Floor Statements

Mr. President, in his radio address on December 17, 2005, President Bush disclosed that after September 11, 2001, he authorized the National Security Agency, NSA, to undertake wiretapping of American citizens to try to prevent terrorist attacks. The President argued that his actions were, in his words, ``fully consistent'' with his constitutional responsibilities.

The President wrongly asserted--Mr. President, the President wrongly asserted--that his authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens on American soil is supported by his inherent Presidential powers and the joint congressional resolution that authorized the use of force after September 11.

A huge swath--a huge swath--of America, including many expert legal minds, does not--I say, does not--agree

with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House.

Let me say that again. A huge swath of America, including many expert legal minds, does not agree with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House, a White House so infused with its own hubris that it has talked itself into believing that its inhabitants are above the law. But they are not. They are not above the law. President Bush is not above the law. No President is above the law. No United States Senator is above the law. No man is above the law. No one in the United States of America is above the law. Remember, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

Yesterday, the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence jettisoned its constitutional responsibility to make certain that our laws are not being breached, and that the spirit and text of our revered Constitution remain in force. It is a sad day, indeed, to see such an important committee wilt under political pressure applied by the Vice President in partisan meetings held behind closed doors. The committee adjourned last night without considering a Democratic proposal to begin an investigation of the warrantless spying program, even though Senator Jay Rockefeller, the vice-chairman of the Intelligence Committee, had been assured that his proposal would receive a vote.

I want to commend my colleague, Senator Rockefeller. He has worked hard to protect the people's liberties, to make sure that this administration, even in its most secret circles, follows the law and the Constitution. It has not been an easy task, but it is one that Senator Rockefeller has carried diligently.

Like Senator Rockefeller, I will not sit idly by and allow the President's possible breaking of the law to be swept under the rug. I refuse to go quietly into the night, abdicating my responsibility as a U.S. Senator to a secretive executive branch, which refuses to brief the Congress of the United States on its clandestine spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant--an administration that believes it can, on its own, nullify constitutional provisions intended to protect the freedoms of millions of Americans for over 200 years.

This travesty must not stand. The peeping and snooping and spying must be investigated.

I am today announcing my intention to submit to the Congress legislation that will establish a nonpartisan, independent, 9-11-style commission to investigate and determine the legality of the President's actions.

There is a critical need for a thorough investigation of all domestic surveillance programs.

As I stated on Wednesday in my remarks on this subject, we, the American people--not just the NSA or the White House--have a legitimate need to know what is being done, by whom, and to whom. If there is a justifiable and valid reason to surveil a potential terrorist in the U.S., we certainly can find a way to do it legally. If there is a need to provide more efficient tools to fight terror, Congress has the responsibility to deliberate and, if warranted, to approve them. The President should ask Congress for them; not seize new powers that have never been enumerated by any U.S. court.

Congress would be pleased to entertain his request, as we have in the past, by updating FISA and the PATRIOT Act, but not--I repeat, not-- before a full investigation to determine if laws have been broken--an investigation which will give members a fuller understanding of just what these surveillance programs entail. A little sunshine on this process is long overdue. Congress cannot fix what the White House does not want us to fully understand.

Congress needs to know if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any other U.S. law has been broken, and whether the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans have been violated without cause. It is essential that Congress obtain the answers to these questions, not for partisan political reasons, but because our system of checks and balances requires it.

James Madison advised in Federalist 47 that: the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

The assumption of power by an unchecked executive, who arrogantly believes that he can seize the authority to spy on innocent Americans and wantonly violate the fourth amendment is the beginning of the tyranny Madison so feared.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the fourth amendment of the Constitution be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, as the Senate considers legislation to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, I am concerned that these efforts fall far short in protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Last December, a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, was rightly concerned about the PATRIOT Act conference report's failure to safeguard civil liberties, and the Senate rightly rejected that conference report.

Now we have a bill that purports to address those earlier concerns but in fact fails to do so.

It is unfortunate that valiant efforts by Senators on both sides of the aisle have not produced more meaningful changes to the PATRIOT Act. Now we are faced with an alternative that is weak and unacceptable. This bill does not make the essential adjustments needed to protect the rights of the American people.

While this bill makes some changes, such as clarifying that recipients of national security letters do not have to disclose to the FBI whether they consult an attorney, most of the so-called improvements are anemic. Worse still, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which casts the net of surveillance so wide as to ensnare virtually any law-abiding citizen's business or medical records, has remained untouched and unimproved.

This bill pays lip service to judicial review of gag orders placed on recipients of section 215 business records and the national security letters. However, the bill goes on to set a nearly insurmountable barrier to Americans who wish to challenge the gag order or the seizure of their records. The bill requires that the recipient prove that the Government acted in bad faith in obtaining the information. An individual may not challenge a gag order for a year, infringing on that individual's right to seek redress in their own defense.

Under the current ``improvement'', the Government may conduct ``sneak and peek'' searches, without notifying individuals for 30 days. This is more than a three-fold increase in the time period for notification that the Senate bill allowed.

Safety, the American people are told, involves a trade. They are told they must surrender their liberty in order to preserve their safety. This Orwellian compact is an insult to the constitutional liberties guaranteed to American citizens.

Let me be clear. No one in this Chamber discounts the responsibility of government to keep the American people safe in their homes. Keeping the homeland safe obviously must be of the utmost concern for the Nation and this Congress. But such efforts cannot come at the expense of civil liberties. Freedom and safety are not mutually exclusive.

All Americans know the threat that al-Qaida poses to our country. Osama bin Laden and his ilk must be prevented from executing another terrorist attack on our country. But there are many ways to fight al- Qaida.

One of the ways is to protect those same freedoms that the Taliban took away from the people of Afghanistan living under their tyrannical rule. When Americans are free to speak our minds, when we are free from the intrusions of Big Brother, when we are free to exercise--rather than sacrifice--our most prized protections, that is a blow against those who seek to denigrate our country and our Constitution.

If there is any question about the seriousness with which we as a body hold our Nation's security, let us recall last July, when 100 hundred Senators stood together--something virtually unheard of in the current divisive and partisan climate. On July 29, 2005, the Senate came together to protect the Constitution and the basic rights it affords our citizens. Senators from every State of the Union, from every political persuasion, agreed to a version of the PATRIOT Act that would reauthorize the provisions that were set to expire and which provided the Government with the tools to aggressively pursue the war on terror, while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. We demonstrated that as a bipartisan body, we could stand strong against the enemy while preserving the privacy of our citizens. Sadly, the strength and zeal with which we once came together have languished, and the hopes of meaningful improvement of the PATRIOT Act have been abandoned.

We must continue to make national security our top priority, as it always has been, but we can do that without sacrificing sacred liberties. I cannot support this watered-down version of an improved PATRIOT Act. The safeguards in this bill are regrettably thin, and we must not claim that such shabby protections of the constitutional rights of our people are the best that we can do.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Would the Senator yield and let me make a few remarks?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I do not intend to object--I need to complete my remarks by 4:35. I have about 20 minutes here.

Mr. President, I have waited many hours here many times. I never make a fuss about it. I will just leave the floor and----

I have 61 pages, large type. But that will take about 20 minutes--15, I think.

My problem is, I need to get through by 4:30 or 4:35.

The Senator is more than generous and more than kind.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his characteristic kindness and courtesy. I thank the distinguished Senator who has been alone in opposing this act in the beginning, at a time when I wish I had voted as he did.

In June 2004, 10 peace activists outside of Halliburton, Inc., in Houston gathered to protest the company's war profiteering. They wore paper hats and were handing out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, calling attention to Halliburton's overcharging on a food contract for American troops in Iraq.

Unbeknownst to them, they were being watched. U.S. Army personnel at the top secret Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, saw the protest as a potential threat to national security.

CIFA was created 3 years ago by the Defense Department. Its official role is forced protection; that is, tracking threat and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In 2003, then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz authorized a fact-gathering operation code named TALON, which stands for Threat and Local Observation Notice, which would collect raw information about suspicious incidents and feed it to CIFA.

In the case of the ``peanut butter'' demonstration, the Army wrote a report on the activity and stored it where? In its files. Newsweek magazine has reported that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens that has been retained in Pentagon files. A senior Pentagon official has admitted that the names of these U.S. citizens could number in the thousands. Is this where we are heading? Is this where we are heading in

this land of the free? Are secret Government programs that spy on American citizens proliferating? The question is not, is Big Brother watching? The question is, how many big brothers have we?

Ever since the New York Times revealed that President George W. Bush has personally authorized surveillance of American citizens without obtaining a warrant, I have become increasingly concerned about dangers to the people's liberty. I believe that both current law and the Constitution may have been violated, not just once, not twice, but many times, and in ways that the Congress and the American people may never know because of this White House and its penchant for control and secrecy.

We cannot continue to claim we are a nation of laws and not of men if our laws, and indeed even the Constitution of the United States itself, may be summarily breached because of some determination of expediency or because the President says, ``Trust me.''

The Fourth Amendment reads clearly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Congress has already granted the executive branch rather extraordinary authority with changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allow the Government 72 hours after surveillance has begun to apply for a warrant. If this surveillance program is what the President says it is, a program to eavesdrop upon known terrorists in other countries who are conversing with Americans, then there should be no difficulty in obtaining a warrant within 72 hours. One might be tempted to suspect that the real reason the President authorized warrantless surveillance is because there is no need to have to bother with the inconveniences of probable cause. Without probable cause as a condition of spying on American citizens, the National Security Agency could, and can, under this President's direction, spy on anyone, and for any reason.

How do you like that? How about that? We have only the President's word, his ``trust me,'' to protect the privacy of the law-abiding citizens of this country. One must be especially wary of an administration that seems to feel that what it judges to be a good end always justifies any means. It is, in fact, not only illegal under our system, but it is morally reprehensible to spy on citizens without probable cause of wrongdoing.

When such practices are sanctioned by our own President, what is the message we are sending to other countries that the United States is trying to convince to adopt our system? It must be painfully obvious that a President who can spy on any citizen is very unlike the model of democracy the administration is trying to sell abroad.

In the name of ``fighting terror,'' are we to sacrifice every freedom to a President's demand? How far are we to go? Can a President order warrantless, house-to-house searches of a neighborhood where he suspects a terrorist may be hiding? Can he impose new restrictions on what can be printed, what can be broadcast, what can be uttered privately because of some perceived threat--perceived by him--to national security? Laughable thoughts? I think not.

This administration has so traumatized the people of this Nation, and many in the Congress, that some will swallow whole whatever rubbish that is spewed from this White House, as long as it is in some tenuous way connected to the so-called war on terror. And the phrase ``war on terror,'' while catchy, certainly is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic used by all manner of violent organizations to achieve their goal. This has been around since time began and will likely be with us until the last day of planet Earth.

We were attacked by bin Laden and by his organization, al-Qaida. If anything, what we are engaged in should more properly be called a war on the al-Qaida network. But that is too limiting for an administration that loves power as much as this one. A war on the al-Qaida network might conceivably be over someday. A war on the al-Qaida network might have achievable, measurable objectives, and it would be less able to be used as a rationale for almost any Government action. It would be harder to periodically traumatize the U.S. public, thereby justifying a reason for stamping ``secret'' on far too many Government programs and activities.

Why hasn't Congress been thoroughly briefed on the President's secret eavesdropping program, or on other secret domestic monitoring programs run by the Pentagon or other Government entities? Is it because keeping official secrets prevents annoying congressional oversight? Revealing this program in its entirety to too many Members of Congress could certainly have unmasked its probable illegality at a much earlier date, and may have allowed Members of Congress to pry information out of the White House that the Senate Judiciary Committee could not pry out of Attorney General Gonzales, who seemed generally confused about for whom he works--the public or his old boss, the President.

Attorney General Gonzales refused to divulge whether purely domestic communications have also been caught up in this warrantless surveillance, and he refused to assure the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American public that the administration has not deliberately tapped Americans' telephone calls and computers or searched their homes without warrants. Nor would he reveal whether even a single arrest has resulted from the program.

What about the first amendment? What about the chilling effect that warrantless eavesdropping is already having on those law-abiding American citizens who may not support the war in Iraq, or who may simply communicate with friends or relatives overseas? Eventually, the feeling that no conversation is private will cause perfectly innocent people to think carefully before they candidly express opinions or even say something in jest.

Already we have heard suggestions that freedom of the press should be subject to new restrictions. Who among us can feel comfortable knowing that the National Security Agency has been operating with an expansive view of its role since 2001, forwarding wholesale information from foreign intelligence communication intercepts involving American citizens, including the names of individuals to the FBI, in a departure from past practices, and tapping some of the country's main telecommunication arteries in order to trace and analyze information?

The administration could have come to Congress to address any aspects of the FISA law in the revised PATRIOT Act which the administration proposed, but they did not, probably because they wished the completely unfettered power to do whatever they pleased, the laws and the Constitution be damned.

I plead with the American public to tune in to what is happening in this country. Please forget the political party with which you may usually be associated and, instead, think about the right of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a private life. Forget the now tired political spin that if one does not support warrantless spying, then one may be less than patriotic.

Focus on what is happening to truth in this country and then read President Bush's statement to a Buffalo, NY, audience on April 24, 2004:

Any time you hear the United States Government talking

about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order.

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we are talking about

chasing down terrorists, we are talking about getting a court

order before we do so.

That statement is false, and the President knew it was false when he made it because he had authorized the Government to wiretap without a court order shortly after the 2001 attacks.

This President, in my judgment, may have broken the law and most certainly has violated the spirit of the Constitution and the public trust.

Yet I hear strange comments coming from some Members of Congress to the effect that, well, if the President has broken the law, let's just change the law. That is tantamount to saying that whatever the President does is legal, and the last time we heard that claim was from the White House of Richard M. Nixon. Congress must rise to the occasion and demand answers to the serious questions surrounding warrantless

spying. And Congress must stop being spooked by false charges that unless it goes along in blind obedience with every outrageous violation of the separation of powers, it is soft on terrorism. Perhaps we can take courage from the American Bar Association which, on Monday, February 13, denounced President Bush's warrantless surveillance and expressed the view that he had exceeded his constitutional powers.

There is a need for a thorough investigation of all of our domestic spying programs. We have to know what is being done by whom and to whom. We need to know if the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act has been breached and if the Constitutional rights of thousands of Americans have been violated without cause. The question is: Can the Congress, under control of the President's political party, conduct the type of thorough, far-ranging investigation which is necessary. It is absolutely essential that Congress try because it is vital to at least attempt the proper restoration of the checks and balances. Unfortunately, in a Congressional election year, the effort will most likely be seriously hampered by politics. In fact, today's Washington Post reports that an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the congressional probe of NSA spying and may kill it.

I want to know how many Americans have been spied upon. Yes, I want to know how it is determined which individuals are monitored and who makes such determinations. Yes, I want to know if the telecommunications industry is involved in a massive screening of the domestic telephone calls of ordinary Americans like you and me. I want to know if the U.S. Post Office is involved. I want to know, and the American people deserve to know, if the law has been broken and the Constitution has been breached.

Historian Lord Acton once observed that:

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of

justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear

discussion and publicity.

The culture of secrecy, which has deepened since the attacks on September 11, has presented this Nation with an awful dilemma. In order to protect this open society, are we to believe that measures must be taken that in insidious and unconstitutional ways close it down? I believe that the answer must be an emphatic ``no.''

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I shall quote Alexander Pope in saying to my distinguished friend, Senator Specter:

Thou art my guide, philosopher, and friend.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not to exceed 3 minutes as in morning business for the purpose of submitting a resolution.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 370 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today, together with Senator Rockefeller and the West Virginia delegation in the House, I have submitted a resolution honoring the 16 coal miners who perished this year in the State of West Virginia. They are: Tom Anderson, Alva Bennett, Jim Bennett, Jerry Groves, George Hamner, Jr., Terry Helms, Jesse Jones, David Lewis, Martin Toler, Jr., Fred Ware, Jackie Weaver, and Marshall Winans who perished in the Sago Mine in Upshur County, WV.

They are Don Bragg and Ellery Hatfield who perished in the Aracoma Alma Mine in Logan County, WV.

They are Paul Moss and Edmund Vance who perished in separate mines in Boone County, WV.

While the names of these coal miners have become known to many of us, we must not forget that there are many more coal miners whose tragic deaths are not chronicled in the national media. They die quietly in their homes of black lung disease. They die anonymously in mine accidents across the Nation. Their families mourn, their families grieve their loss without national attention.

I pay tribute to all of those who have fallen in our Nation's mines and to their families who must bear their loss. A grateful Nation owes its eternal thanks.

Mr. President, it has been 36 days since 12 coal miners perished at the Sago Mine in Upshur County, WV. One died from the explosion that ripped through the underground mine. The other 11 succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning.

It has been 18 days since two coal miners perished in an underground fire at the Aracoma Alma in Logan County, WV. It has been 5 days since two miners perished in separate mine accidents in Boone County, WV.

Sixteen coal miners dead, in four separate accidents, in only 36 days.

These deaths have shaken communities across the State of West Virginia and alarmed a nation. Three additional coal mine fatalities in the States of Utah and Kentucky in the last 28 days confirm that this series of accidents is national in scope and demands swift action.

Mr. President, after years of delay, the Coal Mine Safety and Health Administration at last acknowledges the need to reassess some technology and regulations but cannot give any definite timetable about when the action will be taken. I, for one, do not want to see more delay. This Federal Government, which is empowered by our Constitution to ``promote the general welfare''--and that applies to our Nation's coalfields as well as anywhere else--must not wait.

The West Virginia congressional delegation has introduced legislation outlining a series of actions that can be taken immediately to make America's coal mines safer. We know, for example, that technology exists right now to improve mine rescue communications. We know that additional emergency breathing devices can be stored in the mines. We can do these things today, right now. The Senate could pass the West Virginia delegation bill today to implement these requirements in the mines.

I have asked the Republican and Democratic leadership to schedule immediate action on this matter. The Democratic leadership has pledged to do everything it can, and the Republican leadership has been very positive in its response. A bipartisan and growing coalition of Senators from mining and nonmining States has asked to be added as cosponsors to our legislation. They recognize its importance and the need for its immediate passage.

I have spoken with the chairman and with the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and they fully understand the urgency driving this legislation. They not only organized a committee trip to Sago Mine in January, but they also committed to reviewing the West Virginia delegation bill within hours of its introduction. These Senators are on our side.

I am confident they will do all they can do to ensure quick action. I am happy to work with all Members of the Senate to expedite passage of this bill. With quick work, I see no reason why this Senate cannot move expeditiously. We should and, in fact, we must. Every day we delay increases the risk for coal miners in the field.

While four deadly accidents in the past 36 days occurred in West Virginia, any State in the Union with coal mines could be next. Today it is my State of West Virginia and the States of Kentucky and Utah that mourn the tragic loss of life in our coal mines. Tomorrow it could be Pennsylvania, Alabama, Indiana, Virginia, Ohio, or Illinois. Who knows.

I was at the memorial service for the miners who died in the Sago mine disaster. I saw their families. I saw their grief. I saw their pain. I have no desire to see more. The longer we wait to approve this legislation, the more likely it is that additional miners will die. If more miners die, more mines could be closed and for longer periods of time in order to ensure safety. Mine closures not only will put families out of work but will also disrupt coal and energy production, with the economic effects rippling across the national economy.

We must never forget that a coal miner has the legal right to walk out of an unsafe coal mine. A miner cannot be forced to work if he or she feels their life is threatened. Today when coal provides such an important part of this Nation's energy supply and our Nation is dangerously dependent upon foreign oil, we must keep our coal mines open and operating, but first we must make them safe.

For the sake of America's coal miners, for the sake of their families and their communities, and for the sake of

the energy security of our Nation, I urge that this much-needed legislation be approved as soon as possible. There is a moral imperative to act, and we must not delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Specter, Kerry, and Clinton be added as cosponsors of S. 2231, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I thank the Senate, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. He is always sensitive to the problems that occur in West Virginia. He is always mindful of the coal miners and their problems, their sorrows.

I thank him for being such a steadfast partner with the two West Virginia Senators and such a steadfast friend throughout the years to our fellow West Virginians. I thank the Senator.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan such time as she may require and that I may be recognized at the close of her remarks.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend. He can go ahead with whatever remarks he has. I would love to wait 2 or 3 more minutes.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the very distinguished occupant of the chair, who presides over this august Chamber with a dignity that is so rare as a day in June and a loveliness that permeates the Chamber. I thank the Chair.

Mine Safety

Madam President, yesterday, two more coal miners died in West Virginia--two more, two more coal miners died yesterday in West Virginia--one at Long Branch Energy's No. 18 tunnel mine in Boone County and the other at the Black Castle Surface Mine, which is also in Boone County, WV. That is a total of 16 coal miner deaths this year, and the year is only 33 days old. This situation is deplorable--ghastly deplorable.

The Governor of West Virginia, the Honorable Joseph Manchin, announced last night that he has asked the coal operators of West Virginia to cease production immediately and to go into a mine safety standdown. He has asked that miners be removed from mines in order to review safety procedures and asked that each new shift also review safety procedures before entering the mine.

The Governor has called for expedited inspections of the State's mines, and he has asked that the U.S. Labor Department send additional Federal inspectors and personnel to the State.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor announced last night that it would expand the mine safety standdown to mines across the Nation on Monday, February 6.

This is a very noble action on the part of our Governor, Joe Manchin. I have talked with Governor Manchin, and I compliment him.

I have to say that shutting down the mines for 1 hour is not a serious solution. It may be a timeout for safety, but it is not time enough for meaningful safety. Mine safety officials are displaying increasing concern about this rash of mining fatalities.

Those who consider the tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines to be random occurrences are now taking a second look. They are asking this morning: When will these mine tragedies stop? When? The answer to that question is unsettling, isn't it? It is possible that these accidents are not going to stop. God only knows. Life and death are in God's hands.

It is possible that mine safety protections have eroded so much in recent years that these actions are going to continue. Who would have thought that these mine deaths would occur as they have and in one State? It is possible that these accidents are going to continue to happen again and again unless new action--dramatic action--is taken by the Federal Government to curb these mining hazards.

The danger to our coal miners is real--very real. Yes, very, very real.

The dangers to our miners is very real. There are too many needs, from emergency communications and breathing equipment to a rapid notification and response system to penalizing the reckless disregard of Federal safety standards. Real. Too many needs, I say, are not being addressed by the Labor Department and the Mine Safety and Health Administration and require swift action by the Congress.

The longer we wait to act in Congress, the more likely another fatality and then another fatality and then another may occur. The longer we wait to act, the greater the threat to our energy infrastructure. If these tragedies continue, mines could be closed and coal and energy production could falter. The consequences could ripple throughout the national economy. We cannot delay. We cannot delay in responding.

I spoke with the distinguished majority leader yesterday. Of course, I have already spoken with our distinguished minority leader, who has joined in supporting the need for action on the bill that I have introduced, along with Senator Rockefeller and along with the delegation in the House, a bipartisan delegation. I spoke with the majority leader yesterday, and I have asked mine safety legislation be considered quickly, and I publicly renew that request.

I have come to the Senate floor hoping to see the majority leader again this morning, but he is needed elsewhere, and for good reason, at the moment. But I publicly renew that request, and upon his arrival I shall discuss this matter with him. I have discussed it already with the assistant leader, Mr. McConnell. I urge that this legislation be scheduled as soon as possible, that there be scheduled time as soon as possible on mine safety legislation.

The bill the West Virginia delegation introduced yesterday will help to protect the lives of our miners. It will help to keep West Virginia mines open. It will help to keep the coal coming. It will help to keep the coal fueling the energy demands of our national economy. But we must act quickly. We must ensure the safety of our coal miners.

Hear me. Listen. We must ensure the safety of our coal miners in order to ensure the security of the Nation. The security of the Nation depends on the safety of our coal miners. We have delayed too long already, and every additional day we wait puts another miner's life at risk.

O Death, where is thy sting?

O grave, where is thy victory?

Senators, listen: For whom does the bell toll? Who knows who will be next?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield?

I ask so that I might thank her again for delaying her speech until I could make these few remarks. I thank her from the bottom of my heart. She is so considerate always, so courteous: ``And what is so rare as a day in June?'' The beauty of the Senator from California.

Madam President, if I might just take 1 minute, I deeply thank--as they say in the other body--the gentlelady from California, for her noble comments and for her support. The West Virginia delegation in the House and the Senate is pleased at her expressions of support. We are glad to have that support. West Virginia is proud of the California delegation, the delegation that stands with us in this hour of sorrow.

I thank the Senator from California for yielding and for her support.

How much time do I have under the order?

How much time was there at the beginning?

And 25 minutes remain?

Mr. President, it has been almost 1 month since the explosion that killed 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV, and almost 2 weeks since the conveyor belt fire that killed two miners at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV. In that same time, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, of the U.S. Department of Labor has briefed my office on several occasions. The Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, at my request and under the leadership of Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking member Tom Harkin, has held a hearing and solicited testimony from mine safety experts. The West Virginia delegation in the House and the Senate has met with the Governor of West Virginia, Governor Joe Manchin, has met with the White House Chief of Staff, and has met with the acting MSHA Director to review mine safety legislation passed by the West Virginia legislature in the wake of the Sago and Alma tragedies.

We now can speak with some certainty about what contributed to the tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines that killed 14 coal miners. We know these tragedies have highlighted gross weaknesses in mine emergency preparedness and the failure of leadership at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration to get tough about rescue procedures.

We know that communications technology in our Nation's coal mines is inadequate. The Federal mine regulators require only that a telephone line connect the working sections of mines to the surface. If that telephone line does not work, in the event of an emergency, the miners trapped underground are cut off from the rescue effort. Those on the surface cannot get a message to the miners underground and the miners underground cannot get a message to those on the surface.

At the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, waited, waited in anguish for 40 hours, not knowing if their loved ones were alive or dead because the communications equipment in the mine did not work.

We know that Federal mine safety officials cannot immediately locate miners trapped underground. At both the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, and waited, and waited while rescue teams searched meticulously through the underground caverns. Those teams could only make educated guesses about the location of the trapped miners, putting the rescue teams' lives and the lives of the trapped miners at increased risk while the search went on.

We know that the MSHA notification and response system is ponderously slow. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the Sago explosion until 2 hours after it happened. It took another 9 hours--9 long, excruciating hours--before rescue teams could enter the mine.

The same thing happened at the Alma mine. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the underground fire for 2\1/2\ hours, and in that time the fire spread and got worse. We know Federal mine regulators require only that miners have a 1-hour emergency breathing device; and at the Sago mine, 1 hour of oxygen was not nearly adequate to sustain those miners through a 40-hour rescue operation. We also know that the Mine Safety and Health Administration, tragically-- tragically--abandoned its assessment of the rules governing these 1- hour emergency breathing devices in December of 2001. What a travesty.

We know that the mine rescue teams, at both the Sago and Alma mines, were forced to wait for a frustrating amount of time because the coal operators had to negotiate the question of liability before the rescue teams could enter the

mines. We know that Federal mine regulators have been aware of this liability problem since 1995. We know that MSHA has not taken steps to address it, or to update and improve the rules related to the number of rescue teams per mine and their ability to respond rapidly. The only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA--now get that-- the only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA in 2002.

The Sago mine was a habitual violator with 276 citations and orders issued in 2004 and 2005. The coal operator never paid a fine more than $440, even though mandatory health and safety standards were repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly violated. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial.'' Let me say that again. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial'' in threatening the safety and health of the miners at Sago.

MSHA has broad authority to protect coal miners, and the 1977 Mine Act is the strongest and most sweeping workplace safety law ever enacted in the United States, and, yet, even with these tools--even with these tools--the Mine Safety and Health Administration failed-- yes, it failed--to protect the 14 miners who perished at the Sago and Alma mines. What a shame. What a shame.

MSHA has the authority to require that secondary communications equipment be available in the event of an emergency. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to require that emergency breathing devices be placed in the mines in the event of an extended recovery effort. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to penalize habitual violators, and to close those mines where pattern violations threaten a coal miner's life. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. What a travesty.

MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners. I will say that again. MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners, but it has scuttled--get that; it has scuttled--18 initiatives in the last 5 years to update and improve mine safety and emergency preparedness. MSHA's leadership has embraced the status quo as good enough, and that attitude puts miners' lives at risk.

In the past, mine disasters such as these have spurred tougher mine safety laws. The Farmington, WV, disaster spurred the 1969 Coal Act, and subsequent disasters spurred the 1977 Mine Act. Now, I was here at the time in both instances. I was in the Senate. This time, the legacy of the Sago and Alma mine disasters must be a tougher agency that will--will--enforce the law.

Together with Senator Jay Rockefeller and the West Virginia delegation in the House, I am introducing legislation today that is a mandate for action. Our legislation does not amend the Mine Act. Our delegation takes the position that the Mine Act already provides the Secretary of Labor with every authority necessary to prevent these kinds of tragedies. Instead, the legislation that I am introducing on behalf of myself and Mr. Rockefeller--and which is being likewise introduced in the House of Representatives today--our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to employ the authorities of the Mine Act. It directs the Labor Secretary, within 90 days, to promulgate a series of health and safety rules aimed at improving mine safety enforcement and emergency preparedness.

This legislation directs the Labor Secretary to establish a rapid notification and response system. This legislation requires coal operators to expeditiously notify MSHA of emergencies. Any coal operator who fails to expeditiously notify Federal mine safety officials will be subject to a $100,000 fine.

We must reduce the amount of time that is lost between a mine emergency and MSHA's notification and arrival on the scene.

Our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to reassess regulations that govern mine rescue teams to ensure that their numbers are sufficient and that obstacles to their deployment are minimized. Mine rescue teams ought to be able to respond just as local fire departments would respond to an emergency. It must not take 11 hours.

Our legislation requires coal operators to store additional emergency breathing supplies underground to sustain miners who may be trapped for an extended period. Our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to update and improve the rules governing emergency communications equipment that would allow miners underground to communicate with surface rescue efforts, and allow surface rescue efforts to locate miners underground. Never again--never again--should a coal miner or any other miner lack access to a reasonable supply of oxygen underground or be unable to receive directions from the surface about escape routes--never again.

On the enforcement side, our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to create a new $10,000 mandatory and minimum penalty for coal operators who display negligence or reckless disregard for safety standards. By negligence or reckless disregard, I am talking about coal operators who knew or should have known of a dangerous condition or practice and failed to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, or who displayed conduct which exhibits a deplorable absence of care for the safety and health of the miners. If penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt--let me say that again--if penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt, and hurt sufficiently to encourage violators to comply with the law.

Our legislation prohibits the use of belt entries for ventilation in contravention of an MSHA regulation issued in 2004, which likely--hear me now--which likely played a part in the Alma fire.

Our legislation creates a science and technology office in the Labor Department to help expedite the introduction of the most advanced health and safety technologies into the mines, and to ensure that Federal mine safety officials are actively pulling from other Federal agencies those technologies that can help to protect miners. No longer--hear me; hear me now: no longer--should miners be sent underground with safety equipment that is decades out of date.

Our legislation creates the new position of ombudsman in the Labor Department's Inspector General's office to allow miners to more easily report safety violations. To be effective, such a position requires the appointment and the confirmation of someone with at least 5 years--no political hack--someone with at least 5 years of expertise in mine safety and health. No place for a political hack. A miner should never have to feel that he has no options other than to continue to work in a dangerous environment.

Now, I speak from the heart. I grew up in a coal miner's home. My dad was a coal miner--a coal miner. I married a coal miner's daughter. Loretta Lynn sings a song. She is a coal miner's daughter. Well, my wife is a coal miner's daughter. My brother-in-law died of silicosis, black lung. His father was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. So I speak from the viewpoint of a coal miner, a coal miner's son.

For 5 years, the leadership in the Labor Department and the Mine Safety and Health Administration has worked against--get that--worked against the health and safety needs of coal miners. If we must hold the hand of the Labor Department--if we have to hold the hand of the Labor Department--and lead it like a stubborn and obstinate child, to force it to promulgate rules to implement the Mine Act and save lives, then that is exactly what we should do. If this administration and if MSHA will not lead, then this Congress must lead, and, if necessary, poke, prod, kick, and push MSHA into fulfilling its mandate.

At this late date, we need more than platitudes--more than platitudes--to protect the safety of our Nation's miners. We are not just talking about West Virginia miners, not just talking about coal miners in West Virginia. We need resources. We need swift action. And we need to impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA--they better hear that--impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA and the Nation's coal mine operators that the safety of miners will not be compromised for personal profit or for politics.

Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility. Hear me. Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility, and this legislation will help to make sure that we never, ever forget that.

I send the bill to the desk, a bill by Mr. Byrd for himself and Mr. Rockefeller. I ask that it be relayed to the appropriate committee.

Yes, I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. President, if I may be recognized.

Let me thank my friend, the leader, our leader on this side of the aisle, who is a gold miner's son. There are not many of us in here who are gold miners' sons. I am proud that my leader is a gold miner's son. I am proud that he assured us, from his standpoint and within his power, that he will do everything possible--and I hope he will--to help bring this legislation to the floor. He understands that it is needed, and I will welcome his assistance in that regard. I am proud of him as a gold miner's son. I am glad he reminds us of this from time to time. I believe this legislation is badly needed. I implore my leader to do everything he can to see that this bill gets on the calendar and gets taken up by the Senate and acted upon promptly.

I thank all Senators and yield the floor.

How much time do I have under the order?

How much time was there at the beginning?

And 25 minutes remain?

Mr. President, it has been almost 1 month since the explosion that killed 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV, and almost 2 weeks since the conveyor belt fire that killed two miners at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV. In that same time, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, of the U.S. Department of Labor has briefed my office on several occasions. The Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, at my request and under the leadership of Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking member Tom Harkin, has held a hearing and solicited testimony from mine safety experts. The West Virginia delegation in the House and the Senate has met with the Governor of West Virginia, Governor Joe Manchin, has met with the White House Chief of Staff, and has met with the acting MSHA Director to review mine safety legislation passed by the West Virginia legislature in the wake of the Sago and Alma tragedies.

We now can speak with some certainty about what contributed to the tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines that killed 14 coal miners. We know these tragedies have highlighted gross weaknesses in mine emergency preparedness and the failure of leadership at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration to get tough about rescue procedures.

We know that communications technology in our Nation's coal mines is inadequate. The Federal mine regulators require only that a telephone line connect the working sections of mines to the surface. If that telephone line does not work, in the event of an emergency, the miners trapped underground are cut off from the rescue effort. Those on the surface cannot get a message to the miners underground and the miners underground cannot get a message to those on the surface.

At the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, waited, waited in anguish for 40 hours, not knowing if their loved ones were alive or dead because the communications equipment in the mine did not work.

We know that Federal mine safety officials cannot immediately locate miners trapped underground. At both the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, and waited, and waited while rescue teams searched meticulously through the underground caverns. Those teams could only make educated guesses about the location of the trapped miners, putting the rescue teams' lives and the lives of the trapped miners at increased risk while the search went on.

We know that the MSHA notification and response system is ponderously slow. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the Sago explosion until 2 hours after it happened. It took another 9 hours--9 long, excruciating hours--before rescue teams could enter the mine.

The same thing happened at the Alma mine. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the underground fire for 2\1/2\ hours, and in that time the fire spread and got worse. We know Federal mine regulators require only that miners have a 1-hour emergency breathing device; and at the Sago mine, 1 hour of oxygen was not nearly adequate to sustain those miners through a 40-hour rescue operation. We also know that the Mine Safety and Health Administration, tragically-- tragically--abandoned its assessment of the rules governing these 1- hour emergency breathing devices in December of 2001. What a travesty.

We know that the mine rescue teams, at both the Sago and Alma mines, were forced to wait for a frustrating amount of time because the coal operators had to negotiate the question of liability before the rescue teams could enter the

mines. We know that Federal mine regulators have been aware of this liability problem since 1995. We know that MSHA has not taken steps to address it, or to update and improve the rules related to the number of rescue teams per mine and their ability to respond rapidly. The only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA--now get that-- the only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA in 2002.

The Sago mine was a habitual violator with 276 citations and orders issued in 2004 and 2005. The coal operator never paid a fine more than $440, even though mandatory health and safety standards were repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly violated. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial.'' Let me say that again. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial'' in threatening the safety and health of the miners at Sago.

MSHA has broad authority to protect coal miners, and the 1977 Mine Act is the strongest and most sweeping workplace safety law ever enacted in the United States, and, yet, even with these tools--even with these tools--the Mine Safety and Health Administration failed-- yes, it failed--to protect the 14 miners who perished at the Sago and Alma mines. What a shame. What a shame.

MSHA has the authority to require that secondary communications equipment be available in the event of an emergency. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to require that emergency breathing devices be placed in the mines in the event of an extended recovery effort. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to penalize habitual violators, and to close those mines where pattern violations threaten a coal miner's life. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. What a travesty.

MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners. I will say that again. MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners, but it has scuttled--get that; it has scuttled--18 initiatives in the last 5 years to update and improve mine safety and emergency preparedness. MSHA's leadership has embraced the status quo as good enough, and that attitude puts miners' lives at risk.

In the past, mine disasters such as these have spurred tougher mine safety laws. The Farmington, WV, disaster spurred the 1969 Coal Act, and subsequent disasters spurred the 1977 Mine Act. Now, I was here at the time in both instances. I was in the Senate. This time, the legacy of the Sago and Alma mine disasters must be a tougher agency that will--will--enforce the law.

Together with Senator Jay Rockefeller and the West Virginia delegation in the House, I am introducing legislation today that is a mandate for action. Our legislation does not amend the Mine Act. Our delegation takes the position that the Mine Act already provides the Secretary of Labor with every authority necessary to prevent these kinds of tragedies. Instead, the legislation that I am introducing on behalf of myself and Mr. Rockefeller--and which is being likewise introduced in the House of Representatives today--our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to employ the authorities of the Mine Act. It directs the Labor Secretary, within 90 days, to promulgate a series of health and safety rules aimed at improving mine safety enforcement and emergency preparedness.

This legislation directs the Labor Secretary to establish a rapid notification and response system. This legislation requires coal operators to expeditiously notify MSHA of emergencies. Any coal operator who fails to expeditiously notify Federal mine safety officials will be subject to a $100,000 fine.

We must reduce the amount of time that is lost between a mine emergency and MSHA's notification and arrival on the scene.

Our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to reassess regulations that govern mine rescue teams to ensure that their numbers are sufficient and that obstacles to their deployment are minimized. Mine rescue teams ought to be able to respond just as local fire departments would respond to an emergency. It must not take 11 hours.

Our legislation requires coal operators to store additional emergency breathing supplies underground to sustain miners who may be trapped for an extended period. Our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to update and improve the rules governing emergency communications equipment that would allow miners underground to communicate with surface rescue efforts, and allow surface rescue efforts to locate miners underground. Never again--never again--should a coal miner or any other miner lack access to a reasonable supply of oxygen underground or be unable to receive directions from the surface about escape routes--never again.

On the enforcement side, our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to create a new $10,000 mandatory and minimum penalty for coal operators who display negligence or reckless disregard for safety standards. By negligence or reckless disregard, I am talking about coal operators who knew or should have known of a dangerous condition or practice and failed to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, or who displayed conduct which exhibits a deplorable absence of care for the safety and health of the miners. If penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt--let me say that again--if penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt, and hurt sufficiently to encourage violators to comply with the law.

Our legislation prohibits the use of belt entries for ventilation in contravention of an MSHA regulation issued in 2004, which likely--hear me now--which likely played a part in the Alma fire.

Our legislation creates a science and technology office in the Labor Department to help expedite the introduction of the most advanced health and safety technologies into the mines, and to ensure that Federal mine safety officials are actively pulling from other Federal agencies those technologies that can help to protect miners. No longer--hear me; hear me now: no longer--should miners be sent underground with safety equipment that is decades out of date.

Our legislation creates the new position of ombudsman in the Labor Department's Inspector General's office to allow miners to more easily report safety violations. To be effective, such a position requires the appointment and the confirmation of someone with at least 5 years--no political hack--someone with at least 5 years of expertise in mine safety and health. No place for a political hack. A miner should never have to feel that he has no options other than to continue to work in a dangerous environment.

Now, I speak from the heart. I grew up in a coal miner's home. My dad was a coal miner--a coal miner. I married a coal miner's daughter. Loretta Lynn sings a song. She is a coal miner's daughter. Well, my wife is a coal miner's daughter. My brother-in-law died of silicosis, black lung. His father was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. So I speak from the viewpoint of a coal miner, a coal miner's son.

For 5 years, the leadership in the Labor Department and the Mine Safety and Health Administration has worked against--get that--worked against the health and safety needs of coal miners. If we must hold the hand of the Labor Department--if we have to hold the hand of the Labor Department--and lead it like a stubborn and obstinate child, to force it to promulgate rules to implement the Mine Act and save lives, then that is exactly what we should do. If this administration and if MSHA will not lead, then this Congress must lead, and, if necessary, poke, prod, kick, and push MSHA into fulfilling its mandate.

At this late date, we need more than platitudes--more than platitudes--to protect the safety of our Nation's miners. We are not just talking about West Virginia miners, not just talking about coal miners in West Virginia. We need resources. We need swift action. And we need to impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA--they better hear that--impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA and the Nation's coal mine operators that the safety of miners will not be compromised for personal profit or for politics.

Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility. Hear me. Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility, and this legislation will help to make sure that we never, ever forget that.

I send the bill to the desk, a bill by Mr. Byrd for himself and Mr. Rockefeller. I ask that it be relayed to the appropriate committee.

Yes, I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. President, if I may be recognized.

Let me thank my friend, the leader, our leader on this side of the aisle, who is a gold miner's son. There are not many of us in here who are gold miners' sons. I am proud that my leader is a gold miner's son. I am proud that he assured us, from his standpoint and within his power, that he will do everything possible--and I hope he will--to help bring this legislation to the floor. He understands that it is needed, and I will welcome his assistance in that regard. I am proud of him as a gold miner's son. I am glad he reminds us of this from time to time. I believe this legislation is badly needed. I implore my leader to do everything he can to see that this bill gets on the calendar and gets taken up by the Senate and acted upon promptly.

I thank all Senators and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, my colleague and my friend, Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to offer a few observations on the manner in which the Senate has conducted its inquiry into the qualifications of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regardless of any Senator's particular view of Judge Alito, I think we can all agree that there is room for improvement in the way in which the Senate and, indeed, the Nation have undertaken the examination of this

nominee. Let me be clear. I mean no criticism of the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or any particular member of that committee.

I feel compelled to address this issue, not to point fingers, not to scold, not to assign blame, but only to address specific, sincere, heartfelt concerns that have been brought to my attention, by the people of West Virginia in particular. Many people, including foremost, as I say, the people of West Virginia, in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don't want to say it, but I must. They were appalled.

In the reams of correspondence that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians--the people I represent--West Virginians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another, people of different faiths, different views, different opinions, independently and respectively, used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them an ``outrage'' and a ``disgrace.''

These were not form letters, ginned up by special interest groups on either the right or the left. These were handwritten, contemplative, old-fashioned letters written on lined paper and personal stationery. They were the sort of letters that people write while watching television, in the comfort of their living rooms, or sitting at the kitchen table.

It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that even many who opposed Judge Alito's nomination also opposed the seemingly ``made for TV'' antics that accompanied the hearings.

It is not just the Senate as an institution which is to blame. The virulence of some outside groups from both sides of the political spectrum added fuel to the fire. Multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns either to proclaim or to denigrate Judge Alito's fitness for the position raged across the airwaves.

A solemn constitutional responsibility is not helped when it takes on such a tone.

And then there were the media and the media's contribution to the deterioration of this very important constitutional process.

Was it necessary to subject Mrs. Alito to the harsh glare of the television klieg lights as she fled the hearing room in tears, fighting to maintain her dignity in response to others with precious little of their own? Have we finally come to the point where our Nation's assessment of its Supreme Court nominee turns more on a simple-minded sound bite or an exploitive snapshot than on the answers provided or withheld by the nominees?

Obviously, something is wrong with our judicial nomination process, and we in the Senate have the power to fix it.

The Framers of such a great document presumably had something better in mind when they vested the Senate with the authority to confirm Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact, we know they did. In 1789, Roger Sherman of Connecticut defended the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointments. He wrote: It appears to me that the Senate is the most important branch in the government . . . The Executive magistrate is to execute the laws. The Senate, being a branch of the legislature, will naturally incline to have them duly executed and, therefore, will advise to such appointments as will best attain the end.

Alexander Hamilton also had high hopes for the Senate's ability to render its advice and consent function. He proclaimed: It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union.

Exactly what did the Framers mean when they gave the Senate the power to ``consent'' to the confirmation of the judicial nominees?

Historically, a majority of the Framers anticipated that the Senate's confirmation or rejection of a judicial nominee would be based on the fitness of the nominee, not on partisan politics or extraneous matters.

Based on these assumptions, the Framers presumably did not expect the Senate to spend its allotted time on a nominee staging partisan warfare instead of examining his or her qualifications.

Yet the Framers probably also would never have expected that a Senator of a nominee's own party would refuse to ask the candidate meaningful questions. They certainly did not intend for Senators of the nominee's own party to sit silently in quiet adulation, refusing to seek the truth, while smiling indulgently; thus, accomplishing nothing.

The Framers expected the Senate to be a serious check--a serious check--on the power of the President. The Framers clearly thought that the Senate's confirmation process ought to be fair, ought to be impartial, ought to be thorough, and ought to exhibit appropriate respect for solemn duty and the dignity of both the process and the nominee.

I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties--both political parties--exhibit such a ``take no prisoners'' attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, Executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers' rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the judiciary. They should be debated by the people's representatives in the legislative branch.

However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue, then they must take it to the Court. As the saying goes, ``If you can't change the law, change the judge.''

This kind of thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers. It is the role of the Congress--the role of the legislative branch--to make and change the laws. Supreme Court Justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with settled law.

A better understanding of the Court's role would do much to diminish the ``hype'' that now accompanies the judicial nomination process. The role of the Senate in the Alito debate is not to push legislation or to score points for those who either support or oppose specific legislative proposals. The purpose of the current debate is to evaluate the fitness of Judge Samuel Alito to sit on the highest Court of our land, which includes his temperament, his intellectual ability, and his record.

In a perfect world, this heavy constitutional responsibility of the Senate would have little to do with party affiliation.

Unfortunately, during the first administration of George Washington, as far back as 1795, a bruising confirmation battle over the nomination of John Rutledge to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court established that the same Senators would consider not merely the qualifications but also the political views of a nominee in deciding whether to support or reject his nomination.

I am a Senator who takes this Constitution seriously. I refuse simply to toe the party line when it comes to Supreme Court Justices. And I will make up my own mind after careful contemplation. The President of the United States said partly in jest that he wanted to call me to lobby me on the nomination. I said: Mr. President, I don't lobby very easily. I take my Constitutional duties seriously. I will listen to what anybody has to say, and then, Mr. President, I will make up my own mind.

I am a registered Democrat. Everybody knows that. But when it comes to judges, I hale from a conservative State. Similar to a majority of my constituents, I prefer conservative judges. I have been saying that for years and years. That is, judges who do not try to make the law.

I was once approached by President Richard Nixon to inquire about my interest in being a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I was proud to be considered. Whether I would have been nominated, I have no way of knowing. But as I said to my wife: I don't think I would like that position. I would not like that kind of cloistered life. I like the rough-and-tumble of the legislative branch. She said: Then you had better let the President know that.

I said the same thing to Senator John Pastore, and he responded in the same way. He said: You had better let the President know that.

I declined so that I might continue to serve the people of West Virginia, regardless of what the President may have in his heart and in his mind. This is not to say that I would vote for any judge just because he is a conservative. No. No, sir. If I think a conservative judge is unqualified, I will not vote for him, nor would any other Senator vote for a nominee in that situation.

I have voted against judges on both sides of the political spectrum, who leaned too heavily on their political views rather than on existing law, precedents and on the Constitution and who seemed to have a political agenda.

Much has been made of the fact that Judge Alito has expressed support of the concept of the ``unitary executive.'' Many are afraid his support for this concept means that he favors a broad expansion of Presidential power. And I shared some of that concern. Judge Alito, however, has stated repeatedly that his support for the concept of the unitary executive does not refer to broadening the scope of the power of the President.

Instead, Judge Alito says that this theory refers to the way in which the President utilizes his existing power to faithfully execute the law as it applies to administrative agencies within the executive branch. In describing the unitary executive in his speech before the Federalist Society, Judge Alito stated article II, section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' ``Thus,'' he said, ``the President has the power and the duty to supervise the way in which the subordinate executive branch officials exercise the President's power of carrying Federal law into execution.''

Before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito was asked point blank whether he thought the concept of the unitary executive refers to expanding the scope of Presidential power, or instead to the President's control over the executive branch. As I understood it, Judge Alito confirmed he was speaking of the latter.

Judge Alito was also asked whether he would support an expansion of the scope of Presidential power. Specifically, he was asked if he thought the President should have more power than he is expressly given under the Constitution and by law. Judge Alito stated several times that he would not support that point of view, and he noted, again, that the ``scope'' of the power of the President has nothing to do with the unitary executive.

I met with Judge Samuel Alito. I spent close to 2 hours with him. I asked him what he thought about the establishment clause and the free exercise clause and the power of the purse and the congressional power over the purse. I told him that I believed the Supreme Court has gone too far in prohibiting the free exercise of religion in this country. He listened respectfully and said that he understood. He did not pledge to overrule precedent, but he made it clear that he understood and respected my viewpoint.

I also advised him of my view that the executive branch is continually and improperly seeking to grab power, more power and more power, and that the separation of powers requires the judiciary to be ever vigilant in stopping the abuse of power by the President and in protecting the powers of the other two branches.

I urged Judge Alito, as I urged Judge Roberts before him, to recognize the importance of maintaining the equality of the three branches of our Government, protected by our Constitution. I stressed that he ought to be a Justice who will not forget the people's branch, the legislative branch, the first branch, the primary branch mentioned in the Constitution under article I; the executive is mentioned later on in article II.

I requested he not rule in a way that would expand the authority of an already expansionist executive. I reiterated that the Framers did not place the greatest power in the executive but, instead, the Framers put the greatest power in the people--the people, like you and me. The first three words in the preamble of the Constitution are, we all know, ``We, the People.'' The Framers ensured that the people, through us, their elected representatives in the Congress, would have the greatest power in our Government. In response, Judge Alito told me he respected the separation of powers and would not rule in support of a power- hungry President. I liked that answer. I liked Judge Alito. He struck me as a man of his word, and I intend to vote for him.

I believe strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to provide its advice and consent with respect to a particular nominee based on the merits or demerits of that nominee, not on focus groups, celebrity endorsements, binders filled with innuendo and slanted analysis or White House photo opportunities.

In truth, there is absolutely no way of knowing what any nominee for our Nation's highest Court will do after that nominee is confirmed. One could cite many examples of Justices who surprised the President who nominated them, as well as the Members of the Senate who supported or opposed their confirmation. Once a man or woman has achieved the high honor of a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court, a transformation may occur. The awesome responsibility of protecting our Constitution and preserving the checks and balances for succeeding generations of Americans must elevate and sharpen one's judicial temperament in profound ways. The duty to preserve the freedom of our citizens as enshrined in our magnificent Bill of Rights must ennoble even an already noble mind and character.

In the end, the heavy duty borne by Members of the Senate to evaluate and reject or approve the President's nominees for the High Court should come down to each Senator's personal judgment of the man or woman before us, augmented, of course, by such judicial records and writings as may exist. I may not know exactly what kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be. No one does. No one does. My considered judgment, from his record, from his answers to my own questions, from his obvious intelligence, and from his obvious sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man, a man who loves his country, loves the Constitution, and a man who will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, while the Senate was in recess, the State of West Virginia lost 14 proud sons.

On January 2, 13 hard-working, God-fearing men were simply earning their daily bread at the Sago coal mine in Upshur County, WV, when an explosion killed 1 man and trapped 12 others 260 feet below its surface. For 41 long hours, these men waited for help. They waited, they waited, they waited, and they prayed. They wrote farewell messages to their loved ones. How gripping. They waited as the air they breathed gave out and their lungs filled with toxic gases.

Above the ground, we all prayed for a miracle such as we had enjoyed with the nine miners who had been trapped at the mine at Quecreek, PA, in 2002 and were found alive. But this time, there was only one miracle. My wife Erma and I, like many others in my great State of West Virginia, continue to pray for the recovery of the sole survivor of the Sago explosion, Mr. Randal McCloy, Jr. But tragically, there were no miracles for Tom Anderson, Alva Bennett, Jim Bennett, Jerry Groves, George ``Junior'' Hammer, Terry Helms, Jesse Jones, David Lewis, Martin Toler, Jr., Fred Ware, Jr., Jackie Weaver, and Marshall Winans. Once again, a small coal-mining town in West Virginia went into deep mourning, and an entire State wept with them.

And then, incredibly, 17 days later, a mine fire broke out on a conveyor belt at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 in Logan County, WV, trapping two miners underground. In shock and disbelief, the State once again fell to its knees and prayed and pleaded for a miracle. Forty hours later, we learned that two more miners--Don Bragg and Ellery Hatfield--had perished. Another small coal-mining town in West Virginia went into deep mourning, and again an entire State wept with them.

Once again, the national media rushed in to report the disaster to the world. Once again, editorials filled newspapers across the country decrying the dangers of mining coal, denouncing the callousness of coal companies, and questioning the commitment of State and Federal officials to mine safety.

Madam President, as a child of the Appalachian coalfields, as the son of a West Virginia coal miner, as a U.S. Senator representing one of the most important coal-producing States in the Nation, let me say I have seen it all before. Yes, I have seen it all before.

First, the disaster. Then the weeping. Then the outrage. And we are all too familiar with what comes next. After a few weeks, when the cameras are gone, when the ink on the editorials has dried, everything returns to business as usual. The health and the safety of America's coal miners, the men and women upon whom the Nation depends so much, is once again forgotten until the next disaster. But not this time.

Let me say that this U.S. Senator and the West Virginia delegation in the House and in the Senate will do all that we can to prevent that. There is blame to be assessed in the wake of these tragedies and plenty of it to go around.

Let us begin with the coal company that operated the Sago mine, which had been issued 276 safety and health violations in 2004 and 2005. Let me try to put that into perspective. Could any automobile driver or any truckdriver rack up 276 tickets for reckless driving and still keep a license? What if someone had 276 mistakes on a tax return? One can bet that taxpayer would be looking at serious penalties and possibly time in a Federal prison. But here was a coal company with 276 Federal mine safety violations still operating. While some of these were minor transgressions, too many of them were ``significant and substantial'' or, simply put, very serious, and yet business went on as usual. It is quite possible that not one of these specific violations contributed to the explosion at Sago. But 276 violations is certainly indicative of a company's sloppy attention toward the well-being of its employees. That should be obvious on its face.

What about the agency that is responsible for making sure that coal operators comply with the spirit and the letter of the law--the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Let me be clear that I have nothing but praise for the brave rescue teams that went into the Sago and Alma mines. Anybody who has been around a mine explosion knows the dangers that still lurk not just hours but days after such an accident. To go into a mine after a disaster, after an explosion, and to risk one's own life in an effort to save other lives, as these rescuers do, takes guts. It takes a love for one's fellow man.

Coal miners are a special breed. I have seen these miners go into a mine after an explosion, risking their own lives, realizing that another explosion might occur and another tragedy would follow in the wake of the first tragedy.

Yes, MSHA is filled with good, well-intentioned, and dedicated professionals, but something is terribly wrong with the leadership at

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

Madam President, the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is close to the heart, dear to the heart of the senior Senator from Alaska. I love him. I admire his unyielding commitment to the people of his State. I honor him for that. I consider him a dear friend, a friend over a long period of time, a friend who is close to my heart.

My remarks today do not reflect upon him or upon his efforts in regard to the people he represents. My concern is with the rules of the Senate. My concern is with the Senate rules in this book and how the rules are threatened--threatened--by what has been unfolding in recent days.

If cloture is invoked on the conference report, Senators have discussed raising a rule XXVIII point of order--that is what we hear-- against the conference report. That point of order is expected to be sustained by the Chair. The question may then be put to the Senate to overturn the ruling of the Chair and, in effect, to negate--get this-- in effect to negate rule XXVIII in order to retain ANWR provisions in the conference report.

It has been noted that if the Senate negates the rule, language included in the conference report would restore rule XXVIII by directing the Presiding Officer to apply the precedents of the Senate in effect at the beginning of the 109th Congress.

It is true that noncontroversial, extraneous matter is often included in conference reports. There is no doubt about that. It is true that Senators acquiesce on many occasions, choosing not to invoke rule XXVIII. That is true. That is a fact. It is also true that the Senate can reinterpret and set new precedents for the application of its rules whenever it pleases. The Senate can do that. That is as it ought to be. But what has been discussed in recent days is very different--hear me-- very different.

It will allow a simple majority of Senators, as opposed to the two- thirds majority required by Senate rule V, to effectively suspend rule XXVIII by negating it and then restoring it so that the rule cannot be used to prevent the passage of the ANWR provisions that have been inserted into the conference report.

I say to my colleagues--hear me, hear me, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--that I abhor, I abhor, I abhor this idea. Shame.

If such a scheme were carried into effect, it could seriously impair the Senate rules. Hear me. I know about the rules. I spent years in using the rules. Nothing would stand in the way of a majority-- nothing--nothing would stand in the way of a majority, be it Republican or be it Democrat, from routinely negating and replacing Senate rule XXVIII in order to insert controversial legislation into a conference report. This is a very clever, a very clever, a very clever thing that is being put forth here.

Today, this process could be employed to suspend rule XXVIII, but tomorrow, it could be employed to suspend the rule XVI prohibition against legislation on appropriations bills, and the day after that, it could be used to suspend who knows whatever rules.

Not yet. I will be happy to yield to my friend. He is my friend. I love him, I told him that, but I love the Senate better. I love the Senate more. I love this man from Alaska. I do, I love him. I feel my blood in my veins is with his blood. I love him, but I love the Senate more. I came here and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I would die upholding that oath, just as the Romans honored an oath. And I feel the same about that. I love my friend from Alaska, I say, I love him, but I cannot go down that road. I have told him so. I love him, but I love the Senate more.

I know he is going to speak, and I would love to follow him, but I won't be able to, so let my words stand. The record stands.

If permitted today, the process could be utilized again and again and again, with terrible consequences for the Senate rules. I understand that Senators are working to avoid this scenario. I hope that effort is successful. Allowing this process to continue unfolding as it has in recent days would cause significant harm to the Senate as an institution.

Senators should realize that if negated in the next hour, rule XXVIII would not be restored in its current form until the President signs into law the Defense appropriations conference report, which could take as long as 10 days. In that time, any remaining conference reports, whether a rewritten PATRIOT Act or a continuing resolution, could include almost any--almost any--nongermane provisions without being subject to a rule XXVIII point of order.

It is ironic--oh, it is ironic.

May I have 5 more minutes?

Madam President, it is ironic that the Senator from Alaska and I find ourselves on opposite sides of this issue. In the year 2000, we worked together to restore rule XXVIII after it had been negated 4 years earlier. We agreed that it ought to be restored to try to facilitate a return to the regular order in the Senate. My friend remembers as I do the yearend Omnibus appropriations bills that would come back from conference where conferees had to accept all sorts of new matter never before considered by the House or Senate. We included an amendment in the fiscal year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act to restore rule XXVIII, with the support of the majority and the minority leaders. Now the question may be put to the Senate to negate rule XXVIII again.

I understand the passions surrounding the issue of ANWR, and I honor my friend from Alaska. He is standing up for his State, but I am standing for the Senate. I am standing for the Senate, the Senate's rules under the Constitution of the United States. I understand the passions surrounding the issue of ANWR, but we abandon and undermine these rules at a terrible, terrible price. What a price. This institution and the liberties that its rules protect must come first-- must come first--before political party, whatever it be, Republican or Democrat, and before legislative maneuvering. Those battles are fleeting, but the Senate must stand forever.

I do not want to see the Senate, the forum of the States and the last exalted refuge that guarantees a voice to the minority among the din of an overwhelming majority, I do not want to see the Senate take the position that a majority of Senators are entitled to suspend the Senate rules whenever they prove inconvenient. So I urge my colleagues-- please, listen, my friends on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans--I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this issue. The powerful abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner called the Senate rules the very temple, the very temple of constitutional liberty, and he was right. I plead with my colleagues to not dismantle that temple of constitutional liberty. I urge my colleagues to preserve rule XXVIII in its current form and, if raised, to oppose any motion to overturn the ruling of the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Shame.

Shame.

Yes.

Right.

Mr. President, the Senate is now on its way to passing the Defense appropriations bill, which will provide essential funds to our troops. The U.S. Armed Forces are comprised of some of the finest men and women our country has to offer. Each of these brave individuals has made the commitment to serve our country, during times of war or peace, and each is deserving of the support of a grateful nation.

I particularly wish to salute the fine members of the West Virginia National Guard who have time and again demonstrated their commitment to serving our State and our Nation. These citizen-soldiers have served in all corners of the world while balancing their obligations to their families, to their employers, and to their communities. The Defense appropriations bill is important to our National Guard and all the members of our military. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues to expedite passage of this essential legislation.

The Senate is proceeding in a wise course after the cloture vote this morning. The most controversial part of the conference report will be removed, clearing the way for the Defense appropriations bill to pass the Senate and be sent on its way to the White House. It is unfortunate that the deletion of the most controversial provision that was attached to the bill in conference will also result in eliminating needed funds for hurricane relief, LIHEAP, homeland security, and border security. Congress should not delay in providing additional funds for these purposes. There are emergency needs in each of these areas that must be met with quick action.

While the ANWR provision will be removed from the bill, I continue to have serious concerns about the avian flu-related liability provisions that were slipped into the conference report without debate. These liability provisions did not appear in either the House- or the Senate- passed bill. These provisions were not in the materials presented to the conference committee during its deliberations. It was not until the dead of night on this past Sunday, after signatures had already been collected on the conference report, that the Republican majority slipped these provisions into the bill before the Senate today. What an insult to the legislative process.

It makes sense for Congress to take steps to encourage companies to develop and manufacture lifesaving flu vaccines. Manufacturers and health professionals acting in good faith to protect the public health, by developing and distributing critical vaccines, should not be unfairly penalized for their efforts to protect the American people from the horrors of a pandemic disease.

However, our country has a moral obligation to look out for those who may become seriously ill as a result of these vaccines. We are talking about the lives of real American people. There ought to be compensation available to those persons who may suffer adverse effects from these kinds of vaccines.

But the liability amendment slipped into the bill does not contain any meaningful provisions establishing a fair compensation system to protect vaccine recipients. Americans who pull up their sleeves to receive an emergency flu vaccine must be provided with some assurance that they would not face economic catastrophe should they be harmed.

All of this comes as our country is coming to grips with the threat that the avian flu might spread to our shores. A flu pandemic is one of the most dangerous threats the United States faces today. Medical experts warn that a global, cataclysmic pandemic is not a question of if but when. Like any natural disaster, it could hit at anytime. And when it does, it could take the lives of tens of millions of people.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, an avian flu pandemic would deliver a devastating $675 billion blow to the U.S. economy. This administration has failed to adequately respond to safeguard the American people and limit the human and economic cost of such a pandemic.

In the event of a flu pandemic, hundreds of millions of Americans will need to be vaccinated as quickly as possible. Yet our current public health infrastructure is alarmingly ill-equipped for this threat. This administration and the Republican-led Congress have weakened the health care infrastructure of this country by starving it of needed funding. The administration has been engaged in a relentless campaign to arbitrarily cut Medicaid and other vital safety-net programs that protect the health of the poor and disabled.

I am also disappointed that the majority chose to limit funds for vaccines, medicines, and other tools to combat

the avian flu to just $3.8 billion. That level of funding is $4.3 billion below the level that the Senate approved just 2 months ago.

The American people deserve better from their elected representatives. They deserve a coherent plan to combat the looming threat of a flu pandemic with significant resources devoted to protecting the public's health.

Finally, Mr. President, I regret that so little attention has been paid during the recent debate on this bill to the most important issue facing our country. The ongoing war in Iraq has so far cost the lives of 2,155 members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Including the so-called ``bridge fund'' of $50 billion that is appropriated in this bill, our Nation will have dedicated $259 billion to carry out the war in Iraq. What an enormous sum. More than a quarter of a trillion dollars has been spent on this war that should never have begun.

What is more, the newspapers are full of stories that the President is going to ask Congress for another $100 billion in the coming months to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These huge sums of money are being requested and spent for the war in Iraq with no idea of how the White House intends to get our troops out of that country. The President has taken to the speaking circuit to try to rally support for the war, but his statements are simply variations on a theme: stay the course, stay the course, stay the course.

Americans are asking questions that the White House has so far refused to address. How much longer will our troops be in Iraq? How many more Americas will perish in this costly war? How many more billions will be spent to support the administration's misguided policies in Iraq?

Instead of getting answers to these questions, and instead of changing course in the war in Iraq, this appropriations bill includes $50 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that the President did not request a single dime in his budget for these costs. Let me say again: the Congress is appropriating billions more for the war in Iraq without a request from the President. Is this any way to pay for a war?

Although Senators must do our part in providing for our troops serving in harm's way, I do not think that our troops are served by having Congress appropriate funds for the war in Iraq without any explanation by the President or the Secretary of Defense about how these funds are to be used. If the administration wants additional funds to prosecute the war in Iraq, the administration should answer the tough questions about its policy for getting our country out of Iraq.

Mr. President, it has been 3 weeks since President Bush signed into law the 2006 spending bill providing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, his signature was accompanied by a glaring asterisk. Instead of approving the full amount of funding that Congress provided for veterans health care, the President bottled up $1.2 billion in emergency funding that the VA urgently needs to make ends meet.

Congress added the emergency money to the bill after discovering that the President's 2006 budget request for the VA was woefully inadequate, compounding a series of errors in funding assumptions by the administration that led to a massive shortfall in VA funding in fiscal year 2005.

The $1.2 billion in emergency funding was not some kind of optional Christmas bonus for America's veterans. It is money that the VA needs to cover the baseline cost of veterans health care programs. But that money cannot be released to the VA until the President signs on the dotted line and designates it as an emergency. Unless and until the President acts, the money will simply languish in the Treasury, benefitting nobody while jeopardizing the VA's ability to meet the needs of veterans. Make no mistake about it: without this money, the VA will experience another shortfall in funding in 2006, and veterans will suffer the consequences of diminished services and longer waiting times for health care.

So why is the President sitting on this money? When Congress passed the VA funding bill, I wrote to the President urging him to release the emergency funding at the same time, thus assuring veterans that health care services will continue uninterrupted for the next year. But for some reason, the President has chosen not to release the emergency money. Instead of sending the VA the full amount of funding that Congress appropriated for veterans health care in 2006--a total of $22.5 billion--the President has chosen to hold $1.2 billion hostage at the White House.

What possible reason could the President have for refusing to relinquish this money to the VA? Does he expect America's veterans to beg for the money? Could he possibly fail to understand the importance of fully funding the VA health care program? Or could he have somehow forgotten the chaos last summer when the VA revealed that it had at least a $1 billion shortfall in health care funding for 2005, and was facing another gaping shortfall in 2006?

What kind of a signal does this send to our Nation's veterans, and to our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Congress has worked diligently over the past 6 months to clean up the budget mess in the VA. As a result of amendments that I spearheaded in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor, the Senate seized the initiative to provide emergency funding to cover the shortfall that occurred in 2005 and to head off another shortfall in 2006. The administration, by contrast, had to be dragged to the table and only grudgingly owned up to the catastrophic consequences of its sloppy and inept budget estimates.

Congress has acted. Now the ball is in the President's court, and the clock is ticking. Mr. President, I again call on the President to immediately release the $1.2 billion in emergency funding for veterans' health care that Congress has provided.