senator McCain, to build on my previous efforts to urge the administration to budget for the war. We are there. We are in there. Our men and women are there, and we are going to support them. I didn't support the policies that sent them there, but I support them, the men and women, our men and women who are over there.

The amendment before the Senate, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would create a requirement in law to force the administration to give a full year's estimate of the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is wrong with that? The amendment before the Senate, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would create a requirement in law--a requirement in law--to force the administration to give a full year's estimate of the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The amendment also requires the administration to submit a detailed justification of the administration's budget request. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I expect that this justification would include a breakdown of the funding request by each appropriations account and detailed information about prior years' war spending. The very last thing that Congress wants to see is a gargantuan request of scores of billions of dollars in the form of a slush fund or a no-strings-attached transfer account.

This is the people's money. Do my colleagues know that? Think about it. Whose money is this that we are talking about? It is the people's money, those people out there who are watching this Senate through those lenses. That is their money, the people's money that we are talking about, and the American public has the right to demand accountability.

With this amendment, the Senate is charging a fiscally responsible course which can generate a real debate on the cost of these wars. That is a debate that is long overdue--long overdue--and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Flag Day

Mr. President, ``Hats off! Hats off! The flag is passing by. Hats off! The flag is passing by.''

Those are the powerful words of Henry Holcomb Bennett in his stirring poem, ``The Flag Goes By.''

I recite those words because today, this day, is June 14, Flag Day. Yes, Flag Day. There by the President's desk, that flag. This day is Flag Day, the day that Americans pause to celebrate and show our respect for our great national emblem, the American flag. This, unfortunately, is not a Federal holiday but, in my opinion, is one of the most important days of the year. This is a day filled with so much meaning, so much symbolism, so much history.

It was on June 14, 1777, that the Continental Congress adopted the Flag Act that established the official flag of the United States of America. The 13 Colonies assembled in the Continental Congress took this action because they understood the need for a symbol of our national unity.

During the early days of the American Revolution, the Colonial Armies were fighting under the banners of their individual Colonies or, in some cases, of their local militia units. The banner of New England, for example, was the Liberty Tree. Do you remember the Liberty Tree? It showed a green pine tree on a field of white, with the words ``An Appeal To Heaven.'' Oh, the Liberty Tree, which showed a green pine tree on a field of white, with the words ``An Appeal To Heaven.'' The Minutemen from Culpepper County, VA waved a flag with a coiled rattlesnake which carried the motto ``Liberty or Death'' and the warning ``Don't Tread on Me.'' The flag of militia units in Charleston, SC proclaimed ``Liberty'' in white letters on a field of blue.

This diversity of flags seemed to reflect a lack of unity among the Colonies. Feeling the need to establish a symbol of national unity, on June 14, 1777, 229 years ago today, the Congress resolved:

That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen

stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen

stars, white in a blue field, representing a new

constellation.

Mr. President, I have always been impressed with the wisdom and the foresight of the Founders of our country, and here again, we can see their brilliance. The simplicity of that chosen pattern, alternating stripes and crisp new stars, white stars on a field of blue, allowed our flag to evolve along with the ever-changing map of America. The flag they chose has become the most visible symbol of our Nation. The flag they chose has become our most beloved and respected national icon. That flag symbolizes our Nation's strength, our Nation's honor, our Nation's ideals, and our national purpose. It recognizes our glorious past while it celebrates a more glorious future.

Legends abound regarding who actually created the first American flag.

The American Naval hero John Paul Jones and Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, have both been cited as possible creators, as has John Hulbert of Long Island, NY. Tradition, of course, generally attributes the first flag to Betsy Ross. I like to believe in that version of the story, because it appeals to my sense of the American spirit and to my belief that each and every citizen has a responsibility to our Nation. It is a story of the powerful father of our country visiting a humble needle woman in her house and asking her to undertake the monumental task of making the first American flag.

Whoever created the first flag, within a few months of its unveiling, the flag was under fire for the first time in the battles of Bennington and Brandywine. A few months later, on November 1, 1777, our national banner went to sea for the first time when Captain John Paul Jones set sail in his sloop, the ``Ranger,'' from Portsmouth, NH, for France. When the French fleet saluted his ship off the coast of that country on February 14, 1778, it marked the first time that foreign vessels had acknowledged the American flag. With the winning of independence in 1783, the American flag was recognized as the banner of the United States of America throughout the world.

Twenty years later that flag was under fire again, this time in the War of 1812. On the night of September 13, 1814, British ships on their way to Baltimore, not far from here, bombarded Fort McHenry, which blocked their entry. When morning came--yes, when morning came, the star spangled banner was still waving, revealing to Francis Scott Key that the enemy had failed to penetrate the American lines of defense. Impressed by this awesome, awesome, glorious sight, Francis Scott Key was inspired to write the immortal lyrics that Congress later adopted as our National Anthem.

How we all love to recall the stirring words from the second stanza.

'Tis the Star-Spangled Banner: O long may it wave O'er the

land of the free and the home of the brave.

In 1824 came that eventful day in Salem, MA, when a group of women presented a beautiful 12- by 24-foot flag to Sea Captain William Driver, who was about to embark upon a global voyage. After the flag was hoisted from the ship's masthead, Captain Driver looked at the flag waving so heroically in the wind, and he exclaimed, ``Old, Glory! Old Glory!'' Ever since that time, the name has been used to symbolize our love and our respect for our national emblem.

There it is, Old Glory.

In our dangerous and uncertain world, Old Glory has always been there. It was there before you were born, before I was born--yes. It was there, always there, guiding us, inspiring us, giving us hope as well as direction.

President Woodrow Wilson--I was born during his administration-- President Woodrow Wilson once remarked, ``Though silent, it speaks to us.'' How right he was. Its mere presence stirs emotions. Look at it there by the President's desk. Its mere presence--there it stands--its mere presence stirs emotions.

The flag embodies our ideals of freedom, justice, and brotherhood, values that are deeply rooted in the best of our political and spiritual emotions and traditions. The flag means home, the safety and security of home, and tells us that freedom still lives in this land we love.

The flag symbolizes our values and ideals as well as our power, our economic and military might. The flag rallies the courage of American men and women and children.

Our flag has been a guide and an inspiration to our Armed Forces. It has inspired our men and women to deeds of valor and sacrifice. Who can think of the American flag without thinking of the marines heroically planting that flag on top of Iwo Jima during World War II or American astronauts planting it on the moon or those New York City firefighters hoisting the American flag in the rubble of the Trade Towers on September 11, 2001?

Flag Day was first officially observed in 1877 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the selection of the American flag. For the next 70 years, people and movements across the country promoted efforts to establish a national Flag Day. In one of those attempts, Congressman Joseph Goulden of New York, in 1914, introduced legislation to make June 14 a national holiday, to celebrate Flag Day. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Goulden explained:

We would honor ourselves by making it a holiday. I think

the love and devotion we all have for the flag and what it

represents will tend to make us better citizens.

And so it was on August 3, 1949, that Congress approved a joint resolution that designated June 14 as Flag Day, in commemoration of the adoption of the flag of the United States by the Continental Congress.

How glad I am that Congress took this action. The American flag sums up all the best of our Nation, all that is good and decent in America. Throughout our history, it has transcended our differences. It has affirmed our common bond as a people and our solemn unity as a Nation.

Unfortunately and tragically, some people will always try to use this national icon to stir disunity. This is a shame and a sham because, above everything else, our flag is representative of our national unity:

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and

justice for all.

``Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,'' those words, of course, come from the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, our oath to generations past and future that we stand together as one great Nation. Think of how often throughout the course of the history of our country, our Nation, citizens have risen, hands over their hearts, and uttered those words together, knowing that their destinies were interwoven. We are bound together like the threads that form the fabric of that flag. We should put our energies to strengthening that bond, not unraveling it.

That pledge to our flag was originally written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy and was first used at the dedication of the World Fair in Chicago. The pledge initially read:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which

it stands, one nation indivisible--with liberty and justice

for all.

The original wording was altered slightly in 1923 and 1924. In 1954-- and I was there in the House of Representatives when Congress added the phrase ``under God'' to the pledge, which President Eisenhower explained:

In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of

religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way

we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which

forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace

and in war.

That was Dwight Eisenhower.

As a result, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag now reads:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of

America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So on this birthday of Old Glory, Flag Day, 2006, I join with my colleagues and my fellow citizens in urging that we protect the American flag as a force to unite us, not as a tool to divide us. As Henry Holcomb Bennett says in his poem, ``more than a flag is passing by.''

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,

A flash of color beneath the sky:

Hats off! The flag is passing by!

Blue and crimson and white it shines,

Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.

Hats off!

The colors before us fly;

But more than the flag is passing by.

Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great,

Fought to make and to save the State:

Weary marches and sinking ships;

Cheers of victory on dying lips;

Days of plenty and years of peace;

March of a strong land's swift increase;

Equal justice, right and law,

Stately honor and reverend awe;

Sign of a nation, great and strong

To ward her people from foreign wrong:

Pride and glory and honor, all

Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;

And loyal hearts are beating high:

Hats off!

The flag is passing by!

Happy birthday, Old Glory. Long may you wave. ``O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.''

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished--yes, very distinguished Senator from the great State of Virginia.

Mr. President, the Senate will vote today to commend the U.S. Armed Forces for their efforts in Iraq. I will support this amendment, as I have supported other amendments and resolutions to commend our military personnel serving overseas for their service and commitment. I oppose the policy that sent our troops to Iraq, but I stand by our servicemen and servicewomen 100 percent.

However, I am concerned that the amendment may have unintended consequences. Previous statements that boast of substantial victories in Iraq have been proven wrong at the cost of American lives. Declaring victory because of the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could be a costly mistake. I agree with the President's comment on June 9, 2006, in which he said, ``I don't want the American people to think that a war is won with the death of one person.''

Our troops are still facing daily attacks in Iraq. I thank them for their service, and I am particularly proud of the efforts of the West Virginia National Guard in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other locations around the world. Instead of seeking a lofty sounding but largely meaningless resolution from the Congress, the President should instead be working to send Congress a plan to start bringing our troops home with the honor and the thanks they have earned from this grateful Nation.

Reserving the right to object.

I wonder if my friend from Massachusetts, who was engaged when that request was made, has anything in response?

Will the Senator yield, whoever has the floor?

I simply thank the very distinguished Senator from Virginia for his response to the request and his willingness to withhold his unanimous consent request for the time being. I thank him.

Reserving the right to object.

I am only reserving the right to object. I hope we would have just a little while to talk about this. I am very much opposed to this. But I read the tea leaves very well. If the Senator would just desist for the time being, please?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I want to thank the very able Senator who has just spoken for his service to the Nation and to this body. I thank the very able chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Thad Cochran, for all of his meticulous--meticulous--work on this bill.

The President asked the Congress to approve $92.2 billion of emergency spending and $2.3 billion to combat pandemic flu. When the committee opened its hearings on the supplemental on March 7, I stated my belief that it is our duty--our duty--to scrutinize the President's request, not only for what is in it, but also for what is not in it.

The conference report that is before us includes $65.7 billion for the Department of Defense to fund the wars--and there are two of them going on--two wars: the war in Iraq, to which I was opposed, and I feel I was right, and in Afghanistan, which I supported; I support that war, and I supported that war from the beginning in Afghanistan--an amount said to be sufficient to prosecute those wars and supply our troops.

Upon passage of this legislation, the total amount appropriated for the war in Iraq, including the cost of reconstruction, will be $318 billion--$318 billion. That is $318 for every minute that has passed-- every minute--$318 for every minute since Jesus Christ, praise the Lord, was born. That is a lot of money. Mr. President, $318 for every minute that has passed since Jesus Christ was born 2,000 years ago. That is a staggering figure. And what is even more unbelievable is that the monthly cost of this war in Iraq, which I have opposed from the beginning, has been steadily escalating from $5 billion per month in 2004 to more than $8 billion per month now.

The American people--hey, those people who are out there in the prairies, in the Rocky Mountains, in the lands between Washington, DC, and the Rocky Mountains--they are all asking: How on Earth has the monthly cost of the war in Iraq grown so much in just 2 years? The Bush administration announced that major combat operations ended in May of 2001. Remember that? The banner that we saw on the ship? Let me repeat. The Bush administration announced that major combat operations ended in May of 2003. But the costs of the war continue to spiral. How can that be? Why? Why? This administration does not want to answer these questions. Instead, the administration continues to request funds for these wars--two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. The administration continues to request funds for the wars through ad hoc emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

Regrettably, the Congress continues to duck for cover. Since the President took us to war in Iraq in 2003, the Congress has approved eight different emergency supplemental appropriations measures to fund the wars--eight. None of those measures received the full scrutiny that is required of such massive expenditures. You know it. I know it. We know it. Everybody should know it. The President refuses to include the full costs of these wars in his regular budget request. Instead, he sends the Congress emergency requests with little or no detailed justification.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this President has requested $515 billion of emergency spending--yes, you heard me, $515 billion of emergency spending that does not appear in the budget. This conference report includes language that I authored, urging the President to put the full costs of the wars in his annual budget. This is the fifth time the Congress has approved such a provision.

My amendment was approved 94 to 0. It is time for the President to get the message. The administration's failure to budget for the wars means that neither the White House nor the Congress is making the tough decisions about how to make the most of public funds to pay for the ongoing wars.

Tales of waste abound. Our troops deserve better treatment, as do you, the American people out there. I am pleased that the conference agreement includes $35.6 million for improved mine safety and health programs. Since January of this year there have been 19 coal mining deaths in the State of West Virginia, and another 14 mining deaths in the States of Kentucky, Alabama, Maryland, and Utah. This conference report will ensure that an adequate number of safety inspectors will be provided for our Nation's mines and will expedite the introduction of critical safety equipment into the mines. These are critical dollars which will begin to fill the gaps, the unacceptable gaps at the Federal Mine Safety Agency. There are too few inspectors, there is too much out-of-date safety technology, there are too many unprepared rescue teams, and the litany of problems at the Federal Mine Safety Agency goes on while the lives of our Nation's coal miners continue to be at risk.

In the past 5 years at the Mine Safety Agency, safety has taken a back seat. At least 217 coal safety inspector jobs have been eliminated--wiped out. The political leadership at MSHA puts protecting miners' lives on the back burner.

We have a moral obligation to make our coal mines safer. This funding will jump-start the job of protecting our coal miners' lives and providing some peace of mind to the coal miners' families.

I know how those families feel. I grew up in a coal miner's home. My wife's father was a coal miner. You are looking at somebody who speaks the coal miner's language. I do. Coal mine safety should not take a back seat to coal production. Protecting the lives of our coal miners has to be job No. 1 in the mines.

I cannot find the words to adequately express my heartfelt appreciation for the support of Chairman Thad Cochran of Mississippi and the other Senate conferees, particularly Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, for their cooperation. With this funding and with the recent approval of the mine safety authorization bill, Congress will have given clear, unmistakable direction to the administration. The safety of our coal mines and the brave miners who work in them must be paramount, uppermost. I will say that once more. The safety of our coal mines and the brave miners, men and women, who work in the coal mines must be paramount.

With regard to funding required to recover from the gulf coast hurricanes, the chairman of our Senate Appropriations Committee took the bull by the horns. Under Senator Thad Cochran's leadership, the Senate added $9.2 billion to the President's budget request to aid the victims of the hurricanes. In addition, the Senate added funds to meet pressing emergency needs for drought relief, port security, the security of U.S. borders, and much needed

medical care for the Nation's veterans. Sadly, the President, our President, threw down the gauntlet and threatened--yes, threatened--to veto the bill. The White House insisted that $14 billion of what it called low-priority items be dropped from the bill. As a result, the Republican leadership of the House and Senate sat down with White House staff and agreed to drop from the bill emergency disaster drought relief for our farmers, funding for critical veterans' medical services, and funding for increased security at the U.S. ports. Over $9 billion of critical funding for the victims of the hurricanes--over $9 billion--has been eliminated, including housing assistance, education assistance, and transportation funds. Where are our priorities?

Instead, this administration has put its highest priority not on disaster needs but on massive tax cuts to the tune of $254 billion for 2006, tax cuts--yes, hear me, tax cuts at a time when the Nation is at war and spending on that war is on the order of $8 billion per month. That is like spending $8 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born-- $8 for every 60 seconds since our Lord Jesus Christ was born.

The administration continues to have a huge credibility gap when it comes to homeland security. There is a continuing drumbeat that another terrorist attack is likely.

Yet once again the administration is trying to secure the homeland on the cheap.

The White House insisted that the conferees strip away $648 million for port security and $600 million for the Coast Guard from the bill. Take it out. The administration's speechwriters and the administration's policywriters seem to be living in different worlds.

How serious is the administration about port security when the administration decides to allow Dubai Ports World to operate six major U.S. ports before the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security were made aware of the decision? Who is in charge? Who is in charge? What a fiasco.

How serious are we about port security when Customs inspects only 5 percent of the 11 million containers that come into the country each year? How serious are we about port security when the Coast Guard inspects only one-third of foreign ports that trade with the United States? Yet at the insistence of the White House--hear me now--at the insistence of the White House $648 million for port security is eliminated--gone, gone with the wind.

With regard to border security, the administration continues to be a day late and a dollar short. They opposed my efforts--this little boy from the hills of West Virginia--yes. The administration continues to be a day late and a dollar short. They opposed my efforts last year to add funds for border security. How about that--your security, border security.

Fortunately, Chairman Gregg, the great Senator from New Hampshire--I like him. No, he is not a Democrat. What difference does that make? I like him.

Fortunately, Chairman Gregg and our House counterparts agreed--yes, that old boy from the mountains--agreed with me, and we now have 1,500 more Border Patrol agents. We now have 1,500 more Border Patrol agents and 581 more immigration investigators and agents, and 1,950 more detention beds.

On May 18, 3 weeks after the Senate adopted the comprehensive Gregg- Byrd border security amendment, the White House sent up its own border security package. Rather than following our lead--Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd--the White House insisted on reducing the package for the Department of Homeland Security by $728 million--that isn't chicken feed--and narrowing the focus to just the Southwest border.

While some may view border security through a microscope, Chairman Judd Gregg and I share the view that when the border is tightened in one place, the threat will move elsewhere. We should anticipate that inevitable dynamic so that our border enforcement agencies will have the tools to effectively do their jobs when they need those tools, not 2 or 3 years from now. Yet the President requested no funds--no funds, none--for the Coast Guard and no funds--none--for the northern border.

Just few days ago, 17 alleged terrorists were apprehended in Toronto, Canada. This ought to have served as a wake-up call to all of us that the threat to this country is not only on our Southwest border but on all of our borders.

Regrettably, the President had his way in conference. While I appreciate that we have another $1.2 billion for border security, I worry that the funds are not based on a sound plan for border security.

In conference, Chairman Thad Cochran offered an amendment to establish a limit on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2007. He did so to expedite the consideration of the appropriations measure through the Senate in the absence of a final budget resolution. Chairman Thad Cochran and I share the goal of debating in the Senate and sending to the President 12 individual, fiscally responsible appropriations bills.

I support setting clear, enforceable limits on the spending contained in the appropriations bills. The issue is: At what level should we cap spending? Chairman Thad Cochran presented to the conference a deeming resolution that would limit spending to $872.8 billion, the level proposed by the President.

Once again, the President's budget represents an irresponsible plan that trades America's long-term future for short-term political gain. If the Congress approves the President's request for Defense and Homeland Security, the President's budget will fall $14 billion short of what is needed for domestic programs, just to keep pace with inflation.

The President proposes the largest cut to education funding in the 26-year history of the Education Department, $2.1 billion or a 4 percent reduction. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children.

How are we going to compete in the global marketplace unless our young people have the tools they need?

Although we have thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, the President wants to collect $795 million in new or increased fees charged to whom? To our veterans to pay for whose health care? Their health care. He also proposes $800 million of additional fees for the health care of military retirees. What a way to say thank you to our dedicated troops.

The President proposes a level of funding for Amtrak that will force it into bankruptcy. The logic behind that decision totally escapes me. With gas prices soaring, why would we want to eliminate a major provider of public transportation?

At a time when we are facing record energy prices, our President is also proposing a $1.4 billion cut in funds for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. What a farce.

Despite the fact that the White House continues to raise the specter of another terrorist attack, the President proposes to cut first responder grants by 25 percent. The President proposes to cut fire grants by 55 percent. These are just more examples of budgeting in a closet.

This week the FBI announced that in 2005 this country had the largest increase in violent crime in 15 years. And yet the President proposes to cut grants for State and local law enforcement by over $1.2 billion.

So may I say that while our President talks a good game on investing in alternative energy supplies, his budget includes only half of the funds necessary to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

To complicate matters even more, the President has proposed that the Appropriations Committees approve $7.4 billion of new user fees and changes in mandatory law, most of which are not even under the jurisdiction of the committees. For example, the President wants us to approve a $1.2 billion increase in the ticket tax charged airline passengers. At a time when the airlines are already facing financial difficulties, this is folly, pure folly. If there is one lesson that we 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, FEMA was no longer up to the task when Hurricane Katrina hit.

After 5 years of starving domestic agencies, I wonder which other agencies will be the next FEMA. Will it be the Coast Guard? Will it be the Food and Drug Administration's ability to approve safe drugs or the ability of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to protect food supplies?

I offered an amendment in conference to modify the amendment offered by Chairman Cochran to increase discretionary spending for fiscal year 2007. One of the amendments was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 15-13 to increase spending by $7 billion.

Sadly, the White House and the House majority leader objected to the inclusion of the deeming resolution as modified by my bipartisan amendment. The conference report that is before the Senate, therefore, limits total discretionary spending to the President's stingy--too stingy--$872.8 billion request.

At this funding level, the Senate will have little choice but to starve Federal agencies of the resources they need to responsibly meet the needs of the American people. That means relegating people's needs to the bottom of the barrel.

The White House got what it wanted in this conference report. Less money for the victims of the hurricane, less money for drought relief, less money for key border security programs, no money for port security, and a ``cheap Charlie'' limit on other domestic spending.

The President has just made a surprise visit to Baghdad.

Let me say that again. Today, a little while ago, the President made a surprise visit to Baghdad. That is all right. Supporting our troops is very important. However, I have to ask, when will the President be visiting American ports to determine if they are safe?

When will the President visit American farms that have been devastated by drought?

When will the President meet with our Governors, our mayors, our police chiefs to understand why violent crime is on the rise?

When will the President visit our Nation's hospitals to learn why health care in this country is unaffordable?

When will the President visit our Nation's campuses to learn why the cost of a college education has grown 57 percent during his administration, while the level of Pell grants has been frozen for 5 years?

When will he start to look and listen to the voices of American citizens who want a leader for their future here at home?

We now have appropriated $318 billion for the war in Iraq while America's needs go begging. I wonder if the President will ever ask himself about the consequences of that choice.

While I have serious reservations about what has been dropped from the conference report, the conference report that is before the Senate provides essential resources for our troops and help for hurricane relief. Therefore, I will support the adoption of the conference report.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I do.