Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I must say for the record that there are Members who strongly support this bill-- Senator Mikulski and others. However, on behalf of others, I must object. Therefore, I do object.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma comes, I will yield the floor quickly to him. At this moment, under the current circumstances, I had sought to be recognized and I do so for the purpose of speaking for not more than 12 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for no more than 12 minutes.

Mr. President, there is an old Chinese curse that says, ``May you live in interesting times.'' A Senate equivalent of that saying could very well be: May you lead the Senate in interesting times. If so, the Senate leadership of Senator Tom Daschle would certainly qualify. He led the Senate with a very quiet integrity during some of the most difficult times in American history.

In 1994, Senator Daschle became Senate Democratic leader by a single

vote. No sooner had he become Democratic leader than he was forced to deal with the Republican revolution of 1994, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his short-lived ``Contract With America.'' I never read it, never signed it, and was not a disciple of it.

While he served as the Democratic leader for nearly a decade, there was a period of 17 months in which he went from minority leader to majority leader and back to minority leader.

He was the Senate Democratic leader during the first impeachment of an American President in 131 years. He was the Senate Democratic leader on September 11, 2001, when America experienced the worst terrorist attack in the history of this great land. One month later, a bioterrorist attack on his Senate office in the Hart Building exposed 20 of Tom Daschle's staffers to deadly anthrax spores.

As the Senate Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle has had to deal with three different Republican leaders. During these turbulent circumstances, he remained reassuring and inspiring. Tom Daschle's soothing personality and his mild-mannered demeanor were comforting under very trying circumstances.

Looking back, it seems strange that many people once considered this likable, soft-spoken young man to be too likable and too soft spoken to be an effective Senate leader. I am pleased and proud to say that we were wrong. I say ``we'' because many people will recall that I initially opposed his candidacy for Senate Democratic leadership. But after Tom Daschle was elected leader, I was impressed as I found him to be an engaging man with whom to work, a most interesting man, a leader who has a way of putting other people at ease, even in troubled as well as in pleasant times.

He was always working to seek a consensus. He was always listening. He was one of the best listeners I have ever met during my 46 years in this body.

Even in the Senate's darkest moments, he retained his sense of optimism, always preferring to see the glass as half full rather than half empty. And that optimism was infectious. Therefore, 2 years later, it was my pleasure to nominate Tom Daschle for reelection as Senate Democratic leader. In nominating him, I announced:

I was totally wrong about this young man. He has steel in

his spine, despite his reasonable and modest demeanor.

As a former Senate leader myself, I can say that a Senate leader who can bring together and develop a consensus on tough controversial measures must have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon.

As a former Senate Democratic leader, I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Daschle for the service that he rendered to this Chamber, to our Nation, and to our political party.

During the interesting times in which he led the Senate, Senator Daschle was always working for the common good. Because of his principled--let me say that again--because of his principled opposition to the Bush administration, critics denounced and demonized him as an obstructionist. If placing the national good over blind obedience to any President makes a Senator an obstructionist, then let me say that our democracy--indeed, all democracies--need more Tom Daschle's.

Senator Daschle stayed above it all, as he refused to engage in the gutter politics of his opponents. He always retained and maintained the dignity that has characterized him as a man and as a Senator. But then this mild-mannered South Dakota Democrat, the only South Dakotan ever to be elected to the Senate leadership, has always served the people of his State and the people of our Nation proudly and honorably, with diligence, sincerity, and distinction.

His entire career in public service has been based on standing up for the common good. He has been a true friend of rural America, especially America's farmers. Among the many measures he promoted to benefit American farmers, Senator Daschle pushed the development and the commercialization of alternative agricultural products.

He was an aggressive advocate of health issues, having authored legislation that expanded health services in rural areas.

As a veteran himself, having served as an intelligence officer in the Strategic Air Command of the U.S. Air Force, Tom Daschle was a powerful advocate for American veterans. In 1991, he won his 11-year struggle for legislation to assist Vietnam veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange.

I am sorry that I must now say goodbye to this decent man and this outstanding Senator, especially in such circumstances. And he is a decent man. He was always good to me. He was always listening. He always listened to whatever I had to suggest to him--always listening and always tried to be helpful. So many times he spoke good words concerning me. He was always asking about my wife Erma: How is your wife? How is your wife Erma?

But as anyone involved in politics knows, political life has its defeats as well as its victories, its sorrows as well as its joys, and we must accept them as they come, always looking forward, not backward, and knowing that the future will present other opportunities to serve our Nation.

I hope that Senator Daschle will continue a life of public service because our Nation will always need men of his background and experiences but, most importantly, his wisdom, his integrity, and his optimism.

Let me say on behalf of Erma and myself that we are so grateful to Senator Daschle and his lovely wife for their many courtesies extended to us, their many kindnesses which we will never forget. I am confident that despite the happenings of November 2, Senator Daschle still sees the glass as half full rather than half empty.

And so my wife Erma and I extend our best wishes to Senator Daschle and his wife Linda in all of their future endeavors.

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

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

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

I thank the Chair. I will try to do my speech in less than 20; not much, perhaps, but at least less.

Mr. President, as I begin my remarks today, I am reminded of the brutally candid statement by David Stockman, President Reagan's Budget Director in December 1981, when it became clear that the Reagan tax cuts would cause massive deficits in the Federal budget. In response to a reporter's queries, Mr. Stockman quipped that ``None of us really understands what is going on with all of these numbers.''

I wonder how many of us today understand what is going on with all of these numbers. We certainly do not act as though we do. This administration has plunged the Federal Government deeply into debt, deeply into debt, Mr. President, deeply into debt, which, unless policies change, will mean deficits at historically high levels for the foreseeable future. Former congressional deficit hawks, many of the very same people who for years decried deficit spending, seem perfectly content to go along for the ride.

This week, the Senate is poised to vote to increase the statutory debt limit--it will take place within the hour--for the third time in just 3 years. The $800 billion increase that we consider today follows a record $984 billion increase signed by President Bush in May 2003 and a $450 billion increase signed by President Bush in June 2002. In less than 3 years, under the Bush regime, the debt limit will have soared to the alarming level of $8.2 trillion, with no end in sight to the spending and borrowing.

How long would it take to count a trillion dollars, Mr. President, at the rate of $1 per second? It would take 32,000 years. If you want to know what a trillion dollars sounds like and is, that is it. To count a trillion dollars, at the rate of $1 per second, would take 32,000 years.

Since January 2001, the gross Federal debt has increased $1.2 billion per day. It has increased $50 million every hour of every day. Today, every man, woman, and child in the United States owes $25,206.29 on the debt. In fiscal year 2004, U.S. taxpayers owed $322 billion in interest--in interest? Yes, in interest on the publicly held debt. These are interest payments that do not educate one child, that don't buy one tank, that don't provide health care for one senior citizen. Skyrocketing budget deficits and an ever-increasing, destructive national debt have become not merely facts of life in America today but a way of life for tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, and for the years to come.

Lawmakers may faithfully tout the Bush administration's line that the White House is serious about cutting the Federal deficit, but the American people have yet to see anything that would give them reason to take such claims seriously. Irresponsible spending does not reflect the values of most Americans who must struggle with their own family budget and foot big Federal bills by paying taxes. Oh, how sweet the sound-- taxes.

For the last 4 years, we have been operating under Bush budgets. We have been operating under Bush tax cuts. We have been operating under Bush spending bills. The result has been a Bush deficit of $413 billion for the fiscal year 2004.

How much is a billion dollars? We are talking about $413 billion. We are talking about $413 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Think of that. We have the largest deficit in U.S. history and an estimated $2.3 trillion in accumulated deficits over the next decade.

The White House will try to blame deficits on the war on terror. There happens to be two wars going on, I remind my colleagues, not just one--one

in Afghanistan and the Bush war in Iraq.

Let's look at the whole picture. President Bush reportedly will request an additional $75 billion early next year for the war in Iraq. That is the Bush war. That request follows $203 billion already appropriated for Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing our total commitment to $278 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The corporate tax bill that the President signed into law in October will cost $18 billion in the coming 3 years to pay for special interest tax breaks, further increasing budget deficits in the short run.

The White House's own budget office is leaking word that the budget deficit will increase, not decrease, next year when the President submits his budget to the Congress.

The President's Social Security privatization proposal is projected to cost a trillion dollars in the coming decade, and the President's tax and spending proposals will likely add hundreds of billions of dollars more to our Nation's budget deficits. That is to say nothing of our mounting trade deficits that have cost an untold number of American workers their jobs, or the multitrillion-dollar deficits in the Social Security and Medicare Programs that threaten senior citizens and their retirement and health benefits.

The Bush administration and the Congress have not had the courage to address this mounting debt, and to debate policy changes which might help to bring these deficits under control.

It is hard to believe that only 2 weeks after an intense Presidential election campaign in which both sides, Republican and Democrat, pledged to reduce the size of the deficit, the Senate's first order of business upon returning is to completely ignore those campaign promises and pass this debt limit increase, without a debate, really, about the ways to reduce our Nation's huge deficit.

In his victory speech, George Bush pledged to work with Democrats to unite the country, didn't he? Well, I can think of no better way to demonstrate the commitment behind that pledge than drawing on both parties' avowed aversion to these budget deficits and initiating a constructive, bipartisan effort to move to eliminate them. We know how to do it. We have done it before. We have done it in a bipartisan manner. We have done it successfully, without budget gimmicks, without constitutional amendments. For Heaven's sake, let's don't start down that road of constitutional amendments to balance the budget. We can do it without constitutional amendments, without granting imperious Presidential powers--just using plain common sense.

In 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush and the 101st Congress negotiated budget enforcement tools and demonstrated the courage to implement them. Every budget guru in Washington, from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Comptroller General David Walker to former Directors of the Congressional Budget Office, agreed that those tools worked extraordinarily well in bringing our Nation's deficits under control.

Both Republicans and Democrats voted this year to restore pay-as-you- go rules, requiring new mandatory spending and new tax cuts to be offset. Hallelujah. President Bush endorsed those budget enforcement mechanisms in his fiscal year 2004 budget. Hallelujah. But he has now flip-flopped and wants to exclude tax cuts from the requirement that they be paid for.

But here we stand in the midst of renewed pledges by both parties to work together to address our Nation's challenges, and on this issue where so much common ground exists we are unable to muster the political courage to talk about the wolf at our doorstep.

So we will pass this statutory debt increase and then put it out of our minds until we are forced to raise it again. We all should know the folly of this tactic, and as the chickens come home to roost in the years ahead, the American people will surely remind us of it. It is morally reprehensible to deceive the voter by claiming that deficits don't matter.

These destructive debt figures represent a threat--yes, a threat--to the Social Security system--and don't you forget it--a threat to affordable health care for working Americans, a threat to the promise of a college education for our Nation's youth, a threat to the financial underpinnings of our economy, what one editorial in the Washington Post described as ``the cold-hearted actuaries of doom.''

Economists across the political spectrum are growing increasingly concerned about the effect of these mounting budget deficits on our economy. The U.S. dollar continues to lose value against the Japanese yen, the European Euro, and the Canadian dollar. Investors may soon rather hold the currencies of other nations than our own, and this spells great trouble in boxcar letters, trouble for our country in foreign policy as well as domestic responsibility. Republicans and Democrats increasingly view our Nation as becoming too dependent--too dependent--on foreign investment and with good reason.

According to the Treasury Department, foreign holdings--get that, foreign holdings--foreign holdings comprise half of our Nation's privately held public debt, with much of that debt owed to countries such as China and Korea and entities such as OPEC and the Caribbean banking centers. To these foreign holders, American taxpayers paid $322 billion in interest payments last fiscal year on money borrowed to finance our Government's operations.

Please understand, it is hard to scold China about its human rights policies when we are in debt up to our eyeballs to such foreign entities. With a $413 billion deficit last year, the administration must borrow the equivalent of the entire budget for the Department of Defense, from where? From foreign countries. That means that the Bush administration cannot pay our soldiers in Iraq who are fighting the Bush war, and Afghanistan where a war is going on that I support fully, without having to go hat in hand--hat in hand--to other countries for a loan and handing the U.S. taxpayer a hefty interest premium to boot.

It is great political rhetoric to claim that America does not have to ask the permission of other nations to defend itself or do anything else for that matter, but when we rely so heavily on other nations to help pay our way in the world, our haughty claims of independence are just so much bluff. Unfortunately, the rest of the world knows what we will not admit; that is, we are beholden to foreigners to pay our way.

Make no mistake about it, the threat of budget deficits to our economy is real, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair. I yield back that time. Perhaps I do not have it to yield back, but I shall not use it. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Friday night, as Senators headed home after the final vote of the day, the House-Senate conference on the military construction appropriations bill reached its conclusion. With the conferees in agreement, all that remained to be

done on that bill was to file and pass the conference report.

But work on that bill did not stop there. In the dead of night, the leadership intervened in the conference to jam an additional $11.6 billion funding package onto that bill. The Senators who served on that conference committee didn't know what hit them. This disaster supplemental was never considered, debated, or voted on by the Senate. Senators never had a chance to examine or weigh in on this spending.

Appropriations for disaster relief to address the problems resulting from the four recent hurricanes are undoubtedly required. However, there are extensive backlogs of unfunded needs resulting from earlier disasters that are not addressed at all in this relief package. This bill fails to provide the funds to address the $752 million backlog for 34 States in the emergency highway program or a $128 million backlog for 43 States in the USDA debris removal programs. In 43 States, the debris from past floods and other disasters has yet to be cleaned up. So, the next time a flood comes rolling down the valley, the water will have no place to go, making the damage even worse. What kind of a short-sighted policy is that?

Sadly, our President and administration seem to only be able to focus on the immediate crisis. By all means, we should provide the $11.6 billion of assistance to the victims of the four recent hurricanes. But why has the President shown no interest in helping the communities hit by past disasters in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or California? The Federal Government owes just those four States over $307 million. I simply do not under why this so-called compassionate President can treat the victims of disaster in one State differently than victims in other States.

The military construction conference report also includes $2.9 billion in emergency assistance for farmers experiencing crop losses caused by natural disasters, such as drought conditions, hurricanes and other disasters.

It is a worthwhile effort for the Congress to assist the Nation's farmers in their time of need. However, the same relief package includes an onerous provision which decreases another farm aid program by nearly $3 billion to pay for the drought disaster aid. In short, this disaster relief package robs Peter to pay Paul. While it increases aid to farmers with one hand, it takes it away with the other.

This is no way to run the United States Senate. I signed the conference report for the military construction aspect alone. That funding went through normal procedures. It was debated and voted on by both Houses, and it was subject to bipartisan negotiations in conference.

I commend the two managers of this bill for their perseverance in following regular order to the great extent that they did. The managers were under great pressure from the Republican leaders of Congress to cut a backroom deal in the dead of night, simply to allow members of the House to leave town before the Senate.

The managers stuck to their guns and insisted that the conferees meet again in open session to consider the whole package. This is as much as they could do in the face of the majority leadership. The managers of the military construction bill held as firm as they could against the arm-twisting of the Republican leaders. But the deck was stacked, and the leadership never intended to allow the Senate a moment of debate on this spending package. It was just jammed in at the last minute.

In this respect, my refusal to sign the conference report, except for the military construction aspect, reflects my solidarity with the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and his battle to implement the Conservation Security Program, which he authored as part of the 2002 farm bill. It is unfair for this Senator to have to keep fighting for the survival of this program year after year before. Any Senator who is familiar with the difficult decisions a farmer must make to operate a successful business knows that when a farmer decides to commit to the conservation practices required by this important environmental program, that farmer is making a long term commitment. But year after year, the Republican majority tries to shackle this program with new limits. How can a farmer make a long term commitment to conservation when the rules keep changing?

I hope that the Senate will return to its prior way of doing business, when the regular order was followed and the rights of all Senators, including those in the minority, were fully protected. Such practices serve this institution well. It promotes respect among Members and quells unnecessary disputes.

The leadership of the Senate would do well to turn away from the increasingly common gambit of trying to jam legislation down the throats of Senators at the last possible moment. It is most unfortunate that the Republican leaders chose to pursue this tactic on spending that is intended to help countless Americans recover from recent disasters.

It is some small consolation that the Senate has recognized its obligation to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, by agreeing to adopt a concurrent resolution relating to the enrollment on the fiscal year 2005 military construction appropriations bill. This concurrent resolution, if adopted by the House, would have the effect of deleting the onerous offset against the Conservation Security Program that the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and others find so offensive. The concurrent resolution would, in contrast to the FY 2005 military construction appropriations bill, substitute language similar to that employed with regard to the hurricane disaster aid, thus making the drought aid to farmers an emergency without an offset.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I thank Chairman Thad Cochran, the House chairman, Harold Rogers, Representative Martin Sabo, Representative David Obey, and all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work on this important legislation. We all share the goal of ensuring that the new Department of Homeland Security has the resources it needs to secure the homeland.

I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines of homeland security. While I remain very concerned that we are not giving these men and women the tools they need to do their jobs, that in no way detracts from their commitment to serve the Nation every hour of every day.

It is particularly appropriate for us to be considering this legislation as Congress reviews the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FBI Director, and the CIA Director invoke the threat of another terrorist attack on an almost weekly basis. The 9/11 Commission concluded that on September 11, 2001, our government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks. We are still not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks.

In light of all of these threats, one might anticipate that the President would have amended his anemic 2-percent proposed increase for the Department of Homeland Security. One might have anticipated that the President,

our war President, would have requested increased appropriations for securing our mass transit systems, for screening airline passengers for explosives, for inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal Air Marshals. Sadly, this President talks the talk when it comes to homeland security, but when it comes to doing the hard work of making the Nation more secure, the President takes a walk.

The conference report that is before the Senate provides $33.1 billion, a level that is $896 million above the President's request. This is an increase of only 5-percent over the levels approved by Congress last year, only 5-percent. At a time when our war time President and his entire administration is telling the Nation to expect another attack, we are approving what is essentially a status-quo homeland security bill.

The conference report that is before us does make several modest improvements to the President's budget. In response to the Madrid bombings and threats of similar attacks here at home, we include funding for mass transit and rail security. We increase funding for port security. We do more to secure air cargo on passenger aircraft. The bill begins to invest in technologies to screen airline passengers for explosives.

While these are important improvements, regrettably, the conferees were simply not given sufficient resources to address serious gaps in our security that we all know exist.

I am particularly disappointed that the Senate majority leader changed his mind and acquiesced to a demand from the Speaker that the conferees drop the customs user fee extension and the $784 million of homeland security spending that the Senate approved last month. The funding that was stripped from the bill is vital to the security of this Nation. Not one Senator objected to adding the additional funding because it provides needed investments to protect our borders, equip first responders, enhance air and rail security, hire more Federal Air Marshals, and secure nonprofit institutions that are threatened by terrorists.

The 9/11 Commission report includes recommendations to deploy explosives detection equipment at our airports, to address the communications interoperability problem, to focus homeland security dollars based on the greatest risk, and to secure non-aviation targets. This bill simply does not do enough to respond to these recommendations.

Mr. President, time and again, Senators on this side of the aisle have tried to plug the holes in our Nation's security. We have worked to address some of the most basic, and most dangerous, holes in our protections from another terrorist attack. But at virtually every turn, the President and the Senate majority tell us no. The American people are told no. Why? It costs too much. It costs too much to protect the people's lives. It costs too much to close our borders. It costs too much to screen cargo on our airplanes and to check passengers for explosives. It costs too much to save lives.

This Administration has repeatedly warned that it isn't a question of if another terrorist attack will happen, but when. Unfortunately, I think that the Administration has failed to heed its own warning. By failing to support a significant investment in homeland security, by ignoring the gaps that we all know exist, the White House foolishly is gambling with the lives and the safety of the American people.

However, we have done the best we can with the limited resources that have been given to us and I urge Senators to support its passage. Finally, I want to thank the staffs of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. Both Chairman Cochran's staff and my staff have worked diligently this year to produce this important legislation. We had an excellent series of hearings this year that I believe helped the subcommittee to produce a bill that contains significant improvements to the President's request.

Again, I urge Members to support the conference report.

Mr. President, at the close of the 108th Congress, we say farewell to Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald who is leaving us after one term.

The former congressional intern, commercial banking attorney, and Illinois State Senator was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998. In fact, he was the first Republican in Illinois to win a Senate seat in 20 years.

It has been a busy 6 years for Senator Fitzgerald. During his brief tenure in this chamber he served on the Senate Agriculture, Commerce, Government Affairs, Small Business, and Aging Committees. He was active in a number of legislative areas, including mutual fund reform, consumer safety protection, aviation, environmental, and agricultural issues. And he actively pursued the expansion of overseas markets.

During his 6 years in this chamber, Senator Fitzgerald threw himself into some of the most challenging and complex issues considered by the Senate. In 2000, he attacked waste in Government contracting and crafted legislation to improve the process by which contractors are awarded taxpayer monies. He later worked with me to address the Pentagon's ``revolving door''--an egregious practice utilized by government contractors in exerting influence over the contracting process. In 2002, the former commercial banking attorney lashed out at Enron executives who robbed thousands of workers of millions of dollars of their life savings, and he later crafted legislation to reform the mutual fund industry.

Time and again he showed himself to be a Senator who is not intimidated by complexity. He did not simply talk about the issues of the day, he took time to study them, and understand them, and then try to do something about them. Time and again he demonstrated that he was a workhorse, not a show horse. The Senate needs more members like him, Senators whom we can look to when confronting difficult and complex issues.

And the Senate needs more Senators like Senator Fitzgerald who, on a number of high-profile issues, including gun control, health care, patient's bill of rights, and the environment, ANWR drilling, put the good of the people of his State, in particular, and the American people, in general, above partisan party interests and ideology.

In attacking political corruption and cronyism, he was bipartisan, not simply in rhetoric, which is easy, but rather in action, which is a good deal more difficult.

I wish Senator Fitzgerald and his wife Nina the best as they begin a new phase of their lives.

senator john breaux

Mr. President, when the 109th Congress convenes in January, 2005, this Chamber and our Nation will, unfortunately, be without the services of Senator John B. Breaux.

This will truly be a loss to the Senate and to our Nation. With the retirement of Senator Breaux, we lose a man of exceptional political experience. This son of an oil-field worker and a dressmaker began his political career as a staff aide to Congressman, and later, Governor, Edwin Edwards.

Mr. Breaux was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives seven times, the first when he was just 28 years of age, making him the youngest member of the United States Congress at the time. He served in the House for 14 years where he, among other things, was a principal architect of the 1983 reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.

In 1986, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and has served three terms in this chamber. Now, after 32 years of congressional experience, Senator Breaux is leaving us.

With the retirement of Senator Breaux, we lose one of those Senators who is always ready and willing to reach across the aisle to find common ground, to achieve the workable compromise. He has constantly demonstrated the ability to reach beyond partisan and ideological differences, without abandoning his basic principles. Politics is said to be the art of compromise, and this was an art that Senator Breaux constantly practiced. On issue after issue, including health care, energy production, tax cuts, and welfare, he demonstrated his ability to broker bipartisan deals, his penchant for deal making, and his talent for fashioning legislative coalitions. With his efforts to break Senate stalemates on Medicare, Social Security, education, health care for the uninsured, and other issues, he earned a well-deserved reputation as a behind-the-scenes mediator. Senator Breaux exemplified the wisdom of not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Even when I disagreed with him, which I have, I still admired his efforts to find that workable solution. Even when he was unsuccessful, which was rare, I still respected his skill and the cause he was advocating. With wit, determination, and patience he is always in pursuit of a constructive course of action, and that won him many admirers, including me.

Because of his efforts and his considerable skills, he chaired the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and he co- chaired the National Commission on Retirement Policy. He also served as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging and as chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. He is currently the senior member of the Finance Committee.

Recognizing and appreciating his leadership abilities, in 1993, his Democratic colleagues elected him chief deputy whip, and in this postion Senator Breaux has served this chamber, my party, and our country effectively and successfully for more than a decade.

With the retirement of Senator Breaux, the Senate will also be losing a fine musician. Every year at Mardi Gras, Senator Breaux entertains the multitudes by playing a washboard. As a musical instrument, a washboard is not a fiddle, but I am sure it sounds good, as good as a washboard can, I guess.

With the retirement of Senator Breaux, we will be losing a Senator known for his disarming humor. During the anthrax problem of October 2001, he boasted that the fish in his office would survive because ``they are not weak Northeast fish . . . They are strong Louisiana fish.'' I think that was supposed to be funny. If it was supposed to be a fact, I will put up a good West Virginia mountain rainbow trout any day against his Cajun aquatic bottom feeders.

Most importantly, with the retirement of Senator Breaux, we will be losing a good man. A man who was always there to help. A man whose word is his bond. A man who has constantly demonstrated his loyalty to this chamber and to his country. A man who came up the ``hard way,'' without anything being handed to him, but through hard work, dedication to duty and to his State and our country, fashioned a remarkable and successful career.

I wish Senator Breaux and his wife Lois the best as they enter the next phase of their lives and careers.

Mr. President, the Bible tells us that ``unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.''

When Bob Graham came to the United States Senate, ``much'' was expected from him because much had been given.

He came to the Senate from a wealthy and successful family. His father, Ernest ``Cap'' Graham, was a wealthy and successful Florida dairy man and politician. His half-brother, Phil Graham, was a well- known publisher of a major newspaper here in the Nation's capital.

He came to the Senate with a wealth of experience. After graduating from the University of Florida and Harvard Law School, he served two terms in the Florida House of Representatives, 1967-1971; two terms in the Florida State Senate, 1971-1979. In 1978, he was elected Governor of Florida, where he served two terms, 1978-1986.

In 1986, having never lost an election, and with a record of accomplishments as both legislator and a chief executive, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Therefore, no one could have been faulted for expecting much from him, and I am pleased and proud to say he has delivered.

He was a most effective member on a number of important Senate committees, including the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In his committee work, and in his daily work on the Senate floor, Senator Graham earned the respect of everyone in this chamber for his honesty, his decency, and his integrity. In the rough and tumble world of American politics, Senator Graham always remained a gentleman.

He also earned the respect of his colleagues for his ability to reach across the aisle for the greater good of his State and our Nation. As a result, Senator Graham established a long record of bipartisan accomplishments on issues of national security, health care, education, environment, veterans benefits, and intelligence matters.

The people of Florida have been well served by their Senator. In this Chamber, he has helped protect the workers in his State from unfair cheap imports, worked to secure the protection of the Everglades, and has fought tenaciously to reduce the traffic in illegal drugs in Florida. He was one of the principal architects of the 1988 omnibus anti-drug bill and organized efforts to attack money laundering by drug smugglers.

During his political career, Senator Graham also became famous for three things. The first is his wardrobe, that is, the ties that he wears. Everyone who knows Senator Graham knows that he only wears ties with an outline of Florida on them.

The second is that for almost three decades he has recorded in detail every waking moment of his life.

The third thing for which Senator Graham is well known is his so- called ``workdays.'' One day each month for the past three decades, he has performed a job, usually manual labor, in order to stay in touch with and to better understand the problems and the needs of the people of his State.

He has now performed nearly 400 different jobs. He has been a flight attendant, a truck driver, and a chicken plucker. He has cleaned up after hurricanes, and he has cleaned up after dogs as he once spent a day handling a ``pooper scooper.'' He once spent a day bagging groceries, and has even performed on stage. He has worked with policemen, doctors, fishermen, firefighters, and teachers.

These ``workdays'' were not gimmicks or media events. They were important means by which he could better serve people of his State. While Governor of Florida, it was during his workday as a public schoolteacher that he experienced firsthand the serious overcrowding in his State's school system. As a result, when he got back to Tallahassee, he sought more funding for school construction to accommodate the State's booming student population.

On his 355th workday he worked in a hospital, trying to secure insurance provider authorization for treatment in the emergency department. This frustrating experience led him to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act.

While serving customers in a Florida pharmacy, he heard from seniors who could not afford to pay for their prescription drugs. Afterwards, he played a lead role in the effort to expand Medicare benefits to cover prescription drugs for seniors.

Despite my admiration for Senator Graham, I must confess that I have had my disagreements with the senior Senator from Florida. More than once, I have heard him issue his boast that, ``the future of America is Florida.'' We all know, of course, that the future of America is West Virginia. But neither this, nor other disagreements, has deterred or subtracted from my respect for him. He has made an enormous contribution to the Senate, where he has effectively and successfully served his State and our country.

Unfortunately, Senator Graham has decided that, after three terms in the Senate, it is time to leave us. We will miss his wisdom, his decency, and his remarkable dedication in service to our Nation. Much was expected of Senator Graham, and he, indeed, exceeded all expectations.

I wish him and his wife, Adele Khoury, the best of health and happiness in their retirement.

Mr. President, the motto of the great State of Oklahoma is ``Labor Conquers All.''

How perfect this is for the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Don Nickles, who has accomplished so much, and gone so far because of his willingness to work.

As a young man, after the death of his father, Don Nickles worked his way through college as a janitor making minimum wage. After graduation, he returned to his home town of Ponca City to help run the family business, the Nickles Machine Corporation, of which he became vice persident, and then general manager.

In 1978, he was elected to the Oklahoma State Senate.

Two years later, in 1980, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as part of the ``Reagan Revolution.'' When he took office in 1981, he was just 31 years of age, the youngest Senator in the 97th Congress. Seventeen years later, in 1998, he became the only Oklahoma Republican ever elected to a fourth term in the U.S. Senate.

During his 24 years in the Senate, for better and for worse, Senator Nickles has remained consistently true to his basic conservative principles. Congress Daily has justly referred to him as, ``the keeper of the conservative flame.''

Being true to his conservative principles has sometimes led him into taking some lonely stands. And his unflinching commitment to his conservative principles have led him to take positions that have angered constituents of his own State. His principles have even led him into positions on issues that have annoyed me. In addition to his views on tax cuts, I could mention his efforts to block the Patient's Bill of Rights, his efforts to defeat increases in the minimum wage, and his effort to scuttle a Democratic initiative to help unemployed workers to be able to afford medical insurance coverage. Still, I have always admired and respected him for the firmness of his convictions and his beliefs, and his willingness to stay with them despite the consequences.

Even with the firmness of his convictions, he has never allowed himself to be trapped or bound by dogmatic partisan stands. Time and again I have watched and admired his willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Democratic Senators in bipartisan efforts to extend unemployment benefits, to win passage of a regulatory reform bill, and to secure passage of other measure that, otherwise, may well have gone down in defeat.

During his 24 years in this chamber, Senator Nickles has served on the Senate Finance Committee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Labor and Human Resources Committee, Small Business, and Joint Committee on Taxation.

For 14 of his 24 years in the Senate, he has served in Republican Senate Leadership, first as chairman of the Senate Republican Senatorial Committee, and then as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, which he transformed from a lunch club into a ``conservative think tank.'' In 1996 and again in 1998, he was elected Assistant Republican Leader, Republican Whip.

In January, 2003, Senator Nickles left the Senate Republican leadership to become chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and this is where I really came to know and appreciate what an outstanding legislator he is.

As I attended Budget Committee hearings and markups held by Chairman Nickles, I came to realize his appreciation for the Senate as an institution, and his determination to make this institution work. I saw, first hand, his efforts to accommodate differences and to restore bipartisanship to the Senate Budget Committee. While he staunchly advocated his beliefs, Budget Chairman Nickles emphasized politeness, courtesy, cordiality, and amiability. These qualities endeared him to Democratic and Republican members of the Budget Committee.

It was here in the work of the Budget Committee that I really saw his personal side. I remember Senator Nickles's first Budget Committee markup as chairman. Senator Nickles arrived at the markup and announced that his daughter had given birth to his first grandchild, Nicholas Fenton Rossiter. I had seen many times the look of pride on a new grandfather's face, and it inspired me to recite a poem for his grandson. ``Dear Nicholas, first, in thy grandfather's arms, a newborn child, thou didst weep, while those around thee smiled, so live, that in thy lasting sleep, thou mayst smile while those around thee weep.''

But at the same announcement of the birth of his grandson, I could not help myself in reminding Budget Chairman Nickles that, given his support for a budget that embraces record deficits, his sweet grandchild was born owing $24,000 on the national debt.

Although I failed to disabuse him of his egregious interpretation of the budget reconciliation process, Senator Nickles, I am convinced, has come to understand the importance of debate in the Senate. Earlier this year, he devoted many hours to studying the budget rules for ways to eliminate the so-called ``vote-a-ramas'' that usually accompany the Senate's budget debates. To his great credit, Senator Nickles demonstrated that rule changes are not necessary. Together with Senator Conrad, he orchestrated this year's budget debate in a manner that allowed adequate time for all Senators to offer and debate their amendments. For the first time in many years, there was no ``vote-a- rama,'' thanks to Senator Nickles.

It has been reported in the media that Senator Nickles was discouraged and disappointed that, in his final year as chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senate was not able to reach a consensus with the House of Representatives on a budget resolution. I hope Senator Nickles realizes that the model of civility he created as chairman of the Budget Committee will be remembered and emulated, and that this accomplishment will survive in the annals of the Senate longer than any budget document.

While I must admit that I will not miss some of the values that he so eloquently advocated, and for which he so effectively fought, I do regret anytime the Senate loses a good person, and Senator Nickles is a very good person. During his 24 years, this outstanding Senator, through his hard work, his friendliness and his dedication and determination, has helped make the Senate a better place, and for that, I am grateful and thankful. Time and again he has demonstrated that ``labor'' certainly does ``conquer all.''

I wish him and his wife, Linda, happiness, health, and prosperity as they enter the next phase in their lives.

Mr. President, 4 years ago, candidates George Bush and Dick Cheney promised those of us from rural America that they understood the challenges we face and that they would work to make our lives better. Now, the President and Vice President are going back out to the rural parts of the country, to Appalachia, to my home State of West Virginia, to tell us that we have turned the corner. They are saying that, thanks to their work during these past 4 years, our prospects are improving. They tell us that, due to their policies, job growth is increasing. And they argue that if we want

more of the same in the future, we need to re-elect them to another term.

The reality is a far cry from the picture the President paints. Those of us in rural America, and for me that means the rugged Appalachian mountains of West Virginia, have known that, in order to improve our ability to attract and maintain good-paying jobs, we have to build an infrastructure to match those in the urban parts of America. That includes more four-lane divided highways and an improved national passenger rail network. But, the President has proposed policies to slow highway construction and shut down Amtrak. If enacted, these proposals would add to the staggering job losses already experienced in rural America under the Bush administration.

This Congress is now a year late in passing reauthorization legislation for the Federal Government's surface transportation programs. The main reason for this delay is that the President opposes efforts to adequately fund the construction of better and safer roads, particularly in rural America. In the meantime, transportation projects are stalled and tens of thousands of construction jobs have been lost.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian Region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, ADHS, my region of the country would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the paths of river valleys and stream beds between mountains. These roads are still, more often than not, two-lane roads that are squeezed into very limited rights-of-way. They are characterized by low travel speeds and long travel distances and are often built to inadequate design standards.

The rationale behind the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less sound today than it was in 1965. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack timely road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor road access to major employment centers.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to many other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region are still waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its promise, made some 39 years ago, to complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. And under the President's plan, they may have to wait several more decades.

Regrettably, the President has threatened to veto the highway bill that was passed by an overwhelming margin in the Senate. That bill would provide the funds necessary for a robust investment in rural America's infrastructure, including the Appalachian Development Highway System. It appears that under this administration, investments in road conditions are beginning to mirror the distribution of wealth in our country. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer.

The President and Vice President also have proposed to further limit our transportation options in rural America, including West Virginia, by underfunding and thereby shutting down Amtrak. Each of the Bush administration's four budget requests has targeted Amtrak and suggested funding levels that would have rendered the system inoperable. President Bush has proposed to limit Amtrak to the Northeast where it would serve only as a commuter rail network. Long distance trains, such as the Cardinal that provides a lifeline for communities across southern West Virginia, or the Capitol Limited that serves the eastern panhandle, would be eliminated under the President's plan.

Amtrak is a critical transportation link for people in all corners of this country. Each day, millions of people ride the rails to get to and from work, to visit family and friends living many miles away, or to travel on vacation. Make no mistake, if Amtrak closes operations, it will not be without great cost to communities both large and small. If Amtrak were to shut down, the Nation's transportation system would be thrown into chaos.

For many rural Americans, Amtrak represents the only major transportation link to the rest of the country. If the President has his way, West Virginians who live in or near Harpers Ferry and Martinsburg would lose access to the Capitol Limited train that runs from Washington, DC, to Chicago. Others who live in or near White Sulphur Springs, Hinton, Beckley, Thurmond, Montgomery, Charleston, and Huntington would lose access to the Cardinal train that runs from New York City to Chicago.

At a time when countries across the globe are moving forward by making investments in various passenger rail projects, whether it be high-speed bullet trains in Taiwan or Mag-Lev trains in Japan, President Bush has proposed to shut down America's passenger rail service. Next time the President or Vice President campaigns in Huntington, Charleston, or Beckley, I hope they will explain why they believe the economic prospects of these communities will be improved with the elimination of the national passenger rail network.

I have worked my entire Congressional career to ensure that West Virginia gets a fair shake from the Federal Government. My State was long ignored by those deciding where Federal monies would be spent. Infrastructure development in rural America still lags far behind the investments being made in our urban areas. And this problem will only be compounded by the re-election of a President who is tone-deaf to the needs of rural America.

The President continues to make empty promises, continues to assure us that we have, indeed, turned the corner. But, for many rural Americans, that corner is on a dangerous, winding road with no help in sight.

Mr. President, the Bush administration would like us to think it has spent the last 4 years standing up for steel in West Virginia and across the Nation. But this administration has never stood up for steel. If the West Virginia steel industry has benefited at all in the past 4 years, it is in spite of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration said it would impose Section 201 tariffs on imports of unfairly traded steel, but then it lifted the steel tariffs 15 months early. The Bush White House refused to stand up for steel, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind America's steelworkers, including those in West Virginia, of this important fact.

Let's look at some other important facts: over the past 4 years there has been a program to provide tangible relief to steelworkers in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That program is the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, which I enacted in 1999 with bipartisan support to help steel companies in economic distress. Over the past 2 years, that program has served as an absolute life-line to thousands of steelworkers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The Steel Loan Guarantee Program has saved thousands of jobs in spite of the Bush administration, which has worked night and day to kill the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.

The story of steel in West Virginia over the past 4 years is a dramatic story of hard work, hope, and triumph. But that is no thanks to this administration. Over the past 4 years, both Weirton Steel and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel filed for bankruptcy due to unfair imports. But the Bush administration still thought it was a good idea to lift the steel tariffs 15 months ahead of schedule.

In dire straits, both companies sought the only real relief that was available to them, which were loan guarantees provided by the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. The steel companies filed applications for emergency steel loan guarantees with the program's loan board to enable them to stay in business and not put 8,000 to 10,000 people out of work.

And what was the Bush administration's response? In both its fiscal year 2003 and 2004 budget requests, at exactly the time when Weirton and

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel and their thousands of workers desperately needed a loan guarantee to stay alive, what did this administration do? It sought to rescind all of the funds available to the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. These rescission requests were pending at exactly the same time that both Weirton and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel had loan guarantee applications pending before the loan board. When Wheeling-Pittsburgh's first application was denied, it had to refile. The administration continued to request rescission of all funds in the loan program.

But those of us who know West Virginia, who love West Virginia, and love its people, stood up for steel and stood against the Bush administration. We put our shoulders to the grindstone and pushed with all our might to find a way to keep West Virginia's steel industry in business. Unlike the Bush administration, we kept faith with the people of West Virginia. As ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I was able to persuade the committee to retain funding for, and reject the administration's attempts to kill, the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in both 2003 and 2004. But that didn't stop the Bush administration. When it became clear that they couldn't kill the program in their budget, they tried to kill it administratively, by shifting funds out of the steel loan guarantee program and into another Commerce Department account. Instead of helping steelworkers keep their jobs, the Bush administration wanted to shift money in the loan guarantee program to some other account at the Commerce Department, an agency that, in this administration, has spent millions of dollars helping multinational corporations transfer American jobs overseas.

But, some of us, unlike the Bush administration, believe in keeping American jobs here at home. So we kept pushing to save our steel jobs. To stop them from being sent overseas. And, we did it. We did it in spite of the Bush administration. If you don't believe me, listen to what Jim Bradley, the CEO of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Company said on March 26, 2003, the day on which Wheeling Pittsburgh's application for a steel loan guarantee was approved. He stated:

Without the leadership of Sen. Robert Byrd, Wheeling-

Pittsburgh Steel's 3,800 employees would be facing a bleak

future. By creating and fighting for the Emergency Steel Loan

Guarantee Program, Sen. Byrd has given this company and its

workers the opportunity to build a future for themselves and

for the communities in which they live and work.

Now, I am not reading this to toot my own horn. I am reading it to remind West Virginia steelworkers and their families that this administration is not here to help you. I am reading it to remind everyone listening that this administration worked to kill the very steel program that saved the steel jobs of thousands of steelworkers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. And that is not Robert Byrd saying it; that is the president of the steel company where 4,000 jobs were saved saying it.

So, let me say this, loud and clear: steelworkers in West Virginia and across the Nation, believe me when I tell you that this administration is not in your camp. Don't be hoodwinked by their phony concern for your welfare. It is not sincere. They don't care about you. Words are cheap. Actions matter.

As the Book of James states, ``What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but no deeds?'' This administration loves to talk about what it has done for West Virginia steel, but it did nothing. Where are the deeds? The Bush administration hasn't been there for Weirton and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's thousands of steelworkers and retirees when they needed its help.

And we know that, based on its deplorable track record, the Bush administration won't be there for them in the future.

Mr. President, I attended a two-room school house as a young boy. When I moved on to high school, I was one of 28 students in my graduating class at Mark Twain High School. At Mark Twain, there was no question of accountability. The teachers were in charge. The students were there to study. My parents drilled one idea in my head, and it remains a guide for me today: learn. Learn, and always strive to make yourself smarter tomorrow than you are today.

Sadly, too often today, that same emphasis is not placed on teaching and learning. I know it. Parents know it. Members of Congress know it. That is why we voted to create the No Child Left Behind Act. Congress and President Bush worked together to ensure greater accountability in America's schools. We established standards. We set the bar. But to help schools reach those standards and surpass them, Congress and the President promised increased resources to help schools succeed. To date, it has been an empty promise.

Since President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law with such great fanfare in 2002, not one Bush administration budget has provided the funds that America's schools expected. In fact, nationwide, the Bush White House has shortchanged schools by $33 billion. How often do we hear that fact from the White House? Not once. The administration trumpets its No Child Left Behind Act, but fails miserably when funding it. Accountability cannot just be a standard for teachers; it must also be a standard for this administration.

Compounding the problem and the frustration for parents and teachers, each time I and other Senators offer amendments to make good on the promise of No Child Left Behind, the Bush White House and the Republican congressional leadership line up and defeat those amendments. Making false promises to teachers and students and parents is no way to improve teaching and learning. It is another in this administration's broken record of broken promises.

Look at one program as an example. The Federal title I initiative provides dollars geared specifically for children from poor school districts. The No Child law established specific funding levels for title I for every year through 2012, including $20.5 billion this year. But the Bush administration tells schools to make do with a whole lot less, undercutting that pledge in its budget by more than $7 billion.

In my state of West Virginia, about half of the public schools receive title I funding. While the President's No Child Left Behind Act promised Mountain State schools $154 million for title I for 2005, the Bush administration's budget undercut that funding by 36 percent. Translated into students, the President's budget would deny full services to 18,398 West Virginia children. Evidently, ``Leave Only 18,398 Children Behind'' was not a catchy enough title for the new law.

When President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act on January 8, 2002, he made a statement that I wholeheartedly endorse. The President said:

There's no greater challenge than to make sure that every

single child, regardless of where they live, how they're

raised, the income level of their family, every child receive

a first-class education in America.

That is what the President said.

But what the President said and what the President coughs up in funding have proved to be vastly different stories. The No Child Left Behind Act promised to give schools the money they need to help every young person in this country succeed in the classroom. That promise has been broken. When it comes to America's schools and keeping the promise of No Child Left Behind, the Bush White House gets an F.

The title I program is not the only education program facing funding shortfalls. The Bush administration freezes Pell Grant awards for the third straight year, cutting back on college financial assistance. The White House also has proposed to eliminate funding for 38 school programs including dropout prevention, school counseling, alcohol abuse reduction, and arts in education.

If there is one Federal investment that can offer real dividends down the road, it is education. But the White House continues to play political games with classroom funding. It is time to end the posturing and give students and teachers the resources that they need to succeed.

In the coming weeks, the Senate will once more vote on the legislation that funds No Child Left Behind and Pell

Grants and education initiatives throughout the country. I urge Senators to finally make good on the promise made to parents and students and teachers. And I urge the administration to stop playing games with America's kids. Our schools and our children cannot afford 4 more years of broken promises.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, the honorable Ted Stevens, a great Senator from the State of Alaska; as a matter of fact, the Senator of the 20th century for the State of Alaska.

On this Sabbath Day in which the Senate convenes in an extraordinary session, I read from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, Exodus 35, verses 1 through 3.

And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of

Israel together and said unto them, These are the words which

the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there

shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord:

whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the

sabbath day.

I now read from the Ten Commandments, again King James Version of the Holy Bible, Exodus 20, verses 8 through 10.

Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in

it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy

daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy

cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,

and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed

it.

That is the Fourth Commandment passed down from God to Moses and from Moses to the Israelites. Those words are holy for people of many faiths. Christians and Jews are bound to follow the Ten Commandments. Muslims, too, hold dear a similar lesson from the Koran, and scores of millions from that faith also make strict observance of their own day of rest.

But today the Senate has been called into session despite the words of the Fourth Commandment. Moreover, the matter being debated today is no question of life or death. There is no dire emergency that brings us here on this Sabbath Day. There is no emergency that demands the elected representatives of the American people place the pursuit of their work over the importance of their faith. No, the Senate has been called in on a Sunday for a mere procedural vote. What would be the consequences if the Senate were not called into session today for a single vote on cloture? It would only mean that the matter before the Senate might take 1 day longer to complete. What a tragedy that would be.

Must we ignore the sanctity of the Sabbath just to call the Senate into session and have Senate staff come in from their homes throughout the nearby area in order to cast one procedural vote? The Senate should not be in this position. Our staffs and their families, our own selves and our families should not be in this position.

This Chamber, on the whole, has an excellent record for accommodating the faiths of those who serve the American people. It has become routine for the Senate to temporarily suspend its business so that Senators, both Christians and Jews, can carry out their religious services and their religious observances. In fact, I suggested yesterday that all the Senate would need to do would be to delay the vote until Sunday, today. That would be in accordance with the observing of the old Sabbath. That is when the Sabbath traditionally ends. If only there were a delay in this afternoon's vote by 5\1/2\ hours, Senators would not have been forced to choose between our responsibilities to our Nation and honoring our Sabbath, our day of rest and prayer. This suggestion was rejected.

What is the rush to have this particular vote on a Sunday afternoon? Most of us would like to have observed this Sunday afternoon and this morning prior to noon with our families, would like to have observed the opportunity to go to the church or the churches of our faith. What is the urgent need to keep Senators and our staffs away from their families on this, a day of rest? What message does this send to the American people?

I do not believe a Sunday session of the Senate for such a trivial matter as a procedural vote sets a good example for Christians around this country or Christians around the world. It does not set a good example for anyone who wishes to observe the Fourth Commandment. And for what?

The Senate has been thrown into too much confusion as we rush to finish too much business in too short a time. I have said repeatedly the Senate should not be rushed in its business, especially on complex matters of great national importance. It is a disservice to those whom we are elected to represent.

Now we see that there is another side of that coin. The uncontrollable zeal to get business done as soon as possible has resulted in a decision that is a disservice to those who work in this Chamber. Because of this poor planning, many of us and our families are being forced to give short shrift to our observance of the Sabbath. That is not right.

I am a Christian. I don't claim to be the best Christian around. My mom and dad were great Christian people. They had never been to school very much. I have heard someone on the campaign trail say he is the first in his family line to graduate from college. Let me say I am the first to enter the third grade in all of my line, my parentage, my ancestor line.

I can say this, though: My old dad and mom who raised me--I was an orphan at the age of 1; my mother died in the influenza epidemic of 1918--the

kind people who raised me were very religious. They didn't carry it around on their sleeve. They did not go around criticizing other people. They practiced. I can remember many times after I had gone to bed hearing my Christian mother on her knees, down in another room, praying, praying, praying. That old coal miner dad who was my uncle--I called him my dad--he was the only dad I ever knew, really. He was a coal miner. When he died and left this world he didn't owe any man a penny. He never criticized anybody else. I didn't hear him ever in all my years use God's name in vain. So those were my Christian parents. I was raised that way.

I profess today to be a Christian. I don't profess to be good. The Bible says no man is good, so I don't say that I am good. But I am a Christian. And there are millions like me in this country and around the world who believe that we should keep the Sabbath Day holy and remember it.

In this modern world of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week commerce and enterprise, keeping the Commandments and remembering the Sabbath, to keep it holy, may seem an antiquated notion to some. But it is, nevertheless, a central pillar of many faiths, and it reflects the principle on which this Nation was founded: ``One Nation, under God.''

Now, I do not try to press my faith on anybody else. I am like Samuel Adams, a few years before the Constitutional Convention, when he said: I can listen to any prayer--any prayer. And so can I. I can listen to the Muslim prayer. I can listen to the prayer of the Jewish people. I can listen to the Catholics as they pray. I am willing to listen to any prayer. I do not attempt to press my religion on anybody else.

But I think we as a Senate, here in the eyes of the American people and the world on the Sabbath, do not give a very good impression. We ought to set the example. We in the Senate ought to set the example.

Of course, if the ox or the ass were in the pit, as the Bible says, then pull him out if it is on the Sabbath. But the ox is not in the ditch. That is not why we are here. We are not here because of some dire emergency that threatens the lives of the American people. This is not a dire emergency. This could easily have been put over until tomorrow.

I have been the majority leader of this Senate in some years past. I have been the minority leader of this Senate in some years past. I know something about the rules. I may have forgotten more than some will ever learn, but I can remember the powers of the majority leader. And it is within any majority leader's power to put this matter over until Monday. It could have been done yesterday. And it could still be done. But we are here. The staffs have been called out now. Senators are here. And so we have to observe what the leadership has ruled. We are here. But I would say, it was unnecessary.

I am sorry that the Senate is in today. We would not have lost anything by waiting until tomorrow. But it has been done.

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we hear a lot about religion these days. I say, let's practice a little of it here in the Senate and on the campaign trail. I hope the Senate in future years will not repeat this mistake of unnecessarily sacrificing the observance of the Sabbath on the altar of political expediency. We could have done better.

We waste a lot of time here. There were many days when we could have been in and we could have been doing the work of the people, the work of the Senate, but we chose not to be in. These are workdays I am talking about, many of them throughout the year that is past, some of them recent. The work could have been done. It was not necessary to back this work up to the point that we have to come in here on a Sabbath--on a Sabbath--to vote. And for what? A mere procedural matter.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe I have 2\1/2\ minutes left.

Mr. President, may I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who is the President pro tempore and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, this man has, throughout the year, sought to keep the Senate on schedule and to not only have the committee report out all of the 13 bills but to have the Senate pass them. I think if all of us had worked as diligently as the Senator from Alaska to get the work done, we would not be here today.

Now, I hesitate to mention a Senator by name--the distinguished Senator from Alaska has done that--and that Senator is not on the floor. But let me say, whether we like it or not, that Senator was within his rights.

And the Senator from Alaska might be in the same position one day, and I may be.

The blame here should be placed in a manner on the whole Senate and particularly, I have to say, the leadership of the Senate. The Republican leadership is in control so I think they bear the greatest responsibility. As I said yesterday, we all are at fault a little bit. But my complaint is not against a Senator. My complaint is the way we have done our work all year long. We dilly dallied, delayed, and had several days out of session when we could have been in, could have been doing our work. That goes for our recent times as well.

I say there is where the overall fault lies. I am sorry that because of that, we have been backed up with our backs up against a timeline here when we are about to go out for a Presidential election. And we should not have been put in this position. We should have done this work earlier. I say it was wrong to come in on the Sabbath Day. It didn't have to be done. I regret it.

I thank the Chair and all Senators.

Mr. President, I am not going to show any disrespect for the distinguished leader, majority leader, who is talking right now, so I will wait until he is finished.

I was saying, I thank the distinguished majority leader for listening to what I am saying. I will be brief. I am not sure I will use 5 minutes.

Mr. President, in my office hangs the Ten Commandments. We have heard a lot about the Ten Commandments in recent years. I believe in the Ten Commandments. I believe we ought to respect those commandments, one of which says:

Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.

I am not saying I am a good man. My Bible says that no man is good. No man is good. But I think we ought to show some respect to those Christians in the body, and in our country, and many people who are not Christians, our Jewish friends, who believe in the Ten Commandments. As a matter of fact, the Ten Commandments originate, as we know, at the time when Moses went up on Mount Sinai and was given the tablets by God himself, by the Almighty himself. So we believe that.

I am a Christian. I may not be the best one around. I don't claim to be. But I do claim to be a Christian. I believe that way, and I believe that we ought to observe the Ten Commandments. I think that this body, as the greatest legislative body in the world, together with the other body, in particular should set an example of respecting the various religions that make up our Nation. That is why I take the floor today.

I think we are setting a bad example. I don't think we are showing proper respect to Christians in our country, and all over the world, for that matter, by publicly failing to observe that Commandment, that we keep the Sabbath Day holy and remember it.

I want to say I am protesting the fact that we are going to have a vote on tomorrow. I told my leadership I had hoped we wouldn't have votes on tomorrow. I also offered to say, Well, it is fine to have votes after sundown. The old Sabbath ran until sundown. Let's have any votes after sundown. If we have to have votes, let's have them after sundown. I asked my leaders to consider that. They did, and for various reasons they decided not to--that we had to have the vote.

I have to say as majority leader, when I was majority leader, I could have easily put this vote over to Monday simply by adjourning and not coming in tomorrow--which I would do, in this case. If this were an emergency, if something suddenly came up and it was a dire emergency, of course. You know the Bible says the ox may be in the ditch and we have to get it out of the ditch. But the ox is not in the ditch here. We have wasted a lot of time this year, and recently. We waste a lot of time. We are not in session when we could be in session. Then all of a sudden, here we are going to have this vote on Sunday. There are practicing Christians who like to go to church and want to observe this commandment.

So I say of course I will be in to vote. I have cast more rollcall votes than any other Senator in the history of the country. I guess I will not miss this one. But I am protesting. It could have been otherwise. It didn't have to be. It didn't have to happen tomorrow. We could have had it earlier. We jam these. We have a way around here in the Senate lately of jamming. The leadership on the other side--I have to say the Republicans are in control of the body--they have a way of jamming us. Maybe we are all at fault a little bit. But there is no reason why we should have to come in on a Sunday, on the Sabbath, and have rollcall votes. I protest it today. I hope it won't be done again after this year. I hope I will still be living and still be serving in the body.

I hope leadership will take this into consideration in the future and get our work done before the Sabbath comes and avoid having meetings on the Sabbath Day. It just isn't necessary. It is not a dire emergency. If it were, as I said, and the ox were in the ditch, I would say let us get it out and let us go in and vote. If it is important to the safety of the Nation, to the safety of

the American people, or whatever, dire, we have to do it, of course. I think the Almighty would waive the Commandment as far as that is concerned. I understand we have duties, but I don't think it has to be done now.

I want to complain about the way we have done the business of the Senate--lagged along and dragged along and come in and have voting sessions on late Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday, and we go out on Friday. We don't come in until Monday late. There are all kinds of reasons which I will bring up at another time perhaps and talk again about it.

I am not thinking at this point that we are going to be able to waive this unless the majority leader will be of a mind to put this vote over until Monday.

May I have 1 more minute, please.

Mr. President, I don't see why we can't have the vote today, or if not today, move it over until Monday. That could be done. The majority leader can easily do this, no question about it. I could do it when I was majority leader. I respect the majority leader, and I respect his doing whatever he has to do, but I am saying that a stitch in time would save nine.

As one Senator, I say that we should uphold the Commandments. I have always felt that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle are highly observant of the 10 Commandments and make a big to-do about religion in this country. Why don't we have a little religion here today and put this vote over from tomorrow and not come in on Sunday? Can't we do that?

I thank the Senators for allowing me to say these few words. I thank them. I will take my seat.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator who is presiding over the Senate with a degree of dignity, poise, collection, and composure, as it is so rare today. I thank Senator Burns.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator who has been speaking, the Senator from Louisiana. She tells a story that many of my Guardsmen and Reservists and their families can also relate to. I compliment her on standing on the floor. She has courage and determination. When she says she is going to stay here until she gets some satisfaction from other Senators, she means that. I know that. I thank her for her kind reference to me.

I will not speak longer than 15 minutes, after which the Senator may resume if she so desires.

On Wednesday, October 6, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from the top CIA weapons inspector in Iraq. The report of Charles Duelfer explains in precise detail the facts that the American people have long ago realized: that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq never posed an imminent threat to the United States. I said that at the beginning, before we voted on that nefarious resolution on October 11, 2002, to shift the power to declare war, which is set forth in the Constitution very clearly, as being reposed here in the Congress of the United States; instead, to shift that power to the hands of a President. How shameful. How shameful that we turned our backs--the Senate and House collectively--on the Constitution of the United States.

The fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq is nothing new. Our military has been on the hunt for banned Iraqi weapons since March 19, 2003, when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq under his nefarious doctrine of preemption--preemptive war--a doctrine that squarely contradicts the constitutional powers given in the Constitution as having been reposed in this body and in the other body across the way. The CIA conducted its own extensive search for more than a year. Did anything turn up? No. No stockpiles of dangerous germs, no warehouses of poison gases, no nuclear weapons.

They say, well, Saddam Hussein has used these on his own people. Of course, he had some years before. I can understand how many Senators were misled by the statements of the administration and, in particular, the statements of the President and the Vice President and others on the President's team.

In fact, the CIA report finds that the truth on the ground in Iraq was almost the exact opposite of what the White House had claimed in the runup to the war. Contrary to the President's statement, the CIA report says that Saddam had no active WMD programs, and he didn't have even so much as a plan to restart them. Despite the Vice President's insinuations, the CIA found no secret plans for Iraq to attack the United States. Despite the National Security Adviser's warnings of mushroom clouds, the CIA found that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant and decaying.

Now, the White House is desperately trying to have their spin machine generate a new reason for the war. We have seen a litany of reasons as time has ensued following March 19, 2003--a litany of reasons. When one reason was shot down, when one reason proved to be wrong, the White House always came up with another reason, another reason, another reason we sent our men and women to war, the first war fought under the pernicious doctrine of preemption, the Bush doctrine of preemption. And regardless of how many times the President may seek to salve the conscience of his administration, the fact remains that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate, imminent threat to the security of the United States. I said so at that time. It was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place, and I will say that again and again.

The President, on his way to a campaign stop in Wisconsin, has tried to gloss over the collapse of his central reasons for a preemptive war. According to the Associated Press, the President said:

The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically

gaming the system, using the U.N. Oil for Food Program to try

to influence countries and companies in an effort to

undermine sanctions.

So does the President mean to say he launched this war to stop waste, fraud, and abuse in a U.N.-run humanitarian program? Does the President mean to say that Saddam Hussein's greed was the reason that 225,000 American troops were sent overseas, away from their families, their loved ones, and their communities, to attack Iraq? Are we to believe that the President now seeks, once again, to justify his war against Iraq because Saddam was cheating the Oil for Food Program? Is that the reason we sent our men and women to war? Mr. President, unbelievable, unbelievable, incredible. Too bad that the White House does not hold Halliburton to the same standard.

The truth is that the President changes his reasons for the war more often than he changes his socks. On March 19, 2003, the day he sent American troops into battle--many of them never again to return to their homes, their families, their native soil--the President said:

The people of the United States and our friends and allies

will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens

the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that

threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and

Marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies

of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our

cities.

I have heard that so many times. The President did not say a peep-- not a peep--about the Oil for Food Program on the day he ordered our brave men and women to march on Baghdad. Talk about flip-flops. Yet despite all that has gone wrong in Iraq--the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the failure to stabilize postwar Iraq, the failure to share the burdens of occupation with our allies, the failure to equip our soldiers with the body armor they need, and the deaths of 1,061 American troops as of my last reading of the press the President maintains that he would do everything the same if he had to do it over again.

Well, I hope not, and I hope the Senate of the United States would not do the same thing it did before if it had to do it over again. I spoke out against that nefarious, terrible action, sending our men and women to their deaths in Iraq, in a foreign land, spilling their blood in the hot sands of the Middle East. For what? For what?

The President maintains he would do everything the same if he had to do it over again. Maybe he would. Surely he should learn from what has already happened. The American people might not stand again for that.

Mr. President, the fog of war is beginning to lift and for the first time, the American people are beginning to see the war in Iraq on clear terms. As cruel as Saddam Hussein was to the Iraqi people, he was no imminent threat to the American people. That is why we went to war. That is why this administration led this country into a war against a nation that had not provoked us, had not attacked our country. That was the Bush doctrine, and it is the Bush war.

Saddam Hussein had no links to the 9/11 attacks, and yet a majority of the American people I noticed in some polls not too long ago, believed at the time the polls were taken that many or, indeed, most of the attackers, most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Iraq. That is not the case. Not one, not a single one of those 19 hijackers was from Iraq, and yet this administration would like to have the American people believe that it was otherwise.

I guess they lie awake at night concocting new ways in case this fails, in case it is shown to be wrong: Where is the next fallback? What do we fall back on next? Iraq was not the central front of the war on terrorism until President Bush invaded and unleashed a firestorm of anti-American sentiment.

The President's postwar strategy has been a failure. The President's handpicked envoy to run postwar Iraq, Ambassador Bremer, said there were never enough troops to stabilize Iraq. The President himself, in a rare acknowledgment of fallibility, admitted on August 27, 2004, that he had miscalculated the danger of postwar Iraq. Yet the President still has no exit strategy for Iraq. How long will the American people have to wait to hear from this President and this administration an exit strategy? How long will we have to wait for a plan from this administration to bring our men and women home with honor?

The White House still refuses to acknowledge that Iraq has been turned into an international basket case due to an unprovoked and unjustified war. Instead, the White House has paralyzed our military, has paralyzed our diplomacy and our allies by maintaining we must continue to stay the course. Stay what course? Keep on with the same? Mr. President, 1,061 dead and counting, and we are supposed to stay the course? What our Iraq policy needs is change, not more of the same.

The original rationale for preemptive war against Iraq has collapsed. The CIA's new report on the absence of weapons of mass destruction is the final nail in the coffin of the administration's prewar claims. How long will the American people be content with a President who refuses to acknowledge the disaster caused by his doctrine of preemptive war? How many more American men and women will have to shed their blood in the hot sands of the Middle East? How long will our troops struggle against a tide, the increasing tide of violent anti-Americanism that this terrible misbegotten war has spawned? How long will the United States of America be tied down in a Middle Eastern country while other threats at home--here at home--go unaddressed? How long, Mr. President? How long?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

If the distinguished Senator would yield, let me thank her for her most charitable comments concerning this Senator. She graces the Senate from the great State of Louisiana. She does her work. She is deeply dedicated. She is on the Appropriations Committee, on which I have had the good fortune to serve for many years. I thank her for what she is doing for her people. I thank her for what she is saying on the Senate floor. I thank her very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate the fact that she is my colleague and shares the concerns of my people in what she is saying today.

Mr. President, Senator McCain has introduced an amendment to address the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for the creation of a committee on intelligence with appropriations powers.

I have a great respect for the 9/11 Commission. They are dedicated members who have the Nation's best interests in heart and mind, and, for the most part, they have done an excellent job. Like the Commission members, I want our Government to take steps that will help ensure that our Nation will never again suffer a catastrophe like 9/11. But, I fail to comprehend how giving a legislative committee its own checkbook will help avoid another such disaster. Legislative committees have their plates quite full with evaluating policy. They should not take on the heavy lifting of appropriating public monies as well.

The fact that the Commission made this recommendation left me wondering just how it came up with such a proposal.

First, I looked at the Commission's report to see what evidence they cited for making this recommendation. I was startled to find that the Commission provides no specifics in its report to substantiate or justify this revolutionary proposal. The Commission offers no examples, no rationales, no justifications, no explanations. In short, the Commission provides no evidence that the appropriations process is flawed when it comes to intelligence matters. There simply is no substantive rationale for the need for this kind of drastic recommendation.

According to the Commission, this recommendation was garnered from interviews with ``numerous members of Congress from both parties, as well as congressional staff members. . . . We found that dissatisfaction with congressional oversight remains widespread.'' But curiously the report never mentions any specific member or any staffer by name or position. Who are these phantom critics? Why were they especially qualified to comment? The point is, unspecified dissatisfaction from unidentified Members of Congress and unidentified congressional staff offers very little basis for embracing such a precedent-setting proposal.

While I do not know who the Commission interviewed to reach this determination, I do know who they did not interview. They did not speak to Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and chairman of its Defense Subcommittee. I know they did not talk to Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. Both Senators Stevens and Inouye are long experienced legislators and appropriators in the field of intelligence. Why weren't they interviewed? Nor did they talk to me, and I am the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the committee.

Knowing just whom the Commission did and did not interview is important because of the makeup of the Commission. While undoubtedly sincere, well-meaning, and honorable, only 4 of the members of the 10 individuals on the 9/11 Commission had ever served in Congress, and only 2 of them had experience with the appropriations process.

This recommendation, to grant both appropriation and authorization powers to a legislative committee, in my judgment reflects this lack of experience. Moreover, it belies a lack of familiarity with the history of the appropriations process.

This particular recommendation would blur the existing oversight process which tends to ensure a more thorough examination of intelligence matters because of a focus on policy matters which is separate from the focus on budgetary matters. In other words, the commission wants to increase oversight of intelligence matters by paradoxically lessening and collapsing oversight on intelligence operations.

The Commission's recommendation would limit the watchdog duties over secret intelligence functions to a tiny group of Senators, thereby fomenting an environment that would probably promote ``group think,'' and secrecy. In other words, the Commission wants to end, or, at the least, reduce ``group think'' and incestuous oversight in intelligence matters, but it is making a recommendation that would create an environment that would likely promote both.

Most importantly, the historian in me marvels at the degree to which the Commission's recommendation flies in the face of history. The current Appropriations Committee just happens to be the carefully considered antidote to several past failures of the same sort of decentralized appropriation's fixes which the 9/11 Commission now incredibly recommends. There is nothing new or innovative in this Commission recommendation. It has been tried before, and it has failed miserably.

In 1816 the Senate established the Committee on Finance and assigned it appropriations responsibilities in an effort to enhance congressional fiscal control. But as the country grew, the problems did too.

The War with Mexico, 1846-1848, for example, caused Federal spending to nearly triple, and this dramatic explosion placed great pressures on Congress to revamp its appropriations process. In 1850, the Senate adopted its first rule governing appropriations. It banned amendments for additional appropriations not previously authorized by law.

The Civil War, 1861-1865, as one might expect, vastly expanded and complicated Federal spending. Congress abruptly learned how the lack of centralized control in the Senate played to the strong advantage of the President. Congressional control of the power of the purse went out the window as President Lincoln spent millions of dollars without even bothering to secure formal congressional appropriations. He could be forgiven because he was trying to hold the union together, but the Constitution was circumvented and congressional power of the purse was, for a time, effectively seized.

Following the Civil War on March 6, 1867, the Senate established a Committee on Appropriations in an effort to bring unity, authority, conformity, and order to the Federal spending process.

As soon as the Appropriations Committee was established, however, authorizing committees began a vigorous struggle to regain their lost appropriations authority. Several House committees first grabbed appropriations authority. Soon, Senate committees were demanding the same. Everybody wanted a piece of the action. What kind of Pandora's box are we opening if we grant appropriations power to the Intelligence Committee? Why not also the Department of Homeland Security? Once the box is opened, the grabbing begins. In the late nineteenth century the grabbing gathered steam even amid stern warnings.

Congressman Samuel Randall, D-Pa, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee at the time, warned that combining authorizing and appropriating authorities under one committee's jurisdiction would lead to greater Federal spending. ``Experience and observation,'' he pointed out, ``demonstrate such distribution leads to continually increasing appropriations, and renders it more difficult to keep expenditures within the limits of receipts.'' In other words, blending authority and appropriating leads to deficits.

When the Senate debated granting the Committee on the District of Columbia the right to make appropriations in 1883, members of the Appropriations Committee argued against the move. Pointing out that the Appropriations Committee serves as a necessary, coordinating agent with the legislative committees, Senator Beck of Kentucky argued, ``it is not wise legislation to vest any committee with absolute power as to the amount of money necessary to carry those laws into effect. . . . We ought to have one committee as a check upon another, one guard placed upon another, so that no body of men sitting as a committee of Congress should have absolute power over the money of the people.''

Again, that is another important lesson for us today. The Appropriations Committee is a needed, important partner with Congress's legislative committees. When the 9/11 Commission argues for more supervision of intelligence matters, it is bogus to suggest that we start by decreasing oversight.

But, in the late 19th century, these members of the Appropriations Committee were ignored. After the DC Committee had sought appropriations powers, more and more authorizing committees began seeking appropriations authority. Responding to pressure, the Senate returned appropriations authority to most Senate committees. The result, a repetition of all of the past problems. Without central authority, oversight and a central controlling mechanism, Federal finances again fell into disarray. Legislative committees were off pursuing their own individual agendas. Budget requests were submitted piecemeal. The practice known as ``coercive deficiencies,'' wherein executive agencies went through their year's appropriation within a matter of months, and then appealed to Congress for additional funds to get them through the year, again became common. Most importantly, the decentralized system of appropriations was simply not capable of managing the expenditures of a Federal Government that was growing large in size and in expense. No one was minding the fiscal store.

I would urge any Senator who thinks that giving appropriation power to an authorizing committee will help restrain spending or increase discipline to study Congressional history. Congressman James Tawney, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 1905 to 1911, concluded that ``division of jurisdiction and responsibility in the matter of initiating appropriations has contributed more than any other single cause to the enormous increase in appropriations during recent years.'' Everyone always wants to get an oar in the water.

A number of scholarly studies support Congressman Tawney's observation, including the 1987 study by David Brady and Mark Morgan, Reforming the Structure of the House Appropriations Process, and the book by Charles Stewart, Budget Reform Politics. These works document that without a central authority to impose overall budgetary discipline on the legislative committees, accountability all but vanished, and the public's money was spent with abandon.

World War I, like both the Mexican and Civil Wars, forced the Congress to confront the financial mess that decentralized funding had created, and to establish a supervisory control over the appropriations process. In 1922, the Senate returned jurisdiction over all appropriations measures to the Appropriations Committee. Thus, they created the system that has now served us well for more than 80 years.

Now, the 9/11 Commission proposes to return to the failed system of the past, and I adamantly oppose it. It is a formula for less accountability over public funds and for even larger deficits.

The lessons of history must not be brushed aside.

Most of us probably know the historical truism that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. History really does repeat itself because human nature does not change. In our desire to correct the reasons for our intelligence failures, let us avoid past mistakes. In our understandable desire to improve our intelligence system following 9/11, at least, we can try to avoid so-called solutions which have a proven track record of disaster.

While it also endeavors to preserve its Constitutional purpose and traditions the U.S. Senate has an obligation to adapt to new challenges.

I know that Senators Reid and McConnell examined the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with those thoughts in mind. I know that the Working Group they co-chaired has proposed changes that will implement many of the reforms of the 9/11 Commission, while respecting the rights of Senators and the institution of the Senate.

I cannot say the same about this amendment.

Authorization committees and appropriation committees have very different mandates, one to oversee policy, the other to oversee budgets. Different authorization and appropriations committees ensure checks and balances and better oversight.

The amendment would result in fewer Senators looking into intelligence matters. It would eliminate the double punch of oversight with an authorization committee focused on policy matters and the Appropriations Committee focused on budget matters.

The message of the 9/11 Commission was to increase, not decrease, the role of the Congress in intelligence matters. It asked the Congress to pursue more vigorous oversight and to ask tougher questions. This amendment would take us in the opposite direction.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. President, the Senate has voted overwhelmingly to invoke cloture on the national intelligence reform bill. I voted against cloture on the bill. The Senate leadership, in supporting cloture on this bill--I speak most respectfully--argued that this debate has gone on long enough. In essence, that is what has been stated.

I will soon begin my 47th year in this body. I never thought I would see the demise of the Senate as a debating institution. I am very sorry about that. I have seen the demise of the Senate as a debating institution. I have been here when debate on a bill went over 100 days.

Today's situation is eerily reminiscent of the autumn of 2002. A few years ago, the hue and cry went up for all Senators to support a massive bureaucratic reshuffling of our homeland security agencies and a war resolution--I will refer to in that way--against Iraq just weeks before election day.

Like a whipped dog fearing his master, the Senate obediently complied with the demands of the White House, to which our leadership said: let us get this matter behind us; let us get it behind us.

I know many of the Members who come to this body in this day and time are from the other body, and I speak most respectfully of the other body. I came from the other body likewise. But I can remember when I was in the other body I often said, Thank God for the Senate of the United States. That is when I was still in the other body. Thank God for the Senate of the United States. They take their time over there to debate. In this day and time, we do not take time to debate.

Hindsight reveals the mistakes that the Senate made 2 years ago. Today, the Department of Homeland Security finds itself bogged down by bureaucratic infighting, unresolved turf wars, and insufficient funding. The central argument for the war resolution against Iraq, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, has disintegrated into a mess of lies and hot air. The calls for Congress to act quickly were revealed to be ill-advised, misguided, misinformed.

The 108th Congress has an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the 107th Congress. Yet the repeated calls by Senators for immediate action on this bill suggests we have learned very little.

Most of the hundreds of amendments offered to this bill, or certainly scores of amendments, have focused on trying to speed up reforms that we already do not understand. Apparently, few Senators have dared to speak about the need for caution in arranging a massive, secretive bureaucracy. It would be the most secretive around.

The risk that this bill will grow into a hydra-headed monster increases exponentially as election day nears. Many believe the House bill will include a number of provisions unrelated to intelligence reform, all the way from amendments on immigration to reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I hear lately the House has no intention of adding that last mentioned measure. In the rush to pass this bill on a political timetable, what type of Faustian bargains will be struck to jam this bill through the Congress? We have had it happen before. We have been jammed on these important bills. We have had our backs against the wall because of some nearing date, perhaps of a recess, and so forth. What kind of deals with the devil will be made in order to get this bill done in time for election day? That is the big rush--get this bill through in time for election day.

Even one Republican Member of the House of Representatives is concerned that a slam-dunk conference would open the door to politically motivated poison pills. Why is there such a clamor to vote on a bill that is increasingly viewed as a way to make political hay in the hours before a Presidential election? Will Senators even get to read the conference report on this bill before we are expected to vote on it? If we pass this bill, who knows what may be lurking in the walls surrounding that conference between the two Houses unless the House should decide to accept the Senate-passed bill, making it all the more important for the Senate to take our time and thoroughly debate the bill.

The mistake of how the Senate is choosing to consider this bill is not the fault of the 9/11 Commission. That panel is a group of experienced and dedicated public servants. Their research went straight to the heart of the question that has burned in the minds of millions of Americans for 3 years: Namely, how did such a powerful Nation fail to defend itself from those attacks?

In chilling detail, the panel's report lays out the facts about how the U.S. Government failed to stop 19 hijackers--not from Iraq--19 hijackers armed with box cutters; 19 hijackers, not from Iraq, not a one. Not even one of those 19 hijackers came from Iraq. Yet some have attempted to tie the hijackers with Iraq.

``The document is an improbable literary triumph,'' declared U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner in the New York Times Book Review. ``However, the commission's analysis and recommendations are unimpressive,'' he said, ``not sustained by the report's narrative,'' he said, ``come to very little . . . [and more] of the same.''

That is pretty harsh criticism. And contrary to what some believe about the critics of intelligence reform, Judge Posner is not protecting his turf, and he does not have an ax to grind.

The Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings 2 weeks ago on the September 11 recommendations. A bipartisan array of national security experts pleaded with the Congress as they gave testimony to the Appropriations Committee, pleaded with the Congress not to rush these reforms.

My, what an impressive list of names: The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, David Boren; former Senator Bill Bradley; former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci; former Secretary of Defense William Cohen--we all remember him. He has been an outstanding Secretary of Defense. He was a Republican--former CIA Director Robert Gates; former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre; former Senator Gary Hart; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger--he indicated we ought to take several months on this bill--former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn--there is a good one for you. I served in the Senate with Sam Nunn. I served on the Armed Services Committee when he was chairman. Here is a man who is a careful, careful legislator--former Senator Warren Rudman, Republican from New Hampshire; former Secretary of State George Shultz, another Republican.

Among them they have decades of knowledge and experience, and the Congress stands ready to dismiss their concerns out of hand.

I pointed out that several of these distinguished persons are Republicans just to emphasize there are several preeminent Republicans who have had great experience in government who say: Wait, take your time. What is the hurry here? Why the big hurry?

This group of 11 experienced public servants who urged the Congress to stop, look, and listen, they have no turf to protect. They have long since left the service of the executive and legislative branches. Why does the Senate not take their advice? Why does the Senate not pause to listen to their sage advice?

Let us remember that 2 years ago Members of Congress fell all over themselves in a mad frenzy to adopt the advice of Senator Hart and Senator Rudman to create a Department of Homeland Security. Anyone who did not agree with the Hart-Rudman report was viewed as being obstructionist or out of touch. But today, the Senate sloughs off the counsel of those same two men to slow down--slow down. That is what the Senate is all about.

The Senate is not a second House of Representatives with a 6-year term. Thank God for that. As I said many years ago when I was a Member of the other body, the body that is closest to the people, I said thank God for the Senate. So I did not come to this body with any idea of changing the rules to make it a second House of Representatives with a 6-year term. I never thought that about it. I have thought that it is meant to be a place where men and women could argue as long as their feet would hold them erect. I have said time and again that as long as we have a forum in which elected representatives of the people can speak out, speak out without fear and speak out as long as they want to speak on a matter they feel very deeply about, thank God, the people's liberties will be secure.

But today, as I say, the Senate sloughs off the counsel of these eminent luminaries to slow down. How quickly we turn on the advice of our friends.

I fear the Senate wants change, in some instances, merely for the sake of

change, and that we do not yet possess an adequate understanding of why we are doing what we are doing. It is not even clear why or how the 9/ 11 Commissioners arrived at all of their recommendations. The Commission's report does not explain it. What recommendations did the Commission consider and reject, and why did they reject the recommendations? Did the 9/11 panel receive any independent assessments of their ideas before they were published? Will the Commission's proposals prevent intelligence failures in other areas, such as stopping a repeat of the Iraq weapons of mass destruction fiasco? Even as the Senate rushes to pass this intelligence reform bill, with one eye on the public opinion polls, of course, and the other on the adjournment date, we do not know the answer to these questions.

Given the Senate's failure to ask more questions about the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and the need for war in Iraq, I would hope this Chamber would be more circumspect about rushing to restructure our intelligence agencies on the eve of a Presidential election.

These agencies are very secretive--very secretive. And look at the power Congress is about to give the national intelligence director. Look at the power. He is not an elected individual. I would hope that the Senate would pause to consider the powers that may be shifted to the executive branch in this legislation. I also hope that Senators will consider if such a timid Congress could possibly exercise proper oversight over a powerful and secretive bureaucracy.

We are being naive about these intelligence reforms. It may be comforting to embrace the 9/11 report, and I hold in the highest regard the members, as I say, of that Commission and for its work. It may be comforting to embrace the 9/11 report, but its reforms ignore more fundamental intelligence problems.

At the Appropriations Committee hearing on September 21, 2004, I asked Henry Kissinger: If the 9/11 Commission's recommendations had been implemented in 2002, would our intelligence agencies have come to a different conclusion about Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction? His answer was no, nothing would have been different. There still would have been false claims of huge stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.

Mr. President, we are all too focused just on the failings of 9/11. The Senate has not focused enough attention on the intelligence failures leading to war in Iraq, in which, as of the last reading of the news reports, we have lost 1,061 men and women. For what? For what did they give their lives? I would wonder, if I had a grandchild who had gone and lost his life in this war, for what did he give his life? Was it worth it? Was it worth it to invade a country under the new doctrine of preemption, which flies right into the face of the Constitution of the United States?

I did not hear the Constitution mentioned last night in the debate. I am not sure, maybe I had my back turned at the moment. I have a sick wife and maybe, perhaps, I did not hear it. But I certainly did not hear it in the first debate between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry; not one time did I hear the Constitution mentioned. And I did not hear it mentioned last night. Yet it is mentioned every day throughout this country in the courtrooms of this Nation, the Constitution of the United States. Here we have these Presidential debates and nobody--if I find I am mistaken about last night's debate, I will certainly amend my words in this respect, but I do not believe I missed something there.

The Senate has not focused enough attention on the intelligence failures leading to the war in Iraq. We have not focused enough attention on the nuclear threat posed by Iran and North Korea. We have not focused enough attention on China. We have not focused enough attention on the proliferation of deadly germs and gases.

Any of these challenges could be responsible for the next catastrophic attack on our country or our interests, and they are conspicuously ignored by this bill. Congress is showing myopic vision in failing to see the universe of threats to this country. Terrorism may be the most immediate threat to our country, but it is not the only threat.

As a Member of the Senate and as the then-chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, I and my committee responded quickly to the attack of 9/11. Within 3 days, Congress passed an appropriations bill, appropriating $40 billion--within 3 days, $40 billion. Congress, both Houses, passed an appropriations bill appropriating $40 billion. In other words, $40 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born, $40 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$40 billion. So Congress acted quickly.

We all are concerned. There is no monopoly of concern on either side of the aisle here. I support the effort to reform our intelligence agencies. I support the creation of a national intelligence director. But I do not support this hurry in which we are engaged. We need to stop, look, and listen, debate, offer amendments, answer questions, hold more hearings, like Ted Stevens and I holding hearings in the Appropriations Committee.

I have been one of the harshest critics of the status quo. Intelligence agencies are expected to uncover terrorists plots against our country and produce unbiased, accurate intelligence, free from political interference. The CIA and other agencies have fallen tragically short on both marks. However, I am not convinced that the Congress fully understands the implications of the reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission, and the rush to vote on these issues before the Presidential elections means it will not have that opportunity. Henry Kissinger called attention to that fact.

We are legislating in an atmosphere, just before a Presidential election, that is not conducive to thoughtful reform of these intelligence agencies. But the greatest contribution the Senate can make to the cause of the 9/11 families is to take the time to get those reforms right. Prematurely cutting off debate on this bill only succeeds in further politicizing a process that is more mindful of election day than it is the result of this debate.

Like 2 years ago, the Senate is being stampeded into voting on major, far-reaching legislation. The result of this ill-considered course is easily seen: Any reforms the Congress enacts will be the product of rush and haste rather than thoughtful deliberation. We owe more to the memories of those who lost their lives on September 11.

Mr. President, a little earlier I made the statement to the effect that I heard no one in last night's debate on either side mention the Constitution of the United States. My press has since called me and told me I was wrong. That, indeed, one of the candidates--and he said Senator Edwards--did mention the Constitution of the United States. Thank God for that.