Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I wonder how much time the minority will give to me?

I shall proceed.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the history of freedom of speech in the Senate, about the cloture rule which, when invoked, limits debate, a bit about the background here that might help all Senators if they care to read or listen, and the people out there who are listening, help them to understand a little more about what this is all about.

It is a matter of very great interest to the country and to the Republicans and to Democrats and to independents, to people from all walks of life. It is in that spirit that I seek to talk just a little while about this subject which is of great concern. I hope to have more to say on another day, but today I will limit myself to talking about the background, what this is all about, and the history that brings us to where we are today.

In recognition that the duty imposed on the President faithfully to execute the law requires persons sympathetic to his program, the Senate traditionally has given the President great leeway in choosing his policymaking subordinates, especially those in his Cabinet and those in sub-Cabinet positions. The Senate has more or less uniformly followed this practice, as a matter of grace and in the spirit of cooperation, to ensure that the executive branch functions as a team in implementing and enforcing the laws.

What has been the fairly general practice with respect to the appointment of executive branch policymakers, however, has not always applied to judicial nominations, and the arguments to the contrary are at odds with the separation of powers doctrine, common sense and history.

The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and gives Congress the power, in its discretion, to constitute inferior tribunals; nowhere in the blueprint of our Government is it hinted--is it even hinted; nowhere is it even hinted--that the high Court or any other Federal court is the President's court.

Some may say, well, the President should have his own Cabinet. He should have his Cabinet. He should be able to choose his Cabinet. And there is considerable weight to be given to that point of view. But I do not think that any of us should maintain that the President is entitled to have his own court. That is the point.

So nothing in the Constitution suggests that either the Justices or the judges should be the President's men. Let me say that again. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that either the Justices or judges should be the President's men or women, as it were. In fact, the Constitution refutes this notion by granting Federal judges lifetime tenure and by making their compensation inviolable.

The men who met in Philadelphia in that hot summer of 1787 were practical statesmen. They were experienced in politics, statesmen who viewed the principle of separation of powers as a vital check against tyranny. And so I ask, can a rubber stamp be ``a vital check against tyranny''? If the Framers had intended the Senate simply to endorse the President's selections, the Senate could have been left out of the process altogether. Clearly, the men who met at Philadelphia, nearly 219 years ago, had in mind a more substantive role for the Senate.

The Senate has more than once flexed its political muscles to reject a Presidential nominee, including the rejection or withdrawal of 15 Cabinet nominations and 26 Supreme Court nominations. Confirmation power is one of the major constitutional provisions that separates the Senate from

the other body, the House of Representatives. It has been the subject of numerous articles, books, novels, and even motion pictures.

As early as Henry IV, who reigned from 1399 to 1413, English Parliaments effectively controlled the King's royal council and household. Several officials of Henry IV's household were dismissed at the insistence of the House of Commons. Both the household officials and the members of ``the great and continual council'' were named in Parliament.

So I say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, who presently presides over the Senate, with a degree of aplomb and grace and dignity that is so rare as a day in June, that the Senate routinely debated nominations in closed session in the beginning.

John Tyler was the first Vice President to become President on the death of the incumbent. Early in the Tyler administration, President Tyler broke with the Whig majority in the Senate, which thereafter frustrated his efforts to appoint his own supporters to office. Nothing in the Senate's history has ever, ever matched the spectacle that occurred on March 3, 1843, the last day of the Senate's session, when President Tyler came to the Capitol, just down the hall, to sign legislation and to submit last-minute nominations.

Tyler nominated Caleb Cushing to be Secretary of the Treasury, not once, not twice, but three times that night. Are you listening? Three times. And each time, the Senate rejected Cushing by an even larger margin than before, the votes being, as recorded in the Senate Executive Journal, 19 for to 27 against, then 10 for to 27 against, and on the third time, 2 for Caleb Cushing and 29 against.

Three times President Tyler named Henry A. Wise to be Minister to France--that same evening--and Wise, too, was thrice rejected.

Senator Thomas Hart Benton reported that ``nominations and rejections flew backwards and forwards in a game of shuttlecock.'' In all--in all--the Senate turned down four of President Tyler's Cabinet nominees: in addition to Cushing, David Henshaw as Secretary of the Navy, James M. Porter as Secretary of War, and James S. Green as Secretary of the Treasury. And that ain't all. The Senate turned down four of President Tyler's nominees to the Supreme Court: John C. Spencer, Reuben H. Walworth, Edward King, and John M. Read. It is a record of rejection unmatched--unmatched--by any other President. What a spectacle.

``History,'' wrote the poet Byron, ``with all her volumes vast, hath but one page.'' Byron was saying there that history does repeat itself, so it only needs one page.

We should do well, then, Mr. President, to look backward into the past where we shall find that due diligence by the Senate in fulfilling its ``advice and consent'' responsibility in the appointment process has been, in Hamilton's words, ``an efficacious source of stability'' in the Government of the Republic.

Mr. President, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Thomas Jefferson quoted ``Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons,'' as follows. Here is what Mr. Onslow had to say:

It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man,

from old and experienced Members-- like myself--

that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of

administration, and [into the hands of] those who acted with

the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or

departure from, the rules--

``the rules''--

of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our

ancestors--

yours and mine--

operated as a check and control on the actions of the

majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter

and protection to the minority, against the attempts of

power.

Now, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that whether the rules of a legislative body:

. . . be in all cases the most rational or not is really not

of so great importance. It is much more material that there

should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there

may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to

the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members. It

is very material that order, decency and regularity be

preserved in a dignified public body.

Therefore, Mr. President, all legislative bodies need rules to follow if they are to transact business in an orderly fashion, and if they are to operate fairly--I have heard that word used a good bit here-- efficiently, and expeditiously.

On April 7, 1789, the day after a quorum of Senators had appeared--so you see the Senate just goes back to April 6, 1789--a special committee was created to ``prepare a system of rules for conducting business.'' The committee consisted of Senators Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, William Maclay of Pennsylvania, and Richard Bassett of Delaware. All five of these committee members were lawyers. Each had served in his State legislature, the procedures of which were indebted to colonial and English experience. Two had served in the Continental Congress, which was also indebted to colonial and English precedents, and three had participated in the Constitutional Convention, whose members had created the Senate.

Obstructive tactics--we have heard a lot about that lately--in a legislative forum, although not always known as filibusters, are of ancient origin. Plutarch reported that when Caesar returned to Rome after his sojourn in Spain, his arrival happened at the time of the election of consuls. ``He applied to the Senate for permission to stand candidate,'' but Cato--Cato the Younger--strongly opposed his request and ``attempted to prevent his success by gaining time; with which view he spun out the debate till it was too late to conclude anything that day.''

The sun went down. That ended the debate.

Filibusters were also a problem in the British Parliament. In 19th century England, even the members of the Cabinet accepted the tactics of obstruction as an appropriate weapon to defeat House of Commons initiatives that were not acceptable to the government.

Now, in this country, I say to the Presiding Officer and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and my other colleagues, experience with protracted debate began early. In the first session of the First Congress--that is going back quite a ways. I have only lived one-fourth of all the time that has transpired since that First Congress convened. But in the first session of the First Congress, for example, there was a lengthy discussion regarding the permanent site for the location for the capital. How about that. Fisher Ames, a Member of the House from Massachusetts, complained that ``the minority . . . make every exertion to . . . delay the business.'' That is what we are talking about. That sounds like a filibuster, doesn't it? Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania complained that ``every endeavor was used to waste time.''

That sounds like a filibuster, doesn't it? Well, long speeches and other obstructionist tactics were more characteristic of the House than of the Senate in the early years. So it started over there. But the House, on February 27, 1811, ``decided . . . that after previous question was decided in the affirmative, the main question should not be debated.'' So there you have it. They moved the previous question. That still is done in the other body. The practice of limiting debate dates back to 1604--my, that is over 400 years; that is 401 years--when Sir Henry Vane first introduced the idea in the British Parliament. Known in parliamentary procedure as the ``previous question,'' it is described in section XXXIV of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, as follows. Here is the way Thomas Jefferson explained the previous question:

When any question is before the House, any Member may move

a previous question . . . --

That is the way it is done over in the House, Mr. President: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question--

whether that question (called the main question) shall now be

put.

Mr. Speaker, they say in the House: I move the previous question.

Jefferson went on to say:

If it pass in the affirmative, then the main question to be

put immediately, and no man may speak anything further to it,

either to add or alter.

That is Thomas Jefferson speaking through his writing. The journals of the Continental Congress record that the previous question was used in 1778. Get that. This is the Continental Congress. When did it first meet? It first

met in 1774, the First Continental Congress. So the journals of the Continental Congress record that the previous question was used in 1778. Section 10 of the rules of the Continental Congress read:

While a question is before the House, no motion shall be

received, unless for an amendment, for the previous question,

to postpone the consideration of the main question, or to

commit to.

The rules adopted by the Senate in April 1789 included a motion for the previous question. According to historian George H. Haynes, when Vice President Aaron Burr delivered his farewell address to the Senate in March 1805--200 years ago--he, Aaron Burr, the Vice President of the United States, ``recommended the discarding of the previous question,'' because in the preceding 4 years during which he had presided over the Senate, it had ``been taken but once, and then upon an amendment.''

So, Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, who is presiding, and other Senators, when the rules of the Senate were codified in 1806--that was the first revision of the rules, in 1806-- reference to the previous question was omitted. The previous question allowed the Senate to terminate debate: Mr. President, I move the previous question. Or in the House: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. If that gained a majority, no further debate. The previous question will be voted on.

In 1806, when the rules of the Senate were first codified, reference to the previous question was omitted. Since then it had only been used 10 times from the years 1789 to 1806, and it has never--it has never, it has never--been restored.

Henry Clay, in 1841, proposed the introduction of the previous question. Here we have Henry Clay proposing that they bring back the previous question. But he abandoned the idea in the face of opposition. Those Senators did not want the previous question. They did not want to terminate debate. They wanted freedom of speech.

When the Oregon bill was being considered in 1846, a unanimous consent agreement was used as a way to limit debate by setting a date for a vote.

When Senator Stephen Douglas proposed permitting the use of the previous question in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped--dropped, dropped. They did not want the previous question. They did not want to terminate debate. They wanted to be able to speak on and on and on. A filibuster? Well, perhaps.

An effort to reinstitute the previous question on March 19, 1873, failed by a vote of 25 for to 30 against.

The final impetus for a cloture rule came as a result of a 1917 filibuster, one of the most famous in the Senate annals--against an administration measure permitting the arming of American merchant vessels for the duration of the World War. I believe that was 1915.

On February 26, President Wilson--I was born during one of the administrations of Woodrow Wilson--President Wilson appeared before a joint session of Congress to request legislation authorizing the arming of merchant ships. The President announced that the rules of the Senate would have to be revised--now get this--the rules of the Senate would have to be revised before he would call a special session of the entire Congress to deal with the war emergency. And so, Mr. President, the fate of the unlimited debate was sealed.

The principal responsibility for the cloture resolution rested with the new Democratic majority leader, Thomas Martin of Virginia. Under his guidance, a bipartisan committee of the Senate's leaders drew up a proposal providing that a vote--get this--by two-thirds of those present and voting could invoke cloture on a pending measure. Two- thirds of those present and voting.

By a vote of 76 to 3 on March 8, 1917, after only 6 hours of debate, the Senate adopted its first cloture rule. Mr. President, 1917, that was the year in which I was born.

In 1949 now, President Harry S. Truman sought to clear the way for a broad civil rights program, and his first step was to push for liberalization of the cloture rule. His efforts produced a bitter battle at the beginning of the 81st Congress.

The Senate adopted a compromise measure that proved to be less usable than the one it replaced. It required that two-thirds of this entire Senate vote for cloture rather than two-thirds of those present and voting. That was 1949. The new rule differed from the old in that it allowed cloture to operate on any pending business or motion, with the exception of debate on rules change. This meant that future efforts to change the cloture rule would themselves be subject to extended debate without benefit of the cloture provision.

Now we are getting down into my time. At the beginning of the 86th Congress--I came to Congress during the 83rd Congress when Harry Truman was getting close to the end of his tenure--at the beginning of the 86th Congress, Senate majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson, offered and the Senate adopted by a 72-to-22 rollcall vote, a resolution to amend Senate rule XXII. Approved on January 12, 1959, after 4 days of debate, the resolution permitted two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--going back to the very beginning of the cloture rule--two- thirds of the Senators present and voting to close debate, even on proposals for rules change. It also added to rule XXII:

The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to

the next Congress unless they are changed and provided in

these rules.

These rules, these rules in this book, the ``Senate Manual.''

On February 28, 1975, I submitted a resolution providing that debate in the Senate be closed by a vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, except in the case of a measure or motion to change the rules of the Senate, when a two-thirds vote of Senators present and voting would be required to close debate.

On March 7, 1975, the Senate adopted my substitute providing that three-fifths of all Senators chosen and sworn could invoke cloture. This provision applied to all measures except those amending the rules of the Senate which still required a two-thirds vote of Senators present and voting.

Four years later on February 22, 1979, the Senate agreed to a resolution that I submitted establishing a cap of 100 hours of consideration once cloture had been invoked on a measure.

Under my resolution, each Senator would be entitled to 1 hour of time. Senators could yield their time to the majority or minority floor managers of the bill or to the majority or minority leaders. Except by unanimous consent, none of the designated four Senators could have more than 2 additional hours yielded to him or to her. These Senators in turn could yield their time to other Senators. If all available time expired, a Senator who had not yielded time and who had not yet spoken on the matter on which cloture had been invoked could be recognized for 10 minutes for the sole purpose of debate.

The 1979 resolution made in order only those first-degree amendments submitted by 1 p.m. the day following submission of a cloture motion, with second-degree amendments in order only if submitted in writing 1 hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote.

The substitute amendment contained the current overall limitation of 30 hours of consideration after cloture has been invoked.

So that brings us up to the present day rules with reference to debate and limitation of debate in the Senate, the current cloture rule. That puts us where we are now, and I thought it would be well just to review briefly the history of unlimited debate in the Senate and then the cloture rule limiting debate--the cloture rule as initially adopted requiring two-thirds of those present and voting; and then in 1949, two-thirds of those elected and sworn; and then again in 1975, two-thirds of those Members present and voting, that is where we are--so that we might have this basis for a better understanding of where we go from here.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I have an amendment. I would like to offer it at a time when it would be mutually agreeable to the managers.

Very well. I will get my amendment, if the two managers will consent that I be recognized to offer it.

Mr. President, I will very shortly. In the meantime, might I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I will shortly call up an amendment. Before doing so, I would like to recall a statement by the late Reverend Peter Marshall, possibly, even probably, the most famous and well known of the Senate chaplains, who offered this prayer at the opening of the second session of the 80th Congress:

Let us not be content to wait and see what will happen, but

give us the determination to make the right things happen.

Sometimes we can do that, sometimes we can't, but at least we can try. For too many months now, the Congress and the administration have taken a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes to today's life- altering price of gasoline.

The administration has pinned its rhetoric to an energy plan, waiting and hoping to tout a reduced dependence on foreign oil, while conceding that no energy plan will provide immediate relief to high prices at the pump.

The American people have waited and have waited and have waited for the United States to get tough on OPEC and other nations responsible for the recent spike in gasoline prices. Their elected leaders offer explanations and more explanations and still more explanations and equivocations about why such action has not reduced prices at the pump.

The American people are out there listening and they are watching; they see what is going on here on the Senate floor. They watch us through those electronic lenses behind the Chair, the Presiding Officer. The American people waited anxiously for the President's prime-time news conference, hoping to see at last that somebody would proffer some kind of relief from high gas prices. My, how they do hurt. How they do pinch, don't they? Yes. Ultimately, the American people were disappointed as their pleas for relief were again rebuffed. The people have waited, they have waited, they have waited, and they are still waiting. They waited while gas prices have gone up and up and up. The patience of the American people is running out. When will it end?

The American people watched incredulously as the House of Representatives passed an energy bill last month, including $8 billion of energy tax cuts. These are tax cuts for many of the corporate conglomerates who are enjoying record-breaking profits from today's oil prices. Yet the Congress declines--it declines, it declines, and it declines again and again--to provide relief to the workers who must bear the brunt of these price spikes at the pump. I am talking about the working people of America, people whose hands are soiled with honest toil, the working people in America. They are in South Carolina, North Carolina, and West Virginia.

While the big oil companies are making big money, hand over fist, from high gas prices, the only relief the Congress has seen fit to provide is to the very oil companies--not the people--making all the money. They are making all the money.

The irony is incredible, but not only is it incredible, it is contemptible. It is the little guy who is getting the shaft because we refuse to stand up for him or her. Well, the time has come to take a stand. This Congress continues to ignore the working man and the single mother. There are lots of them out there and they have to go through this every day when they drive up to the pumps. Think of them. Who is here to take a stand for them--the little guys? There are lots of them out there. The little guy is getting the shaft because we refuse to stand up for him. Again, this Congress continues to ignore the working man and the single mother. This administration continues to ignore the working man and the single mother, and it continues to ignore the outdoorsman who can no longer afford to fill up his pickup truck or SUV for a weekend of work--yes, they even work on the Sabbath; they have to sometimes--or for a weekend of hunting and fishing.

If the Congress cannot wave a magic wand to lower prices at the pump--and it cannot--at least we can provide short-term relief to compensate workers, and that relief ought not be delayed. We have those workers in Texas, we have them in Oklahoma, and we have them in West Virginia. I talk with them every day. The time has come; the clock is moving. Relief ought not be delayed. The time has come for the Congress to take action. We must take action. We have heard that television statement: Do it now, do it here.

I addressed the Senate last month about this issue, highlighting the impact that high gas prices have had on rural States such as mine, rural States such as New Hampshire. Yes, there are rural areas all over this country.

When gas prices soar, the impact on rural families can be devastating and can be cruel. In my State of West Virginia, the impact has been brutal. It saps the economic strength of the State. It squeezes anybody who owns a vehicle, and it chips away at the income of workers who must commute. They have to commute, there is no way around it. Think of those mountains, those stately, majestic mountains in New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Tennessee. It chips away at the income of workers who have to commute to and from and across and in between those mountains. Households must curtail essentials, and families must do without other things. They have to get that gasoline, they have to get to work, they have to get that bread and butter on the table. Businesses lose customers. Think about that. I was once in a small business. I was once a small, small businessman. I know what it is. You have to meet a one or two or three-person payroll. And business includes customers. As the pocketbook strings tighten more and more, profits decrease, operating expenses sore, workers' paychecks suffer more and more.

Residents of rural States must drive longer distances to and from work, inflicting burdensome costs on commuters. I am talking about the States of Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, as well as West Virginia-- not just West Virginia.

Rural States have less access to public transportation. What does that mean? That means subways and buses and car pooling are not usually available to rural commuters. I am talking about the States of South Carolina; Kansas; Iowa, where the tall corn grows; Oklahoma, as well as West Virginia. Not just West Virginia. Hear me now, it is not just West Virginia. In Appalachia--13 States are in Appalachia. West Virginia is the only one wholly in Appalachia.

In Appalachia, rural roads, twisting and winding and bending around the hills and mountains, exacerbate the financial pain. I am talking about the States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, yes, as well as West Virginia. Not just West Virginia; other States as well.

When gas prices spike, rural commuters often have no disposable income to absorb the price flux. What

does this do? It forces painful cuts in essential expenditures. I am talking about the States of Idaho, North Carolina--where I was born-- Ohio, South Dakota, as well as West Virginia. So it is not just West Virginia.

The people of these States and all across America, all across the Great Plains and the prairies, the mountains, the Ozarks, the Rocky Mountains, all throughout the land, people in these States are crying out for action by Congress. So today I offer an amendment to answer that call. We hear you, we should say. Yes, we hear you. So I have an amendment that says we hear you.

My amendment would provide a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250 miles per week to and from work. Isn't that a reasonable approach, a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250 miles per week, and many of them travel more than that? Oh, yes. But we put a limit on it, for commuters who travel 250 miles. If you travel 240 miles, that is not enough. So we try to be very reasonable.

Why shouldn't a man or woman who travels 240 miles a week be helped, too? We know how difficult it is to move legislatively. I have only been in this Chamber 47 years, 47 years looking around these walls. ``Novus ordo seclorum,'' it says on that wall, ``a new order for the ages.'' And ``in God we trust.'' ``In God we trust.'' I have seen these walls for 47 years. Yes, I came over from the other body where I used to say: Thank God for the Senate. I never thought of coming over here to change the Senate rules to make us another House of Representatives. No, I said thank God for the Senate.

Here we are. My amendment would provide a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250 miles per week. What does that amount to per day? Mr. President, $50 for a 5-day week; is that what it is? It is $50 a day for a 5-day week. The credit would be available in rural, low-income States where public transportation is not readily available. Go down to Welch, WV. Travel into the hills and mountains of New Hampshire. The credit would be available in rural, low-income States where public transportation is not readily available. The credit would be limited to the tax year 2005, 1 year, and it fits within the congressional budget so as not to worsen projected deficits. That is reasonable, isn't it? This is not a complicated proposal. The arguments in favor of providing relief to workers is obvious, having been made by Members of Congress and the administration for many months now. So we put off action day to day, month to month, year to year, waiting for supposed long-term solutions to take effect while we are recreant, while we refuse to provide relief for the immediate hardship.

Let us not delay any longer. Let us not equivocate about economic theories that clearly are working to the detriment of the American workers. Now is the time, and it may be the only time, to vote to provide relief from high gas prices. Now is the time to vote to recognize the plight of workers at the gas pump.

Oh, they say, well, this amendment may not be germane. Oh, this would set a precedent. What is wrong with that? How are precedents set? What is a precedent, if it isn't something new, if it isn't something that goes against the grain of something that has gone before? That is how we get precedents. I have seen many precedents set in this Senate, so do not come here with that argument. I do not know, the Chair may rule this amendment is not germane. I suppose someone might even ask the Chair.

Now is the time to provide relief, a vote to forgo a policy of wait and see. It is time to show determination in making the right things happen.

Amendment No. 635 to Amendment No. 605

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

allow a credit for rural commuters)

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 635 and ask that the clerk read the amendment.

I make that consent request, Mr. President. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

I will yield to the good judgment of the managers of the bill. If you would like to wait until the arrival of those two Senators, that is fine for me. May I take this moment to congratulate him and congratulate his comanager sitting by my side, the very distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. President, you are doing your duty, I say, speaking in the second person, which I am not supposed to do in the Senate. I hope they will come to the floor and make themselves heard.

Will the Senator yield for a correction?

I have done what Senators sometimes do. They make a mistake. They have done it to me, too, in referring to a Senator's State as a wrong State. Sometimes they say I am from the State of Virginia. I count that as a great compliment, but I am from the great State of West Virginia.

In this case, I have mistakenly referred to the distinguished Senator from Vermont as the Senator from New Hampshire, both great States. I am talking about the Senator from Vermont. I believe I referred to him as the Senator from New Hampshire. OK, the Senator from Vermont. I correct the Record.

And West Virginia.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I respect the very able Senator for the position he has taken. I can understand that position, and I appreciate it. I have discussed this with the Senator. I do not have a suggestion for an offset. I commend the Senator and Senator Baucus on what they have jointly done to advance this bill and what they have jointly done to increase the amounts of money available. I understand completely the Senator's position. I do not blame him for it. He states it correctly, but I will say that the amendment does not worsen projected deficits. The amendment fits within the congressional budget. That is why it is not subject to any budget points of order. Deficit projections within the congressional budget will not worsen if this amendment passes.

I do respect the Senator. I know we are both in sympathy with what the people in the mountains, the prairies, the plains, and valleys of this great country have to deal with. I am sorry that the amendment is not germane. I understand that. At least I do not think it is. Perhaps the Senator would like to have a ruling from the Chair. I would hope the Chair would say that the amendment would be germane.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted

to address a question to the distinguished minority leader without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my minority leader, what was his proposition that he recommended?

Mr. President, may I address a question to the distinguished Republican leader without losing my right to the floor?

Mr. Leader, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with the proposition that the minority leader has suggested?

Mr. President, I have listened to this discussion with considerable dismay. I hope that both leaders will not leave the floor.

I cannot understand why we can't proceed a little at a time. If we are seeking to--

Yes. May I retain my right to the floor?

Mr. President, I would like to avert a showdown, if we can do it. Why do we have to have a showdown?

Well, Mr. President, I have no quarrel with giving the Senators time. But I hope we will attempt, in every way possible, to avoid that showdown the distinguished minority leader has referred to.

This matter--

Well, Mr. President, I know of nothing in my 47 years in this body, in my 53 years in this Congress, that has pained me more than this issue. I am pained, pained by the political partisanship. What this country needs is not partisanship but statesmanship. I have great faith in the Senate. I have great faith in the two leaders. The minority leader has made a suggestion. Why don't we proceed with it?

I am sorrowful we have come to the point where we seemingly forget the American people. We talk about the feelings of those nominees who have not been given an up-or-down vote. I am sorry about their feelings. But Senators have a right to speak, have a right to object.

And the distinguished Republican leader talks about the need for an up-or-down vote, an up-or-down vote, an up-or-down vote. I have heard the President say something about that.

Mr. President, here is my guide, the Constitution of the United States. What does it say? Does it say that each nominee shall have an up-or-down vote? Does it say that? I ask the Senator from Tennessee, I ask any Senator to respond to that question. Does this Constitution accord to each nominee an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor?

I ask unanimous consent that I may yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, this says that he, the President, shall have the power to nominate and, by and with the consent of the United States Senate, shall appoint. To give consent, we may vote. But to deny consent doesn't require a vote. It does not require a vote and the record shows that. The record shows that Republicans and Democrats have, from time to time, the leadership has denied a vote to a nominee simply by bottling up that nominee in the committee. That denies the nominee a vote. The Senate speaks, as it were, and refuses to give its consent by just saying nothing; thus, keeping those nominees in the committee. That has been done from time immemorial and more recently in increasing measure.

Many nominees under the Clinton administration were not given an up- or-down vote. They were sent up here by the President of the United States. They were not given an up-or-down vote. They were kept in committee.

Let me finish. I will be happy to yield. They were not given an up-or-down vote. So the Senate did not give its consent. That is all right. That is within the Constitution. The Senate did not give its consent. So what is the difference, if the Senate, through its committee system, decides not to give a presidential nominee an up-or- down vote in the committee, then? The Senate may decide not to indicate its confirmation by an up-or-down vote, just simply be silent. It has not confirmed, has it? It has not given its consent, has it? So what is the difference?

If a nominee is not given confirmation by a committee, what is the difference? You are not giving consent there. If you are not given an up-or-down vote on the committee, what is the difference? I am unable to understand the difference.

Let's do what the Constitution says. Let's do what the Constitution says. When we talk about what these nominees deserve, what do the American people deserve? That should matter. What do the American people deserve? They deserve to move on. Look at the problems that confront this country.

Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, if the Senator wishes me to yield, I would be glad to. I have the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished majority leader for a statement without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, what does the Constitution say? By and with the consent, the President shall have the power, and by and with the consent of the United States Senate, shall appoint. Now, we can wrangle until the crack of doom about why so and so and so and so were not given an up-or-down vote in the Senate. One could ask that question ad infinitum about those many nominees that were sent to the Senate by President Clinton. They never got up-or-down votes. I didn't take the floor and urge that they deserved this or that.

The Senate should be guided by this Constitution. If it elects not to confirm by simply withholding its voice, it can do so. I commend both leaders for their efforts. But I am telling you, the American people deserve something. That is what we should think about. The American people deserve action by the Senate to get on with the business of the people. Look at these high gas prices. We can talk about immigration policy. We can talk about access to health facilities. The American people deserve action on the part of the Senate, and here we are wrangling over a half-dozen nominations for judgeships. That is just a shirttail full of nominations, and they have been sent to the Senate already. In the first administration, if the Senate saw fit not to give its confirmation to them, why should the President send the same nominations back up to the Senate? There are plenty of people in this country who are able--many lawyers and judges who are able. There are plenty of people the President could nominate that would not have a problem getting confirmation in the Senate. Why do we have to send the same ones back here? That is up to the President. If he wants to send the same ones, he can.

I am saddened by this threat to use the so-called nuclear option. The distinguished majority leader prefers to call it the ``constitutional option.''

Not yet. I have not said much on this question, but I want to say a few things today. The Republican leader refers to it as the ``constitutional option.'' I refer to it as ``constitutional folly.'' We talk about freedom of speech in the Senate. Roots run deep with respect to freedom of speech. When the distinguished Republican leader first became leader, and even before he became leader, he visited my office and we had a good conversation. I believe he asked my thoughts on whether he might be a good leader of the Senate. I said give the Senate the opportunity to debate and to amend. That is what we are talking about here--the right to amend, the right to debate. Yet they are talking about the nuclear option.

Don't kill freedom of speech in the Senate. That great compromise that was entered into on July 16, 1787, is why we are here today. If it hadn't been for that compromise, the Senator who sits in the chair would not be sitting there. The distinguished Democratic leader would not be the leader in this body. There would be no Senate, and there probably would not be a Republic. The great compromise said there shall be two Houses, and the membership number of one shall be determined on the basis of population; the other will be a forum of the States in which each State is equal to every other State and each Senator is equal to every other Senator.

We talk a lot about tradition. I say to my good friend--and he is my friend--the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, I have heard a good many Senators on the floor talking about tradition. Well, tradition in the Senate means freedom of debate going back to the beginning of this Republic; and the Articles of Confederation, the first Constitution of the United States--going back to the Articles of Confederation, back to the House of Commons, the people of England who were in this country, especially those who decided on this Constitution, were British subjects.

So the roots of freedom of speech are deep. They go back to 1689, to the time when the English offered to William III, of Orange, and Mary the opportunity to be joint sovereigns. The proposition was that there must be freedom of speech in the Senate. Those two sovereigns--that was one of the items that was to be agreed to, freedom of speech in the House of Commons. That was on, I believe, February 13, 1689. On December 16 of that year, a statute was passed incorporating those rights into a statute. That was the Bill of Rights of our English forebears. As I say, that common thread of freedom of speech runs deep, deep in the House of Commons, and we ought to honor it here.

We are talking about cutting off the rights of Senators and about what the nominees deserve. What do the American people deserve? Well, let's adhere to tradition. There wasn't any limitation on speech until 1917 in the Senate. First, they had the previous question. Aaron Burr said in 1805, when he made his departing speech from the Senate--I am just hoping I might have the attention of Senators. I have not had much to say on this question, although it has kept me awake many nights. I

have spent sleepless hours worrying about this thing of killing debate, freedom of speech in the Senate. Who wishes, Mr. Leader, to have that kind of a legacy to confront him--to help to kill freedom of speech in the Senate? You don't want that legacy. I don't want to see you have that legacy--freedom of speech in the Senate killed.

Aaron Burr urged the Senate to do away with the previous question. They still have the previous question in the House of Representatives and in the House of Commons in England. The previous question had been on the books for a few years, but it hadn't been used, so Aaron Burr, in 1805, urged the Senate to do away with the previous question by which they could shut off debate. In 1806, in that first revision of the Senate rules, it was left out. No more could a Senator move the previous question in this body.

That was the end of it until 1917. Then, when President Wilson sought to arm merchant ships, there was a filibuster by a few Senators. Thank God. I came over here from the House like a lot of Senators have. Some want to make the Senate another House of Representatives.

The Founding Fathers did not want to do that. But when I came to the House, I did not come over here chewing at the bit to change the Senate rules and make this a second House of Representatives, only smaller. I said thank God for the U.S. Senate many times when I was in that other body. Thank God for the U.S. Senate.

Why did I do that? Because over here, a man or woman may stand on his or her feet so long as their lungs, their brass lungs, will carry their voice, and they can object.

And may I say to the distinguished majority leader, he made mention of the late Senator Smith from Maine. I was here when she was here. What a grand woman that one, a great Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. I wish she were here today, Margaret Chase Smith. I wish those Senators of that day were here. They would not stand still for a minute to throttling freedom of speech in the U.S. Senate.

May I say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, please think about this. Think about this. Don't leave this as your legacy. No, try to find a way around this freedom of speech in the United States Senate. Let's don't throttle it. We have come to a time, we say we are going to try to work this out. This ought not be all that difficult to work out. As I said to the President of the United States in the presence of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee: Mr. President, tell your leadership up there not to push this, not to push this on the American people. It is their freedom. The day may come when--and it has been in the past--the day may come when the Senator from Tennessee wishes to stand and use that filibuster.

The filibuster is not a very popular thing out there in the country maybe.

Not yet, if I may respectfully decline. I will shortly. The Senator from Tennessee may wish to stand on his feet and defend the beliefs, the opinions, the rights of the people of Tennessee from a majority. Over there is the majoritarian body, the House of Representatives. There is where majority rules. This is the forum of the States. It is a forum for minorities, where we can have dissent on the part of a minority. The majority is not always right. The majority has been wrong before. And so I say, let's protect the rights of the minority to filibuster, if I may use that word.

Yes, we have engaged in filibusters on judicial matters before. I was here when the President of the United States wanted to make Abe Fortas the Chief Justice. I voted on that. That was a filibuster.

Mr. President, yes, I yield. I ask unanimous consent that I can yield under the rules for a question, without losing my right to the floor.

Praise God. Here it is, freedom of speech.

I am willing to give nominees, if there is a handful of them--

I said I am willing to give them an up-or-down vote, just a handful.

I don't mean six of them, five of them, or four of them or three of them. I have never attacked the Senator's desire to be looked upon as a leader who was fair. I have never attacked him.

Just as the Senator has had a little difficulty in recalling whether I said this or that, I didn't have a written text before me when I spoke to the President. I don't remember if I said a few or all or three or four. I don't remember. I am willing to have some votes up or down.

Let's get around this Damocles sword that hangs over the Senate of the United States and act as reasonable men and women and vote some of them up or down. Whatever the leader decides is fine. Let's don't talk about this nuclear option. Let's don't bring that down at this time. I am not referring to the legacy of the distinguished Senator in a disparaging way. I am not doing that at all. The leader----

Yes, but let me finish my sentence.

The leader has it within his power to go forward on all seven or six or five or four, whatever it is, or he has the power to do it on less than that number. It seems to me that a reasonable compromise could be reached among Senators. I am interested in helping to effectuate such a compromise. If it means an up-or-down vote on one or two or three or four, whatever, it seems to me to be reasonable if we can give and take--that is what we are expected to do, give a little here, give a little there--and let's get out of this morass, this terrible threat to the freedom of speech in the Senate of Senators. That means freedom of speech on the part of my people back home who expect me to speak for them.

I hope the leader will think about that. My goodness, they have a shirt

tail full of nominees, and we are going to wreck traditions? Talking about traditions, the tradition of the Senate is freedom of speech, freedom of debate, freedom to dissent.

Mr. President, this reminds me very much of a book in the Bible, a book that is titled Esther, the Book of Esther. I think it would be especially good for the distinguished majority leader to be reminded of the Book of Esther in the Bible.

I won't go into it all here, but Esther was a Jew. She had a cousin who sat at the king's gate every day. He was a Jew. His name was Mordecai. The word went out that a man who had been favored by the king, a man named Haman--H-A-M-A-N, I believe it is. Here is my Bible. This is the King James version of the Bible. I don't read any other version of the Bible except the King James version. I speak as a born- again Christian. We hear that thrown around a lot around here. I am a born-again Christian and have been since 1946.

My wife and I will soon be married, the Lord willing, in about 16 or 17 more days, 68 years. We were both put under the water in that old churchyard pool under the apple orchard in West Virginia, the old Missionary Baptist Church there. Both Erma and I went under the water. So I speak as a born-again Christian. You hear that term thrown around. I have never made a big whoop-de-do about being a born-again Christian, but I speak as a born-again Christian. Hear me all you evangelicals out there, hear me.

So here we were, we were baptized. But getting back to Esther, her cousin, Mordecai, sat at the king's gate day after day, and he refused to do homage to the king. The king was Ahasuerus, and his wife's name was Vashti. The king asked Vashti to come in before all the big shots in the kingdom, and she refused to come. So his advisers advised him to put her away and get a new queen. So they brought in all the beautiful virgins--perhaps not all of them, but they brought enough to dazzle the king's eyes--and they chose Hadassah, that is Esther, after whom the book is titled.

She was the king's new queen and she got word from Mordecai that word was going out from the king's top man named Haman that all the Jews were to be killed on a certain day. So Mordecai told her that, and she told the king and the king said: Who did this? Who said that?

So the finger was put upon Haman. Haman was the chief leader there of King Ahasuerus. Well, time went on and old Haman was advised by his people to build a gallows and hang on those gallows Mordecai, and on that same day to kill all the Jews throughout the 127 provinces of Persia.

I will go to the point of the story quickly. It ended with Haman, the man who built the gallows on which to hang Mordecai, himself being hanged on those gallows. It did not stop there. The ten sons of Haman were executed on those gallows, also.

I say this to the distinguished Senator, hear me, hear me. I am willing to give some up-and-down votes on some judges. That is a little thing. But it is a big thing if it is carried too far. Judges do not have to go before the people to be voted on like the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Nevada, and I have to do. They are appointed for life, and this is the only place where they can be scrutinized.

Well, in the case of Haman, he was executed on his own gallows. I say to the leader of the Republican Party in this Senate, the worm turns and there will come a day when the majority leader of the Senate will be on this side of the aisle. I have seen it happen back and forth time and again. It can happen again. That worm will turn.

I say to the leader, please do not ``Hamanize,'' if I may coin a word, the Senate. Remember Haman. The leader and his party may someday be on the same gallows that we in the minority find ourselves on today, ``Hamanized.'' Do not travel that path because the leader and his party may someday be executed on the same gallows. Think about it. Do not ``Hamanize'' the Senate of the United States.

I thank the distinguished leaders for listening. I hope my words will not have been in vain. I plead with them, please do not ``Hamanize'' the Senate of the United States. Take us out of that straitjacket. I know both leaders have been working but work some more. If I can help, let me in, count me in. I want to help.

Talking about the American people, they are the ones who are suffering from this delay. We could be doing something about matters that confront most people every day. I appeal to both leaders to let reason reign for a while. Let us reach a judgment to get on with the business of the Senate, but for Heavens' sake do not kill freedom of speech in the Senate.

Do I still have the floor, Mr. President?

I say, finally, my apologies to the Republican leader and to the minority leader, and thank them for listening. But how much land does a man need? How much land does a man need? Tolstoy wrote a great story. How much land does a man need?

I thank the distinguished leader. I have the floor. Thank God for the Senate, I said, when I was in that body over there.

Finally, I say to my good leader, I will pose a rhetorical question. How much land does a man need? Leo Tolstoy wrote a story about a man named Pahom, I believe it was, but regardless of the man's name, this man had orchards and fields of grain and lands, but he had land hunger. He wanted more land. He kept getting more land, but he always wanted more land. The upshot of it was there appeared before him one day a stranger who offered him all the land that he could cover in a day, like that Tennessee land.

He offered him all the land he could cover in a day for a thousand rubles.

He thought, this is my chance. So he took off on an early morning and he had never seen land so rich as this was. So he decided he would walk 3 miles. He left his servant there with the stranger. The 64-dollar catchword was, he had to be back at the starting point before the sun went down or he would lose his thousand rubles.

So he started out and he decided he would walk 3 miles. After he walked the 3 miles, it looked so good he thought he would walk 3 more miles, and he walked 3 more miles until he had covered 27 miles before he turned up on the second side. He covered the second side, and he sat down and he ate from the humble bag of provisions that his good wife had prepared for him, a little cheese and bread, and then he launched out on the third side of the square and he covered the third side. But as the long afternoon wore on, the land became less hilly, more rocky. So he struggled to reach the end, to reach the starting point before the sun went down because otherwise he would lose all. He would lose his thousand rubles, and he would lose the land that he covered.

Mr. President, I see the leader has left. He left me all alone here. What about this? Hey, where is my adversary? Where is my worthy adversary? Come on now. Where is the leader? Am I to be left here alone to be gored by the horns of those--where is my adversary? He is not to be found.

Anyhow, let me bring this long story to an end. In the end, the man was crawling on his hands and knees. The sun was going down. He looked ahead of him and he saw the starting point. He saw the dim face of the stranger waiting on him at the starting point, the stranger who had offered him all the land that he could cover in a day for a thousand rubles. He saw a grim smile on the face of that stranger. So, painfully, he inched himself forward little by little. His arms were bleeding from the rocks and the briers and the sticks that had gone through his skin. He reached the starting point just as the Sun went down, but he fell dead on the spot.

The stranger said: I promised him all the land he could cover. You see how much it is: 6 feet long and 2 feet wide. The stranger, called Death, said: I have kept my pledge.

So, Tolstoy asked, How much more do you want? How many nominees have we confirmed in this Senate? How many? May I ask the question without losing my right to the floor.

And how many have not been confirmed?

And 7 of those are back before the Senate, out of 218? My, how much land does a man need? How many nominees do they want? Mr. President, just send up some new nominees; it is that simple.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators. I am ready to proceed on the amendment, if the Senator would like.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I made my case. I think it is a good case. I do recognize that some amendments that are offered are not germane. It was my hope that, by presenting the amendment, the Chair will rule it is germane. I will accept the ruling of the Chair. I will not attempt to override the Chair's ruling if he rules against my point, but I have made my case. I thank the distinguished Senator, and also I thank Senator Baucus, the manager on this side, for the consideration they have given. I will abide by the decision of the Chair.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Twenty minutes. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume within that 20-minute limitation.

I again thank Chairman Thad Cochran for his patience in the processing of this supplemental appropriations bill when it came before the Senate. He was especially patient during the Senate consideration in seeing that all who wanted to offer amendments were afforded the opportunity to be heard.

The members of the Appropriations Committee have had a longstanding sense of cooperation, comity, and civility. There is always give and take, live and let live, on both sides of the aisle. And that was the same with regard to the Senate processing of this supplemental. Everybody did not get everything he or she wanted in this supplemental, but Members were treated fairly in a bipartisan manner.

However, when it came to processing the supplemental in conference, several members were severely disappointed that the conference was recessed subject to the call of the Chair. As a result, several Senators were precluded from offering their motions and their amendments.

A number of Members on this side of the aisle have expressed disappointment that the conference did not have any open debate on the immigration provisions, including the REAL ID legislation, that found their way into the bill, and that neither the majority nor the minority of the Senate Appropriations Committee participated in the formulation of the REAL ID immigration provisions.

These REAL ID provisions were formulated behind closed doors by the House and Senate Republican leadership. After the conference had recessed subject to the call of the Chair, a 55-page modified version of the REAL ID authorizing legislation was laid into the conference report.

It was simply grafted onto the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that provides funding for our military operations and our troops, without debate or participation by the conferees. I do not fault the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This was not his doing. This was done by the House and Senate Republican leadership.

The bill totals approximately $82 billion, which comes in at about $1 million below the request. Virtually the entire bill is designated as an emergency, thus increasing the deficit.

Department of Defense totals $75.9 billion, $0.9 billion above the request.

International assistance totals $4.1 billion, which is $1.5 billion below the request, but it grew in conference to levels $866 million more than the House and $42 million more than the Senate.

Border security funding totals $450 million of new emergency spending. This compares to my conference motion to include $665 million for border security. In order to increase the size of the border security effort, staff identified $100 million of low priority homeland security funds to use as offsets, bringing the total package to $550 million.

Despite having taken credit for improving security on our borders when he signed the Intelligence Reform Act in December, the President requested no actual funding for border security. My initiative, with the support of Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg and Senator Larry Craig, will result in 500 more Border Patrol agents, 218 new immigration investigators and detention officers, 1,950 more detention beds, 170 support personnel, and funds for training and housing the new personnel.

Many of the President's requests for expanded flexibilities were substantially reduced in the Senate bill and sustained in conference.

The President's request for $5 billion transfer authority for Defense Department funds contained in the supplemental bill was reduced to $3 billion.

In combination, under the conference report, the Secretary of Defense has transfer authority in fiscal year 2005 of $10.7 billion, down from a total of $14.7 billion requested.

The President's request for authority to spend contributions to the Defense Cooperation Account in fiscal year 2005, without subsequent approval by the Congress, was rejected as it should have been.

The President's request for a $200 million slush fund, entitled the Global War on Terrorism, GWOT, Fund, under the control of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was rejected as it should have been.

The President's request for a $200 million ``Solidarity Fund'' for the Secretary of State, under Peacekeeping Operations, to reimburse coalition partners--such as, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary, and Bulgaria--for defense costs, was approved at a level of $230 million, of which $30 million can be used for GWOT-type activities. However, the act requires consultation and notification of the Congress prior to using the money.

The conference report includes language that I authored prohibiting executive branch agencies from creating prepackaged news stories unless the agency clearly identifies that the story was created and funded by an executive agency. It troubles me greatly that there has been a proliferation of executive branch agencies creating so-called news stories and then distributing them without identifying the story as having been produced with the taxpayer's money. We trust the media to provide us with independent sources of information, not biased news stories produced by executive branch agencies, at whose expense, taxpayer expense.

On February 17, 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion to the executive agencies stating that such prepackaged news stories violated the law. Regrettably, on March 11, 2005, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum to agency heads specifically contradicting the opinion of the Government Accountability Office.

This conference report ``confirms the opinion of the Government Accountability Office dated February 17, 2005.'' I am pleased that the conferees and now the Congress have agreed to this clear message that taxpayer dollars should not be used to create prepackaged news stories unless the story includes a clear message that the story was created by a Federal agency and paid for by taxpayer dollars.

I was also pleased that the conferees agreed to my sense of the Senate language on budgeting for the war in Iraq.

The conference report says that the President should submit a budget amendment for fiscal year 2006 by September 1, 2005, and should include funds in his fiscal year 2007 budget for the war when it is transmitted in February.

Congress has now appropriated over $210 billion. That is $210 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Think of that. Congress has now appropriated over $210 billion in four different emergency supplementals for the war in Iraq. That is a lot of money, and it is your money, $210 billion. It is your money, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, your money. Two hundred ten billion dollars for the war in Iraq, and there is no end in sight.

We should not continue to fund the war through ad hoc emergency supplemental bills that are funneled through the Congress quickly when our troops are running out of funding.

The conference report also includes my proposed 3-month extension of the Abandoned Mines Land Program. Last fall, I offered, and the Congress approved, a 9-month extension of the program in order to give the authorizing committees time to act. Unfortunately, since last fall, the authorizers have held no hearings and considered no bills on the matter. So once again I urge the authorizing committees to approve this legislation that is important to West Virginia and important to all other coal-producing States.

Finally, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. On the majority side, I thank Keith Kennedy, Clayton Heil, Les Spivey, Sid Ashworth, Paul Grove, Rebecca Davies, and all of the others. On my own side, the minority side, I thank that man from Notre Dame, our minority staff director, Terry Sauvain. I thank his very able deputy, Charles ``Chuck'' Kieffer. These are two the likes of which you will never see again. I also thank Charlie Houy, Tim Rieser, B.G. Wright, Chad Schulken, and all of the others on the minority side who worked the long hours--I mean long hours--to assist Senators in the production of the final conference report.

Mr. President, there were some problems in conference, most notably the recessing at the call of the Chair and not returning, which left some of our members unable to offer motions. During the recess, 55 pages of modified REAL ID immigration legislation were inserted into the conference report, sight unseen, by the conferees. Now, can you imagine that? That would not have happened when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. That would not have happened when I was majority leader of the Senate. I will tell you, I don't blame our chairman or any committee members for this situation, but I do acknowledge that there were problems.

Nevertheless, the conference report provides the necessary funds for our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I will always support money for our troops, may God bless them. I support them. We must support our troops, our men and women. They didn't ask to go there. They are doing their duty. They are answering the call. I do not support the policies that sent them there. I did not support it in the beginning. I did not vote to authorize this President or any other President to use the military of this country as he might see fit. I did not cast my vote there. I never, at any time, believed that Saddam Hussein, for whom I did not carry any brief--or the country of Iraq posed a national security threat to our country. I said so then, I say it now, and I believe that. So I did not vote for the policies that sent them there and keep them there. There is no end in sight. It bleeds our country of money and blood. No, I don't support that policy, and I didn't support it when the President sent our men and women there. But I do support the troops. I support them and will always support the troops of our country--may God bless them.

Nevertheless, the conference report, as I say, does provide the necessary funds for our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I supported the war in Afghanistan because there was al- Qaida. Al-Qaida attacked us. Al-Qaida invaded our country when it toppled the Twin Towers, and struck the Pentagon, and drove a plane into the ground in Pennsylvania. I supported that war. But there are two wars, the one in Afghanistan and the second war in Iraq--a country which did not invade our country, a country which did not strike our country, and a country which posed no security threat to our country.

But that is neither here nor there when it comes to our troops. That is something else. We will support our troops. I thank the Chairman for his excellent work, for his cooperation and fine leadership in our Committee, and for his support of the troops likewise. I urge the adoption of the conference report.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the question before the Senate?

Mr. President, how much time might I have under the order?

Mr. President, I ask that I may proceed to speak out of order for as long as I need to speak and that it not be over 15 minutes.

Mr. President, from the book of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 25, 26, and 27 of the King James version of the Bible, I read as follows:

And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds

blew and beat upon the house, and it fell not for it was

founded upon a rock. And everyone that heareth these sayings

of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish

man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain

descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat

upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it.

Mr. President, 70 years ago the Social Security Program was founded upon a rock. It was designed to shelter workers in their old age and to withstand the storms that can wipe away their savings. For 70 years, the Social Security Program has stood as a protector of workers and families. It is their safeguard against economic peril.

Social Security provides the essential support for 405,000 West Virginians. In every county across the State, men and women, workers and retirees, their spouses and their children rely on their monthly Social Security check, and it comes as regularly as the mail man runs.

And so it is with great trepidation that they listen to apocalyptic tales about Social Security's future. It is difficult to understand, and perhaps incomprehensible to comprehend, how workers could spend their lifetime contributing to the Social Security Program only to find that the benefits promised to them may not be available when they retire. Demographic projections show that the next generation of workers cannot support the retirement and disability benefits promised to this generation of workers. The Social Security trustees warned us that this demographic storm would erode the rock upon which the retirement security of workers has been built. Soon the rain will descend. Soon the floods will come. Soon the winds will blow. Our challenge is to keep that house from falling. And our challenge is great.

It is within this context that President Bush has proposed changing the scope of the Social Security Program, adding personal accounts to wean workers from the traditional program. He offers the opportunity for higher returns in the financial markets in exchange for workers relinquishing a portion of their benefits guaranteed under the current system. Be careful.

Needless to say, the outcry to such a proposal has been deafening. In the State of West Virginia, thousands and thousands of constituents are contacting my office--phone calls, e-mails, letters--in opposition to the President's Social Security plan. These people fear that personal accounts are a scheme to take away their Social Security benefits. They fear it is an effort to crack open Social Security and break it apart, piece by piece. I, too, fear such efforts. Feeding that fear is the secret that permeates the administration's plans.

The X factors are multifarious, impacting every worker and every employer who pays into the Social Security Program, every future retiree and every future disabled worker who expects one day to receive Social Security benefits.

My constituents are right to be leery of a scheme to privatize Social Security, particularly when efforts to learn more about Social Security's reforms are being stonewalled. We cannot get that information. If we knew the answers, if we knew for certain the retirement security of our constituents would be protected, that would be one thing, but this proposal for personal accounts seems a lot like the kind of telephone scams we hear about when folks are told they have won a prize and then are asked for their bank account number. Hold on here.

We are all enticed by the idea of ensuring the solvency of Social Security, but what are workers being asked to give up? No one in the administration, no one in the White House is willing to tell. Hear me when I say I will oppose this plan as well as any plan where the costs are undefined and the benefit cuts so uncertain.

Four months of high-publicity tours and photo-ops by President Bush and members of his Cabinet all across America, including stops in West Virginia, have yielded little new information about how the President's plan would affect workers' benefits. We do not know. We have not been told. We cannot get the answers. We ask for the

plan, we ask for the details, and nothing happens. What level of benefit cuts is the President advocating? How much of their guaranteed benefits is the President asking workers to relinquish? On this subject the White House has been evasive. The White House has been equivocating.

What about the volatility of the financial markets? Recent news reports serve as a vivid reminder that the stock market has severe ups and downs. What happens when it comes time to retire and a worker discovers that he or she does not have enough saved to ensure a decent, respectable living? What guarantee would the administration support to ensure a minimum benefit from each individual account? The White House will not respond to this question. There is not a sound to be heard by way of answering that question. What are the costs of the President's Social Security plan? The White House Budget Office has $754 billion, but the Vice President says trillions of dollars. How about that? How can this administration reconcile mounting debt and its own warnings about the need to limit the further growth of deficits with a plan that requires borrowing trillions of dollars more? Again, the White House has no response to the question.

This week, the Senate Finance Committee began hearings on the President's plan. I hope these hearings will yield more information. Our senior citizens need answers to these questions.

I sent a letter to this President earlier this year urging him to send a detailed legislative proposal to the Congress. Send it up, a detailed legislative proposal. I have asked questions of the Secretary of the Treasury at Appropriations Committee hearings as recently as this week. The Congress and the people have been patient in waiting for answers, but still no answers come forth. Honesty and candor are now required. We cannot legislate on rumors and guesses. The ducking and the dodging on the part of the administration serve only to fuel speculation that it is hiding something--yes, hiding something--from the public or, worse, seeking to cut benefits surreptitiously.

Fortunately, any legislation submitted by the President to change Social Security will require 60 votes to pass the Senate; that is, as long as the nuclear option has not descended upon the Senate, as long as the filibuster is still around. Any legislation submitted by the President to change Social Security will require 60 votes to pass the Senate. Long live the filibuster. It may be needed to protect Social Security. The danger of the nuclear option becomes crystal clear as we contemplate the momentous debate on Social Security which looms just down the road, just up ahead.

Only the Senate, here in this forum, only the Senate has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. I hope the Senators will stop, look, and listen. Only the Senate, may I repeat, has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. Let's maintain that right. It has been there for 217 years. Its roots go back to the English Bill of Rights to which William III and Mary subscribed on February 13, 1689, 100 years before our own Republic began, the Bill of Rights, enacted on December 16 in Parliament. The Bill of Rights guaranteed freedom of speech in commons, and our own Constitution in section 6, article I, guarantees that right which cannot be questioned in any other place. Retain it, maintain it, keep it, hold it, collapse it to thy breast.

Only the Senate has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. No Social Security legislation will fly through this Senate without thorough scrutiny, unless the nuclear option is employed. Senators can insist and Senators will insist on the time they need to probe the details of the President's plan and to extract answers to their questions. The Senate will have the opportunity to amend, the Senate will have the opportunity to debate, and then, if it desires, the Senate will have the opportunity to amend and debate some more. And then some more. The threat of a filibuster means that no legislation will be enacted into law without bipartisan support in this Senate, which means that no benefits will be cut, no taxes will be increased, and no radical change codified without adequate debate.

The Senate will require a compromise if and when Social Security reforms are ever enacted, fulfilling its role exactly as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Yes, yes, that is why we have a Senate. Thank God for the Great Compromise which was agreed to on July 16, 1787. Praise God for that Great Compromise. But for it, the Presiding Officer would not be sitting at the desk. But for it, I would not be standing here. But for it, this might never have been a Republic. That is why we have a Senate with its rules for unlimited debate--Lord, God, keep it, save it, collapse it to thy heart--to forge compromise and to ensure moderation in the laws enacted.

To those who advocate chipping away at that rule, limiting Senators' right to debate in regard to judicial nominees, hear me when I say the crucial need for keeping those rules strong in order to encourage compromise and moderation is right before us as the Senate proposes to debate changes in Social Security. Hear me out there in the Plains, in the prairies, across the rivers from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We ought to engage in a genuine effort to end the rumors and help the public understand exactly what is being asked of them with regard to their Social Security benefits--your benefits.

I urge this administration to lay its case before the American people. Come on, open up, lay the case before the American people. Tell us what your plan is. Give us the details of your plan. The last thing we need at this late point with the Social Security storm looming on the horizon is to find another house has been built upon the sand.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. The Senator from Massachusetts has been waiting prior to my arrival on the floor. I have no problem with waiting until he is recognized.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank again my friend from Massachusetts. I will try to be brief so that I do not impose on the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, in his book, ``Profiles in Courage,'' John F. Kennedy recalls the tale told by Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi. And I read from John F. Kennedy's book:

Lamar, in the company of other prominent military and

civilian officers of the Confederacy, was on board a blockade

runner making for Savannah harbor. Although the high-ranking

officers after consultation had decided it was safe to go

ahead, Lamar related, the Captain had sent Sailor Billy

Summers to the top mast to look for Yankee gunboats in the

harbor, and Billy said he had seen ten. That distinguished

array of officers knew where the Yankee fleet was, and it was

not in Savannah; and they told the Captain that Billy was

wrong and the ship must proceed ahead. The Captain refused,

insisting that while the officers knew a great deal more

about military affairs, Billy Summers on the top mast with a

powerful glass had a much better opportunity to judge the

immediate situation at hand.

``Profiles'' quotes Senator Lamar:

Thus it is, my countrymen, you have sent me to the topmost

mast, and I tell you what I see. If you say I must come down,

I will obey without a murmur, for you cannot make me lie to

you; but if you return me, I can only say that I will be true

to love of country, truth, and God . . .

So ends the quote from John F. Kennedy's book, ``Profiles in Courage.''

Mr. President, I have been to the topmost mast. As the senior member of the Appropriations Committee that must implement this budget, as a Senator from a State that will suffer under this budget, as a taxpayer who must bear the debt burden of this budget, I see herein calamity, tragedy, and callous indifference.

Budget deficits, we now know, are not short-term aberrations emanating from an economic recession or the attacks of September 11, as some have long maintained. They are the inevitable result--the inevitable result--of structural imbalances embedded deep within this administration's failed fiscal policies.

From $158 billion 3 years ago, to $375 billion 2 years ago, to $413 billion last year, to $427 billion this year, this administration proposes record deficits for today, for tomorrow, and for the indefinite future. So this talk about cutting the deficit in half is fiction, nothing else but fiction. This budget excludes the long-term costs of military operations in Iraq. It excludes the costs of Social Security reform.

It looks no further than 5 years down the road, effectively concealing the consequences of the administration's proposals for more tax cuts. The American people must think Congress is out of its mind to believe that a budget that proposes such enormous deficits, while excluding so much, could serve as an example of tough decisions. Well it ``ain't'' so. Rising deficits suggest just the opposite--an inability to make tough decisions. For that matter, cheap shots at programs for the elderly and poor and for rural America hardly represent tough choices.

The administration has been clear that despite the deteriorating budget, it will not sacrifice its political priorities. The sacrifice, it insists, must come from others, must come from somebody else, must come from somewhere else; from veterans, who need health care; yes, from families who cannot afford to heat their homes; yes, from students who require Federal loans; oh, yes, from our police and firefighters who need training and equipment to cope with new dangers.

In my State of West Virginia, this budget will result in tens of millions of dollars in cuts for our schools, tens of millions of dollars in cuts in nutritional childcare and family services for lower income families. It will eviscerate economic development programs, likely resulting in half a billion dollars in cuts for the State and its localities over 5 years. Yes, let them suffer the cuts. It requires cuts in Medicaid. It requires cuts in other programs that will deny affordable health care to seniors and to families across the States. All together, the cuts included in this budget amount to nickels and dimes within the context of the $2.5 trillion budget. They do not fix the deficit problem. Talk about cutting the budget deficit in half, they do not fix the deficit problem. Even with these cuts, this budget will worsen the deficit by $33 billion this year. Think about that. The Congress is proposing to cut investments that are essential to the care of our seniors, essential to our veterans, essential to our schoolchildren, and the result is a $33 billion increase in the budget deficit.

Our constituents must wonder for what they are being asked to sacrifice. A few simple phrases describe this budget: High deficits and debt, more tax cuts for the wealthy that we cannot afford, more cuts to programs for the elderly, more cuts to programs for veterans, more cuts to programs for the schoolchildren, and not a dime to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Programs.

I think highly of the Senator from New Hampshire. I am very fond of him. I admire him greatly. He has done yeoman's work as chairman of the Budget Committee. I cannot support this budget. I defer to that great Senator's expertise on many budgetary matters. He is absolutely superb as a chairman, but the only right vote that I can see from the topmost masts that I have climbed is a vote against this budget.

I again thank my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Washington, like most of the Nation, is awash in green. Lawns are lush and verdant. The new leaves on the trees are bright green, soft, and whole--not yet the tough, sun- and insect- scarred veterans of late summer, but as delicate as a baby's skin. The dogwoods and lilacs are blooming, and the azaleas are putting on their magnificent show. In a few days, it will be May. May is a beautiful month in the Nation's capital, just as it is in the hills of West Virginia. It is, perhaps, the most beautiful month. It is a gentle, nurturing month, full of tenderness and promise.

It is fitting that such a month be graced with a day to honor mothers. Sunday, May 8th, is Mother's Day. On this day, tender thoughts of affection and gentle acts of kindness and appreciation are showered upon our mothers, who have sustained us all with their gentle hands, warm hearts, and forgiving natures.

To be sure, women have as many facets as a brilliantly cut diamond. They can be tough and demanding professionals, fierce competitors in any field of endeavor, stoic and enduring in the face of great hardship, and outstanding performers in the arts, medicine and science. The news as well as history is full of stories of the accomplishments of women. But on this one day, we celebrate the side of women that is most like this lovely month of May--the mothering side. It is the side that kissed our baby feet, that saved locks of hair from our first haircuts and our first baby teeth. It is the side whose tender touch soothed our hurts, whose unwavering belief in our talents sustained us through sports failures, painful piano recitals, and countless hours of practices and tantrums. It is the side that sang to us, baked us cookies, and patiently helped build our science project volcanoes out of soda bottles and plaster of Paris. It is the side that glowed as we received our diplomas, went out on our first dates, accepted our first jobs; the side that held us as we lost jobs, lost loved ones, lost faith in our dreams. Our mothers never lose faith. In business or at work, women might be efficient, even ruthless, judges, quickly assessing and sorting through problems, but at home, as mothers, we depend on their faith and support to find solutions for our problems.

Next weekend, mothers will be feted with cards, flowers, and Sunday brunches. They will begin to get some of the backlog of hugs that are their due, a down payment on the debt of gratitude we owe them for taking on such a monumental task. The only instruction that women receive on how to be a good mother comes from their own mother. It is a remarkable achievement that so many women learn this complex job so effortlessly, and manage to perform it so well. Women from around the globe, women who will never break a world record, invent a new technology, discover a new fact, will share with those record breakers in the phenomenally important job of motherhood. Society utterly depends on how well mothers and fathers manage the task of parenting. It is a heavy responsibility to lay upon such rank amateurs.

I can well recall the early days of my own marriage. I have been blessed to have been married to the same kind and forgiving woman for almost 68 years. We are now proud great grandparents. But nearly seven decades ago, we were the rankest of amateurs at marriage and parenthood. Erma has always been my touchstone. Her faith in me has never wavered, and she took to mothering me as effortlessly as she took to mothering our daughters. In Erma Ora James Byrd runs the blood of a great line of mothers--fierce in their devotion to their families, vigilant in their care, loving in their manner.

That same fierceness, vigilance, and devotion can be seen in women who bring their mothering skills to the office as well. I am so often impressed at the energy and ability of working mothers. Their ability to focus on their two big jobs--work and family--takes real dedication, precise time management, and grueling endurance. Single mothers require those qualities in even greater measure. They often do not have someone who can help with the homework, share in the driving to school and practices, take turns staying home with sick children, put the children to bed or read them stories, or do any of the so-called ``father's jobs'' of taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, fixing the car, or even drying the dishes. It takes superhuman strength to keep up that level of effort at home while still earning a living. I do not think that, as a society, we have made it easy for mothers, and especially for single mothers, to do their twin jobs. We need to find better ways to help women balance work and motherhood. We need their skills and talents in the workforce, but we also need their skills and talent at home, building our Nation's future.

I know of some women, in West Virginia and throughout the country, who have found themselves in the single mother category after the tragic loss of their husbands in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have had to deal with their own and their children's grief, the loss of their husband's income, and making a new home for

themselves outside of the military, plus the sudden loss of their partner in childrearing. They and their children should not be forgotten after the furled flag is handed to them at a military funeral. We deservedly call their husbands heroes for the sacrifice they made for our Nation, but their families are left to be heroes each and every lonely day thereafter. They need and merit the support and comfort from all of us, on Mother's Day and every day.

Children are sometimes, and rightly, referred to as our greatest national treasure. They are our future, the great hope for the continued success and enduring values of our Nation. But if that statement is true, then it is also true that good mothers are our Nation's greatest national resource. Without mothers dedicated every day to this monumental task, our future would be bleak indeed. Though the Senate will not be in session next week, I am proud to call attention to the coming of Mother's Day. I hope that others will join me in applauding the noble calling of motherhood, and in recognizing the hard work and love that mothers demonstrate day after day.

I would like to close with a poem by Strickland Gillilan, called ``The Reading Mother,'' as it speaks to the simple, lasting gifts that mothers give their children.

The Reading Mother

I had a Mother who read to me

Sagas of pirates who scoured the sea,

Cutlasses clenched in their yellow teeth,

``Blackbirds'' stowed in the hold beneath.

I had a Mother who read me lays

Of ancient and gallant and golden days;

Stories of Marmion and Ivanhoe,

Which every boy has a right to know.

I had a Mother who read me tales

Of Gelert the hound from the hills of Wales,

True to his trust till his tragic death,

Faithfulness blent with his final breath.

I had a Mother who read me the things

That wholesome life to the boy heart brings--

Stories that stir with an upward touch,

Oh, that each mother of boys were such!

You may have tangible wealth untold;

Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold.

Richer than I you can never be--

I had a Mother who read to me.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to say goodbye to a remarkable friend, and an outstanding West Virginian, Mr. George Fumich, who passed away last week.

George Fumich was born in Pennsylvania, but he grew up in Morgantown, WV, and graduated from the West Virginia School of Law. Like so many who come to our State from elsewhere, he developed a passion for West Virginia that lasted a lifetime.

As an officer in the United States Army during World War II, he served in the Italian campaign. His division was the first to move into Rome and was instrumental in the liberation of that magnificent city from Nazi occupation. He was later captured by the Germans in Northern Italy, but Italian partisans liberated him from his Nazi captors.

For his distinguished military service, George Fumich was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, the European African Middle Eastern Service Medal, a POW medal, and as Presidential Unit Citation.

After the war, Mr. Fumich became corporate counsel for the Christopher Coal Company, and then began a successful political career. His political accomplishments included being elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates and serving as Senator John F. Kennedy's campaign manager for northern West Virginia during the historic 1960 West Virginia Democratic primary.

After Kennedy's election, Mr. Fumich began a successful career with the Federal Government. He served as Director of the Office of Mineral Exploration at the Department of Interior, as the first Director of the Office of Coal Research at the Interior Department, and from 1975 to 1977, he was the Director of Fossil Energy at the Energy Research and Development Administration. In 1977, he was appointed Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.

After leaving the Federal Government, he was appointed Dean of the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, and then served as president of George Fumich Associates, an energy consulting firm.

His interest in coal, his love of West Virginia, and his devotion to West Virginia University all merged. Over the years, it has been rare to attend any event at which the coal, the State, and the university converge, without seeing George Fumich. He was an enthusiastic booster of anything he set about to promote, yet he had a gentle way about him that earned the trust and respect of others.

I will miss seeing George making the rounds at coal events here in Washington. His was a remarkable career for a remarkable man. This kind, brave and honorable man had been a military officer, a politician, a POW, a dean, an administrator, an attorney, a politician, and a Federal official. But above all else, he was a loving and caring father and husband who will be deeply missed by his multitude of friends, and his wonderful family, of which he was so proud.

West Virginia University alumni have lost an energetic supporter for all things WVU. The people of Clarksburg and Morgantown have lost a good neighbor. The State of West Virginia has lost an outstanding citizen. I have lost a dear friend.

My wife Erma and I extend our deepest heartfelt condolences to his wife of 46 years, Marie Fumich, and their children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, as we bring to a close the debate on the emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268, I thank my good friend from the State of Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran. Senator Cochran was recently installed as the new Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and, although he has managed numerous bills on the floor in the past, this is the first appropriations bill that he has managed as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I compliment Senator Cochran for a job well done, and I especially thank him for his patience. In fact, all of the Members should thank him for his patience. We have been on this bill for the better part of 2 weeks, and we have given consideration to many, many amendments. Throughout all of these many days of debate on the underlying bill and on the numerous amendments offered by both sides, Senator Cochran has kept a level head, and he has shown patience in seeing that this supplemental is processed in an orderly manner and that no Member is denied an opportunity to have input on this bill.

I also join with Senator Cochran in expressing gratitude to the staff members on both sides of the aisle who helped us with processing this bill and all those amendments. They worked late into the evening hours on some of these matters, and I appreciate not only their hard work but also their unstinting dedication to this institution.

Mr. President, this is only one in a series of supplemental requests that have come from the administration asking the Congress to appropriate more funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for reconstruction efforts in those countries. With approval of this supplemental, we will have approved over $280 billion for the two wars through emergency supplemental bills. We should not continue to fund these wars in this way. This is not the chairman's fault. He can only respond to the administration's proposals. It is evident that many of my colleagues are in agreement that funding for war activities should be processed in regular annual appropriations measures, not through emergency supplementals. This was clearly and emphatically expressed again in of the sense of the Senate amendment earlier this week. I hope that this administration will take serious note of the Senate's strong view in this regard.

I assure my colleagues here today and the people of this country that I fully and wholeheartedly support our men and women in uniform. I give these troops my gratitude and my respect. I wish that we could give them more--I wish that we could give them a clearly defined mission, with a clearly defined strategy for ending the war in Iraq and coming home.

But, this administration is not winding down its military operations in Iraq--that is evident from the size of this most recent request submitted by the President. To the contrary, it appears that the United States may be gearing up either to accommodate a permanent military presence in Iraq or to establish a launching pad for other military operations in the region. This, certainly, would be the wrong message to send to the people of Iraq and others in the region. I pray that this is not the case.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

Amendment No. 516

Mr. President, when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress recognized, on a bipartisan basis, the need to provide more people and more resources to patrol and secure our borders.

The PATRIOT Act called for tripling the number of Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs investigators on our northern border. The Enhanced Border Security Act called for an additional 200 investigators a year--on top of the PATRIOT Act increases--for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act authorized the hiring of an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents and 800 new ICE immigration investigators, and provided for another 2,000 detention bed spaces per year for 5 years. Together these laws reflect a consensus in the Congress that more needs to be done. But a consensus and a series of authorization bills produces only promises of progress, but promises do not make our borders more secure.

In written testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16, the Department's then-Deputy Secretary, Admiral James Loy, cited recently received intelligence as the reason for his concern about the threat facing the Mexican border. He said the intelligence ``strongly suggest(s)'' that al-Qaida ``has considered using the Southwest border to infiltrate the United States. Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.''

On March 10, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said:

There is no secret that al-Qaida will try to get into this

country. . . . They're going to keep trying on our southern

border. They're going to keep trying on our northern border.

In his December 6, 2004, letter to Congress urging final passage of the Intelligence Reform Act, the President said:

I also believe the Conference took an important step in

strengthening our immigration laws by, among other items,

increasing the number of border patrol agents and

detention beds.

Remarkably, despite the threat to our borders as enunciated by senior administration officials, despite the clear intent of Congress in three separate authorization laws, and despite the President's commendation of the intelligence reform conferees for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and detention beds, the President included virtually nothing in his budget to actually hire and train those Border Patrol agents or to hire and train immigration investigators or to purchase or construct detention facilities for illegal aliens.

Our citizens are concerned about the security gaps along our borders. It has reached such a fever pitch in some locations that private groups, such as the self-proclaimed ``Minutemen,'' are banding together to form watch groups along the borders to act as additional ``eyes and ears'' and report suspicious border crossings to the Border Patrol for appropriate response. While perhaps not reaching the level of vigilante activity, this is a clear expression of the frustration felt by many citizens along the border areas that the Federal Government is asleep at the switch and failing to address a key Federal function.

Even our military is concerned about border security. According to an April 7 CNN report, Marines preparing for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan have lost significant amounts of training time because undocumented immigrants from Mexico have constantly wandered onto a bombing test range at the Marine Corps air station near Yuma, AZ. The range has been shut down more than 500 times over this past 6 months for a total of 1,100 training hours lost. Last year, more than 1,500 illegal immigrants were caught in the training area. In the first 3 months of this year, more than 1,100 have already been apprehended.

Today, I am offering a bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Craig of Idaho, that will fund the real work of securing our borders. The amendment provides $389.6 million for border security, and the amendment is paid for by reducing funding for diplomatic and consular programs the Department of State has indicated is not necessary until fiscal year 2006.

The amendment begins to address the security gap on our borders by funding the hiring of 650 new Border Patrol agents, and this number may fall short of the authorization goals set by the various acts, but it is a responsible level which Customs and Border Protection can meet in the coming months.

During an April 4, 2005, interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner said, ``The Border Patrol is almost . . . being overwhelmed by illegal immigration. This is like a sinking ship with a hole in it. You've got to plug the hole. You've got to stop the illegal migration into the United States. . . .''

The agency responsible for enforcing our immigration laws, known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has been forced to endure a hiring freeze and funding shortfall for more

than a year. Vehicles are not being replaced. Body armor is not being purchased. Travel to pursue immigration investigations has been curtailed. ICE continues to lose personnel, and the agency has not been able to fill those positions because of a hiring freeze. Through the end of January alone, ICE lost a total of 299 personnel.

My amendment--and it is cosponsored by several senators--would give ICE the resources that are so vital to beginning the process of hiring and training the personnel it needs to enforce our immigration laws.

This amendment also provides funds for deploying unmanned aerial vehicles along the Southwest border. The Border Patrol has tested and operated, for a limited period of time this year, unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, along the Southwest border. Using funds provided to it by the Congress, the Border Patrol conducted successful tests using UAVs to assist in the surveillance and detection of individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. The operation, known as the Arizona Border Control Initiative, used these drones to monitor and patrol a 350-mile long swath of the desert border. More than 350,000 illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. were apprehended during the operation. Regrettably, this program was shut down on January 31 of this year. The funds provided in this amendment would allow for the immediate resumption of these surveillance and detection operations.

Finally, the amendment includes funds for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, NM, to train the new personnel.

The case for this amendment is clear; the need for it is critical; and the support for it should be bipartisan. This amendment is focused and targeted to address key border security shortfalls. The Border Patrol's role is to apprehend those illegally entering this country. They also work with ICE investigators to crack down on illegal immigration. They then turn over those who are here illegally to ICE, which needs the detention bed space and to deportation officials to hold, process, and then remove these individuals.

We must start now. This cannot wait.

The job of our immigration officers is staggering, and their resources are meager.

Along the 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, the United States has deployed only 1,700 agents at any given time. That is one agent, just one, guarding more than one mile of border.

Of the 10 million illegal aliens in the country, 2,000 interior enforcement agents are charged with locating and arresting them. That is one agent, just one, charged with locating and arresting 5,000 illegal aliens.

Of the 10,000 border patrol agents authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the President's budget included funds to hire just 210. Of the 4,000 interior enforcement agents authorized, the President's budget included funds to hire only 500 of them. Of the 40,000 detention beds authorized, the President's budget included funding for a mere 5 percent of them. However, in every case, the very modest proposed increases for 2006 will barely make up for the 137 border patrol positions lost during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2005, the 299 ICE personnel lost and the 2,000 detention beds that do not exist, for lack of funding.

We ask how and why illegal aliens continue to pour into our country, and the answer lies in every border patrol increase we do not fund, every agent we do not hire, and every illegal alien we release due to lack of detention space.

This is our opportunity to reverse that sorry record. This is our opportunity to strengthen our border defenses. This is our opportunity to support a substantive, concrete effort to address the alarming rise in illegal immigration.

Sir Edward Coke wrote that a man's house is his castle, for where shall a man be safe if not in his own home?

The United States is home to 296 million people. They, by right, demand that their Government secure their castle against the unknown threat seeking to infiltrate its sanctuary.

I urge adoption of the amendment. It is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Baucus, Dorgan, Lieberman, Obama, Leahy and Feinstein.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of Senator Bingaman be added as a cosponsor of the amendment just agreed to.

Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is technical in nature in that it will provide for the transfer of previously appropriated funds from one ongoing Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, project in West Virginia to another. The two projects involved are the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed project and the Lost River Watershed project. The Upper Tygart project will, once completed, provide water service to at least 16,000 residents in Randolph County, WV. The Lost River project is a series of dams that were designed to provide flood control, water supply, and recreation in Hardy County, WV.

The Upper Tygart Valley Watershed project requires a final $4 million in funding to initiate construction. The additional funds are necessary due to the fact that the project design was not yet completed when cost estimates for the project were formed. There has also been a dramatic rise in the cost of building materials for the project.

Funding in the amount of $4.2 million was provided to the Lost River Watershed project in the fiscal year 2005 Agriculture Appropriations bill. However, the project cannot proceed to construction in the current fiscal year due to a change in the project purpose requested by the project sponsor and subsequent requirements for the NRCS to reevaluate the project.

Due to these circumstances, I am offering this amendment which will provide the Natural Resources Conservation Service authority to transfer the previously appropriated construction funds from the Lost River Watershed project to the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed project. This action will enable the NRCS to initiate construction of the Upper Tygart project during the coming months. Again, I would like to reemphasize to my colleagues that this amendment does not appropriate new funds but instead transfers previously appropriated funds between two existing Natural Resources Conservation Service projects in West Virginia.

I thank my colleagues for their support of my amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Arizona for his characteristic courtesy.

I call up amendment No. 516 and ask that it be stated and temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, from the moment our military first attacked Osama bin Laden's hideouts in Afghanistan, through the time that our first soldiers set foot inside Iraq, continuing right up until the present day, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have been entirely funded by what the American people might call a series of stopgap spending measures. These measures, which are called emergency supplemental appropriation bills in the parlance of our Nation's capitol, take the form of last-minute requests by the White House for Congress to approve tens of billions of dollars on an accelerated timetable.

From September 11, 2001, until today, Congress has approved $201 billion in these appropriations bills, the great majority of which the President has applied to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this bill on the Senate floor is approved, it will add another $79.3 billion to that staggering total.

With the cost of the two wars approaching $280 billion--that is a lot of money; that is your money, Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen--the American people are beginning to ask how much more will these two wars cost our country? The Congressional Budget Office estimated, in February 2005, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost the American people $458 billion over the next 10 years. The $74.4 billion in military spending contained in this supplemental appropriations bill is but a small downpayment on that staggering sum.

How accurate is this estimate of nearly half a trillion dollars more in war costs? How accurate is it? Amazingly, the administration has flatout refused to provide any estimates for the cost of the war in its annual budget request. That means, then, under the administration's budget policies, our troops are forced to continue to rely on the stopgap spending measures that are known as emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

I know the terms ``supplemental request'' or ``emergency appropriations'' mean almost nothing to the average American. But each time the White House sends a supplemental request to Congress for more funds that have never appeared in the President's budget, it reminds me of the way so many Americans pull a credit card out of their wallet when faced with unexpected costs.

Like a credit card, emergency supplemental appropriations requests can be responsibly used to cover costs that could not have been foreseen. But most Americans know, if someone starts using a credit card for everyday expenses, watch out, because that person is on the path to financial ruin. Mr. President, I have never had a credit card in my life. I don't use one. My wife doesn't use one. Using that little piece of plastic means avoiding the tough choices and tradeoffs that are necessary for fiscal responsibility, while reckless spending and increasing interest payments cause a family's debt to spiral out of control. That, in a nutshell, is exactly what is happening in Washington, DC. Just like the slick advertising slogan for credit cards, the administration's repeated requests for supplemental appropriations for the war exemplify the phrase ``buy now, pay later.''

Over the last 3\1/2\ years, at a time when the Government is swimming in red ink, the White House has charged an additional $280 billion-- that is right, $280 billion--on the national credit card, without proposing a single dime of that spending in its annual budget proposal; not one thin dime is seen or shown in the administration's annual budget proposal. This is a reckless course the administration has plotted. It is fiscal irresponsibility at the highest level. This ``take it as it comes'' approach to paying for the cost of the war in Iraq ignores sound budgetary principles, and it is a grave disservice to our troops who are serving in Iraq.

By separating the regular budget of the Defense Department and other Federal agencies from the wartime costs of military operations, the White House has effectively denied Congress the ability to get the whole picture of the needs of our troops and the other needs of our Nation, such as education, highways, and veterans medical care. Instead, Congress receives only piecemeal information about, on the one hand, what funds are required to fight the war--this unnecessary war, I say, in Iraq--and on the other, what funds are required for the regular operations of the Defense Department and other Federal agencies.

This is a misguided approach, and the net effect of this misguided approach is a thoroughly disjointed and discombobulated Federal budget. This hand-me-down process does not serve our troops well.

A unified, coherent budget for our military would allow Congress and the administration, as well as the American people, to focus on the future to evaluate what our troops might need to fight two wars--the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq--in the next 6, 12, or 18 months.

I am fully supportive of the war in Afghanistan because in that case our country was attacked, our country was invaded by an enemy. We fought back. I fully supported President Bush in that war, and I do today. I support the troops in both wars, but I do not support the policy that sent our troops into Iraq.

Instead of looking forward, however, the abuse of the supplemental appropriations process means the Congress and the administration are constantly--constantly--looking backward over our shoulder to fix the problems that might have been addressed had the cost of the wars been included in the President's budget.

Congress has had to add money to prior supplementals to buy more body armor, to buy more ammunition, to buy more armored humvees. All of these costs should have been included in earlier administration regular unified budget requests for the entire Federal Government.

What is more, this disjointed manner of paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has a tremendous effect on the entire Federal budget. By refusing to budget for the cost of the war, the President is submitting annual budgets to Congress that are downright inaccurate. These budget requests are inaccurate. They understate the actual amount of our annual deficits by scores of billions of dollars.

If the President's emergency request for 2005 is approved, the Congress will have approved over $210 billion just for the war in Iraq. While the budget deficit grows to record levels, the President tells us we have to cut domestic programs by $192 billion over the next 5 years. The President tells us we have to charge veterans for their medical care, that we have to cut grants for firefighters and first responders, that we cannot adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and that we should cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. The list goes on and on.

Since the President took office, he has taken a Federal budget that was in

surplus for 4 straight years and produced deficits as far as the human eye can see. For 2006, the President is projecting a deficit of $390 billion, but that deficit estimate does not--does not, does not-- include new spending for the war in Iraq. We are not fighting that war on the cheap. It is costing you money, you citizens out there. It is your money; it is costing you money. That deficit estimate does not include new spending, I say, for the war in Iraq. Why? Why does it not? Why does that deficit estimate not include new spending for the war in Iraq? Because the President pretends he cannot project what the war will cost in 2006. Well, Mr. President, I assure you the costs will not be zero.

The President will not tell the American people what the war in Iraq will cost. By understating the deficits, the American people are being led down a primrose path. That is dishonesty. Neither the White House nor Congress is making any tough choices about how to pay for the cost of the war because the administration is not telling Congress how much it thinks the war might cost in the next year. And as a result, there is no talk of raising taxes or cutting spending in order to pay for the costs of the wars.

The United States is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, and the administration's failure to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is sending our country even deeper into red ink. For as brilliantly as our troops have performed on the battlefield, as brilliantly as they have fought and died on the battlefield, the administration's budgeteers are creating a budgetary catastrophe. But the executive branch has not always been so neglectful of the need to include in its budget the cost of ongoing wars. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is a long history of Presidents moving the cost of ongoing military operations into their annual budget requests rather than relying completely on supplemental appropriations bills.

For example, the Congressional Research Service reports President Franklin D. Roosevelt included funds for World War II in his fiscal year 1943 budget request. President Lyndon B. Johnson included funds for the Vietnam war in his fiscal year 1966 request. Military operations in Bosnia and the U.S. operations to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq were initially funded through supplemental appropriations. But in 1995, Congress forced President Bill Clinton to include those costs in his fiscal year 1997 budget, which he did. Upon assuming the Presidency, George W. Bush began to include the cost of the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo in his fiscal year 2001 budget request. I supported President Bush on that initiative because it made good fiscal sense. Twice I have offered amendments to the Defense appropriations bills to urge the President to add the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his budget.

These amendments were approved by strong bipartisan majorities of the Senate. The first time I offered the amendment on July 17, 2003, it was approved 81 to 15. The second time I offered the amendment on June 24, 2004, it received even broader support and was approved 89 to 9. Each time, this sense-of-the-Senate provision was included in the Defense Appropriations Act and signed into law by the President.

Today, I offer an amendment that follows up on the Senate's call for the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us just have truth in accounting. This is honest accounting. We are letting the American people know how much they are paying for these wars.

This amendment builds on the sense-of-the-Senate language that has been approved by strong bipartisan majorities of the Senate in each of the last 2 years. Once again, this provision urges the President to budget for the cost of the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. However, my amendment today goes further and urges the President to submit an amended budget request for the cost of the wars to Congress no later than September 1, 2005.

Although the White House should have budgeted for this war long ago, this provision ratchets up the pressure on the administration to submit to Congress an estimate of the cost of the war for fiscal year 2006. Hopefully, this will be the first step in restoring some sanity to the President's budget request that has so far ignored the enormous costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This amendment also contains a section of findings that illustrate many of the points I have already made in urging the President to budget for the war. These findings emphasize the legislative history of the Senate urging the President to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The findings also present some of the conclusions reached by the Congressional Research Service about the funding of previous military operations through the regular appropriations process.

Finally, this amendment includes a reporting requirement that would help keep Congress informed--help keep us informed. We are elected by ``we the people,'' the first three words in the preamble of the Constitution. We are hearing a lot about the Constitution these days, and we are going to hear more. I am going to have a few things to say about it before it is over.

As I said, this amendment includes a reporting requirement that would help to keep Congress informed about the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This provision would require the Department of Defense to provide Congress with the specific amounts that have been spent to date--what is wrong with that?--for each of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, the Pentagon prefers to report only a single figure that combines the cost of these two wars, but Congress and the American people ought to know the exact cost of the war in Afghanistan. They ought to know the exact cost of the war that was forced upon our country in Afghanistan, and they need to know the cost of the war in Iraq, the war that the administration chose to begin, the invasion that the administration chose to set forth. These wars should not be confused one with the other. They are two different wars, and we should say so right up front. We should know the amount of money we spend in each.

In addition, this report would require the Pentagon to keep the Congress continually informed of estimates of military operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan for the next year so that Congress can have the better lens with which to look upon future budgets for our military.

This is nothing but right. The elected representatives of the people sitting in this body ought to know these things. We are representing the American people in our States and throughout the country. What is wrong with our telling them right up front? We need to know these things. I have a responsibility to my people back home. Not only that, but I have a responsibility to my children, my grandchildren, and to their children. Each of us has that responsibility, and we ought to ask for this information. We ought to insist on it.

Once again, the Senate should send a message to the administration that it ought to budget for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment sends that message in clear terms. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this sense-of-the-Senate amendment with another strong bipartisan vote.

I call up my amendment No. 464.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I might call up the amendment at the desk, No. 463.

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

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

Mr. President, with this supplemental appropriations bill, Congress will have appropriated $300 billion for military operations and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is an enormous sum of money. We say it is for the troops in the field, for armor, weapons, equipment, and other mechanisms necessary to wage a war. But a significant portion does not make it to the troops. Much of it goes to defense contractors, corporate giants such as Halliburton that profit from the military operations and defense expenditures of the U.S. Government.

Halliburton reportedly has been awarded $11 billion in Iraq contracts. The war in Iraq may symbolize a time of sacrifice for American families, but for some--not all but for some--defense contractors, the cold, hard truth is that Iraq has become an opportunity to reap an enormous profit from American's decision to send America's sons and daughters into war. It is incumbent upon the Congress to be diligent in how these moneys are allocated to defense contractors. It is incumbent upon the Congress to be thorough in its oversight and to be meticulous in its accounting.

The administration has submitted five emergency supplemental spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. The size of these supplemental requests is massive, exceeding $80 billion this year, $25 million last year, and $160 billion the year before that. Most of these costs are being considered outside the checks and oversight of the regular budget and appropriations process. It is a confusing and, at times, a beguiling process that results in enormous sums of money flowing to contractors in Iraq, oftentimes without adequate oversight. Such a process invites waste, abuse, and fraud.

I don't belittle the role of defense contractors in Iraq. I belittle the circumstances that the administration has fostered. I belittle the suspicion that this administration has created by veiling its contractor negotiations in secrecy, and the whirlwind of allegations of misconduct and fraud that the administration has invited by not sharing information with the people of the United States, the American public.

The American people have good reason to question the costs emanating from contractors in Iraqi oil fields and Iraqi communities.

Three separate Government auditors have criticized contractor waste in Iraq. Government investigators point

to unsubstantiated costs and to sloppy accounting. Fortune magazine's analysis of Government reports found $2 billion of unjustified or undocumented charges. The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency has cited inadequacies and deficiencies in contractor billing systems, along with unreasonable and illogical cost justification. The Wall Street Journal reports that Pentagon auditors are investigating whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers by $212 million for delivering fuel to Iraq.

Questions have arisen in the House of Representatives about why these costs had been concealed from international auditors. The Government Accountability Office has cited the risks of inadequate cost controls for contractors in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority's inspector general cited millions of dollars in overcharges from Halliburton employees indulging themselves at the Kuwait Hilton. Imagine U.S. soldiers in the field forced to survive on military rations and suffering the unbearable heat of the desert while Halliburton employees enjoy the breakfast buffet in an air-conditioned Hilton.

The House Government Reform Committee reported hundreds of millions of dollars in waste by some contractors. A glance at the committee Web site reveals tens of millions of dollars in questionable charges--task order after task order showing $86 million in unexplained charges, $34 million in unsupported costs, $36 million in unjustified expenditures, and so on and so on. Incredibly, the Defense Department--your Defense Department, my Defense Department--is paying these charges, even though their own auditors are telling them that the charges are unjustified.

One example reported in the Wall Street Journal: Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root charged taxpayers for dining facility services in Iraq and Kuwait. Pentagon auditors flagged $200 million of unsupported costs--that is a lot of money--$200 million of unsupported costs, but the Defense Department released $145 million in compensation to Kellogg, Brown & Root despite auditors' reservations and despite Halliburton's inability to justify the charge.

It is the taxpayers--you people out there watching through those lenses, those electronic lenses, watching the Senate floor, I am talking about you--it is the taxpayers, your constituents, Mr. President, my constituents, who are being charged for this tripe. It is they who must bear the costs of such rip-offs. It is your money.

Our constituents read in the newspapers how lucrative contracts are awarded without competition, how enormous rewards are handed to campaign donors. Mention the name Halliburton, and, as Fortune magazine quips, an image flashes in the public's mind of ``a giant corporation engaged in shameless war profiteering--charging outrageous prices to provide fuel for Iraqis and meals for American troops.''

Our constituencies, the people who send us here, are crying out for Congress to assume a stronger oversight role and to assure them, the people, that their moneys are being spent wisely. The amendment I have offered today does exactly that. My amendment requires the Defense Secretary to provide the Committee on Appropriations and the Armed Services Committee with a quarterly report that lists and describes questionable and unsupported contractor charges identified by Pentagon auditors for Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment requires the Defense Secretary to withhold 100 percent of the payment for these charges and to assess a penalty by withholding an additional amount equal to 15 percent of the unsupported charge. If Pentagon auditors can verify the charges assessed by the contractor, that they are justifiable, then the Defense Secretary can release the payment.

My amendment is common sense. We ought not to be paying for services that have not been rendered. The American people ought not be paying for services that have not been rendered. The American people ought not be paying more than a fair market price. The American people ought not allow contractors to think they can hoodwink the American citizen and get away with it.

The American public is being asked to sacrifice to pay for this war. The President's budget cuts investments in education, in health care, in domestic priorities that impact every State of the Union in order to pay for these military and reconstruction activities. Congress ought to ensure--that is us--we ought to ensure that sacrifice is not wasted. We ought to slap the knuckles--and slap them hard--of any contractor, whether because of sloppy accounting or because of outright fraud, that results in the American taxpayer being bilked.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge its adoption.

I yield the floor.

I have no objection.

Amendment No. 499

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his kind and overly charitable comments concerning me.