Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

In my continuing series of statements on the idea of a Senate, I refer today to the necessity of the Senate in the Federal Government by James Madison in the Federalist 62, 1787.

Was the Senate really necessary? Was a Senate really necessary? Since the American Revolution, the United States had operated under a single body legislature, but the Framers of the Constitution created both a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Writing in the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 letters, written to newspapers in support of the Constitution's ratification, James Madison explained the unique nature of the Senate and the cautious deliberative role that it would play in the American Government.

Federalist 62:

The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished

from those of representatives, consists in a more advanced

age and a longer period of citizenship. . . . The propriety

of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the

senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of

information and stability of character, requires at the same

time, that the senator should have reached a period of life

most likely to supply these advantages . . .

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of

senators by the State legislatures. . . . It is recommended

by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and

of giving to the State governments such an agency in the

formation of the federal government. . . .

The equality of representation in the Senate is another

point, which, being evidently the result of compromise

between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small

States, does not call for much discussion. . . .

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote

allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition

of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual

States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary

sovereignty. . . .

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the

constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it

must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or

resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first,

of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the

States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check

on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as

beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves

in favour of the smaller States would be more rational, if

any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the

other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger.

But as the larger States will always be able, by their power

over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this

prerogative of the lesser States; and as the facility and

excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our

governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this

part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice,

than it appears to many in contemplation. . . .

. . . The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by

the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to

yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to

be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and

pernicious resolutions. . . . All that need be remarked is,

that a body which is to correct this infirmity, ought itself

to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less

numerous. It ought moreover to possess great firmness, and

consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of

considerable duration. . . .

. . . The mutability in the public councils, arising from a

rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may

be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of

some stable institution in the government.

On September 17, 1787, the 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, meeting in Philadelphia, signed the new Federal Constitution. They agreed that the new Constitution, intended to replace the Articles of Confederation, would take effect when it gained ratification by 9 of the 13 States.

To overcome suspicion and outright opposition, supporters of the Constitution needed to convince Americans of the wisdom of the new plan. In the weeks and months that followed, newspapers throughout the States printed opinion pieces that both praised and condemned the proposed Federal structure. Most prominent among these propaganda pieces was a series of letters written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Signed ``Publius,'' and published in 1788 as ``The Federalist,'' these essays explained how the new Constitution-- dividing the Government into three equal branches--would preserve the Union, reconcile differences among States and political factions, and promote a common welfare, while carefully controlling power through a system of checks and balances.

Of the 85 essays the trio authored, seven dealt specifically with the Senate--Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76--while others, such as essay No. 51, discussed the Senate as part of the broader definition of a Federal Government that included a bicameral legislature.

In essay No. 62, James Madison eloquently stated the need for a smaller, more deliberative body in the legislative branch to cool the passions and control the urges of democratic masses. By requiring Senators to be at least 30 years old, 5 years greater than the minimum age for their House counterparts, and to be elected by State legislatures rather than through direct popular election, the Framers created an institution designed to provide experience and stability.

Such qualifications would be vital in a body to which the Constitution assigned such constitutional duties as providing advice and consent to treaties and to Presidential appointments. Senators also would serve 6-year, overlapping terms, creating continuity by allowing two-thirds of its Members to remain from Congress to Congress. Longer terms, combined with a system of indirect election, would allow Senators to resist the whims of public opinion.

The Framers also established equality of States in the Senate, assigning each State two Senators. The ``Great Compromise of 1787,'' reached on July 16, 1787, reconciled the demands of the large States with those of the small States by establishing proportional representation of States in the House of Representatives based on population, and equal representation in the Senate. This compromise guaranteed that the Senate would remain a smaller body than the House, where Members could enjoy more freedom in debate and create the necessary compromises to bring about successful legislation.

Of all the qualities established by the Framers, only the system of indirect election has changed significantly over time. Election by State legislatures ultimately proved vulnerable to corruption. Following the Civil War, newspaper reporters accused State legislatures of accepting bribes to elect Senators favorable to special interests or remaining willfully ``deadlocked,'' depriving some States of their Senate representation for months--yes, for months--even years.

Reformers reacted to these allegations by advocating a constitutional amendment that would allow the people to vote directly for Senators. This correction to the Framers' handiwork for the Senate went into effect in 1913 as the 17th amendment.

The Senate has remained a smaller body where States have an equal voice. It has served continuously now--continuously, may I say to the distinguished occupant of the Chair, the very able senior Senator from the Old Dominion, the State of Virginia--since 1789, never requiring the biennial reorganization necessary in the House.

Senators have tended to be somewhat older and more experienced than Representatives, and the Senate has remained--yes, remained--a deliberative institution that has brought caution and stability to the legislative process.

As James Madison commented at the Constitutional Convention, the ``use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch'' of the Congress.

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

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished and able friend from Alabama. I thank him for his reference to Mother's Day. I do indeed have some remarks that I want to make in reference to Mother's Day.

Mr. President, the irises are blooming, their beauty as refined as a Japanese print. Roses are spilling their sweet perfume into the air. A bountiful harvest of sweet, red strawberries is making its way into pies and shortcakes. The phones are busy at the florists around the country. The signs are clear that this coming Sunday the Nation will again observe the annual celebration of that great day, Mother's Day. Mother's Day is beloved by florists, by candy makers, by greeting card producers, by phone companies, and by restaurants, for it is a busy day indeed for them. But the day is also beloved by mothers, for it is on this one day, more than any other day, that they receive credit for their favorite and most important job. This coming Sunday, mothers will be showered with affection, waited upon, called upon, and honored. They deserve all of it, every bit of it.

It is the little things that count

And give a mother pleasure--

The things her children bring to her

Which they so richly treasure . . .

The picture that is smudged a bit

With tiny fingerprints,

The colored rock, the lightning bugs,

The sticky peppermints;

The ragged, bright bouquet of flowers

A child brings, roots and all--

These things delight a mother's heart

Although they seem quite small.

A mother can see beauty

In the very smallest thing

For there's a little bit of heaven

In a small child's offering.

A mother stays with you throughout your life. Her words and her actions resonate. Yes, we can hear her voice echoing across time when we repeat to our children the lessons that mother taught us: ``Sit up straight,'' ``use your napkin,'' ``stop fidgeting and pay attention,'' Do you remember? She said those things to us. ``Say thank you,'' and ``if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?''

Every mother molds and shapes her children in ways large and small, from lessons as important as treating others with thoughtfulness and courtesy to tasks as small as how to fold laundry. Years later, as we teach our own children to fold laundry, we might smile to recall that it was our mother--your mother--who taught us how to fold a shirt in a particular way. It is also probable that she was teaching you to fold it in the same way her mother had taught her--that is the way it is, you know--just as her mother taught her courtesy and just as she taught you. Those gentle hands carried the ingrained lessons of many generations, lessons honed and reinforced over many generations.

On Mother's Day, when we honor mothers all across the Nation, we also honor grandmothers and great-grandmothers, whether or not we were fortunate enough to have known them in life. ``Children and mothers never truly part, bound in the beating of each other's heart.'' So wrote Charlotte Gray, and her words speak to the heritable nature of a mother's love. A mother's love. It passes through the generations like our own DNA.

Mothers also model efficiency. Mothers were the earliest adopters of

``multitasking,'' long before such a phrase had even been coined. Modern appliances make mothers even more efficient, simultaneously washing and drying clothes while cleaning the house, making dinner, keeping up with the news, and monitoring their children's homework. In today's busy world, working mothers must master such multitasking, and many do it with amazing dexterity, juggling work and family and all of their children's outside activities with all of the skill of a circus act. You know how it goes. Mothers are also the lifeblood of many activities important to their children, from scouting to athletics, parent-teacher associations to Sunday school, music lessons to swim teams. The phrase ``soccer mom''--have you heard that phrase? It accurately reflects a wide swath of American culture.

And still mothers find time to nurture, to cuddle, to listen, to heal, and to teach. Henry Ward Beecher observed that ``the mother's heart is the child's schoolroom.'' Think about that. This is surely true, for with every action, every look, every word, be they soft and loving or briskly authoritative, mothers teach their children.

Their influence upon the world is incalculable. George Washington, the first President of our great country, that great general who fought at Valley Forge, said:

My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am

I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the

moral, intellectual and physical education I received from

her.

Abraham Lincoln said:

I remember my mother's prayers and they have always

followed me. They have clung to me all my life.

He also said:

All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.

Andrew Jackson noted about his mother:

There was never a woman like her. She was gentle as a dove

and brave as a lioness. . . . The memory of my mother and her

teachings were, after all, the only capital I had to start

life with, and on that capital I have made my way.

Booker T. Washington. Let's hear what he said. He said:

In all my efforts to learn to read, my mother shared fully

my ambition and sympathized with me and aided me in every way

that she could. If I have done anything in life worth

attention, I feel sure that I inherited the disposition from

my mother.

The leaders of our future are being molded and shaped right now by their mothers. It is hard to imagine that those small faces being wiped clean by their mother's hand might someday smile at us from the Oval Office, or that those chubby fingers might someday operate dangerous machinery. But that childish confidence is fostered by their mother's love, urged on by her unwavering support, and raised up by her tender sympathy. Their mother's support will give them the wings to fly high and to achieve great success.

I am sure that these future leaders will someday echo the words of Washington, Lincoln, and Jackson in crediting their mothers for their success--their angel mothers.

I have no recollections of my mother. She died on Armistice Day 1918. She told the faithful couple who raised me: Take the baby--I was a baby--and three older brothers and a sister. Take the baby. Keep him as your own. And she went away. I am sure that her prayers have followed me and that today she looks down from Heaven waiting. I don't remember seeing her in this life, but I shall have the opportunity to see her someday.

Every child deserves a mother worthy of such sentiments. And as a nation, we are fortunate to possess so many wonderful mothers.

There is a poem called ``Mother's Love'' that I would like to recite at this moment. ``Mother's Love":

Her love is like an island

In life's ocean, vast and wide;

A peaceful, quiet shelter

From the wind, the rain, the tide.

'Tis bound on the north by Hope,

By Patience on the West,

By tender counsel on the South,

And on the East by Rest.

Above it like a beacon light

Shine Faith, and Truth, and Prayer;

And thro' the changing scenes in life

I find a haven there.

Mr. President, my own dear mother waits for me.

I would like to reflect on this great old poem, ``Rock Me To Sleep,'' and I dedicate it--it is not my poem, but it is the one I love--I dedicate it to my dear wife Erma, who was a wonderful mother to her children, and to all the mothers throughout this broad land. Let us think of them. They thought of us. They rocked us. They gave us comfort. They nurtured us. Think of them, the mothers of America.

Backward, turn backward, O time, in your flight,

Make me a child again just for to-night!

Mother, come back from the echoless shore,

Take me again to your heart as of yore;

Kiss from my forehead the furrows of care,

Smooth the few silver threads out of my hair;

Over my slumbers your loving watch keep;--

Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep!

Backward, flow backward, oh, tide of the years

I am so weary of toil and of tears--

Toil without recompense, tears all in vain--

Take them, and give me my childhood again!

I have grown weary of dust and decay--

Weary of flinging my soul-wealth away,

Weary of sowing for others to reap;--

Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep!

Tired of the hollow, the base, the untrue,

Mother, O Mother, my heart calls for you!

Many a summer the grass has grown green,

Blossomed and faded, our faces between:

Yet, with strong yearning and passionate pain,

Long I to-night for your presence again.

Come from the silence so long and so deep;--

Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep!

Over my heart in the days that are flown,

No love like mother--love ever has shown;

No other worship abides and endures--

Faithful, unselfish, and patient like yours:

None like a mother can charm away pain

From the sick soul and the world-weary brain.

Slumber's soft calms o'er my heavy lids creep;--

Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep!

Come, let your brown hair, just lighted with gold,

Fall on your shoulders again as of old;

Let it drop over my forehead to-night,

Shading my faint eyes away from the light;

For with its sunny-edged shadows once more

Haply will throng the sweet visions of yore;

Lovingly, softly, its bright billows sweep:--

Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep!

Mother, dear Mother, the years have been long

Since I last listened your lullaby song:

Sing, then, and unto my soul it shall seem

Womanhood's years have been only a dream.

Clasped to your heart in a loving embrace,

With your light lashes just sweeping my face,

Never hereafter to wake or to weep;

Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep!

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

Mr. President, today the Senate debates S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. Now, health care is a very complicated subject. The issue of health care involves life-or-death decisions for millions upon millions of Americans who lack even the basic access to affordable health care.

The reality is that health care costs are skyrocketing, and the number of individuals with access to medical insurance is diminishing. That is unacceptable. The harsh reality is that 45 million Americans have no health care coverage, including 275,000 West Virginians.

That is 275,000 West Virginians who cannot take even the most basic steps to ensure that their health and their lives are not in jeopardy. That is 275,000 West Virginians who may be unaware that an illness or a disease is preparing to spread unabated throughout their bodies.

Today, technology enables doctors to discover and treat diseases faster than ever before, and, in many cases, cure these diseases before their effects are irreversible. It is unacceptable--unacceptable--that more and more Americans cannot take advantage of new technological tools to discover problems early. It is past time to do something for these citizens.

The current health care crisis hits small businesses especially hard. Small businesses often pay the highest rates for health care benefits because they lack the power to negotiate with big insurance companies. One innovative solution is for small businesses to be able to join together--join together--to ensure that their employees have access to affordable health care.

That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I have introduced the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. The purpose of this bill is to enable small businesses in West Virginia and around the country, like corner grocery stores, like the little store my wife and I had once upon a time, restaurants, and hardware stores, to offer health care coverage for their workers.

Hard-working Americans employed by these businesses deserve affordable health care. A waitress working the night shift to provide for her child is every bit as deserving of health care benefits as the CEO of the largest corporation. A clerk in a family store should not be priced out of basic health care coverage simply because he works for a small business. There are 275,000 stories like this in West Virginia, and the Federal Government should be taking actions to help these people.

While I agree in part with the goals of the bill before us, there are important differences between the bill offered by Senator Snowe and myself and the Enzi bill. The Snowe-Byrd bill, unlike the bill proposed by the very distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, does not preempt State law by erasing all preventative health tests and treatments. These mandates are the core medical services which are already part of many existing health plans.

The amendment I am cosponsoring, with the very able Senator from Maine, proposes to simply put some of the safeguards back that were eliminated by the Enzi bill. Our amendment provides small business workers with guaranteed access to the most important health care screening and services. It is imperative to include procedures guaranteed to catch diseases before the damage can be done. Our amendment guarantees patient access to procedures such as mammography screenings and screenings for prostate and cervical cancers. It is necessary in my State of West Virginia to make sure that diabetics have access to the supplies they need to regulate their blood sugar levels and to allow for maternity stays to assure the well-being of both mother and child after childbirth. Basic requirements such as these are essential keys to the health of all Americans, including those who work for small businesses. That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I want to offer this amendment. Why prohibit such lifesaving tests? These are basic questions I am asking. Why offer half a loaf to small business employees?

I never ceased to be amazed by the medical advancements that have occurred during my lifetime. It is absolutely amazing, unbelievable, these advances that have occurred--penicillin, modern X-ray machines, laser surgery, CAT scans, PET scans. Each day, every day doctors and researchers make critical discoveries and develop new technologies that help people to enjoy longer and healthier lives. And still, too many of our people are unable to take advantage of such advancements. They cannot afford to do so because they lack insurance. We have a moral obligation to find ways to help families gain access to lifesaving medical care. Millions without health care insurance go through life hoping, praying that they will not get sick or will not face a catastrophic medical complication. Living a life free from worries about health care coverage should not be a privilege. It ought to be a guarantee in this country.

While Senator Snowe's and my amendment could vastly improve vital coverage currently left out of the Enzi proposal, unfortunately, it looks as though the Senate will not have the opportunity to even vote on the amendment. Our bipartisan amendment, offered to better the bill before us, will never be allowed--ever--a vote in this Chamber. This is not the way the Senate should conduct its business. Purposefully blocking and disregarding amendments on an issue as vital as affordable health care does a disservice--I say again, a disservice--to our people and to this institution. The Snowe-Byrd amendment would make an important improvement to the bill before us.

Why employ a legislative maneuver that blocks attempts to improve health care options for small businesses and for their employees? Why? Why? Instead of blocking important amendments, the Senate ought to get to work on improving health care for the 45 million Americans, including 275,000 West Virginians, without health insurance. The lack of affordable health care in this country has reached crisis proportions. Why is that? Why is the Senate cutting off debate?

We should be working together in this Senate to find ways to help our people afford health care insurance. We should be discussing the May 15 enrollment deadline in the new Medicare Part D Program. Why can we not have a vote on extending this deadline? Why, I ask, and I ask and I ask again, why, after hearing from millions of the Nation's senior citizens and their worries about the deadline, are we not even talking about their concerns? My office has received hundreds of calls from concerned senior citizens. This is a pressing issue that requires our attention. Yet due to the actions of the leadership, the Senate is being held hostage. To what? To a deadline. Our senior citizens, whose sweat and blood helped to make our Nation great, are now being told that time is up for them. They must choose a health plan immediately or face financial penalties.

Because of the complexity of the new Medicare Part D Program, it is only right that our senior citizens be given time to understand their options and make informed decisions when selecting drug coverage. But instead, our elderly citizens are being told to hurry up or face penalties. That is just not good enough for the greatest country on Earth. Where is the compassion that our country is so known for? What is so almighty sacred about Monday, May 15?

It is unbelievable that important improvements to the Enzi bill will probably never receive a vote. It is a disservice to the small business employees and owners who deserve relief from the health care crunch. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Senate will not be permitted to consider pressing health issues for our senior citizens, the people who have worked so hard for so many years to build this great country.

I urge Senators to reject this process by which we are being gagged and denied a vote on these critical health care issues.

I yield the floor. I thank all Senators.

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

Mr. President, last Wednesday, Senator Ensign introduced S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, a bill that would ``cap'' legal damages awarded to victims of medical malpractice. Senators Santorum and Gregg similarly, just last week, introduced S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, a bill to limit legal damages in cases involving obstetrical and gynecological services.

Today I voted not to invoke cloture on the motions to proceed to these two bills, because there has been no debate of these particular measures in the 109th Congress. There have been no hearings scheduled or held on the bills this year, and their provisions raise questions to which West Virginians deserve complete and well-considered responses.

The situation in West Virginia today is not as it was several years ago, when the State legislature enacted medical liability tort reform. At that time, there was a perceived crisis based on the escalating costs of medical insurance premiums, and there were serious concerns that doctors and other health care providers may have been leaving the State to avoid the expenses they incurred in protecting themselves from legal liability. Today, however, even the West Virginia State Medical Association, a strong supporter of medical liability reform, advises that, based on the significant changes passed by the West Virginia State Legislature in 2003, the State has ``already seen positive results with recent decreases in insurance premiums and an increase in the ability to recruit physicians to the state.''

Based on the acknowledged success of West Virginia's legislative enactments in this area, it would be irresponsible, if not downright foolhardy, to enact S. 22 and S. 23 with little examination and no recent debate, particularly when the provisions of these bills would explicitly preempt certain State laws. In addition, the bills shorten the time during which patients can bring cases; they limit punitive damages; they exempt from product liability lawsuits health care providers who have prescribed drugs or devices approved by the FDA; and they generally revamp our Nation's medical liability system in the wink of an eye, though the bills' provisions have been subject to little, if any, serious scrutiny.

Based on the changes that have occurred in our medical liability system since 2003, legislation of this importance requires careful consideration by the Senate's relevant committees of jurisdiction. To give such important provisions such short shrift, particularly in this changed environment, would do a tremendous disservice to medical providers and patients throughout both West Virginia and the Nation.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

I thank the distinguished and very able chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, for all of his hard work on this bill. He has worked hard. He has again proved himself to be a very able chairman, very knowledgeable of the contents of the bill.

The President has asked the Congress to approve over $92 billion of emergency spending--man, that is a lot of money; $92 billion of emergency spending--including $72.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.8 billion for the Federal response to the terrible hurricanes that struck the Gulf States in August and September of 2005.

The Appropriations Committee held several hearings on the request, and we have now debated the bill for nearly 2 weeks. It is a good bill. It is a good bill. I am proud to recommend it to the Senate.

But, regrettably, the President has threatened to veto the bill based on his assertion that it is too expensive. In a Statement of Administration Policy that has been made a part of the Record, the administration threatens that the President will veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion. OK. Have at it. Have at it, Mr. President. Currently, the bill totals $108.9 billion. The President complains that the Senate has added funding for purposes other than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for assisting the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Nowhere--nowhere--is it written in stone, nowhere is it etched in brass, on golden pillars, that this supplemental--which is likely to be the only supplemental considered for this fiscal year--has to be limited to the costs of the war and Hurricane Katrina. Nor is it etched in stone that the Congress must approve a bill that is below $94.5 billion.

The Senate has added funding for a number of critical programs. Despite the administration's rhetoric about securing our borders and providing a layered defense of our ports, the President did not request a dime--not one thin dime--for border security or port security. He did not request a dime for making the coal mines safer for our coal miners. He did not request a dime for our farmers who have been hit with drought and hurricanes, despite the fact that 78 percent of all U.S. counties were designated as primary or contiguous disaster areas by the Secretary of Agriculture or the President in 2005. He did not request a dime for compensating potential victims of pandemic influenza vaccines. The President's request for Katrina victims is inadequate and leaves critical gaps in housing and education.

The Senate recognized the weaknesses of the President's request in these areas and judiciously added funds. When the bill is in conference, I will urge the conferees to approve these items. You bet.

The conferees should send to the President a bill that meets the needs of this country. That is our duty. If the President wants to veto a bill that funds the troops, if he wants to veto a bill that funds victims of Hurricane Katrina, if he wants to veto a bill that provides critical resources for combating a potential avian flu, if he wants to veto a bill that secures our borders and our ports and helps our farmers to recover from disaster and makes our coal mines safer, have at it, have at it. That is his right under the Constitution. But the Congress should not be bullied by the President into neglecting its responsibility, our responsibility, to provide required funds to meet priority national needs.

Because my State of West Virginia is often hit by floods and other damaging disasters, such as the recent accidents in our coal mines, I am quite sensitive to the ability of our Federal Government to prepare for--and respond to--disasters promptly and with competence, which is what our citizens need and what our citizens deserve. Sadly, many of our Federal agencies are no longer up to these fundamental tasks. But this bill includes resources to help Federal agencies restore their capabilities.

I am especially grateful to and I especially thank the chairman for including, at my request and the request of others, an amount of $35.6 million for improved mine safety and health programs. In the wake of 18 coal-mining deaths in the State of West Virginia this year--18 coal- mining deaths in the State of West Virginia this year--and another 16 mining deaths in other States, it is imperative that the Congress act immediately to ensure that an adequate number of safety inspectors will be provided for our Nation's mines and to expedite the introduction of critical safety equipment.

This week, we have heard testimony from the families of those killed in the Sago explosion in January. We have heard from the coal operators. We have heard from experts. In all of this testimony, one truth is clear: Lives can be saved when the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration places miners' safety and health at the very top of its priority list. We must have more inspectors on the job, yes. We must have better rescue teams trained and

equipped and ready to go at a moment's notice. We must have pre- positioned oxygen and emergency supplies in our coal mines. And we must have ways to communicate with trapped miners. It just has to be. We have to do these things. It is simply inexcusable that our miners have oxygen canisters that last only 1 hour, only 60 minutes, when miners may be trapped under the ground for several days, or that the miners may not have emergency communications equipment that can reach the surface in the event of an extended rescue effort. The chairman has my genuine appreciation for including these funds in the committee- reported bill. I also thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and Senator Jay Rockefeller for their support of the initiative.

The bill before the Senate also includes a provision to extend the Abandoned Mine Land authority through fiscal year 2007. The AML Program and combined benefits fund are very important programs that are needed by retired coal miners and their families and coalfield communities throughout this country. I thank Chairman Cochran and I thank Senator Specter and I thank Senator Domenici for supporting me in this effort.

Finally, the Senate, by a vote of 94 to 0, approved my amendment encouraging the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't fund these wars on the cheap. Upon passage of this supplemental bill, the total amount appropriated for the war in Iraq, including the cost of reconstruction, will be approximately $320 billion--that is $3.20 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; think of it, that is a staggering figure--virtually all of it funded through ad hoc emergency supplemental appropriations. And the costs continue to grow and grow.

The President refuses to include a realistic estimate of the cost of the wars in his annual budget request.

Would the Chair repeat?

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not to exceed 3 minutes.

He continues to rely on ad hoc, poorly justified emergency supplemental requests that he expects the Congress to rubberstamp. As a result, there is virtually no debate about how our country is going to pay for these massive bills. Nobody seems to be minding the store when it comes to controlling the escalating costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The failure of the President to heed the repeated calls by the Senate to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in more unnecessary spending that is hidden from public view. Until the President begins to include a real estimate of the cost of the wars in his annual budget, American taxpayers will continue to see billions of dollars spent without any true measure of accountability.

The Senate has given its strong support to this amendment five times, and the President continues to disregard this direction by the Senate. I hope the 94-to-0 vote on an amendment that encourages the President to include the full cost of the wars in the budget finally, finally, finally gets his attention.

I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a technical amendment. It costs no additional funds. It simply fixes a mistake in a grant notice. The fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS bill included funding for West Virginia University for construction of the neurosciences building. The HHS grant documents sent to the university mistakenly stated that the funds would be available until September 30, 2009, and that was incorrect. The money is expiring on September 30, 2006. This amendment would make the funds available consistent with the grant documents.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment from the Senator from South Dakota. This is not an amendment designed to help our veterans. It is an amendment designed to cut funding for the National Civilian Community Corps, NCCC, that the sponsor of the amendment apparently thought would be more likely to pass if the funds were allocated to veterans health care facilities.

The Senator is proposing to strike from the bill the entire $20 million allocated to support the NCCC effort to help Katrina victims. NCCC members deployed to the gulf within 24 hours of Katrina making landfall and have been there ever since. In total, nearly 1,600 NCCC members have provided 320,000 hours of volunteer service. These young people are 18 to 24 years old. They muck out homes, remove debris, rebuild schools and community centers, coordinate the work of episodic volunteers, help families and senior citizens rebuild their homes and lives, and support other needs.

The $20 million in the supplemental will support 800 NCCC members who will provide more than 1.2 million hours of service in the gulf coast hurricane recovery effort. Among NCCC's gulf coast accomplishments so far: assisted 1,063,000 people, mucked out 1,500 homes, distributed 1,714 tons of food, distributed 2,790 tons of clothing, served 1,000,000 meals, refurbished 732 homes, supported 542 emergency response centers, leveraged 7,715 volunteers, and completed 1,325 damage assessments.

It is important to fund health care for our veterans. That is why I voted for the Akaka amendment to add $430 million to the bill for that purpose. I am pleased that it passed, and I hope the President requests the funds.

Veterans deserve every penny of the $430 million added to this bill, but those who have had their lives turned upside down by Hurricane Katrina also deserve the support of the young men and women of the national Civilian Conservation Corps. We should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Therefore, I will vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 Iraq/Katrina supplemental appropriations bill includes the following provision: ``The Committee is aware that the Defense Science Board is studying the management of the Department of Defense's biometrics program and will make recommendations on whether or not the current structure is meeting the needs of the warfighters dependent on the system in Iraq and in the Global War on Terror. The Committee directs no management changes be made until the Defense Science Board completes its study and informs the Congress of its recommendation.''

Would it be the understanding of the Senator from Hawaii that any new or ongoing organization, personnel, or management changes within the Army, to include the Biometrics Fusion Center, be ceased until the Defense Science Board report is complete and briefed to Congress?

Does the Senator also agree that until the Defense Science Board, DSB, study is complete and briefed to Congress, the Biometrics Fusion Center should continue to execute its mission to acquire, test, evaluate, and integrate biometrics, as well as to develop and implement storage methods for biometrics templates?

I thank my distinguished colleague for his comments.

emergency conservation program

Mr. President, what is the order of the Senate business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the previous order that has been entered into for this morning, that I be recognized for not to exceed 40 minutes at this time.

Mr. President, do I have the floor?

I accede to the request of my chairman, but I ask unanimous consent upon the completion of that vote I be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, just over 3 years ago the Armed Forces of the United States were sent to fight a new war in Iraq. I was against the entry of our country into that war. At that time, many representations were made that this war would be quick and that it would be easy.

On the eve of war, our Nation was already embroiled in a campaign that sought to portray the invasion of Iraq as a quick and cheap way to rid the world of Saddam's regime and his supposed chemical weapons. We were told that the intervention would be as quick as lightning.

We now know that the war plans called for a withdrawal of nearly all American troops from Iraq by September 2003. Yet here we are, 3 years, 1 month, and 2 weeks later and 135,000 American troops are still in Iraq; 2,383 American troops have been killed; more than 17,500 American troops have been wounded. And for what? For what, I ask?

We were told at the time that the reconstruction of Iraq would cost the American taxpayer almost nothing. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that we are dealing with a country--that is, Iraq-- that can really finance its own reconstruction and we can do that relatively soon.

Yet here we are, and the total bill for Iraqi reconstruction being footed by the American taxpayers is running into the billions of dollars. We were told at the time that the cost of military action would be small. Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on January 19, 2003, that the Office of Management and Budget had come up with a number that is something under $50 billion for the cost of that war. Yet here we are and the cost of military operations in Iraq is climbing beyond $290 billion.

Astoundingly, the cost of the war in Iraq keeps increasing. According to a Congressional Research Service report released this week, the Iraqi war costs $4.4 billion per month. How about that--$4.4 billion per month in fiscal year 2003; $5 billion per month in fiscal year 2004; $6.4 billion per month in fiscal year 2005; and could reach $8.1 billion per month during this fiscal year. That is an 84-percent increase in the cost of the war in just 3 years.

The growing cost of this abominable war in Iraq must come as a shock to Americans who were led to expect a war that could be done on the cheap. But we should pause to ask, at a time when our Government is drowning in red ink, how can it be that spending for the war in Iraq keeps increasing year after year?

Passage of this supplemental appropriations bill will mean that Congress will have appropriated $320 billion for the war in Iraq and the end is not yet in sight; there is no light at the end of the tunnel yet. That is not the end of the story.

The President has requested a $50 billion bridge fund for the next Defense appropriations bill which will inevitably be followed next year by another large emergency supplemental spending request. Mark my words, it won't be too long before spending on the war in Iraq will eclipse 10 times the figure Secretary Rumsfeld estimated in January of 2003. Talk about being off the mark, talk about being wildly off the mark. Some measure of sanity has to be brought to the spiralling cost of the war.

Four times I have offered amendments to defense spending bills to state the sense of the Senate that the President should include a full estimate of the cost of the war. I have talked until I am hoarse about the cost of this war. Four times I have offered amendments through defense spending bills to state the sense of the Senate that the President should include a full estimate of the cost of the war in his annual budget request. And four times the amendments have passed with strong bipartisan support--Republicans and Democrats on that side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle--and four times the amendments have been ignored by the White House.

The administration's failure to budget for the war means that neither the White House nor Congress is making the tough decisions about how to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I support the war in Afghanistan. Yes. We were invaded. This country was invaded. This country was attacked, and the enemy was in Afghanistan. I was for going after those guys. But I did not vote for the war in Iraq. I said it was wrong.

There has been no earnest debate about how wartime spending is to fit into the overall budget picture. Instead, the administration has relied overwhelmingly on emergency supplemental appropriations requests to fund the costs of the ongoing wars. These requests are not part of the regular budget debate in Congress, and they are often foisted upon the legislative branch with little in the way of justification, which Congress is then pressed into passing with a minimum of scrutiny.

The reliance on supplemental appropriations bills is one symptom of a disease that has struck Washington, and

that is the scourge of fiscal irresponsibility. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, since 2001, the White House has requested a total of $515 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations. That is more than half a trillion dollars that simply does not appear in any of the budget plans passed by Congress.

This dependence--this dependence, I say--on supplemental appropriations dwarfs the requests of prior administrations. In fact, the $515 billion of supplemental funding requests in the last 5 years is more than 3\1/2\ times--more than 3\1/2\ times--greater than all the supplemental spending requests from the 10 years previous to the current administration.

At a time when our country is facing huge deficits as far as the human eye can see, it is simply irresponsible for the administration to continue to short-circuit the budget process with a never-ending series of huge supplemental appropriations bills. There ought to be some fiscal discipline here in Washington, DC, and that means that the President ought to budget for the cost of the wars. The President pretends that his budget reduces the deficit over 5 years, but he fails to include the full cost of the war in Iraq.

Therefore, Mr. President, I offer an amendment, once again, to state the sense of the Senate that the President should include in his next annual budget request a full estimate--a full estimate--of the cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment states that any funds requested by the President should be placed in regular appropriations accounts, and should be accompanied by a detailed justification for those funds.

The Senate must continue to call for responsible budgeting for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have appreciated the efforts of the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I have appreciated that. And I thank Senator Stevens for his work with me on the previous four times I have offered this amendment. He is an outstanding chairman of a very important subcommittee. I am grateful for his past support of this amendment on this issue.

Now, the Senate--I apologize for my voice. When I was a boy, there came a time when my voice changed. Well, it is changing again, apparently. I guess I cannot claim to be a boy again.

I am getting young again, I am told.

The Senate ought to go on the record once again in favor of fiscal responsibility. With the cost of the war in Iraq escalating beyond $320 billion, it is time to bring some sanity to the budget process. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to tell the President to budget for the cost of the wars.

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

I ask for a vote. I hope we can vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Let's vote. We have voted on this four times already.

Vote. Let's vote. Vote, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to my amendment.

Let's vote.

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public schools of this country.

On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen.

Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song:

Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with

their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's

land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture

thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West

Virginia hills?

Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were

passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried

to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er

fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West

Virginia hills!

Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to

stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great

Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with

sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West

Virginia hills.

Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a source of solace in time of trouble.

Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness fills.''

But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good things come, from whom all blessings flow.

In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on experience.

Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was God's answer to our shared prayer.

So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of prayer.

But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills.

The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's conscience before God.

So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to His will. Not always according to our will but according to His will.

The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, violating the first amendment to the Constitution.

Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution?

I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not forget the mindset of those who established our representative democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame.

Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the

Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate

his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member

would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and

industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow

men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. .

. . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think of that. What a small but mighty tome.

What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.''

Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our representative form of government.

The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular culture. They were creating the culture.

I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. Americans don't want religious censorship--

no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we have a religious faith, whatever it may be.

The religion clauses of the first amendment state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure that the government favors no single religion over another. This principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism.

In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason to seek comfort through prayer.

Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American

majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of

Independence the statement, ``All men''--

Meaning, of course, women, too--

``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness.''

Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe.

The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting the right of all Americans to exercise their religion.

The free exercise clause of the first amendment states:

Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise

of religion.

Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at church, whether at school, period.

I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in schools.

Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes that clear.

It states--get this:

Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to

this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary

prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular

activity.

This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, and 1997.

I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view.

I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any.

Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment.

My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.

This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government entanglement with religion.

This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone is free to express themselves on any other topic.

As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to proselytize as a patriot.''

The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally.

This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious objective.

In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.''

``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious Clauses is to secure religious liberty.''

Thus, Justice Stevens wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court

prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily

praying at any time before, during or after the school day.

He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected by this

Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a particular religious practice or prayer.''

So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech.

In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of religion.

``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, ``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.''

We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the impermissible establishment of religion.

Where would we be without recourse to prayer?

As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In Psalm, 17, he implores:

Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to

my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for

You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my

word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the

shadows of Your wings.

In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of Congress. The room is open.

Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time.

The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.''

What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in the Senate?

St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what St. Luke tells us:

Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock

and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives;

whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father

among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or

hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all

your sins, know how to give your children good things, how

much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to

those who ask him?

We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived by the Framers.

We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public schools of this country.

On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen.

Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song:

Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with

their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's

land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture

thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West

Virginia hills?

Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were

passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried

to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er

fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West

Virginia hills!

Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to

stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great

Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with

sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West

Virginia hills.

Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a source of solace in time of trouble.

Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness fills.''

But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good things come, from whom all blessings flow.

In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on experience.

Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was God's answer to our shared prayer.

So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of prayer.

But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills.

The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's conscience before God.

So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to His will. Not always according to our will but according to His will.

The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, violating the first amendment to the Constitution.

Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution?

I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not forget the mindset of those who established our representative democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame.

Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the

Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate

his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member

would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and

industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow

men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. .

. . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think of that. What a small but mighty tome.

What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.''

Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our representative form of government.

The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular culture. They were creating the culture.

I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. Americans don't want religious censorship--

no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we have a religious faith, whatever it may be.

The religion clauses of the first amendment state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure that the government favors no single religion over another. This principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism.

In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason to seek comfort through prayer.

Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American

majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of

Independence the statement, ``All men''--

Meaning, of course, women, too--

``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness.''

Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe.

The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting the right of all Americans to exercise their religion.

The free exercise clause of the first amendment states:

Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise

of religion.

Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at church, whether at school, period.

I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in schools.

Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes that clear.

It states--get this:

Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to

this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary

prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular

activity.

This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, and 1997.

I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view.

I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any.

Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment.

My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.

This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government entanglement with religion.

This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone is free to express themselves on any other topic.

As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to proselytize as a patriot.''

The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally.

This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious objective.

In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.''

``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious Clauses is to secure religious liberty.''

Thus, Justice Stevens wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court

prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily

praying at any time before, during or after the school day.

He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected by this

Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a particular religious practice or prayer.''

So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech.

In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of religion.

``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, ``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.''

We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the impermissible establishment of religion.

Where would we be without recourse to prayer?

As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In Psalm, 17, he implores:

Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to

my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for

You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my

word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the

shadows of Your wings.

In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of Congress. The room is open.

Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time.

The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.''

What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in the Senate?

St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what St. Luke tells us:

Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock

and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives;

whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father

among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or

hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all

your sins, know how to give your children good things, how

much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to

those who ask him?

We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived by the Framers.

We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate will vote today on two amendments to provide $1.9 billion of critical resources to enhance our border security. I will vote for both amendments.

Last month, the Senate began debate on immigration and border security legislation, part of which would authorize a whole host of items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. It would authorize border surveillance technology and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, the immigration bill is just an authorization bill. If you are serious

about border security, you must approve real dollars.

Yesterday, the administration sent Congress a Statement of Administration Policy on the pending emergency supplemental bill. I will ask that the statement be printed in the Record. In this statement, the President threatens to veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion. He opposes providing disaster aid to our farmers impacted by drought and hurricanes. He opposes funding for 31 States to repair highways that were damaged by floods, and other disasters. He fails to endorse critical investments in port security.

By threatening to veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion, he forces the Congress to make very difficult tradeoffs. By endorsing additional border security funding while capping the bill at $94.5 billion, the President is supporting cuts in his own request for the Department of Defense, or for aiding the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I think this tradeoff is unnecessary and unfortunate. That is why I will vote for the Reid amendment. However, Chairman Gregg has done an excellent job in crafting the $1.9 billion package of border security investments. If the only way to get the additional border security funds is to accept the President's position requiring offsets, then, in this case, I will vote for the Gregg amendment as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the before mentioned statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the truly distinguished and able chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, for all of his hard work on this bill. He is so diligent, so fair, so honorable. I am proud to serve with him. Mississippi is so well represented in the Senate by this man. As a matter of great pride, I call him my friend, my colleague, my chairman.

The President has asked the Congress to approve over $92 billion of emergency spending, including $72.5 billion

for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.8 billion for the Federal response to the terrible hurricanes that struck the Gulf States in August and September of 2005.

When the committee opened its hearings on the supplemental on March 7, I stated my belief that it is our duty to scrutinize the President's request not only for what is in the bill but also for what is not in the bill. I said to the distinguished chairman and to Senator Landrieu and others that I would help them in every way I could in responding to the terrible storms that hit their States.

My State of West Virginia is often hit by floods and other damaging disasters, such as the recent accidents in West Virginia's coal mines. I am very sensitive to the ability of our Federal Government to prepare for and respond to disasters promptly and with competence, which is what our citizens need and what our citizens deserve. Sadly, many of our Federal agencies are no longer up to these fundamental tasks.

Mr. President, the chairman of the committee has taken the bull by the horns. Under his leadership, the recommendations of the committee fill in some of the gaps in the administration's request for funds required to respond to the hurricanes.

The committee added approximately $7.4 billion to the President's budget request--that is not chickenfeed--$7.4 billion added to the President's budget request for Federal programs to respond to these disasters.

I have to also note that the chairman of the committee included at my request--he would probably have done it, anyhow; perhaps I made it a little easier--and the request of others an amount of $35.6 million for improved mine safety and health programs. In the wake of 18 coal mining deaths in the State of West Virginia this year and another 16 mining deaths in other States this year, it is imperative that the Congress act immediately to ensure that an adequate number of safety inspectors will be provided for our Nation's mines and to expedite the introduction of critical safety equipment.

It is simply, absolutely, positively inexcusable that our miners have oxygen canisters that last only 1 hour--1 hour--when miners may be trapped underground for several days, or that the miners may not have emergency communications equipment. Think of that. Miners may not have emergency communications equipment that can reach the surface in the event of an extended rescue effort. I tell you, this is something to talk about.

The chairman has my genuine appreciation for including these funds in the committee-reported bill. I also thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and Senator Rockefeller for their support of the initiative.

By the way, Senator Rockefeller is recuperating from a very serious operation. He may not get back in the harness here until June. I was talking with him a couple of days ago. He probably won't get back until June. John D. Rockefeller, my colleague from West Virginia.

The bill before the Senate also includes a provision to extend the abandoned mine land authority through fiscal year 2007. The AML program and combined benefits fund are very important programs that are needed by retired coal miners, by their families, and by coalfields communities throughout the country. I thank Chairman Cochran. I thank Senator Specter and Senator Domenici for supporting this effort.

The supplemental appropriations bill includes $67.8 billion for the Department of Defense to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Upon passage of this legislation, the total amount appropriated for the war in Iraq, including the cost of reconstruction, will be $320 billion. Mr. President, that is $320 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born 2,000 years ago. That is a lot of money. Man, think of that.

That is a staggering figure, but what is even more unbelievable is that the monthly cost of the war in Iraq has been steadily, steadily, steadily escalating. In May 2004, the Defense Department reported to the Armed Services Committee that the cost of operations in Iraq was averaging $4 billion per month. The Congressional Research Service reported this month that during fiscal year 2005, the cost of the war in Iraq had escalated to $5.6 billion per month. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the cost of operations in Iraq during the current fiscal year will grow to $6.8 billion per month.

I ask the Chair, can you comprehend how much money that is, $6.8 billion? That is $6.80 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Contemplate that.

The American people ought to be asking how on Earth has the monthly cost of the war in Iraq grown by 70 percent just in 2 years. Isn't there any way to control the cost of the war while making sure that our troops continue to get the support they need?

The truth is that the administration is out of control when it comes to asking for emergency spending. According to a Congressional Budget Office report, the White House has requested $515 billion in emergency spending between 2001 and 2006. That is more than 3\1/2\ times the combined total of all--all, a-l-l--all of the emergency spending bills in the previous 10 years.

Say that again. Did you hear me? More than 3\1/2\ times the combined total of all of the emergency spending bills in the previous 10 years.

The President refuses to include in his annual budget request a realistic estimate of the cost of the wars. As a result, there is virtually no debate about how our country is going to pay for these massive bills. And what is more, these emergency spending requests mean that Congress has only a limited opportunity to scrutinize the administration's spending proposals. As a result, nobody--nobody--seems to be minding the store when it comes to controlling the escalating cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I tell you, I was in favor of fighting the war in Afghanistan, but I was not in favor of going into Iraq. No, man. No.

The failure of the President to heed the repeated calls by the Senate--by the Senate, that is this body--to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in more unnecessary spending that is hidden--hidden--from public view.

For example, the President requested $8.3 billion in military procurement to replace wornout or battle-damaged equipment, but this is essentially forward funding of replacement equipment that should be bought using funds in the regular appropriations bill. Since we do not need to buy the same equipment twice, future Defense spending bills need not appropriate procurement funds that have already been approved in previously enacted emergency appropriations bills.

This forward funding of military procurement accounts should then mean savings in the regular Defense appropriations bill. But when will these savings appear?

With the approval of this bill, the Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2006 is $534 billion, an increase of 74 percent over fiscal year 2001. Congress has rubberstamped much of this increase without indepth budget justification.

Until the President begins to include a real estimate of the cost of the wars in his annual budget, American taxpayers will continue to see billions more dollars spent without any true measure of accountability. That is why I will again offer an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that calls for the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate has given its strong support to this amendment four times--four times--and the President continues to look the other way, continues to disregard this direction by the Senate. The Senate must insist on a long overdue and responsible step of budgeting for the cost of the war.

I am also very disappointed that the White House limited the supplemental request to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. As the Senate debates immigration and border security, it is rather astonishing, wouldn't you think, that no funding was included for border security. Nor were any funds included for port security. Dubai Ports World is now operating terminals at six of our major ports.

The ``layered defense''--if I may put quotation marks around those two words--the ``layered defense'' that the

administration claims is protecting our ports is, in fact, paper thin-- paper thin. It is just that thin.

Nor did the President seek any supplemental funding for preparing for or preventing the outbreak of the avian flu or to help our farmers who have been devastated by drought and by the hurricanes.

The Appropriations Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Cochran, has wisely approved funding for port security, wisely approved funding for the avian flu, wisely approved funding for drought relief, and I hope that border security funding will be approved this week on the floor.

I challenge the White House--it is easy to be brave from a distance; I am quite a ways up the avenue from the White House--I challenge the White House--come on--I challenge the White House to get serious about these issues. These are also emergencies. The White House should be leading rather than opposing efforts to improve border security and port security, and it should be preparing for the avian flu and helping our farmers.

The administration has a huge credibility gap when it comes to homeland security. There is a continuing drumbeat that another terrorist attack may occur or is even likely. The President, in his State of the Union Address, told the American people:

The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack

us.

That is true. One look at the budget reveals an odd complacency. The administration's speech writers and his policy writers seem to be living in different worlds.

In response to the administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World to operate terminals in six major U.S. ports, it is asserted by the administration that it has a robust, layered security system for our ports. And yet for the second straight year, the White House proposes to eliminate the Port Security Grant Program. Of the $816 million the Congress has appropriated since September 11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. There is nothing ``robust'' about that.

How serious are we about port security, when the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security don't even know about the decision to sell the operation of six U.S. ports to a State-owned foreign company?

How serious are we 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 are we when the Coast Guard Deepwater budget for replacing its ships, planes, and helicopters will not be completed until 2026?

The administration has not requested one thin dime for port security in this $92 billion supplemental.

The committee-reported bill includes my amendment to provide $648 million to fill critical gaps in our paper-thin port security program. The bill now provides resources for more radiation portal monitors, more container inspections, more port inspections, and would fund port security grants at the levels anticipated in the Collins-Lieberman and Stevens-Inouye port security authorization bills.

The American people--our people, your people--yes, our people, the American people--expect more than just a paper-thin--you can almost see through that--the American people expect more than just a paper-thin security plan for our ports. The bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, begins--and Senator Cochran, the chairman of that committee, can take a lot of credit--begins to address this paper- thin port security program by including a total of $648 million to fill critical gaps in our port security program. I thank Senators Dan Inouye, Herb Kohl, and Tom Harkin for their support of my initiative in committee. Whose initiative? Mine, my initiative. Dizzy Dean says it is all right to brag if you have done it. Well, I have done it.

The White House should step to the plate and support this effort.

While the committee-reported bill has made some progress to address the gaps in the Nation's port security defenses, it virtually ignores border security. The Senate has recently been debating immigration and border security legislation to authorize a whole host of items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. It would authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. It would authorize border surveillance, technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and fences.

I am very concerned--very concerned--about lax border security. In fact, together with our colleague, Senator Larry Craig, and with the support of my Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, I led the effort in the Senate last year to appropriate hard dollars to begin to put real teeth--see these teeth? These are real teeth. They are just 88 years old. These are real teeth. Well, that is what we did. We put real teeth in our border security agenda. We did not merely authorize the hiring of more Border Patrol agents; we appropriated hard dollars to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents, as well as more immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. Don't you feel better about that? I do. I can sleep a little better. I will bet Senator Harkin sleeps better at night because of it. Those 500 Border Patrol agents have been hired and trained and are deployed on our borders. They are out there defending our borders while we are sleeping. Think about that.

As we hire more Border Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement officials, they must have the tools they need to do their job. We need to start paying for those tools now so that they will be available as more and more Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officials are hired and trained.

I will be talking again about this matter as the Senate proceeds to consider this supplemental appropriations bill. Securing our borders requires more than just hot air. Hot air is cheap. We must put real dollars to work for border security.

Mr. President, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the committee-reported bill, under the strong leadership of Chairman Cochran--hey, you people down there in Mississippi better hold on to this man. He does a terrific job on this committee. This bill includes several other initiatives to deal with gaps in funding in the budget request.

I would suggest that principal among these gaps is an amount of $2.3 billion required to prepare for and to respond to a potential influenza pandemic such as the avian flu. My mother died during the great influenza epidemic of 1917 and 1918; the great influenza epidemic. So there is money here to prepare for and to respond to a potential influenza pandemic. The World Health Organization recommends that countries stockpile enough antiviral medications to cover 25 percent of the population or 80 million Americans.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there is a shortfall of 30 million courses. HHS will not receive the antivirals it has ordered until the end of this year.

We are also well short of the 20 million goal that has been set by HHS for purchasing prepandemic vaccine. Experts have said that a vaccine is the only effective way to stop the spread of a pandemic.

The availability of the vaccine and medicine is limited. The availability is limited. We should not wait to place our orders. The White House should support this effort.

The committee-reported bill also includes approximately $3.9 billion for emergency agricultural disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers in States affected by recent hurricanes in the gulf, drought in the southern plains and throughout the western corn belt, and excessive rainfall in North Dakota--North Dakota: Do you know where that is? That is north of South Dakota. North Dakota--and the upper Midwest flood. Nearly 80 percent of all U.S. counties were designated as primary or contiguous disaster areas by the Secretary of Agriculture or the President in 2005.

So, Mr. President, the chairman and I look forward to a good debate on this supplemental appropriations bill. It is a good bill, and it is truly responsive--truly responsive--to the needs of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator.

Last month, the Senate began debate on immigration and border security legislation, part of which would authorize a whole host of items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. The legislation would authorize border surveillance technology and unmanned aerial vehicles.

However, the immigration bill is just an authorization bill. Now, if we are serious about border security, we must approve real dollars-- real dollars.

Together with our colleague, Senator Larry Craig, and with the support of my Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, I led the effort in the Senate last year to appropriate hard dollars to begin to put real teeth into our border security agenda. We did not merely authorize the hiring of more Border Patrol agents; we appropriated hard cash, hard dollars to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents as well as more immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. The administration opposed this effort. But those 500 Border Patrol agents have been hired. They have been trained. They are now deployed on our borders defending our Nation and making us more secure.

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. Yes. We need to start paying for those tools now so they will be available as more and more Border Patrol agents 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 more buses to transport and remove illegal aliens. More radios are needed and other communications equipment, especially for those individuals operating in remote desert areas along our border.

Customs and Border Protection has a requirement for 18 unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs. The immigration bill authorizes more UAVs, but until this morning, we had only one UAV operating on our border.

At 5:49 a.m. this morning, where were you? I was asleep. I bet you were, too. At 5:49 a.m. this morning, that one UAV crashed--get that, now--it crashed in the Arizona desert. Clearly, one UAV system is not adequate.

The amendment that Homeland Security Chairman Gregg is offering this afternoon provides $1.9 billion--$1.9 billion--in real dollars for our aging border security infrastructure. As ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I support that funding. It provides $120 million for fencing and tactical border infrastructure, including an additional $20 million for the fence being constructed in San Diego. It provides-- hear me, now--$790 million for new helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, UAVs, and the facilities to house and maintain them. It provides $60 million for replacement vehicles for our border and immigration personnel. It

provides over $150 million for communications equipment and sensors and cameras and other technology along our border. That ain't all, either. That ain't all. You better believe it. It provides $60 million to expedite the interoperability of the FBI and Homeland Security fingerprint databases so that we can have greater confidence about whom we allow to enter this country.

We know that as security at our land borders is tightened, illegal aliens, drug runners, and, yes, terrorists also--terrorists--will turn to our waterways for entry into this country, our country.

According to Coast Guard statistics, the flow of illegal aliens through our waterways has more than doubled in the last 10 years, and it will continue to grow. It will continue to grow. The administration has concluded that international migration ``will be one of the most important factors affecting maritime security through the next 10 years'' and that ``a significant commitment of security resources'' is necessary. Yet--could you believe it--the President did not request any supplemental money for the Coast Guard to repair, replace, or enhance its ships, its planes, and its helicopters.

The Coast Guard secures our waterways, but the Coast Guard is doing it with ships and planes that, in some cases, date back to World War II. Man, that is a long time. How about that--doing it with ships and planes that, in some cases, date back to World War II? This has resulted in a huge gap between operational commitments and operational capabilities. For instance, total Coast Guard patrol boat hours were only 75,000 in 2004, compared to 100,000 hours in 1998. Under the administration's deepwater modernization plan, this gap will not be closed until 2012. Now, I wonder if I will be around that long. This gap will not be closed until 2012, at the earliest. How about that? Do you believe it? How about that?

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 Coast Guard ships and planes to be deferred more and more every year. You may not be around that long, either. No. Who knows? From fiscal years 2001 to 2005, the Coast Guard deferred over $121 million in maintenance needed for its surface fleet and $159 million in maintenance needed for its air assets.

The administration has ignored this problem--ignored this problem-- for too long. Recent budget requests by this administration have allowed this crisis to fester, and fester. The pending amendment provides $600 million to accelerate the Coast Guard's program to modernize its fleet of ships and planes.

This funding will provide for seven additional maritime patrol airplanes and three new patrol boats. The funding in the amendment would also allow the Coast Guard to retrofit and arm its helicopters, refurbish existing medium endurance ships, accelerate the production of new medium endurance ships, and provide the technology necessary for commanders to speak to each other through a common operating environment. This level of funding is consistent with the recently filed Coast Guard authorization conference report.

The President often says that we live in a post-9/11 world. Frankly, the Coast Guard's fleet of ships and planes is fit for the last century. To properly secure the maritime domain, the Coast Guard needs a fleet fit for this century--the here and now, this century.

If we are truly serious--and I hope we are--about securing our borders and not just engaging in rhetoric and hot air, then we will put real dollars--real dollars--where the rubber hits the road.

So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment, the amendment offered by Senator Judd Gregg, of which I am a principal cosponsor.

I yield the floor.