Floor Statements

Mr. President, I voted against the Frist-Daschle resolution on the Middle East. My constituents are entitled to an explanation. I opposed the resolution, and I know the leaders, and indeed all of the Members of this body, are genuinely committed to advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East, but no one should be naive enough to think this resolution will move the process forward one centimeter. If anything, the lopsided pro-Israel slant of this resolution will serve only to strengthen the growing distrust of moderate Arab States toward the United States.

This resolution is a blatantly unfair reading of the current status of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It claims that the President's roadmap for peace is still relevant, even though it has been completely stalled for more than a year. The resolution wholeheartedly endorses Prime Minister Sharon's view of the barrier wall being built in West Bank, without so much as a mention of the wide opposition to its construction from moderate Arab countries, such as Jordan.

The resolution contains language that could easily be construed to be in support of the controversial, and some claim illegal, practice of the targeted assassinations carried out by the Israeli Armed Forces. The United States is completely right to condemn the violence carried out by Palestinian terrorists, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the unwarranted excesses of the Israeli Government under Mr. Sharon. If our country truly wants to push both sides toward the negotiating table, we should condemn all violence arising from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including that which has claimed the lives of innocent Palestinians. There is blame to be shouldered by both sides. If we are to regain our credibility--let me say that again. If we are to regain our credibility as honest brokers in the Middle East, we need to acknowledge that fact. Progress will only be made in resolving the Middle East violence when the United States weighs in with a fair, evenhanded position that points out the wrongdoings of both sides.

Resolutions such as this one are a far cry from being fair, objective, or even-handed.

Besides the specific provisions of this resolution, I oppose the thrust of the resolution, which is intended to express ``the Sense of the Congress in Support of United States Policy for a Middle East Peace Process.'' The United States has been completely disengaged from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for far too long, and the number of victims on both sides is growing far too fast. I cannot support a policy that boils down to a benign neglect of the violence in the Middle East.

Resolutions such as the one the Senate has taken up today may serve as a useful platform for a press release or a stump speech, but they do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. I would jump at the chance to vote for a meaningful resolution that articulated the Senate's support of a viable policy to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. But this administration has abandoned any pretense of promoting such a policy. To voice the Senate's support for what amounts to a set of empty promises and incendiary rhetoric is a foolish exercise of which I want no part.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, it is no secret that America's military forces are stretched thin across the globe. The relentless fighting in Iraq has exacted a heavy toll on the U.S. military, forcing thousands of American troops to face extended tours in a dangerous war zone. Stop- loss orders have prevented thousands more from leaving the military when their obligations have been fulfilled. America's men and women in uniform have gone far beyond the call of duty to meet the increasing demands that have been placed on them, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

In the face of such hardship facing America's military personnel, this is hardly a propitious time to arbitrarily expand U.S. military obligations overseas, and yet that is exactly what the bill in front of us does. In an effort to help the Government of Colombia launch a new offensive in its civil war against guerrilla insurgents and the drug trafficking that funds them, the Defense authorization bill substantially increases the number of U.S. military and civilian personnel authorized to support the operations of Plan Colombia in Colombia.

Plan Colombia is a 6-year antinarcotics initiative authorized by Congress in fiscal year 2000 to combat cocaine production and trafficking in Colombia. From the outset, many Members of Congress worry that United States intervention in Colombia's drug wars--even noncombat intervention--could serve to draw the United States into the thick of Colombia's longrunning civil war. In an effort to preserve congressional oversight and prevent mission creep in Colombia, Congress placed a cap on the number of U.S. personnel who could participate in Plan Colombia. Current law limits the number of U.S. personnel in Colombia in support of Plan Colombia to 400 military troops and 400 civilian contractors, for a total of 800.

This is a part of my statement. I believe it was in the year 2000 that we placed a limitation. Originally, the 800 was divided into 500 military and 300 contractors, making a total of 800. That limitation on the number is current. This bill, however, would double the number of military personnel authorized to participate in Plan Colombia, raising the troop cap from 400 to 800.

That troop cap is being doubled. The cap on civilian contractors would be increased by 50 percent, climbing from 400 to 600. This bill says let us put in a little more. Let us lift the number.

The increases reflect the number of military and civilian personnel requested by the administration to carry out a 2-year training and support operation in relation to an aggressive new counterinsurgency offensive being undertaken by the Government of Colombia called Plan Patriota. With the stroke of a pen, just like that--just a stroke of the pen--this bill would increase the number of U.S. civilian and military personnel authorized to be in Colombia to support Plan Colombia from 800 to 1400.

So we are just inching along, just inching along. That may seem like an insignificant increase to some, but I expect it looms large in the minds of U.S. forces who have seen their tours in Iraq extended or who have been prevented from leaving the military when their obligations have been fulfilled. The 800 military personnel who could be sent to Colombia under the proposal are 800 military personnel who would not be eligible to relieve American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. Before signing off on such a measure, the Senate should consider very carefully the ultimate goals of Plan Colombia and the amount of oversight Congress should maintain on the program.

I am offering an amendment. The amendment I am offering is an effort to address these considerations. My amendment provides a reasonable and sustainable level of support to continue Plan Colombia and to support Plan Patriota, but it limits the support to immediate needs, not presumed needs a year or two from now. Under my amendment, the cap on both U.S. military and civilian personnel would increase from 400 to 500 each, for a total limit of 1,000.

My amendment conforms with the House-passed version of the Defense authorization bill. The House bill caps the number of military personnel in Colombia at 500. The House bill does not address the civilian caps, but the State Department has determined it needs fewer than 100 additional contractors next year to support Plan Patriota.

Plan Colombia remains a volatile and dangerous mission. Three American civilian contractors operating in support of Plan Colombia have been held captive in the jungle by Colombian insurgents for more than a year. Five other U.S. civilians were killed as a result of aircraft crashes. Additional cocaine fumigation flights have been fired on, and since August 2003, two planes have been downed by hostile fire.

This is not the time, colleagues, and Colombia is not the place for the United States to ramp up its military commitment so sharply. Although the numbers may be relatively small, the mission in Colombia has been constantly increasing.

That is the problem. The mission in Colombia has been constantly increasing, evolving from a strictly antinarcotics campaign into an operation encompassing antiterrorism, pipeline protection, and an air- bridge denial program to intercept drug trafficking flights in Colombia.

A major infusion of additional U.S. personnel into Colombia will place more American personnel at risk and will increase the prospects of the United States being drawn ever deeper into Colombia's civil war.

The State Department has confirmed that it needs fewer than 100 additional personnel next year to accomplish its goals. The Defense Department has estimated that it needs no more than 158 additional personnel to support the second phase of Plan Patriota next year. Defense Department officials have also said they do not need a total of 800 personnel and do not anticipate a time when 800 military personnel would be in Colombia in support of the initiative. The Department is asking Congress to provide broad flexibility through an unnecessarily large troop commitment at a time when both human and financial military resources are severely limited.

I think Congress should take a more conservative approach to Plan Colombia and particularly to the involvement of U.S. forces in Plan Patriota. I am willing to authorize a modest increase in the number of military and civilian personnel for next year, but I believe Congress should review the progress that has been made a year from now before determining what the final number should be.

If the Pentagon cannot tell Congress how many troops it will need in Iraq a year from now, how can it say with such certainty how many forces it will need in Colombia 2 years from now?

The United States has spent the past 4 years training and equipping Colombian troops and flying cocaine crop eradication missions for the Government of Colombia. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. funding for Plan Colombia, since fiscal year 2000, totals approximately 3.7 billion bucks.

The administration has characterized the next 2 years as a ``window of opportunity'' to assist Colombia with its war against the insurgents. Now, that may or it may not prove to be true, but the burden of securing that window has fallen on--guess who?--Uncle Sam. That is where it lies, in the lap of Uncle Sam.

If the Government of Colombia is as committed to eradicating the drug crops and defeating the guerillas as the administration contends, then the Government of Colombia should take the lead in seizing this opportunity. Four years and $3.7 billion into Plan Colombia, the United States should be on the verge of tapering down its commitment to Colombia, not sharply increasing it. Where are we going here? When is this going to come to an end?

Plan Colombia has ample flexibility built into it to allow the military to surge, if needed, to respond to emergencies such as search and rescue or evacuation of operation.

In addition, at the request of the administration, Congress has agreed to broaden routine exemptions to personnel-counting procedures, giving the Defense and State Department even greater flexibility in managing the number of personnel in Colombia.

Routine exceptions now include such activities as port calls, DOD civilian visits, certain military exercises, aircrew overnights as needed for weather, maintenance, or crew rest overlapped during deployment location, headquarter staff visits, and traditional commander's activities, just to name a few.

Instead of the United States committing more troops and more civilian contractors to Colombia than are actually needed, the Government of Colombia should increase the resources it is committing to Plan Patriota to mitigate the burden on the United States.

My amendment increases U.S. support for Plan Colombia, but it does so at a prudent level that allows the Defense and State Departments to commit the minimum number of additional U.S. personnel needed to assist the Government of Colombia in prosecuting Plan Patriota while maintaining necessary congressional oversight on Plan Colombia.

In recognition of the current sacrifices this Nation is demanding of its men and women in uniform, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to resist unwarranted and excessive increases in a level of military and civilian personnel that may be deployed in Colombia.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield the full 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for no more than 3 minutes.

Mr. President, our Nation launches a 6-year commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian war. That commemoration is this year. As part of the celebration, Members of the Senate and their staffs are invited to a special viewing of a handwritten autobiographical manuscript of George Washington, which conveys unique insights of the war and young Washington's personal reflections on his experiences. Washington's ``Remarks'' will be on display in S-127 in the Capitol on Wednesday, today, from 12 noon until 3 p.m.

George Washington is most commonly remembered as our Nation's first President and a Revolutionary War commander. Americans are far less aware of his activities during the French and Indian war. Washington never wrote a memoir, but ``Remarks'' provides a firsthand account of his early life, including his experiences in the French and Indian war.

So I hope Senators will take the opportunity to view this important manuscript and learn more about George Washington through this story penned in his own hand.

Mr. President, in closing, I thank the honorable Ned Rose of Charleston, WV, for his thoughtfulness and his efforts in regard to having this displayed in S-127 of the Capitol today, from 12 noon until 3 o'clock.

Mr. President, this amendment increases U.S. support for Plan Colombia. My amendment raises the cap on the number of U.S. military and civilian personnel who can participate in Plan Colombia. My amendment fully supports Colombia's war against drug trafficking and narcoterrorists.

The difference between this amendment and the administration proposal contained in the bill is that my amendment is intended to meet immediate requirements whereas the administration is projecting future requirements. My amendment increases the military and civilian caps from 400 to 500 each. The administration's proposal doubles the troop cap from 400 to 800 and increases the civilian cap from 400 to 600. By their own admission, that is far more than either the State or Defense Department need in Colombia next year.

The administration wants flexibility. I believe Congress should insist on accountability and oversight. U.S. military forces are already stretched to the breaking point across the globe. U.S. troops in Iraq are being forced to extend their tours as a result of stop-loss orders. Prospects remain strong that thousands upon thousands of American troops will be needed to quell the violence in Iraq for years to come.

This is not the time, Colombia is not the place, for yet another large increase in the deployment of U.S. forces overseas. My amendment is a responsible approach to support the worthy goals of Plan Colombia while maintaining congressional oversight on what is an increasingly complex and dangerous mission. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam President, I share the Senator's concern that the bill that is before us requires a nondefense agency to pay for the permanent relocation of the Navy. Homeland security dollars are scarce. The Department of Homeland Security should not be forced to use dollars that should be used for securing our ports or for securing our mass transit systems to pay for a new Navy facility. With the Senator's cooperation, we have asked for a commitment from the administration that these costs will be requested through the General Services Administration, which will own the property, rather than the Department of Homeland Security. I am pleased that the Administration has provided this assurance.

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

Mr. President, as spring turns to summer, as the calendar rolls from Easter to Memorial Day to the Fourth of July, our workaday schedule is pleasantly interrupted by numerous holidays--days of remembrance, for the most part.

We honor the death and the rebirth of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we honor the fallen heroes of our Nation's wars. We honor our mothers and the flag of our Nation. Graduation ceremonies honoring matriculating students have been taking place every weekend around the country as high schools and colleges conclude their academic years. In West Virginia--how sweet the sound--we honor the anniversary of our statehood this month as well. This Sunday, June 20, 2004, the penultimate day of spring, the Nation honors fathers.

The word ``father,'' how sweet that sounds. Jesus taught us to pray, ``Our Father who art in Heaven.'' The Bible says, ``Honor thy father and thy mother.''

We can be sure that fathers will be honored this Sunday because it will be the mothers and the daughters who do the planning for this event--not the often inept party planners who call themselves men. Men can plan military campaigns and vacation travels, but somehow our skills frequently fall short at birthdays and holidays.

Fathers do offer other talents, however. Fathers are builders-- builders of tree houses, builders of sand castles, of backyard patios, and model volcanoes for third grade science projects. Fathers are mechanics, for the family car as well as bicycles and, in this increasingly technology-laden day, computers, cell phones, and digital recorders and players of many purposes. Fathers are coaches for softball and junior soccer leagues, and fathers are chauffeurs for piano lessons and school dances. Fathers are workers, striving to keep their families fed and clothed and housed. Fathers are bankers, saving for college educations and making loans to start their youngsters off on a new career.

Fathers do traditional things, such as mow lawns, take out the trash, pay the bills, and change the tires. But fathers are also cooks, launderers, and diaper changers.

Fathers are part of the silent cheering section, rooting on their children with their solid presence at the back of recitals and grandstands, always pleased to mutter, ``That's my kid,'' ``That's my kid,'' ``That's my kid,'' to other spectators.

Fathers may not always show the true depth of their emotions, but there can be no father who does not glow inwardly as his child's shining face seeks theirs, seeks the father's, asking the unspoken question: ``Did I do well, Pa?'' ``Did I do well, Dad?'' ``Did I do well?'' ``And are you proud of me?'' ``Are you proud of me, Dad?'' As fathers, men are honored and humbled by the seeking of their approval, silently savoring the precious father-child bond.

I was raised by just such a silent man. My uncle, Titus Dalton Byrd, worked hard all of his working life in the coal mines of southern West Virginia. He never had much. I have heard others say: Well, I am the first in my line to have a college education. Or I am the first in my line to have a high school education. I am the first in my line to even go to the second grade.

This was my dad. He was not my biological father, but he was my dad. He was the greatest man I have ever met, and I have met with shahs and kings and princes and princesses, Presidents, Senators, Governors. This was the greatest, the greatest of all.

As I say, he never had much. He did not have much of an education. He did not have vacations. He was a man of few words. He walked to work, carrying his lunch in a pail, and he was grateful to be able to walk home at the end of the day, having worked all day, having toiled in the bowels of the Earth, having earned his bread by the sweat of his brow. Yes, I can see him.

He took me in as an infant, less than 1 year old. He did all that he could for me. He gave me his name. He encouraged me in my school work. He never bought me a cowboy suit or a cap buster. He bought me watercolors with which to paint. He bought me my first violin. In these ways, he gave me gifts that have stayed with me throughout my life.

So when I wanted to seek a job working in the mines to be like him, the man I call my dad discouraged me--discouraged me. He took me back into the mountains, into the bowels, into the depths of the Earth on a mine motor so that I could hear the timbers cracking, so that I could see the water holes in which he and other coal miners plodded their way, often on their knees. Yes, he showed me where he worked. He said the mines were dangerous places to work, and they were in those days especially. He wanted better things for me, and he urged me to get an education, a formal education.

He had the heart of a father. He wanted life to be better for his boy than it was for him. He made whatever sacrifices he had to make in order to make his dream come true. He couldn't give me much, but he gave me the best example. He set the best example that he could each and every day of his life.

He could have complained. He could have been a complainer. He could have whined. But he did neither. He just got up day after day and set out to work, and every day he came home tired. But he would save something sweet from his lunch for me. I used to watch him coming down the railroad tracks from a mile away, that tall man with black hair and red mustache. I saw him coming down the railroad tracks, and I would run to meet him. When I came near, he would stop, take the lid from the dinner pail and reach in and get a cake, a 5-cent cake. In those days, these were 5-cent cupcakes--5 cents. My mom had put into his lunch this cake every day. She knew what he would do with it. He took that cake to work, and then when I came near him, as he came walking on those cross- ties down the Virginian Railroad tracks, there in that coal mining camp in southern West Virginia, that tall man reached into the dinner pail and he pulled out that 5-cent cake, and he gave the cake to me.

From the morning when he arose to toil in the mines, he must have looked forward to the time in the afternoon when he would be giving that cake to me. He always gave the cake to me.

I wonder if I appreciated, as I should have, I wonder if I even understood all of his efforts, all of his sacrifices at the time of their commission. I am sure I did not, but age and fatherhood have given me greater insight into the life of this quiet man, this good dad, my dad.

Yes, I have walked with the greatest of the Earth, the leaders of the world. I sat down, as I said, with kings, princes, shahs, Governors and Presidents, but this was the greatest of them all. He was great because he was good.

This Nation is full of good fathers, fathers who work hard, fathers who come home tired, fathers who take care of their families. Most days they do not get much attention, these armies of good fathers. Headlines are not made by them. Unfortunately, headlines are made by bad fathers, not the good ones.

This Sunday, the good fathers will be fussed over, but they will enjoy every moment of attention. Some men will spend their Father's Day far away from home, serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other dangerous places. Some men will work on Father's Day protecting the Nation at home in police and fire departments. For these men, Father's Day celebrations may be delayed but nonetheless sweeter for the wait.

I am the father of two daughters, mothers now themselves, even grandmothers. I am a great-grandfather, and I can attest that it is indeed great to be a great-grandfather.

As my sweet wife Erma and I celebrated our 67th wedding anniversary 3 weeks ago, I had the very special pleasure of sharing that occasion with most of my family and with friends. I could look around the long table past my wife's beautiful face and see small snatches of her and of myself in the voices, the gestures, the faces of three generations looking back at me. I am so proud of these.

``Yet, in my lineaments they trace, some features of my father's face.'' So

wrote the poet George Gordon Byron, Lord Byron, in his poem. It is at times like these that one can feel the tide of history flowing from the generations before me to the young faces just setting out on the long ride of life.

We strive to be remembered by our loved ones, as my dad strove to be remembered. To all the good fathers out there and in honor of my own dad, who is looking down today from heaven, I close with a few lines that I learned and recited when the days were young.

In those days, children routinely did such things as memorize poetry. And I say to the fine Senator who presides today over this body, it is one of a multitude of poems that were taught to children in order to teach them lessons, and this one is just a few lines titled, ``The Little Chap That Follows Me,'' or in some instances, ``A Little Fellow Follows Me.'' This was written by the Reverend Claude Wisdom White, Sr., and it reminds me of how my dad lived, a noble man whom I never heard once, in all of the years, use God's name in vain. I never heard him tell an off-colored joke. That was the man whom I remember this day. Thank God for a man like Titus Dalton Byrd.

A careful man I ought to be,

A little fellow follows me.

I dare not go astray,

For fear he'll go the self-same way.

I cannot once escape his eyes,

Whatever he see me do, he tries.

Like me, he says, he's going to be,

The little chap who follows me.

He thinks that I am good and fine,

Believes in every word of mine.

The base in me he must not see,

That little fellow who follows me.

I must remember as I go,

Thru summers' sun and winters' snow.

I am building for the years to be,

In the little chap who follows me.

Mr. President, as I mentioned a moment ago, Sunday will be June 20, and it will be West Virginia Day. West Virginia Day.

On this day before West Virginia eve, there are so many things I would like to say about my great and proud and glorious State.

I would like to talk about her rolling hills, how each year scores of thousands of people come to West Virginia to camp in our State and in our parks, to hike the Appalachian Trail, to fish in our mountain streams, or simply to relax and enjoy our majestic mountain scenery. The only thing more beautiful than the Sun setting over the hills of West Virginia is the Sun rising over our beautiful green peaks.

I would like to brag a little. You know, Dizzy Dean said it is all right to brag if you have done it. I would like to brag a little about West Virginia's ``firsts.'' The first patent for a soda fountain was granted to George Dulty, of Wheeling, in 1833. The first bare knuckle world heavyweight championship was held near Colliers on June 1, 1880-- Colliers, WV. The first rural free mail delivery was started in Charles Town, just a few miles from here, on October 6, 1896. The first female jockey to win a horse race was Barbara Jo Rubin, at the Charles Town Racetrack on February 22, 1969.

And, of course, I would like to boast, and I shall boast--why not? Why not? Why should I say I would like to boast? I am going to boast.

I want to boast about all of the biggest and the best of West Virginia. The world's largest axe factory was located--where? In Charleston; Charleston, WV. The world's largest clothespin factory was located in Richwood, in Nicholas County, WV.

The world's largest sycamore tree--where? Why, in Webster Springs,

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. His father, I believe, was a coal miner.

You know, the coal miner is a very special breed of man. He goes into the smokey, hot bowels of the Earth to seek comrades who may be still alive. He risks his life for them. I have a special bond with the distinguished Senator through that coal miner background.

I thank him for his words, which were so well spoken, about these young pages. I thank him for what he does for his State. I thank him for what he does for his country. I hope he will have a happy Father's Day on this coming Sunday. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, today, I voted in support of an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act to establish that hate crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin are prohibited at all times--not only when a person is involved in certain federally protected activities as is the case under existing law. The legislation I voted to enact today for the first time also prohibits hate crimes based on three additional categories, meaning a person's actual or perceived disability, gender, or sexual orientation, so long as the incident has a demonstrable tie to interstate trade.

The legislation voted on today is different than the hate crimes legislation I opposed in June 2000 in several significant ways. Primarily, it includes stronger safeguards to ensure that the States continue to take the lead in prosecuting hate crimes. The language of the amendment makes it clear, though, that the Federal Government can prosecute a hate crime at the Federal level in circumstances where, for example, the State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to take jurisdiction over the crime.

In June 2002, I voted in support of an amendment nearly identical to the hate crimes legislation approved today. Then, and today, I approached the Senate leadership about adding to the legislation language that would include age as a protected category, so that crimes directed against the elderly and children could also be considered hate crimes under this law. Defining age as an additional protected category in the law would also give State and local law enforcement officials new tools to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, and other assistance beneficial to prosecuting hate crimes against the elderly and children.

Unfortunately, the managers of the hate crimes legislation declined to accept my suggestion of defining age as being an additional protected category under the bill, but I pledge to continue to do all that I can to make certain that the elderly and children are provided all protections possible to ensure their safety, and to make certain that those who perpetrate hate crimes against them receive suitable punishment.

Mr. President, as we are considering the National Defense Authorization Act, I thank my colleagues, Senators Warner and Levin, the Chairman and ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, for so graciously agreeing to accept an amendment that I and several of my colleagues have proposed to modify Section 841 of that bill to enhance the work of the new ``Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base,'' which is being established by this legislation. This amendment is the result of collaboration between myself and Senators Snowe and Kerry, Chairman and ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as Senators Allen and Coleman.

First of all, our amendment will require this new Commission to consider carefully the problem of current or potential shortages of critical technologies in the United States. It will also require the Commission to examine the issue of existing or future shortages of the raw materials that are essential to the production of these technologies.

America's national security continues to be threatened by dwindling supplies of U.S.-made components and raw materials. Our Nation's industrial base can be expected to experience a decline in the production of certain technologies and the raw materials necessary to create them, as more and more small and medium-sized U.S. firms shift their production overseas. To the extent that these firms specialize in the manufacture of unique components, or are ``sole source'' producers of materials needed to supply the U.S. defense industry, their departure from the U.S. market leaves manufacturers of America's critical technologies with a dearth of reliable suppliers.

The amendment that my colleagues and I offer today requires the Commission to examine whether, and in which areas, the United States now suffers, or might suffer in the future, shortages of critical technologies and their raw material inputs. The amendment also accelerates the deadline by which the report must be issued, requiring that it be issued on March 1, 2007, rather than a year later. Further, it requires the Commission to make recommendations addressing these shortages, so that our Nation can attempt to alleviate, ahead of time, any adverse impact that such shortages might have on the national security of the United States.

We cannot wait to discover whether our Nation will be confronted with these shortages. Once they are upon us, it will be too late. If we wait until confronted with the fact that our Nation can no longer access the materials it needs to feed its technological advancement or maintain its industrial base, the consequences could be disastrous. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we hope that by requiring this Commission to examine today possible shortages that could affect our Nation's technology and industrial base tomorrow, we can enhance and protect the national security of the United States.

I would note, in closing, that our amendment will also make certain that representatives of small business can join labor representatives and others associated with the defense industry as members of this new Commission. I ask my colleague from Maine, the distinguished Chair of the Small Business Committee, how exactly will this provision make certain that the Commission has the benefit of obtaining a broad range of diverse opinions drawn from a wide cross-section of America?

I commend the distinguished Chair Snowe for her tireless efforts on behalf of America's industrial base.

Mr. President, today the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission issued its second major annual report to the Congress, as mandated by the Congress in its enabling statute, P.L. 106-398, October 30, 2000, as amended by Division P of P.L. 108-7 February 20, 2003. I commend it to my colleagues as a comprehensive, insightful and useful examination of the key trends, policies and realities inherent in the U.S./China relationship, and featuring a number of recommendations for the Congress to consider.

It is noteworthy that the Commission adopted this report by a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 11-0. The commission is composed of an equal number of Democratic and Republican appointees, three each by the four leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is refreshing, indeed, in an era characterized by far too much partisanship and divisiveness, that in its treatment of the often contentious and important issues regarding this growing bilateral relationship, the Commission could reach a unanimous vote. Debates over foreign policy, it has often been said, to be effective, should end at the water's edge, and we should speak as a Nation with one voice to the world. Mr. President, in this report, bipartisan unanimity has been achieved, and by a very diverse group of thoughtful and independent minded Commissioners. I would also point out that this is a purely congressional body, in that all of the commissioners are appointed by the congressional leadership, and the report which is issued is intended to be exclusively advisory to the Congress.

The mandate of the U.S.-China Commission is to ``monitor, investigate, and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' The commission, therefore, takes an expansive view of U.S. national security, which is that our economic health and well-being are fundamental national security matters, including the maintenance of a strong manufacturing base, and the ability to maintain U.S. global competitiveness and a healthy employment level and growth rate. These central economic factors are just as essential to the national security and defense of our Nation as are strong and ready standing armies, navies and air forces equipped with the best weaponry, leadership and operational doctrines.

In addition, the commission has treated, very thoroughly, a series of specific topics mandated in amendments to its charter last year, including China's proliferation practices, China's economic reforms and U.S. economic transfers to China, China's energy needs, Chinese firms' access to the U.S. capital markets, U.S. investments into China, China's economic and security impacts in Asia, U.S.-China bilateral programs and agreements, China's record of compliance with its World Trade Organization, WTO, commitments, and the Chinese government's media control efforts.

Mr. President, I will not recite all the many important conclusions and recommendations for action contained in this timely report. But I point out that the United States needs to be much more proactive and clear-thinking in managing our overall relationship with China, and far more focused on what our goals are in the relationship if we are to advance our national economic and security interests.

The report concludes, overall, that the U.S.-China economic relationship lacks active management. U.S. goals for specific elements of the relationship are too vague or even nonexistent. This is particularly highlighted in the enormous goods trade deficit, some $123 billion in 2003, and growing rapidly. The United States has the capability to nudge the Chinese into more positive policies and actions, thereby leveling a playing field which China has tilted in the direction of mercantilist behavior, including, in some arenas, intimidating tactics. Issues which have been festering in the WTO, for instance, such as China's artificial manipulation of the value of her currency, continued tolerance of high levels of Intellectual Property Crimes, massive illegal subsidization of Chinese enterprises, resistance to good faith compliance with important WTO procedures, and with many pledges made for progress in proliferation of WMD, all require heightened levels of attention and management by the United States

The United States certainly has such influence at this period, and for the next few years, because of the enormous dependence of China on our good will, our consumer markets, our manufacturing capability, our technology and our cooperation in many fields. Such dependence will not last forever, however, and it is time that we begin to manage this relationship in ways that will produce more positive and favorable outcomes.

Lastly, Mr. President, this report is studded with recommendations for Congressional action and for joint policy-making efforts between the Congress and the Executive Branch. It recognizes that good policy proceeds from building a strong consensus between our two branches, as well as between our two countries. I encourage my colleagues, many of whom have testified on these matters before the Commission, to examine the recommendations offered for our consideration.

Mr. President, the Commission has today issued this fulsome report, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Commission's list of recommendations.

Mr. President, in August 1814, during the War of 1812, the British Navy bombarded Fort McHenry in Baltimore. A lawyer and amateur poet named Francis Scott Key from nearby Washington witnessed the attack from a British ship, where he had been attempting to secure the release of some American prisoners. The bombardment continued through the night and many watching feared that the fort, which guarded the approach to Baltimore, would shatter under the onslaught. When at last the dawn came, Fort McHenry still stood, its enormous American flag, though tattered, still flying. The exhausted British forces retreated.

Francis Scott Key captured the relief and exhilaration of that turning point in history in a poem, which he titled ``The Defense of Fort M'Henry.'' His verses were subsequently printed widely, and a note added that said the accompanying tune was ``Anacreon in Heaven,'' then a popular tune. In October 1814, a Baltimore actor sang Key's new song in a public performance, calling it, for the first time, ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' The Star Spangled Banner became the national anthem in 1931 by an act of Congress. Though difficult for many people to sing, this anthem has retained its popularity because it so eloquently captures the love we have as a nation for our flag and the tender regard we have for the Nation those colors represent.

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Americans have grown used to the sight of American flags. Beginning just hours after those horrifying images hit our television screens, people reached into their closets and hung flags by their front doors, in their front yards, from their cars, and in front of their businesses. After the gauntlet of terrorism had been flung in our face, we as a nation answered the insult in a resounding and defiant way. Instinctively, we knew what to do. Our collective consciousness recalled the words from the Star Spangled Banner: ``Oh, say, does that star spangled banner yet wave? O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?'' Together, we made sure that our banner still waved.

This last weekend, on the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, American flags again flew proudly as Americans and Europeans remembered and honored the heroic sacrifices of June 4, 1944, that led to the liberation of that beleaguered continent. On those distant shores, the last cohort of an earlier generation accepted the enduring thanks of nations and peoples freed from the terrible bonds of occupation.

World War II brought out the best in America. Facing a clear and present danger, the Nation, like a team of horses hitched to a heavy load, dug deep and pulled together to put the enormous energy and resources of our bountiful land to work. Vast armies were trained and sent to battlefields across three continents. Fleets of ships were built to ferry unimaginable quantities of materiel to support those troops. Swarms of aircraft, armadas of battleships, and vast thundering herds of tanks were built and sent forth to defeat our enemies. Our scientists harnessed their creativity to produce new technology and new weapons more deadly and more terrifying than any mankind had ever before seen. Though our losses were staggering, the Nation persevered until the happy days that American flags drove proudly into Paris and flew over Germany, Italy and Japan. Never before, and, I fervently hope and pray, never again will the world see war waged on such a scale.

Today, we are again at war. Our enemies are different, shadowy and elusive, and their tactics and methods of operation are most un- military. Not for them the open field of battle, but rather the saboteur's stealthy attack. Still, American troops lie encamped in Afghanistan and Iraq. Daily, they face attacks that, sadly, send home too many of our men and women in uniform shrouded beneath an American flag. For these fallen heroes, the music is ``Taps,'' not the ``Star Spangled Banner.'' The flag, however, was much the same as the one that flew over Fort McHenry all those years ago.

Each June 14, we honor the flag, marking the day in 1777 that the Continental Congress adopted a resolution that stated simply: ``Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.''

In the Nation's early years, the actual design of the flag, whether the

stars had five points or six or whether they were arranged in rows or a circle, was open to different interpretations. Also in our Nation's early years, a new star and a new stripe were added as each new State was added to the Union. The flag that flew over Fort McHenry in 1814 had fifteen stars and fifteen stripes. On April 4, 1818, President James Monroe signed into law the Flag Act of 1818. That act stipulated that, as of July 4, 1819, the flag would consist of thirteen stripes, for the thirteen original colonies, and twenty stars, one for each State at the time. Further, upon admission to the Union, a new star would represent each new State. Thus was born the flag that we know today, the flag that flies over this Capitol building.

Through war and peace, triumph and tragedy, our flag, like our Nation, has endured much over the last two centuries. Hoisted over the victory stand at the Olympics, as it surely will be this summer in Greece, draped over the gaping wound in the side of the Pentagon before it was reconstructed, or printed on sacks of relief supplies sent to crisis situations across the globe, our Nation's flag conveys our pride, our courage, our defiance, and our magnanimity in the face of great challenges. The flag is a part of so many other holidays and celebrations. At the Fourth of July, on Memorial Day, on Veterans Day, and now on the 11th of September, the flag will be flying. And always, the sight of the red, white, and blue pulls us to our feet and stirs our emotions. So it is more than fitting that on one day each year, we honor the flag itself.

I would like to close with one of my favorite poems, by Henry Holcomb, entitled ``Hats Off.'' It is a fitting tribute to our flag.

Flag Day

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,

A flash of color beneath the sky:

Hats off!

The flag is passing by!

Blue and crimson and white it shines,

Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.

Hats off!

The colors before us fly;

But more than the flag is passing by.

Sea-fights and land fights, grim and great,

Fought to make and save the State:

Weary marches and sinking ships;

Cheers of victory on dying lips;

Days of plenty and years of peace;

March of a strong land's swift increase;

Equal justice, right and law,

Stately honor and reverend awe;

Sign of a nation, great and strong

Toward her people from foreign wrong;

Pride and glory and honor, all

Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off !

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;

And loyal hearts are beating high:

Hats off!

The flag is passing by!

Mr. President, on May 12, 2004, the President sent to Congress an amendment to his fiscal year 2005 budget request that would add $25 billion for the cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President's request amounted to a blank check: There were virtually no strings at all on how those funds could be used.

Senator Warner, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, held a hearing, at my request, on the day after this $25 billion request was sent to Congress. Members of the committee were nearly unanimous that Congress should not sign away its power of the purse by giving a rubberstamp approval to the President's proposal.

After reviewing the President's request, I developed several proposals to strengthen congressional oversight over the President's request. The funds should be authorized in discrete appropriations accounts for the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reasonable limits should be placed on transfer authority, so that this budget request would not become a blank check. Needed funding for the Coast Guard operations in the Persian Gulf should be included in the $25 billion requested by the President.

Senator Warner, Senator Stevens, Senator Levin, and Senator Inouye worked diligently to include my proposals in the amendment that is now before the Senate. Funds have been placed in regular appropriations accounts in order to promote oversight. The amount of funds that can be transferred to other accounts has been reduced from 100 percent to a reasonable 10 percent. Anticipated costs for Coast Guard operations have been funded.

I commend Senator Warner and Senator Stevens for their work on this amendment. I thank Senator Levin and Senator Inouye for their steadfast efforts in working to provide the necessary funding for our troops while preserving the power of the purse. I would also like to thank Senator Reid for his work in bringing this bipartisan amendment to a vote.

Approval of a this amendment is but one step in providing the necessary support to our troops in a manner that promotes accountability and oversight by the Congress. In the coming days, the Appropriations Committee will take up the Defense Appropriations bill. The Senate should build on its work here to insure that the appropriations bill includes similar provisions that preserve the power of the purse that resides with Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues on that bill, in the same bipartisan manner as we did today, to support our troops and protect the Constitution.

Mr. President, May 31 is Memorial Day, the day we set aside each year to remember and to honor those men and women who gave their lives in service to our Nation.

Memorial Day used to be called Decoration Day in the old South--the day that we reminisce in our memories of our past, our locking with hands or words our lives with others, our children, grandchildren, and people whose voice is forever stilled.

This year, this day has even more meaning as we once again find our men and women in uniform engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Freedom does not come cheap. It is too often paid for not only in dollars but in the lives of America's best sons and daughters.

All across the Nation out there, all across the prairies, the plains, the green valleys, the mountains, the rivers, the rust belt, the East, the North, the South, and the West--all across the Nation, families will be visiting the gravesites of their loved ones.

Long, long be our hearts of such memories filled like the vase in which roses have once been distilled. You may break, you may shatter, the vase if you will, but the scent of the roses will hang round it still.

Among rows of tombstones adorned with small American flags, they will lay wreathes and pay their respects to those who have served our country with honor and distinction in our Nation's wars.

This national tribute will provide the opportunity for mothers and fathers not only to tell their children about the sacrifices of their ancestors and relatives but also to pass on valuable lessons about history and about humanity. But even when our world is beset with the worst of human nature, the best of human nature can rise above it all.

I am reminded today of the story of the ``Immortal Chaplains'' of World War II, Rev. George I. Fox, Rev. Clark V. Poling, Father John P. Washington, and Rabbi Alexander D. Goode. When the U.S troopship Dorchester was torpedoed by a Nazi submarine, with only minutes to live, these four chaplains calmly handed out what lifejackets there were on the ship to the panicking passengers, the soldiers and sailors. When they ran out of life preservers to hand out, what did these four chaplains do?

Can you see it? Can you envision a moment like that?

They took off their own life preservers and gave them away. They gave them to others so others might live.

Then, as the Dorchester was sinking, what did they do? They locked arms and prayed, and sank to their watery graves. They prayed, locked arms, and went to their watery graves.

While some among us might not hesitate to take off that life preserver and give it to our spouse, certainly, our child, or a parent, how many of us would give it to a stranger, as did the immortal chaplains. Self-sacrifice, unity, and respect for each other and each other's faith were the qualities they displayed that night, and in so doing these four chaplains of four different faiths demonstrated their deep faith in God and they honored the mission of our great Nation.

These four chaplains, as I say, were of different faiths. Two were Protestant ministers, was one a Jewish rabbi, and the fourth was a Roman Catholic priest. But they were united as one in their devotion to their Maker, their love for their fellow man, and their willingness to sacrifice so that others might live. It was these convictions that inspired one of the most memorable events not just of World War II but of all time.

Memorials in their honor have been built in the country. The U.S. War Department posthumously awarded them the Distinguished Service Crosses. The U.S. Postal Service issued a special stamp to commemorate their sacrifice. Congress has honored them by authorizing the Four Chaplains Medal and with a resolution designating a Four Chaplains Day.

Think about it. Amidst all the great and important military leaders such as Generals Patton, MacArthur, and Eisenhower, amidst all the great and powerful political leaders of that war such as Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, we also remember these four humble men of God.

Yes, think about it. Amidst all of the destruction and all of the carnage of that war, destruction, and carnage in the form of an Auschwitz, Pearl Harbor, Dresden, and Hiroshima, we remember the immortal chaplains for their act of kindness and mercy.

Yes, think about it. Amidst all the misery and tragedy of that war, amidst all the hate and all the horror of that war, we still remember the four chaplains and their act of heroism and love.

Today, a half century later, we again find ourselves in a terrified world, a world that we did not seek, a terrifying world, a world that we did not want but one in which we must endure if we are to prevail. War, disease, crime, and terrorism have transformed our land into a code red world.

Every generation has its turmoil. That is, sadly, the way of the world. And this particular terrifying era of adversity and challenge in which we now find ourselves, we would do well to bear in mind those immortal chaplains, the four who refused to succumb to fear and performed selfless acts of kindness and mercy.

They truly, truly personified the greatest of men in all generations. The sacrifice of those four men endures as an inspiring act of humanity. For as Jesus said: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for another.

So on this Memorial Day, we will pray as we remember those American service men and women who now stand in harm's way yonder on the other side, yonder in a faraway land. We will pray for those who are serving our Nation in the dangerous climates of Iraq and Afghanistan. They are doing their duty for the families they love, and we will pray for their families and for the families who have already lost loved ones, who daily see that empty chair at the table, the chair which never again will be filled, that place at the table which will forever be empty.

And as we pray, we will recall the words of the Scriptures from Psalm 127: ``Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.''

So I close with lines written by Joyce Kilmer.

``Dulce et Decorum Est''

The bugle echoes shrill and sweet,

But not of war it sings to-day.

The road is rhythmic with the feet

Of men-at-arms who come to pray.

The roses blossom white and red

On tombs where weary soldiers lie;

Flags wave above the honored dead

And martial music cleaves the sky.

Above their wreath-strewn graves we kneel,

They kept the faith and fought the fight.

Through flying lead and crimson steel

They plunged for Freedom and the Right.

May we, their grateful children, learn

Their strength, who lie beneath this sod,

Who went through fire and death to earn

At last the accolade of God.

In shining rank on rank arrayed

They march, the legions of the Lord;

He is their Captain unafraid,

The Prince of Peace . . . Who brought a sword.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.