Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following disclosure of earmarks be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid/Byrd economic stimulus package. Over the past week, congressional leaders have been working with administration officials to craft a bailout package for Wall Street. But if we are going to bail out Wall Street, we also need to help Main Street. The President's failed fiscal policies have resulted in higher unemployment, hardship in coping with rising food costs, higher energy costs, and increased dependence on foreign oil.

If the President thinks that a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street is good for America, he should certainly support a $56 billion investment program to create jobs on Main Street.

The unemployment rate now stands at 6.1 percent, the highest rate since September 2003. The unemployment rate is up 1.4 percentage points since last August. The U.S. economy has lost jobs every month this year, a total of 605,000 jobs. The stimulus package extends unemployment benefits by 7 weeks in all States and another 13 weeks in high unemployment States.

Food prices have increased by 7.5 percent this year after increasing 4.9 percent in 2007. In order to help low-income individuals cope with rising food prices, the stimulus package temporarily increases Food Stamp benefits by 10 percent and includes $450 million for the Women, Infants, and Children--WIC--program, which would allow 625,000 women and children to receive benefits. $50 million is included for food banks, $30 million for the commodity supplemental food program, and $60 million for senior meals programs, providing 18 million more meals to seniors.

There are consequences for failing to invest in America. Bridges fall into rivers. Roads and subways are congested to the breaking point. FEMA cannot respond to a major disaster. Fuel prices go through the roof.

This stimulus package includes $10.8 billion for building and repairing highways, bridges, mass transit, airports, and AMTRAK, creating 384,000 jobs; $50 million for the Economic Development Administration to help communities impacted by massive job losses due to corporate restructuring; $500 million for the COPS program to hire 6,500 police officers; $600 million for clean water systems that would create 24,000 jobs; and $2 billion for school construction that would create 32,300 jobs.

Twenty-nine States are facing a $52 billion shortfall in revenues in their fiscal year 2009 budgets, resulting in cuts in health care, education, and other programs. The stimulus package includes $19.6 billion to reduce the States' share of Medicaid costs by increasing the Federal share by 4 percent.

Energy prices have increased by 22.4 percent in 2008. This stimulus bill includes major investments in promoting energy independence and a clean environment, including funds for advanced battery research, for local governments to improve energy efficiency, for environmental clean up, and weatherizing homes.

Over 22 percent of the world's energy supply is under the Arctic ice cap. The Russian President has stated that Russia should unilaterally claim part of the Arctic, stepping up the race for the disputed energy- rich region. We are not going to go along with that. No. Hell no. Russia has a fleet of 20 heavy icebreakers and is nearing completion of the first of their newest fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers in an effort to control energy exploration and maritime trade in the region. Thanks to the Bush administration, the United States has only one functioning heavy polar icebreaker, and it has only 6 years left of useful life. Shame. Mr. President, $925 million is included for the Coast Guard to provide what the Navy and the Air Force call, ``an essential instrument of U.S. policy'' in the region.

Funding is included to promote safety and energy efficiency in public housing, implement provisions of the recent housing law, give housing assistance to tenants displaced by foreclosure, and fund FBI investigations of fraud in the mortgage market.

To promote education and job training, $2 billion is included for school repairs, $36 million for homeless education, and $400 million for the secure rural schools program. Job training funds would provide 160,000 dislocated workers and youth with training and job search assistance.

Mr. President, $1.2 billion is included for the National Institutes of Health. America's small businesses, the lifeblood of our economy, face an ever-tightening credit market in the wake of struggling financial markets. The stimulus provides $205 million to support $16 billion in reduced-fee loans to small businesses, delivering needed relief to small businesses on Main Street.

I urge Senators to vote for this bill to send a message to the White House that Main Street matters.

I ask unanimous consent that information relating to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate be made a part of the Record.

Yes. I thank the majority leader.

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

Mr. President, I think that September 17 should be honored equally with the Fourth of July. Both dates mark bedrock, fundamentally important events in the life of our country. Most Americans know that July 4, 1776, marks the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but far fewer could say what is so important about September 17.

I am sure that you are not scratching your head over this date, but perhaps some who are listening are doing just that. September 17--does it mark the end of the American Revolution? Was it the date of George Washington's inauguration? Did Christopher Columbus spot land or the passengers of the Mayflower disembark on this date? The answer to all of the above is no. Those are important historical events, to be sure, but none of those dates reaches out to touch the daily lives in as many ways as September 17.

On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed. Our great national experiment in representative democracy began nearly 2 years later with the approval and entry into force of the Constitution on March 4, 1789, after New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it. September 17, 1787, however, marks the ``miracle in Philadelphia'' when the Constitutional Convention gave birth to its masterpiece.

We all know that the Declaration of Independence describes in soaring oratory the grand goals for the new Republic, chief among them the ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' that most people recognize. It is also full of more specific examples of things the Founders could no longer tolerate, such as taxation without representation, having British troops quartered in private homes, and lack of access to fair trials. In the Constitution, the Founders created the structures of government to implement both the grand visions of a free republic and to prevent the abuses of government they had suffered under British rule and outlined in the Declaration. As a result, the Constitution generally makes for less compelling reading material than the Declaration of Independence. It is not full of stirring prose, but rather, it is like an assembly and repair manual, straightforward and commonsense. Yet it supports the framework for freedom and justice. Its words, and those of its amendments, are as critically important to every American as instructions on how to operate a lifeboat are to the passengers of a storm-tossed ship.

The Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia managed to build an entire government in just seven articles and a preamble. One article for the legislative branch, one for the executive branch, one for the judicial branch, one for the States, one for the amendment process, one to define Federal power, and one to set forth the requirements for ratification--the Constitution is shorter than many instruction manuals for new cars, even if you

add the 27 amendments. Yet, for over 200 years, the Constitution and the Government it created have overcome the challenges of insurrection, war, depression, growth, and technologies that could never have been anticipated by the Founding Fathers.

This fall and winter, Americans will again witness their Constitution in action. We will elect a new President and many new Members of the House and Senate as well. Through the processes outlined in the Constitution and honed through years of practice, the Nation will peacefully transition to a new government. It seems routine to us, but the peaceful transition of government is a precious thing. Our system of checks and balances is a precious thing.

On September 17, I hope that all Americans who love our country and cherish our flag will take just a few minutes to read and think about our remarkable Constitution. Keep it close to your heart, as I do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Washington Post article entitled ``Cheney Shielded Bush From Crisis.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank all Senators.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator.

Yes.

King.

That is right.

Yes.

Right.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Please do.

Shame.

Yes, how often?

Yes.

Oh, my, my.

Oh, my God.

Right.

Yes.

Amen.

Yes.

Yes.

Right.

Yes, it is.

And I thank Senator Sanders.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2008]

Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink

(By Barton Gellman)

A burst of ferocity stunned the room into silence. No other

word for it: The vice president's attorney was shouting.

``The president doesn't want this! You are not going to see

the opinions. You are out . . . of . . . your . . . lane!''

Five government lawyers had gathered around a small

conference table in the Justice Department command center.

Four were expected. David S. Addington, counsel to Vice

President Cheney, got wind of the meeting and invited

himself.

If Addington smelled revolt, he was not far wrong.

Unwelcome questions about warrantless domestic surveillance

had begun to find their voice.

Cheney and his counsel would struggle for months to quash

the legal insurgency. By the time President Bush became aware

of it, his No. 2 had stoked dissent into flat-out rebellion.

The president would face a dilemma, and the presidency itself

a historic test. Cheney would come close to leading them off

a cliff, man and office both.

On this second Monday in December 2003, Addington's targets

were a pair of would-be auditors from the National Security

Agency. He had displeasure to spare for their Justice

Department hosts.

Perfect example, right here. A couple of NSA bureaucrats

breeze in and ask for the most sensitive documents in the

building. And Justice wants to tell them, Help yourselves?

This was going to be a very short meeting.

Joel Brenner and Vito Potenza, the two men wilting under

Addington's wrath, had driven 26 miles from Fort Meade, the

NSA's eavesdropping headquarters in Maryland. They were

conducting a review of their agency's two-year-old special

surveillance operation. They already knew the really secret

stuff: The NSA and other services had been unleashed to turn

their machinery inward, collecting signals intelligence

inside the United States. What the two men didn't know was

why the Bush administration believed the program was legal.

It was an awkward question. Potenza, the NSA's acting

general counsel, and Brenner, its inspector general, were

supposed to be the ones who kept their agency on the straight

and narrow. That's what Cheney and their boss, Lt. Gen.

Michael V. Hayden, told doubters among the very few people

who knew what was going on. Cheney, who chaired briefings for

select members of Congress, said repeatedly that the NSA's

top law and ethics officers--career public servants--approved

and supervised the surveillance program.

That was not exactly true, not without one of those silent

asterisks that secretly flip a sentence on its tail. Every 45

days, after Justice Department review, Bush renewed his

military order for warrantless eavesdropping. Brenner and

Potenza told Hayden that the agency was entitled to rely on

those orders. The United States was at war with al-Qaeda,

intelligence-gathering is inherent in war, and the

Constitution appoints the president commander in chief.

But they had not been asked to give their own written

assessments of the legality of domestic espionage. They based

their answer in part on the attorney general's certification

of the ``form and legality'' of the president's orders. Yet

neither man had been allowed to see the program's codeword-

classified legal analyses, which were prepared by John C.

Yoo, Addington's close ally in the Justice Department's

Office of Legal Counsel. Now they wanted to read Yoo's

opinions for themselves.

``This is none of your business!'' Addington exploded.

He was massive in his swivel chair, taut and still,

potential energy amping up the menace. Addington's pugnacity

was not an act. Nothing mattered more, as the vice president

and his lawyer saw the world, than these new surveillance

tools. Bush had made a decision. Debate could only blow the

secret, slow down vital work, or call the president's

constitutional prerogatives into question.

The NSA lawyers returned to their car empty-handed.

* * * * *

The command center of ``the president's program,'' as

Addington usually called it, was not in the White House. Its

controlling documents, which gave strategic direction to the

nation's largest spy agency, lived in a vault across an alley

from the West Wing--in the Eisenhower Executive Office

Building, on the east side of the second floor, where the

vice president headquartered his staff.

The vault was in EEOB 268, Addington's office. Cheney's

lawyer held the documents, physical and electronic, because

he was the one who wrote them. New forms of domestic

espionage were created and developed over time in

presidential authorizations that Addington typed on a

Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk.

It is unlikely that the history of U.S. intelligence

includes another operation conceived and supervised by the

office of the vice president. White House Chief of Staff

Andrew H. Card Jr. had ``no idea,'' he said, that the

presidential orders were held in a vice presidential safe. An

authoritative source said the staff secretariat, which kept a

comprehensive inventory of presidential papers, classified

and unclassified, possessed no record of these.

In an interview, Card said the Executive Office of the

President, a formal term that encompassed Bush's staff but

not Cheney's, followed strict procedures for handling and

securing presidential papers.

``If there were exceptions to that, I'm not aware of

them,'' he said. ``If these documents weren't stored the

right way or put in the right places or maintained by the

right people, I'm not aware of it.''

Asked why Addington would write presidential directives,

Card said, ``David Addington is a very competent lawyer.''

After a moment he added, ``I would consider him a drafter,

not the drafter. I'm sure there were a lot of smart people

who were involved in helping to look at the language and the

law.''

Not many, it turned out. Though the president had the

formal say over who was ``read in'' to the domestic

surveillance program, Addington controlled the list in

practice, according to three officials with personal

knowledge. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales was aware

of the program, but was not a careful student of the complex

legal questions it raised. In its first 18 months, the only

other lawyer who reviewed the program was John Yoo.

By the time the NSA auditors came calling, a new man, Jack

L. Goldsmith, was chief of the Justice Department's Office of

Legal Counsel. Soon after he arrived on Oct. 6, 2003, the

vice president's lawyer invited him to EEOB 268. Addington

pulled out a folder with classification markings that

Goldsmith had never seen.

``David Addington was doing all the legal work. All the

important documents were kept in his safe,'' Goldsmith

recalled. ``He was the one who first briefed me.''

Goldsmith's new assignment gave him final word in the

executive branch on what was legal and what was not.

Addington had cleared him for the post--``the biggest

presence in the room,'' Goldsmith said, during a job

interview ostensibly run by Gonzales.

Goldsmith did not have the looks of a guy who posed a

threat to the Bush administration's alpha lawyer. A mild-

mannered law professor from the University of Chicago, he was

rumpled and self-conscious, easy to underestimate. On first

impression, he gave off a misleading aura of softness.

Goldsmith had lettered in football, baseball and soccer at

the Pine Crest School in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., spending his

formative years with a mob-connected Teamster who married his

mother. He was not a bare-knuckled brawler in Addington's

mold, but Goldsmith arrived at Justice with no less

confidence and strength of will.

Addington's behavior with the NSA auditors was ``a wake-up

call for me,'' Goldsmith said. Cheney and Addington, he came

to believe, were gaming the system, using secrecy and

intimidation to prevent potential dissenters from conducting

an independent review.

``They were geniuses at this,'' Goldsmith said. ``They

could divide up all these problems in the bureaucracy, ask

different people to decide things in their lanes, control the

facts they gave them, and then put the answers together to

get the result they want.''

Dec. 9, 2003, the day of the visit from Brenner and

Potenza, was the beginning of the end of that strategy. The

years of easy victory were winding down for Cheney and his

staff.

* * * * *

Goldsmith began a top-to-bottom review of the domestic

surveillance program, taking up the work begun by a lawyer

named Patrick F. Philbin after John Yoo left the department.

Like Yoo and Goldsmith, Philbin had walked the stations of

the conservative legal establishment: Federalist Society, a

clerkship with U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman,

another with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The more questions they asked, the less Goldsmith and

Philbin liked the answers. Parts of the program fell easily

within the constitutional powers of the commander in chief.

Others looked dicier.

The two lawyers worked at the intersection of three complex

systems: telecommunications, spy technology, and the

statutory regimes that governed surveillance. After a few

weeks, Goldsmith said, he decided the program ``was the

biggest legal mess I'd seen in my life.''

He asked for permission to read in Attorney General John D.

Ashcroft's new deputy, James B. Comey. As always, he found

Addington waiting with Gonzales in the White House counsel's

corner office, one floor up from the chief of staff. They sat

in parallel wing chairs, much as Bush and Cheney did in the

Oval Office.

``The attorney general and I think the deputy attorney

general should be read in,'' Goldsmith said.

Addington replied first.

``Forget it,'' he said.

``The president insists on strict limitations on access to

the program,'' Gonzales agreed.

Weeks passed. Goldsmith kept asking. Addington kept saying

no.

``He always invoked the president, not the vice

president,'' Goldsmith said.

Comey was not exactly Mr. Popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

He had arrived at Justice as a 6-foot-8 golden boy, smooth

and polished, with top chops as a federal terrorism

prosecutor in Northern Virginia and New York City. Then came

Dec. 30, 2003. Comey did something unforgivable: He appointed

an independent counsel to investigate the leak of Valerie

Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA officer, a move that

would bring no end of grief for Cheney.

In late January, Goldsmith and Addington cut a deal. Comey

would get his read-in. Goldsmith would get off the fence

about the program, giving his definitive answer by the March

11 deadline.

``You're the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and if

you say we cannot do this thing legally, we'll shut it off,''

Addington told him.

Feel free to tell the president that his most important

intelligence operation has to stop.

Your call, Jack.

Goldsmith wanted to fix the thing, not stop it. He and

Philbin traveled again and again to Fort Meade, each time

delving deeper. They were in and out of Gonzales's office,

looking for adjustments in the program that would bring it

into compliance with the law. The issues were complex and

remain classified. Addington bent on nothing, swatting back

every idea. Gonzales listened placidly, sipping Diet Cokes

from his little refrigerator, encouraging the antagonists to

keep things civil.

There would be no easy out, no middle ground. Addington

made clear that he did not believe for a moment that Justice

would pull the plug.

* * * * *

Mike Hayden and Vito Potenza drove down from NSA

headquarters after lunch on Feb. 19, 2004, to give Jim Comey

his first briefing on the program. In the Justice

Department's vault-like SCIF, a sensitive compartmented

information facility, Hayden got Comey's attention fast.

``I'm so glad you're getting read in, because now I won't

be alone at the table when John Kerry is elected president,''

the NSA director said.

The witness table, Hayden meant. Congressional hearing,

investigation of some kind. Nothing good. Kerry had the

Democratic nomination just about locked up and was leading

Bush in national polls. Hardly anyone in the intelligence

field believed the next administration would climb as far out

on a legal limb as this one had.

``Hayden was all dog-and-pony, and this is probably what

happened to those poor folks in Congress, too,'' Comey told

his chief of staff after the briefing. ``You think for a

second, `Wow, that's great,' and then if you try actually to

explain it back to yourself, you don't get it. You scratch

your head afterward and you think, `What the hell did that

guy just tell me?' ''

The NSA chief insisted on limiting surveillance to e-mails,

phone calls and faxes in which one party was overseas,

deflecting arguments from Cheney and Addington that he could

just as well collect communications inside the United States.

That was one reason Hayden hated when reporters referred to

``domestic surveillance.'' He made his point with a folksy

analogy: He had taken ``literally hundreds of domestic

flights,'' he said, and never ``landed in Waziristan.'' That

sounded good. But the surveillance statutes said a warrant

was required if either end of the conversation was in U.S.

territory. The American side of the program--the domestic

surveillance--was its distinguishing feature.

By the end of February, Goldsmith and Philbin had reached

their conclusion: Parts of the surveillance operation had no

support in law. Comey was so disturbed that he drove to

Langley one evening to compare notes with Scott W. Muller,

the general counsel at the CIA. Muller ``got it

immediately,'' agreeing with the Goldsmith-Philbin

analysis, Comey said.

``At the end of the day, I concluded something I didn't

ever think I would conclude, and that is that Pat Philbin and

Jack Goldsmith understood this activity much better than

Michael Hayden did,'' he said.

On Thursday, March 4, Comey brought the findings to

Ashcroft, conferring for an hour one-on-one. Three senior

Justice Department officials said in interviews that Ashcroft

gave his full backing. He was not going to sign the next

presidential order--due in one week, March 11--unless the

White House agreed to a list of required changes.

* * * * *

A few hours later, Ashcroft was reviewing notes for a news

conference in Alexandria when his color changed and he sat

down heavily. An aide, Mark Corallo, ducked out and returned

to find the attorney general laid out on his back. By

nightfall, Ashcroft was taken to George Washington University

Medical Center in severe pain, suffering acute gallstone

pancreatitis. Comey became acting attorney general on Friday.

The next day--Saturday, March 6, five days before the March

11 deadline--Goldsmith brought the Justice Department verdict

to the White House. He told Gonzales and Addington for the

first time that Justice would not certify the program.

A long silence fell. It lasted three full days.

Gonzales phoned Goldsmith at home before sunrise on

Tuesday, March 9, with two days left before the program

expired. Obviously there was bad chemistry with Addington.

Why not come in and talk, he asked, just the two of us?

Goldsmith arrived at the White House in morning twilight.

Alone in his office, Gonzales begged the OLC chief to

reconsider. Gonzales tried to dispute Goldsmith's analysis,

but he was in over his head. At least let us have more time,

he said. Goldsmith said he couldn't do that.

The time had come for the vice president to step in.

Proxies were not getting the job done. Cheney was going to

have to take hold of this thing himself.

Even now, after months of debate, Cheney did not enlist the

president. Bush was across the river in Arlington, commending

the winners of the Malcolm Baldrige awards for quality

improvement in private industry. Campaign season had come

already, and the president was doing a lot of that kind of

thing. That week he had a fundraiser in Dallas, a ``Bush-

Cheney 2004 event'' in Santa Clara, Calif., and a meet-and-

greet at a rodeo in Houston.

Soon after hearing what had happened between Goldsmith and

Gonzales, the vice president asked Andy Card to set up a

meeting at noon with Mike Hayden, FBI Director Robert S.

Mueller III, and John McLaughlin from the CIA (substituting

for his boss, George J. Tenet). Cheney spoke to them in

Card's office, the door closed.

Four hours later, at 4 p.m., the same cast reconvened. This

time the Justice contingent was invited. Comey, Goldsmith and

Philbin found the titans of the intelligence establishment

lined up, a bunch of grave-faced analysts behind them for

added mass. The spy chiefs brought no lawyers. The law was

not the point. This meeting, described by officials with

access to two sets of contemporaneous notes, was about

telling Justice to set its qualms aside.

The staging had been arranged for maximum impact. Cheney

sat at the head of Card's rectangular table, pivoting left to

face the acting attorney general. The two men were close

enough to touch. Card sat grimly at Cheney's right, directly

across from Comey. There was plenty of eye contact all

around.

This program, Cheney said, was vital. Turning it off would

leave us blind. Hayden, the NSA chief, pitched in: Even if

the program had yet to produce blockbuster results, it was

the only real hope of discovering sleeper agents before they

could act.

``How can you possibly be reversing course on something of

this importance after all this time?'' Cheney asked.

Comey held his ground. The program had to operate within

the law. The Justice Department knew a lot more now than it

had before, and Ashcroft and Comey had reached this decision

together.

``I will accept for purposes of discussion that it is as

valuable as you say it is,'' Comey said. ``That only makes

this more painful. It doesn't change the analysis. If I can't

find a lawful basis for something, your telling me you

really, really need to do it doesn't help me.''

``Others see it differently,'' Cheney said.

There was only one of those, really. John Yoo had been out

of the picture for nearly a year. It was all Addington.

``The analysis is flawed, in fact facially flawed,'' Comey

said. ``No lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it.''

Gonzales said nothing. Addington stood by the window, over

Cheney's shoulder. He had heard a bellyful.

``Well, I'm a lawyer and I did,'' Addington said, glaring

at Comey.

``No good lawyer,'' Comey said.

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Addington started disputing the particulars. Now he was on

Jack Goldsmith's turf. From across the room the head of the

Office of Legal Counsel jumped in. And right there in front

of the big guys, the two of them bickered in the snarly tones

of a couple who knew all of each other's lines.

* * * * *

As the sun went down on Tuesday, March 9, the president of

the United States had yet to learn that his Justice

Department was heading off the rails. A train wreck was

coming, but Cheney wanted to handle it. Neither Card nor

Gonzales was in the habit of telling him no.

``I don't think it would be appropriate for the president

to be engaged in the to-and-fro until it is, you know,

penultimate,'' Card said in a recent interview. ``I guess the

definition of `penultimate' could vary from four steps to

three steps to two steps to one step. That's why you have

White House counsel and people who do the legal work.''

Participants in the afternoon meeting, including some of

Cheney's recruits, left the room shaken. Mueller worked for

the attorney general, and the FBI's central mission was to

``uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United

States.'' Hayden's neck, and his agency, were on the line.

The NSA director believed in the program, believed he was

doing the right thing. But keep on going when the Justice

Department said no?

Early the next morning--Wednesday, March 10, with 24 hours

to deadline--Hayden was back in the White House. One

colleague saw him conferring in worried whispers with

Homeland Security adviser John A. Gordon, a mentor and fellow

Air Force general, much the senior of the two. They huddled

in the West Wing lobby, Hayden on a love seat and Gordon in a

chair.

Jim Comey was in the White House that morning, too,

arriving early for the president's regular 8:30 terrorism

brief. He had heard nothing since the discouraging meeting

the day before.

Comey found Frances Fragos Townsend, an old friend, waiting

just outside the Oval Office, standing by the appointment

secretary's desk. She was Bush's deputy national security

adviser for combating terrorism. Comey had known her since

their days as New York mob prosecutors in the 1980s. Since

then, Townsend had run the Justice Department's intelligence

office. She lived and breathed surveillance law.

Comey took a chance. He pulled her back out to the hallway

between the Roosevelt Room and the Cabinet Room.

``If I say a word, would you tell me whether you recognize

it?'' he asked quietly.

He did. She didn't. The program's classified code name left

her blank. Comey tried to talk around the subject.

``I think this is something I am not a part of,'' Townsend

said. ``I can't have this conversation.'' Like John Gordon

and deputy national security adviser Steven J. Hadley and

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, she was out of the

loop.

Oh, God, Comey remembers thinking. They've held this so

tight. Even Fran Townsend. The president's counterterrorism

adviser is not read in? Comey towered over his diminutive

friend. He chose his words carefully.

``I need to know,'' he said, ``whether your boss recognizes

that word, and whether she's read in on a particular program.

Because we had a meeting here yesterday on that topic that I

would have expected her to be at.''

He meant national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Comey

was hoping for an ally, or maybe rescue.

``I felt very alone, with some justification,'' Comey

recalled. ``The attorney general is in intensive care.

There's a train coming down the tracks that's about to run me

and my career and the Department of Justice over. I was

exploring every way to get off the tracks I could.''

Townsend had a pretty good guess about what was on Comey's

mind. Cheney had kept her out of the loop, but it was hard to

hide a warrantless domestic surveillance program completely

from the president's chief terrorism adviser.

``I'm not the right person to talk to,'' she told her

friend, her voice close to a whisper. Comey ought to go see

Rice.

``I'm going to tell her you've got concerns,'' Townsend

said.

Comey's concerns no longer interested Cheney. The vice

president had tried to back him down. That didn't work.

Only one day remained before the surveillance program

expired. Time for Cheney to take the fight somewhere else.

Madam President, I regret that again this year I must vote against the National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the provisions in this bill, which authorizes the activities of the Department of Defense, including important research, development and procurement funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and maintenance funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the military services over the coming year. I support these activities, which not only benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective military for the future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and Senator Warner and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in most ways, a good piece of legislation.

However, S. 3001 also provides authorization for the funding of continued operations in Iraq at levels requested by the Bush administration and without any provision to either transition the military mission in Iraq or to bring our troops home. In my view, providing this funding without conditions, without strings attached, is unacceptable.

In my view, the Congress should not continue to write blank checks for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in Iraq. In effect, this bill also provides a congressional authorization to fund the continuation of President Bush's policy in Iraq into 2009, without any strings attached. Amendments filed that would have limited the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq were not even considered during debate on the bill. That is truly unfortunate.

Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring their third and fourth rotations to Iraq, and because no limits have been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight, despite efforts to declare the surge a success in bringing stability to Iraq. More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed Forces are at risk for becoming a ``hollow force,'' as happened after the Vietnam conflict, putting our entire Nation at greater risk.

Our military commanders in Afghanistan are urgently requesting additional and substantial numbers of troops to counter the rising violence there, but there are few troops to spare for them. As a result, we risk losing whatever gains have been made there, in the actual central front of the war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization. We must win that fight, there, or face more attacks like the one that took place today against the U.S. embassy in Yemen.

I support our troops and I will not let them to lack for anything needed to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot countenance leaving them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission and no assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the United States any safer.

Mr. President, St. Ignatius High School is a private, Roman Catholic, Jesuit high school for young men located in Cleveland, OH. The school is renowned for its high standards of academic excellence, with nearly 100 percent of its graduates attending colleges and universities within one year of graduation.

Under the leadership of Rev. Tim Kesicki, S.J., and his predecessor, Fr. Robert J. Welsh, S.J., this high school works hard to produce students who are open to growth, intellectually competent, loving, religious, and committed to doing justice. In summary, a St. Ignatius student is a ``man for others.''

Each year, Saint Ignatius High School presents its annual John V. Corrigan '38 Distinguished Alumnus Award to a graduate with notable achievements who has used his talents and skills for those in need, consistent with the paramount objective of Jesuit education the formation of ``Men for Others.'' The award recognizes an accomplished graduate who serves as a positive role model for the students of St. Ignatius High School.

I am quite proud and most pleased to announce that the 2008 John V. Corrigan '38 Distinguished Alumnus Award was presented to the one of the Senate's very own, Mr. Terrence E. Sauvain, who currently serves in my office of the President pro tempore as a senior advisor.

I have been very fortunate to have had Terry as a member of my staff for so many years. In every task I have asked him to undertake, including 2 years of service as the secretary to the minority leader, Terry has performed his duties with courtesy, dedication, efficiency, and diligence. In every position, he has gone above and beyond the call of duty in performing the work of the Senate, assisting my representation of the people of West Virginia, and serving the best interests of the Nation, and for all this, I am truly grateful.

Terry Sauvain also served as the 14th staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, since the committee was formed in 1867. In this role, Terry directed a great team of professional analysts with a goal of ``sharpening the issues'' so that Senators were able to make bipartisan, responsible, and fiscally prudent decisions on Federal Government spending amounting to $1 trillion per year. Terry's outstanding service to the Senate has earned him a variety of honors, including the Nyumbani Medallion of Hope for his work supporting me in the humanitarian fight to bring relief to children with HIV/AIDS in Africa.

I heartily congratulate Terry Sauvain and his family on his receipt of this award.

I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in the most recent issue of St. Ignatius Magazine concerning this award be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached list of subcommittee assignments for the Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record, to supplant the list printed in the Record on November 2, 2007.

Mr. President, I wish to commend Mr. Vincent P. Farri on his promotion to Lieutenant with the United States Capitol Police. Mr. Farri, a native of Maryland, joined the Capitol Police on January 31, 1989. After initial training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center he worked with the Capitol Division Building Patrol, and performed general duties until 1993. In 1993, Mr. Farri was assigned to the uniform protective detail for the President pro tempore of the Senate. I came to know Mr. Farri during this time and observed that on a daily basis he executed his duties in a highly professional, diligent and courteous manner.

In 1998, Mr. Farri served as a senior patrol officer in the Capitol Building, and occasionally worked as an acting sergeant, making rounds and supporting officers at their posts. While performing in this capacity, Vincent Farri distinguished himself on July 24, 1998. On that fateful day, an armed assailant entered the Capitol and suddenly took the lives of two Capitol Policemen. Officer Farri, hearing shots from the floor above, immediately ran to the scene where he came upon the fallen officers, and assisted in apprehending the gunman. All those who work in and visit the Capitol owe deep gratitude to the police men and women who serve and protect us, and we are especially grateful for the service rendered by Vincent and the sacrifice of his fellow officers on that day.

In September, 1998, Mr. Farri was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and worked with the First Responder Unit of the Capitol Division for approximately 10 years. His collateral duties

included training junior officers and serving with the Capitol Police Alert Team. In connection with his promotion to Lieutenant, Mr. Farri has been assigned to the Capitol Police Command Center. In this position, he provides guidance to officers in the field and serves as a liaison between the offices of the Chief of the Capitol Police and the Sergeants at Arms of the House and the Senate.

In 1946, during a lecture at the University of Chicago, Senator J. William Fulbright stated, ``The legislator is an indispensable guardian of our freedom.'' I believe all Senators will agree that the U.S. Capitol Police are indispensable guardians of all who serve in and work for the United States Congress. Mr. Farri's 19 years of service have been an important part of that protection. I sincerely congratulate Lieutenant Vincent Farri on his promotion and assignment, and further extend my congratulations and warm wishes to Christina, his wife of 15 years, his two sons, Richard, age 11, and Paul, age 7, as well as to all of Vincent's family, including his dear mother, Mrs. Dorothy Farri.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that Mrs. Geraldine Tabor Hall has passed away.

Gerry, as her friends called her, was the wife of Judge K.K. Hall, or K.K. as his friends called him. She was a retired registered nurse, a great West Virginian, and a very dear friend. My beloved wife Erma and I spent many an evening with the Halls. We would often stay with Gerry and Judge Hall when we were in Charleston, and always found her to be a most gracious and generous hostess.

Over the years, Gerry and Erma became particularly close. They enjoyed each other's company immensely. Maybe it was because they had so much in common.

Both Gerry and Erma were as elegant as they were ``down home,'' and both were perfect partners to their husbands.

Both had a lot to put up with in their husbands, busy public servants whose careers required a great deal from their wives. They were both patient, deeply kind, and tremendously devoted to the State of West Virginia. Neither ever sought the limelight, but each accepted a certain amount of standing in it.

Both Gerry and Erma were supremely good listeners. Judge K.K. Hall could be quite a character. He had a grand sense of humor, and Gerry was always sure to laugh at his stories. And when I delivered a speech or performed with a good string band back home, Erma listened attentively and nodded along. Both women had heard it all time and again, but there they were, always with their warm smiles, hearty laughs, and steady applause, as if it were the first time.

Like Erma, Mrs. Hall was a most gracious host. During my long and bitter 1982 Senate election, I recall how often she would answer the door late at night to find myself and my able assistant during that campaign, Jim Huggins, standing on her porch, expecting to spend the night in the comfort and shelter of the Hall home. This often occurred without warning, and, not infrequently, very late at night. But Gerry

never complained, never portrayed the slightest annoyance. She not only provided us with a place to stay for the night, she cooked a solid breakfast for us in the morning, and then would send us on our way to our next campaign stop.

I will miss this lovely and gracious person. But I am sure that she and her devoted husband, K.K., are together now. And Erma is there. And K.K. is practicing a tale to tell when we are all reunited again. And Erma and Gerry will laugh and applaud as if they had never heard it before.

The Scent of the Roses

(Thomas Moore)

Let fate do her worst,

There are relics of joy,

Bright dreams of the past

That she cannot destroy.

That come in the nighttime

Of sorrow and care,

And bring back the features

That joy used to wear.

Long, long be my heart

With 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.

Mr. President, I will vote no on the nomination of GEN David H. Petraeus, the current commander of the Multi-National Force-- Iraq, to be Commander, U.S. Central Command. I was unable to attend General Petraeus' nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee because I was managing the supplemental appropriations bill on the Senate floor, but I reviewed his testimony. I also posed a number of questions to General Petraeus after the hearing, and studied his responses.

I appreciate General Petraeus' evident intelligence and his expertise and experience in Iraq. He wrote the book on countering insurgencies for the Army. He led the 101st Airborne Division during the V Corps drive to Baghdad in 2003. He established the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq in 2004. He has served as Commander of the Multi-National Force--Iraq since January 2007. He is the architect of the so-called surge strategy that is even now being played out in Iraq.

The surge strategy is, in fact, one of the reasons why I believe General Petraeus should remain in his current position as Commander of the Multi-National Force--Iraq. Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies at the conclusion of World War I, observed in his 1920 book, ``Precepts and Judgments'', that ``Great results in war are due to the commander. History is therefore right in making generals responsible for victories--in which case they are glorified; and for defeats--in which case they are disgraced.'' The book is still out on the success or failure of the surge strategy. General Petraeus should bring it to its conclusion before he is rewarded with a promotion.

Continuity of command has been a problem in Iraq. Historically, when the United States has been involved in protracted conflicts, continuity of command has been maintained, be it Generals Eisenhower or MacArthur during World War II, or General Westmoreland during the Vietnam conflict. General Petraeus has only been in his current position for 18 months. Since President Bush believes that General Petraeus has done well in his current position, but he, Secretary Gates and General Petraeus have all described the security situation in Iraq as tenuous and reversible, it does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved.

Almost 1 year ago, on July 14, 2007, President Bush said in a radio address that, ``When America starts drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right--not because pollsters say it would be good politics.'' That strategy does not work well, however, when you keep changing commanders. No new commander is going to come in and say `reduce the troop levels on my watch,' because if, through their lack of familiarity with the conditions on the ground, they are wrong, that defeat would be their disgrace, just as Marshal Foch observed in 1920. So, a year after President Bush's statement, troop levels in Iraq are only just returning to something close to the pre-surge levels of January 2007, when General Petraeus assumed command in Iraq. If, as General Petraeus has said, no further decisions on additional drawdowns will be made until sometime in the fall of 2008, a new commander will be called upon to make that decision.

I am also concerned about General Petraeus' unwillingness to address questions regarding other regional issues, such as in Afghanistan or Iran, during his nomination hearing. Such evasiveness is not politic; it is troubling at a time when news reports suggest that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and that President Bush may be contemplating military action against Iran. Despite the press of his responsibilities in Iraq, General Petraeus must be concerned with how other operations or other political considerations in the same theater affect his options in Iraq. Equally, he must consider how political changes in his chain of command might affect his operations in Iraq, yet he will not admit even the existence of contingency plans for potential troop drawdowns that might be required by a new administration. If the competing priorities for manpower and materiel are to be sorted out at the CENTCOM level, it must be done with a clear understanding of what is possible and what is achievable, by someone willing to take a stand in support of all the men and women who will be called upon to carry out those priorities, not by someone who only salutes and carries out orders or by someone who knows only a fraction of the full situation. General Petraeus' career will be judged in large part by his role in the Iraq conflict; his reticence to address other regional issues raises questions about his willingness to devote the focus and the resources needed to address them properly.

Finally, the repeated rotations of U.S. soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan

are taking a toll on our military. Elements of the 4th Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, and the 172nd Infantry Brigade are facing a third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are facing a fourth tour. With these repeated tours and the continuation of the ``stop loss'' policy of forcibly retaining troops on active duty in order to maintain unit integrity necessitated by the strain this war is placing on our forces, it is difficult to understand why these troops should not be entitled to a continuity of command. The troops appreciate the effectiveness of working together as a unit when confronting danger on a regular basis. They deserve a leadership corps that, like them, functions together as a unit and stay together.

More than 12,000 servicemembers are currently affected by ``stop loss'' orders that prohibit them from retiring or leaving the service even though they are eligible for retirement or their terms of enlistment have expired. That total includes 6,800 active-duty Army personnel, about 3,800 Army National Guard personnel and almost 1,500 Army Reservists who are not allowed to leave military service despite having fulfilled their service obligations.

LTG James Thurman, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, has said that he hoped, but could not promise, that if the demand for troops stabilized at around 15 combat brigades, the use of the ``stop loss'' could be ended by the end of fiscal year 2009, or the beginning of fiscal year 2010--in September or October of 2009, more than a year from now. ``But demand exceeds supply right now,'' he stated. For the 12,000 affected servicemembers, and those who will become eligible to retire or leave service between now and late 2009, this amounts to another 18 months of forced conscription. Until the practice of ``stop loss'' is ended, perhaps General Petraeus and other military leaders should remain in their current assignments until the U.S. can transition the responsibility for the security of Iraq to Iraqis.

Right.

Mr. President, in 1771, Samuel Adams observed:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil

Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is

our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received

them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors; they

purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of

treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and

diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the

present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer

them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or

to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and

designing men.

Under the artifice of defending our nation from terrorists, President Bush would have Congress surrender our liberties and the freedom of our civil Constitution. This bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, FISA, Amendments Act of 2008, is supposed to correct unconstitutional authorities contained in last year's ``Protect America Act'' that permitted widescale warrantless Government surveillance of innocent Americans' private international communications, much of it facilitated by telecommunications companies in a manner that is under court review. However, this bill undercuts that judicial review and, in effect, grants complete retroactive immunity to those companies for anything illegal they might have done for the last 6 years. That provision undermines the Constitution's fourth amendment protections.

This bill continues Government surveillance of communications coming into and out of the United States without full fourth amendment protections. Remember the fourth amendment? It reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The President would have you believe that this bill would provide additional powers to prevent another 9/11. But 9/11 did not happen for want of these powers. It was not a failure of Government to monitor private communications. Rather, it was a failure of the Government to monitor the reports of the FBI and of the intelligence community. It happened because the administration did not take seriously reports suggesting that what actually happened was being planned by al-Qaida. Just as he exploited 9/11 to lead us to war in Iraq, President Bush now wants to exploit his failures to attack our fundamental freedoms-- freedoms that formed the foundations of this Nation.

There is no doubt that certain accommodations need to be made to address advances in technology. However, this bill goes too far. If the Government can collect all communications coming into or out of the United States, using powerful computers to shop among them without probable cause that the person making or receiving the communication is involved in anything illegal, and without any court providing a check upon the abuse of that power, that does not meet my ``reasonable man's'' definition of fourth amendment compliance. And that is not the ``fair inheritance'' won for us by our Founders at such a great price.

Madam President, back in the 1960s, Jesse Helms was the commentator for WRAL radio in North Carolina, and on his radio program, he offered me support and comfort for some controversial views which I held at the time.

Although Helms had worked as a staffer for two different Senators, as far as I knew, Jesse Helms and I had never met. But there he was, in Raleigh, NC, in a series of radio commentaries, defending my right to take positions based on my personal convictions and values. He said I was a Senator whose ``greatest strength'' was my ``dedicated independence of thought and action.'' I was a Senator who was ``neither easily frightened nor intimidated.'' A Senator who always stood ``up for what he regards as important.''

I appreciated his support during those trying times. I never forgot it.

Therefore, when Jesse Helms was elected to the Senate in 1972, it seemed that we were already well acquainted. We became friends as we came to know each other, and to respect each other.

Jesse Helms was a courtly Southern gentleman of the first order, a product of the South and his beloved North Carolina, which happens to be my native State. Jesse Helms was also a deeply religious man of integrity, honesty, and patriotism.

He believed in the Constitution. He believed in the Senate as an institution and in its premier place in our government. Senator Helms was one of those rare Senators who was never looking for another office. He wanted to be a Senator. He was grateful to be able to serve the people of North Carolina and the United States in this Chamber.

And he certainly made his presence felt here in the U.S. Senate. During his years in the Senate, he served as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

More than once, Senator Helms was the singular ``no'' vote on a particular matter, i.e, the Frank Carlucci nomination as Secretary of Defense, November 20, 1987, 91-1: Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Act of 1987, December 1, 1987, 97-1, S. 373. He proudly wore his well earned title of ``Senator No.''

No matter what the press said, no matter what the pundits were saying, no matter what even his colleagues were saying, he never wavered in his convictions. The ``paramount thing'' for political leaders, Senator Helms once explained, ``is whether a man believes in [his] principles . . . and whether he is willing to stand up for them, win or lose.''

Consequently, we always knew where Senator Helms stood. Take an issue--abortion, prayer in school, presidential nominations, reducing the deficit, taxes, government waste, the future of this country--if you did not already know where he stood, he was always ready to tell you.

Some of his positions were unpopular. Some of them seemed extreme and doomed from the start.

But, his differences with his Senate colleagues were always political, not personal. They were differences of opinions, not of heart.

Madam President, I express my most heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of this extraordinary Senator.

Mr. President, on Friday, July 4, the United States will conduct the 232nd celebration of Independence Day. On this day, we commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Flags will fly and rousing music will be heard before the faint whiff of gunpowder and thunderous boom of fireworks reminds us of the great struggle that took place to set our Nation upon its course through history.

Amid all the parades, fireworks, and backyard barbeques, it is worthwhile to consider the document itself. The Declaration of Independence is an amazing and powerful manuscript. Phrases in its opening paragraphs are familiar to most Americans: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' That line may well be the most recognizable sentence in American political history. It is certainly among the top 10.

As famous as the phrase ``Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,'' is, however, it is not the first sentence of

the Declaration. The lead sentence reads: ``When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'' This sentence sets the stage for the body of the Declaration, which lists in some detail the abuses of power that drove the Founders to a war of secession.

Unlike the philosophical goals of life, liberty, and happiness, which Americans today readily understand and revere, the complaints listed in the Declaration rarely fire the popular imagination. But they should. The abuses of the King listed in the Declaration are the very issues that the Constitution strives to prevent. They are the issues that the Bill of Rights specifically protects us against. They are issues, and battles, still being fought today, as the recent debates and court actions over the rights of detainees and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, demonstrate.

Reading the list of the colonists' grievances paints a vivid picture of life in those times. One can readily imagine the frustrations of a people trying to build a working society, ruled by laws, that welcomes new settlers and that promotes trade and commerce but is continually set back by contempt and indifference. The colonies' governments are dissolved or are forced to meet in out-of-the-way, uncomfortable places or at times that discourage part-time legislators from attending. Laws are arbitrarily suspended until the King, can rule on them, but he never does provide a ruling. New courts cannot be established unless the King, thousands of miles and months of travel away, will agree to them. Judges depend on the King's favor for their jobs and their salaries, so they rarely rule against him, anyway. New taxes and new rules from Britain are continually imposed upon the colonists, from stamp taxes to tea taxes, and their complaints about them are met with silence or violence. Large armies are camped among the colonies and take what they demand from the colonists, but they are immune from prosecution for any wrongs they commit. Mercenaries are brought in, and colonists are seized and forced into military service on behalf of the King.

The colonists complain, but the King does not care. The Declaration concludes, therefore, ``A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.'' In the Constitution to come, the Founding Fathers will design a government that limits the power of the executive in order to prevent tyranny by one man, and will protect the rights of the individual against the state. Courts will be independent, and taxes must be levied only by the representatives of the people.

Our Government was expressly designed to prevent anyone from having to live under the same conditions suffered by the colonists. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.''

Ultimately, the colonists declared in their Declaration of Independence that `` . . . these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . . Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown . . . '' and held Britain, `` . . . as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.''

On this Independence Day, the current generation can look back upon those strong, resolute words with pride and gratitude. We would do well to remember the abuses that finally compelled our Founding Fathers to declare war, so that we never let the freedoms that were won for us to be lost. Remember the words of John Adams, who warned that ``The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.'' He further wrote, ``Be not intimidated . . . nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.'' Those are the words of experience, speaking across the ages. This Independence Day, we best honor our legacy by caring for it with the same passion and vigilance that John Adams did.

Mr. President, I wish you, and everyone listening, a happy Independence Day.

Mr. President, 1 year ago, Congress sent the President a war funding supplemental that included clear direction to bring our troops home by December of 2007. The President chose to veto that bill. If he had signed that bill, most of our troops would be home today.

Instead of bringing our troops home, the President decided to increase our commitment of U.S. troops and treasure to a war that has now entered its sixth year. Over 4,100 U.S. servicemembers have died. Over 30,000 U.S. servicemembers have been wounded. This year, the President asked Congress to approve another $178 billion for this endless war. With enactment of this supplemental, Congress will have approved over $656 billion for the war in Iraq.

Once again, the President threw down the gauntlet and said he would veto the supplemental bill if Congress added funding for anything other than the war. He made this demand at a time when the U.S. economy is in trouble.

Under the President's failed fiscal leadership, deficits and debt are on the rise. Unemployment is on the rise, with the largest 1 month increase in 20 years. Economic growth came to a virtual halt at the end of last year. Food and fuel costs are dramatically climbing. Mr. President, 8.8 million home owners have mortgages that exceed the value of their homes, and foreclosures have increased 57 percent.

While saying no to funds for America, the President wanted this Congress to approve more funding to reconstruct Iraq. We have already approved $45 billion for reconstruction projects in Iraq. Despite the fact that the Iraqi government is running a huge surplus due to excess oil revenues, the President asked this Congress to spend another $3 billion of American taxpayer dollars on reconstructing Iraq.

The President wants money to build schools in Sadr City but not in Seattle. He wants money for roads in Ramadi but not Richmond. The President wants money for Mosul but not Minneapolis. He wants to reconstruct Baghdad but not Baltimore or Birmingham.

Congress listened to the President. We had hearings on his request, and we concluded that, notwithstanding his ill-considered veto threat, we would include funding to help our citizens here at home.

The amendment that is before the Senate extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks. Over the past year, the number of unemployed workers in this country has grown by 1.6 million to a level of 8.5 million people.

I am pleased that the amendment includes critical funding for our veterans. I commend Senator Webb and Senator Warner for their leadership in drafting legislation that provides our veterans with an education benefit that they have earned.

We also have a moratorium on six burdensome Medicaid regulations. The President wanted to pass billions of dollars of expenses on to the States for rehabilitation services and school-based services for children with special needs. Congress said no.

We have included $2.65 billion for disaster assistance to help the victims of the Midwest floods, as well as other disasters that have happened over the last year for which the President sought no additional funding. We have added funding for the Food and Drug Administration to help protect our food and drug supplies. We also modified the President's request for the war by adding $160 million to his request for funding DOD efforts in Afghanistan. We must never forget that those who attacked us on 9/11 trained in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We also include language mandating that Iraq match, dollar for dollar, further U.S. contributions to reconstructing Iraq.

This year, the Appropriations Committee has held, and will continue to hold, oversight hearings looking at waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq. Unchecked corruption in Iraq is providing much of the funding for the very enemy our servicemen and women are fighting--and President Bush has demonstrated either unwillingness or an inability to check the flow of funds and weapons from these sources to the enemy. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive anticorruption strategy and submit to Congress the identities of Iraqi officials believed to have committed corrupt acts. I am also pleased that this legislation continues to provide funding, funding not requested by President Bush, for the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction. As a result of our recent hearings on fraud and corruption in Iraq, we learned that there are only five FBI agents assigned to investigate fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. For this administration, look no evil, see no evil. Well, it is time to take our blinders off. This amendment includes $5 million to increase FBI investigations, and the committee will continue to hold hearings on fraud and waste in Iraq.

Despite the positive measures for struggling Americans, our veterans, and their families included in this amendment, I deeply regret that this legislation will go to President Bush without the necessary checks to ensure that the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The majority of the American people have come to see this war as a costly mistake that needs to be brought to a close. This legislation brings us no closer to that goal.

However, with this legislation, we will once again take care of our troops. We also invest in America here at home.

There is more to do. I am disappointed that the White House blocked our efforts to add funding to help the Gulf States recover from Hurricane Katrina, to provide additional low-income home energy assistance, and to invest in our infrastructure. I have consulted with the leadership, and next month, the committee will consider a second supplemental to deal with the Midwest floods, Hurricane Katrina, and to make critical investments in America.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the fiscal year 2009 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. In this bill, the Senate Committee has continued its aggressive efforts to improve the safety of miners in the coal fields.

After the deadly tragedy at the Sago Mine in 2006, the Congress passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response, MINER, Act, which I was pleased to cosponsor. Among other things, that bill required the immediate installation of emergency breathing devices and also the installation of wireless communications and tracking equipment by June 2009. The MINER Act also required the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to draft several new regulations, including rules on penalties, mine rescue teams, and the sealing of abandoned areas. It also required a report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, on refuge alternatives, as well as a report on belt-air ventilation and the fire-retardant properties of belt materials from a technical study panel. I would note that the Appropriations Committee included two amendments to the MINER Act in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill directing MSHA to finalize regulations later this year that would implement the recommendations on refuge alternatives and belt safety provided by NIOSH and the Technical Study Panel. MSHA issued the proposed rules this month for comment.

In order to meet these new mandates and so that MSHA can fulfill its other important health and safety responsibilities, like completing 100 percent of statutory inspections, the Senate Appropriations Committee increased funding for coal enforcement from $117 million in fiscal year 2006, to $150 million in fiscal year 2008. In May 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee also directed MSHA to hire 170 new coal inspectors and provided $25.6 million to accomplish that task. Since then, MSHA has hired 322 coal enforcement personnel--increasing the number of inspectors from 587 in June 2006, to 750 in May 2008.

I also proudly note that the committee has added funding for mine safety research at NIOSH, increasing to $50 million the budget for the development of health and safety technologies. The committee also provided $23 million in the fiscal years 2006 and 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Acts in order to expedite the deployment of safety technologies. With the funding the committee has provided since Sago, NIOSH has unveiled an improved self-contained, self-rescuer, SCSR, that allows miners to replace their oxygen supply without removing their SCSR. NIOSH has also announced progress on more durable and survivable communications systems, and completed critical studies of seals and refuge alternatives, which MSHA has used as the basis for its regulatory proposals.

Having increased funding in previous years, the Appropriations Committee focused this year on ensuring that the administration does not back away from its commitment to mine safety. In his fiscal year 2009 budget, President Bush proposed cutting coal enforcement by $10 million. The committee-reported fiscal year 2009 bill rejects this proposal, and increases the budget for coal enforcement to $155 million. This is $4.4 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, and when you discount $6 million of one-time expenditures last fiscal year, the total increase is more than $10 million.

This funding would enable MSHA to continue to hire inspectors, specialists, and support staff, and to implement the MINER Act. It would also enable MSHA to achieve 100 percent compliance with its statutory mandates. In addition, the fiscal year 2009 committee- reported bill includes $2 million above the president's budget request for MSHA to minimize coal dust levels through increased spot inspections. This is a new funding priority for the committee, in light of NIOSH reports in 2007 about alarming clusters of rapidly progressing black lung around southern West Virginia. The bill also includes language requiring by March 31, 2009, a report from MSHA on the feasibility and efficacy of MSHA assuming responsibility for collecting dust samples and using single, full-shift measurements instead of averages to ensure compliance with the law.

Mr. President, I praise the work of the dedicated enforcement personnel laboring in the coal fields. With funding from the Appropriations Committee, they have been working overtime and putting in long and hard hours. After too many years of neglect in the President's budgets, I am proud to note that there are visibly and noticeably more inspectors in the coal fields today, and additional inspectors are on the way. That is real, tangible progress. We must continue it. The argument that MSHA can now afford to

cut back its budget for coal enforcement must not be allowed to take root. We must provide MSHA personnel with everything they need to do their job. As coal production increases across the Nation and MSHA struggles to implement the mandates of the MINER Act, the Congress must ensure sufficient funding to ensure that each and every mandate of the Coal Act is enforced.