Floor Statements

I ask that Senators address each other in the third person, not in the second person.

Mr. President, I am increasingly alarmed about the congressional budget process as it now operates.

I helped to write the Budget Act of 1974. At the time, I served as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Standing Rules of the Senate. The subcommittee was tasked with studying the budget process reforms reported by the then-Senate Government Operations Committee as they affected the Senate rules. I met with a working group of staff that was comprised of 10 standing committees of the Senate, and which included 90 hours of meetings during 25 sessions over a 16-day period. After the staff had completed its work, I spent many hours with the Senate Parliamentarian and met in all day sessions and over holiday weekends with the staff from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate legal counsel. I helped to manage the Senate's floor deliberations of the Budget Act as majority whip, and, when the Senate completed its many weeks of debate and amendment, I served on the conference committee that finalized the Budget Act.

I studied the Budget Act. I championed it. I supported it.

And so I can say, without equivocation, that the process the Senate utilizes today hardly resembles the process envisioned in 1974. The budget process used today obscures more than it clarifies the tax and spending decisions of the Congress. Through a growing list of 60-vote points of order, it is weakening the ability of the Congress to exercise its power over the purse, deferring more and more authority over fiscal matters to the executive branch. The budget process increasingly serves as a means to circumvent the role of the Senate to deliberate, and, lately, it has been used in a way that has fostered an unprecedented and unbroken string of deficits and debt.

I have spoken many times about how the budget reconciliation process has been distorted and the extent to which that process has been used to worsen deficits and unnecessarily limit debate and amendment. Here today is another example of one of these reconciliation bills, where debate is limited, amendments are curtailed, and arms are twisted to get the bare minimum of a majority of Senators to advance partisan legislation, only to see a brandnew bill rewritten in a closed conference committee that excludes any voice of dissent.

This week, the already grossly abbreviated reconciliation exercise has been curtailed further, as the normal 3-day debate is crammed into a period allowing for less than 2 days of debate. Meanwhile, Senators are distracted with other legislation that must be addressed before the Senate breaks for the Thanksgiving holiday--legislation that is more pressing than the extension of some of these tax cuts which will not expire for several more years.

The budget process has been distorted, where reconciliation is abused by both sides eager to score political points. Reconciliation is no longer simply a budgetary device to round out the numbers at the end of the fiscal year, as it was intended in 1974. It has become a favorite mechanism for bypassing the rules of the Senate for circumventing the limits imposed upon the capricious passions of a determined majority. Once a Senator's right to debate has been waived, what is left can almost be described as a state of chaos in the Senate. If you think that term ``chaos'' seems a bit extreme, just wait a few more hours for the vote-arama to begin.

Soon, the statutory limit of 20 hours of debate on this bill will expire, and the Senate will enter into a consent agreement whereby 2 minutes of each debate are allocated to each amendment and Senators are forced to vote

blindly in rapid succession on amendment after amendment after amendment. Many of these amendments have never been seen before by the Senate, and many will not even be explained to Senators prior to the casting of their votes.

To the credit of Senators Gregg and Conrad, the number of amendments considered in vote-aramas have been limited in recent times, but vote- aramas continue to occur nonetheless.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate considered the so-called Deficit Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2005. After the 20 hours of debate had expired, the Senate entered into an agreement by unanimous consent that limited debate to 2 minutes per amendment prior to each vote. In one day, the Senate considered 41 amendments, with only 2 minutes of debate per amendment, and with only 16 of those amendments offered prior to the expiration of debate. That is 25 amendments that the Senate had not debated, or even seen before, receiving votes based upon whatever knowledge Senators could extract from the din in just 2 minutes.

In 2003, the Senate considered 84 amendments in this manner, without any of those amendments being offered, debated, or generally made available to Senators before casting their vote. In 2001, the number of amendments considered in this manner was 78, again without any of those amendments being offered, debated, or generally made available to Senators before casting their vote.

All together, in the last 6 years, the Senate has considered 246 amendments to budget resolutions and reconciliation bills, within a so- called vote-arama process that does not allow the Senate to debate amendments or, in too many cases, to even see amendments before Senators are asked to cast their vote. God help the American people.

I once described vote-aramas as pandemonium, which was the Palace of Satan designated by Milton in Paradise Lost. But that term almost fails to describe the ignominy of the Senate when it becomes engulfed in these budget carnivals. It's embarrassing to the institution. It is no way to legislate. We cannot claim to serve the interests of our constituents if we don't have time even to read the amendments on which we are casting our votes. Read The Federalist Paper No. 62 by Madison: ``It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.'' Vote-arama means Senators are flying blind.

I have pleaded with the Senate to avoid using this reconciliation process because I abhor what it does to this institution. It is not a necessary exercise. The Budget Act does not require it, nor does the Budget Act require, or even mention, the use of vote-aramas. We are doing this to ourselves. This is self-inflicted abuse, and our Nation suffers as a result.

Since 2001, this reconciliation process has yielded an unbroken string of unprecedented deficits and debt. At $339 billion in the fiscal year 2003, $412 billion in the fiscal year 2004, and $317 billion in the fiscal year 2005, budget deficits have grown to record levels 3 years in a row. Within 5 years, the national debt is projected to rise to $11 trillion. The interest payments on that debt is growing to enormous levels and will surpass in 2010 a whopping $314 billion per year. That is $314 billion that could be used to build and modernize our transportation and energy infrastructure, but that will be paid to foreign and domestic bond holders instead. If there is a force that is sinking the budget into an ocean of deficits and debt, it resides, at least in part, among abuses of the budget process.

Outside of the budget reconciliation process, Senators could insist that tax cuts be offset. These are not controversial tax extensions. The alternative minimum tax relief, the deduction of college tuition and teacher classroom expenses, the section 179 expensing and research and development credit--all of these could pass overwhelmingly if offsets could be found, and it could be done without having to put the Senate through this exercise. Senators might even have the opportunity to thoughtfully consider amendments to the bill to develop compromises that improve the legislation and satisfy both parties. Senators could go home touting a piece of bipartisan legislation that all sides find agreeable.

I call upon the Republican and Democratic leadership, as well as the members of the Budget Committee, and all Senators, to help reform this process. The process as it currently operates is intolerable, and it damages this institution severely. Whatever political advantage may be claimed today, this process ultimately weakens the Senate as an institution, and does a great disservice to the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill to reinstate a hydroelectric license for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project in Grafton, WV, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill to reinstate a hydroelectric license for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project in Grafton, WV, be printed in the Record.

Senator Reid, I want to thank you for your support and assistance in shepherding this conference report to this point today. I plan to support this bill, but I have a specific point of clarification that I would like to discuss with you regarding the provisions related to the fiscal year 2006 FutureGen funding.

I have not opposed the FutureGen program and have supported the administration's requests for this project over the last 3 years. However, I have and will continue to raise concerns about how this administration is going to fund the FutureGen program when it has not been able to provide adequate and sustained funding for core key fossil research and development programs. This situation appears only more ominous as our budgetary constraints worsen by the year and, adding to that, are new energy programs that were authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which will further heighten and constrain funding pressures.

The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides the $18 million for FutureGen that the administration has requested. However, even larger funding requests are going to be required if this initiative is to move forward according to its schedule. It is my understanding that the Congress has deferred $237 million of clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007 and will give full consideration to the administration's funding requests for the FutureGen initiative utilizing these funds. Would it be your expectation that the Congress will only consider the administration's FutureGen requests from the deferred amount contingent upon the administration providing full funding requests for the clean coal and other fossil energy research, development, and demonstration programs, especially the Clean Coal Power Initiative that was woefully underfunded in fiscal year 2006?

I thank the Senator for that clarification. When there are so many other unmet fossil energy funding needs, as I have and will continue to reiterate, I cannot and will not support such a transfer from deferred funds, in whole or in part, to the FutureGen initiative until all other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded to the satisfaction of the Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2007 and future years. I will certainly consider new moneys requested in the administration's budget request, but I will first prioritize other key fossil energy programs and other needs as a priority above the FutureGen program from deferred funds. This administration has been playing shell games with FutureGen. They have been attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul which is simply masking the underlying problem of continued inadequate funding commitments for other core fossil energy programs.

Would it also be the Senator's understanding that other fossil energy programs have equal, if not greater, funding needs and that there is no guarantee that any portion of the $237 million in the deferred clean coal technology fund will be transferred to the FutureGen program in fiscal year 2007 or future years. Should the administration or other interested parties expect that the deferred amount will be set aside, in whole or in part, for FutureGen in fiscal year 2007 or beyond?

Mr. President, if the U.S. is to remain competitive and keep pace with its growing energy demands, then we must take stock, as a nation, of our energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection and make these issues top national priorities. We cannot achieve greater energy security with our continued, piece-meal efforts. It is time to devote new innovation and ingenuity to energy policy and blaze a path forward. We must strive to be free

of the chains of foreign oil. To do that, we must seriously invest in the energy resources that we have here at home, and coal should be at the heart of that effort.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I supported and which was signed by the President in August 2005, made many promises to the country on energy policy. To make good on those promises, the administration must be willing to put financial support behind these initiatives. Will this administration do so in subsequent budget requests for the clean coal and many other important energy programs?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is only a way station on a long journey and more work remains ahead. It is a start, and I am committed to continuing to work toward that goal. Yet I continue to be concerned about this administration's commitment to funding fossil energy research, especially because new clean coal and other energy programs were authorized in the Energy bill. There is only so much blood that one can squeeze out of a turnip. So where are we going to find the funding for these new programs?

In related matters, H.R. 2419, the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides sufficient funding for the fossil energy research and development, R&D, programs for the Department of Energy, DOE. But this effort requires a much more sustained and increased commitment in future years if this Nation is to be successful in going beyond an incremental approach toward new breakthroughs on the use of fossil energy resources. In this conference report, I worked to ensure that there was adequate funding for coal R&D at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Nation's premier Fossil Energy Laboratory.

In addition to coal, other energy research investments that must not be overlooked are within the oil and natural gas R&D programs. Oil and natural gas provide 60 percent of America's energy needs, and demand for both will continue to rise, resulting in significant price increases. By 2025, U.S. reliance on fossil fuels is expected to grow from the current 85 percent to 90 percent. But the administration's budget proposal for oil and natural gas technology R&D for fiscal year 2006 was reduced by 75 percent from fiscal year 2005 levels. The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request was $20 million for both programs. The funds were to be used to conclude the oil and natural gas programs. The DOE's R&D spending for oil and natural gas has consistently ranked at the bottom of the scale. If the United States is to maintain its ability to produce its domestic supplies for oil and natural gas at a reasonable cost to consumers, then Federal expenditures on R&D must fill some of the void left by the private sector, primarily independent producers.

Furthermore, how is this administration going to fund FutureGen when it has not been able to provide adequate and sustained funding for other fossil energy programs? The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides the $18 million for FutureGen that the administration has requested. However, even larger funding requests are going to be required if this initiative is to move forward according to its schedule. I stand behind the agreement reached in the conference report, but the Congress will consider its FutureGen requests contingent upon the Administration maintaining adequate funding for other clean coal and fossil energy programs.

When there are so many other unmet fossil energy funding needs, I cannot and will not support the transfer of monies from the clean coal technology account to a FutureGen account. In fiscal year 2007 and beyond, I will not support the transfer of any moneys, in whole or in part, to the FutureGen initiative that are not a part of the administration's request unless and until other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded. This is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and masks the underlying problem of continued inadequate funding commitments for the fossil energy programs by this administration. There are other fossil energy programs that have equal, if not greater, funding needs.

Additionally, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, CCPI, is a program that was initiated in 2001, to demonstrate the economically and environmentally acceptable use of coal. The CCPI was the successor to the long and successful Clean Coal Technology Program that I initiated in 1985. The CCPI program, if pursued, will continue to lead to the successful development of a set of coal-based technologies that will be cost effective and highly efficient and achieve greater control of air and water emissions compared to currently available technology.

President Bush committed to funding the CCPI program during his first campaign speech made in West Virginia in 2000. The President pledged to provide $2 billion over 10 years for this program, yet the administration's budget requests have not met that goal. Over a period of 5 years, the President has requested a total of approximately $530 million, including only $50 million this year. This is barely more than half of the funding pledged to the program. A great deal more funding will be required in fiscal year 2007 and beyond if the program is to remain on a schedule consistent with the President's commitment.

The DOE is in the practice of issuing a solicitation every other year and has done so twice to date. This practice has been required in order to collect enough appropriations for a single solicitation. While I am fully aware of the fiscal limits we currently face and the immense pressure on the budget, it is crucial that the CCPI reach the necessary funding level in order to initiate a solicitation in fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2007 CCPI budget request must be substantially higher than the fiscal year 2006 request in order to maintain a schedule of solicitations every second year, and I strongly encourage the administration to submit a request in an amount sufficient to initiate a third CCPI solicitation in fiscal year 2007.

Finally, the Office of Fossil Energy has been lacking in leadership for far too long. There remains a strong team in place, along with a new director, at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, but that must be matched with a strong Fossil Energy Assistant Secretary. This position has now been vacant for at least 20 months. This post should be filled by someone who can bring strong technical, policy, and managerial experience and who can work well with a variety of constituencies.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Senators Domenici and Reid for their leadership and assistance on this conference report. I would also like to thank Senator Domenici's staff Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, and Emily Brunini as well as Senator Reid's staff, Drew Willison and Nancy Olkewicz for their hard work. This is the first year that fossil energy R&D programs were included in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This is a good conference report given the very tough fiscal circumstances that we faced. I have urged Senators Domenici and Reid to give greater oversight and scrutiny to the administration's fossil energy requests and look forward to working with them on this important matter next year. Because our Nation's energy security is so important, the fossil energy R&D programs, especially the clean coal programs, require strong support. I will remain ever watchful and strongly supportive of them in the coming years.

Mr. President, this Friday, November 11, is celebrated in this country as Veterans Day. It is always held on the 11th of November in memory of the end of World War I. In that ``War to End All Wars'' what wishful, optimistic thinking. All guns were laid down on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, at 11 o'clock a.m. on November 11, 1918. On that fateful hour, I am sure that many prayers of thanksgiving flew heavenward as Doughboys and their families rejoiced at their survival in spite of the most bitter and horrible fighting the world had yet experienced.

World War I saw the introduction of new and more deadly forms of warfare, as technology and chemistry were brought to bear on the battlefield. Horses were replaced by the first crude tanks and self- propelled guns. Monoplanes and biplanes brought warfare to the skies overhead for the first time.

Chemical weapons, terrible and deadly, clouded the trenches. Diseases stalked the fields as well, from trenchfoot to the deadly Spanish flu that killed combatants and civilians alike. It was a dreadful time, one that would surely erase the desire to battle, if only that desire could be wiped from the human genome.

In 2005, in wake of World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam conflict, the cold war and repeated conflicts in the Balkans, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, World War I seems almost quaint. There was no threat of nuclear war bringing vast destruction to our homeland. There was no threat of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. There was some respect for noncombatants, and there were no kidnappings or concentration camps.

Today's battlefield is amorphous. It touches humanitarian volunteers and journalists. It strikes at soldiers in their weary bivoacs, and it threatens to reach again into our everyday lives and travels. Our battle-stained soldiers get no rest.

This Veterans Day, we are at war on three fronts. First, let us never forget that we have troops in Afghanistan, still struggling to defeat the remnants of those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. They do not receive as much press coverage as the conflict in Iraq, but their fight is taking place in the heartland of the Taliban, the refuge of last resort for the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden. Our prayers go out to those brave men and women who labor in the deserts and the high, cold mountains of that embattled land. Your efforts and your sacrifices are not forgotten.

Second, we also have troops in Iraq, in a battle of our choosing. It is a battle that is consuming a high and bloody price on each difficult day. Our anxious prayers are with those men and women too, who must face each day not knowing what is around each comer or along each dangerous roadway. They may be sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that whatever we do

here to question or investigate the circumstances that led to their deployment to Iraq, they have our unwavering respect and support in addition to our prayers. Those of their comrades who have paid a dear price and who lie wounded in hospitals have our thanks and sincere wishes for a speedy recovery. To the families who have lost a loved one in battle in service to our Nation, we owe a great debt.

They have no Veterans Day prayer of thanksgiving, only the honored memory of their loved one.

Our third war is taking place at home, as the Nation struggles to put in place protections to deter, prevent, or respond to a terror attack within our borders. The military, the Department of Homeland Security, and State and local first responders all must define and organize themselves to meet these new threats. We are all familiar with the early responses, from machine-gun wielding National Guardsmen patrolling our airports to fighter jets circling overhead on combat air patrol. We now dutifully take our shoes off for inspection before boarding a plane, and we park farther from public buildings. We are reviewing what role the military should play in responding to terror attacks or natural disasters. We are debating what legal protections and due process are due to those who are accused of involvement in suspected terror plots. We are weighing what loss of privacy with regard to our electronic transactions, even our library book withdrawals and Web searches, is commensurate with the threat to our safety. These new threats have made significant changes in our way of life, to be sure. Thankfully, we have not been tested again so far.

The changes in our daily routines are minute, however, in comparison to the challenges facing our men and women in uniform. Their foes wear no uniforms, no recognizable insignia. They travel in crowds, in taxis and buses, in private cars and cement trucks loaded with explosives. They target diplomats, journalists, and those laboring to improve local living conditions as well as those in uniform. They target their own countrymen serving to keep the peace on their neighborhood streets. They come from other nations, driven by a fanaticism most of us cannot fathom, let alone comprehend. Our men and women in uniform are fighting the hardest kind of war against a chameleon foe hidden in plain sight among the passing crowd. They have made repeated trips to the battlefield as our overstretched forces must deply and redeploy. My heart goes out to them and my prayers are with them.

American men and women in the military services customarily state that they are proud to serve, proud to answer the Nation's call. Know that this Senator, too is proud--proud and thankful for the bravery and skill of our Nation's soldiers, sailors, and airmen. And I am proud of the families who support our troops with their love, their care packages, their prayers, and their loving welcomes home.

On Veterans Day, the Nation pays its respects to the men and women who have served and are now serving our Nation in uniform, and who have faced or are facing our foes in battle. Give them your thanks, and give them their due. They are true patriots. They have faced great dangers for each and every one of us.

Mr. President, I close with a poem by Edgar Guest:

The things that make a soldier great and send him out to die,

To face the flaming cannon's mouth nor ever question why,

Are lilacs by a little porch, the row of tulips red,

The peonies and pansies, too, the old petunia bed,

The grass plot where his children play, the roses on the

wall:

'Tis these that make a soldier great.

He's fighting for them all.

'Tis not the pomp and pride of kings that make a soldier

brave;

'Tis not allegiance to the flag that over him may wave;

For soldiers never fight so well on land or on the foam;

As when behind the cause they see the little place called

home.

Endanger but that humble street whereon his children run, You

make a soldier of the man who never bore a gun.

What is it through the battle smoke the valiant soldier sees?

The little garden far away, the budding apple trees,

The little patch of ground back there, the children at their

play,

Perhaps a tiny mound behind the simple church of gray.

The golden thread of courage isn't linked to castle dome;

But to the spot, where'er it be--the humblest spot called

home.

And now the lilacs bud again and all is lovely there,

And homesick soldiers far away know spring is in the air;

The tulips come to bloom again, the grass once more is green,

And every man can see the spot where all his joys have been.

He sees his children smile at him, he hears the bugle call,

And only death can stop him now--he's fighting for them all.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to approve the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill. The passage of this legislation is important to all Americans who are now serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, but especially to those who are serving in harm's way.

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan require all the support that our Nation can give them until the day that they can return to their homes. Our military prides itself in being the most capable and the best trained fighting force in the entire world. The Constitution places in Congress the responsibility to ``raise and support armies'' and to ``provide and maintain a navy.'' It is therefore of the greatest importance that Congress provide our troops with the equipment that they need for their dangerous missions.

The wars that continue in Iraq and Afghanistan are unlike the conflicts that the United States has fought in the past two decades. In the first Persian Gulf War or Kosovo, our military depended on high- tech aircraft and smart bombs to quickly overwhelm our enemies. Today, in Iraq, our awesome airpower is of limited use. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, by and large, the wars of the soldier and the marine. These are the wars of the foot soldier, carried out in the hostile streets of foreign cities. These troops do not enjoy the near- invulnerability of stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. Our troops do not see the enemy as a blip on a radar screen, because often the enemy is seen eye to eye.

With this being the reality of urban warfare, there must be a new focus on providing our ground troops with the equipment that they need to fight and survive in the urban combat environment. The Defense authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee makes steps in this direction. It authorizes $1.4 billion in spending to protect our troops serving overseas. This figure includes $500 million to detect and destroy roadside bombs, $344 million for up-armored HMMWVs, and $118 million for body armor.

But more must be done to provide our troops with the next generation of weapons that will help our troops prevail in ground combat. More needs to be done to apply the technology that allows our military to dominate the air and the seas to build a new generation of weapons that will allow our troops to dominate the ground. One such technology that deserves investigation is the SPIKE missile system currently being developed by the Navy. The SPIKE missile is designed to be a low-cost, lightweight, precision-guided rocket that would allow our troops to accurately engage enemies at great range. If this technology is successful, it could provide our ground troops with the same sort of revolutionary advantage that precision-guided munitions provided to our advanced aircraft a decade ago.

There are also emerging opportunities for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to support the warfighter on the ground. While important UAVs like Global Hawk provide intelligence about what is going on in large sections of a country, our ground troops often need to know what is happening on the other side of a hill. Smaller UAVs can provide our troops with a decisive advantage in urban environments. Important projects like SWARM, being developed by Augusta Systems in Morgantown, are exploring ways to allow small UAVs to work together to seek out our enemies on the battlefield, eliminating the chance that our troops could be taken by surprise. The next step is to use small UAVs as ways to strike first, before our ground troops come into the range of our enemy's weapons. Our military is only beginning to tap the growing potential of UAV technology to support our troops on the ground.

The Department of Defense is currently engaged in the Quadrennial Defense Review, a top-to-bottom study of our military strategy, posture, and equipment that will guide this Nation's defense research and development and procurement policies for the next 4 years. With this review underway, it is an ideal opportunity to place a new emphasis on bringing cutting-edge technology to our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. I urge the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other Pentagon officials who are carrying out this study to broaden their view of what our troops require.

The QDR should propose new technologies to protect our troops from the threats that they face in combat, and it should also accelerate the development of new weapons systems that allow our soldiers to dominate the battlefield in urban environments. The Department of Defense should place these efforts on the top of its priorities: we should not wait for the next war to give our troops the advantage of new, high-tech weapons. Instead, the Pentagon and Congress should make every effort to arm our troops with the next generation of technology, today. For so long as our troops are serving in

harm's way, we must give them not only the armor and protection, but also the weapons, that they need to ensure that they will come home safely.

What is the business before the Senate?

The Snowe amendment to what?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, a man for whom I have great respect.

In 1787, during the drafting of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers struggled with the question of how to create a government that would simultaneously govern and yet remain accountable to the people. The Framers developed a number of principles with which every schoolchild should be familiar: Direct and indirect representation, checks and balances, separation of powers.

In addition to these great principles, the Framers were also insightfully pragmatic. For example, in article I, section 9, the Constitution gives the Congress--us, the Senate and the House, the Congress--the power of the purse. As Cicero said, there is no fortress so strong that money cannot buy it. Money cannot take it.

That section also requires accountability for how the people's tax money is to be used. Here is what it says:

. . . a regular statement and account of the receipts and

expenditures of all public money shall be published from time

to time.

The Founding Fathers, among whom were the Framers, the Framers understood the importance of informing the American people about how their taxes are spent. However, this constitutional requirement has frequently clashed with the realities of the modern day bureaucracy. In no other Government agency, is this clash more evident than in the largest department, the Department of Defense, with its budget that is approaching half a trillion every year. How long would it take to count $1 trillion at the rate of one dollar per second? That is pretty fast counting, one dollar per second. How long would it take to count $1 trillion at the rate of one dollar per second? Guess. What is the guess? Thirty-two thousand years. That would be quite a while. I wouldn't be around to hear the counting of $1 trillion at the rate of one dollar per second.

The Department of Defense, with a budget that is approaching half a trillion dollars per year--that takes 16,000 years to count--is unable to adequately account for the funds that are appropriated to it.

What a shame. Are you astounded? It is amazing, isn't it? That is astonishing.

Despite decades of congressional scrutiny, multibillion dollar reform efforts and promises for progress, the Pentagon is unable to pass an audit of its books. How about that? The Pentagon is unable to pass an audit of its books. I have been saying this now for how many years, pretty close to 5 years that I have been saying this. Secretary Rumsfeld admitted it. He said he was going to do something about it.

Dr. David Walker, the Comptroller of the United States and the head of the Government Accountability Office, has stated:

Numerous management problems, inefficiencies, and wasted

resources continue to trouble DOD's business operations,

resulting in billions of wasted resources annually at a time

when our nation is facing an increasing fiscal imbalance.

We ought to listen to that. That ought to get everyone on their feet. Stand up and take notice. He is talking about billions of dollars of the people's money. That is your money; your money; yes, your money; and your money. Turn to the four corners of the Earth, the proverbial four winds. It is your money that goes down the tubes each year, down the tubes.

These billions are not being spent on training our troops. These billions are not being spent on providing health care for the families of our troops. We are talking about billions of dollars in spending that neither improves our national security nor returns value to the taxpayers. It is as if this huge amount of money vanishes into thin air.

In this time of tight budgets, in this time of huge deficits, this is exactly the sort of Government waste the Congress needs to eliminate. The taxpayers cry out, even the rocks cry out.

When Secretary Rumsfeld came before the Committee on Armed Services in January of 2001, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld what he was going to do about this. That was in 2001. What are you going to do about it? So I asked him what he was going to do about this. This what? This $2.3 trillion in unsupported accounting entries that appeared in the Pentagon's ledgers in fiscal year 1999.

Mr. President, $2.3 trillion is a lot of money, isn't it? I believe our national budget exceeded $1 trillion--when was it, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, when did our Government budget first exceed $1 trillion? I believe that was 1987; am I correct? Now, here we were in 1999, when I noted that there was in the Pentagon's ledgers, this number $2.3 trillion in unsupported accounting. Secretary Rumsfeld said that the accounting mess was, to use his words, ``monumental.'' He used the word ``terrifying.'' And he said it would take ``a period of years,'' it would take ``a period of years to sort it out.'' So I said: Well, let's get started. It is past time.

Since January 2001, the Department of Defense has made progress in some areas. For example, the Pentagon has been successful in reducing the abuse of Government-issued credit cards. But the toughest work remains ahead, and there are serious doubts that the Pentagon is up to the task of tackling these difficult problems.

The previous Defense Department Comptroller, Dov Zakheim, set a goal to have the Pentagon pass its first audit by fiscal year 2007. However, this deadline is increasingly looking like a pipedream. Dr. Walker of the General Accounting Office said, earlier this year, in a hearing before the Armed Services Committee's Readiness Subcommittee:

The goal for 2007 is totally unrealistic. It's not credible

on its face.

How about that? That is quite astonishing. In fact, for the first time, the GAO listed the Defense Department's business transformation project on its annual list of ``high risk'' Government programs.

Now, this should lead the Congress to question whether the Defense Department is moving forward in its efforts to straighten out its books or if it is heading into even greater financial chaos.

Mr. President, I cry out for the American people. Oh, how they cry out because of the burden, the never-ending, the increasingly heavy, the increasingly unbearable burden. They simply can no longer afford the billions of wasted dollars through the Pentagon's broken accounting systems. That is why I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Akaka and Senator Lautenberg, to put the Defense Department on the right track to fix its broken accounting and financial management system. It is broken, so it needs fixing. Yes, it needs fixing. Why? Because it is broken.

This amendment, which is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced earlier this year, would create a Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management to bring order to the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy--the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy. The Deputy Secretary for Management would be directly responsible--directly responsible--for overseeing reform in the areas of accounting, human resources, information technology, acquisition, and logistics, among others. These are the key areas identified by the Government Accountability Office as being most in need of stronger oversight. Getting these programs on the right track could save taxpayers billions of dollars per year by eliminating waste, inefficiency, and duplication--duplication, redundancy.

Based upon the recommendations of the GAO, the Byrd-Akaka amendment would create a 7-year term for the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management. This fixed term of service is required to ensure that the Pentagon lays out a single plan for reform and sticks to it--lays out a single program for reform and sticks to that single program for reform. Above all else, the Defense Department needs this sustained, high-level leadership if it is ever going to fix its accounting problems.

Well, there are some critics who might argue that the Department of Defense already has high-level leadership concerned about financial management and accounting practices. Well, that is probably true. So what. It

is, indeed, true that Secretary Rumsfeld and his Acting Deputy Secretary, Gordon England, both have spoken often about the importance of straightening out the Pentagon's books.

But this amendment is not about the Secretary, not about the Deputy Secretary of Defense. If experience shows us anything, it is that Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries come and go, but the Pentagon's accounting problems remain. The Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries come and go, but the Pentagon's accounting problems do not go away. They do not go away. They remain.

In the 15 years since the Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which requires every Government agency to pass a financial audit, the Pentagon has seen five--F-I-V-E--Secretaries of Defense, eight--E-I-G-H-T--Deputy Secretaries of Defense, and five--F- I-V-E--Comptrollers. How about that. How can any major reform plan hope to succeed if the Department's leadership is in such a constant turnover, such a constant state of change?

Plans for accounting reform have been written, written, written, and rewritten more times than anyone can count. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent in the vain attempt to implement a never-ending series of reform proposals, each one of which claims to be the plan that will finally straighten out the Pentagon's books. But do you know what. These proposals, plans, and programs just are not getting the job done. They do not amount to a hill of beans. They are not doing the work.

In fact, just a few short weeks ago, the Department of Defense finished creating another revised plan to fix its accounting systems and inaugurated another new agency to implement the new plan. Well, while some may argue that this means the Pentagon is finally getting serious about its efforts to balance its books, I see history repeating itself--yes, more new plans, more new plans, more new plans, but little hope for success.

Mr. President, the time has come and passed for a real shakeup of the Department of Defense. That giant bureaucracy needs to be tamed--needs to be tamed. While the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense have a multitude of competing priorities, including their responsibility to oversee the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon needs a single official to focus on the day-to-day management of the Department of Defense. The Byrd-Akaka amendment creates a Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management to do that.

Too much of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars are lost through the waste and inefficiency of the Defense Department's bureaucratic morass. It is time for reform. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd-Akaka amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the proposal coming, as it does, from the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, gives me pause.

First, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Continuing, the Department of Defense has served our country well. But from time to time Congress

has needed to make changes, such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, to fix problems that have arisen. We know what the problem is. The Department needs someone to dive in and fix these accounting problems. The GAO has told the Congress what is needed to fix these problems. My amendment does just that. One more year means more money spent. One might ask the rhetorical question, how many more years does Congress need to wait before it acts? I don't slough off the proposal nonchalantly or ``chalantly.'' I would like to think about that. Let me do just that. While the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, speaks, let me converse with the Senator from Virginia.

Fine, if we could set this amendment aside until after the two votes. In the meantime, let the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, speak, and then have the amendment set aside until after the two votes. Meanwhile we can confer.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have great respect for the Senator. I am interested in what he said. Let us confer a little bit and think a little bit about this during the two votes that are about to take place. Perhaps we can find out what the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Virginia have in mind. Perhaps we can work out something that will be in the best interest of the country. I would like to think about that. I thank the Senator. Let's just hold it in abeyance for a little while until after the votes, and then we will come back to it.

Mr. President, I was hoping we would have a vote on the amendment which I had offered earlier, or in relation thereto, a rollcall vote.

No.

Will that occur this day?

Mr. President, the Pentagon continues to have massive management problems. The GAO believes that billions of taxpayer dollars could be saved each year, if these problems can be straightened out. This modification to my amendment would require an expedited study on whether there should be a Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management to take charge of fixing the Pentagon's accounting problems. I thank the cosponsors of my modified amendment: Chairman Warner, Senator Ensign, Senator Akaka, and Senator Lautenberg. I am encouraged by Chairman Warner's intention to hold further hearings in the Armed Services Committee once these reports are submitted to Congress.

Fixing the pervasive--I mean pervasive--accounting problems at the Department of Defense will require more hearings, more oversight, and more accountability. I took note of this some years ago when Secretary Rumsfeld first appeared before the Armed Services Committee. He admitted there was a problem, a very difficult problem. He indicated he was going to do something about it. I think he needs help.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to set the Pentagon on an accelerated track for reform.

I thank the Senator from Virginia.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan.

Yes, the modification is at the desk.

Mr. President, the reconciliation bill would increase immigrant work visas by 350,000 per year, about one-third of the current level. It is a massive and destabilizing increase that does not belong on the reconciliation bill.

My amendment would strike the increase in immigrant work visas and impose a $1,500 immigrant application fee on multinational corporations. With my amendment, the Judiciary Committee would exceed its reconciliation savings targets and do so without increasing immigrant work visas. We authorized over half a million H-1B visas in 2000. Last year, we authorized another $100,000 over 5 years. Do we really need another 150,000 visas on top of that? When is enough enough?

My amendment has the support of the unions. It has the support of immigrant enforcement groups. It has the support of Republican and Democrat Senators. I urge agreement of the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, my amendment will suspend the time limitations on debate for reconciliation bills that increase the deficit. The Congress will never succeed in balancing the budget, cutting the deficit, as long as the reconciliation process can be used to shield controversial tax-and-spending decisions from debate and amendment. If Senators want to ensure offsets for deficit-increasing measures, then we must protect our rights to debate and amend within the budget process. The more tax cuts that can be forced through now without offsets, the tougher the budget decisions and the worse the pain in the coming months and years. The budget cuts that seem tough now will grow enormous, and they will be unbearable, if tax cuts continue without offsets. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I move to waive the act in connection with this amendment.

Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I learned of the death of Henry K. Giugni, who passed away this morning. He was a former Sergeant at Arms.

In January 1987, it was my pleasure, as the Senate majority leader, to nominate Mr. Giugni to be the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. When the Senate elected him to the position, Mr. Giugni became not only the thirtieth Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, he became the first Polynesian-American to serve in this capacity.

Mr. Giugni brought a wealth of experience to this most important Senate position. Born in Hawaii in 1925, he enlisted in the U.S. Army during World War II. After the war, he joined the Honolulu Police Force. From 1963 to 1987, he had served as the administrative assistant in the office of my dear friend and colleague, my hero--Senator Daniel K. Inouye.

As the second ranking officer in the United States Senate, Mr. Giugni performed the duties of the office of Sergeant at Arms of the Senate proudly and with distinction. In his 4 years as head of the largest office in the Senate, Mr. Giugni supervised a number of major changes and improvements. This included the purchase and installation of millions of dollars of new computer and telecommunications equipment for Senators and their offices.

Mr. Giugni took special pride in having helped to make the U.S. Capitol accessible to the disabled by expanding the Special Services Office. Under his direction, the office implemented tours and other programs for the disabled, and published a braille version of Senate documents.

Sergeant at Arms Giugni worked with the House Sergeant at Arms to improve the operation of the Capitol Police Force. And, his office instituted cost-effective measures of hiring civilian guards to perform duties which he did not believe required uniformed officers.

Mr. Giugni left his work at the Senate in 1990 to become vice president of corporate development for Washington, DC, firm, Cassidy Associates. His presence in the Senate, and his devotion to it, were quickly and sorely missed. But I was pleased and proud of having nominated him to this most important position, and I was even more pleased and proud of the work he had performed while there.

I close my remarks with a poem that I have always cherished. It is a poem that evokes the triumph of a life well lived over the sorrow of death. It is a poem that addresses the life and career of my good friend, Henry K. Giugni.

Let fate do her worst, there are relics of joy,

Bright dreams of the past, which she cannot destroy;

that come, in the nighttime of sorrow and care,

And bring back the features that joy used to wear.

Long, long be my heart with such memories filled,

Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled,

You may break, you may shatter the vase, if you will,

But the scent of the roses will hang around it still.

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

Mr. President, we have almost completed the First Session of the 109th Congress and, incredibly, no serious debate about our immigration policies has occurred. Not a word. No serious debate.

The number of aliens residing illegally in the United States stands between 8 and 12 million. Let me say that again. The number of aliens residing illegally in the United States stands between 8 and 12 million--an alarming figure given the terrorism threat that confronts our country.

The level of legal and illegal immigration combined has surpassed historic records, causing increasing concern about the ability of our Nation to absorb the influx. Our roads, our schools, and our health care systems are overwhelmed and underfunded.

Go to any hospital in the area or in the surrounding area. Take a look at what is going on. The waiting rooms, the emergency rooms are overcrowded. Our infrastructure is just not ready for these influxes. We are being overwhelmed. Go to the emergency rooms at the hospitals. Go over to Fairfax Hospital, for example, one of the finest hospitals in the country. There they are on cots in the aisles. I know because I have been there. Our schools--how can we teach children when the schoolrooms are so overcrowded? What about our poor teachers?

Our infrastructure is just not prepared for this influx. Our roads are not prepared. And that infrastructure is being further worn away with the budget cuts included in this reconciliation bill. Right here.

Immigration is an issue that demands the attention of the Congress. Regretfully, we have been told that tougher enforcement actions will have to wait until next year. So imagine the surprise of Senators to find provisions buried deep, deep, deep in this budget bill that would authorize the Government to issue more than 350,000 additional immigrant visas each year to foreign labor seeking to live and work permanently in the United States.

This is baffling. Baffling. Baffling. It is baffling, I say. If we don't have the time to address the illegal immigration that threatens our national security, then how do we explain to the American people out there that we somehow found the time to raise the level of imported labor each year? How do we do that? How do we do that?

On pages 810 through 815, separate from the deficit reduction measures related to immigration fees, are provisions in the reconciliation bill that would raise the annual cap on employment-based visas and exempt the spouses and children of employment-based immigrants from that cap. In addition, those pages include provisions to increase temporary H-1B visas for high-tech workers by 30,000 each year. These are massive and destabilizing immigration increases, and they are hitching a free ride--hitching a free ride--on this reconciliation bill; a free ride on this reconciliation bill. Hitch on it to get a free ride.

It is bad enough that so many American jobs are moving overseas and wages and benefits here at home are being curtailed to compete with Third World labor and unfair trade practices. Now these provisions would make it more likely that working Americans will find themselves in competition with foreign labor for work in their own country and-- and--is being done through this reconciliation process right here where the immigration increase is clouded by budget provisions and where debate and amendments are severely limited.

We are told that an immigration reform debate will take place early next year. Senators are casting themselves as tough--tough, man. Senators are casting themselves as tough on enforcement and wanting to protect American jobs. Well, that pronouncementstands in stark, stark contrast to this effort under the cover of procedural protections and the guise

of deficit reduction to increase the number of immigrants authorized to work in the United States by an astonishing 350,000 visas per year.

These immigration provisions are not necessary for the Judiciary Committee to comply with its reconciliation instruction, nor are they necessary to achieve the spending cuts embraced by the congressional budget. The House Judiciary Committee reported legislation to assess a $1,500 fee on L-1 visas for executives and managers of multinational corporations and that savings provision more than satisfies the budget's reconciliation instruction. So I hope that Senators will join me in striking these unrelated immigration increases and limiting the judiciary portion of this bill solely to an increase in the L-1 visa fee.

So the amendment that I will send to the desk is identical to the House language, excluding the provisions related to new judgeships, and would raise the L-1 visa fee to $1,500 per application. Again, this amendment simply strikes the unrelated immigration provisions and would still allow the Senate bill to meet its reconciliation targets.

My amendment has the support of the professional employee unions of the AFL-CIO, as well as immigration enforcement groups like Numbers USA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Amendment No. 2367

I send that amendment to the desk and I ask Senators for their support.

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

I see my friend, my bosom friend from Alabama, on the floor. I am told that he is going to speak at this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his strong statement and for his support of the amendment. His statement is very convincing, persuasive, and timely. I am very grateful for his coming to the floor and his joining in the support of this amendment. I hope all Senators will read his statement and learn therefrom and support the amendment.

I reserve any time that I may have remaining, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his sage remarks. Let me thank him also for the leadership that he demonstrates daily in the Senate and in committees. I have great respect for him. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee with him. He is a far-seeing, wise Senator. He acts in the service of his people and he too is concerned about the protection of our country and its security. I thank him from the bottom of my heart. I thank him for yielding.

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

Mr. President, several of the unions are very supportive of the amendment I have just offered. Among these unions, it should be mentioned that the American Federation of Government Employees is very supportive; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; the American Guild of Musical Artists; the American Federation of Musicians; the American Federation of School Administrators; the Communications Workers of America, including the Newspaper Guild, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, the International Union of Electrical Workers; the Federation of Professional Athletes; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; the Office and Professional Employees International Union; Plate Printers, Die Stampers and Engravers Union of North America; the Screen Actors Guild; the Seafarers International Union; the United Steelworkers; the Writers Guild of America, East. These unions are trying to protect the health benefits and the wages of working Americans, and they say that American workers are available to fill these jobs.

The Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, has a letter addressed to all Senators endorsing the amendment. Just to quote a few words from the letter:

The 22 national unions represented by our organization

strongly support the Byrd amendment and urge your vote for

it.

Continuing, I speak again of the letter and call attention to these excerpts:

There is absolutely no economic justification for expanding

the H-1B program. Unemployment among professionals in H-1B

occupations remains high . . .

Finally, it is worth pointing out that industry apologists

for off-shore outsourcing of American jobs have long

proclaimed that one of the benefits of globalization would be

the creation of high end, high skilled technical and

professional jobs for workers in the United States. These

same industries now seek to contract the number of these very

same high end job opportunities that should otherwise be

available to highly skilled American workers by once again

expanding the H-1B visa program.

On behalf of the 4 million professional and technical

workers that are members of our unions, we urge you to oppose

any action that would have the effect of making it more

difficult for unemployed U.S. professionals to find work.

Mr. President, Senators will please take note of these words on behalf of these unions and the workers in the industries with which they are concerned.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, the National Research Council has estimated that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with most government expenditures on immigrants coming from State and local coffers.

Mr. President, how much is enough? How much is enough? In 2000, the Congress increased H-1B visas to 195,000 per year for 3 years, authorizing over half a million new visas. Last year, the Congress authorized 20,000 new H-1B visas each year, every year. The Immigration Act authorizes more than 140,000 employment-based visas each year. How much is enough? How much is enough? I say enough is enough.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the American people enter this fall season with apprehension, trepidation, and a somber sense of foreboding. Gasoline prices, which peaked above $3 per gallon in September, now seem stuck at levels once thought absurd. Gas prices in West Virginia hover around $2.57 per gallon and can vary significantly in some areas, rising precipitously at times.

Heating costs are projected to soar this winter, with many households expected to pay an additional $350 to heat their homes with natural gas and heating oil. It makes one shiver, thinking of winter in those mountains of Appalachia.

People are already struggling with inadequate wages, are being forced to curtail everyday expenses simply to buy gasoline, to fill up their tanks. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are already forced to choose between prescription drugs and food. That is a tough choice. They must now confront life-threatening heating costs. This winter is coming. I can feel it in the air.

This winter, with energy costs rising, the Federal safety net will be needed to provide essential support for countless Americans. Many are watching with incredulity the fraying of that safety net.

On the farms and in the cities, in rural and urban neighborhoods, Americans have been shaken by the Government's inability to respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina while the Government focused on tax cuts for the wealthy and massive spending requests to rebuild Iraq-- what a shame; we should never have gone there, no; it was no threat to our national security, and I said so at the time--massive spending requests to rebuild Iraq. Our Nation's infrastructure was weakening from neglect at home while all this was happening. Katrina highlighted that erosion, focused our attention on that erosion and the high cost of forgoing critical infrastructure repairs.

Just a few days ago, that erosion was further highlighted as Americans watched the wooden 173-year-old Whittenton Dam threaten to give way in Taunton, MA, forcing the evacuation of yet another American city.

This winter, the country must confront the threat of an avian flu pandemic as public health officials warn that our Nation's health infrastructure remains woefully inadequate. Remember the influenza? Remember the flu of 1917 and 1918? I don't remember it exactly, but I had it. My mother died in that pandemic. I was less than a year old. She said to my father: Give ``the baby'' to the Byrds. One of my father's sisters had married a Byrd, Titus Dalton Byrd. They did not have any children. They had a child prior to my birth, but their child had died--his name was Robert Madison--so they had no children left. My mother's wish that my father give me, the ``baby,'' to Mr. and Mrs. Titus Dalton Byrd, the ``Mrs.'' being my father's sister. Yes, that is why I am here today. It was their wish that my father give me, the baby--there were three older brothers and a sister--give them all to somebody, but give the baby to the Byrds. They took me in, changed my name, and brought me to West Virginia, away from North Carolina. And here I am.

Earlier this week, Hurricane Wilma pummeled southern Florida, causing heavy flooding and power outages. The cleanup costs could be enormous.

Rather than addressing these weaknesses and providing the American people with some reassurance, the Congress incredibly and inconceivably is looking for ways to further siphon funds away from our safety net and domestic investments. It is as if we have learned nothing-- absolutely nothing--from Hurricane Katrina.

A hope and belief seem to exist, and fingers are crossed all across this town, that no one will connect how the budget cuts being considered will affect those hurting from high energy prices.

Eight Senate committees--eight Senate committees--have drafted reconciliation legislation to cut domestic investments in order to prefund $70 billion in additional tax cuts, many of which will not take effect for several years. They are backloaded. Now, get that: tax cuts. Oh, it is so easy. Ah, how I love to vote for tax cuts. That is easy. It does not take any courage to do that. Tax cuts. I have been in politics now 60 years next year, in various and sundry legislative branches, and the easiest vote I ever cast was for tax cuts.

Some of these spending cuts are coming from the very same programs that are providing essential disaster relief to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, such as those used to provide temporary health services. They comprise much of the safety net for our Nation's most vulnerable, as well as for Americans afflicted by disaster.

The reconciliation process has been touted as a means to contain the budgetary costs of Katrina, but that is a specious, spurious argument. The reconciliation process would worsen--worsen now; not improve--our fiscal position. With $70 billion in new tax cuts and an estimated $39 billion in spending cuts, the result is a deficit that increases by $31 billion--$31 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; $31 for every minute--oh, the clock is ticking; that clock is ticking--$31 for every minute since Our Lord Jesus Christ was born. Under the process being considered, Katrina costs would continue to mount, without offsets, while the safety net is further worn away.

The argument for reconciliation makes even less sense when you consider that Katrina costs are one-time, unforeseen emergency expenditures. Meanwhile, no action, none, no action has been taken to pay for trillions of dollars--trillions. How long would it take to count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? How long would it take to count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? Man, can you imagine that? How long would it take? Thirty-two thousand years? These young pages who have quick minds can figure that out. Thirty-two thousand, I am not sure about that figure. If it is not 32,000, it is 34,000 or 36,000. Thirty-two thousand years--I will stick with that figure for now--at a minimum, at the rate of a dollar per second. Can you believe it?

There are trillions of dollars of tax cuts. No action has been taken to pay for those trillions of dollars of tax cuts or the hundreds of billions of dollars of costs for Iraq--a war that we should have never been in. We should never have gone. And they are still struggling to find a reason why we went. Too late now. I said then I don't believe there are weapons of mass destruction. I think there have been in some years gone by but not now. And have they been found? No. And I and 22 others--yes, 22 others; one Republican among the 23; one Senator who is now dead and gone; he died in a plane crash--23 souls, including my own, said: No. No, we won't go. We are not going to vote to give this power to declare war to this President or any President. We are not going to do it. Twenty-three of us. But there we are. We are there.

So with the hundreds of billions of dollars of costs for Iraq, no action has been taken to pay for that, even though these costs are as plain and obvious as any in the Federal budget. I simply cannot fathom why the administration believes that reconstructing Baghdad does not have to be paid for, while reconstructing Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama requires offsets.

Can you imagine that? Reconstructing Baghdad does not have to be paid for, while reconstructing Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama requires offsets. It does not make sense. It does not make good sense. It does not make common sense.

Nor has any action been taken to find savings elsewhere in the bloated--bloated--Federal budget. The Defense Department's budget comprises one-sixth of the Federal budget and surpasses the total discretionary budgets of every other agency and office of the Federal Government combined. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard audit. How about that. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard audit, and it has not been able to for some years. I will say that again. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard audit or to conduct effective oversight of military expenditures in Iraq. May God help us.

Government auditors have found substantial sums of defense contractor waste and fraud. Astonishingly, the Department of Defense pulled its inspector general out of Iraq last fall. Yet the Defense Department has not been asked to examine its $450 billion annual budget.

All of the savings, all of the deficit reduction is supposed to come from the safety net for working families--people who work with their hands or at their desks--and from essential domestic investments that have been dangerously--dangerously, dangerously--foolishly neglected for too long. The sacrifice, too often, is being asked of working families, while others remain blissfully exempt.

The budget reconciliation process at this point in the year and under these circumstances is ill-conceived. We are missing an opportunity to ferret out real waste in the Federal budget and to reform programs that could yield real budgetary savings. And worse, we are opening the door to a dangerous process.

Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee--I believe it was yesterday--included in its reconciliation package language that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. This is a critically important law. It allows Customs to distribute to American companies and

their workers the duties that it collects on unfairly traded, meaning ``dumped,'' imports. Yes. I am the daddy of that. Yes. I am the daddy of that child. It is called the Byrd Rule. There are several things that are called the Byrd Rule, but that is the one we are talking about.

It allows Customs to distribute to American companies and their workers the duties that it collects on unfairly traded, meaning ``dumped,'' imports. The funds go only to those--now listen; the funds--I say the fines for these violations go only to those who have been injured by foreign producers who violate our trade laws.

The funds go to crawfish producers in Louisiana. Hear me now. They go to shrimp producers throughout the Gulf States. Hear me. They go to our lumber industry. That is a big industry. They go to raspberry growers. They go to honey producers and beekeepers. They go to garlic growers in California, to makers of pasta, to makers of steel, to makers of steel bearings and other products manufactured all across our Nation.

Companies in nearly every State of the Union receive funds under this law, and the funds are essential. They enable our industries to invest in their facilities and in their workers, to upgrade their equipment and technology. What could be wrong with that? That is a good law. The World Trade Organization doesn't like this law, but the WTO is wrong. The WTO doesn't like this law, but the WTO is wrong, wrong, wrong, I say to the four corners, the four winds of the Earth--wrong. The WTO ruling in this case was created out of whole cloth. Nothing in the WTO agreements prohibits us from reimbursing U.S. industry with duties collected--how and from what--on unfairly traded imports. If the trading partners didn't violate the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines. They violate the law, yes.

The administration was directed by Congress in both the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Acts to negotiate a solution to this WTO dispute in ongoing trade talks. The Appropriations Acts explicitly--plainly, clearly--state that U.S. negotiations shall be conducted within the World Trade Organization to recognize the right of WTO members to distribute moneys collected from antidumping and countervailing duties as they deem appropriate. The WTO cannot infringe on the sovereign right of the Congress to legislate. They can't do that. The United States needs to keep this important trade law on the books. Keep it on the books.

I have talked to the President. I have talked with the administration about that. I have talked with our Trade Representative. Keep it on the books. They first said they would fight for it. After Katrina, we send a terrible message by continuing with this flawed reconciliation process. You watch how it works. I helped to write that law. The reconciliation process was never intended by those of us on both sides of the aisle--we are about all gone now, who created that process--to be used as it is being used. We send a terrible message when the American people call for deficit reduction and instead we lead them erroneously into more debt.

I hope the Congress will take the time to reconsider the flawed assumptions underlying this reconciliation process. It needs to do so before the process gets even further out of hand.

I thank all Senators. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as the administration searches for a new nominee for the Supreme Court, I hope the White House will not retreat to a political corner and choose a nominee who will only serve to divide the Nation and divide this Senate. I urge the President--hear me now--to select a nominee cut from the same cloth as the new Chief Justice of the United States--moderate in approach, steeped in thought and experience, and committed to the protection of the U.S. Constitution, which I hold in my hand. In partnership, the President and the Senate must do all that they can to avoid rancor and extreme partisanship. That begins with real consultation and a nominee who can bridge the gap between political philosophies.

I found it noteworthy--I did--that questions about Harriet Miers' nomination came from Senators, organizations, and individuals from diverse political philosophies. It does not matter who is asking the questions about a nomination; these questions serve the long-term interest of the Nation, those people out there, the American people who are watching us through those lenses.

Unfortunately, in this age of partisan politics dominating all else, questions too often are labeled as obstructionism. You remember that? Obstructionism. If you ask questions, you are an obstructionist. Get that, I say to these fine young pages. Nothing could be further from the truth. No.

Republican Senators--yes, the Senators who sit over on that side of the aisle--and Democratic Senators, who sit over here, had serious questions concerning the judicial philosophy of this nominee. Asking questions and insisting upon answers from judicial nominees helps to make certain that the American people have faith in their courts. Asking questions is not something to be labeled as obstructionist. How many times have I said that? Rather, it is patriotic to ask questions. Asking questions is part of my duty, part of your duty, Mr. President, part of each Senator's duty as citizens.

I think now would be a good time for the Senate to consider a proposal first put forward by Senator Specter in which I joined in the 105th Congress. We introduced legislation to establish a formal advisory mechanism for the Senate in the selection of Supreme Court Justices. Under that proposal, the Senate Judiciary Committee would establish a pool of possible Supreme Court nominees for the President to consider based on suggestions from Federal and State judges, distinguished lawyers, law professors, and others with a similar level of insight into the suitability of individuals for appointment to the Supreme Court. The President would, of course, be free to ignore the pool if he chose to do so, but the advice required by the Constitution would be formally available and the President would know that the individuals in the pool had received a bipartisan nod from the Senate committee required to do the vetting.

Senator Specter and I have talked about reintroducing this legislation in the coming days in an effort to guarantee that a broad spectrum of individuals are nominated for the Supreme Court and that the Senate is able, more fully, to fulfill its constitutional role. I am glad there are 14 Senators, ladies and gentlemen, Republican and Democrat, evenly divided, who joined together and who saved the Senate from a terrible blunder called the nuclear option. Some call it the constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it. It is unconstitutional on its face, the so-called nuclear option. What a shame that would have been. But the 14 Senators, Republican and Democrat, saved the Senate. That was a historic moment.

I say the President was right when he called Senators, when he sought the advice of Senators, when he sent Judge Roberts' name up here. Yes, for once he called me and asked what I thought. I complimented him on calling Senators, seeking their advice. The phrase is advice and consent, not just the word ``consent.'' It also has the word ``advice.'' So I said, and the 14 said, we want to be in on the takeoff as well as on the landing. So seek our advice. Yes.

Mr. President, seek our advice. Say to us, Lend me your ears, and I will lend you mine. He did that. The President did that. I complimented him on it. I hope he will do that now. I hope he will not send up a lightning rod, somebody who will just polarize the country and attract bows and arrows.

Mr. President, listen to the advice and consent clause in this hallowed document, the Constitution of the United States. Read it. It says ``advice.'' Hear me, Mr. President. Call Senators again. Don't send up someone who will divide the Senate, who will cause a filibuster, and then some would seek to cut off the freedom of Senators to speak. Be careful. Mr. President,

please call. Please call me. If you don't call me, call somebody else. Call Senators. Ask them what they think. You can discard our viewpoint if you wish. You don't have to accept our advice. I don't have anybody particularly in mind, but call me. Will you do it, Mr. President? I hope you will.

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

Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill is the last of the regular fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills to come before the Senate for consideration.

Last year, seven of the regular appropriations bills, including the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, were not debated individually by this body but rather they were inserted into one large, unamendable omnibus package. As I have said on many occasions, the processing of regular appropriations bills in such a manner is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. I am always very disappointed when the Senate resorts to appropriating by omnibus bills. We are the Senate. This is the Senate. A deliberative body it is supposed to be.

Last year, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill was included in the omnibus package. This is a different year now. This year, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill was fully debated here on the floor and amended as a stand-alone bill. What a difference.

This bill has been on the floor all week, and Senators have enjoyed their right to debate and amend such important language.

I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, and the distinguished Senator who acts on this side of the aisle to help manage this bill, Senator Specter and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.

This is such a comprehensive bill. It covers a lot of programs and activities of the Government--three Departments, and the Social Security Administration. When you include mandatory spending, this bill funds nearly 25 percent of the Federal budget. This bill impacts every citizen in this country in one way or another. Just think about it: labor issues, health issues, human services issues that provides basic humanitarian services for the neediest of our citizens, as well as education issues.

As we complete our debate on the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill, I want to extend my appreciation to the subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator Harkin. They are a good team on this bill. They have been working together on this subcommittee for so long that they seem to sometimes complete each other's sentences. They hold numerous hearings throughout the year. They gather knowledge from a wide array of experts throughout the country. That is what they do. This subcommittee pours over the testimony, over the reports, the studies, and other related data throughout the year, and its recommendations are reflective of that careful and thorough review.

I have never seen a chairman of a committee more fair than Senator Specter has been. Every Senator who wanted to call up an amendment had an opportunity to do so. Senator Specter did not seek to cut off any amendments. No. He was very fair, very considerate, very courteous. And look what a wonderful job he and Senator Harkin have done on this committee. My thanks, my congratulations to both of them.

I also extend my thanks to their fine staff. Those staffers worked hard. I appreciate their dedicated service to the Appropriations Committee and to the Senate.

I will take 1 minute, or maybe a little longer, to comment briefly about the upcoming supplemental request which I understand the White House will be transmitting to the Congress tomorrow. This will be the third disaster relief supplemental related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This request is expected to include $17 billion for various programs and agencies on top of the $62 billion Congress has already approved.

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Congress approved both of the President's supplemental requests. In each case, Congress approved the bill within 1 day of receiving the request, with no debate and no amendment. Of course, disastrous emergency situations such as that which occurred in the gulf coast region require immediate action by the Congress. However, the White House has waited 7 weeks to send up its third request. The White House should not assume that the Congress will simply rubberstamp their request.

I hope the Senate leadership will commit to the Senate that we will have an opportunity to debate and amend the third disaster relief supplemental bill. A $17 billion supplemental should not simply be shoved into an unamendable conference report. There should be an opportunity to debate such issues as whether low-income energy assistance should be provided to all States impacted by increased fuel prices, prices that continue to grow as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The Senate should also have an opportunity to debate how the Katrina supplemental will be paid for. I hope Senators will be afforded this opportunity.

I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my very good friend from the State of Mississippi, Thad Cochran. What a decent man, what a decent chairman he is. What a good job he has done this year processing these appropriations bills. All 11 of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills have been debated individually and separately by the Senate. Why is this? This is due in large part to the steadfast determination of the chairman, Senator Cochran. He is a very determined man. He did not give up. He

did not give in. He kept on pushing ahead.

That reminds me of two frogs that fell over the rim of the crock in which there was milk. The milk was in the crock. Two frogs fell off into that. One immediately kicked a couple of times, turned over on his back with his belly up, gave up, that was all. That frog was gone. But the other, what did it do? It began kicking, kicking, and he kicked and kicked and kicked until there was a little ball of butter. And he kicked a little more, and the ball grew bigger, larger. So the frog then climbed upon the ball of butter and jumped out. It jumped out.

That goes to show that if you keep on kicking, you will churn the butter. How about that?

Chairman Cochran didn't give up. He just kept on kicking, and he churned the butter. He just kept on pushing forward.

That determination of his paid off. I congratulate Senator Cochran for his success in getting all of the regular appropriations bills processed through to the floor, individually and separately.

So let me say it again.

What a job Chairman Cochran has done this year.

I also thank the joint leadership of the Senate, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, for working with Chairman Cochran and with me in scheduling the necessary floor time which enabled us to get on with these bills and debate them.

Chairman Cochran has worked with the House Appropriations Committee chairman in determining a schedule for completion of all the conferences on our regular appropriations bills by November 18. I think that is a realistic schedule. I am encouraged that we will be able to reach that goal.

While I am not pleased that the appropriations bills significantly underfund critical domestic programs for education, for homeland security, for health care, and for our crumbling infrastructure, I am pleased that the Senate at least had the opportunity to fully debate these issues.

I thank the distinguished Senator who sits in the Chair this evening, presiding over the Senate with a degree of dignity and aplomb that is so reminiscent of a day in June when the distinguished Senator's father sat in this Chamber also. I liked him. I like him, too.

So I say to the Senator from Rhode Island who presides over the Senate this evening, keep on doing good work, Excelsior, ever up. I thank the Senator. He is a good Presiding Officer. He is a good Senator. He used to be my neighbor. He is a good neighbor, too.

Yes. The Senator is right about that.

Does the distinguished Senator from Michigan wish to speak?

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator, if I may, for up to 5 minutes, if she so desires, without losing my right to the floor.

Rosa Parks Federal Office Building

I yield, without losing my right to the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have no objection if the Senator wishes to proceed at this time. Am I recognized?

I yield to the Senator, as I may, without any objections, for 10 minutes, and I retain my right to the floor.

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

Amendment No. 2275

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

Mr. President, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate these disadvantaged students.

Hear me, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate them. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act 4 years ago-- how short are our memories--it promised--get this--we promised to give schools the funding they would need to help every young person in this country to succeed in the classroom. I wish I had that when I was starting out in a two-room schoolhouse 80 years ago. That promise has not been kept. We have not even come close, and there is no better example of that broken promise than the title I program.

Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. Did you hear, Senators? Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. It helps the students who need help the most--who need help.

When Caesar was about to drown, Caesar said:

Help me, Cassius, or I sink!

Here is a program that is not well. It needs help or it will sink-- help for the millions of children who are being left behind.

It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable--yes, hold schools accountable for improving student performance. They should be held accountable. That is why when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2007. But every year--now get this--every year when it is time to appropriate the money, we have come up short.

This chart here beside me tells the story. Focus your eyes on this chart. Here is the title to the chart, ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left Behind.' '' How about that? ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left Behind.' '' The numbers are in billions, billions of dollars. Take a good look at this chart, I say. This chart tells the story, a pretty sordid story. The first year of the law, fiscal year 2002--this bar right here--the No Child Left Behind Act authorized $13.5 billion. There it is, the first year: $13.5 billion authorized. How much did Congress appropriate? Congress appropriated just $10.3 billion. The blue shows $13.5 billion authorized. The red shows we fell short. We only appropriated $10.3 billion.

In fiscal year 2003, watch this gap. The gap grew wider. The blue line shows that Congress authorized $16 billion, the blue bar, but Congress appropriated just $11.7 billion. There was $16 billion authorized, $11.7 billion appropriated.

Each year, as one can see on this chart, Congress has fallen further and further behind, behind in its promise to America's most needy students.

The authorized amount for fiscal year 2006--that is where we are now--appropriating moneys for fiscal year 2006, the authorized amount is $22.75, way over here on the chart, $22.75 billion. But the amount in this bill is just $12.8. Look at it. That is $10 billion less than the law promised to these disadvantaged students and to the schools in which they study. What a shame, $10 billion less--$22.75 was authorized, $12.8 billion was appropriated.

What a gap, $10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. What a gap. What a gap, $10 billion. That is enough to provide the full range of title I services to more than 3 million needy students who are currently being left behind by our Nation's schools. And at the current funding level in the Senate bill, they will continue to be left behind.

We got a hard look at some of those disadvantaged students during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Those disasters cast a bright light on a part of America that many people would like to pretend does not exist-- a part of America where the school buildings are crumbling, where there are not enough good teachers, and students are afraid for their own safety. These are real live people, live students who have a future, who have a horizon out there, who have a vision, and yet we are not keeping our promise to them. They are being left behind.

I took a piece of plastic clay

And idly fashioned it one day

And as my fingers pressed it still

It moved and yielded to my will.

I came again when days were past,

The bit of clay was hard at last.

The form I gave it, it still bore

And I could change that form no more.

I took a piece of living clay

And gently formed it day by day

And molded with my power and art

A young child's soft and yielding heart.

I came again when years were gone,

He was a man I looked upon.

He still that early impress wore

And I can change him never more.

Never more, never more.

That is what we are talking about, a piece of human clay, human clay.

We are leaving those children behind.

Those are exactly the kinds of students who are being left behind today and they are exactly the kinds of students who can be helped by title I.

America can do better. I say America can do better for these students. That is why I am offering this amendment to increase funding for title I. I wish I could increase this program by the entire $10 billion to fulfill this commitment, our commitment, the commitment we made when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I know I wouldn't get enough votes from the other side of the aisle, I have to say. They are all good people over on the other side. They are all patriotic people. They are good citizens and they are dedicated to the service of the people. But I realize I can be wrong sometimes. I think they are wrong. I don't think some of them will vote for this. We will see.

I am proposing instead that we get halfway there. We are just going halfway--$10 billion shortage--$10 billion shortage in our promise for the children, the disadvantaged children of this country, $10 billion short. I am going to ask for half of that, at least try to close half the gap, half of it.

I am proposing that we get half the way there, that we close the gap over 2

years: $5 billion now, $5 billion the following year. I am proposing we get halfway there, that we close the gap over 2 years by adding $5 billion.

That is enough to fully serve more than 1.5 million disadvantaged students who the administration would leave behind, and we would leave behind. These children will be taught by highly qualified teachers and receive the complete range of instructional services called for under the No Child Left Behind Act. States will benefit from this amendment-- your State, Mr. President, your State, my State.

In my own State of West Virginia, schools would receive a total increase of just $800,000 for title I if the bill is passed as it is now. Under my amendment, those students in West Virginia would receive an additional $39 million above the bill. Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million.

Do you hear me? The people of Tennessee--are you listening? Are you listening? Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million.

Pennsylvania--are you listening? Pennsylvania is the State of which Benjamin Franklin was once president. Yes. Old Ben Franklin. Pennsylvania would receive an additional $185 million.

Louisiana would receive an additional $111 million; Mississippi, an additional $62 million.

I offered a similar amendment 2 years ago and those who opposed my amendment argued then that Congress is under no obligation to fund title I at the authorizing level because authorizations are only guidelines. Title I is not your average authorization program. Most educational authorizations don't put requirements on States and local school districts, but the title I program in the No Child Left Behind Act puts more requirements on our Nation's schools than any law in the past 35 years.

This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12 years. That is all students. That is all students, not just those in the affluent suburbs. No, not just those in the affluent suburbs, but poor students in Appalachia. That is where I come from, you see. When I was a boy I would have been included, Robert Byrd. And the gulf coast includes children with disabilities. Do you hear me? Hear, listen. That includes children with disabilities. And it includes students of all races. How about that? And ethnicity. How about that? All races, all ethnicities.

Schools must leave no child behind--not your child, not my great- grandchild. And if schools that receive title I funds fall short of this goal, they face serious consequences. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising student performance for 2 consecutive years--listen to this--have to give students the option of transferring to another public school. Yes. That means the school has to redirect money it would have spent for instruction and use it--for what?--for transportation instead.

This past school year, almost 11,000 schools and districts in the country failed to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight years.

Did you hear that? Almost 11,000--11,000--schools and districts in this country failed this past year to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight years.

The penalties get more severe the longer the school fails to make adequate yearly progress. Ultimately, if a title I school falls short for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over--get this--the school can be taken over by the State, or the entire staff can be fired.

Help me, Cassius, or I sink.

These are serious penalties. The entire staff can be fired. There is the door. There is the door. The entire staff can be fired and replaced. That gets pretty tough. That hits close to home.

These are serious penalties, and I support them. I believe it is high time that we hold schools accountable for their performance and getting their act together. I believe it is high time we hold schools accountable for their performance. But--here is the conjunction ``but''--I also believe that if we in the Congress are going to demand that schools raise student achievement, we, I, you, Senators, all Senators, all Members of the other body, if we are going to demand that schools raise student achievement, we have a responsibility to provide those schools with the additional resources that they need to improve.

That is what we are talking about on this chart. We are falling short. We are falling behind in the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, as I say, we are not keeping our promise. In fact, for most school districts, Federal funds are moving in the opposite direction. In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. What a shame. How about that. Look at that.

Listen. Hear me. I will say that again.

In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. In fiscal 2005, two-thirds of school districts took a cut in title I funding.

If Congress passes the Senate bill as it stands now, most districts will receive less title I funding for the third year in a row. That is not what Congress promised. That is not what Congress intended when it passed the No Child Left Behind Act.

The funding level for title I in this bill is a betrayal of the law and it is unfair to all people in this country who are working so hard to implement the law. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child--not just this one or that one but every child--to succeed. They are holding up their end of the bargain. Are we? Are we holding up our end of the bargain? It is time for the Congress to do the same.

I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law. But schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind. What is more important than our children? What is more important than the education of our children?

I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people, didn't we? Yes, we gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Let us keep our word.

I yield the floor.

I don't either.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, wishes to speak for 5 minutes. If I may take 5 seconds.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will vote quickly. But before it does, I thank the Senators who have just spoken, particularly the manager of the bill, Mr. Specter. He is an outstanding Senator. I have seen this Senate turn over more than 3 times, complete turnover of 100 Senators more than 3 times. I tell you, my friends, I have never seen a more eloquent, more dedicated Senator to his State, to his people, to the people of this country, to his work here, than Senator Specter. I admire him. Some day when he runs for reelection, I may make a little contribution to him. I will leave that for another time.

I also thank my colleagues. What splendid colleagues they are. Senator Dodd, traveling in the wake of the Senator from Connecticut who signed the Constitution of the United States. What a man, Roger Sherman. And then

the Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. What a great State that was and is. Read your history on the Revolutionary War, those times. Someone talked recently about the people of my generation who saw World War I, who lived through World War II and the Vietnam War, the other wars we have participated in, the Great Depression. My, these are great Senators. I can see their pictures out there on the medallions in the room just outside this Chamber. And the chairman and ranking member of this committee, my, what Senators they are. They are right, and they are right to oppose it in saying we don't have the money. I know they are right. But Congress could shift those priorities.

How about the big tax cuts for the wealthy? How about the war in Iraq? How much are we spending there in treasure, to say nothing of the blood that is being spilled? Yes, we could do better, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances now. I don't fault the Senator from Pennsylvania. I admire him. If I were in his position, I would understand his responsibility.

My responsibility is to try. We can do better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for which I voted, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I prefer to have the vote now.

Mr. President, I propose that we vote on this amendment. The Senator can still offer an amendment if he wishes to do so after this vote. Let's go. I ask for the vote. I object to any request to set this amendment aside.

Reserving the right to object, and I have no intention to object, Mr. President, as I understand it, 10 minutes will be utilized by the Senator from Tennessee for remarks only.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I will vote against the Coburn amendment that would have increased funding for the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program by cutting needed funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC.

I have long supported, and will continue to support, increased funding for the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program to assist those suffering from HIV/AIDS in West Virginia and across the Nation. However, I could not support the Coburn amendment that would have reduced funding to upgrade and modernize the public health facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA.

The current facilities at the CDC are in a state of extreme disrepair. This is unacceptable at a moment when we face a possible avian flu pandemic which could threaten millions of American lives. The CDC serves on the frontlines of our Nation's defense and preparations for such a flu outbreak.

Mr. President, I have been around the Senate for a long time, and I have been serving West Virginia for a long time. I have seen many seasons in my time in this Senate, and I know that with each season comes its challenges. There is strength and beauty in West Virginia winters, but the impacts of recent hurricanes and other energy challenges will test our ability to meet our needs this coming season. These colder temperatures mean that West Virginians and Americans in many regions of this country will be struggling to heat their homes. I know, as winter approaches, many West Virginians will be faced with tough choices about whether to use their paychecks to heat their homes, to fill their cars with gasoline, or to buy winter clothes for their children. I sympathize with those who have to make these tough choices, and these hard-working Americans deserve some measure of relief.

I strongly support the Reed/Collins amendment. We need to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. This program is critical for those in my State and across the country who will be facing a tough winter. Colder winter months, coupled with the simultaneous challenges of an increase in poverty, a growing elderly population, and ever-increasing home heating costs, will make this program crucial. The LIHEAP program fills the gap for the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens, allowing them the sanctuary of a warm home, something to which each and every American is entitled. More than 130,000 households benefit from this program in my State. Households, including many in West Virginia, that heat with natural gas are expected to pay an average of $350, or 48 percent, more for home heating this winter than last. This increase will leave many West Virginians even more vulnerable and forced to make tough choices.

Therefore, I support this amendment, as I have when it has been previously offered on other fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bills. I cannot stand by and let the throes of winter leave the most vulnerable in my State out in the cold, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, press reports today indicate that the number of American troops killed in Iraq has now reached 2,000--2,000. This is another tragic milestone in this costly and unnecessary war in which too much blood--too much blood, too much blood--has already been spilled. And I offer my deepest sympathies to the brave men and women who have given their lives--that is everything. They have given their lives. They have given their all, everything, their lives--most of these young lives in their 20s or thereabouts--given their lives in selfless dedication to service--2,000--2,000 men and women given their lives in dedication to our Nation. See the empty chairs. Two thousand, 2,000 empty chairs at the table, 2,000. How many hearts have been broken? How many tears have been spilled? I offer to these families my prayers that God, almighty God, may comfort them in their grief over the loss of their beloved husbands, wives, sons or daughters, brothers or sisters.

As we mourn the losses that have already occurred in the war in Iraq, Americans should be mindful that all indications are that there will be many more losses to come--many more losses to come, yes, in the most dangerous, the most dangerous country in the world, the most violent country in the world. How would you like your sons or grandsons or granddaughters to go? And for what? For what? They did not ask to be sent to war. They were young. They had life ahead of them. Oh, the lofty horizons they had, the great dreams they had--the dreams, the dreams, yes, the dreams, of these young men and women--2,000--2,000-- 2,000. They did not ask to be sent to war, I say.

But each day they carry out their duty. Think of those who are in Iraq. No, they must not stand still in one place, no. Keep on the move. Look all around you. How much they sleep at night and how much their mothers and fathers lie on their pillows to cry out to God to save their sons and daughters, to send them home safely. What a terrible thing.

It is only reasonable that the American people and their elected representatives, like you--like you, yes, and like me--ask more questions, questions, more questions, yes. Why? Oh, why? Why? Why? How much longer, how long do we have to suffer? How long do our young people have to look forward to this dreadful trap?

I was alarmed last week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the President's ability to initiate another war. Specifically, Secretary Rice was asked whether the President must seek a new congressional authorization if he were to attack Syria or Iran. Secretary Rice responded:

I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war

powers.

How about that.

I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war

powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the

President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in

the war on Iraq.

I am astounded, I am flabbergasted, I am astonished by that response. The Secretary of State seems to indicate that she believes this President or any other President has the power to redefine the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism--and that power that appears in the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall have power to declare war--has the power to redefine the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism to include a possible attack on Syria or Iran.

Think of it. Mr. President, Congress made a grave mistake, Congress made a grave mistake--what a blot on the escutcheon of the Senate--when it voted to pass the resolution which transferred to the President the power to declare war against Iraq. What a shame. What a shame. What a mistake. Oh, my, what a mistake. What a mistake. What a shame. And this Senate for the most part stood mute--mute, mute, silent, speechless.

Congress made a grave mistake on October 11, 2002, in passing the resolution that transferred to the President, any President, the power--how about that, the power--that is not what this Constitution says. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, says that Congress-- that is us, the people's representatives, here and across on the other side of the Capitol--Congress shall have power to declare war. But what did Congress do? Congress shifted that power to declare war, tucked its tail between its legs, so to speak, and walked off the field, threw its sword in the sand and walked off the field, relegated itself then, now, and forever more, until that law is changed, rendered itself speechless. We wash our hands, Congress washed its hands. Congress washed its hands and walked away from that field, with its broken sword in the sand, transferring to the President the power to declare war against Iraq. And for what? For what? Why did we go there? Well, there are all kinds of reasons now they bring but then it was because there were to be found weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Rumsfeld said: Oh, we know where they are; they are in the north, they are in the south, the east and west. We know where they are.

Well, where are they, Mr. Secretary? Where are they? Where are they? Two thousand men and women, one for every year that has passed since Jesus Christ was born--2,000, 2,000. And for what?

But that resolution was limited to Iraq alone. It had no mention of Iran, no mention of Syria. That resolution cannot possibly authorize a new war against Syria or Iran. Our troops are so deeply mired in this sectarian conflict in Iraq, what point could there possibly be in contemplating an attack on Syria or Iran? Why did Secretary Rice dismiss the notion that the President must first come to Congress if he wishes to broaden this war to new countries--unless our country is under the direct threat of an imminent attack. Then a President has the inherent constitutional power to move to war.

The American people seek an end, they seek an end, they want an end to this ongoing bloody war in Iraq, not new conflicts in neighboring countries.

For the sake of the Constitution--here it is in my hand--for the sake of the Constitution, for the sake of the American people--there they are. I see them out there through those electronic lenses. Yes, there they are, out into the mountains, the Appalachians, then the Midwest, then the Rockies, then the west coast. They are all over there, the American people--and for the brave members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the President should publicly acknowledge that there will be no expansion of the war in Iraq, none, no expansion, without the authorization of Congress. That is us. That is us, Members of the House and Senate. Not one man, not one body. Two bodies, the House and the Senate, the Congress of the United States.

There must be no more mission creep. There must be no more billions committed. There must be no more lives lost without authorization by the people's representatives in Congress, including an open debate and an up-or-down vote. That is what I pleaded for. That is what some of us pleaded for. That is what some of us pleaded for--debate, time, talk, wait, wait until after the election; let's hear what the people have to say and then come back and talk about it. No, it had to be done in a hurry; we have to get it behind us.

The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Rhode Island and others said: Wait a minute, let's talk about it; let's wait until after the election; we don't have to do it now; let's wait, wait, wait; let's talk about it. No, we were told, get it behind us, get it behind us. I said you will never get it behind us. This man down at the White House is not going to let it get behind us. He has you right where he wants you.

Yes, I will be glad to yield for a question.

Yes.

Absolutely, positively.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes. I thank the distinguished Senator for his very appropriate observations. The U.N. inspectors were doing their job. They were finding certain weapons, and they were disposing of them. With some more time--I believe it was the top inspector, his name was Blix--he said: We can do this job; it may take some months. We could have done that and saved 2,000 men and women. Oh, what a shame. The inspectors were doing their job.

Let me hurry on. Too many lives have already been lost.

There has been none. There is none. There has been none. I see only a huge black hole. No plan. No plan. No plan. No vision. We are there with no vision, and people perish and they perish.

Too many lives have already been lost in pursuit of this nefarious doctrine of preemption, unconstitutional on its face--on its face. How can there be a congressional debate if one man may decide when to hit, where to hit? I urge the administration to turn away from that dangerous doctrine of preemptive war and adhere to the requirements of the Constitution of these United States, to which we all swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Lord, Lord, help us. May God bless these men and women who gave their lives, and God bless their families who mourn them every day, every night, and there is no end in sight. May God help this Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Judd Gregg, the House Chairman Harold Rogers, Representatives Martin Sabo, Representative Dave Obey, and all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work on the Homeland Security appropriations conference report.

I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines of Homeland Security. God bless them. I thank them. While I remain very concerned that we are not giving these men and women the tools they need to do their job, that in no way detracts from their commitment to serve the Nation.

The conference agreement that is before the Senate sends a strong signal to the Department that it needs to move in a new direction. The Department needs to be nimble and responsive, not bureaucratic and slow. It needs to target limited resources on future threats, not simply the threats posed by the attacks of September 11.

The conference agreement includes numerous improvements to the President's budget, particularly with regard to border security, air cargo security, improved screening of airline passengers for explosives, funds to hire firefighters, as well as funding to protect the all-hazards Emergency Management Performance Grant Program.

The conference agreement builds on the bipartisan border security initiatives I offered along with the very able Senator, Mr. Craig, with Chairman Gregg's support to the 2005 emergency supplemental bill. Between the supplemental enacted in May and this bill, Congress will have increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,500; Congress will have increased the number of immigration investigators, agents, and detention officers by over 750; and Congress will have increased the number of detention beds by at least 1,800.

I commend all of the conferees and in particular the inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg, for that action. The inimitable chairman. Do you hear that? The inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg. He is not here, but he will hear about it.

In addition, the agreement contains an important protection for the privacy rights of Americans. The agreement would prohibit the use of commercial databases in the implementation of Secure Flight, the Department's proposed new airline passenger profiling system. Such commercial databases are unreliable and potentially could be used to invade people's privacy.

The conference agreement provides $30.8 billion for discretionary programs, an increase of just 4.6 percent. This is a very lean bill. The committee was put into a difficult position as a result of the administration's proposal to

have the Appropriations Committee increase the fees paid by airline passengers by $1.68 billion. How about that?

The Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction--what is the matter with the White House?--the Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction over airline fees. The White House knows that. The Budget Office knows that. So as a result of what the White House did, the committee was forced to reduce spending on critical homeland security programs--your programs, your people's programs, your constituents' programs.

This ill-considered administration proposal--hear it--this ill- considered White House proposal resulted in real cuts--real cuts--in firefighter grants, first responder grants, Coast Guard operations, and in the number of airport screeners.

Now listen. Listen. It is regrettable that the administration's apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process--when will they learn?--their apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process will have such a direct impact on programs that are important elements of our homeland security strategy. How about that? Time and time again--time and time again--this administration has talked a good game on homeland security, but it has not followed through with a sustained commitment of resources and ideas. I fear that the administration believes that it fulfilled its commitment to securing the homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, which I voted against. And I am glad I voted against it. Well, America is not made safer by simply reorganizing boxes on an organizational chart.

Repeatedly, the energy, the initiative, the resources, and the leadership for homeland security have come from the Congress--the Congress. From border security to transit, rail, and port security, to air cargo security and explosives detection, the initiative--hear me-- the initiative to fund these efforts came from--where?--the Congress, you, this body, the other body, the people's branch, the Congress. This conference agreement continues in that tradition, and I commend Chairman Gregg and former Chairman Cochran. I commend them for their excellent leadership.

However, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Madrid and London train bombings, many other bombings such as those in Bali just a few days ago, and Hurricane Katrina, Congress should be approving a more robust homeland security bill. If there is one lesson we should all learn from Hurricane Katrina, it is that when you starve our Nation's infrastructure and allow our emergency response capacity to wither on the vine, there are consequences. There are consequences. There will be consequences.

In conference, I joined with Representatives Obey and Sabo in offering an amendment to provide $1.7 billion of targeted investments for emergency disaster planning, predisaster mitigation, grants to hire, equip, and train firefighters, and grants for transit, port, and chemical security. The amendment would also have helped the Coast Guard maintain the ships, the planes, the helicopters that they have used so effectively in evacuating over 33,000 people following Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

The entire bill that is before us, the budget for the entire Department, is only $30.8 billion. Now, I understand the need to live within limits, but sometimes those limits simply do not correspond to the reality that confronts us. Why not limit somewhere else? Why not limit somewhere else? How much are we giving to Iraq? How many questions do we ask, then, when we give there? We build infrastructure in Iraq. How about building it here in our country? Charity begins at home.

In the past month, we appropriated $60 billion as an emergency for one agency that is funded by this bill, FEMA. One agency received a supplemental that is double the annual budget of the entire Department, and yet in this bill we fail to make the investments to help us avoid future $60 billion supplemental bills.

We should be increasing predisaster mitigation efforts. What if something happens here in Washington? What if something hits Washington? There will be millions of people from Washington, Virginia, and Maryland heading--where?--heading westward, heading toward West Virginia, heading toward parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Then what? Yes, what about that? We have seen the problems created by Katrina. What if the terrorists were to hit here, and then we have this massive, massive flow of people Westward? That is what we are talking about when we talk about predisaster mitigation efforts.

My Governor, the Governor of West Virginia, the most handsome Governor in the country, Governor Joe Manchin, has proposed that there be more money--more money, that we need to prepare ahead of time, that we need to pre-position medical supplies, pre-position gasoline, pre- position other items that will be needed when and if that disaster hits here. That is what we should be increasing: predisaster mitigation efforts--not cutting them.

We should be doing the disaster planning now so that if there is a terrorist attack in a major city such as Washington, DC, that produces a mass evacuation, there will be pre-positioned food, water, fuel, and communications equipment to help the millions of affected citizens evacuate safely.

When less than 25 percent of eligible applications for firefighting grants were approved last year, should we be cutting firefighting funds by $105 million? Why, that is sheer madness--madness. That is sheer madness. May I say to one of my favorite Senators of all time, the Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords--one of my favorite Senators--that is sheer madness.

When the Madrid and London train bombings proved that there is a real threat to our transit systems--hear me, New York City--when there is a real threat to our transit systems, should Congress be providing just $150 million, when the estimated need is $6 billion--$6 billion.

When two Russian airplanes were simultaneously blown out of the sky by terrorists 1 year ago, should we be satisfied that only 18--only 18--out of the 448 commercial airports in the United States have received new checkpoint technologies to screen passengers for explosives?

Hear me. We better act in time.

I believe Chairman Gregg--the inimitable chairman, I say; he is a Republican, but he is a great chairman; I am proud of him--has put together a bill that makes significant improvements to the President's budget. I commend Chairman Gregg for those choices. However, as we move forward on a Katrina supplemental bill, I hope we will reconsider the investments contained in the amendment that was defeated--hear me-- defeated in conference.

Sometimes I say, yes, sometimes you have to spend money to save money and to save lives. Let me say that again. Sometimes--sometimes, Senators; sometimes, Mr. President; sometimes, I say to the White House--you have to spend money to save money and to save lives. And you do have to spend it here in America, in this country, to save American lives.

I commend the staff--our wonderful staff, our great staff, our dedicated staff--for their contributions to this important legislation. In particular, I thank Chairman Gregg's staff: Rebecca Davies, James Hayes, Carol Cribbs, Kimberly Nelson, Shannon O'Keefe, and Avery Forbes.

And do you think I would forget my own staff? No. My own staff, I commend them: Charles Kieffer--man, he is it, he is the man, Charles Kieffer--Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, and our Coast Guard detailee, Sean MacKenzie. What a staff.

Finally, on a personal note, I mark the recent passing of Robert M. Sempsey this past Saturday. Bob Sempsey worked for the Congressional Budget Office for nearly 25 years. He was the principal analyst for the Homeland Security and Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills. He was a good friend. He was a fine teacher for many of our Senate staff. To his wife and three children, I extend my hand in your time of grief. Bob was a fine public servant. He will be sorely missed.

With regard to the Homeland Security conference report, I again compliment the inimitable Chairman Judd Gregg.

I urge its adoption, and I yield the floor.