Floor Statements

Yes.

Shame. Shame.

Shame.

Right.

Shame.

Right.

Right.

Shame.

What a shame.

Cut the funds for Iraq.

Shame.

Right.

Hear hear.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, wishes to continue her speech. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak briefly for not to exceed 10 minutes and that she then be recognized to continue her speech.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, last night, in a closely divided vote, the Senate rejected an attempt to add much of the Defense authorization bill to the Defense appropriations bill. Each of these bills is vitally important to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces but for different reasons. Inasmuch as I am a member of both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the importance of each of these bills is very clear to me.

The Defense appropriations bill contains the funds that are needed to keep our military running. This bill contains $440 billion that is required to, among other things, pay, train, and equip our troops for the next 12 months. It is often said that our troops are the best trained, the best equipped, and the most capable military force in the world. In large part, this is true because Congress has appropriated the moneys that are needed to create this outstanding fighting force. That, in a nutshell, is the importance of the Defense appropriations bill.

The Defense authorization bill also has an important purpose. That bill is intended to establish in law critical defense policies. The Defense authorization bill contains provisions that relate, among other things, to the setting forth of the number of military personnel that the United States is to maintain; expanding health care options for our troops and their families; and increasing pay and compensation for active-duty, National Guard, and retired servicemembers. The bill also includes many complex technical provisions, such as changes to military acquisitions policy. The authorization bill is important to our troops, but it is a very different bill from the Defense appropriations bill.

Last night, I opposed the effort to fuse these two bills into one. That move, had it been approved, would have resulted in a delay in our troops getting the appropriations that they require. It also would have resulted in less attention to the policy matters in the authorization bill that affect our troops in so many ways.

The Senate owes our troops and their families a conscientious, well- informed debate on such important authorization matters as improving health care benefits for the National Guard, among other things. The American people need to know what their elected representatives in Washington are doing when it comes to defense policy. The American people have given their sons and daughters to fight for their country. Can't the Senate give a few days to them? Can't the Senate give them a few days of debate to inform them about what the Congress proposes to make the law of the land concerning defense policy?

Many believe that the Senate could debate, amend, and approve the Defense authorization bill within a week, plus or minus a few days, if it were brought before the Senate for open debate and amendment. Passing the authorization bill in that way would serve our troops far better than keeping that legislation on the shelf, where it has been for several months now.

The Senate will pass the Defense appropriations bill later today. Surely--surely--Senators can spare the time required to finish action on the Defense authorization bill. Our troops are overseas. They are serving in harm's way and need both of these bills to be debated, passed, and signed into law.

The Senate has spent all too much time conjuring up complex parliamentary procedures instead of facing the real issues confronting our military servicemembers. The Senate should call up the Defense authorization bill and let the sun shine on our deliberations and debate.

We are the servants of the people. We are the servants of the people, not their masters. We owe the people a public accounting of decisions on such important matters, instead of a fast shuffle that avoids difficult issues and difficult votes.

Iraq

Mr. President, on another matter, next week, the people of Iraq will go to the polls and cast a critical ballot. They will decide whether to endorse the constitution as drafted by their political leaders. It is an important day, and I pray that it goes well.

No matter how well the vote goes, whether or not the constitution is ratified, it appears that the men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces will be in Iraq for a long time to come.

I applaud those men and women. Our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, our National Guard, our Reserves--our troops--have displayed unique courage in the face of great trials. My support for them has never--and will never--waiver. They have earned the respect and thanks of this Nation.

But even more than laudatory words, our troops deserve a plan for Iraq from their Commander in Chief. The American people deserve the same. We must have a plan with measurable goals and objectives, a plan that gives some surety to our military as well as to the people of this Nation.

Today, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, the President talked a great deal of why we have forces in Iraq, but the President did little to provide any plan for success.

The American people want to know how we will measure progress. In response, the President said:

We never back down, never give in and never accept anything

less than complete victory.

No specifics, no plans, no way to measure success.

Maybe the President did not offer specifics because the specifics are not very encouraging.

Consider the Iraqi troops. For a new American soldier, basic training takes 9 weeks to complete--9 weeks. The United States has, for more than 2\1/2\ years, been training a new Iraqi military. Basic training for all Iraqis, and specialized training after that--2\1/2\ years.

In June, the Senate was told by the Department of Defense that 3 of 100 Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped, and capable of operating independently--what the Defense Department calls ``level one trained.'' Two and a half years: three battalions--three battalions.

Between June and the end of September, one would assume that we would be growing that number. Yes, one would assume that we would be growing that number. We are training more Iraqi forces, so more Iraqis should be ready to stand up and defend themselves.

Yet, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29--just a few days ago--GEN John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, poured cold water--cold water--on hopes for progress. Between June and September,

the number of ``level one trained'' battalions went from three to one. How about that? Instead of moving forward, we are going backward.

Perhaps the reason that the President did not tell the American people how to gauge success is because he does not have success to report. I must admit, I listen to every address--every address--about Iraq with great skepticism. And it is because of the track record of this administration. Don't just take my word for it. The record is replete with examples that cause one to look askance at the White House claims.

One example is from this past May. Vice President Cheney was asked about progress against the insurgency by CNN. He responded:

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the

insurgency.

The Vice President was confident. The Vice President was unwavering. The Vice President was wrong.

Again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday, GEN George Casey, the Commanding General of the Multinational Force in Iraq, explained that the ``last throes'' was a rosy scenario.

The average counterinsurgency in the 20th century has

lasted nine years. Fighting insurgencies is a long-term

proposition, and there's no reason that we should believe the

insurgency in Iraq will take any less time to deal with.

Now, those are the words not of Robert C. Byrd, but they are the words of General Casey.

Whom should the American people believe? What should the American people believe? It is time for the deceptions and the distortions and the misrepresentations to end. The American people deserve the truth.

Instead of broad platitudes, the American people deserve the facts. Most importantly, the American people deserve a plan. When will the Iraqi people be able to defend themselves? When will the Iraqi military be able to fight the insurgency without the American forces? When will the Iraqi police forces be able to control the streets? What is the timetable for reconstruction? What is the target for constant electrical power in the major cities? For communications? For safe transportation? What is our strategy for preparing the Iraqi people to be able to defend themselves?

We seem to have no strategy--no strategy--with benchmarks for success, no plan for progress. How will we know victory if we cannot even define it? What is the plan for our heroes in Iraq? What is the plan to stabilize that nation? The American people and the Iraqi people deserve to know the answers.

The people of the United States must know not only how

their country became involved, but where we are heading.

That is the end of the quotation. I agree with those words. But they are not mine. Those words belong to a Congressman from the State of Illinois in August 1965. Those words belong to our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. And they echo as true today as they did in that summer 40 years ago.

I urge the Bush administration to level with the American people. Moreover, I urge the White House to level with itself. Face the facts. Stop the spinning. Get a grip on the situation. Then please, please, oh, please, explain to us all where we are heading in Iraq.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, more than 2,000 years have passed since Cicero said, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.''

Let me repeat what I have said. More than 2,000 years have passed since Cicero, a great Roman senator, said, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.''

How astute he was to point that out and how little the times have changed. Today, the United States is engaged not just in one war but two wars. The first of the two wars began 4 years ago when our country was invaded. Our country was attacked by 19 hijackers sent on their deadly mission by Osama bin Laden. That war continues today in Afghanistan. That is a war that was thrust upon us. That was a war in which the United States was invaded by 19 hijackers, not one of whom was from Iraq--not one. That war, as I say, was thrust upon us. The United States was invaded. The United States was attacked and thousands of Americans lost their lives. That is the war that I support. That is the war that I supported from the beginning.

But there is also another war, a war which the United States started, a war in which the United States was the attacker. We didn't wait to be attacked; we attacked another nation. We invaded, the United States invaded another nation that did not pose a threat, a direct and immediate threat to our national security. We, the United States, invaded another country that did not act to provoke our invasion.

Since March 19, 2003, our troops, Americans troops, have been sent into the breach in Iraq, a country which had no connection--none--no connection to the September 11 attacks on our country. I was against our policy with reference to the invasion of that country, Iraq. I was against that. That country did not pose an immediate threat to our national security, no. I said so then and I was right. No weapons of mass destruction were found. No weapons of mass destruction have been found to this day there in Iraq.

I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein, but we acted under the unconstitutional doctrine of first strike. The first strike doctrine, that is the doctrine that we followed. That is the doctrine that got us into Iraq. It is unconstitutional on its face. Why? Because the Constitution says Congress shall have power to declare war.

How can it be constitutional if a President, one man, Republican or Democrat or independent or whatever, can declare war if Congress has nothing to say about it, if Congress has no opportunity to debate it?

I do not question the inherent power of any President to defend our country. Congress may be out of town. Congress may be in recess. If we are invaded, of course, he has the power to act. But that was not the case here.

I and 22 other Senators voted against shifting that power to declare war, that constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to a President,

and that law is still on the books. It has not been repealed.

We can talk about that at another time, but let me say today, these two wars have cost the lives of many Americans. In the first war, the one being fought in Afghanistan and elsewhere against Osama bin Laden, 243 American troops have given their lives in the line of duty. I support our efforts in that war. I have done so from the beginning.

In the second war, the war in Iraq, 1,934 young men and women have perished. I disagree with the policy that sent our troops to Iraq, but I join with all other patriotic Americans in supporting the men and the women who have been sent to Iraq. I don't support the policy that sent them there, but I support those men and women. They went, they heeded the call, they did their duty, and they are still doing their duty. Of course I support them. I join with all other Americans in supporting them and honoring those men and women who have paid the ultimate price in service to the United States.

In addition to lives lost, these wars have also cost our country a fortune, a colossal fortune in our national wealth. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Congress has already appropriated $310 billion to pay for these two wars. The Defense Appropriations Committee bill being debated now in the Senate adds another $50 billion to that figure. Most observers believe that tens of billions more dollars will be required in a matter of months. Who knows, before it is all over, we may find that the ultimate cost in Treasury may amount to $1 trillion. Who knows, when we think of all the things that must be done. We have to replenish the equipment that has worn out, that has rusted, that has been destroyed--the military equipment. Our own military people will have their requests in this year, next year and the next year and the next year, for money to replace that equipment.

Could we fight another war if we should be invaded today? Would we be prepared to fight another war? Could we?

If these estimates are accurate, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily exceed $400 billion by early next year--$400 billion. That is $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money, isn't it?

Once again, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.''

That is simply the visible part of the cost of the war. We are slowly, slowly but surely, coming to realize that there are financial costs to the war that are buried deep within the Government's ledgers. In June, the Department of Veterans Affairs admitted to a major shortfall in its budget. Working together with Senator Craig and Senator Murray, I supported an amendment to add $1.5 billion in emergency funds to the veterans health care budget. My colleagues and I then worked to add $1,977,000,000 to the VA budget for the fiscal year 2006.

Why? Why? Why is the VA running short of funds?

Part of the reason lies in the fact that the administration did not budget enough funds to take care of troops coming home from these wars with serious injuries. But there is more. These injured veterans have earned compensation from the VA for their wounds.

According to the Defense Department, more than 15,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress is yet to see a full estimate of the costs of these veterans' benefits.

There is also the matter of revenue that the Government coffers will never see because of the deployment of our troops to these wars. Troops serving in combat zones are exempt from income taxes. National Guardsmen and reservists often must do without their higher civilian pay during their deployment. No one would argue that wounded veterans should not receive compensation from the VA or the troops in war zones ought to pay taxes while they are risking their lives for our country. But the American people are not being told about these hidden costs of these wars. Why? Why is that?

The fact is, the administration has never provided the Congress with a budget estimate of what the war is costing the American taxpayers. Some may argue that the budget resolution passed in Congress by the thinnest of margins included $50 billion for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is true. That money is in there. The $50 billion also appears in this appropriations bill. But that estimate is just a number made out of whole cloth. The President did not request a single dime for the wars in his budget estimate submitted to Congress in February--not one thin dime, not even one copper penny. Instead, Congress picked a number out of thin air--$50 billion--and stuck it in the budget resolution.

That number is not backed up by any number crunching, any careful analysis, or any budgetary data. It doesn't even match up with the numbers prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that $85 billion will be required to fight these wars next year, nor is that $50 billion paid for. This $50 billion is simply added to our national debt, a debt that will have to be paid by our children and our children's children.

I say one more time, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.'' I am quoting Cicero, of course.

The administration needs to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not be sufficient for Congress to pick a number out of a hat, appropriate funds to match that number, and hope that our troops will be taken care of. The administration needs to step up to the plate and tell Congress and the American people how much it expects to spend on the war, what the money will be used for, and how our Nation is going to foot the bill. It may be easier said than done, but we ought to do our best.

To some observers, the importance of budgeting for the war may seem like a furor over how much paper should be pushed around in Washington, DC. Although the terms used in this debate are arcane--how many people outside the beltway know anything, or much at least, about emergency supplementals, the budget process, or outlays and budget authority--the principles are vitally important to our country.

There is an important principle that a country must share the burdens of war among its citizens. Think back to World War II and what was asked of the American people in that conflict: victory gardens, daylight savings, gasoline rationing, and on and on. We do not see anything like that today. Quite the opposite. For the first time in American history, our Nation has cut taxes during a time of war.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced great sacrifice.

Let me say that again.

These wars--the war in Afghanistan, which I support, the war in Iraq, which I have never thought we should engage in--have forced great sacrifice among those who serve our country, and their families as well. Our troops risk life and limb while their spouses, their parents, and their children pray for their safety and for their return home. It is these troops and their families who have had so little relief from the burdens of these wars.

Last year, Congress passed a law to compensate Americans for spending up to $1,000 out of their own pockets to send body armor, boots, gloves, and other equipment to troops serving overseas. But the Pentagon still has not implemented this law, giving short shrift to those who have done the most to support our troops. These families have not been recompensed for their support of the troops. Why is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? Why? Why is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? It ought to be a priority to help these Americans who have done so much to help our troops.

The sacrifices demanded by the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are falling disproportionately on the few. The President has said our Nation is at war. No. Our Nation is not at war. Our military is at war. Yes. The National Guard, the men and women in the military, they are at war but not the Nation. We scarcely hear much about it.

Our troops are shedding their blood, and their families are doing so much to support them. Meanwhile, the average American goes about his day-to-day business with little interruption, only to pause in solemn reflection upon the occasional news report about the tragic death of another soldier from his community.

When Winston Churchill rallied his country in World War II, he urged the British to ``defend our Island, whatever

the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets.''

It was a call not just to English soldiers to fight but for the country to share the burden of the struggle.

What a stark contrast to the wars we are in today in which so little is asked of the American people compared to what is demanded of our military personnel. In light of the incredible toll of these wars on our country, it is time to rethink that unfair balance of sacrifice.

Three times before, the Senate has voted to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so that there may be a debate about how the President intends to spread the sacrifice fairly among all Americans. Three times, the Senate has voted to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three times that call has not been honored, it has been dismissed. The enormous cost of keeping hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in two wars, each of them half a world away, continues to be a black hole in the President's budget.

Congress and the American people keep hearing the same old line: The administration cannot budget for the cost of the war because the true cost is unknowable. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was asked about the cost, said the cost is unknowable. Of course, he is right. It is unknowable, but surely the administration has some estimate somewhere. Surely the Defense Department has some estimate, and it has had some estimate--some estimate of what the war was going to cost.

We have heard that the cost is unknowable. We have heard that many times before. But it strains one's belief to argue that the Secretary of Defense, with legions of bureaucrats and accountants at his disposal, cannot make an estimate of how much it will take to support our troops for the fiscal year that began last week. With 18,000 American troops in Afghanistan and 149,000 troops in Iraq who are risking their lives each and every day, one would think that the Pentagon could muster the courage to estimate how much money it will take to support our fighting men and women. We are talking about an estimate.

The amendment that I offer to the Defense appropriations bill again states the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the war. We have been at these two wars a long time now. I could understand how he might not be able to budget for the first few months of a war, but we have been at these wars a long time and we still see no budget for them. Still the American people do not know. Whatever is requested of the Congress, the administration does it with supplemental appropriations bills. There are not very thorough hearings on supplemental appropriations bills. They say: We spent this much and we have to appropriate.

The American people do not realize the cost of these wars. So let me say again, the amendment I offer to the Defense appropriations bill states it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for these wars. President Roosevelt did it for World War II, President Johnson did it for Vietnam, President Clinton did it for Bosnia, President Bush did it for Kosovo, and it is time to do it for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let the American people know how much of their hard-earned tax dollars will be needed for these wars. Let Congress debate how these costs must be borne. Let our Government take a responsible approach on how we pay for our troops in the field.

I urge my colleagues to once again support the President, support my amendment, and urge the President to budget for the war.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold may have his name added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1992.

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

I have indicated the purpose of the amendment and the intent of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from the great State of Alaska for his statement. I thank the very great Senator from the State of Alaska for his statement and his support. I also thank our colleague on this side of the aisle, the other manager of the bill, Senator Inouye, for his support.

Incidentally, may I say I guess I am the only remaining person in Congress who voted for the entry of both Alaska and Hawaii into the Union. Praise God, I did that in each case. These are two fine Senators, two of the greatest.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his observations, for his loyalty to his country, for his service to his country, and for the costs to his human self. For that great service, I thank him. And I thank him for the statement he has just made.

Mr. President, the Senate will vote within the next few minutes on a procedural motion relating to the amendment offered by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. This amendment proposes to add much of the Defense authorization bill to the Defense appropriations bill. The Defense authorization bill is most complex legislation. The bill deals with a broad array of policy matters, ranging from providing for increased pay and benefits for our troops to changing laws relating to nuclear nonproliferation programs to authorizing military construction projects and so on.

The committee report that accompanies this bill is 494 pages in length. It is legislation that deserves close scrutiny, full and open debate, and an opportunity to freely amend. If this motion carries and the amendment is adopted, the Senate will only have a bobtailed debate of just a few hours on this very important bill.

I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as the Appropriations Committee. I attended a portion of the markup of the Defense authorization bill which lasted several full days. Senator Warner and Senator Levin conducted the markup in an exemplary bipartisan manner, and I commend them for their outstanding efforts. They are always fair and very considerate of others and always courteous to every other Senator.

The bill was reported from the committee on May 12 of this year, and it was brought to the floor on July 20. For reasons which have been widely discussed, the Defense authorization bill was pulled from the floor on July 27, after only five votes on amendments to the bill. The Senate could have finished consideration of the Defense authorization bill within a matter of 2 or 3 days or perhaps a week, if necessary,

if the leadership had not pulled it from the floor.

This was a precipitous act, and because of this precipitous action most Senators have had no opportunity to offer amendments and no opportunity to receive votes on their amendments. That is not the way the Senate ought to operate. That is not the way the Senate used to operate. We used to have full and open debates on this floor, take a week perhaps or 2 weeks on a bill this size. As I have stated, here is the history of this important legislation.

The matter before the Senate is whether to allow the Defense authorization bill to be added to the Defense appropriations bill as an amendment. What a way for the Senate to operate. What a way to conduct this important business of the people. This is not the way the Senate is supposed to conduct its business. This is a forum for free, open, and unlimited debate. This is how the Senate is so different from other upper bodies throughout the world today. This is why the Senate is such an incredibly powerful and important forum of free debate, open debate, unlimited debate, the full airing of legislation, time to ask questions, time to answer questions, time to explain, explore, deliberate, and time to offer amendments. What a travesty.

The Senate is an institution sui generis, one of its kind in this country, a forum where there can be free, open, unlimited debate, freedom of debate, freedom of speech. So the Senate is an institution where freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and the freedom to amend reign.

Attaching such a massive bill, the Defense authorization bill, to another important bill, the Defense appropriations bill, will mean that the Senate will never have an opportunity to focus its undivided attention on the important matters of the Defense authorization bill. This is a travesty on freedom of debate. It is a travesty that strikes at the heart of the Senate: freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and freedom to amend.

Freedom of speech has its roots buried in antiquity. Henry the Fourth in 1407 said that the members of commons would have freedom of speech. They could say whatever was on their minds about the king, if necessary. Freedom of speech, there it was in the English Declaration of Rights, February 3, 1689. And there it was, in the English Bill of Rights, placed there on December 6, 1689: Freedom of speech. The freedom of commons to speak on any subject, not to be questioned elsewhere in the English House of Commons, and that freedom of speech is enshrined in the American Constitution.

Here we are putting a limitation and we are self-imposing it--on ourselves. I am a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and I believe there is a great importance to allowing the Senate to consider the authorization bill and the appropriations bills separately. Debate about funding our military should take place on the appropriations bill and debate about defense policy should take place particularly on the authorization bill. They are both important bills, and they should be considered separately.

The Defense authorization bill should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment as a freestanding bill, not as a massive rider to another bill, the appropriations bill. There ought to be a debate about the important matters addressed by the Defense authorization bill. Let there be amendments and let there be votes about such important matters as health care benefits for National Guardsmen and about the war in Iraq.

The immediate question before the Senate is procedural in nature, but the heart of the matter is whether the Senate will allow parliamentary maneuvers to conduct an end run around how important legislation should be considered on the floor of the Senate.

If the Defense authorization bill is attached to the Defense Appropriations Committee bill, these important and controversial matters will not have a full hearing on the floor of the Senate. Instead, any changes that may be made to the Defense authorization bill will only occur behind closed doors in a large, unwieldy conference committee. That is not the right place for debate on these important issues. These issues should first be debated on the floor of the Senate as they were on the floor of the House many months ago, but even more so because this is the forum for free speech--freedom of debate. The Senate should not be cutting corners on the legislative process because what ends up being cut out is the freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and freedom to amend.

It is also worth noting that the amendment now pending does not encompass all of the provisions of the Defense authorization bill. The sections of the bill that relate to military construction projects and nuclear weapons issues have been left out. Those are very important matters, considering the base closure round that occurred this year and the multitude of important matters relating to the thousands of nuclear weapons that the United States still possesses.

What would happen to these provisions of the Defense authorization bill? Would they be left in limbo or would they be slipped into a conference report in the dark of night, never to receive any debate on the floor of the Senate? That is the wrong way to go.

I have very great affection for Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I serve on their committee, the Committee on Armed Services. They are knowledgeable and able leaders of the Armed Services Committee. But I oppose this effort to attach the Defense authorization bill to the Defense Appropriations Committee bill. It is the wrong way to go, the wrong thing to do. It shortchanges debate. It shortchanges the American people, in that they will not be fully informed as to what is in each bill. Their representatives, their elected representatives in this Senate, will not have had an opportunity to fully debate, to answer questions, to ask questions, and to amend freely.

What is happening to the Senate? What is happening to the Senate, I ask? What is happening to freedom of debate in the Senate? What is happening to an orderly process, the legislative process by which the elected representatives of the people in the Senate have a full opportunity to debate, to ask questions?

Woodrow Wilson said the informing aspect was as important as the legislating aspect of the Senate, the informing aspect. And debate brings out information that the American people need and that they are entitled to.

So what is happening to this Senate? I think all Senators should stop and think about this question. Those of us who have been here many years have seen the Senate when it was somewhat different than it is today. There was time to debate. We just weren't in session 3 days a week and then gone; in 3 days a week, out 4 days a week, and the 3 days a week often begin with a vote, which is kind of a bed-check vote at 6 o'clock in the evening on Tuesday. So you have, really, nothing on Tuesday but a bed-check vote anymore, and then Wednesday and Thursday. What a shame.

What is happening to the Senate? What is happening to this forum, this forum of freedom of debate, freedom of speech, freedom to amend-- what is happening to this Senate, and why?

I am sorry that the Senate is going in this direction. What is happening? This institution has built its distinguished reputation, its distinguished character on the principle of freedom to debate--freedom of debate, freedom of speech, freedom to amend.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for another 5 minutes?

Yes, if I could have 3 more minutes.

But the Senate has begun to fall short on those important constitutional principles. We have just a handful of votes each week and then the rush is on to get out that door, out that door, out this door here--get out. The rush is on to wrap up business on an artificial timetable.

So what has happened to the Senate? The American people need to know.

Why can't the Senate take the time for important debates on the important issues before our Nation. Our troops are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are doing an outstanding service for our country. The Senate ought to give its undivided attention to each of the bills that relate to our troops. If the members of the National Guard are able to put their lives on hold to go fight for our country overseas, then the Senate ought to be able to surely spare whatever time it takes to debate the Defense appropriations bill and the Defense authorization bill as freestanding measures. America deserves that. Our troops deserve that.

The Defense authorization bill ought to be brought up as a freestanding measure so that the Senate may work its will on that legislation. It should be open to debate and amendment. That is why I oppose the motion on the defense of germaneness for the Warner-Levin amendment. The Senate should not cut corners on the legislative process.

Therefore, I shall vote no on the motion on the defense of germaneness, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Let's stand up for freedom of speech in this Senate, freedom of debate, freedom to offer amendments. Let's do right by the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Bayh.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I have often spoken of the importance of the Senate staff and the Senate's various support services for the effective workings of this great institution. These are the people and the offices that are rarely mentioned in the newspapers or the history books but who are essential to the effective workings of this institution. They are the people and the offices who make the jobs of the 100 Members of this Chamber more pleasant and more productive.

I cannot even imagine how this institution could function without the Senate Disbursing Office. In addition to serving as the finance office of the Senate, this office maintains our retirement, health insurance, life insurance, and other human resource programs. For the past 7 years, this most important Senate office has been headed by the Senate's highly capable Financial Officer, Mr. Tim Wineman.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wineman will soon be leaving us. He is retiring on October 14. Therefore, I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to thank Mr. Wineman for his service, to express my appreciation for his outstanding work, and to say that we will miss him.

Mr. Wineman was born and raised in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, graduating from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School. On October 19, 1970, he started work as a payroll clerk in the Senate Disbursing Office; he remained in this office for the next 35 years. In September, 1976, Mr.

Wineman was promoted to payroll supervisor. Four years later, in August, 1980, he was promoted to the position of assistant financial clerk. On May 1, 1998, he became the Financial Clerk of the U.S. Senate Disbursing Office, that is, the Senate's Financial Officer.

His has been an extraordinary career, during which he has earned the praise of those who work under and with him in the Disbursing Office, and the respect of other Senate staffers and Members of this Chamber. During his service in Senate financial leadership positions for the past two decades, Mr. Wineman has overseen the technological renovation of the Senate's financial affairs and has had a hand both in the Senate budget process and the Senate appropriation's process. And he proved himself to be an invaluable resource to Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle. He will be missed and will be very difficult to replace.

I want to congratulate and thank Mr. Wineman for his extraordinary dedication to the work and traditions of the Senate. And I want extend to him and Pat, his wife of 36 years, my fondest wishes, and ask the Lord's blessings as they embark upon this new phase of their lives.

I understand that after relaxing and enjoying a stress-free environment for the next 6 months, Tim plans to spend his retirement playing golf and traveling. I urge him to do it. He deserves it. He has earned it.

``It Makes No Difference''

It makes no difference who sang the song,

If only the song was sung;

It makes no difference who did the deed,

Be they old in years or young;

If the song was sweet and helped a soul,

What matters the singer's name?

The worth was in the song itself,

And not in the world's acclaim.

The song and the deed are one,

If each be done for love;

Love of the work, not love of self,

And the ``score'' is kept above.

It makes no difference who did the deed,

Be they old in years or young;

If the song was sweet and helped a soul,

What matters the singer's name?

The worth was in the song itself,

And not in the world's acclaim.

The song and the deed are one,

If each be done for love;

Love of the work, not love of self,

And the ``score'' is kept above.

--Author Unknown.

Mr. President, last month, COL Clarence Lee Turnipseed, Jr., passed away. He was the father of my good friend, and one of the Senate's best and most indispensable workers, Mrs. Dot Svendson, who works in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. With the death of Colonel Turnipseed, the State of Alabama has lost an outstanding citizen and our Nation has lost a true patriot.

Born September 18, 1914, in Union Springs, AL, Clarence Turnipseed graduated from Auburn University in 1935. That same year he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army and began a remarkable and important military career. During World War II, he served as a battery commander and battalion staff officer of the 42nd Field Artillery Battalion of the Fourth Infantry. On June 6, 1944, Captain Turnipseed participated in the momentous D-Day landing on Utah Beach in Normandy. A few months later, he participated in the Battle of the Bulge. He was eventually promoted to the rank of colonel, served as commander of the 87th Maneuver Area Detachment in Birmingham, AL, and was an instructor at the Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, KS.

A grateful Nation recognized Colonel Turnipseed's long and productive military career by presenting him with a number of awards and honors. Those included the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal, the American Defense Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal, and the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal.

Colonel Turnipseed also had an important and productive civilian career in banking and business. He worked in a number of banks and financial institutions in Alabama. In 1968, he became president and chief executive officer of the First National Bank in Brewton. He eventually held a number of offices in the Alabama and American Bankers Associations, including president of the Alabama Bankers Association and vice president of the American Bankers Association. In 1973, he became director of the Birmingham Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, and 3 years later was named Alabama's Small Business Advocate.

I extend Erma's and my most heartfelt condolences to Mrs. Svendson and to her brother, Clarence Lee, and to her sisters, Rebecca and Margaret.

Mr. President, on July 30 and 31, the First Christian Church of Weirton, WV celebrated its 175th anniversary. I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to extend to this house of worship, which came into existence in 1830, 33 years before West Virginia was even a State, my be1ated but sincere and heartfelt congratulations.

For 175 years, the First Christian Church of Weirton has served our Lord and ministered to the needs of the region by providing comfort and support to those in need. It has provided aid and assistance to unemployed steel workers, to flood victims, and to those in need. It has provided a place of faith and hope for all.

I regret that I was not able to participate in what I am sure was a most glorious celebration, but I do want to recognize and thank the First Christian Church of Weirton for its wonderful service to our Lord, and to our beloved State.

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

Mr. President, here we go again, yes, here we go again. The fiscal year ends tomorrow at midnight. Only two of the annual appropriations bills required to fund the Federal Government have been sent to the President. This is deja vu all over again.

As a result, the Congress is rushing through the stopgap money measure called a continuing resolution in order to prevent a massive shutdown of the departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

Is this the way to run a government?

This is no way to run a government.

The appropriations process is a very simple process, in reality. The President sends his recommendations to the Congress in the form of a budget, usually in early February. Subsequently, the House formulates reports, debates and passes 11 annual appropriations bills. To its credit, the House has done exactly that. It has done its job.

What is wrong with the Senate?

I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran. Yes, I commend him. With his steady leadership, the Senate Appropriations Committee has formulated and reported all of the annual appropriations bills. Eight of those appropriations bills have been passed by the Senate. Four appropriations bills are now pending in the Senate. This includes the Defense appropriations bill, the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill, and the District of Columbia appropriations bill, which is likely to be added to the Transportation appropriations bill in order to conform to the House version.

That is where we stand today.

What is the problem?

Regrettably, the Senate Leadership has not seen fit to bring three of our appropriations bills to the floor. This is not the fault of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has called upon the leadership, as did I, to give the appropriations bills high priority in the scheduling of floor time.

The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, the Transportation- Treasury appropriations bill, and the District of Columbia appropriations bill were approved by our Appropriations Committee over 2 months ago. I simply do not understand why the leadership is dragging its feet! Why not debate legislation that will fund critical investments in our schools, in our healthcare systems, and for our Nation's transportation infrastructure? Are Senators not going to have the opportunity to debate bills that provide over $211 billion?

We need to debate each of these funding bills individually. We need to conference them individually with our House counterparts--not just consider them as sub-parts of a large omnibus package. That is what I believe the chairman of the Appropriations Committee wants, and that is what I, too, would like to see happen. I urge my colleagues to work toward that goal.

It is unfortunate that most of the regular programs of the departments and agencies of Government will limp into the new fiscal year, which begins--when? this Saturday, the day after tomorrow, under the terms and conditions of a very restrictive continuing resolution. Here we are in the midst of one of the largest natural disasters to hit the United States, and only two regular appropriations bills have been enacted. One would think that the Congress would want to enact all of the annual appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year so that the Federal agencies can hit the road running on October 1st and deal with the problems confronting the American people. Instead, we are enacting a very restrictive stop-gap measure that merely prevents the Government from shutting down. What a shame. It is very unfortunate that the House majority refused to fix the problem created by the continuing resolution for the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides critical healthcare and nutrition services to the neediest Americans. It is very unfortunate that, as we approach winter with fuel prices expected to grow dramatically, this continuing resolution reduces funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

In conclusion, I am disappointed that the appropriations bills have not been enacted on a timely basis. Having said that, I urge my colleagues to support the continuing resolution. We have no other choice.

I urge the leadership to call up the remaining appropriations bills, debate them, and send them to conference with the House. We have an obligation to the American people to get our work done. Debate and deliberation is what the Senate is supposed to be about--debate and deliberation and amending. The American people expect us to debate these bills and to protect the power of the purse and, thereby, protect their hard-earned tax dollars. These matters should not be swept under a carpet somewhere. More, not less, transparency is needed in debating appropriations bills. The Congress should have completed action on all the appropriations bills--not just two--on all the appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year tomorrow night. Failing that, we should enact eleven individual, fiscally responsible annual appropriations bills before the termination of this continuing resolution on November 18th.

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

Mr. President, Winston Churchill said, ``when you are on a great horse, you have the best seat you will ever have.'' Indeed, throughout the ages, the horse has carried mankind across continents, helped forge civilizations, and has been that beloved beast of burden that has borne the human race on its back.

In America, the horse was the primary source of transportation of our founding fathers, the vehicle of our Revolutionary soldiers, and a symbol of the majestic strength and character that this great country was based upon. Our fledgling urban centers rose with the help of the horse's brawn. Our American frontier expanded farther and farther west, with families traveling by horse-drawn wagons across mountains and valleys, the plains and prairies. The American cowboy, an indelible image of the fierce and undying determination of the American spirit, was never without his trusty four-legged companion.

But each year, 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where horsemeat is considered a delicacy. Another 30,000 horses are shipped every year to Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered.

These horses often suffer unnecessarily while in transit to slaughterhouses. Horses can be shipped for more than 24 hours without food, water, or rest. They can be transported with broken legs, missing eyes, or while heavily pregnant. The horses are kept in cramped conditions, in trucks with ceilings so low that they prevent the horses from holding their heads in a normal, upright position. The cramped nature of their transport often results in trampling, with some horses arriving at the slaughterhouses seriously injured or dead.

Even more cruel than the suffering these animals endure while in transit is their often injurious end. Improper use of stunning equipment at the slaughterhouse can result in the animal having to endure repeated blows to head, meaning that horses sometime remain conscious throughout the slaughter process.

The market for horsemeat is not an American market. Horsemeat is shipped abroad. The three slaughterhouses in the U.S. are foreign- owned. Thus, American horses are sold to a foreign company, killed for consumption in a foreign market, and foreign-owned companies profit from the export of horse meat. Many Americans would be shocked to learn that our animals suffer such a fate, all in order to satisfy the tastes of those living in Europe and Asia. Indeed, many individuals who sell horses to slaughterhouses do so unwittingly. Slaughterhouses often send third parties, called ``killer buyers,'' to auction to buy horses.

Senator Ensign and I have offered an amendment to stop the slaughter of horses for human consumption by preventing taxpayer dollars from being used to inspect the horses intended for slaughter. Without these inspections, which are paid for by the American taxpayer, it would be impossible for these companies to slaughter horses in the U.S., or to transport horses abroad for slaughter.

I ask my colleagues to support the Ensign-Byrd amendment to end the slaughter of one of the most precious American symbols.

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

Mr. President, chapter 3, verses 1 through 8, of the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Holy Bible begins:

To everything there is a season and a time for every

purpose under heaven.

Let's read that again:

To everything there is a season and a time for every

purpose under heaven.

It is time for a national debate, and its purpose is our country's future. Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to put events into perspective, to shake us and to sharpen our clarity of vision. The wrath of Katrina, tragic and devastating for thousands, must certainly

has caused many thinking Americans to consider anew the proper priorities for our country.

Who among us has not wondered if the efforts to rescue and evacuate Gulf Coast residents suffered because too many National Guardsmen have been detailed and detained in Iraq? What thinking American has not pondered why we had such a painfully slow response to a behemoth storm which we knew for days would likely turn New Orleans into a caldron of despair? Is there anyone in our great country--anyone--who did not feel the painful outrage of the citizens of New Orleans and Louisiana and Mississippi, as they waited for days without food, without water, without knowledge about loved ones? Who among us did not shrink in dread from the specter of our fellow citizens' bodies floating in the murky flood waters or stacked in hospital stairwells for want of anyone anywhere else to house them? Could this be happening in a major American city? Can you believe it? Could we be so inept at dealing with this tragedy?

The events of the past several days seem to have reduced our much touted American know-how and technology to little more than children's toys, strangely impotent in a real crisis.

I know many Americans cringed, as I did, at the vision of the callous neglect of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens which flashed around the world, making the United States appear to be a nation unmindful of its own, a nation unable to handle a disaster about which it had ample notice, a country loudly touting our form of government to the world while failing to provide even the most basic protections to our own citizens. What a shame.

If Katrina has any redeeming impact, it must be to cause us to see ourselves as others must surely see us. I regret to say that the picture cannot be a pretty one. That image is certainly not one that reflects the humanitarian goodness and morality of the vast majority of the American people. The perception of the United States in these troubled times should be a cause of major concern for everyone who holds public office--did you hear me?--for everyone who holds public office, regardless of political party. It is time to look at where we are and where we are going.

Few would now argue that the war in Iraq has improved the world's view of the United States. Again, what a shame. What a terrible shame. What a terrible mistake. It was an unnecessary and ill-conceived conflict which distracted us from our proper course of bombing the terrorist training grounds of Afghanistan. I have never bought the absurd claim by some that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we will not have to fight them here at home. Who believes that? That claim is a nonsequitur at best and, at worst, a patent distortion of what has happened in Iraq. The war in Iraq created a hot bed of terrorism where none existed before, and it ensured Osama bin Laden an endless supply of recruits, now even more fanatic in their hatred after scandals at Abu Ghraib and the destruction of so many innocent lives in Iraq as a result of our unprovoked invasion.

I said it then. It was a mistake. We were being misled. I said it then, that Hussein did not pose a threat to our national security. I didn't believe the stories that were told. And as it turned out, the stories were wrong.

For everything there is a season, saith the Bible. The season has come for Americans to look homeward instead of continuing to spend billions of dollars in Iraq. Let us husband our hard-earned tax dollars and spend them here at home. Look homeward. The Iraqi people must slowly find their own way now.

Further, U.S. dictated deadlines are counterproductive. We cannot force-feed democracy in Iraq. To keep large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq much longer only earns the United States more enmity, reinforcing our unfortunate global image as conqueror, not liberator.

Haven't we learned that? The Iraqi people must begin to take it from here. In fact, there is no longer a war in Iraq. The President says we are a nation at war. We are not a nation at war. The U.S. military is at war. The Nation pays little attention to it. The newspapers seldom mention it. The administration is deaf, dumb, and mute on the war.

A national war? Guardsmen know about it. They know there is a war, and their families know there is a war. We started that conflict. We started that conflict, and we met the goals established at its outset. Now there is a slow, festering, internal political struggle pitting Shiite against Sunni against Kurd which will play itself out perhaps for decades until it either devolves into outright civil war or resolves into some sort of compromise which suits those who live in the country of Iraq.

We cannot resolve Iraq's internal issues. It is time for the United States to begin to bring our troops home. What are we waiting on?

There are those who say if we were to leave, we would not be honoring those who gave their lives in vain. That is an argument that is eternal. We continue to feed lives into the slaughterhouse.

The invasion of Iraq was never supposed to be an open-ended peacekeeping mission with our troops mired amid the chaos of continuing urban warfare, the most dangerous place in the world. How would you like for your son to go? How would you like for your daughter to go? How would you like for your grandson to go? For what?

We need to bring them home with a hearty ``job well done''--a hearty ``job well done.'' We should begin with the National Guard. Praise God, the National Guard. Obviously, they are needed here. They were needed in New Orleans. They were needed in Mississippi. They were needed in Alabama. They are an integral part of our first responder team in the event of a terrorist attack, God forbid, or if another national disaster were to strike.

It is time to come home--come home, America--time to come home; time to come home, America; time to look within our own borders and within our own souls. There are many questions to be answered and many missions to accomplish right here on our own soil. We have neglected too much for too long in our own backyard. Come on, wake up, wake up, America.

To everything there is a season--a time to break down and a time to build up. If we had spent the money a few years back to rebuild those levees on the Gulf Coast, thousands would be alive today. Perhaps we can finally see the value of that budgetary stepchild called public works.

All across this country, there are years of neglect of the basic infrastructure of the United States that cry out for attention. Years of neglect--years of neglect--of the basic infrastructure of the United States that have been crying out for attention, cry out today for attention, and we have delayed for decades, and the needs are only growing.

There are antiquated sewer and water systems built a century ago in our major cities. Take a look here in Washington, DC, right here in the Nation's Capital. Washington, DC, has water not always safe to drink. There are rural communities in America that live with black mud coming out of their faucets. There are unsafe bridges. There are aging reservoirs. There are schools without adequate heat or modern learning tools all around our land. Homeland security needs are underfunded. I have time and again, time and again offered amendments to more appropriately fund homeland security. My amendments were defeated because the White House and the leadership of the party that controls this House and the other House oppose those amendments. Yet we continue to commit billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq while our own needs go begging. Can't we see? How long, how long, how long will we close our eyes to these needs?

Is it not now painfully evident to everyone that we must make basic investment in our own country a national and urgent priority? Imagine a terrorist attack on the heels of a catastrophe such as Katrina. Can you imagine the horror, the chaos, the utter confusion? I have to believe that Osama or one of his henchmen is taking notes as we struggle with the devastation left in Katrina's wake.

Our economic resources are stretched dangerously, dangerously thin, and so is our military might--you better believe that--so is our military might.

We have taken on too much. We have turned our backs on cooperation with the international community, decided to go it alone, and pursue some grandiose scheme of remaking the world in our own image. How silly.

By now it should be clear to all that grand experiments are very costly. It is time for a national epiphany. The sound of Katrina's bugle must be heeded. We cannot continue to commit billions of dollars in Iraq when our own people are so much in need--not only now in New Orleans, but all across America--for everything from education to health care to homeland security to securing our own borders. We need to stop making excuses, stop spinning the facts, and come to grips with the unpleasant truth. The Government of the United States is failing the American people. Failing. That is the catastrophe.

Where is the national debate about our priorities which Katrina should prompt? What does it take to wake us up? Hey, listen, hear me: It is a debate that must begin, if not on this Senate floor, then in the barber shops and in the grocery stores of America and in the print and broadcast media of this great Nation.

It is past time for that debate and high time for all of us to realize that there is nothing more patriotic than taking a good, hard, honest look at our national priorities. We, the people--we, the people--always have that right. A strong republic depends upon just that kind of periodic soul-searching. Does our moral sense of ourselves translate into Government policies? I believe that. Presently, it does not. We have a disconnect in Government policy in everything from a tarnished U.S. image abroad to a failure to address gasoline shortages and skyrocketing prices that will certainly slow our economic engine and take their toll on working people.

Instead of asking the public not to buy more gas than needed, I wish somebody would ask the giant oil companies to pass up some profits and help hold down gas prices as a patriotic gesture for our country. Would that be so outrageous? What do you think?

Why have we not had the vision to invest in alternative energy sources on a grand scale to free us from the addiction to foreign oil? For too long--for too long--our great land has been allowed to drift toward balkanization, a separation between the haves and the have-nots, with the lower end of the income scale at risk from a tattered safety net and a neglected infrastructure, lacking the jobs and housing they need, the health care to stay well, the insurance to cover hospital stays, or the educational opportunities to prepare for the future.

I remember, yes, I remember an America that used to feel more like one country--one country, an America that shared the sacrifice of war and tightened its belt so we could pay for it now. But now we borrow to go to war, and we cut taxes to spare those in the high brackets from sacrifice.

Where is the sense of shared destiny? It has taken nature's own weapon of mass destruction, a category 4 hurricane, to remind us that we are all American and that our Government has a moral obligation to serve and protect us all.

This country is on the wrong track, and the course needs correcting. Continued denial serves no good purpose. Further loss of American life in Iraq may permanently sour the American people on future military action and damage the recruitment for our all-voluntary force.

To everything there is a season--a time to kill and a time to heal. We have seen the fallacy of sending too many members of the National Guard to the Middle East. What folly.

As I speak, we have lost 1,886 sons and daughters in Iraq. And for what? And there seems to be no end in sight, no plan. We have 137,000 troops still serving in Iraq with 2,000 more scheduled to go in October. We are building at least--now get this--we are building at least four semipermanent bases in Iraq structured to hold 18,000 troops each. Why? That does not sound like ``staying not one day longer than needed'' to me. In truth, most Americans no longer support a massive deployment in Iraq. Nor do they understand the mission of that continued deployment. Despite repeated directives by the Congress, the ``powers that be'' refuse to actually budget for Iraq, so that a total picture of our fiscal situation and the cost of the war is deliberately obscured. We are driving our country ever deeper into debt and stretching every resource that we possess to the breaking point. How much longer can it last? Prudence demands that we reassess our posture. Our inept and pathetic, pitiful response to Katrina has underlined our vulnerabilities and writ them large before the world. The American people deserve better than this.

I call upon the leaders of this country to come together and to work together to repair our storm-ravaged Gulf Coast and help salvage the lives of its victims. But more than that, I call upon the Congress to inventory our homeland with an eye to the future. Let us look around, America, and target our deficiencies. Let us work with State and local communities to shore up our weaknesses. We must react in a crisis, of course, but for God's sake, let us finally understand that we must also anticipate the future and be unafraid to commit the resources to make us strong at home. The lesson of Katrina most surely is that an ounce of prevention is worth several tons of cure.

We need to also learn that we cannot long remain a world power if we continue to let America crumble from within. The alarm bells are sounding--listen. The alarm bells are sounding and we must answer the call. This is no time to play for partisan advantage. This is certainly not the season to circle the wagons and hunker down. We need not stretch our brains to write new talking points or invent new excuses. And please, oh, please, please, let us not resort to the trusty bureaucratic ruse of simply reorganizing Government agencies once again.

It is time for real leadership. It is the season for true humility. The Bible says:

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit

before a fall.

For years we have been getting it wrong here in Washington. But if we have the will, we can begin to get it right. The American people deserve leaders with the honesty to take responsibility for failures-- quit making excuses, quit spinning the facts--and the wisdom to change when change is obviously and so urgently needed. And may God, may almighty God, grant us the grace.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I will vote against S.J. Res. 20, the joint resolution of disapproval concerning the mercury emissions rules that were promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, on March 15, 2005. At the same time, I have some significant reservations about the sometimes questionable decisions that the administration made to revise the regulations and achieve the final result. In short, I cannot condone this rule making process; I remain very concerned about the possible impacts these new regulations could have on eastern coal; and I urge the administration to increase its commitment to funding important mercury control technology programs.

On one hand, coal, electric utility, and other industry interests are concerned that returning to the more stringent mercury control standards proposed by the Clinton administration would lead to negative economic impacts, including fuel switching to natural gas. They believe that the intent of S.J. Res. 20 would be to force the EPA to require a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from each coal-fired powerplant, and this would also directly impact West Virginia's chemical, agricultural, and industrial uses of natural gas. I am therefore concerned that a vote for S.J. Res. 20 would support regulations that are more draconian and costly than could be borne by the economy at this time.

However, like the United Mine Workers, I remain concerned about the potential impacts that the clean air mercury rule could have on eastern coal. Time and again, eastern coals have sustained the brunt of the clean air regulations at the expense of western coals. Since the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, western coal production has continued to climb at a steady pace while eastern and interior basin coal production, and important union mining jobs, have suffered significantly. I am troubled by evidence that, in making changes to these regulations, the Bush EPA was swayed by and, in some cases, simply copied recommendations by western coal industry interests.

Furthermore, it is important to bring to light several important reviews of these regulations by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the EPA inspector general. The GAO as well as the EPA inspector general criticized the EPA for ignoring critical information. Based on these reviews, the administration did a very poor job of analyzing the mercury emissions data, the economic analysis, and other critical health-based factors. It appears that the administration already had reached a predetermined answer and then worked backwards to achieve that end.

Finally, I have been very concerned about this administration's commitment to funding fossil energy research. The industry argues that there is not a sufficient, reliable suite of technologies to meet these mercury emissions standards for some years to come. Because I believe that there are negative health impacts to pregnant mothers and young children from exposure to mercury, we should take economically and environmentally sound actions to achieve these reductions. However, this administration has not increased the critical funding required to find the mercury control technologies that would enable the U.S. to meet these emission reductions sooner. The administration could do a lot more to get these technologies in place by increasing funding for these important programs.

Mr. President, Hurricane Katrina dealt this country an unspeakable blow. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed. Families have lost everything. Entire cities have been washed away. And, most tragically, hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives have been lost. Our Gulf States are in crisis. People have been scattered to cities and homes across the country, as the Army Corps of Engineers continues to pump the water out of the flood zones. It will take weeks, if not months, for the waters to recede.

The Congress has responded. Last week, the Congress approved $10.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding. And now we are poised to provide another $51.8 billion. This funding is likely just a down payment.

The bill that is before the Senate provides $50 billion for FEMA Disaster Relief. This funding will provide food, water, housing and cash assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It also will be used to reimburse the many Federal agencies that are in the region providing health care, rebuilding roads, providing security and removing debris. The bill also includes $1.4 billion for the Department of Defense for the deployment of military personnel to provide relief supplies, health care, and security, and for repairing facilities. Finally, the bill includes $400 million for the Corps of Engineers for emergency repairs to levees and pump stations, and for draining flooded areas. The White House expects that there will be a need for more funding in early October.

Congress responded to the President's first supplemental request in one day because FEMA was about to run out of disaster relief funds. Congress approved the President's $10.5 billion request without amendment. Yesterday afternoon, we received the President's second supplemental request, for $51.8 billion, once again because FEMA is expected to need more money. Today, because of the urgency, we are approving his second request. I understand that the President intends to send a third request, which will be more comprehensive. Yet, the administration has not made any commitment to send that request to the Congress quickly. The White House should not, once again, send that request one day before FEMA runs out of money and expect the Congress to rubber stamp the request. I hope the majority leader will work with the White House to make sure that the request is sent quickly so that Congress can debate the matter. As Senator Reid, Senator Landrieu, and others have pointed out, there are many issues about the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina that should be examined.

As we move forward, we must ask serious questions about the Government's failure to help the people of the Gulf States on a timely basis. We want answers--we all want answers--as to why it took so long for rescue teams to get on the ground. There is no excuse for the days of delay and the inexplicable lack of coordination in the response effort. The anger and frustration in our country are justified.

Was the slow response because our resources were committed overseas? Were lives lost because the Government took its eyes away from the danger? Or because it failed to recognize a danger at all? That's one of the issues that most concerns me. We all watched the weather radar and saw this storm. Its footprint covered the entire Gulf of Mexico. We knew the storm was coming. We knew the danger was coming. Yet, the Government failed to respond. Lives were lost because the Government failed to do its job.

What would have happened if this had been a terrorist attack that we did not see coming? What if a surprise attack breached the levees around Lake Pontchartrain? How slow would our response have been then, to a danger that the Government did not see coming?

The Government clearly was not ready to evacuate large numbers of low-income, disabled and elderly people. Not all people in this country have jets, helicopters and fleets of SUVs to move them around. If there were a terrorist attack, would our Government, once again, leave behind the many people in this Nation who do not have the resources to be mobile?

It's time that we put America first. It's time that we refocus our energies and our resources into protecting this Nation here at home. Reinforce our critical infrastructure. Train and coordinate response and rescue efforts. Close the gaps. Fix the problems.

The Government's actions in the days following the tragedy were slow and misguided at best, and inept at worst. The Federal response effort was unacceptable, and the Government must do better. Let us pray that this funding will help to save lives and ease the suffering.

I urge Senators to support this supplemental appropriations bill. Hurricane Katrina is a national disaster. It is a national tragedy. And it will take a national effort to help our fellow citizens rebuild their homes, their cities, and their lives.

I thank my distinguished colleague, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, for his contribution. May I say to him, I have personally been concerned about him, his people in Mississippi, his people and Senator Lott's people. I called him and told him that I wanted to be of assistance, if I could be, and that any appropriations bill that we might appropriate, might send from our committee would have my support. We did this promptly. We are going to continue to do what we can. I commiserate with him as to the tragedy which has befallen his State, his people, our country, our people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. President, I have some remarks to make, about 10 minutes of remarks. I want to commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan for their work on the Interior appropriations bill. When might I make those remarks?

Very well. Will the Senator yield further?

May I make a further inquiry? Then, I am correct in understanding the Chair to say that I will have 5 minutes prior to the vote?

That vote will be on what?

The Interior conference report.

Mr. President, with the indulgence of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I ask unanimous consent that at that time I have 10 minutes rather than 5.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, 13 years have passed between the time Congress passed national energy legislation and the conference report we are taking up today. This conference report is not perfect, and it does not go as far as I would have hoped in terms of moving the U.S. down a different energy path. It does, however, include a number of positive elements, including several relating to coal and clean coal technologies that I have supported for a number of years. But, if we wait another 13 years and continue to ignore the looming energy threats that remain unaddressed, we may find ourselves woefully behind the rest of the world.

If the U.S. is to remain competitive and keep pace with our growing energy demands, then we must take stock, as a Nation, of our energy security and make it a top national priority. We cannot achieve energy independence with continued incremental, piecemeal efforts. It is time to devote new innovation and ingenuity to energy policy and blaze a path forward. We need to be free of the chains of foreign oil. To do that, we must invest in the energy resources that we have here at home. Coal is at the heart of that effort.

By encouraging the cleaner, more efficient use of coal in powerplants and other facilities, we help to ensure jobs in West Virginia's coal communities for many years to come. At the same time, we must find more ways to utilize coal as an energy source in the 21st century. West Virginians know that, for the United States to be free of our heavy reliance on Middle Eastern oil, we must make investments in coal, biomass, and other domestic, power-producing resources. We must be prepared to make the hard decisions to make energy security a national priority, not a mere afterthought.

For many years, the Middle East has been a hotbed of tumult and strife. An underlying reason for our continued presence in this region is the protection of our oil lifeline. Unfortunately, even if the Congress passes this energy legislation, it will do little, if anything, to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. In fact, we will continue to become more dependent by the day. Instead of disentangling ourselves from this foreign oil dependency, we will be sinking our military and energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the sands of the Middle East.

West Virginians and Americans everywhere should understand that there are some very good features of this conference report, but they should not be fooled. Our citizens will see little change in terms of gas prices or natural gas prices. There will likely be few changes in our production or use of energy. I fear the U.S. will continue to ride down the same rocky road for years to come.

Regrettably, House Republicans also objected to including in the Energy conference report my commuter tax benefit to help rural workers who are paying exorbitant prices at the fuel pump. Big Oil, which is reaping huge windfalls from fuel prices this year, is denying modest relief to working Americans. This is but one of the many examples of how this bill sidesteps the difficult decisions that ultimately must be made to address energy costs, to reduce our reliance on foreign energy, to substantially improve our domestic energy supply and energy efficiency needs, and to deal with global climate change. We are doing little, if anything, to address seriously these critical challenges.

I am delighted to support the inclusion of certain targeted tax incentives that will help promote the next generation of clean coal technologies. I have been working on these issues for more than 6 years and am delighted that the Congress has recognized their value. This would include, for the first time, $1.3 billion to help fund the deployment of the ``next generation'' of powerplants, including integrated gasification combined cycle and advanced combustion-based powerplants. There is also $350 million for a new program to accelerate the use of coal and other domestic resources at industrial gasification facilities. I note that several important coal research, development, and demonstration programs, especially the clean coal technology demonstration program, have been reauthorized and improved upon in this conference report.

This legislation makes many promises to the country on energy policy. It makes promises to the men and women who pull the coal from the ground and to those who are finding ways to use that coal more cleanly and more efficiently. To make good on those promises, the administration must be willing to put financial support behind these initiatives. Will this administration do that? Is the President going to request the funding required in his budget to make the clean coal and other important energy programs a reality? In the end, the President will likely have a Rose Garden ceremony and press releases touting its accomplishments. But, given this administration's track record, is this energy bill simply a soapbox to stand on?

The final legislation before us is only a way station on a long journey and more work remains ahead. This bill is not the whole answer. It is a start, and I am committed to continuing to work toward that goal. I want to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their continued diligence and hard work in this endeavor. I applaud their efforts to ensure that the consideration of this legislation was open and bipartisan from start to finish. I will vote to support H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

tax incentives for commercial buildings

Mr. President, I commend Chairman Conrad Burns and the ranking member, Senator Byron Dorgan, on their work on this legislation. I am pleased that this conference report includes the full $1.5 billion proposed by the Senate to make up the current 2005 fiscal year shortfall in funding for veterans health care. The Interior bill may seem a strange vehicle for this funding, but it was the first vehicle available once the administration confirmed the funding crisis in VA health care, and I thank the managers for preserving this provision in their conference report.

It is critically important that the President sign this conference report into law quickly so that this money can be used to replenish the coffers of the VA and make sure that there is no interruption in the VA's ability to provide medical services to our Nation's veterans.

Make no mistake about it, this money is needed now--now. We know the VA anticipates an even greater shortfall in fiscal year 2006, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has addressed that problem in the 2006 Military Construction and VA appropriations bill by providing $1.977 billion in emergency funding for VA health care in 2006.

The $1.5 billion that is provided in this conference report is specifically intended to address the current--the current--2005 crisis in VA health care funding. The precise amount of the current shortfall remains somewhat murky. The administration, after months and months of denying that a shortfall even existed, first pegged it as $975 million, and then upped--upped--the estimate to $1.275 billion.

The Senate, however, fully mindful of the VA's dismal track record in estimating shortfalls, and wisely skeptical of the administration's fluctuating estimates, voted to include a total of $1.5 billion in this bill, with the proviso--get this--with the proviso that the funds would be available both this year and next. This was in sharp contrast to the House, which provided only $975 million in a separate bill to cover the fiscal year 2005 shortfall in VA funding.

It is a victory for our Nation's veterans. Hallelujah. It is a victory for our Nation's veterans that the conferees agreed on the Senate level of $1.5 billion, but it will be merely a Pyrrhic

victory if the White House tries to balance the books by shortchanging veterans in 2005 to make up some of the anticipated shortfall in 2006. Do not let it happen.

It is worth repeating: The Senate Appropriations Committee has addressed the 2006 shortfall by adding $1.977 billion in emergency funding to the 2006 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The entire amount of the VA funding included in the Interior bill--$1.5 billion--is available for 2005--for 2005--and I strongly urge the administration, I strongly urge the White House, to spend up to that amount to meet the current health care needs of our veterans.

The Senate voted twice, both unanimous votes, to provide $1.5 billion to make up the 2005 shortfall in veterans health care. I think the Senate made its position crystal clear. We did not vote to bank the money for some future rainy day. We voted to provide adequate funding to address an exiting crisis in the veterans health care system, and I, for one, fully expect--I fully expect--the administration to use this funding for the current crisis, and not attempt to horde it--horde it-- horde it--for the future.

America's veterans have given much for their country. We have an obligation to give back to them something and to provide for their health care needs. This conference report is a good first step in shoring up the VA's health care budget and, hopefully, leading the way toward more realistic and adequate budgeting for the needs of our veterans in the future.

Now, Mr. President, there is another part of this conference report for which the Senate can be very proud. Just a few weeks ago, this body voted unanimously--unanimously--to approve an amendment that I offered, along with Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Senator John Warner of Virginia, to provide $10 million--$10 million--to the national memorial to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That funding remains part of this final conference report before the Senate.

There are many in this country who, during his life, did not appreciate the passion that Dr. King stirred in people. There are many who believed his goals could be achieved through different means. And I was one of those people, Robert C. Byrd. I was one of them. And I was wrong. I was wrong. I have come to admire Dr. King. I have come to recognize that his dream--his dream--truly is the American dream.

Dr. King spoke of a day when children, regardless of color, regardless of creed, regardless of religious belief, would walk together in peace. Oh, how we need that message today, how we need that spirit today, as religious beliefs are used to divide our people, not to unite us, and as terrorist attacks breed distrust for people who come from different lands. Oh, how we need to recall the lessons that the late Dr. King taught some 40 years ago.

During the conference negotiations on this legislation, Mr. President, there was a great discussion on how the Congress could encourage more Americans to contribute to the construction of the King Memorial. This legislation will help. This legislation says that every dollar raised in the private sector will be matched with a dollar from the U.S. Government, up to $10 million. That is why I urge those who believe in the message of Dr. King to take just a few minutes and contribute to this national memorial.

Now, Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gracious Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Thad Cochran, for his support and for his work on behalf of this memorial. Without his support we would not have had this in the bill. We would not be at this moment without his strong efforts.

I also thank the senior Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. John Warner, for his work, too. Right from the start, Senator Warner stood up and cosponsored this amendment. His influence and his support were vital to this effort.

I also thank Senator Pete Domenici for his support of this effort.

Finally, let me thank the tens of millions of Americans who continue to build the dream--the dream; ah, how great the dream--that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., voiced some 40 years ago. Achieving that dream is not easy. Despite efforts to put the past behind us and move forward together, there remain those who are determined to look backward. There remain those who would rather promote fear and division than build unity and common purpose. I hope this memorial to the legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will remind all of us--all of us--that there is far more strength in unity, far more strength in resolve, far more strength in love of one's fellow man than there ever can be in division, in discord, and in disunity.

And so, Mr. President, I thank those who have been so helpful. And I hope that one of Dr. King's favorite Bible passages, which is also one of mine, comes to be a reality. And I have seen it coming to be a reality. It comes from the Book of Isaiah.

Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert

a highway for our God.

Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill

shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight,

and the rough places plain:

And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh

shall see it together:. . . .

That was one of Dr. Martin Luther King's favorite Scriptures. And so I look forward to that day, Mr. President. That day was the hope of Dr. King. And that day is my hope as well.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank all Senators.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the Senate cosponsors of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President,

The roses red upon my neighbor's vine

Are owned by him, but they are also mine.

His was the cost, and his the labor, too,

But mine as well as his the joy, their loveliness to view.

They bloom for me and are for me as fair

As for the man who gives them all his care.

Thus I am rich because a good man grew

A rose-clad vine for all his neighbors' view.

I know from this that others plant for me,

That what they own my joy may also be;

So why be selfish when so much that's fine

Is grown for me upon my neighbor's vine?

The appreciation of a good neighbor is among the oldest, most cherished, and enduring of human values. It is a value that transcends both time and space.

This value was vividly and eloquently expressed more than 2,000 years ago in the Bible which commands us in eight different passages to love our neighbors: Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8. In fact, this is one of the most repeated commands in the Scripture. In other passages, the Bible tells us how to treat our neighbors, Proverbs 25:17 and Romans 15:2; and in others warns us against mistreating our neighbors, Deuteronomy 19:14, Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 3:29.

The appreciation of a good neighbor is also a value that knows no cultural or geographical boundaries. An old Chinese proverb, for example, maintains that ``a good neighbor is a found treasure.''

In the United States, towns and states celebrate Good Neighbor Days. Across the country, municipalities, corporations, radio stations, and newspapers present Good Neighbor Awards. Stores and businesses proclaim ``Good Neighbor Days'' to promote sales. Since the early 1970s, the Federal Government has celebrated an annual Good Neighbor Day. This year Good Neighbor Day will be observed on September 25.

The web site for the national Good Neighbor Day points out that ``being good neighbors is an important part of the social fabric that makes ours a great country.'' Indeed it is. Good neighbors are always there when you need them, offering a helping hand, providing comfort.

Seldom have I observed a stronger sense of neighborliness than among the coal miners in the West Virginia communities where I spent my boyhood years. Fred Mooney, a leading figure in organizing the West Virginia coal miners in the early Twentieth Century, in his autobiography, ``Struggle in the Coal Fields,'' recalled how his coal- mining neighbors, although themselves quite poor, sacrificed to help him and his family with food and clothes after he had been fired from his job and blacklisted for his union activities. Mooney explained, ``This is the spirit of fellowship, love, and devotion that permeates the life of a union coal miner. He will give until it hurts and then divide the rest.''

That, Mr. President, is loving thy neighbor: ``giv[ing] until it hurts'' and expecting nothing in return.

I have observed this sense of neighborliness following mine explosions, floods, and other disasters that have befallen on my state over the years. I will never forget how the people of Buffalo Creek, WV, came together following a disastrous flood in that community. How they worked together and shared together while caring for and comforting each other, thus enabling themselves and their neighbors to survive that horrible tragedy. Being a good neighbor involves most often small, simple acts of kindness. The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, liked to point

out that ``all politics is local.'' Being a good neighbor is also local. It begins right over the backyard fence. It involves small, simple acts of kindness, as well as dramatic gestures during catastrophic events.

A good neighbor is the friendly face who shows up with a cake or a pie at the house of a family who has a member who is ill. A good neighbor is a person who mows the lawn of the widow down the street. He may be the handyman who is quick to pull out his tool belt when a neighbor has a busted pipe, or a mechanic who starts his neighbor's car on a cold winter morning so he can get to work. He is a neighbor who will cheerfully shovel your sidewalk when it snows, or rake leaves, just to make life easier for you.

Such simple acts of kindness are part of the social fabric that makes for a better community, a better country, and a better world.

I am thinking now of a neighbor who lives about 3 miles from where I live in McLean, VA. I have known him a good many years. His name is James Nobles. Jim Nobles is a neighbor who is always seeking ways to help my wife Erma and to help me. Many is the time that he has come to my home and sat and talked with my wife, who has gone through a long period of illness, an illness of going on 5 years. Many times Jim Nobles has come by and sat on the front porch with Erma and talked with her. So when Erma and I have been busy or tired, Jim Nobles somehow appears at our door with a basket of food or a cake from the local Giant store. He provides us with transportation if we need it.

On cold winter days, often to my surprise and my delight, I have looked out the glass windows, and I have seen him out shoveling the snow from the walkway to the mailbox. I find he has already shoveled the snow off my sidewalk.

When he is able, he makes sure that my newspaper is on my porch in the morning. There it is, the Washington Post. There it is, Roll Call. There it is, The Hill. Jim Nobles gets up, comes over to my house, 3 miles from where he lives, and brings the papers off the sidewalk onto my porch. I can always tell that it is Jim Nobles because he also places the newspapers in the same fashion in the same place right there at my door. That is a good neighbor. He comes when my hedges have grown a little too long. He tops off the hedges. He shapes them up. When there are some dead limbs on the trees in my front yard, he cuts off those dead limbs and hauls them away. That is Jim Nobles.

Sometimes Jim goes on a vacation. He is retired now. He goes on a vacation. He has a place somewhere down in Virginia, perhaps 100 miles away or more from where we live. Sometimes he goes and spends a few days there at that place. Then what am I to do but go out and get the paper. I have to get up, go out and get the newspaper. It is not a great chore, but it is something.

But lo, to my surprise, the newspaper keeps on being delivered to my door. So for quite a while, I wondered, who is the other good neighbor who pinch-hits when Jim Nobles is away?

On two or three occasions, I have sat up just to try to catch that other good neighbor delivering that newspaper. I remember on one occasion I got up early and I put a little chair beside the front door and I sat there and watched, waiting for that person to walk up and deliver my paper. Jim Nobles was away. But, you know, that neighbor on that particular occasion didn't come, didn't deliver that paper.

So time has gone on, and this morning, I decided I am going to catch this neighbor this time--this good neighbor who delivers my newspaper when Jim Nobles is away on vacation. So there I sat. This time, luck was with me. I saw her come down the street, pick up the newspaper, pick up the Roll Call and The Hill. She came up to the door and put the papers in the spot there and away she darted. It was then that I turned the key in the door. I said, ``Lady, would you wait just a minute? I want to know more about you. What is your name? I want to thank you for delivering this to my door when Mr. Nobles is not here.''

I came to find out that this was a lady from the Philippines. She worked in the area. She doesn't live in the immediate area, but she comes into the area on a bus, she gets off the bus, and on her way to the residence where she works during the day, she stops, picks up the newspaper out there on the sidewalk near my mailbox, walks up to my door, and puts that paper down. Finally, I found this caring, good neighbor whose name I had been wishing to learn. Her name is Ms. Mary Lucas, from the Philippines. I told her this morning that I was in the Philippines 50 years ago this year. I had breakfast at that time with the late President Magsaysay, who was later killed in a plane crash.

So there she was, a good neighbor making her way to work, doing a special favor for someone like myself and then going on, not receiving my thanks. This could have gone on a long time, as it had already gone on a long time. I finally found her and found out her name.

I must confess that at times I feel a little guilty because I am not a better neighbor. My work in the Senate, my family life, and my other responsibilities prevent me from performing the kind, neighborly acts that Mr. Nobles and Ms. Lucas have performed for me over the years. But they, in the truest neighborly ways, never expressed any complaint. They never want anything in return; they never expect anything in return. They just want to be good neighbors. And they are. Indeed, they are treasures.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to say how fortunate I am to have such good neighbors. I thought it might encourage all of us to think a little more about being better neighbors. It is the human touch that makes a better community, a better country, a better world. And so on this day in July, in this year of our Lord, I want to thank God for good neighbors, for the inspiration they have given to me and to Erma, for the goodness they have shared with her and with me.

I close with a bit of verse by Edgar Guest:

I have a kindly neighbor, one who stands

Beside my gate and chats with me awhile,

Gives me the glory of his radiant smile

And comes at times to help with willing hands.

No station high or rank this man commands;

He, too, must trudge, as I, the long day's mile;

And yet, devoid of pomp or gaudy style,

He has a worth exceeding stocks of lands.

To him I go when sorrow's at my door;

On him I lean when burdens come my way;

Together oft we talked our trials o'er,

And there is warmth in each good night we say.

A kindly neighbor! Wars and strife shall end

When man has made the man next door his friend.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.