Floor Statements

Mr. President, last week, I was pleased to join a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate in support of a motion that instructed budget conferees to strike an ill-conceived House provision from the budget reconciliation bill. That provision sought to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA. Last Thursday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--by a vote of 71 to 20 to strike any repeal of CDSOA from the budget reconciliation bill.

The Senate supported CDSOA. Why? Because the Senate recognized that any repeal or attempt to abandon this trade law would be a travesty--a travesty--on justice. The House agreed, and last Friday the House passed a similar motion to instruct which contained, among other things, language to strike repeal of CDSOA from the House-passed bill.

The vote on that successful House motion to instruct was 246 to 175. What could be clearer than that? The House vote on that motion was 246 to 175. And yet--get this, hear me now--over the weekend--yes, over the weekend literally in the dead of night when all was still, nothing was stirring, in the dead of night--a small number of misguided House and Senate conferees decided to turn their backs--turn their backs, on the American worker.

Hear me out there, the American workers all over this country. Hear me, hear me out there on the Great Plains. Hear me out there in the river valleys. Hear me out there in the mountains of West Virginia. Hear me out there in the great Rocky Mountains. Hear me out there on the west coast, the American workers, the American workers.

So this small group decided to ignore the will--hear me--ignore the will of both Houses of Congress. That was blatant, was it not? They decided to repeal CDSOA after 2 years. What arrogance, what sheer, unmitigated, raw arrogance. Fie on you. Shame, shame, shame. CDSOA was enacted to save American manufacturing and our agricultural producers from wave after wave after wave of unfairly traded foreign imports. Let me say that again. Hear it again. Hear me again. CDSOA was enacted. Why? To save American manufacturing and American agricultural producers from wave after wave after wave of unfairly traded foreign imports. It is one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted. Alleluia. It enables small and medium-sized businesses and family-owned businesses to invest in their futures.

This law preserves an increasingly rare commodity in these United States, a vanishing breed, the American worker. Five years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate approved this provision to reimburse U.S. companies injured by unfair foreign trade. Let me say that again. Five years ago, a bipartisan majority, Republican and Democrat, of the Senate approved this provision to reimburse U.S. companies injured by unfair foreign trade.

Under the law, each year Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to American companies, to American workers, who can prove they have been materially injured by unfair trade. What could be better than that? What could be more fair? What could be more just than that? Under the law, each year Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to American companies and workers who can prove that they--these American companies and workers--have been materially injured by unfair trade.

CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade so that jobs that should stay in the United States are not destroyed by unfair foreign competition. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? Hear me.

While the amounts distributed under the program are not large, from a budget perspective, approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005, the law has been critically important--hear me--the law has been critically important to American companies and American workers hurt by dumped and unfairly subsidized imports. I am speaking on behalf of American companies and American workers who have been injured by these unfair imports, these subsidized imports.

To receive reimbursement under the law, companies certify in writing that they have made qualifying expenditures in support of their workers and their facilities. The law reimburses them only for those expenditures. I will say that again. The law reimburses them only for those expenditures in support of their workers and facilities. The Customs Service verifies any claims submitted to make certain that requests for reimbursement are valid. Consequently, there are stringent safeguards in place under the law to make certain that funds are distributed under the law legally, honestly, and fairly.

Critics of the law--yes, listen to them, critics of the law--argue that the WTO has ruled against it so we should abandon it. Shame. But the WTO had no legal authority to rule against this law.

This means that the WTO's ruling was beyond the scope of its legal mandate, and to this day, Tuesday, the 20th day of December in the year of our Lord 2005, the WTO has never articulated a legitimate argument justifying any need for the United States to repeal this law. They have not done it. They cannot do it. They cannot do it. They have not done it.

Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of the Nation--not just in West Virginia, not just in the steel trade in West Virginia or Pennsylvania or Kentucky or Ohio, workers in nearly every State of the Nation receive distributions under this law's provisions. It is critical to family-owned businesses such as Warwood Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel and to Weirton, WV. It is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and elsewhere across the Nation. They, and all hard-working Americans, deserve to continue to receive these funds so long as foreign traders keep on dumping illegally. Illegally. If our trading partners do not like this trade law, the solution is easy. The solution is not to repeal the law. If our trading partners are offended by the law, I have only two words for them. Hear me, only two words for them: Stop dumping. It is that simple: two little words: Stop dumping. If you, our trading partners, are offended by the law, bless your hearts, I have two words for you, our trading partners that are dumping: Stop dumping.

The United States is working to complete negotiations in the Doha Round of trade talks. What kind of leverage can we maintain over other countries in those talks if we meekly agree unilaterally to disarm, to repeal one of the strongest and most successful trade remedy laws ever enacted in the United States? What a foolhardy, what a simple-minded stunt.

Why don't we hand them a sharp stick to poke our eyes out?

That would make about as much sense as repealing our trade laws. Now is the time to hold foreign unfair traders more accountable, not less-- more accountable, not less.

I urge my fellow Senators, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in voting against this budget bill which contains language that would repeal this critical trade law.

While the drafters of the repeal of this law argue that it will permit certain duty distributions to continue--at least for the next 2 years--the text is not exactly clear on this point. So I ask my colleagues: Why tamper with a law that works? There is no reason to undermine the statute as it is now written. There is no need to repeal the law today. There is no need to repeal the law 2 years from now, or ever.

Therefore, with all my heart, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the budget reconciliation bill, to make certain that one of America's most successful trade laws stays on the books as it is currently written.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. On many issues, we are together, and that is as it should be. On other issues, we, perhaps, do not agree. But I always--I always--hold his opinions in great respect, great respect. I admire him. And I admire the heritage he brings to us from that great State of Alabama. I thank him always for his service.

Mr. President, perhaps the greatest oration ever delivered was the Oration on the Crown, delivered by Demosthenes in the year 330 B.C. In that inimitable oration, it seems to me the question was posed: Who least serves the state? And the question was answered in that oration: He who does not speak his mind.

In this day, we should remember that. And I shall attempt to honor that credo.

Mr. President, Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our country's law-abiding citizens and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is to choose to exercise their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the administration's flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this administration as ``domestic terrorists.'' Shame!

We now know that the FBI's use of national security letters on American citizens has increased exponentially, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records.

These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and they provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order. And through news reports, my fellow Americans, through news reports we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's practice of rendition and the so-called black sites, secret locations--hear that, secret locations--in foreign countries where abuse and interrogations have been exported to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that our Vice President, Dick Cheney, has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language maintained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God, Vice President Cheney's pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation, through an Executive order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the court. Get that. Shame! Shame! He has usurped the third branch of Government, the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people, by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. Get that. He has stiff-armed the people's branch of Government, this branch, the people's branch. He has rationalized the use of domestic civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war.

The Executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. What is the President thinking? What is the President thinking?

Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for. This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the Government's role in fighting the war on terror with the fourth amendment rights afforded to each and every American. Yet the American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than ``trust me.''

But we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority the President claims? I defy the administration to show for the record where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or where in the United States Constitution they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent American citizens and spy.

When asked recently what the source of that authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law and could not address the needs of the Government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the Government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the

pre-9/11 ``wall'' between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it ``opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.''

But the President claims--hear me!--that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief in this Constitution are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces.

These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power but against whom? Against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens--like you, like you, like you, and like you! They are conducted against individuals living on American soil--not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. Nothing. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand unchallenged.

Now, the President claims boundless authority, an unlimited authority through the resolution that authorized war on those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. Read it. That resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the White House, this administration, the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give this President, or any President, the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which this administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people--the people--and the raw arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the legislative and judicial branches. The President has cast off Federal law enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon, trampled under foot the prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution. This Constitution still lives. This Constitution was made for all time, for all administrations, for all Presidents, for all Senators.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets, and we are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse of power and constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law.

We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. The President claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and working democracy, at the same time that he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances. President Bush called the recent Iraqi election ``a landmark day in the history of liberty.'' I daresay in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of liberty seemed so illusory, so fleeting. These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of Government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words: ``These are the times that try men's souls.''

These astounding revelations about the bending, the twisting, the stretching, and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible administration under the banner of ``national security'' are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General. It is time to ask hard questions of the Secretary of State, of the Secretary of Defense, and of the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of ``executive privilege'' in order to avoid further embarrassment.

The practice of domestic spying on citizens should stop immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: Where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens? Where? Where is that authority to be found?

What is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting that there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights?

Who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy?

How many American citizens' lives have been unknowingly affected?

Mr. President, fellow Senators, let us in our day remember the words of Brutus to Cicero:

Our ancestors scorned to bear even a gentle master!

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Lord Byron said, ``Thank God I have done my duty.'' May I say

to the Senator from New Jersey, he has done his duty. He is a good Senator. We will miss you. I will. Thank you for standing up for what you believe. Thank you very much. Bless your heart.

Right.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his kindness and his courtesy in yielding to me. I want to say there is one thing I am sorry about with respect to the Senator from Minnesota. He made a bad decision some time ago. I wish he had not made it, and I begged him to retract on it and say he would not do it. He says he is not going to run again. I am sorry about that. He is one of the immortal 23 Senators who voted against that resolution that the Senator from California is talking about. I voted against it. I have been in the Senate for 47 years, and that is the vote of which I am most proud because in voting that way, I stood for this, the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution does not give any President the power to declare war. It says Congress shall have the power to declare war. I voted against that resolution, the best vote I have cast in 47 years in this Senate, and I am proud that the Senator from Minnesota can carry that tribute with him to the grave. I thank him and congratulate him. Again, I thank him for yielding to me.

Mr. President, I believe in America. Let me say that again. I believe in America. I believe in the dream of the Founders and Framers of our inspiring Constitution. I believe in the spirit that drove President Abraham Lincoln to risk all to preserve the Union. I believe in what President Kennedy challenged America to be--America, the great experiment of democracy.

Where the strong are also just and the weak can feel secure, the soul and promise of America stands as a beacon, praise God, of freedom and a protector of liberty which lights and energizes the people around the world. Today, sadly, that beacon is dimmed. This administration's America is becoming a place where the strong are arrogant and the weak are ignored. Fie on the administration.

Yes, we hear high-flung language from the White House about bringing democracy to a land where democracy has never been. We seem mesmerized with glorious rhetoric about justice and liberty, but does the rhetoric really match the reality of what our country has become?

Since the heinous attacks of September 11, I speak of the actions of our own Government, actions that have undermined the credibility of this great Nation around the world. These actions taken one at a time may seem justified, but taken as a whole they form an unsettling picture and tell a troubling story. Do we remember the abuses at Abu Ghraib? They were explained as an aberration. Do we remember the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? They were denied as an exaggeration. Now we read about this so-called policy of rendition--what a shame--a policy where the U.S. taxpayers are funding secret prisons in foreign lands. What a word, ``rendition.'' What a word, ``rendition.'' Shame. It sounds so vague, almost harmless. But the practice of rendition is abhorrent.

Let me say that again. It sounds so vague, almost harmless, but the practice of rendition is abhorrent--abhorrent.

The administration's practice of rendition is an affront, an affront to the principles of freedom, the very opposite of principles we claim we are trying to

transplant to Iraq and to other rogue nations.

The administration claims that rendition is a valuable weapon in the war on terror. But what is the value of having America's CIA sit as judge and jury while deciding just who might be a threat to our national security? Such determinations receive no review by a court of law--none. The CIA simply swings into action, abducts a person from some foreign country and flies them off to who knows where, with no judicial review of guilt or innocence. A person can be held in secret prisons in unnamed countries or even shipped off to yet another country to face torture at the hands of the secret police of brutal governments.

Is that what we want? Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America that Nathan Hale died for, when he said I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country? Is this the America that he died for? Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America of which millions of people dreamed? Is this, I ask the Senate, the beacon of freedom inspiring other nations to follow?

The United States should state clearly and without question that we will not torture prisoners and that we will abide by the treaties that we signed, because to fail to do so is to lose the very humanity, the morality that makes America different, that makes America the hope for individual liberty around the world.

The disgusting, degrading, and damaging practice of rendition should cease immediately. Is this what Patrick Henry was talking about--give me liberty or give me death? It is not about who they are. ``It's not about who they are. It's about who we are.'' Those are the words of my colleague Senator John McCain, bless his heart. Senator McCain is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is a former prisoner of war. He knows what it is all about. And he is exactly right. There is no moral high ground in torture. There is no moral high ground in the inhumane treatment of prisoners. Our misguided, thuggish practice of rendition has put a major blot on American foreign policy.

Now comes this similarly alarming effort to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, retaining provisions that devastate many of our own citizens' civil liberties here at home. What is happening? What is happening to our cherished America? Let us stop and look and listen and think. What is happening to our cherished America?

Any question raised about the wisdom of shredding constitutional protections of civil liberties with roots that trail back centuries is met with the disclaimer that the world has changed and that the 9/11 attacks are, in effect, a green light. Get that, a green light to trash this Constitution, to seize private library records. Hear that.

Suppose I want to get a book out of the library. Suppose I want to read ``Loves Labors Lost.'' The disclaimer that the world has changed and that the 9/11 attacks are in effect a green light to trash the Constitution, to seize private library records--suppose I want to read about ``A Tale of Two Cities.'' They are going to seize those library records? To search private property--how about that--without the knowledge of the owner? If you want to go in my house without my knowledge, without my wife's knowledge, to spy on ordinary citizens accused of no crime in a manner is a sick--a sick, s-i-c-k, perversion of our system of justice and it must not be allowed.

Paranoia must not be allowed to chip away at our civil liberties. Don't let it happen. The United States of America must not adopt the thuggish tactics of our enemies--no. We must not trash the fourth amendment because the Senate is being stampeded at the end of a congressional session. No.

Government fishing expeditions with search warrants written by FBI agents is not what the Framers had in mind. It is not what Benjamin Franklin had in mind. It is not what Morris had in mind. It is not what James Wilson had in mind. Spying on ordinary, unsuspecting citizens-- not with that in mind. Without their knowledge? No. That is not what the Framers had in mind. Handing the Government unilateral authority to keep all evidence secret from a target so that it may never be challenged in a court of law is not what the Framers had in mind.

Yesterday, I believe it was, we heard reports that the military has spied on Americans simply because they exercised their right to peaceably assemble and to speak their minds. What disgrace. What a shame. Today we hear, yes, we hear today that the military is tapping phone lines in our own country without the consent of a judge. Can you believe that? Here in this country, where liberty is supposed to prevail.

Go and ask that Statue of Liberty. Is that what it stands for?

No. Labeling civil disobedience and political dissent as domestic terrorism is not what the Framers had in mind.

Read history. What is the matter with us? Have we gone berserk? Read history. That is not what they had in mind.

Our Nation is the most powerful nation in the world. Why? Because our Nation was founded on a principle of liberty. Benjamin Franklin said ``those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'' Our Founding Fathers, intent on addressing the abuses they had suffered at the hands of an overzealous government, established--yes, it did--established a system of checks and balances, ensuring that there is a separation of powers--there is a separation of powers. Read it in the Constitution, article I, article II, article III--a separation of powers so that no one body may run amok with its agenda. These checks are what safeguards freedom for you, Mr. President, and for me and for all others in this land. These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us--yes, they are looking through those lenses there, they are looking at us, yes. The people out on the broad prairies, out on the plains, out in the valleys, out on the great shores, the frozen wastes of the North Pole, and, yes, that liberty extends everywhere. That American liberty extends everywhere. And nobody may run amok with its agenda.

These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us--you, and me, Senator, you, Senator, and you, Mr. President--looking to us now to restore and protect that freedom.

So many have died protecting those freedoms. And we owe it to those brave men and women to deliberate meaningfully and to ultimately protect those freedoms that Americans cherish so deeply. The American people deserve nothing less.

Earlier today, the Senate voted to stop a bill that would have allowed the abuses of American civil liberties to continue for another 4 years. Shame. The message of this vote is not just about the PATRIOT Act but the message that the Senate can stand up, the Senate can stand against an overreaching Executive of any party, any party, any party that has sacrificed our liberties and stained our standing before the world.

The PATRIOT Act has gone too far. It has gone too far. Secret renditions should be stopped. Torture must be outlawed. Our military should not spy on our own people.

The Senate has spoken. Let us secure our country but not by destroying our liberties.

Thank Almighty God for this Constitution and the Framers who wrote it, and the Founders of our Nation who risked their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor. Thank God for checks and balances. Thank God for the Senate, and may it always stand for the right.

I thank all Senators. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I want to tell him that I wish he and his family and loved ones a merry Christmas, a merry Christmas. I thank him.

Mr. President, I wish to join my Republican colleagues, Senator DeWine, Senator Specter, and Senator Craig, all of whom have already spoken so eloquently in support of a motion introduced by Senator DeWine yesterday to instruct conferees on the budget bill to strike an ill- conceived House provision that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA.

To repeal or abandon this trade law would be a travesty. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act was enacted to save American manufacturing and our agricultural producers from wave after wave of unfairly dumped foreign imports.

CDSOA remains one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted. It maintains America's corporate competitiveness; it enables small and medium-sized businesses--and family-owned businesses--to invest in their futures. It keeps American workers employed, so they can receive health and pension benefits. This law is about American jobs. As Senator DeWine said yesterday, this law is not about rewarding special interests: It is about keeping American jobs.

Five years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate approved our amendment to give U.S. companies injured by unfair trade the ability to invest in their factories and workers with funds collected by the Customs Service from unfairly traded imports. I particularly appreciate the continued strong support that Senator DeWine and many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to express in support of this law. In fact, three-fourths of the Senate has publicly pledged support for the law.

Before this law was enacted, the Customs Service imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped and unfairly subsidized imports--to make foreign exporters stop dumping and charge a fair price. Despite Customs' efforts, unfair foreign traders refused to trade fairly. Instead, they continued to dump--year after year. And the prices of the dumped foreign imports from China, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and other countries continued to unfairly undercut the prices of American-made products sold here in the United States.

Faced with eroding U.S. market share, American producers struggled to stay afloat, unable to invest in new plants or equipment or to meet their payrolls. This was particularly true for small businesses and many of our Nation's family farmers, ranchers, and aquacultural producers. Even today, valiant producers of shrimp and crawfish continue to suffer from having endured a double whammy: unending unfair trade and Hurricane Katrina.

CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade, so that jobs that should stay in the United States are not sent overseas or ``outsourced'' as the result of unfair competition. Under the law, each year, Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to those American companies and workers who can prove that they have been materially injured by unfair trade.

While the amounts distributed under the program are not large from a budget perspective---approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005-- the law is critically important to American companies and workers who continue to work hard to stay in business, even when foreign producers refuse to stop dumping. American companies that rightfully receive distributions under the law include producers of crawfish, garlic, furniture, honey, lumber, wheat, shrimp, catfish, semiconductor chips, bearings, mushrooms, crawfish, pasta, steel, raspberries, cement, and a long list of others--all of which deserve to be reimbursed under the law for having suffered the negative effects of bringing successful trade cases against illegally traded imports year after year after year.

There was a claim on the Senate floor earlier this week that CDSOA claims may be fraudulent. That shows a basic misunderstanding of the law. To receive reimbursement under the law, companies must certify, in writing, that they have made qualifying expenditures in their workers and facilities. CDSOA reimburses them for those expenditures. And Customs may verify any claim submitted to make certain that a request for reimbursement is valid. So there are very careful safeguards in place under the law to be certain that funds are distributed fairly, honestly, and legally.

Critics of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act also argue that the WTO has ruled against the law, so we should abandon it. But the WTO was wrong in opposing it. The WTO was overzealous in ruling against the law; it overreached. The WTO decision against this trade authority was technically beyond the scope of the WTO' legal mandate. The WTO incorrectly read into international agreements a prohibition against our law that was never agreed to by any U.S. trade negotiator. The WTO has no legal basis to request that the United States repeal this law.

Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of the Nation receive distributions under its provisions. It is critical to family-owned businesses, like Warwood Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, and to Mittal Steel's facilities in Weirton, WV. It is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere across the Nation. They, and all hard- working Americans, deserve to continue to receive these funds so long as foreign traders keep dumping. If our trading partners don't like this trade law, I have only two words for them: stop dumping.

In the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts-- and, now, in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act--both Houses of Congress included language that directs the administration to negotiate a solution to the WTO dispute concerning this law. In fact, the conference report on the CJS bill that contains this language was approved by the Senate on November 16 by an overwhelming vote of 94 to 5.

Pursuant to these congressional directives, the administration last year put this trade law on the table in the Doha Round of trade negotiations, and the USTR even told our trading partners that it agrees it is ``beyond question that countries have the sovereign right to distribute duties as they deem appropriate.''

Even if the WTO disagrees with the law, any retaliation by other countries against us is negligible--equal to only a few hours of trade among a few of our trading partners.

Currently, the United States and other nations are seeking to complete negotiations in the Doha Round of international trade talks by the end of 2006. Now is not the time to weaken the hand of our trade negotiators by attempting to repeal one of our Nation's most prominent and effective trade laws.

In fact, now is the time to do more to hold foreign unfair traders accountable, not less.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this motion to instruct the conferees to strike from the budget reconciliation bill any provision that would repeal this critical trade law.

Mr. President, in my book, ``Child of the Appalachian Coal Fields,'' I discussed the Senate class of 1958. That class, which included 15 Democrats and 3 Republicans, constituted the largest turnover over in Senate history, and from that class of Senators came a number of Senate leaders and Presidential candidates. Most important, I pointed out, while elected during the Eisenhower administration, the class of 1958 ``tackled some of the greatest foreign and domestic problems ever to face the Nation, and they played critical roles in enacting the Great Society programs and ending the war in Vietnam.''

One of the most remarkable members of that remarkable class was Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who passed away this weekend. He played critical roles both in enacting the Great Society programs and ending the war in Vietnam.

It was my privilege and my pleasure to serve with Eugene McCarthy in the U.S. House of Representatives and here in the Senate as members of the class of 1958.

While serving together, I came to appreciate that Senator McCarthy was a truly gifted and talented person with an extraordinary background. He was, without question, one of the more unusual Members to sit in this chamber. He was a poet, professor, philosopher, and author, and had been a military intelligence official during World War II and a semiprofessional baseball player.

In the Senate, as throughout his life, Senator McCarthy did not hesitate to go his own way. He did not hesitate to stomp out of a Senate hearing, and he was willing to espouse unpopular views. But he always did so with an open heart, an open mind, and deep sincerity and dedication. Therefore, even when I disagreed with him, which was quite often in those early years, my respect for him continued to increase.

And I developed a deep appreciation for his abilities, his wit, his warm personality, and his strong determination to make ours a better country. One of his first assignments in the Senate was chairing the Select Committee on Unemployment, which helped focus national attention on the problems of joblessness and poverty throughout the country. By holding hearings in Beckley, Welch, Fayetteville, and Wheeling, WV, as well as other economically distressed regions of the country, the Select Committee helped undermine the false claims of the so-called Republican prosperity of the 1950s, and, as a result, helped provide the ground work for the Great Society legislation that came a few years later.

As I said earlier, it was members of the class of 1958 who also helped to end the war in Vietnam. Although all of us had voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, many of us came to regret it. Senator McCarthy, to his great credit, was one of the first to speak out against the war. He did so by announcing his break with the Johnson administration, and running against the President for the Democratic presidential nomination. ``The Administration,'' he said, ``seems to have set no limit to the price which it is willing to pay for a military victory.''

No one expected much from McCarthy's challenge. He was a little-known Senator taking on President Johnson, who at the time, seemed all powerful.

But, as most of us know, in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary, Senator McCarthy stunned the Nation and shocked the political world. His near victory helped to drive President Johnson out of the Presidential race. That contest showed how unpopular the war was. It focused attention on, despite the administration's claims to the contrary, just how disastrous its policies were in Southeast Asia. It brought home to the American people an issue that was dividing the country and costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Furthermore, Senator McCarthy's campaign helped embolden a generation of young Democratic Party activists.

When Senator McCarthy announced that he would be leaving the Senate in 1970, I was one Senator who approached him and tried to change his mind. When I was unsuccessful, I came to the Senate Floor to pay tribute to him. Senator McCarthy, I said, ``has made his mark upon our party, he has made his mark upon our country, and he has made an indelible mark upon the hearts of all in the Senate who are privileged to call him friend.'' I said, ``he proves the truth of that verse of Scripture that states, `He that hath friends must show himself friendly.' ''

I have never wavered in those opinions that I expressed 35 years ago. In fact, our friendship became stronger, as did my admiration of him.

Mr. President, our country has lost a good and talented man, and a great American. I will miss my friend. Our country needs more men like him.

God give us men!

A time like this demands strong minds,

great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie.

Men who can stand before a demagogue

And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking.

Tall men, sun-crowned;

Who live above the fog,

In public duty and in private thinking.

For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,

It's large professions and its little deeds,

mingles in selfish strife,

Lo! Freedom weeps!

Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.

God give us men!

Men who serve not for selfish booty;

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

Men of dependable character;

Men of sterling worth;

Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth.

God Give us men!

Mr. President, before we adjourn, the Congress will be asked to vote on an across-the-board cut for every agency and program in the Federal Government. The Congressional majorities have put this Nation on an irresponsible fiscal path, one that promises years of record-breaking red ink, inflationary pressures, and multiplying Federal debts. Instead of making tough choices on spending priorities, or perhaps limiting the massive tax breaks going to Nation's richest citizens, or finding ways to lessen the burden of the war in Iraq on the American citizens, the Republican Congressional leadership is expected to take the expedient route of an across-the-board funding cut.

This may not seem like a big deal. What's 1 or 2 percent? But to the families across this country, that 1 or 2 percent can mean a world of difference, especially when it is coupled with the freeze in services that has already been applied to Federal initiatives.

Take, for an example, community health centers which provide basic health care for some of our most isolated citizens. This arbitrary Republican plan would mean that 55 clinics would be shuttered, and 73,000 Americans would see their health care held hostage by budget games. A 2 percent cut in the Food and Drug Administration budget would force unacceptable delays in the amount of time that it takes to approve new lifesaving drug and medical devices.

At a time when the Congress is considering tax cuts for the wealthy, after a 2 percent cut, food packages for 65,922 elderly participants would vanish. A 2 percent cut in the WIC program would reduce the number of meals for 175,234 economically struggling women, infants, and children. More than 35,000 families would lose access to safe and affordable housing. Under this Congressional leadership, the rich get richer, while tens of thousands of poor and the elderly have to struggle for food and shelter.

The House has passed four tax cut bills, totaling $95 billion, and the Senate has passed tax cuts which add up to $58 billion. The vast majority of these tax cuts are aimed at improving the economic portfolios of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of those Americans who are barely scraping by. At the same time that this Congress is pushing forward with unwise tax cuts, these across-the- board cuts would weaken further the Nation's crumbling infrastructure and rob the economy of new jobs. In fact, a $720 million cut in highway construction, as put forward under the Republican blueprint, would slash more than 34,200 construction jobs from our economy. How many headlines about companies cutting payrolls by the tens of thousands will it take before this Congress stands up and puts the American people first? American families deserve to know that the safety net is not filled with holes. But instead of offering assurances, this Republican plan only serves to jeopardize the future of many Americans.

Children in school districts with a high median income would also suffer. These school districts, which receive title I funding, would have to scramble to fill a $257 million reduction. That kind of cut would hamstring the education of more than 200,000 students around the country. At the same time, special education funding would drop by $214 million, and the number of children in Head Start would be cut by 19,000. Cutting the funds for classroom education may achieve short- term fiscal goals for the Republican majority, but it creates long-term problems for the Nation's future.

Don't care about the classrooms? Think that school districts can absorb this cut with higher property taxes? Then what about our veterans? Each day, new veterans come home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They join our proud men and women who have served in World War One and World War Two, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the first Gulf War, and in so many places around the world. These men and women have made us proud. Many of these 21st century veterans have specialized health care needs. The battlefields of today are inflicting wounds unlike those experienced by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of past wars. Veterans' health care is a responsibility that we must never shirk.

But what do these veterans get in return for their service? More budget cuts from this Congressional majority. The GOP plan means cuts in treatment for approximately 236,000 patients. It means that 1.4 million outpatient visits would disappear. Waiting lists would likely rise by about 176,000 veterans. In addition, the VA will not be able to expand specialty and mental health services at existing sites as planned.

But the short-sighted effects of this Republican cut to America's working families, classrooms, and veterans are only one aspect of backwards priorities of this Republican funding plan. Just this week, the President reiterated his effort to protect the American people from future terrorist attacks. But how much safer will the American people be if the Republican blueprint for budget cuts is signed into law? How much safer will the Nation be with 800 fewer FBI agents?

Similar cuts would face the Drug Enforcement Agency. Under this Republican scheme, the DEA would be forced to cut its planned force by 200 agents. The President and his team have stated that drug profits contribute to terrorism. Does anyone think that it is a good idea to cut more than 200 agents from the DEA?

Border Security would be cut by $96.5 million. As a result, 200 of the promised new border agents would go unhired. Detention and removal efforts for illegal aliens would be sliced by $20 million. All of us know that the U.S.-Mexico border already is terribly porous. But, instead of investing in new agents and tightening security on our borders, this Republican effort would undermine our effort to secure our borders.

What about our airport security? That is not immune from these Republican budget games. The Transportation Security Administration, which is responsible for the screening of passengers at our airports, would also be targeted for stiff reductions. As a result of this misguided GOP blueprint, more than 1,000 TSA screeners would lose their jobs. This is on top of the 2,000 person reduction in screeners already approved by this Congress. At the same time, funding for explosive detection equipment for baggage and passengers would be decreased by $12 million. And safety in the skies would be placed at risk.

We all watched the Coast Guard perform marvelously after Hurricane Katrina devastated Mississippi and Louisiana. But rather than reinforcing the Coast Guard's ability in future disasters, the 2 percent rollback would reduce cutter patrol hours by at least 10,000 hours and aircraft hours by at least 2,000 hours. And military recruiting would be reduced by 60 percent--or 1,158 Coast Guard personnel.

I urge my colleagues to think again about this fiscal foolishness. Think about what it means for our children and for the safety of our families. Think about what it means for our veterans and for our security.

The American people elect Members of Congress to lead, to make tough choices, and to place the best interests of the Nation at the forefront of our work. This across-the-board cut is not leadership, and it is not in the best interests of the Nation.

Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield?

I want to congratulate the majority leader on helping to get these appropriations bills all passed. We discussed this, he and I, several

months ago. It was my hope then that the leader would help to get all the bills passed so that we would not have an omnibus bill. He indicated he was going to try to do that, and he has tried and I want to congratulate him. I want to thank him for that.

I think we ought to always pass these appropriations bills. The distinguished Presiding Officer, when he was chairman, got all the bills out of the committee; Senator Stevens got all the appropriations bills out of the committee. He was the chairman of the committee, I believe, at that point, the Appropriations Committee. I was the ranking member. I complimented him then. I compliment the distinguished majority leader and Senator Thad Cochran on getting this done. I compliment him.

While I am complimenting the Senator, I want to ask the Senator a question, and I do it with great respect. I respect the Senator from Tennessee. He is a great physician. And every night I pray to the Great Physician and the Senator from Tennessee is following in the footsteps of that Great Physician.

But I have a question. I saw something which concerned me in the paper this morning, the Washington Post. The Washington Post had the good judgment to place this in a very visible place in the Post. It is a great newspaper. Page A5. Here are the headlines that bothered me:

Frist Cautions Senators Against Stalling Alito Vote.

And then the subheadline:

Democrats Don't Plan Filibuster.

The first paragraph says:

Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican, Tennessee,

threatened--

That is a bad word, ``threatened''--

yesterday, to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster. . .

.

I am a Democrat, and it has never been my desire to strip Republicans of their power to filibuster. I was here--I believe the first election I cast a vote in was 1936. I think I was old enough to vote then. I would have been 20 years old in that session of Congress, which met in January 1937.

I believe there were only 16 Republicans in the Senate at that time. The Senate only had 96 Members then. It didn't have 100 but 96 Members. There were only 16 Republicans and there were 4 independents--former and later, et cetera--and there were 76 Democrats. Can you imagine that? Yet there was never any threat on the part of the Democrats in 1936. I think that was the first time I cast a vote, and I was proud of that Democratic Congress. I don't think there was any threat on the part of Republicans to kill the filibuster, to kill the provisions in Senate rule XXII that allowed freedom of speech in the Senate. When I saw this a few months back, we had this wave of insaneness, That swept over the Senate. We were talking about the nuclear option, so-called constitutional option. There is nothing in the Constitution about it. It is an unconstitutional option.

I was sorry to see that my friend, Senator Frist, this fine Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader of the Senate and a great physician, was threatening--this is what the newspaper said-- ``threatened yesterday to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster if they blocked the vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.''

That nominee came in to see me a while back. I had a nice talk with him. I was much impressed by Judge Alito. I haven't made up my mind yet. But I liked what he said when he was in my office, and I might vote for him. I don't know yet.

But I have not heard a Democrat use the word ``filibuster'' in connection with this nomination. I haven't heard anybody use that word ``filibuster.'' It was news to me that the distinguished majority leader was talking about a threat of stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster if they block the vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Just one more minute, and then I will yield to the distinguished leader.

This is my 47th year in the Senate. I will finish the 47th year this month. And I never dreamed that during my tenure in the Senate--I didn't know how long the tenure would be at that time--there would be any effort to undermine, or to terminate, or to threaten the freedom of speech in the Senate. That is a freedom that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215, and then in the reign of Henry IV. He reigned in England during the years 1399 to 1413. And during his tenure he proclaimed that the members of the House of Commons had a perfect right to speak their minds. So there was freedom of speech in the English House of Commons under Henry IV.

Then when the Declaration of Rights came along in 1689, before the Commons would crown the two sovereigns, William and Mary, as King and Queen in England, they exacted from those two individuals a promise that they would honor the rights of Englishmen, the rights of people in the House of Commons, to speak their minds. That was on February 13, 1689. Then on December 16, 1689, they wrote that into the law. That became a statute in the Bill of Rights.

In the United States, our forefathers drew those provisions from the English Bill of Rights into our own Bill of Rights 100 years later, in 1789.

So I am greatly disturbed when any majority leader, a Senator as powerful as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee--as I have been majority leader, I know the power of a majority leader--but I would never, I say this with respect to the distinguished Senator--and when we were in power, the Democrats, as I say, when Republicans only had 16 Members here, the Democrats could easily have killed freedom of speech in the Senate and not allowed the Republicans to filibuster. But there was never any thought of it.

That is not a great idea. It didn't take a fellow to fall off a turnip truck to think of that. There is nothing brilliant about saying if there is a filibuster, all we need is the might and power of the majority to vote the rules are wrong and interpret them differently. And it could be done; no doubt about it. We could do that. But the Democrats never--and no party in history, Republicans or Democrats-- threatened to deny freedom of speech to members of the minority. I daresay a lot of Members on that side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, don't like that idea. I don't think they would agree with that because they have a right to filibuster, too. The Republicans do. I respect that right.

I am sorry I read that by the Senator. I will read it once more.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee,

threatened yesterday to strip Democrats of the power to

filibuster if they block the vote on Supreme Court nominee

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

I haven't heard any Democrat talk about that. As a matter of fact, I think we are going to have a vote on him. We will debate it. We certainly have a right to debate. I joined the group of 14 so there wouldn't be filibusters against these judgeships, except in extreme cases when I might join a filibuster, too. But may I say most respectfully to the distinguished leader, I hope we will quit talk about this so-called ``nuclear option.'' That is a threat to the freedom of speech, freedom of speech, freedom of speech, here in the Senate.

I yield to the distinguished Senator, the leader whom I do respect.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I am sorry to hear the distinguished majority leader say what he just said. In the first place, I hear no talk of a filibuster. But who knows? If something should come up that we have not seen heretofore or have not heard heretofore about the nominee, which is entirely possible--not probable, I don't think--if that should happen, I can understand how Senators would say they are not going to give up the right to filibuster in such an event. I do not foresee that. The threat itself is a threat against freedom of speech.

Now, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is a great physician. But this is the Senate. And the Senator talks about our forefathers. Our forefathers did not deign to stoop to a King or a President. And this Senate is a forum, probably the only forum that is left in this country, where freedom of speech reigns. That is the purpose of this Senate. That is why we have a Senate. I would hope that the distinguished Senator, who is a distinguished physician, would not have it on his escutcheon that he threatened freedom of speech in the Senate and threatened the filibuster.

The filibuster has been around a long time. It has a bad name in some instances, but filibusters have sometimes been the tool by which free men and women in this Senate have exercised their right to oppose something. And I detest this mention of a nuclear option, the constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it, nothing. Nothing constitutional about that.

Freedom of speech is underwritten in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--freedom of speech--and that also includes the Senate. Freedom of speech, we have always had freedom of speech in the Senate. And as I say, any person who fell off a turnip truck could think of the idea: Well, if we have enough numbers, if we just go against the rules and throw reason to the winds, we can stop a filibuster. We can take that away from the Democrats. How terrible that would be.

I hope I will never hear the Senator from Tennessee say this again. He is a Senator, and the right of freedom of speech is his as the majority leader, and he should embrace that right with the intention to die if necessary if anyone sought to take that freedom of speech away from the Senate.

We are here as emissaries of the people who send us here. And the people out there in West Virginia, they cannot speak on this Senate floor. Young people out there in West Virginia or in Tennessee cannot speak on this Senate floor. But their representatives in the Senate--I am one of those--have a right to speak as long as I can stand on my feet. And I will do it.

Now, I am not threatening a filibuster. But I have filibustered in the past. And I would do so again. I will say to the distinguished Senator, I have been in the Senate 47 years. Now, I will guarantee the Senate, if we ever have that--I would suggest the Senator not even use the threat again. I do not mean to be lecturing the Senator of what he can and cannot do. He can do that. He has freedom of speech, as I have. He can threaten anything he wants. He is the majority leader. And he may have the power to carry it off. But he might not have.

Now, I will guarantee you one thing, I say, Mr. Leader, when somebody tries to kill freedom of speech in the Senate, they are going to have the American people to deal with--the American people. That is what our Constitution is all about: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. And freedom of speech obtains here in the Senate, always has for 218 years.

And I tell you, my friend, here is one Senator who is not going to be threatened and is not going to be persuaded by any threat against freedom of speech. I will die for that right. Our forefathers died for it. Our British forefathers died for it. And they fought for hundreds of years against tyrannical monarchs so that the right of freedom of speech, control of the purse, and such things, would be there in the House of Commons.

I am so sorry. I have been here, I have served under several majority leaders, Republican and Democrat. Not once did any of them ever threaten to kill freedom of speech in the Senate. And I hope the Senator will think twice, three times, before he ever threatens that again. There is not going to be any filibuster against Alito.

And I am against any filibuster. That is why I joined the 14. We stopped it. I thought we were past that. I hope the Senator will forgive me. I do not mean disrespect to him, but he is talking about freedom of speech. I respect the Senator. But I respect the Senate more, and I respect the Constitution and I respect freedom of speech more. And that is why I was so interested in knowing why the Senator was talking about killing the filibuster and killing freedom of speech and killing a Senate rule. We have ways of changing the rules. If we do not like the rules, there is a way, under the rules, that one can change them. But never has anybody threatened to stop this constitutional right to freedom of speech. I detest it. And I want the Senator to know, if he ever really tries to pull that tool--and he can do so; he is the leader, he has a right, if he wants to do that, but I will tell you one thing. This will not make a Senator's name in history. It will not be etched in stone. Future generations will not rise up to bless a Senator who tries to destroy freedom of speech in the Senate.

I say this with great respect to the Senator. I will tell you, he is a physician. I am not. He can do things I cannot do with a knife. He has saved many lives, I am sure. And I praise him for that. I know he goes out and serves the people. Even as a Senator, he goes out there and uses that fine brain of his in helping people. But for God's sake, this is the Senate. I have been here 47 years. I did not come here to see freedom of speech curtailed in this Senate. And when there is an effort to curtail it, they have Robert C. Byrd and a whole group of persons on both sides of the aisle--I would say there are Republicans in here who would not stand for that.

I have said enough. I do not intend to carry this on. But I am glad we had an opportunity to discuss this because I hope the Senator from Tennessee fully understands that is not to be talked about in this Senate. Republicans do not like it either. And there have been fine Republican leaders. Howard Baker, a former Republican leader, was a real statesman. The Panama Canal treaties would not have been approved by this Senate had it not been for Howard Baker. And those Senators-- Bob Dole, others, Everett Dirksen--my goodness, they never threatened freedom of speech in the Senate.

Republicans as well as Democrats have seen the wisdom of being able to filibuster if they are trying to protect the people of their State or the people of the country from some violation of their constitutional rights.

I thank the Senator. He has been very respectful toward me. I hope I am just as respectful toward him. If he wants to say anything now, he has the floor.

I believe that.

Will the Senator yield?

I see nothing in the Constitution that requires an up-or- down vote on any nominee. The Constitution just says that the Senate shall have the power, and the Senate uses that power. It is in the Constitution.

Yes.

The Constitution doesn't say that.

Will the Senator yield?

All this business about us working for 214 years, there have been a lot of misquotations of history when people talk like that. I say that a Senator has a right under the Constitution to object for whatever reasons--they may not be plausible reasons--to object to any nominee he wishes. The Constitution says the Senate has the power of advice and consent. So it doesn't say how that consent will be measured. It doesn't say it has to be an up-or-down vote. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. If you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says that a nominee shall have the right to an up-or-down vote--can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me?

Yes.

No.

He doesn't have a right to an up-or-down vote. A nominee doesn't have a right to an up-or-down vote.

The Senator can't find that in writing anywhere in the Constitution. I can vote against a nominee just because, any Senator can vote against a nominee just because----

The nominee doesn't part his hair on the right or left side. The Senator doesn't have to explain why he votes against. That is his right.

May or may not vote. The Constitution doesn't require that, and the Senator can't find it in the Constitution. He can say all he wants.

Will the leader yield to me?

I will be glad to take on both Senators in defense of the Constitution.

Yes, let the decision stand.

I am not sure about that.

I am not sure about that history.

Yes.

That is not history. That is not even recent history.

I thank the majority leader. I hope my PA system is on here. This country is a great country, but it has never perfected a good PA system. I think this one is working.

May I say to the distinguished Senator, on vote No. 37, 106th Congress, on the nomination of Richard A. Paez to be U.S. circuit judge, vote on cloture on March 8, 2000, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, voted to filibuster. The question was on a cloture motion to end a filibuster. Cloture was agreed to by three- fifths vote, but the distinguished Senator from Tennessee chose to exercise his right, and he voted against cloture. He voted to filibuster. So the worm turns. The day may come when the Senator may want to filibuster. He will never find me on the side of saying I will cut off your right to talk.

Some of them did.

That has never been the rule here. Senators have a right to talk, to filibuster.

The distinguished Senator from Tennessee, may I say, is wrong when he cites history. History is not on his side. I tell you something else. Not all nominees have had up-or-down votes. A lot of them are bottled up in committees. That is one way of killing them. That is one way of denying them their right, as the Senator says, to an up-or-down vote. They are killed in committees. The Senator is a member of the Republican Party, the Grand Old Party, and I respect that party. I am for a two-party system. But I will tell you, the Senator doesn't come into court with clean hands when he talks about the right of an individual to have an up-or-down vote. The Republicans have killed lots of nominees in committees, not letting them have an up-or-down vote. At least 61 nominees did not get out of committee. Not all nominees have had up-or-down votes.

Mr. President, the Senator has yielded the floor. Let me say, as the Chair recognizes me, to the distinguished Senator, I say again, I respect him, but I hope he will never leave as part of his legacy the destruction of freedom of speech in the U.S. Senate. And may I say to him once finally, that if he ever tries to exercise that so- called constitutional option, which is an unconstitutional option, he flies in the face of history, he flies in the face of our forefathers, he flies in the face of the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech. If he ever tries that, he is going to see a real filibuster if I am living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat.

I respect him as a Senator, but I respect the Senate even more. I respect freedom of speech even more. And if the Senator wants a fight, let him try it. I am 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech, for the constitutional right of freedom of speech. I haven't been here 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. I haven't been here that long, I haven't been here 47 years to see that.

I hope the Senator will take what I say as being in the spirit of friendship. But with something so important--and it was here a long time before I came here. It is the Constitution of the United States and freedom of speech, and we are going to have freedom of speech here.

If I elect to filibuster against a nominee, it will be for good reason. I don't intend to join a filibuster. That is why I joined the group of 13, and I made the 14th. I think we avoided a filibuster. I don't expect to filibuster on this.

I tell you one thing, I am tired of hearing this threat thrown in our faces that this so-called nuclear option will be used if we decide we want to filibuster. If there is good reason to filibuster an individual, why, let a Senator filibuster him. There are some of the names around, and I hope the President will not send one of them up, but there are some around on which there will be a filibuster. I compliment the President on avoiding that. We don't need that kind of disruption here. We don't need that kind of divisiveness. We need togetherness. I hope we will have togetherness.

I thank the Senator for his courtesies. I respect him. I respect him, but I tell you, I expect, if the Lord lets me live, to continue to fight for this Constitution and for this institution and for freedom of speech against all comers on either side of the aisle--either side. I would not stand still a minute if a Democratic leader over here threatened to kill freedom of speech in the Senate. I wouldn't stand still for that. No, no, I wouldn't do that, Democrat or Republican.

I thank the Senator. I respect him. When I meet him in the corridors, I will meet him with a smile.

Yes. Amen.

That is freedom of speech.

Mr. President, may I say to the majority leader, there are those who filibuster sometimes, but they, too, can be dignified. I have seen filibusterers who were dignified. The late Senator Richard Russell and some of my friends on that side of the aisle when I came here filibustered with dignity. Talking about dignity, you can be against something and filibuster and still do it with dignity. I thank the Senator. I thank the Senator.

Would the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. President, first, I apologize to the distinguished Senator for imposing on his patience. He sat back in that chair and he was in the Senate Chamber before I was today. He sat patiently through that long, drawn-out discussion, and I apologize to him for my part in imposing on his time and patience.

Secondly, let me thank him for his clear, lucid, reasonable, and thoughtful comments concerning the subject matter that has been discussed. He has always taken advantage of the opportunity to serve the people of the country, to serve the country, and to serve the Senate. If something seemed right or seemed wrong, he was willing to speak out. I will always admire him for those things. I thank him for what he has said today. I think, again, it reflects great dignity upon the Senator and his thoughtfulness. He is a Senator sui generis, in the fact that he speaks his mind--he is never backward about that. He can do that with me, too. And he has done that with me in the past. I respect him for it.

I thank the Senator for his comments. He certainly has engaged in a discussion today that I think makes a great contribution, not only to this discussion and this subject matter, but he continues as he has for years, so many years during my tenure here, to contribute greatly as a statesman who has been worthy of a seat in the Constitutional Convention or a seat in the first Senate calling that Congress. He could have been in any of those debates at any time in the history of this country.

I respect him for it. He is an outstanding Senator and one upon whose

services history will certainly report with great support. I thank him so much. I thank Senator Kennedy very much.

I thank the Senator again. I feel pretty well today. I have had the flu over the weekend, but I am glad I came to the Senate today.

I thank the Senator and I thank all Senators.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the speech he made. I am glad I stayed and listened to his speech. It is one of his finest speeches. It is a speech made in the true spirit of Christmas, too. The Senator, once again, stands for the poor, the downtrodden, those who cannot be here to speak for themselves.

I thank the Senator for this speech. He is truly in my book one of the great Senators for all time. We have not always agreed. We have not even liked each other in long ages ago, times past. But that is in the past. I think so highly of this Senator. I am glad I stayed here to hear this speech. It was certainly thoughtful. It was needed at this time. I congratulate the Senator. Tomorrow, I may speak a little bit on the same subject--not as eloquently as he has but certainly along the same line.

I hope I can do that.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as we look out the window in most of our great country, we can witness the season change, the change in the season, and we can feel it. The air has become crisp with autumnal chill. The leaves on the trees change their color; from the exuberant, green lushness of the summer months to the tired, brown, yellow, and red of the autumn, much like the graying hair of a man advancing in age.

Nature can sometimes mimic human events with a subtlety that no words can quite convey. As our country heads into the season that is celebrated with the love of family and the love of home, Americans should also look across the landscape of America and reflect upon the loss of so many young Americans in the 12 months since autumn last fell upon us.

Think about it. In the past year, more than 820 servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq.

The evening news features pictures of American troops who have perished in service to our flag, in service to our country. I am struck by these colorful mosaics of these troops, amen; the green and blue of their uniforms set against the background of the bold colors of our flag, Old Glory, Old Glory. Each of these proud troops holds an expression of pride and courage, even though many of them appear to be so young. Note their ages--18, 19, 20, 21--just starting out in life, having one full glance of what is around them.

I can only imagine the grief of their loving families during this time of the year, as the somber tones of fall contrast with the joy of being with family during the upcoming holidays. I pray that God, Almighty God, will comfort those who have suffered losses, that He will bless the fallen in their everlasting life, and that His hand will protect those who still serve in harm's way.

That so many have sacrificed during this war in Iraq is reason enough to ask questions about our Government and about our Government's policy in that faraway land. Our troops continue to shed their blood, and our Nation continues to devote enormous sums of our national wealth to continue that war.

The Constitution protects the American people from unjust laws that seek to stifle the patriotic duty to question those who are in power. But it is the courage of the American people that compels them to actually speak out when those in power call for silence. If anything, attacks on patriotism of freedom-loving Americans may result in even more Americans fighting against attempts to squelch the constitutional protections of freedom.

Since our country was sent to war on March 19, 2003, 2,073 American men and women have been killed. Yes, 2,073 Americans have died. Nearly 16,000 troops have been wounded.

Our military is straining under the repeated deployment of our troops, including the members of the National Guard. They come from all walks of life. They are lawyers. They are teachers. They are preachers. They are coal miners. They are farmers. More than $214 billion has been spent in Iraq and the end is not in sight. More than $214 billion spent in Iraq and the end is not in sight. Urban combat takes place each day, every day, in Baghdad, all day long. Every day and night.

Veterans hospitals in our own country are threatened by budget shortfalls, and yet Americans are still left to wonder, when will our brave troops be coming home? When?

I opposed this war in Iraq from the outset. From the beginning I spoke out against our entry into this war. I pleaded with my colleagues. I pleaded with the White House. I asked questions that have not been answered. I spoke out against the invasion of a country which did not pose an imminent threat to our national security. I said so then--and I was right. I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset. From the word go, I opposed it. But our troops were ordered to go to Iraq and they went.

The question is, now, when will they come home? The administration has so far laid out only a vague policy, saying our troops will come home when the Iraqi Government is ready to take responsibility for its country. When our troops are no longer needed, when the job is done, they will come home. We will not stay a day longer than we are needed.

That sort of political doublespeak is small comfort to the mothers and the fathers of our fighting men and women, the mothers and fathers who turn and toss upon their pillows, whose tears wet the pillows, whose prayers break the silence of night. Oh, when will they come home? Bring my boy home. Oh, God, this awful war.

Wednesday evening the Vice President of the United States, even claimed that criticism of the administration's war in Iraq was dishonest and reprehensible. Did you hear that? Hear me, now; let me say that again: On Wednesday evening the Vice President of the United States, the man who is within a heartbeat of being the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States even claimed that criticism of the administration's war in Iraq was ``dishonest and reprehensible.''

Since when are we not to lift our voices? Are the American people not to lift their voices in criticism of the administration's war in Iraq? Is it dishonest on the part of the American people to do that? Is it reprehensible on the part of mothers and fathers of sons and daughters who were sent to that most dangerous country in the world? Is it reprehensible? Did the Vice President measure his words? The Vice President's comments come on the heels of comments from President Bush, who said:

What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using

their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is

taking place in America.

Listen to that. The President and the Vice President need to reread the Constitution, take another look at that inimitable document. Asking questions, seeking honesty and truth, and pressing for accountability is exactly what the Framers had in mind. What would George Washington say? What would Alexander Hamilton say? What would James Madison say? What would Gouverneur Morris say? What would James Wilson say?

Questioning policies and practices, especially ones that have cost this Nation more than 2,000 of her bravest sons and daughters, is the responsibility of every American and is also a central role of Congress as our duty as the elected representatives of a free people. We--you, you, you and I--we are the elected representatives of the American people, the people all over this vast land, its plains, its prairies, its mountains, it valleys, its lakes, its rivers, its seas. Yes, we are the men and women who are tasked with seeking the truth. Is that irresponsible to seek the truth?

But instead of working with the Congress, instead of clearing the air, the White House falls back to the irksome practice of attack, attack, attack; obscure, obscure, obscure; attack. The American people are tired of these reprehensible tactics. If anything is reprehensible, it is these tactics.

Circling the wagons will not serve this administration well. What the people demand are the facts. They want the truth. They want their elected leaders to level with them. And when it comes to the war in Iraq, this administration seems willing to do anything it can do to avoid the truth, a truth I believe will reveal that the Bush administration did, indeed, manipulate the facts in order to lead this Nation down the road to war. War. War.

The administration claims that the Congress had the same intelligence as the President before the war and that independent commissions have determined there was no misrepresentation of the intelligence. But neither claim is true. The intelligence agencies are under the control of the White House. All information given to the Congress was cleared through the White House. And the President had access to an enormous amount of data never shared with the Congress. There was a filter over the intelligence information the Congress received. That filter was the administration, which is actively engaged in hyping the danger and lusting after this war, this terrible war in Iraq.

Remember the talk of weapons of mass destruction? Remember the talk of mushroom clouds? Remember? Remember the talk of unmanned drones? The so-called proof for war was massaged before it was sent to Congress, to scare Members, and leaked to reporters to scare people.

No independent commission has stated that the case for war was indisputable. Commissions have looked at how the intelligence fell short, but none have yet examined possible political manipulation.

Even the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence slowed its examination, stalled its examination of possible White House manipulation. My colleague from West Virginia, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller, is rightly pressing for answers.

Right now we are engaged in a mission with no definition. That is troubling because without a clearly defined mission, it is impossible to determine when our effort is truly accomplished.

This week, the Senate had the opportunity to establish some very basic benchmarks for progress in Iraq, benchmarks that would have clearly outlined goals and provided accountability in meeting those goals. The proposal, offered by the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, was a modest, flexible approach that would have given our troops, their families, the American people, and the Iraqi people some basic guidepost. Unfortunately, the Senate turned its back. It could not see the wisdom of this approach. It could not bring itself to see the wisdom of the approach.

So, my fellow Senators, it is vital that we have benchmarks against which to gauge our progress. That is how we can measure effectiveness and, most importantly, how we know when the job is done. The administration's strategy of keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes--have you heard that before? Keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes?--that is the wrong strategy. Who knows how long it will take for the Iraqi Government to institute order in that fractured, unhappy, miserable country?

Unfortunately, the questions that the American people are asking about the missteps and the mistakes in the war in Iraq are not being answered by this White House, not being answered by the administration. Vice President Cheney has dismissed these important questions as ``making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.''

Now, listen to that. The Vice President of the United States has dismissed these important questions as ``making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.'' How about that?

Perhaps the Vice President should question White House aides about using war for political advantage. For example, on January 19, 2002, the Washington Post reported that Karl Rove--get this--advised Republicans to ``make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections.'' Does the Vice President have anything to say about that?

Let me say that again. On January 19, 2002--I read about it at the time; I did not miss it--the Washington Post reported that Karl Rove advised Republicans to ``make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections.'' That was said on January 19, 2002. That was quoted in the Post on that date. Yes, does the Vice President have anything to say about that?

The Vice President also lashed out at those who might deceive our troops:

The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been

subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in

and day out.

Now, listen to that. Was the Vice President trying to clarify some of his past statements on Iraq? Was he?

On March 24, 2002, the Vice President said that Iraq ``is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.'' There was no doubt about it, to listen to the Vice President--no doubt.

On August 26, 2002, the Vice President said:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now

has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is

amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies,

and against us.

Let me go back and read the quote. Let me repeat it.

On August 26, 2002, here is what the Vice President said:

Simply stated, there is no doubt--

Get that--

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now

has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is

amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies,

and against us.

That is the end of the quotation.

On March 16, 2003, the Vice President said:

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Do you remember that?

On March 16, 2003, there it is, the Vice President said:

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Are these the ``pernicious falsehoods'' that the Vice President believes our troops have been subjected to? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. Far from questioning his own statements about the war in Iraq, the Vice President's comments are a ham-handed attempt to squelch the questions that the American people out there are asking about the administration's policies in Iraq. The American people should not be cowed. They should not be intimidated. And Senators should not be intimidated by these attempts to intimidate. The American people should not allow the subject to be changed from the war in Iraq to partisan sniping in Washington.

Instead, the American people must raise their voices--hear us--the American people should raise their voices--hear us, listen to us--the American people must raise their voices even louder to ask the administration the same simple questions: What is your policy for Iraq? Answer that. What is your policy? Is it stay the course? When will the war be over? How many more lives will this war cost? When will our troops return home?

Mr. President, the holiday season is almost upon us. Americans will soon sit down at their Thanksgiving tables. They will gather together to give thanks to Almighty God, give thanks to Him for the blessings that have been bestowed upon America's families. As we gather, there will be an empty seat at many tables. Some chairs will be empty because a service member is serving his or her country in a faraway land. Other seats will be empty as a silent tribute to those who will never, never return.

Each of these troops has fought to protect our freedoms, including the freedom of Americans to ask questions--yes, the freedom to ask questions. Our troops have fought for that freedom--people back home, their families, might ask questions, their friends might ask questions--the freedom to ask questions of their Government, the people's Government.

The whole picture, the truth is that the continued occupation of Iraq only serves to drive that country closer to civil war. They do not want us there. They do not want us there.

How would you feel, Senators, how would you feel if our country were invaded by another country? You would want them out. You would do anything you could to get them out. American troops are now perceived as occupiers, not as liberators. The longer we stay, the more dangerous Iraq becomes, and the more likely it is we will drive the future government further from a democratic republic and closer to religious fundamentalism and, not insignificantly, the more American and Iraqi lives will be lost--forever.

I, for one, believe that it is time to say ``well done''--``well done''--to our brave fighting men and women. May God bless them one and all. Let us say, job well done, and start to bring the troops home.

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

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

Mr. President, last night, as the Senate was working into the late hours of the night and tensions were running high, our esteemed and beloved colleague, the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, took me by the arm and pulled me aside. There was something he wanted to show me. There was something that my esteemed and beloved colleague, Ted Stevens, wanted to say to me and wanted to show me. There was something he wanted to show me. It was an article that his daughter Lily Stevens had written about the U.S. Capitol, and he wanted to share it with me.

I was touched by this. I know Lily. What a prodigious memory she has. Ah, what a rose in full bloom, what a lovely woman, Lily. She adores her father. He adores her.

With everything that was going on in the Senate at the time, Senator Stevens was showing a father's pride in his daughter's accomplishment.

I have literally watched Lily grow up. In her article, she points out that her father was already a Senator when she was born, and while she was a baby, her father would bring her to the Capitol--I have seen him many times--and carry her around in a basket. I remember that, just as I remember how she attended a number of my parties, and I attended a number of hers.

I watched her grow into the remarkably--talented person she is today. She is a graduate of Stanford University and is currently a law student at the University of California at Berkeley. Lily is not only prodigious and intelligent, but she also is a polite, courteous, gracious, and charming young lady. Senator Stevens is so proud of her, and he has a right to be.

The article his daughter wrote is an outgrowth of her senior thesis at Stanford University, and as I read it, I understood why Senator Stevens was so excited about it and why he wanted to share it with me. Titled, ``The Message of the Dome: The United States Capitol in the Popular Media,'' the article explores the ways in which the Capitol has served and communicated with the general American public over the years. It discusses the Capitol as a symbol to the American people and how the meaning of that symbol has changed over time.

This beautifully written article skillfully conveys the sense of wonder that awaits every first-time visitor to Capitol Hill. With a trip to the Capitol, Lily points out, a visit to Washington goes well beyond ``a vacation in the leisure sense.'' It becomes ``an education journey, one in which the visitor can learn more about the government and the history of the United States.''

And Lily's article makes fascinating and intriguing points about this building in which her father, Senator Ted Stevens, and I work. Visitors to the Capitol, Lily Stevens writes, while sharing certain common experiences, still find their own individual interests. As she quotes one author: ``The Capitol means many things to many people.''

Lily Stevens makes the point about how the Capitol functions as a ``national shrine,'' a place for appreciating our democratic form of government and for praising our Nation, our history, and our national leaders. And she explains how, over the years, the Capitol has functioned as a church. Indeed, religious services were once held in this building. And the Capitol still performs many functions that are religious in nature, like funeral services for certain national leaders. Statuary Hall, she points out, can be seen and interpreted as ``an American Westminster Abbey.'' How about that?

There is so much fascinating reading in this article, I could speak long about it. I am asking that it be printed in the Congressional Record, and I urge all my colleagues to read it. I promise you, you will enjoy it.

Senator Ted Stevens is also entitled today to his own personal congratulations. Why? Today, November 18, is Senator Stevens' birthday. How about that? Senator Stevens' birthday, today. A wonderful man, a great legislator. Today Senator Stevens is 82 years young. Oh, to be 82 again. Just to be 82 again, oh, my. I said to Ted: ``The next 5 years are going to be the heaviest, Ted.'' I know. Five years ago I didn't need those canes, no. My feet and legs were still good.

Senator Stevens and I have worked together in the Senate since 1968, and we have been on the Senate Appropriations Committee together since 1972. In all this time together, I have always known Senator Ted Stevens to be an

outstanding Senator, a great colleague, and a trusted friend. Oh, I realize he may grumble every now and then. He is getting a little bit grumbly. But you can forgive him for that.

You never have to be concerned about turning your back on him. He is honest. He is straightforward. And his word is his bond. Over the years we have had our spats, but never once did I doubt our friendship, our admiration for this country, its flag, each other, and our ability to work together.

So today, Ted, I say in the words of the poet:

Count your garden by the flowers,

Never by the leaves that fall.

Count your days by the sunny hours,

And not remembering clouds at all.

Count your nights by stars, not shadows,

Count your life by smiles, not tears.

And on this beautiful November afternoon,

Senator Stevens, count your age by friends, not years.

I conclude my remarks by again congratulating Senator Stevens on his 82nd birthday and on his beautiful daughter's marvelous work. I thank Ted Stevens for being a superb colleague and a great friend, a great servant of his people in Alaska, and for sharing Lily's article with me.

I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Mr. President, as the City of New Orleans and countless other communities along the U.S. gulf coast continue to clean up from the twin disasters that were Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as Florida reels from yet another major hurricane there, as U.S. casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts soar above 2,000, and as scandal engulfs the White House itself, it might seem difficult to find anything to be thankful for on this Thanksgiving.

For many families in the United States this holiday season, the tables, if tables they can find to set, will be set with fewer plates than usual, and the fare might be somewhat skimpier than in years past. Their homes are in ruins, their jobs lost, their friends and family members scattered, and their prospects for rebuilding the lives they once knew are uncertain. It can be difficult to take the long view in the face of such circumstances, or to reflect on history with any equanimity, even though history is replete with examples of recoveries from terrible disasters. One has only to think of Hurricane Camille, or the Great Depression, or World War II, or the San Francisco earthquake, the great Chicago fire, to find evidence that out of the ashes of war and devastation can come the rebirth of cities, communities, and economies. There is hope.

There is also much worth celebrating as families sit down to their Thanksgiving tables. We may be grateful that the loss of life to the hurricanes was not greater. We can all celebrate the tremendous outpouring of support that spontaneously erupted from the hearts, hands, and wallets of Americans outside the gulf coast disaster zone and from friends around the world who were glad to come in their turn to our assistance as the United States has in the past come to theirs. Communities all along the periphery opened their doors to welcome refugees from the storms, and volunteers flooded into the area in such force that relief organizations were overwhelmed. The public response to the gulf coast disasters was truly inspiring and heartwarming. It proved that a core value of this Nation, its sense of community, remains strong and vital.

We can also celebrate the ability of our Nation's first responders to learn from their mistakes. While the planning and response to Hurricane Katrina was in most people's estimates pretty abysmal, the preparation for and response to Hurricane Rita was a little better. And, unfortunately for the people of Florida, they have gotten a lot of practice in the last couple of years, and their preparations for and response to hurricanes is well rehearsed. There is much we can learn from these terrible

events, and hope that we take those lessons to heart.

The brightest spot in the war in Iraq is the performance of our troops. Day after dangerous day, they do their duty. They patrol, they seek out insurgents, they struggle to provide a secure environment for the rebuilding of that nation. Day after day, they face down their own fears and travel those lethal roads to take the battle to the enemy. However one may feel about the path that led us to Iraq, we can feel nothing but love, pride, and respect for our men and women in uniform. Whatever the circumstances under which we sent them there, through misread intelligence or misleading rhetoric, the U.S. military has gone, and gone again and again, and performed their duties with courage and dedication.

Even the scandal that now haunts the White House, and which is beginning to wash over the President's closest advisors, may give us cause for celebration, and not for any partisan reasons. As Americans, we may be thankful for living in a nation in which no man is king, to rule at his own whim and to undermine his detractors at will and without consequence. We may be thankful for our system of government, with its checks and balances between the three branches of government firmly established in our Constitution. And we may celebrate the wisdom of guaranteeing freedom of expression and the existence of a free press.

Though the wheels of government may sometimes grind exceedingly slowly, we can be grateful that they still can be pushed and cajoled into conducting their oversight functions and asserting those checks and balances. That is what keeps this country strong. President Abraham Lincoln said ``Let the people know the truth and the country is safe.'' Whatever may be the final outcome of the investigation into possible retribution by the White House against Ambassador Wilson and his wife for Wilson's role in unmasking a fraud in the government's case for going to war in Iraq, the Nation is safer and better off for having the means for citizens, acting through their elected officials and their legal system, to challenge possible abuses of power.

So even in these dark days, there is cause for thanksgiving. I hope that the recent dip in gasoline prices will allow families to come together, pull out the good china and set a beautiful table overflowing with all the dishes that make this feast so memorable and so mouthwatering: turkey, roasted, grilled, smoked, barbequed or deep fried; stuffing in all its regional variations with herbs or oysters or sausage or cornbread; hams coated in pineapples and cloves or cured with smoke or sugar; cranberries served jellied or chopped, with oranges or not; green bean casserole with a crown of fried onions; yeast rolls or biscuits dripping with butter or gravy; sweet potatoes in casseroles or with marshmallows and brown sugar; and pies--glorious pies with spicy pumpkin topped with whipped cream, and fruit pies in flaky shells, topped with cheese or ice cream. Americans know how to cook, and all the variations on our traditional Thanksgiving meal surely mean that this feast will never settle into routine.

Thanksgiving. Can there be a better day? It starts with parades to watch for the youngsters. Then the action in the kitchen heats up, competing with football games and the happy arrival of guests for our attention with a whole array of enticing aromas and clattering noises. The meal itself is wonderful, with family and friends around the table giving thanks and meaning it. And after the meal, in the warm glow of a full stomach, there is time for companionship as the leftovers are put away and the dishes are washed. The evenings are primed for walks in the cool weather, or short naps, or other sports, before the leftovers make their first reappearance. There are few days like this, devoted entirely to family without the distraction of, say presents at Christmas or Easter egg hunts. Thanksgiving is the one time we can really focus on all that we have to be thankful for just by looking around that table. My wife Erma and I have so much to be thankful for, and I know that she joins me in wishing a very happy thanksgiving to all Americans. May each of you, no matter how desperate your present circumstances may be, be blessed and see all that you have to be thankful for.

Mr. President, I wish you a happy Thanksgiving. I would like to close with a poem by Charles Frederick White, written in November 1895. His words serve to remind us that Thanksgivings past were not very different than today.

Thoughts of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving Day is coming soon,

That long remembered day

When nature gives her blessed boon

To all America.

On that glad day, in all our land,

The people, in their wake,

Give thanks to God, whose mighty hand

Deals blessings good and great.

The roast goose, steaming on the plate,

The sweet potato cobbler,

The cranberry sauce, the pudding baked,

The seasoned turkey gobbler,

All these delights and many more,

From north, south, west and east,

Do all the nation keep in store

For this Thanksgiving feast.

Alas, for those who are denied

This blessed boon of God!

May all the needy be supplied

Like Israel by the rod.

Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield briefly--and I am not going to keep my friend from Texas waiting. He has been standing and waiting to be recognized.

It was a pleasure, may I say to my friend, to call to the attention of Senators this beautiful article written by Senator Stevens' daughter Lily. She is a really precocious child. I have watched her from almost day one. I admire her. She is a well-bred woman. She is the flower of womanhood. She is seeking always to enlarge her mind and doing a great job of it.

I am pleased the Senator feels that he rejoices that her article has been mentioned by me. I want to assure him that he is entitled to every plaudit I can bring to bear on this subject. I hope he conveys my love and my admiration to his daughter Lily.

And may I say to the Senator, ``Thou art my guide, philosopher, and friend,'' as the Pope once said. I mean every word of that. I treasure our friendship, I say to Senator Stevens, and may his beautiful daughter continue to do her work and complete her studies and go on to higher things. She is a fine model, and many of us can learn from her efforts to improve herself. I will certainly do that myself. I thank the Senator. I thank him very much.