Floor Statements

Mr. President, I opposed the Ensign and McCain amendments Nos. 1219 and 1171 to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, H.R. 2360.

These amendments would have shifted $566 million from grants for first responders, including our State and local police officers, firefighters, and emergency health providers, to provide for an increase in detention beds and border security personnel. Those cuts in first responder funds would have been in addition to the $467 million in first responder cuts already included in the underlying bill, resulting in a cut of 43 percent below fiscal year 2005. Such a cut in funding for equipping and training our first responders at a time when the Nation is at risk of a terrorist attack would not be appropriate. In addition, the Ensign amendment would have provided new spending power to the Homeland Security Secretary, which is not necessary or appropriate.

Having successfully sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Iraq supplemental that added 500 Border Patrol agents, 218 immigration investigators, and detention officers, and 1,950 detention beds, and having worked closely with Chairman Gregg to see that the underlying bill includes robust funding for our border security, I know that such efforts can be achieved without cutting vital funds for our first responders or providing new spending authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Indeed, if the amendments were adopted, the funds would likely have sat in the Treasury because the Department could not hire and train more personnel than the levels provided in the committee bill.

That is why I, along with a bipartisan majority of the Senate, joined with the chairman to oppose these amendments.

Will the Senator yield?

May I make a unanimous consent request before we proceed?

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators have their names added as cosponsors to the Byrd amendment numbered 1200: Senators Warner, Collins, Murray, Stabenow, Kohl, Sarbanes, Levin, and Cantwell.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 1218.

Mr. President, my amendment provides an additional $1.3 billion above the underlying bill for needed security funding for our transit systems, intercity rail, freight rail, and intracity buses for a total of $1.4 billion. The funding levels I am proposing in this amendment are based on two bipartisan rail security authorization bills, S. 2273 and S. 2884, which passed the Senate last October.

Public transportation is used nearly 32 million times every day, 365 days a year. Thirty-two million times a day is 16 times more than travel on domestic airlines. How about that. According to the Government Accounting Office, nearly 6,000 agencies provide transit services through buses, subways, ferries, and light rail service to about 14 million Americans every weekday. Amtrak, while serving nearly 500 train stations in 46 States, carried an all-time record of ridership of 25 million passengers in fiscal year 2004.

Freight rail consists of more than 140,000 miles of track over which nearly 28 million carloads move annually, including over 9 million trailers and containers and $1.7 million carloads of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Yes, only 2 cents--get this now, 2 cents. My colleagues have heard the expression, ``I want to get my 2 cents' worth.'' Well, only 2 cents on every transportation security dollar in this bill--can you believe it? Only 2 cents on every transportation security dollar in this bill goes to transit or rail security. Can you believe that? Two cents.

I remember the days of the 2-cent snack--my, that was a long time ago--and the penny postcard. Two cents. Let me say that again. Someone may not have heard that. Only 2 cents on every transportation security dollar in this bill goes to transit or rail security. The rest, where does it go? To aviation security.

When the terrorists blew up trains last year in Madrid, Spain, the administration had no plan, none, for securing transit and rail systems. The horrific bombings a few days ago in London have raised the same question. Are we prepared? What do my colleagues think? Are we prepared? Are we prepared? According to the RAND Corporation, between 1998 and 2003 there were approximately 181 terrorist attacks on rail targets worldwide. Since 2001, I have offered seven different amendments--think of it, seven different amendments--to fund rail and

transit security. What do my colleagues think of that? What do they think happened? I will give one guess. I offered seven amendments to fund rail and transit security. All seven were opposed by this administration, and all seven were defeated.

Well, Robert Bruce, that great Scotsman, was lying in the loft of the barn, and he saw this spider try to throw its web across the roof on the inside of the barn. He saw that spider try six times, and the spider failed. But the spider then threw once more, seven times, and succeeded. Robert Bruce thought he would try once more. He did, and he succeeded. I offered an amendment seven times that was opposed by the administration.

While we cannot secure every train, every station, and every passenger who uses mass transit or rides on trains from city to city, we can, with the additional funding I am proposing, implement prudent, commonsense actions to reduce the risks and consequences of a terrorist attack.

I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 3 minutes.

I thank the Chair. We must harden infrastructure, install intrusion and detection systems, and procure cameras, locks, gates, canine teams, and other tools.

The Gregg amendment provides an increase of only $100 million for rail and transit security. That level simply will not be enough. It will help some, but it would not be enough to help transit and rail agencies in their efforts to deter a potential attack. For transit alone the estimate of need is $6 billion.

I am also concerned that the amendment reduces first responder funds by $100 million. This is a $100 million cut on top of the $467 million cut already in the bill. We should not be cutting funds to equip and train our police and our fire and emergency medical personnel by 24 percent.

With regard to the Shelby amendment, I am concerned that it includes only $100 million for securing rail systems. With 25 million passengers riding Amtrak and 1.7 million carloads of hazardous materials being carried on the rails, we must do more. We must do more to secure our rail system. My amendment includes $265 million for rail security.

Our thoughts, our prayers are with the victims of the London bombing. The horrific events the world witnessed a few days ago ought to serve as a call to action, a call to action by this Government, our Government, to protect our citizens from future attacks.

It is time to act. I urge all Senators to support my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be added as a cosponsor to my amendment numbered 1218.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the question respectfully, would the distinguished Senator wait momentarily, until we can hear from Senator Inouye? If he could wait a couple of minutes, may I ask?

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Yes.

Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Connecticut is concerned the Committee report language could be interpreted to limit the $50 million, which is almost a full third of the funding for EDS procurement, to only technologies currently being piloted.

One of the lessons we learned from 9/11 was the aviation transportation system is only as strong as its weakest link. We know terrorists boarded planes at smaller, mid-sized airports, as well as larger airports. It is important the Department encourage development of technologies that can be used at different airports, and that are being made more effective and efficient.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his interest in this matter.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1218

Mr. President, the amendment that the minority leader offered on my behalf would provide an additional $1.33 billion above the underlying bill for security funding needed for our transit systems, intracity buses, intercity rail, and freight rail.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the London bombings. For all of us, the pictures were all too graphic reminders of how quickly disaster can strike and how deadly terrorist strikes can be.

The horrific attacks in London a few days ago were eerily similar to the attacks in Madrid, Spain, in March 2004: targeted, coordinated, and timed bombings.

Sadly, crowded subway systems and trains have become inviting targets for terrorists. We have witnessed the hysteria and the chaos that these events can trigger. Could it happen here? Of course. Are our systems more secure? I wonder.

Last week, when asked if additional funding was needed to secure mass transit, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff responded by saying:

I wouldn't make a policy decision driven by a single event.

Well, with all due respect to the Secretary, the alarm bells have been ringing for years.

On July 8, the Washington Post printed a chart that provides a chronology of bombings with al-Qaida links. This chart shows that, starting in 1993 at the World Trade Center in New York City, there have been 16 bombings worldwide linked to al-Qaida.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

The alarms do not stop there, Mr. President. According to the RAND Corporation, between 1998 and 2003, there were 181 terrorist attacks on rail targets worldwide. The Congressional Research Service has reported that passenger rail systems in the United States carry about five times--five times--as many passengers each day as do the airlines. Yet the administration has continuously opposed funding to increase security on our trains, subways, and buses.

Public transportation is used nearly 32 million times a day--think of that: 32 million times a day--which is 16 times more than travel on domestic airlines. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 6,000 agencies provide transit services by bus, subway, ferry, and light rail to about 14 million Americans each weekday. Amtrak carried an all-time record ridership of 25 million passengers in fiscal year 2004. Are these lives not worth protecting? How about it?

What about the dangerous and hazardous materials that are transported by rail? We simply are not doing enough. Without proper security measures in place, these transports are vulnerable to attack or sabotage. Many of these shipments travel to or through major urban areas, such as Washington, DC, and, frankly, only minutes down the road from where we stand today.

The Homeland Security Council released a report in July 2004 indicating that a chlorine tanker explosion in an urban area could kill up to 17,500 people. According to a New York Times editorial on June 20, 2005:

One of the deadliest terrorist scenarios the Department of

Homeland Security has come up with is an attack on a 90-ton

rail tanker filled with chlorine. As many as 100,000 people

could be killed or injured in less than 30 minutes.

Yet only 2 out of every 100 transportation security dollars in this bill will be spent on rail and transit. What does this mean? This means that 98 percent of transportation security funding is going--for what?--going for aviation security.

Since 9/11, I have offered amendments on seven different occasions-- seven different occasions--to add money for transit and rail security. However, every time the administration opposed my efforts. So I regret the Secretary's comments last week that policy should not be driven by a single event.

I was astonished to learn that the $150 million that Congress approved for mass transit and rail security last October is still sitting--where?--sitting in the Treasury.

Finally, on Tuesday, the Department notified Congress how they intend to allocate the funds. But an announcement does not make Americans safer. It takes time for transit and rail systems to actually put these security improvements in place, so there is no excuse for these bureaucratic delays in Washington.

Within very limited allocations, Congress has taken the lead by providing $265 million between fiscal years 2003

and 2005 for transit security. Unfortunately, the administration has let the money sit in Washington far too long. It was all of 8 months before all of the 2003 funding was awarded, and 6 months before the 2004 funding went out the door. And here we are again, 9 months after the fiscal year 2005 transit funding was enacted, and what happens? Well, it is deja vu all over again. It is still sitting--where?--in Washington, right here in Washington. The administration must overcome the hurdles that have caused those delays.

Clearly, the administration is not taking this threat seriously. It certainly would not appear to be. So we must press the administration to do more. The horrific events we witnessed just a few days ago ought to serve as a call to action by this Government to protect our citizens from future attack. For far too long, the administration has put its head in the sand where rail and mass transit security are concerned.

We should be taking steps right now to improve deterrence in our transit and rail systems by investing in surveillance cameras, investing in locks, in gates, in canine teams, in sensors, and other tools.

Last October, the Senate passed two bipartisan rail security authorization bills, S. 2273 and S. 2884, that authorized additional funding for securing mass transit and rail systems, but the bills did not make it to the White House.

The bill that is before the Senate reduces funding from $150 million in fiscal year 2005 to $100 million. The amendment would increase the $100 million to $1.43 billion. That is the amendment that I offer. Let me say it again. The amendment would increase the $100 million to $1.43 billion. The $1.43 billion includes $1.166 billion for transit security and $265 million for rail security. So we are taking care of both transit security and rail security. That seems to meet both needs, at least part way.

Our security efforts cannot be delayed, Mr. President, and must not be underfunded. The lives of the American people depend on strengthened security. And whose life is it? It may be your own. It may be your relative's. It may be your friend's. The time for hand wringing is over. It is time to act.

So I urge all Senators to support the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the following Senators have their names added as cosponsors to the amendment: Mr. Inouye, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Corzine.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I call up amendment No. 1120. The amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to the Congress on the use of data-mining procedures.

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

The amendment is cosponsored by Senator Corzine. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I call up amendment No. 1155, with a modification which I send to the desk.

Mr. President, does the modification need unanimous consent?

The amendment, as modified, prevents funds from being used for wasteful expenditures. I urge adoption of the amendment, as modified.

Mr. President, I move that the vote be reconsidered by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 1201.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would require that States and localities spend their first responder funds pursuant to approved State plans within 2 years of the end of the fiscal year that they received the funds. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer and Kerry have their names added to the Byrd transit amendment No. 1218.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is commonly said that a man is known by his work. For half of a century, Mr. Gene May of McLean, VA, was known by the fine homes he built in the Washington area.

Mr. May, who died recently of lung cancer, was a builder and a developer, who made an important and lasting impact on this busy, ever- growing, and highly transient region. He was a good

man, who touched people with his hard work, his dedication to his profession, and the extra care that he put into the structures that he built.

Gene May did not merely build houses; he built homes, and he built more than a thousand of them starting with his first, in 1947. He put a part of himself into each of his endeavors, into each of the homes he built; and as a result, the homes he built reflect his values. Years after he retired, according to the Washington Post, people were still writing to him, praising him for the sturdiness of the homes he had built for them, and thanking him for his superb work.

Yet, according to his daughter, his work was not the most important thing in his life. It wasn't even second. His daughter explained that ``the most important thing in his life was his family, followed by his church. And he viewed his work as a way to serve both.''

What a wonderful way to regard one's work. What a contribution all of us could make to our families, our society, and ourselves with such an outlook on life, that our work is a way to serve our family and our Creator.

Gene May's philosophy served as an underpinning for a rewarding life. He put family first, and what a wonderful family he had. He was married to his loving wife, Barbara May, for 58 years. They had two children and five grandchildren.

Gene May faithfully served his church. I knew Gene May. He built the house in which I now live. He was a charter member, treasurer, and one of the first deacons of the Church of Christ of Falls church. He supervised the building of two of the church's facilities, and actively participated in the church's mission. In addition, he helped to establish, then served as president of, a christian youth summer camp in Virginia's blue ridge mountains.

Gene May's community involvement extended well beyond his church activities. For example, he was a member of the school board, a board member of the Arlington Trust Bank, and a founder of the Northeastern Junior College in Villanova, PA.

When Mr. May learned that he had terminal cancer a little more than a year ago, he reacted to the news with the calmness and level-headedness that had characterized his life.

He taught his wife how to handle the family finances, even budgeting the money for his funeral expenses. He then signed up for hospice care, so that he would not be a burden to his family; and, he began to prepare himself for the afterlife. How about that? He began to prepare himself for the afterlife. Gene May succumbed to the dreaded disease on May 4 of this year.

This good man, this good neighbor, this good citizen will be missed by his family, his community, and his legion of friends. But through the homes he built for more than a thousand people, the memories of his life and work will live for years and years to come. He was a builder.

Gene May was a builder in the best and truest meaning of the word.

I saw them tearing a building down,

A group of men in a busy town.

With a ``ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell

They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.

I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled?

The type you would hire if you had to build?''

He laughed, and then he said, ``no indeed,

Just common labor is all I need;

I can easily wreck in a day or two,

That which takes builders years to do.

I said to myself as I walked away,

``Which of these roles am I trying to play?

Am I a builder who works with care,

Building my life by the rule and square?

Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan,

Patiently building the best I can?

Or am I a fellow who walks the town,

Content with the labor of tearing down?''

My wife Erma, and I extend our deepest condolences to Mr. May's wife, Barbara, and their children, and grandchildren.

May his ashes rest in peace.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 1200 be stated by the clerk.

Mr. President, I thank the clerk.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Messrs. Kennedy, DeWine, Corzine, and Dodd. That is it. That completes the list.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important group of men and women and to offer an amendment on their behalf.

All across this land, there are men and women who put their lives on the line every day fighting fires, over a million firefighters, and over three-fourths of them are volunteers. So when one reads a list of the responsibilities firefighters bear each day, it reads like a litany of good public service: fire suppression, wild land firefighting, hazardous materials response, code enforcement, fire prevention, education, explosives response, investigation, industrial fire prevention and safety, and counterterrorism.

So in this high-technology, post-9/11 world, it is not our father's fire service. Firefighters require the latest equipment and training to cope with changing threats. When our Nation fell under attack on September 11, 2001, firefighters raced into buildings, buildings engulfed in flames, to save people.

Today, over 8,000 firefighters are battling wildfires in eight States that threaten our environment and property. When a house is on fire, firefighters arrive quickly on the scene to rescue people and their pets. They rush into burning buildings to pull people from the mayhem. When vehicles spill hazardous, even toxic materials, firefighters clean up the spill, thereby protecting nearby populations.

They do all of this often without proper equipment, often without enough training, often without sufficient staffing but--but, but--they do it anyway. Yes, they do it anyway, and we are all better off for their bravery.

One could go on and on about these heroes, but words are meaningless without action. That is why I am offering an amendment that will restore funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, a program that provides equipment and training for these courageous public servants.

So I say, restore funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program because the bill that is before the Senate reduces funding for firefighter grants by $100 million in comparison with last year. There is no justification for this cut. Applications for fiscal year 2005 totaled $2.7 billion. With the funding that Congress approved, the Department of Homeland Security funded less than one-quarter of the eligible applications.

Instead of responding to this significant demand for firefighter equipment and training, the administration proposed to cut firefighting grants for fiscal year 2006 from $715 million to $500 million, a reduction of 30 percent.

Our leader, Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Gregg, has done all that he can to address the greatest needs in this Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. But our bank account--ah, now, there is where the problem is--our bank account was pilfered by a budget proposal from the White House. The White House proposed that the Appropriations Committee raise $1.68 billion in fees by raising airline passenger fees. The problem is, the Appropriations Committee does not have authority to increase such fees. So what happened? This left the committee with a deep hole to fill, and as a result, our firefighters are $100 million short.

I received a letter on June 10 of this year from Chief Robert DiPoli, retired, president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. I shall make this letter a part of the Record shortly but not at this moment.

In the letter, Chief DiPoli tells me that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters, or SAFER, Program are the highest priorities of the members of the association. He goes on to state that although the fire departments are locally funded and operated, they do provide a national service in times of crisis, whether natural or man made.

Chief DiPoli has said that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is the greatest program ever to hit the streets because fire departments cannot fund all of their needs through bean suppers and bingo games. I have to agree. I agree.

According to a recent study by the U.S. Fire Administration entitled ``A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service,'' only 13 percent of the fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or biological agents, and half of all fire engines are at least 15 years old. Ten percent of fire departments in cities with at least one building over four stories high or higher do not have adequate ladders or aerial apparatus. Overall, fire departments in the United States do not have enough portable radios to equip half of the responders on a shift, and the percentage is even higher in small communities.

So who would want to be a firefighter? I would not want to be, with all of that shortage of equipment.

One-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped with self- contained breathing apparatus.

How about that? This equipment is not cheap. A portable radio costs $950. A chemical agent detector costs $8,585. An air pack costs $4,424. A defibrillator costs $1,695. Night vision goggles cost $3,210. Uniforms and other basic gear cost $1,000. So it is no surprise to me that the demand for this program has grown from $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2003 to $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $2.7 billion for this year.

What does surprise me, what disappoints me, is that in the face of documented needs--now these are not just ``suspicion'' needs or ``maybe'' needs or ``perhaps'' needs. What does surprise me, what disappoints me, is that in the face of documented needs for better equipment and growing demand for this program, the bill cuts the funding for equipping and training our firefighters.

I am pleased that the bill provides an increase for the SAFER firefighter hiring program. I commend my chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support for the program. Overall, firefighter grants are cut by $100 million. Firefighters in both big cities and small towns across this land face new challenges every day, while maintaining their traditional missions. They should not rely on bean suppers and bingo games to raise the funds to pay for their needs on the job. Individually and collectively, we are safer with properly equipped and trained firefighters. As a Nation, we rely on their capabilities. Therefore, Federal dollars are wisely invested in the effort.

That brings me to the present moment. I offer this amendment to provide $100 million to the Assistance to

Firefighters Grant Program. By approving this amendment, the Senate will be answering the call, will be saying, We hear you, we hear what you are saying, will be answering the call from our firefighters.

This is a modest amendment. It simply restores firefighter grants funding to the fiscal year 2005 level of $715 million. Even if this amendment is adopted, the firefighting program will be almost $300 million below the level authorized by Congress. I wish we could do more, but this is the least we can do.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I earlier referred from Chief Robert A. DiPoli be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Would the able chairman yield for a comment?

I urge the chairman not to raise the budget point of order at this time. I wonder if perhaps I might implore the chairman to work with Chairman Cochran to approve using a portion of the fiscal year 2005 allocation for our firefighters so that this amendment would not be subject to a point of order. Would the very able chairman be willing to give some consideration to my request in this light?

Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator would allow me further just to say that I thank the chairman for his consideration that he is giving to my request. I might add, firefighters and the communities they protect ought not to be penalized by inside-the- beltway procedures. We are in this tough position because the White House proposed that the Appropriations Committee raise $1.68 billion by increasing airline passenger fees.

I have gone over this already, but I have to say again, as I said earlier, that the Appropriations Committee does not have authority to increase these fees. Therefore, we have been left with a gaping hole in resources, and this means that our firefighters are going to suffer a funding cut of $100 million below the fiscal year 2005 level.

Some Senators might be surprised to know that the United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized world at 13.5 deaths per million population. Fires kill more Americans than all natural disasters combined. In 2003, 3,925 civilians lost their lives as a result of fire, and 111 firefighters were killed in duty-related incidents. In that same year, 18,125 civilians suffered injuries that occurred as a result of fire. So there is a real need for this funding. Communities need the money to buy essential equipment. This is not a case of throwing dollars at fire departments so they can buy extravagant items.

This is a very modest amendment. Even with adoption of the amendment, the program will still be $300 million below the level authorized by Congress. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security was unable to approve over $2 billion in eligible applications for equipping and training our firefighters because of lack of funding. We ought to do everything we can to meet this demand for equipment and training for our firefighters.

The Appropriations Committee currently has $1.058 billion in budget authority available under the 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2005. So the reason I have asked my beloved chairman, Senator Gregg, to consider discussing this with Chairman Cochran is that if Chairman Cochran made just $100 million of this unused allocation available to homeland security, this amendment would not be subject to a Budget Act point of order.

I again thank my friend, the chairman, for at least saying that he will withhold the point of order, and that he will give this matter some further consideration.

Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Lieberman and Mikulski as cosponsors to my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have listened intently to the remarks of the very distinguished Senator as the chairman of this appropriations subcommittee, and I have been very impressed by his remarks. But prior to that, over a long period of time I have been very impressed with his dedication to the service of the people he represents here and his dedication to the Nation. He is an extremely able chairman. He has experience in the executive field, as he has alluded to, and he has experience in the committee system. He is preeminently fair in his work on the subcommittee, very fair, always willing to listen, and most charitable, may I say, toward me.

I am the ranking member on the subcommittee and on the full committee. But I could never wish for anyone to be more fair, more knowledgeable, or anyone whom I would respect more than this man from the mountains of his

great State, and I have a tremendous admiration for him and a great deal of fondness for him. He is a chairman sui generis and a gentleman along with it. I like that part, too, especially.

Now, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has outlined the threat, and he has done so very well. I can't tell you how much I have admired the way he has striven to put together this bill and utilized the limited amount of moneys that are available to us and do it in a way that will reach those areas that are in most need of funding. I am immensely pleased with the work he has done. His work is the foremost work, of course. As the ranking member, I try to help. I do have a very able staff that works with the staff of the distinguished chairman, and it is through this staff that I am able to keep abreast of things and also to make my feelings known as well.

Mr. President, the Senate, then, has before it this bill for fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations. I cannot commend too much the distinguished chairman, as I have already indicated, and his staff, for their work on this legislation. I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines of America's homeland security. They serve the Nation every hour of every day.

I welcome Chairman Gregg to his new duties as chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. He comes to it, needless to say, very well prepared. He has a wealth of experience, a wealth of expertise. The chairman targets limited resources--and I emphasize the word ``limited''--on future threats, not simply the threats posed by the attacks of September 11. For the most part, the chairman has attempted to allocate resources to those threats that represent the greatest risk to the American people. In doing so he has, with my support, included a number of improvements to the President's budget particularly with regard to border security, air cargo security, funds for States to implement the driver's license provisions of the REAL ID Act, as well as funding to protect the ``all-hazards'' Emergency Management Performance Grant Program.

The committee bill builds on the bipartisan border security initiative that I offered along with Senator Craig to the 2005 emergency supplemental. Between the emergency supplemental enacted in May and this bill Congress will have increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,500, provided funds to train and house these agents, increased the number of immigration investigators, the number of agents and detention officers by 817, and increased the number of detention beds by 4,190.

The chairman has to be commended for this, and I am profuse in my admiration and my support for what he has done.

In addition, the bill contains an important protection for the privacy rights of Americans. We need always to keep these rights in mind. I thank Chairman Gregg for his support of language that I recommended concerning secure flight, the Department's proposed new airline passenger profiling system. The language would prohibit the use of commercial databases for confirming the identity of airline passengers. Such commercial databases are unreliable and potentially invade people's privacy.

The bill before the Senate provides $30.8 billion for discretionary programs, an increase of 4.6 percent. This is a very lean bill. The committee was put in a difficult position as a result of the administration's proposal to have the Appropriations Committee increase the fees paid by airline passengers, a proposal that would have raised $1.68 billion. The Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction over airline fees and therefore could not approve the proposal. As a result, the committee was forced to reduce spending below the President's request by $389 million.

So the low subcommittee allocation and the fee proposal resulted in cuts in firefighter grants, first responder grants, rail and mass transit security grants, Coast Guard operations, and in the number of Transportation Security Administration screeners. These cuts are very unfortunate. It is regrettable that the administration's apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process will have such a direct impact on programs that are so important, that are important elements of our homeland security strategy.

As the Senate considers this bill, I hope the Senators will look favorably on amendments to restore the cuts in firefighter grants, first responder grants, and mass transit and rail security grants. The utterly tragic events in London last week remind all of us of the imminent threat--the imminent threat, may I say--to the American people that is posed by terrorist attacks here at home--here at home.

We have heard it said it is better to fight these terrorists in Iraq than it is to fight them in New York City or in Washington. Of course that is true. Nobody doubts that. But don't let anybody be fooled. Don't let anybody be fooled. Fighting them in Iraq is not going to make us secure from having to fight them here at home in Washington, New York, Tampa, FL--wherever. Don't fall for that malarkey. That is pure bunk. Of course we know what that is all about. But it has happened in London. It happened before that in Madrid, and before that in Japan, and it can happen here. No amount of argument, debate, or plain old malarkey should convince anyone that it can't happen here. In my judgment, it will. It is coming. These people take their time. They are patient. They are not in a big hurry. And it is coming here. It is coming here. The thing about it is these people know when and where and how the attack will be made. We do not. So they have the advantages.

Let's just put that bunk to the side; forget it for now. There is nothing to it. We are in jeopardy. The American people are in jeopardy and we ought to understand that. Last Thursday, when asked if additional funding was needed to secure our mass transit system, Secretary Chertoff said, ``I would not make a policy decision driven by a single event.''

I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary. He was down in my office just this morning, outlining something with respect to the surveys which he has been making and on which he intends to report publicly, and also outlining his plans for the agency. I must say he has a real grasp, a real feel of the full scope of the problems. I have to compliment him for that.

But with all due respect for the Secretary, the alarm bells just didn't start ringing last week. The alarm bells have been ringing for years. There have been 16 bombings worldwide linked to al-Qaida. The Senate should not be reducing our commitment to firefighters and first responders, or to securing our mass transit and rail system. I am pleased that the chairman has included my recommendation to direct the Department to expedite its grantmaking process. All too often--I made mention of this in a meeting with Secretary Chertoff in my office earlier today--all too often, funds that were approved by Congress last October will not be given to Federal, State, and local agencies until this September, nearly a full year later. Americans are not made safer by having funding for border security, port security, rail security, and for hiring firefighters sit--where? In the U.S. Treasury.

On June 13, almost a month ago, I wrote a letter to Secretary Chertoff, calling on him to focus on this problem as part of his review of agency operations. I will not ask now, but I will later, that that letter be made part of the Record.

Unfortunately, the Secretary has not seen fit to respond to my letter. That is not worthy of a great deal of comment, but it is worthy of some comment. I hope the Secretary's delay in responding is not indicative of the administration's intent to continue leaving homeland security dollars gathering dust in the Treasury in Washington, DC.

I said this to the Secretary this morning. I am particularly appalled that the $150 million that Congress approved last October for mass transit and rail security is still sitting in the Treasury. What in the world? Why in the world hasn't this money gone out? What is it doing sitting here in the Treasury? What in the world is wrong? I said it in just about that fashion--perhaps not quite that loudly this morning in my office, but I said it, nevertheless. I am appalled by this. What in the world are we waiting on? The Department did not even announce until April how rail and transit systems could apply for the funds, wasting

a full 6 months that the rail and transit systems could have used to prepare for or to prevent a future attack.

Time and time again, the administration has talked a good game on homeland security. Man, I will tell you, you just listen to the game they talk and you feel, ``I can sleep better tonight. I will go home now. I will watch the information about who is ahead in this game or that game--I will just forget about all this other stuff.'' But it has not followed through. The administration has not followed through with a sustained commitment of resources and ideas. So I fear the administration believes that it fulfills its commitment to securing the homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security.

I voted against that, to start with, because I foresaw this. I don't claim to have great powers along these lines. But with all my experience--and I have had some. I have been around here quite a while, longer than anybody else on this Hill--anybody: Anybody sitting in the gallery, anybody out there in the offices, anybody downtown, or anybody else. I have been around here longer in this Government, yes, indeed. Well, so much for that. But that is some experience. I have had time to see some things and to lament some things. And I have been critical of both parties, both administrations, Democratic and Republican, over the years. So I think I have some basis for saying the things I am saying.

Mr. President, America is not made safer by simply reorganizing boxes on an organizational chart. Repeatedly, the energy, the initiative, the resources, and the leadership for homeland security efforts have come from--where? Guess where. From Congress, the people's branch.

In December of 2004, Congress authorized the hiring of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents per year for 5 years; the hiring of an additional 800 Immigration investigators per year for 5 years to enforce our immigration laws, and the funding of 8,000 new detention beds for the holding of illegal aliens. But despite statements by Secretary of State Rice and statements by former Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Loy that al-Qaida is a threat on our porous borders, there was virtually nothing in the President's budget to provide these additional resources for border security--virtually nothing.

The bill that is before the Senate today commits real resources to securing our border with regard to transit and rail security.

When terrorists blew up trains last year in Madrid, Spain, the administration had no plan for securing transit and rail systems. The horrific bombings last week in London have raised the same questions that we raised last year. Could it happen here? Are we prepared? According to the RAND Corporation, between 1998 and 2003, there were approximately--I don't know why we say approximately 181, but there were 181 terrorist attacks on rail targets worldwide. Get that: According to the Congressional Research Service, rail systems in the United States carry about five times--now, get that. According to the Congressional Research Service, passenger rail systems such as Amtrak in the United States carry about five times as many passengers each day as do airlines.

Since 2001 I have offered seven different amendments to fund rail and transit security and all of them, all seven, were opposed by the administration and defeated: seven times.

Remember Robert Bruce? He was lying up there in the loft of that barn and he had lost six times. He was about to give up until he saw that spider try to swing his web from this corner to that corner. He watched it six times and it failed. On the seventh time, lo and behold, that spider made it. So Robert Bruce decided he would try it one more time; seven times he tried it, he made it.

That number reminds me of that number seven again. Jacob liked Rachel and he spoke to the old man--I refer to her father as the old man-- about that beautiful daughter. The old man decided he would drive a bargain. He said, You can have her, but you work 7 years for her. So Jacob worked 7 years. At the end of the seventh year he went to say to the prospective father-in-law, How about it? Now I have worked my 7 years, I have carried out my part of the bargain, how about this nice girl you have? I have come to get her.

The old man said, No, not yet. You work 7 more. I will give you Leah, Rachel's sister. You can't have Rachel. The Bible says that Leah was weak eyed. So all to his disgust, consternation, and sorrow, old Jacob had to work 7 more years for Rachel.

Here we are talking about seven times. Since 2001 I have offered seven different amendments to fund rail and transit security and all seven, all of them, were opposed by the administration and defeated. Despite opposition from the administration, it was the Congress that created the Rail and Transit Security Grant Program that was first funded in fiscal year 2005, and that is funded in this bill today.

I call on the administration to explain to the American people why the $150 million that Congress appropriated last year has not been given to rail and transit agencies to invest in more cameras, more locks, more canine teams, more training. I ask the Senate to approve additional funding for such grants for fiscal year 2006. The $100 million included in the bill is $50 million below last year. It is $1.6 billion below the level authorized for 2006 in bills that passed the Senate last year.

While this administration has been focussing on the last attack carried out by hijackers, not one of whom was from Iraq, very little attention has been given to other vulnerabilities in aviation security. While the Transportation Security Administration examines 100 percent of checked baggage, most of the cargo that is stored in the same passenger aircraft and on cargo planes is not inspected. The threat of a bomb on an aircraft is not new. In 1988, 259 passengers aboard a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, perished when a terrorist-placed bomb exploded while the aircraft was 31,000 feet in the sky. Three and a half years ago, Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with explosives he carried onto the aircraft.

Yet, for 3 straight fiscal years, it has been Congress, this body and the other body across the other end of the Capitol, that committed resources to address this problem. Since fiscal year 2004, Congress has added $85 million above the President's request to hire air cargo inspectors and to advance research of innovative technologies to detect explosives in air cargo.

What has the administration done with that funding? It has let $106 million sit in the Treasury. Six months after this fiscal year began, less than 12 percent of the funding appropriated for air cargo has been spent. I said this to the Secretary this morning. He will do better, he says. It is taking him a while to get his arms around this. I believe he will do better. Six months after this fiscal year began, less than 12 percent of the funding appropriated for air cargo has been spent. To make matters worse, the President's budget request for air cargo research and development in fiscal year 2006 was slashed in half.

The bill before the Senate continues the commitment to increasing the inspection of air cargo. I commend Chairman Gregg for that decision. Let me say it again: The bill before the Senate today, in this year of our Lord, this bill continues the commitment to increasing the inspection of air cargo. I commend Chairman Gregg for that decision.

When it comes to securing the Nation's chemical plant's--and I have lots of them down in the Kanawha Valley and Kanawha County, southern West Virginia when it comes to securing the Nation's chemical plants--I imagine we probably have maybe the second largest, if not the largest, concentration of chemical plants in the Northern Hemisphere right in Kanawha County or in West Virginia. When it comes to securing the Nation's chemical plants, the administration has been stuck in quicksand. We know the threat is real. The FBI has warned us about the threat. We know an attack at a chemical plant could cost millions of lives. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that 123 chemical facilities, if attacked, could threaten the lives of millions of people. My staff person says it would threaten the lives of over 1 million people. That is a lot of people.

For years, the administration has dragged its feet on securing our chemical facilities. For years, many in the Senate have pressed the administration

to do more, to show leadership. In response to my request, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO--I don't much like that second most recent name, the Government Accountability Office--the old GAO recently released a report concluding that of the 15,000 chemical facilities in the country, only 1,100 have complied with voluntary security standards. It has been more than 2 years since the GAO urged the EPA and DHS to develop a comprehensive strategy for the protection of our chemical plants.

Last month, the administration finally changed direction on the need to provide security standards to the chemical industry. However, the administration has not yet proposed a specific plan or identified resources to implement such standards.

This bill before the Senate includes two important directives related to the protection of our chemical facilities. First, it requires the Department to provide the committee the estimates of the resources needed to implement mandatory security requirements for the Nation's chemical sector. Second, it directs the Department to begin vulnerability assessments of the Nation's highest risk chemical facilities. I look forward to the administration following through with a specific plan.

The bill before the Senate today includes $200 million for port security grants, $50 million above the amount provided in fiscal year 2005. Once again, the administration's request was woefully inadequate. It is the Congress that has taken the lead, the people's branch.

With the $200 million included in this bill, Congress will have funded $843 million for port security grants since September 11. How much has the administration requested over that time? Hear me, hear me now. How much money has the administration requested over that time? A measly little $46 million. Can you believe it? With the $200 million included in this bill, Congress will have funded $843 million for port security grants since September 11. How much has the administration requested over that time, I ask again? A measly $46 million.

To make matters worse, the fiscal year 2006 request by the White House included a proposal to have ports compete against other nonaviation modes of transportation by lumping them together in a limited pot of funding.

More than 9 million cargo containers enter U.S. ports annually but only 18 percent are inspected. All it takes is a dirty bomb stuffed into one of those 9 million containers to cripple our economy. The $150 million Congress approved last October is still sitting in the Treasury. Why this administration continues to ignore the threat facing our seaports is mind-boggling. We cannot afford to wait for the next attack.

For each of the threats I have discussed today, the bill that is before the Senate continues congressional initiatives to secure our homeland.

Again and again, and I don't get tired of saying it, I commend Senator Cochran, the first chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for his leadership in 2003 and 2004. I again commend our new committee chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, for giving clear direction to the Department in the bill before the Senate. With the resources that have been made available to the committee, Chairman Gregg has produced a good bill. Regrettably, as a result of the President's proposal to increase airline passenger fees which the Appropriations Committee lacks the authority to approve, this bill does not have all of the resources it needs to meet known vulnerabilities. It is essential that the Department of Homeland Security be responsive, not bureaucratic, while the threat we face is massive, and it is clear our response to dealing with it is tepid and unfocused. It will take a commitment of energy, imagination, and, yes, more funding, to better secure our homeland. Again, I thank my chairman and the members of the staff on both sides for their excellent work and long hours, weekends, they have spent.

Mr. President, I referred to a letter which I had written to the Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, on June 13 of this year. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will not object to the chairman's amendment. We need additional funds for the SAFER Firefighter Hiring Program. But this amendment leaves the program to equip and train firefighters $150 million below fiscal year 2005. Last year the Department received $2.76 billion of eligible applications and could only approve 25 percent of the applications. In response to this incredible demand for firefighting funds, the bill will cut firefighter equipment and training grants from $650 million to $500 million. So while I don't oppose the chairman's amendment, I put the Senate on notice that I will offer an amendment to restore the cuts in equipment and training for our firefighters. I hope the Senate will agree to the pending amendment.

No objection.

I ask unanimous consent Sean MacKenzie, a Coast Guard detailee to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, be given floor privileges during consideration of H.R. 2360.

Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to my friend Ted Stevens. Ours is a long friendship, and it will be as long as the days we both live. He is going to go fishing. He loves to fish. He loves to go back to his State, which he so ably represents, and which has accorded him the great title of ``Alaska's Son of the 20th Century.'' Indeed, he is one who is entitled to that kind of recognition and respect.

Mr. President, many Americans will soon enjoy a long 3-day weekend, courtesy of the Fourth of July, which this year falls on a Monday.

The Fourth of July is a wonderful time. Summer's heat has not yet worn us down. School has not been out so long that the days have begun to drag for the younger set--or for their parents. We are not tired of the season or of each other. The growth of the grass has slowed, so that weekends are not spent on mowing and yard work, but leaves some time for picnics and pools. Gardens are beginning to pour forth their bounty, but not yet in such abundance that we have become desperate to unload mounds of zucchini and tomatoes. Wild blackberries. I remember when I was a boy, reaching around the shed and picking off a few wild blackberries and having the color of the blackberries stain my lips. Wild blackberries are ripening along the edges of fields and the heavy perfume of honeysuckle vines makes rural walks a feast--a feast-- for the senses. The Fourth of July is a perfect time to glory in the gentle bounty of our Nation and of our Nation's families. Independence Day, together with Thanksgiving and Christmas, remains a uniquely family-oriented celebration. When Americans reflect on our freedom, our security, our liberties, our many blessings, we like to do it among our closest friends and family.

Fourth of July parades--oh man, man, man, they will bring out the crowds along community main streets, big towns, little towns, middle- size towns. Small hands--I can just see them, can't you?--small hands, little hands will clutch miniature flags as firetrucks roll past in all of their shining glory. Floats made by church groups, scout troops, and 4-H clubs will compete, each hoping to demonstrate the greatest patriotism.

After the parades, there will be family picnics and barbecues that host their own friendly competition as family cooks show off their talents at the grill or on tables laden with traditional favorites such as creamy macaroni and potato salad, slow-cooked baked beans--oh, how good they taste--deviled eggs, and chocolate cake.

The menu is not as important, however, as the feeling of family solidarity as everyone settles in after a splendid meal to watch the cascading displays of fireworks set off in the growing dusk. With the exception of some small children and family pets, such as my little dog, Trouble, that howl at the thunderous booms and high-pitched squeals of some fireworks, the general response to the evening's finale is usually a unanimous ``oooh'' after each bloom of sparks.

Even the earliest Independence Day celebrations were marked by similar displays of patriotism, often including the discharge of cannons, one for each State in the Union, and toasts, also one for each State in the Union.

On July 3, 1776, John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail and said:

Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was

debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will

be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one

dissenting colony, that those United Colonies are, and of

right ought to be, free and independent States.

That resolution was on separation from England. It was not until July 4 that the Declaration of Independence--the Declaration of Independence, there it is with my wife Erma's name on the front of the leather cover. It contains the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, yes, and the Declaration of Independence, and some other historic documents.

The Declaration of Independence was voted upon by the Continental Congress. Adams felt that the July 2 date was the one that would be marked by celebration, but the physical presence of the declaration document, along with its stirring rhetoric, allowed it to easily usurp the separation vote tally as the turning point in history.

Eighty copies of the original declaration were printed that same night, July 4, for distribution among the rebelling colonies.

At the very first Independence Day celebrations, those spontaneous ones that followed in the days and weeks after the Declaration of Independence was adopted and distributed, the Declaration of Independence was itself a central part of the festivity, read aloud to the crowds gathered at capitols, courthouses, and public places around the newly declared nation. In New York, the Declaration of Independence was read at the head of each brigade of the Continental Army posted around the city, to loud hurrahs--loud hurrahs.

Today, as proud inhabitants of a powerful and wealthy nation, it can be difficult to recall that in 1776, the celebrations of independence must be seen as

acts of incredible bravado. In 1776, the population of the United States was estimated to be between 2.2 million and 2.9 million people dispersed over an enormous swath of lightly populated country. Some 70,000 British loyalists had fled the new United States after independence was declared. The remaining tiny population was taking on the British empire at the height of her power--a colossus five times larger in terms of population that was the greatest and richest in history since the fall of Rome and the recent victor of wars against France and Spain that left her in sole possession of much of the North American Continent. To wave flags and shoot off fireworks in celebration of the Declaration of Independence from such a behemoth was tantamount to a junior varsity football team taking on the entire National Football League for the Super Bowl and thumbing their noses to boot. In point of fact, it took everything the new Nation had to eke out a victory. There were many points during the Revolution at which the outcome was far from certain.

Even in the aftermath of victory, the future of the new Nation was fragile. Burdened by war debt, exhausted, struggling to form a workable government out of 13 highly independent new States, the new Nation limped along without even an established capital. It was not until the Constitution was drafted in 1787 and the new Capital established in Washington, DC, that the new Nation took on a sense of stability and permanence. On July 4, 1801, President Thomas Jefferson, the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, opened the White House to guests while the Marine Band played patriotic music on the lawn and militia units conducted military drills with fixed bayonets.

Independence Day celebrations were conducted far from Washington as well. Two hundred years ago, July 4, 1805, found the Lewis and Clark expedition traveling along the upper Missouri River in Montana. LT William Clark noted in his journal that the group honored the day with as much of a feast as they could muster, drank the last of their brandy, and pulled out the fiddle for dancing and merriment until ``a late hour.'' I am especially pleased to note that fiddle playing was part of the day's celebration. In my younger days, family gatherings always included some fiddle playing, a little singing, and maybe a little dancing. It is a tradition as old as the Fourth of July.

I hope, Mr. President, that on this Independence Day, many Americans may enjoy a little fiddle music--it keeps you down to Earth--a healthy dollop of patriotism, and the pleasure of family. As we celebrate the day with friends and families at home or out amid our Nation's beautiful wild spaces, I hope all of our citizens will spare a moment or two to read the Declaration of Independence. Let us remember that each person who signed that Declaration of Independence virtually was signing his own death warrant. After all, they could have been charged with treason against the King and hanged. Think of it.

The colonists rebelled against a government that was arbitrary, unjust, high handed, and unwilling to even hear the concerns of those it governed. They rebelled against a tyrant who made the military independent of and superior to civil authority, who imposed taxes without their consent, deprived them of the benefits of trial by jury, cut off their trade, abolished their laws, and fundamentally altered the form of government, suspended their legislatures, captured their people at sea, and forced them to bear arms against the colonists, and ignored their pleas for justice, these things among many other grievances.

On the Fourth of July, Americans celebrate and honor the tremendous vision of our Founding Fathers, their incredible courage, and their willingness to take on a fight that must have seemed a desperate gamble. We celebrate a document that laid out for all the world to see just what kind of a nation we aim to be and just what kind of a government we would never stand for--we should never stand for.

The Declaration of Independence is more than a piece of paper. The Declaration of Independence is more than a piece of history. It is a vow for the future, a call to battle, and the cornerstone of a new nation. As we watch the flags snap and pop in the breeze as the parade swings past, recall the words of the Declaration that put troops on the march to take on the King's armies. Each citizen, each family, has much to be grateful for as a result of that document.

And so, Mr. President, let me read briefly from that beautiful Declaration:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary

for one people to dissolve the political bands which have

connected them with another, and to assume among the powers

of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the

Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent

respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should

declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these

rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever

any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it

is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to

institute new Government, laying its foundation on such

principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them

shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

On this Fourth of July, let us honor and let us recall the generations of brave Americans who have fought on and off the battlefield to preserve our freedom, and then let us remember the words of Henry Van Dyke's poem ``America For Me.''

Tis fine to see the old world, and travel up and down

Among the famous palaces and cities of renown,

To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings;

But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things.

So it's home again, and home again, America for me!

My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be,

In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars,

Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of

stars.

Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air;

And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair;

And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study in

Rome

But when it comes to living there is just no place like home.

I like the German firwoods, in green battalions drilled;

I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains

filled;

But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day in

the friendly [West Virginia hills] where nature has her

way!

I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack:

The past is too much with her, and the people looking back.

But the glory of the present is to make the future free;

We love our land for what she is and what she is to be.

Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me!

I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling

sea,

To the blessed land of room enough beyond the ocean bars,

Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of

stars.

--Henry Van Dyke.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

(The remarks of Mr. Bennett pertaining to the introduction of S. 1379 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator, and I would appreciate if he would add my name as a co-sponsor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator, and I would appreciate if he would add my name as a co-sponsor.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on April 6 of this year, Senator Dorgan and I introduced S. Res. 100, a resolution to prevent a 2-year extension of the so-called fast track or trade promotion authority, which the Congress granted the administration in the Trade Act of 2002. If our resolution were approved, existing fast-track negotiating authority would expire this year. If only it would. If only it would. Wouldn't it be ideal if it would expire? I think so. But, instead, it will be extended through 2007. That is a crying shame.

Senator Dorgan and I introduced that resolution of disapproval to fast track because we oppose giving any executive--any chief executive, Democrat or Republican--the unfettered authority to negotiate trade agreements such as CAFTA which cannot be amended by the Congress. It cannot be amended. All of this praise I hear of CAFTA--we have too little time here to consider and no time to amend. We cannot amend. Too little time. Too much praise. Too much short shrift. Too much short shrift is given to this, the Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand. Yes, too much praise, too little time, too much short shrift.

I opposed fast track when it was used to negotiate the NAFTA; I opposed fast track when it was used to negotiate the Uruguay Round; and I oppose fast track today.

Let me restate what I have said so many times--so many times--in the past, something that I think people may be finally beginning to comprehend. Article I, section 8 of this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, states that the Congress--hear me--that the Congress, not the executive, shall have the power to ``regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.'' And under Article I, section 7, the Senate is permitted to ``propose or concur with'' amendments to all revenue bills.

But under fast track--this shabby, shabby piece of trash--under fast track--this trumped-up power grab called fast track which is now disingenuously called trade promotion authority--listen to that: trade promotion authority--the Congress is left with no ability to modify the text of these trade agreements. And we did it to ourselves. Congress did it to itself. As a result, they are negotiated by a small band of bureaucratic gnomes--bureaucratic gnomes--accountable to whom? Accountable to no one, bureaucratic gnomes accountable to no one. But we should not blame them. We should blame ourselves. The Congress of the United States cut its own throat.

Under fast track, the Congress cannot modify, the Congress cannot amend, the Congress cannot delete any section of trade agreements negotiated by the USTR. Congress is excluded from the process, just like we did to ourselves when we shifted the power to declare war to a President, one man. We did it to ourselves. We shifted power under this Constitution--lodged

in the Congress, which shall declare war under this Constitution--we shifted that power to one man, and in so doing we relegated ourselves to the sideline.

So today what can we say? We cannot say anything. We did it to ourselves. We said: Here, Mr. President, take it. It is yours, lock, stock, and barrel. That is what we did when it came to declaring war. And we are paying for it in Iraq.

But let's get back on this matter. We did it to ourselves again. We excluded ourselves from the process. We cut ourselves out of the loop. We cast ourselves aside, like excess baggage, shunned, shunned like the woman who wore the scarlet letter.

But unlike Nathaniel Hawthorne's Hester Prynne, who had to sport only one letter as a symbol of her wrongdoing, the shamed in this story should be forced to wear three letters to highlight their humiliation. And those letters are ``TPA,'' which stands for ``trade promotion authority.'' What a misnomer. How disingenuous can we become? Fast- track negotiating authority is an abomination--an abomination.

Is this what we think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created our three separate branches of Government? We don't pay too much attention to that these days. Is this what they had in mind when they created our three separate branches of Government? First, in this Constitution, the legislative branch, then the executive branch, then the judicial branch. But that first branch, the people's branch, is this what they had in mind when they created that first branch? Blind adherence to agreements negotiated behind closed doors, dictated word for word by only one branch of the Government, the executive branch? Is that what they had in mind? That is not what the Constitution says. It says that the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce.

But the Congress, like blind mice or hyperactive lemmings, time and time and time again just keeps on making the same mistake. It approves fast track. Each agreement negotiated under fast track destroys more American jobs and leads our Nation into deeper and deeper deficits.

The overall U.S. trade deficit in 1993, when NAFTA was enacted, was $75.7 billion. Today what is it? Not $75.7 billion. It is nearly $700 billion. Back in 1993--that hasn't been too long ago, back in 1993--the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of $2.4 billion. Not too long ago, 1993. Look backward, O time, in thy flight. We had a trade surplus with Mexico of $2.4 billion in 1993, $2.4 billion. Last year we ran a trade deficit of $45 billion with Mexico. There you have it. The facts speak for themselves. Were these some of the promised benefits of NAFTA? It is too easy to forget. Were these some of the promised benefits of NAFTA? Sky high, yes, way up in the stratosphere, sky-high trade deficits? Since NAFTA and the Uruguay Round were negotiated under fast track, the United States has lost thousands--thousands, I say--of manufacturing and service jobs, a substantial portion of which have been outsourced--we hear much of that word these days, ``outsourced''-- to India or to China, leaving American workers' jobs without health care and with diminished pensions.

I have seen it over and over again in West Virginia. I have seen it happen time and time and time and time again, firsthand, in West Virginia. It has happened in our steel industry in West Virginia. It has happened in the aluminum industry. It has happened in the glass industry. It has happened in the communications industry. It has happened in the special metals industry. It has happened in the furniture industry. It has happened in textiles. It has happened in handtools. Were these the promised benefits of NAFTA? Were these the promised benefits of the Uruguay Round? Who could have foreseen that these agreements would cause such massive dislocation, such grief? Who? Who?

I will tell you who: Those of us who wisely voted against them. I did, and so did about a third of the U.S. Senate. But the majority back then refused to see what was coming. The majority refused to look. The majority blindfolded itself and refused to see what was coming. I hope they recognize what they see today.

Administrations like to allege that because they sometimes deign to ``consult'' with the Congress on fast track trade agreements, their consultations satisfy the need of Congress to be involved in drafting the text of these agreements. We all know what a sham that is. Yes, they condescend to consult with Congress, the people's elected representatives. The President is indirectly elected by the electors, the representatives of the people. We are elected by the people, directly by the people. I come here, as it were, directly from the voting booth of the people. Despite all the assurances we heard during the 2002 trade debate, I have been told that even members of the Finance Committee, the Senate Committee that is charged with jurisdiction over trade matters, have been shut out. Can you believe it? Let me say that again. I can hardly believe what I am saying.

Despite all the assurances we heard during the 2002 trade debate, I have been told that even members of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate committee that is charged with jurisdiction over trade matters, have been shut out of substantive consultations on CAFTA. My, how the mighty have fallen. Since only certain members of the Finance Committee are part of the congressional oversight group which was supposedly created in 2002 to ``consult'' with the White House, other Senators on the Finance Committee who are not a part of that group have rarely been consulted on CAFTA at all. What kind of consultation is that? What kind?

Similarly, the majority-controlled Senate Finance Committee refused to hold a hearing on the TPA resolution of disapproval that Senator Dorgan and I introduced in April. The committee also refused--maybe I should say ``declined''--to discharge the resolution so it could receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

You hear that a lot around here, this demand for an up-or-down vote. I hear it said that nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. Who said that? The President and others say the nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. Here is the Constitution. It doesn't say that. What do the American people deserve? That is what counts.

Well, the Senate leadership refused to give our resolution an up-or- down vote. Instead, they killed it in committee. It died a natural death. They killed it in committee, despite a written request asking for its discharge that was sent by Senators Dorgan, Graham, Rockefeller, Johnson, Levin, Inouye, Dayton, and myself.

The proponents of fast track, TPA, and CAFTA argue that by expanding free trade in Central America we will help the workers in those countries--I have heard some of that today--become more stable and less of a national security threat. That is what we were told about NAFTA. What happened? Did NAFTA stabilize immigration? No. Since NAFTA was implemented, the number of those migrating illegally into the United States to seek work has doubled. Perhaps this is because the wages of Mexican workers have declined and the number of people in poverty there has grown.

Yet the administration wants us to enact now another NAFTA, this time called CAFTA--NAFTA, CAFTA; NAFTA CAFTA. Poetic, isn't it? It has a rhyming sound. NAFTA, CAFTA. Yesterday NAFTA, today CAFTA, what the AFL-CIO tells us will not require its members to maintain or improve their labor laws or to protect the core labor rights of their workers.

So the administration continues to negotiate these failed free-trade agreements, when it should be focusing on the real trade crises that face our Nation.

For example, while the administration has been spending its resources on these agreements, it is doing nothing to address our Nation's enormous trade deficit, which soon will surpass $700 billion. What a deficit--$700 billion.

I am so sorry about that, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that I may be given 5 more minutes.

I thank the Chair for his courtesy. May I say that the chairman

of the Finance Committee is a man whom I like. He is always friendly, always courteous to me, and in Shakespeare's words, ``He's a man after my own kidney.''

The administration also refuses to bring WTO cases against other countries that violate international law. Yet it acquiesces when the WTO unfairly and deliberately twists international rules to strike down our own laws. In fact, the current administration has taken on only 12 cases to the WTO in over 4 years, compared with its predecessor, which filed an average of 11 WTO cases per year.

The U.S. Trade Representative sits idly by while the WTO tries to undermine and/or eliminate our most critical trade laws, including the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as the Byrd amendment. A strong majority of the Senate supports the Byrd amendment, and this law will not be repealed or modified in response to the WTO. In fact, in the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts both Houses of Congress directed the administration to start negotiating a solution to this WTO dispute. In response to this congressional mandate, the administration, in early 2004, submitted a proposal to a negotiating group in Geneva to reverse this WTO ruling against our law. But the administration has done nothing to advance those negotiations since April 2004. The administration needs to stop stalling and start solving this problem.

History shows that it is a big mistake for the Congress to cede its authority to negotiate trade agreements to the Executive--and I am not just talking about this administration. I have been in Congress 53 years, and it is the same in every administration, Democratic and Republican. They follow the State Department line all the time--because the outcome of those agreements can have disastrous consequences for American industry.

How much more negative history, how many more flawed consequences must our Nation suffer before we wake up and realize that fast track has been a disaster? Instead of negotiating more unfair, at any rate, agreements such as CAFTA, we should be fighting aggressively to preserve our Nation's trade laws and to protect the American workers and their families, and also protect the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want, first to compliment the subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, Senator Peter Domenici, and the ranking member, Senator Harry Reid, for the outstanding job they have done in putting together this bill. The well- being of the Nation depends greatly upon adequate investments in the many programs and activities contained in this bill.

Through this measure, we are supporting the backbone of our Nation's water transportation and flood protection programs through the Army Corps of Engineers; the irrigation water supply systems for the western States through the Bureau of Reclamation; the protection of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; the advancement of science programs to help ensure that the United States remains a leader in the international scientific community; a number of independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Denali Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority; and now, due to the restructuring of subcommittee jurisdictions, the entire Department of Energy, DOE.

As part of that restructuring, the Energy and Water Subcommittee was charged with oversight and appropriations responsibilities for the fossil energy research and development, R&D, within the Department of Energy. Senator Domenici and I have long worked on these programs, and I thank him and Senator Reid and their staffs for their hard work, diligence, and support for fossil energy research in this bill.

Through the Fossil Energy R&D programs, DOE supports research involving economically and environmentally sound use of our Nation's domestically produced fossil energy resources. It forges partnerships between Government and industry to accelerate the development, demonstration, and deployment of advanced technologies that show promise in helping to ensure cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable energy, now and in the future.

While the subcommittee did not hold a fiscal year 2006 budget hearing on the fossil energy R&D programs this spring, I appreciate Senator Domenici's commitment to hold annual oversight hearings on the fossil energy programs beginning next year. I look forward to participating in these hearings as our fossil energy resources will continue to be important to this Nation.

I would also like to mention that the clean coal program, which falls under the fossil energy portfolio, has been critical to the development of cleaner, low-carbon fossil energy technologies.

I created the Clean Coal Technology program in 1985, and I am very proud to report that after five solicitations, 32 projects have been completed, with a combined value of $3.7 billion Government/industry investments to develop advanced technologies that are resulting in cleaner, more efficient, and more cost-effective power generation.

The subsequent Clean Coal Power Initiative, started by President Bush in 2000, was to be a $2 billion demonstration program over 10 years, consisting of four rounds of solicitations. The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request of $50 million falls woefully short of being able to keep the CCPI on a 2-year solicitation schedule. However, I am very appreciative of the additional $50 million that was provided

by Senators Domenici and Reid, at my request. This funding will help to pave the way for a third CCPI solicitation in the near future.

If we ever hope to increase our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign energy resources, and develop fossil energy technologies that allow us to burn coal with little to no pollution, we must adequately invest in these critical programs. There are no better champions for energy research than Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, and me. We have been able not only to authorize initiatives so critical to America's energy independence, but we also have been able to direct resources to those important efforts and keep them adequately funded for at least another year.

On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, the Senate passed a bipartisan Energy bill, and I was happy to support that bill. It is generally a positive bill, but it is also very much of a business-as-usual approach toward energy policy. This bill simply provides authorization for new and existing programs related to energy policy. Despite the fact that the administration is strongly pressing for an Energy bill, I have to wonder if the necessary funding to support this legislation will ever emerge in subsequent administration budgets.

Certainly, the administration's track record on funding other important measures like No Child Left Behind makes one wonder if energy funding will face continued shortfalls despite the prized rhetoric and Rose Garden ceremonies. Due to very constrained budget allocations, the Appropriations Committee is likely to find it extremely difficult to maintain funding for current energy programs, to say nothing of adding funding for the new or expanded energy programs in an Energy bill.

At least for the next fiscal year, the Senate's mark for the fossil energy programs will keep these programs moving in the right direction, despite the administration's budget cuts. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and their staff, Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, Emily Brunini, Drew Willison, and Nancy Olkewicz, for their extraordinary efforts in this regard and for producing a bill that I believe we can all support.

Mr. President, yesterday I voted for both of the amendments offered by Senators Burns and Boxer in relation to studies that test pesticides on humans. I believe that they are both partially right. We should not cut off vital products from the market that are needed and used in our homes, businesses, and farms. Using the best available scientific data is essential in assuring the public that these valuable products are safe and also readily available. Senator Burns's amendment would support a thorough review of human dosing studies to make sure that they comport with certain conditions and would report back to the authorizing committees as well as the Appropriations Committee.

At the same time, the EPA should establish strong scientific and ethical standards on studies that expose people, especially young children, to various pesticides, fungicides, and other toxins that are used in commerce. I am concerned that the now-halted study on small children from Jacksonville, FL is an irresponsible example of how to conduct such reviews. Strong standards should apply both to the agency's own studies as well as to third-party studies. Important questions have been raised about the protocols and guidelines of certain studies, and therefore it is only prudent to step back for a year to scrutinize that process. For this reason, I voted for the Boxer amendment.

I hope that the study required by the Burns amendment will be carried out

in a timely and responsible way and provide the necessary information so that approach decisions can be made about the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making standards applying to the studies human dosing and their toxic effects.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to Senator Smith for a brief statement without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, there is a crisis in the veterans health care system. The VA has belatedly admitted it is desperately short of cash and cannot make ends meet. What are the results? As a result, our veterans are in real danger of being shut off from the medical care they so urgently need and so rightly deserve. They are already suffering the indignity and the physical toll of understaffed medical facilities and dangerous delays in treatment. This is a shabby way to treat America's veterans.

There are some who will say it is premature to add emergency funding for the VA to this bill and that we need to wait for more data to be collected and more numbers to be crunched. I say we have waited too long already. We have been hearing since the beginning of the year of the difficulties the current budget shortfall has caused the VA hospitals and clinics around the country. Due to budget shortfalls at the regional level, many of our local VA hospitals and clinics are being forced to institute hiring freezes and having to spend money set aside for equipment and maintenance on health care.

Let me give Senators one example. According to information gathered by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Togus Veterans Medical Center in Maine came up against a $14.2 million shortfall in mid-January for this fiscal year. To reduce the budget gap to $7 million, the center has diverted funds intended for equipment and left staff vacancies unfilled. The facility has not been able to purchase a needed magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, machine due to the budget shortfall.

That is just one example. The administration's plan to deal with the current shortfall includes postponing $600 million worth of repairs and equipment such as the MRI machine that the Togus Medical Center cannot afford to provide to its clients. Sophisticated diagnostic and imaging machines that produce MRIs, high-resolution X-rays, Sonograms, and CAT scans are essential to the delivery of first-rate health care.

We cannot have first-class health care in an outdated facility with second-class equipment. I am not willing to postpone fixing the roofs of clinics or purchasing needed equipment, and the VA should not be willing to do so either.

The people at the VA headquarters do not like to talk about these problems. They would like us to believe that everything is just fine. But from the stories many of us--many of us on both sides of the aisle--are hearing from our own States, we know better. The doctors and the nurses and the medical technicians in the field who are working in these understaffed, underequipped facilities, also know better. And our veterans--our veterans, the men and women who have put their lives on the line; our veterans--who are bearing the brunt of the budget shortfall know better, also.

The Department of Veterans Affairs continues to claim that it can work around the budget shortfalls this year, but to do so, they will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. By deferring spending for some items and shuffling money around in other accounts, the VA is just pushing the problem off into next year and compounding the difficulties already facing the VA health care system. Even Secretary Jim Nicholson admits that this is not a one-time problem. According to his testimony yesterday before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, the VA faces a budget shortfall of about $1.5 billion--$1.5 billion, with a capital ``B''--in fiscal year

2006. Mind you, now, mind you, Mr. President, this is on top--this is on top--of the $1-billion-plus shortfall the VA is experiencing this year.

Senator Patty Murray warned of this shortfall 2 months ago. She was right. She was right then and she is right now. One does not wait for depth soundings to throw a lifeline to a drowning man, and we should not wait for the administration to keep testing the water before we throw a lifeline to our deserving veterans. The crisis in veterans' health care is now--now--now--and the time to act is now, today.

The Murray-Byrd-Feinstein amendment addresses the current shortfall. Our amendment provides $1.42 billion to restore the funding that the VA has had to divert from current requirements to balance the books this year and to provide a much needed shot of supplemental funding to the VA's regional operations.

I understand that our colleague, Senator Larry Craig and others, as a result of his Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing yesterday, intend to offer a second-degree amendment to the Murray-Byrd-Feinstein amendment today that would round up--or round off--the amount of 2005 supplemental funding for the VA from $1.42 billion to $1.5 billion. I welcome Senator Craig's initiative. I hope we can come to an agreement that the entire Senate can support. And I look forward, to cosponsoring Senator Craig's modification.

Make no mistake about it, this amendment addresses only the administration's shortfall for 2005, which is why we are designating these funds as emergency funds. This will not solve the problem in fiscal year 2006 or beyond. To address those problems, we call on the administration--we call on the White House--to send up a 2006 VA budget amendment immediately and to budget responsibly for veterans health care in future budget requests.

But we cannot afford to wait until next year to address the immediate shortfall in the 2005 VA budget. This is not business as usual. This is not business as usual. The ability of the VA to deliver health care to scores and more scores of veterans is at stake. I welcome my Republican colleagues to the table. Come, sit down. Join us. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle--over to my right and those on my left--to do the right thing for our Nation's veterans. The VA needs this money now. The Senate has both the opportunity and the obligation to provide it now. Let us not delay.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the other Senators, including Senator Craig, for their offering of this amendment. As I indicated earlier, I want to be a cosponsor of the amendment, and I ask the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania if he would ask that I be included as a cosponsor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the very distinguished senior Senator from the State of Texas for her leadership, her dedication. She is a member of the Appropriations Committee, a very fine member. I thank her for her leadership, and I thank her for her kind remarks today.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve Borchard, a congressional fellow in Senator Reid's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Interior appropriations bill.