Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to voice my concern about the disastrous turn which the fortunes of this Nation have taken. The Bush administration, in a scant 2\1/2\ years, has imperiled our country in the gravest of ways, and set us up for a possible crisis of mammoth proportions. The crisis may not occur tomorrow in these proportions, or the next day, but it is coming.

Instead of linking arms with a world which offered its heart in sympathy after the brutality of the terrorist attacks in September of 2001, this White House, the Bush White House, through hubris and false bravado, has slapped away the hand of assistance. This administration has insulted our allies and our friends with its bullying and go-it- alone frenzy to attack the nation of Iraq.

In order to justify such an attack, it was decided somewhere in the White House to blur the images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Blurred images notwithstanding, what is becoming increasingly clear to many Americans is that they are going to be asked to carry a heavy, heavy load for a long, long time.

Let me be clear. We are presently engaged in not one war but two wars: The war begun by Osama bin Laden, who attacked this Nation on the September 11, 2001, and then there is the war begun by President George W. Bush when he directed U.S. forces to attack Iraq on March 19, 2003. The first war was thrust upon us. The bombing of Afghanistan was a just retaliation against that attack. The second war, on the other hand, was a war of our choosing. We chose it. It was an unnecessary attack upon a sovereign nation. This President and this administration have tried mightily to convince the people of America that attacking Iraq was critical to protecting them, the people of this country, from terrorism. The case that the administration makes is false, it is flimsy, and the war, I believe, was unwise and was unnecessary and was without ample justification.

The war against Iraq has crippled the global effort to counter terrorism. The war in Iraq has made a peace agreement between Israel and its adversaries harder to obtain. The obsession with Iraq has served to downplay the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The focus on Saddam Hussein has diverted attention from bin Laden, who is apparently still on the loose and threatening to attack again. The war in Iraq has alienated our traditional allies and fractured the cohesive alliance against terrorism which existed after 9/11. It has made the United States appear to the world to be a bellicose invader of another country. It has called our motives into question. It has galvanized the worldwide terrorism movement against us. The war in Iraq has cost us lives and treasure. Yet this President will shortly request $87 billion more for his ill-fated adventure.

He says we will spend whatever it takes. So he says your money--it is your money. We have heard that many times. It is your money, and he says your money we will spend, whatever it takes.

Prudence dictates that we consider the risks. This Nation has suffered massive job losses amounting to 93,000 in August alone and approximately 600,000 since January of this year. Job losses of this magnitude mean less money coming into the Treasury and more money going out. U.S. manufacturing jobs continue to disappear overseas as companies relocate operations on other shores. There seems to be no end, thus far--there seems to be no end to the job hemorrhage. The manufacturing sector has lost jobs for 37 months in a row. The weak job market threatens to sap our strength from our domestic economy. Should inflation begin to creep up, as some worry that it will, higher energy costs and lower consumer confidence may slow the economy further.

Suppose another massive al-Qaida attack were to occur here at home, killing hundreds or thousands and delivering another devastating blow to the U.S. economy? Could we still afford to continue to send billions of taxpayer dollars to Iraq? At best, our future economic growth is uncertain. There are too many unknowns. Our deficit is growing. When the $87 billion 2004 Iraq Supplemental is included, as it probably will be, the deficit for 2004 alone is expected to total $535 billion.

That is $530 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That number will only grow, if we continue to experience massive job losses and the economy takes a turn for the worse.

We can ill afford to finance the rebuilding of Iraq alone. Yet President Bush steadfastly resists doing what it takes to involve the international community.

It should be obvious that we need assistance. The United States cannot even continue to supply the troops to secure Iraq without more help. A recent Congressional Budget Office study, which I requested, makes it clear that maintaining the level of troops we now have in Iraq will stretch us very thin should something happen in Korea or elsewhere on this troubled globe. Our National Guard is being asked to stay longer and longer in Iraq to help backfill the shortage in regular troops. These are men and women with jobs and families and key roles to play in their own communities. We cannot continue to utilize their skills in Iraq without suffering the consequences at home.

Even now, as a hurricane lurks off our shores, there are worries about shortages of emergency personnel because so many National Guard men and women are serving in Iraq.

But the Bush administration continues to spend our treasure and our troop strength in a single-focusd obsession with the fiasco in Iraq. Are we to mortgage the future of our Nation to years of financing this unwise adventure? Surely we cannot ask American families for sacrifice indefinitely, especially when their sacrifices are made to advance a war we do not need to fight, that we ought not to have gone overseas to fight. We chose to attack another country.

We must come to grips with our limits. We must acknowledge risks and reality.

Yet on last Sunday, Vice President Cheney dug his heels in at the suggestion of rethinking our policy in Iraq. In a television interview, Vice President Cheney said he saw no reason to ``think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.''

He went on to try to convince the American public that Iraq was ``the geographic base'' for the perpetrators of 9/11. Think of that--a claim that this humble Senator has never heard before, and that flies in the face of U.S. intelligence agencies which repeatedly have said they have found no links--none--between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein or Iraq. We may come to rue the day when we took our eyes off bin Laden and sapped our energies and our credibility in this quagmire in Iraq. We chose to attack that country. Yet there seems to be no soul searching in this White House about the consequences of this war.

While Bush's aides talk of ``generational commitment'' and the President talks of ``sacrifice,'' I wonder if the American people fully comprehend what they are being urged to forego. They have already sacrificed loved ones with 158 troops killed and 856 wounded just since President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1. How many more families must sacrifice? How many more families must sacrifice while we occupy Iraq?

The President says we will do whatever it takes. Mr. Rumsfeld says we will do whatever it takes. How many more families must sacrifice while we occupy Iraq?

A generation of ``sacrifice'' may also mean a slow sapping of key national priorities, including repairing the infrastructure which fuels our economic engine and funding the institutions and programs which benefit all Americans. Compare the latest request for the Iraq supplemental with the commitment in dollars to other vital programs, and the picture becomes more clear. President Bush is asking for $87 billion for Iraq but only $34.6 billion for Homeland Security--$29-plus billion--which will come to the Senate soon in a bill which was marked up today. The President wants $87 billion for Iraq but only $66.2 billion for the discretionary programs for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The President seeks $87 billion to secure Iraq but only $52.1 billion for the U.S. Department of Education. The President wants $87 billion to shore up Iraq but only $29.3 billion for America's highways and road construction.

For the State Department and foreign aid for the entire world, President Bush sees a need for only $27.4 billion. Yet Iraq is worth over three times that much to this White House.

Remember that $87 billion is just for 2004 alone. Does anyone really believe it will be the last request we will receive for Iraq? No. This is just the tip of the iceberg, in all likelihood.

The President asked America for a generation of ``sacrifice,'' but that noble-sounding word does not reveal the true nature of what the President demands from the American people. He asks them to supply the fighting men and women to prosecute his war.

Yes, he asked them, the American people, to supply the fighting men and women to prosecute his war. I am not talking about the war that began on September 11, 2001. That was an attack upon us by al-Qaida. I am talking about his war, the President's war in Iraq, which began in March of this year in which he, the Commander in Chief, ordered the attack on Iraq, a sovereign country that had not attacked us and which did not represent an imminent threat to the security of our country.

He implores our people to sacrifice adequate health care. He asks our people to settle for less than the best education for their children. Think about it. He asks our people, the American people, to sacrifice medical research that could prolong and save lives. He asks the American people to put up with unsafe highways and dangerous bridges. He asks them to live with substandard housing and foul water. He asks the American people to forego better public transportation and not just for now but for generations. And all of it for his folly in Iraq.

Most puzzling to this Senator is this President's stubborn refusal to guard against the terror threat at home by adequately funding Homeland Security. Is he asking us all to risk the safety of our homeland, too?

And to further insult the hard-working people of this Nation, George Walker Bush proposes to lay this sacrifice not only on the adult population of this great country but on their children and their grandchildren by increasing the deficit with nary a thought to the consequences.

Yet not a peep can be heard from this White House about paying for some of this sacrifice of which the President speaks by foregoing a portion of future tax cuts, tax cuts that mainly benefit those citizens who do not need so many of the services the Government has to provide.

Our reputation around the globe, America's reputation around the globe, has already been seriously damaged by this administration. Are the dreams and hopes of millions of Americans to be ``sacrificed'' as well on the altar, on the bloody altar, of Iraq?

I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the growing quagmire in Iraq. I urge members of the President's own party to warn him about the quicksand he asks America to wade in. We need a long and thorough debate about the future of our country. We need a serious discussion about the kind of America we will leave to our children and grandchildren. We need to renew our efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Are we fighting a war in Iraq when pushing the peace might better serve our cause? We must think again about world-wide terrorism--and it comes in many forms and shapes--and the best way to combat it. Let us not continue to simply wage the wrong war, Mr. Bush's war in Iraq.

Mr. President, September 17 is a day of history in American calendar. On this day in 1630, the city of Boston was founded. On September 17, 1947, James V. Forrestal was sworn in as this Nation's first Secretary of Defense.

On September 17, 1920, the National Football league was formed in Canton, OH. On September 17, 1954, Ernie Banks became the first Black baseball player to wear a Chicago Cubs uniform. He was voted ``best player ever'' by Chicago fans when he retired in 1971. On September 17, 1984, Reggie Jackson hit his 500th career homer, seventeen years to the day after he hit his first major league home run.

On this day in 1911, the first transcontinental airplane flight took place between New York City and Pasadena, CA. It took pilot C.P. Rogers 82 hours to cover that distance. Just 65 years later, on September 17, 1976, the Space Shuttle was revealed to the public for the first time, ready to take men into the heavens. Such a lot of change in such a short period of time.

Last week, in another airplane related piece of history, the nation sadly observed the second anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It was a terrible, terrible day, marked by the awful, abrupt end of too many innocent lives. September 17, 1862, was another terrible, terrible day. On that beautiful September day, over 23,000 men were killed, wounded, or missing in action after the Battle of Antietam, outside Sharpsburg, MD--just over the line from the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. That battle was a turning point in the Civil War.

But by far, one of the most important events in this Nation's history happened on the 17th of September, 1787. On that memorable day, the members of the Constitutional Convention signed the document that has led this Nation safely through the shoals of history for the past 216 years, surviving even the devastation of the Civil War. It was this document that I hold in my hand: the Constitution of the United States of America.

That Constitution was not our first attempt at self-governance. It followed on the heels of the Articles of Confederation, which was the first Constitution, correcting the failures of that weak Government by establishing a stronger central Government to manage the differences between the States and to provide for the common good. And then, to assuage the concerns of those citizens who feared that a strong central Government would trample on the rights of the individual, the Constitution was amended after ratification with the first 10 constitutional amendments, guaranteeing individual freedoms in what has become known as the American Bill of Rights.

The Constitution of the United States has, sadly, been overlooked by many in the public over the years. It is not a lofty piece of rhetoric like the better known Declaration of Independence. But the Constitution is the strongest piece of armor protecting the rights and the freedoms of each and every citizen--your rights, your rights, your rights, yes, your rights, and yours, and yours, and mine. It deserves to be better known. It is, after all, our manual for governance, our handbook of Government, the tech manual for our national operating system. And unlike many technical manuals, it is easy to read and to understand, even 216 years later.

This short document is blunt and straightforward. It starts with only a preamble and then gets right to the heart. In Article I, it sets forth the domain of the legislative branch and the qualifying requirements for us legislators. It does the same for the executive branch in Article II, laying out the procedure for selecting a President and stating what his domain and powers shall be. Then the judicial branch gets the same treatment, short and sweet, in Article III. Article IV sets out the States' rights and duties to the central Government and provides for the addition of new States. Article V, in a single paragraph, lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution. Article VI provides for the transfer of power from the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution and makes the Constitution and the Federal laws the

supreme law--together with treaties--the supreme law of the land. Article VII provides the procedure for ratifying the Constitution.

There it is. There it is--a new Government in only seven articles. It takes more verbiage than that just to buy a house in these days.

The Constitution is an amazing product of compromise and balance, created by just a handful of delegates--55--in under 4 months. Many of the delegates' names should be familiar to most Americans, names such as George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and James Madison, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Other famous names were not present, such as Thomas Jefferson. He was not there. He was serving at the time as the Ambassador to France. Then there was John Adams, who was in London as the U.S. Ambassador. The details of the Convention of 1787 make fascinating reading.

The Convention met in closed session, but James Madison obtained permission to take notes on the debates. His notes, supplemented by the outlines or drafts of other delegates, were not published until 1840--4 years after his death. They outline the evolution of the document, showing competing alternatives and the compromises that allowed the large and small States, and all of the other conflicting interests, to reach agreement on a final document that all agreed could be ratified by the States.

The body in which I speak, and to which I have been elected time and time again by the people of West Virginia, the Senate, is the result of one such contentious debate that almost caused the Convention to adjourn.

I was talking with the pages just the other day, and we talked about the Great Compromise. I talk with these pages, the Republican pages and the Democratic pages. They change from time to time. They will be here perhaps for half a semester or a full semester or a few days. When we are out for a break, there will be a different group of pages. And we talk about history. These fine pages and I were just commenting the other day about the Great Compromise. I said, What do we mean by the phrase the ``Great Compromise''? Well, that is what I am referring to now.

At one point during the Convention, the Virginia plan called for the creation of a bicameral legislature, with each House's representation apportioned by population. This suited Virginia and other large States well but was opposed by small States that feared joining a Union so dominated by the larger States. The delegations from the small States argued that their citizens would never ratify a Constitution that did not recognize some form of State equality.

After 3 weeks of increasingly bitter debate, the delegates agreed to what has come to be known as the Great Compromise. The result of that compromise is the Congress that we know today--a lower House, chosen according to population, and with the sole authority to originate revenue bills; and an upper House, the Senate, in which each State has an equal vote.

Other compromises were necessary for the Convention to reach agreement, some less successful than that which led to the composition of the Congress, some positively inspired. The delegates deliberated over the power of the executive; they deliberated over interstate commerce; they deliberated over the subject of slavery--these among other topics.

A small but inspired compromise is contained in the Preamble. The Preamble to the Articles of Confederation named the States in geographic order from north to south. Without knowing which States would ratify the Constitution, and in what order, the delegates in Philadelphia were uncertain how to list the participating States.

So the answer was a graceful new opening: ``We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .'' without ever mentioning the States by name.

Every citizen should be familiar with the Constitution. We should each have a little radar system, an intuitive raising of the hairs along the back of one's neck, when attempts are made to flout the Constitution, either by design or out of misguided good intentions. I fear that this radar system is not functioning as well as it should be. When it fails, the checks and balances contained in our Constitution begin to rust and then begin to grind to a halt. When the Congress does not jealously guard its prerogatives against an overreaching executive, the executive branch gains strength from power that it should not have.

The Founders of this Nation worried about creating too strong an executive. They worried about creating a tyrant such as the one, George III, against whom they had fought a war for freedom. So they created a system where the people's direct representatives called the shots the Congress writes the laws, controls the funds, and approves the nominees for key executive posts. If all of those restraints failed, the President was subject to impeachment and trial by Congress.

But today, in our fears about national security and our national political system dominated by political party considerations, we face a situation in which Congress is being pressured to act as a rubber stamp for a strong-willed Executive. We have seen this happen with respect to various and sundry executives some Democratic, some Republican. But in this instance, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, there was a stampede to do something, anything, to avenge this vile attack on our citizens. The Congress did not seriously debate or consider the long term consequences of the call to action, and apparently, neither did the White House. We rushed into war without a real declaration of war. Instead, Congress passed a resolution giving the President sweeping powers to take such action as he saw fit, including military action, in that region. As a result, our military is over-extended and committed to long-term nation-building efforts in Iraq and, to a degree, in Afghanistan. Members of Congress are labeled ``unpatriotic'' if Members question--even question--any request for additional funds for those efforts.

At the same time, political party pressures were applied to pass expensive ``temporary'' tax cuts theoretically aimed at restarting a sluggish economy. The long-term impact on the deficit will hamstring the Nation for years to come. Congress should know better. This Senate should know better. Those of us who have been around for a while can recall the tremendous effort--and compromise--needed to achieve deficit control in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We can recall all of the hard, hard decisions that had to be made to bring the deficit under control. Did we really forget all of that in those few short years of surplus? Well, if we did forget that lesson from history, I fear we are doomed to repeat it, and we struggle to bring these even larger deficits under control.

The time is long past for Members of Congress to reassert the authorities granted to them in the Constitution. A citizenry familiar with their Constitution should demand it. We are, after all, ``. . . bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution . . .'' in Article VI, if we take the time to read it that far.

In his Farewell Address, delivered to his cabinet on, fortuitously enough, September 17, 1796, George Washington made this observation:

. . . [Y]ou have improved upon your first essay by the

adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated

than your former for an intimate union and for the

efficacious management of your common concerns. This

government, the offspring of your own choice, uninfluenced

and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature

deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the

distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and

containing within itself a provision for its own amendment,

has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect

for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence

with its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental

maxims of true liberty.

Our Constitution is the foundation of our liberties, and we must be its guardians.

I would like to close with a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, entitled ``O Ship of State.''

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

We know what Master laid thy keel,

What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,

Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,

What anvils rang, what hammers beat,

In what a forge and what a heat

Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!

Fear not each sudden sound and shock,

'Tis of the wave and not the rock;

'Tis but the flapping of the sail,

And not a rent made by the gale!

In spite of rock and tempest's roar,

In spite of false lights on the shore,

Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!

Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee.

Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,

Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,

Are all with thee, -are all with thee!

I yield the floor and suggest absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have strongly supported efforts to advance opportunities to open markets abroad to an array of clean energy technologies. At my urging, the Bush administration, in October 2002, released the Clean Energy Technology Exports, CETE, strategy. This action plan outlined a 5-year, nine-agency initiative that is intended to ``increase U.S. clean energy technology exports to international markets through increased coordination among Federal agency programs and between these programs and the private sector.'' The CETE directive is geared at helping to address three major challenges in global energy policy: increased U.S. competition in developing country markets; environmental sustainability, including climate change; and energy security.

Even though the participating Federal agency partners released this strategic plan last year, no funding has been identified by any of the agencies to implement the CETE strategy. All too often, this is the case with multi-agency initiatives that do not have the explicit support of the administration, and I fear that, once again, this is the case. At this point, little, if anything new, is being done by this administration to promote clean energy technologies overseas.

My amendment is a small step that is intended to get the ball rolling by establishing an administrative center. A truly effective program of this magnitude deserves significantly more attention and funding, and the U.S. is missing a huge opportunity to capture a greater share of global clean energy technology markets. However, we must start somewhere, and my amendment is a practical one. If the CETE strategic plan is going to be successful, then such an initiative requires a focal point--a one-stop-shop, so to speak--to allow industries and organizations with interests to more effectively access the services of the Federal Government.

Thus, my amendment provides $400,000 in funding for the Office of International Market Development within the Department of Energy to help carry out the task. While this center is to be physically housed at the Department of Energy, DOE, the center's mission is to help carry out the multi-agency CETE strategy. I also strongly urge all participating agencies such as the Department of Commerce, U.S. Agency for International Development, and others to contribute staff and other appropriate resources to get this center up and running.

This is just a start on a long overdue Federal initiative. But, if we are serious about addressing the immense global energy and environmental challenges that we commonly share with other nations, this initiative must get much greater attention and far more support from this administration.

Amendment No. 1715

Mr. President, I have often spoken of the grandeur of West Virginia's mountains and the abundance of tranquil mountain streams that gurgle quietly throughout the State. However, these same majestic mountains and streams are also conduits for disaster and devastation. When the heavy rains hit, waters from the mountaintops surge to the valleys and turn once peaceful meandering mountain streams into angry, raging, muddy torrents of horror, rising up over their banks and destroying anything in the way.

In West Virginia, such torrential flooding seems to be an annual event--since 1993, the State has had eleven federally declared disasters. In this year alone, the State has had two federally declared disasters. In the latest round of devastating flooding in the state earlier this summer, twenty counties were declared Federal disaster areas. Homes were damaged or destroyed, and the severe impact on the infrastructure in the southern part of the State--from roads, bridges, water and sewer, to power sources--brought a normal way of life to a screeching halt once again.

I know that West Virginia is not alone in attempting to recoup from such disasters. This year, many States have been impacted by floods, tornados, ice storms, and other severe conditions of nature that have crippled individuals and communities alike. That is why I am co- sponsoring an amendment with Senator Reid in the amount of $65 million that would provide funding assistance through the Army Corps of Engineers to aid impacted States in recovering and rebuilding from recent natural disasters. This funding, coupled with the $983 million Federal Emergency Management Agency recently received through the FY 2003 Supplemental, should go a long way in helping States get back on their feet.

This amendment provides $65 million for the Corps under the operations and maintenance account to help repair damages to public facilities, such as obstructive deposits in flood control streams, bank erosion threatening public facilities, damages to other public infrastructure such as water and sewer facilities. Additionally, funds provided will allow the Army Corps to repair weather related damages that have occurred to Federal infrastructure.

Weather-related damages have occurred to public infrastructure across the country that is beyond the ability of local governments to repair. As I mentioned, West Virginia has recently suffered devastating floods. Numerous other States such as Michigan, Louisiana, Missouri and Illinois are still suffering from damages that occurred in previous storm events. In May of this year, unusually heavy rainfall occurred in four counties of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan causing rivers and streams throughout the area to swell out of their banks, inflicting severe and widespread damages. The greatest damages occurred in Marquette County where an earthen dike at Silver Lake Basin failed, sending an estimated eight billion gallons of water cascading downstream through the city of Marquette toward Lake Superior. The floodwaters destroyed or damaged numerous public and private structures and caused unprecedented environmental and ecological damage within the Dead River Basin and into Lake Superior in Marquette County. Two power generation facilities were damaged. One of the power generation facilities, the Presque Isle plant in the city of Marquette, resulted in shutdown for more than 30 days. Without power, two iron ore mines, which produce about 20 percent of our nation's annual iron ore output, were shut down, idling 1,200 workers. Dozens of other area businesses, institutions and private homeowners were also seriously impacted. Three of the four counties affected are impoverished, with a majority of the population over 65 years of age. Local governments simply do not have the capital to pay for the public damages. Without an infusion of Federal aid, Marquette and the other three counties will have a difficult, if not impossible, task of recovering from this disaster.

This amendment fills a significant funding void to provide States expedited recovery from natural disasters that have occurred throughout the United States. These funds are vitally needed, as any flood, tornado, or storm victim can tell you, and I urge the Senate to approve their inclusion in this bill.

I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this important amendment.

Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course?

How long will it require to do so?

Five thirty. Very well.

I made a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. It has nothing to do with what you are saying, your argument or hers.

I want to speak on another subject. That is what I want to do.

Mr. President, I have the floor, do I not?

May I inquire of the distinguished Senator from California if she wishes to respond in any way to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. President, I am going to speak on another subject, and I do not want to interfere with the discussions on this amendment.

Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak on this same subject?

All right. Does the Senator from Arizona wish to speak on this subject also?

All right.

Mr. President, inasmuch as I have the floor, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the four Senators on the floor at the moment, other than I, finish their discussions on this amendment, I be recognized. I make that request. Now, what I am saying is, when Senator Domenici, when Senator Kyl of Arizona, when the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, have finished their colloquies, their discussions, or their statements, that I then be recognized to speak on another subject.

I would suspect that my speech would require an hour.

Yes, sir.

I thank the Chair and all Senators.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

Madam President, in recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about a June 2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission to lift the lid on media ownership rules. Under the new regulations, a broadcast network can own and operate local television stations that reach as much as 45 percent of the Nation.

What does that mean? According to the Consumer Federation of America, television and newspaper mergers will be allowed in about 200 markets where approximately 98 percent of the American people live. TV duopolies, where one owner owns two television stations in the same market, and perhaps even triopolies, where one owner controls three stations in one market, will be allowed in more than 160 markets, covering better than 95 percent of the population.

This is a dangerous vote by the FCC. I fear that it will strangle voices that disagree with corporate interests at virtually every level of news and commentary.

Local news media represent a community's window on the school board, the city council, the county commission. The local media, more than any other resource, educates people about the issues that directly affect their lives. But these new rules, as approved by the FCC, threaten that role by allowing one person or one corporate interest to control such a significant level of discourse and debate. News and information may be forced to fit into a corporate plan or personal agenda.

I have been in Congress for more than 50 years. If there is one lesson that I have learned, it is that the media and politicians share at least one common bond: both rely on public trust for credibility. To earn that trust, the public must know that it can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people in critical decisionmaking positions. Credibility is jeopardized when questions about the veracity of reports are raised or when a news organization is seen more as a biased promoter of opinion rather than as a fair arbiter of fact.

In October 1958, a pioneer of the broadcast industry took the podium at the Mayfair Hotel in Chicago to address his colleagues at the annual convention of the Radio-Television News Directors Association. On that night, when reporters, news directors, sponsors, and network executives gathered together to honor excellence in their industry, Edward R. Murrow called it his duty to speak about what was happening in the radio and television industry.

Mr. Murrow, one of the most honored and respected journalists in our Nation's history, criticized his colleagues for failing in their obligation to the people of this country.

``Our history will be what we make it,'' Murrow said. ``If there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will find there evidence of decadence, escapism, and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live.''

He continued: ``One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising, and news. . . . The top management of the networks, with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, or show business. By the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently, they have neither the time nor the competence to do this.''

Here we are, almost 45 years later. What would Mr. Murrow think of today's media? Would he consider the FCC vote a threat to a strong, independent media? The news and broadcast industry has had time to mature, to evolve into what Mr. Murrow hoped would be a responsible venture that exalts the importance of ideas, and not simply panders to the lowest virtues in the human race. Alas, I believe Mr. Murrow would be disappointed in what he would see today.

Instead of exalting ideas, mass media today seem more often than not to worship at the altar of sex, blood, and scandal. Instead of pursuing a higher cause and taking the time to educate the public about the issues and events affecting our everyday lives, we read and hear about things that serve to titillate or divide us.

There are a few voices in the media that attempt to educate, to inform, rather than to incite. But too often these men and women are sent packing because their corporate bosses fear low ratings and a commercial backlash.

This spring, for example, the General Electric-owned cable network MSNBC, fired Phil Donahue from his evening talk show. Mr. Donahue was one of the few voices in the news-talk genre that did not worship at the altar of the salacious story. He did not titillate. He spoke frankly, sharing his beliefs and welcoming those who saw otherwise. And when confronted with a person offering differing opinion, Phil Donahue did not insult or bully that person. Instead, he debated calmly and fairly, and treated his guests with courtesy and respect.

Mr. Donahue was opposed to war in Iraq. He made his views known. He debated, he argued, and he persuaded. But at least one insider at the MSNBC network said that Phil Donahue was fired because the corporate heads at

the network worried about having a critic of President Bush in its programming schedule.

They worried: What would sponsors think? How would they react? Instead of defending constitutional freedom of the press, MSNBC, it appears, caved in to the business bottom line. Instead of a critical voice, the network has filled the time with yet another carbon copy of the typical current day talk show hosts: slanted, biased, and arrogant.

Is that what the future holds for news outlets? MSNBC seems to be following the examples set by News Corporation, the corporate umbrella of Fox News channel. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of News Corporation, has used his influence and his money to buy significant influence over the country's politics and priorities. Coincidence? Not likely. In fact, one former News Corporation executive stated in a profile on Mr. Murdoch earlier this year that:

He hungered for the kind of influence in the United States

that he had in England and Australia. Part of our political

strategy here was the New York Post and the creation of Fox

News and The Weekly Standard.

Political strategy? What happened to journalistic strategy? Are we doomed to more politics than journalism as a result of the June 2 FCC vote? In fact, the complete list of holdings of News Corporation gives one pause.

News Corporation is quickly growing into a media empire. Its main holdings are the Fox broadcast networks and the cable networks Fox News Channel, Fox Sports, FX, and others, 20th Century Fox studios, 35 local American television stations, the New York Post, plus the Times and the Sun of London, the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, the publishing house HarperCollins, the Sky satellite system in England, and the Star satellite system in Asia, and various publications in Mr. Murdoch's native Australia.

In addition, News Corporation is seeking Federal approval to buy a one-third share in DirecTV, the leading satellite broadcast system in North America. Should that purchase be approved, News Corporation would then control a worldwide satellite system beyond any other company's reach.

Yet the Federal Communications Commission, the people's watchdog on broadcast fairness and responsibility, would rubberstamp such mergers and monopolies rather than examine them with a skeptical eye. The FCC is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lap dog.

The media enjoy a rare position in our society. Reporters and editors are supposed to responsibly detail events and activities, explain ideas and innovations to a public who might not, on first hearing, completely understand the issue. But complex ideas, such as peace in the Middle East or even the doctrine of preemptive strikes on which the war in Iraq was based, are pared down into short broadcast packages lasting 2 minutes, perhaps.

The focus is on sound bites rather than on sound information. Instead of an intelligent discussion, we hear a constant barrage of commentary that is supposed to pass for news judgment. We listen to television show hosts call Members of Congress the ``lie choir'' because they question administration policy. Without foundation, in fact, allegations of dishonesty by Senators are tossed around and, although baseless, they have the air of fact because they are repeated time and time again by pseudo news hosts. This so-called unbiased media is nothing more than partisan opinion covered in a thin veneer of news and information.

I do not question the media's right to report on stories and to have talk shows which express opinion. That right is clearly laid out in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press.

This amendment, ratified in December 1791, gives broad power to the press. Our constitutional Framers understood that the Republic would not function properly if the press were not allowed to operate freely and without intervention from Government.

However, the media industry also must recognize the responsibility that it has to the public which relies so heavily on the information provided in daily reports. The free press must be a fair press.

Through the first amendment, our Framers guaranteed a free press. We, the people, demand a fair press, one that meets its responsibilities and our expectations. A free press cannot exist without the trust of the public it serves. To win and maintain that trust, the press must be unbiased in its work.

Unfortunately, expectations may be too high. News organizations often rely solely on the word of those speaking from podiums of power. They take information as gospel truth without, many times, checking the facts or verifying the information.

At a time when standards should be strong, the news industry seems very happy to follow the day's latest scandal. It does not hesitate to bring to bear the full light of public scorn when there is the slightest suggestion of a misstep by a person in the public light. However, when that same light is turned squarely on the media, there is little enthusiasm for the intensity.

Edward R. Murrow experienced this firsthand. While those in attendance at the dinner in Chicago in 1958 applauded Mr. Murrow after he finished his speech, the response away from the podium, away from Mr. Murrow, was quite different. He was castigated by network executives who accused him of biting the hand that fed him.

No less than William Paley, the president of CBS and a good friend of Murrow's, was said to be furious after Murrow criticized the broadcast industry. He saw it as a breach of loyalty. But Edward Murrow believed he carried a greater burden of loyalty to his audience. He saw his Chicago remarks as his faithful duty to the people who listened to him every night, who relied on him to give them the information they needed to know.

I think Edward Murrow would be ashamed of much of the news programming on television today. Like so much of the American public, he would not believe that the media, on the whole, are fulfilling the responsibility to educate and inform.

According to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll from this past May, only 36 percent of the American people believe that news organizations get the facts straight.

What can improve the public confidence in the media?

Perhaps the media in Minnesota have a good start. In 1970, University of Minnesota Professor Ed Gerald helped to set up the Minnesota News Council, believing then that:

To the common man, it seems that journalists, at will, can

make heroes or scoundrels out of any of us.

Professor Gerald recognized the sheer power and influence of the media. He also knew that, as much as a free press is crucial to the Republic, a fair press is needed to ensure the public trust.

The Minnesota News Council provides an avenue for the public to hold media outlets accountable for the reports they air or print. Outside of a courtroom and free of charge to either party, the News Council, made up of reasonable, qualified people from within the media and outside of it, comes together to decide whether a report or story is fairly produced or whether it is distorted, untrue, or dishonest. The State of Washington has a similar news council. Many nations, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, have news councils.

At least one noted journalist has long supported the concept of a news council, if not on a national level then on State or regional levels. For many years, Mike Wallace, CBS News Correspondent and co- editor of 60 Minutes, has believed that the concept of a news council could be an important tool in building the public trust in the media. Mr. Wallace, in a 1996 lecture at the Freedom Forum's Media Studies Center, said, he is ``convinced that more state news councils, regional news councils, and/or a renewed national news council could strike a blow for a better public understanding in a time of skepticism about us, of who we are and what it is we do.'' Since those remarks, Mr. Wallace has continued to urge his colleagues to support the news council idea, but the resistance, especially from national media organizations, is profound.

What is wrong with this approach? A news council is not a court of law; rather it is a forum where the public and the news media can engage each other in examining standards of fairness. It is not a radical idea, but a commonsense approach. As the Minnesota News Council describes the concept, in their various forms, news councils are designed to promote fairness in the

news media by giving members of the public who feel damaged by a news story an opportunity to hold the news organization accountable. What is wrong with allowing the public, which has such a poor view of the media, to take part in such an endeavor? This type of public dialogue can lead to a better understanding of the media industry and its role in society by that society, as well as a stronger foundation for more accurate, more responsible dissemination of news.

Solid journalism is also a way to improve the public's view of the media. It restores that sense of credibility that is threatened when we read about reporters who have published stories without any factual background. It would help to reaffirm independent voices, even if those voices run counter to the opinions of the corporate management.

On television and in print, large media conglomerates already control the vast majority of what Americans see, read, and hear. A grand total of five--five--media companies today control 75 percent of prime time programming. Outlets such as cable and the Internet, which could have served to check corporate media conglomeration power, have instead followed the old adage, ``if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' Thus, today these same 5 companies control 90 percent of the top 50 channels on cable. Similarly on the Internet, existing newspapers and TV networks dominate the most popular sites for news and information. Technology may have increased the number of media outlets, but it has not stopped big media from further extending its reach.

Former Washington Post assistant managing editor Ben Bagdikian has sketched out the growing concentration of media ownership. In 1983, when his book, ``The Media Monopoly,'' was first published, Mr. Bagdikian reported that ``50 corporations dominated most of every mass medium.'' But, with each new edition of the book, that number shrinks and shrinks and shrinks: 29 media corporations in 1987, 23 in 1990, 14 in 1992, and 10 in 1997. The sixth edition, published in 2000, documented that just six--six--corporations supply most of America's media content. Bagdikian wrote:

It is the overwhelming collective power of these firms,

with their corporate interlocks and unified cultural and

political values, that raises troubling questions about the

individual's role in the American democracy.

The June 2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission threatens to expand the influence of these few corporations even further, stretching their hands around a larger number of local television and radio stations, scarfing up newspapers and Internet news outlets.

This is an opinion shared by consumer advocates, media watchdog groups, and various organizations representing the spectrum of political and societal views in the United States, from the National Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women, from the Catholic Conference of Bishops to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Parents Television Council, Common Cause, the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Writers Guild, and the Association of Christian Schools, all of these groups questioned the wisdom of even greater media consolidation.

Tens of thousands of Americans have expressed their opposition to the FCC rule. In fact, three-quarters of a million people contacted the FCC about this new consolidation, and, according to FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, 99.9 percent of them opposed further media consolidation.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Commissioner Adelstein was blunt.

[T]he FCC approved the most sweeping and destructive

rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of

American broadcasting. I'm afraid democracy was not well

served by Monday's decision. Allowing fewer media outlets to

control what Americans see, hear and read can only give

Americans less information to use in making up their own

minds about the key issues they face.

The decision will diminish the diversity of voices heard

over the public airwaves, which can only diminish the civil

discourse and the quality of our society's intellectual,

cultural and political life. It will diminish the coverage of

local voices and local issues as media giants gobble up local

outlets and nationalize the stories they broadcast.

In the end, our new rules will simply make it easier for existing media giants to acquire more outlets and fortify their already massive market power. As media conglomerates go on buying sprees, they will accumulate enormous debt that will force them to chase the bottom dollar ahead of all else. This is likely to result in more sensationalism, more crassness, more violence, and even less serious coverage of the news and local events.

Recently, there have been obstacles thrown in the way of the FCC's Mack truck of a rule. The Senate Appropriations Committee has blocked the implementation of the new policy. The unanimous committee approval of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill was a strong endorsement of media diversity. The committee's action follows the House of Representatives vote on July 23, 400-21, to pass the fiscal year 2004 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. As part of that legislation, the House also would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from implementing this policy allowing for media consolidation.

But the Congress is not the only branch of Government involved in this issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a surprise order on September 3, blocking the Federal Communications Commission from imposing its new rules just one day before those rules were slated to take effect.

Given the magnitude of this matter and the public's

interest in reaching the proper resolution, a stay is

warranted pending thorough and efficient judicial review,

The court concluded in the case.

Indeed, it is my hope that, with such growing opposition, the administration and the Federal Communications Commission will abandon such an ill-advised policy.

I have often said that as long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure. That forum is this Senate. But the same can be said of the news media--the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and other outlets that provide information that is important to the lives of all Americans. That freedom, that unbiased coverage, is a key, a foundation stone of this Republic. For, without it, the American people can be led to disaster without so much as a whisper. Their freedoms can be trampled; their rights can be subverted.

In his speech in Chicago in 1958, Mr. Murrow offered a challenge to his colleagues.

Just once in a while, let us exalt the importance of ideas.

Let us dream to the extent of saying that, on a given Sunday

night, the time . . . occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over

to a . . . survey of the state of American education [or] the

time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a

thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East.

While Ed Sullivan and Steve Allen are not with us anymore, the need for responsibility that Mr. Murrow called for among his colleagues in the news industry clearly still remains with us today.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, will the Senator add my name as a cosponsor?

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

Mr. President, tomorrow the Nation will bow our heads in prayer as we remember those who perished 2 years ago. As we close our eyes to remember those who perished in the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon and in the quiet field in Pennsylvania, we cannot help but recall the graphic images of the attacks that shocked the American psyche, the smoke, the fire, the pain, the falling towers. The courage displayed on television sets on September 11, 2001, brought all Americans to the scene of those attacks.

Our Nation united to fight those who were responsible for those terrible acts. Since then, our Armed Forces swept through the rugged terrain of Afghanistan, deposing a government that directly aided Osama bin Laden in his mission to attack America by any means at hand.

In the days following the attacks, Congress acted swiftly to provide essential funds for this military response. The appropriations committees in both Houses acted without delay. But we also included increased moneys for homeland security and the reconstruction of New York and the Pentagon.

But today our fight against terrorism has lost a good deal of its focus. Our homeland security efforts are underfunded. The Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucratic catastrophe. The White House has prioritized tax cuts over protecting our airliners and securing our ports.

Through carefully worded rhetoric, the administration has morphed the image of America's most wanted man from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. It is as if the President has forgotten the name of the mastermind of the attacks that killed 3,031 in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001; the attacks that killed 17 sailors on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000; and the attacks that killed 224 U.S. and foreign nationals in bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. The name of that man is not Saddam Hussein. It is Osama bin Laden, the elusive terrorist who this administration so rarely bothers to mention by name anymore.

The President has now stated that the war in Iraq is the central front on the war against terrorism. But it was our invasion of Iraq that has turned Iraq into a staging ground for daily terrorist attacks against our occupation forces. If we are serious about protecting our country from terrorism, it seems to me that the central front should be the war on al-Qaida.

If we are serious about protecting our country from terrorism, should not the central front be the war on al-Qaida? For that matter, isn't the violence between Israelis and Palestinians actually the root of much of the terrorism in the world? Why isn't reaching a lasting peace agreement between those two peoples the central front on fighting international terrorism?

But at the White House, the subject of terrorism now means the subject of our invasion of Iraq. The President waves the bloody shirt of 9/11, and then subtly shifts the conversation to Iraq. The only problem is that the President's attempts to tie Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks have no basis in fact. There has been no evidence of such found to date. By speaking of al-Qaida in one breath and Iraq in the next, the President has devised a construct for confusing the American people about the real threat to this country. And his strategy has worked. According to a Washington Post poll, 7 in 10 Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks. That was not the case. There is no evidence that that was the case.

Amidst the confusion of the American people, it was the stated policy of White House adviser Karl Rove to use the war against terrorism for partisan electoral advantage. The White House rode that political bandwagon right through Congress in October of 2002, securing a war resolution in the weeks just before a major election. The bandwagon then bypassed the United Nations, alienating our friends and allies, and charged right into Baghdad, powered by a national security strategy that brought the first use of preemptive war in the history of our Nation.

Soon Congress, we understand, will be formally presented with a request for $87 billion in additional funding for the war. The White House would prefer to call this massive spending bill the ``terrorism supplemental.'' Don't fall for that, I say to my colleagues. I say to the American people, don't fall for that. The American people should not be misled by these word games. The spending in this proposal has little to do with protecting the American people from terrorism.

This request should be called what it is: the second Iraq supplemental appropriations bill in less than 6 months. It is a budget- busting, deficit-enhancing $87 billion on top of the $103.3 billion in additional funds that Congress has already provided to the Pentagon since September 11, 2001. Including this new spending for Iraq, the budget deficit for next year can be expected to exceed $550 billion. How are we going to pay for this mistake that we have made in the Middle East?

I expect to support the funds that are needed for the safety of our troops, but I will not rubberstamp every spending request that comes down the pike. This $87 billion package needs to be carefully examined. Congress is not an ATM that will spit out cash on a moment's notice.

I have questions. I am sure that my colleagues, most of them, certainly, or many of them, have questions about the $20 billion in nation-building funds that are contained, or will be contained, if we understand correctly what we read in the newspapers and what we hear in other areas of the media with respect to the President's request. The formal request has not reached Congress as yet, of course. But initial indications show that the administration intends to go beyond repairing the damage to Iraq's infrastructure and attempt to build a modernized country from the ground up.

Congress needs to ask questions about this plan. There has actually never been a debate in Congress about postwar Iraq. Before we approve of this spending, we must know how long this nation-building plan will take and how the costs will be shared among our allies.

I have some questions about the funds that will be requested for our military. The administration announced this week that it is extending the deployments of our National Guard and our Reserves in Iraq. Many of these citizen-soldiers are already exhausted from back-to-back foreign deployments. The National Guard cannot perform its important homeland security missions if it is half a world away. We are headed towards serious problems with recruiting and retention if this administration thinks that it can keep the men and women of the Guard and Reserve away from their families and their jobs for 12 months, 15 months, or even 18 months on each deployment.

Most importantly, this $87 billion Iraq supplemental--remember, it is not a terrorism supplemental, it has nothing to do with terrorism here in this country--this Iraq supplemental could be the first installment in what the President's advisers describe as a ``generational commitment'' to building democracy in the Middle East. I do not recall a single word in the President's case for war in which he said that the war in Iraq would be the beginning of a decades-long engagement in that volatile part of the world. The American people ought to hear an explanation of what it means to have a ``generational commitment'' to nation building and perhaps regime change in the Middle East.

Tomorrow, the American people will pause to remember those who lost their lives 2 years ago. I will long remember that fateful day, as will every Member

of this Senate and every person within the range of my hearing. I cannot forget the toll exacted on Americans in those attacks, nor will I forget the courage of the firefighters and the police who rushed into burning buildings, nor will I forget those ordinary people on that airliner who fought back against its hijackers. Those people very likely saved this Capitol from another terrible attack, and, along with the Capitol, saved the lives of many of us who are in this Chamber today.

But when Members of Congress return from the memorial services, we have serious work to do in addressing the crisis in Iraq and in our fight against terrorism at home. We will soon be presented with a request for $87 billion to carry out the administration's occupation and nation-building plans in Iraq.

Let us take a good look at those plans. Let us be prepared to ask questions about them. There is no reason why this request will have to go sailing through Congress in a day or a day and a half or 2 days or 3. We need to ask questions. The administration should be prepared to make its case and be prepared to answer questions.

It is not disrespectful to ask questions. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions. Members of Congress should not be intimidated. They should not be cowed. They should not be afraid to ask questions. The people of America are not here to ask questions. The students in our schools are not here to ask questions. We are here to ask questions.

Let us not act with the same haste and impatience that led our country to begin that war nearly 6 months ago.

Mr. President, it was 35 years ago, at 5:30 a.m. on November 20, 1968, that a gas and dust explosion occurred at Consul No. 9 coal mine near Farmington WV. The force of the explosion rippled through the west side of the mine, igniting mine fires and additional explosions, blocking exits and shutting down escape routes. Large amounts of smoke, varying in color from black, gray, white, and yellow exhausted from the air shafts, with major explosions shooting flames over 100 feet into the air. After 10 days, the search and rescue operation was halted and the air shafts were sealed to put out the underground fires. Of the 99 miners underground at the time of the blast, the explosion took the lives of 78 coal miners, 19 of whom are still entombed underground.

In response, the Congress passed the most comprehensive mine health and safety legislation to date--the 1969 Mine Act. The anguish caused by the Farmington disaster was expressed in the statement of findings and purpose of that legislation:

. . . the first priority and concern of all in the coal

mining industry must be the health and safety of its most

precious resource--the miner.

In addition to a comprehensive safety enforcement regime, the 1969 Mine Act mandated limits on the coal dust levels to which miners could be exposed. The Congress' goal was to protect miners from Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis, or Black Lung--a disease that results from coal dust particles accumulating in the lungs, scarring the tissue. It is a progressive, terminal disease that is irreversible.

It is not known how many miners died from black lung disease prior to 1969, but since that time, even with the stricter standards mandated by Congress, over 106,000 miners have been diagnosed with the disease, with the Federal Government receiving 5,000 new claims for black lung benefits each year.

Last March, the Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed new rules to implement the 1969 Mine Act with regard to coal dust levels, and the outcry in opposition to those rules was almost deafening. Newspapers from The Courier-Journal and Lexington Herald of Kentucky, to The Charleston Gazette of West Virginia have described these rules as

impractical . . . ill-advised . . . [an] assault on

workers' health and safety . . . a campaign that would bring

back black lung.

Rallies have been organized in Pennsylvania and West Virginia--all in opposition to what experts describe as a roll back in the protections mandated by Congress in 1969 to prevent black lung.

These are seriously flawed rules that would undercut long-running efforts to improve the working conditions of our nation's miners. Under the proposed rules, the levels of coal mine dust permitted in the mine environment reportedly would increase well beyond what was mandated in the 1969 Mine Act. That is a giant leap backward in the nation's work to protect the health of miners.

And these proposed rules constitute only one in a series of proposals by the Mine Safety and Health Administration that are serving to erode the trust of miners in the one agency of the Federal Government charged with protecting their health and safety.

Last January, an air shaft explosion killed three workers at the McElroy Mine in Cameron, WV. Later it was determined that MSHA had failed to properly inspect that mine. One news journal reported that, according to MSHA records, between December 2001 and January 2003, when the McElroy mine should have had six surface inspections, it had been inspected only once--just once.

While this administration touts a low coal mine fatality rate as proof of MSHA's effectiveness, it ignores a series of accidents and near-fatalities that have occurred since last year in Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Last year's QueCreek accident alone endangered 18 miners, and, had it swung the other way, which it easily could have, the rate of recorded fatalities would have increased.

This year's fatality rate continues to move higher, with 10 fatalities recorded in the last 3 months in Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. And now MSHA has proposed a rule to scale back protections against black lung.

In doing so, MSHA is undermining its own credibility. Contrary to past years, miners now view MSHA as an extension of an administration that does not understand the dangers which coal miners must confront every day. That is the only way to explain how MSHA can support a coal enforcement budget that clearly does not provide MSHA with the resources it needs to properly inspect our nation's mines. That is the only way to explain why MSHA would propose a rule that rolls back miner protections against black lung.

And to make matters worse, the media reports that a conflict of interest may have existed when those rules were developed and proposed earlier this year. The Charleston Gazette reported last May that MSHA Secretary David Lauriski, on several occasions, petitioned MSHA to make the same change in its rules that he is now advocating when he was a lobbyist for Energy West. The Inspector General of the Labor Department has already been asked to investigate this conflict of interest.

At the very least, there is something highly questionable about how these rules were developed and what effect they will have on the miners of our states. The Congress has a responsibility to our nation's coal miners to seek certain assurances from the Federal regulators before these rules are put into place. We have a duty to our constituents to ensure that rule changes such as these are implemented appropriately.

I had intended to offer an amendment to prevent the implementation of the dust rules proposed by MSHA, until the Congress could be sure of their consequences. After discussing this matter with Senator Specter, the National Mining Association, and the United Mine Workers, I have decided not to offer that amendment for the time being.

Instead, I will support the amendment offered by Senator Specter, which would require the Labor Secretary to report a new rule that incorporates the use of real-time dust monitors, assuming that those monitors are tested successfully in the coming months.

However, it is important that the Mine Safety and Health Administration understand that this language is

binding. It must issue a new rule if the personal dust monitoring devices prove successful. And I hope that they understand that the miners of our States and their representatives in the Congress will be watching, and that we will continue to oppose any effort to circumvent the 1969 Mine Act with regard to dust levels.

I urge Senators to take this opportunity to improve the credibility of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. I urge Senators to recall the findings of the Congress that were contained in the 1969 Mine Act:

The first priority and concern of all in the coal mining

industry must be the health and safety of its most precious

resource--the miner.

Mr. President, are we operating under any time constraints?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1543

Mr. President, when President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, he promised to give schools the funding they needed to help every young person in this country succeed in the classroom.

That promise has not been kept. And there is no better example of that broken promise than the education funding levels in this appropriations bill. The most glaring example is the title I program. Title I helps the students who need help the most--the millions who are being left behind. It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable for improving student performance.

We did not have this program in my day and schools did not have to be held accountable, either, for improving student performance. It was a given that students went to school to learn and that they were expected to study hard. That is why we had our schools. We were there to get an education.

That is why, when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2012. The authorized amount for fiscal year 2004 is $18.5 billion. That is enough to fully serve 6.2 million needy children, according to the Congressional Research Service.

How much does this bill provide? This bill provides just $12.4 billion. That is enough to fully serve only 4.1 million children.

The amendment I am offering would increase title I funding by $6.1 billion, for a total of $18.5 billion, the fiscal year 2004 authorized level, and it would extend the full educational benefits of title I to 2.1 million children who otherwise would be left behind. This would allow us to keep the promise we made in the No Child Left Behind Act.

I have to my left a chart. This chart shows what this amendment will mean for schools in all 50 States. I know that their listing here creates a chart on which it is difficult to read from any distance virtually. But here they are, 50 States. Let's take a few examples.

Take for example New Hampshire. Under my amendment, New Hampshire schools will receive $19.5 million more than they would receive under the Senate bill. That is a 66-percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 level.

Let's take a look at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania schools will receive $223.4 million more under my amendment. That represents a 51-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 level.

In Maine, schools will receive an additional $24 million for a 50- percent increase. In my State of West Virginia, schools will receive $47 million, $46.8 million more under my amendment than they would receive under the Senate bill, also for a 50-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 level.

There are other schools. All of the States on this chart--and there are 50 of them--under my amendment every State receives an increase over the Senate bill.

Massachusetts will receive $129.3 million more under my amendment than it would receive under the bill. Alaska would receive $18.4 million more. New York would receive $682.2 million more. California would receive $899.5 million more than it would receive under the Senate bill. That is the way it goes all the way down the line. The District of Columbia would receive $27.8 million more. The State of Ohio would receive $203.8 million more. So every State would gain under the Byrd amendment.

This amendment is fully offset for fiscal year 2004. It achieves this by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and reappropriating those moneys in fiscal year 2003. That is the exact same mechanism that Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter are using to add $2.2 billion to the base bill--the same mechanism. My amendment simply builds upon their mechanism and adds $6.1 billion more for title I.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion over this point. I was disappointed last week to hear a Senator from the other side of the aisle refer to my amendment as a gimmick. Yes, referred to my amendment as a gimmick. Think of that. That Senator on the other side of the aisle said my amendment was a gimmick. The exact words were ``a gimmick of classic proportions.''

Well, I would like to call the Senate's attention to page 76 of the base bill. Lines 1 and 2 add $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 spending. Now read exactly what is in the bill, lines 1 and 2, ``by striking $4,651,199,000 and inserting $6,895,199,000.'' So you see, lines 1 and 2 add $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 spending.

Now just drop two lines; just go down the page two lines and read lines 3 and 4; 3 and 4 offset that increase by rescinding $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. So my amendment uses the same funding mechanism as has been used in this bill.

Mr. Specter, chairman of the subcommittee, can verify that. Mr. Stevens, chairman of the full committee, one of the finest chairmen there have been since that committee was created in 1867, will verify that. He will verify that I am reading this accurately and that that is what is being done.

So my amendment uses the same funding those two illustrious gentlemen used in writing the bill. And if my amendment is a gimmick--hear me--if my amendment is a gimmick, what does that say about the base bill? Is it also a gimmick? I ask, is the base bill also a gimmick?

Opponents of my amendment have also argued that the Congress is under no obligation to fund title I at the authorized level because authorizations are just guidelines.

Well, title I is not your average authorization program. Most education authorizations don't put mandates on States. The title I program in the No Child Left Behind Act puts more Federal mandates on our Nation's schools than any law in 35 years.

This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12 years. That is all students--all students, not just those in the wealthy suburbs but poor students, students from Appalachia to Alaska, children with disabilities, students of all races and ethnicities.

Schools must leave no child behind, and if schools that receive title I funds fall short of this goal, they face serious consequences. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising student performance for 2 consecutive years have to give the students the opportunity of transferring to another public school. That means the school has to take money it would have spent for instruction and use that money instead for transportation. The penalties get more severe as time goes on. Ultimately, if a title I school fails to make adequate progress for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over by the State or the entire staff can be fired and replaced.

These are serious penalties, Mr. President, and I support them. I believe it is high time we held schools accountable for their performance, but I also believe if we are going to threaten schools with penalties--and these are severe penalties--we have a responsibility to provide those schools with the resources they need to improve.

Senator Kennedy and President Bush agreed on what those resources would be when they negotiated the No Child Left Behind Act. Senator Kennedy and President Bush agreed that title I should be funded at $18.5 billion in fiscal year 2004 and Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse that figure when it passed the law.

When President Bush signed that law a few weeks later, he said:

We are going to spend more money, more resources, but they

will be directed at methods that work.

But this appropriations bill which mirrors the President's budget request falls more than $6 billion short.

Let me take just a moment to explain what schools could do with that $6 billion. The amendment I am offering would provide enough funding to hire more than 100,000 highly qualified teachers for the students who are most at risk of being left behind. That means over 2 million disadvantaged students would be taught in smaller classes, and they would receive the full range of instructional services called for under the No Child Left Behind Act.

It is no wonder students and teachers across the country are clamoring for this funding. In West Virginia, the Department of Education announced this summer that 326 of the State's 728 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State.

In many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to make adequate progress. So I ask my fellow Senators: Where is the money going to come from to help these schools improve? State governments are facing a fiscal crisis. So State governments are not in a position to respond to the needs. Where will the schools turn? State governments are in no position to make up a funding shortfall from the Federal Government. Yet this appropriations bill underfunds title I by more than $6 billion.

This bill is a betrayal of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is unfair to all the people in this country who are working so hard to implement it. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child to succeed. They are holding up their end of the bargain.

Where is the President? What happened to his commitment to education? I will tell you what happened. Once the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act and the cameras stopped rolling and the sound bites faded away, the President walked away from the job of funding education.

Sadly, we have seen this picture before. This January in his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a 5-year, $15 billion global AIDS initiative. Later he signed a law promising to fund that initiative at $3 billion a year. Then this summer, he went to Africa and promised to do all in his power to make sure Congress fully financed that law. But when it came time to put the money behind that promise, where was the President? The President fell short. And he is doing the same thing with education.

The Congress is being asked to provide billions of dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq--the Appropriations Committee, I hope, will conduct hearings on that request--for what we are told is Saddam Hussein's willful neglect of all major infrastructure needs, including schools. So the President wants money for Iraq. He wants to make up for Saddam Hussein's willful neglect of all major infrastructure needs, including schools.

Mr. President, if the United States Government is to address infrastructure needs in Iraq, why can we not find the money to support our own domestic education system in the form of funding the No Child Left Behind Act? Where are our priorities? I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law, but schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind.

I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. So let us, Mr. President, keep our word.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

Yes. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who has been a leader in this field, and who is a leader in this field, remembers very clearly and accurately the purposes and the debate on the No Child Left Behind Act.

I have never wanted to just throw money at anything. I never felt that just throwing money at education was going to educate our students, but I have been in favor of the reforms that are in this act. I believe we ought to do everything we possibly can to utilize those reforms, to put them into effect, enforce them, and at the same time have the money available to these schools so the reforms can be made, will be made, and will be enforced. They are pretty tough reforms.

As I indicated in my remarks, we have an obligation to provide the monies to those schools. When I was going to school, I started out in a little two-room schoolhouse in Algonquin, WV, in the southern part of West Virginia. I entered school long about 1923. Of course, we did not have Federal aid to education then. We had good teachers, although they were not paid a lot. During the Depression, many of them had to take a reduction on their paychecks to get those checks cashed, but we had teachers who cared. I had foster parents who cared. Our schools were not much, but we studied hard and we tried to make a better life for ourselves and our parents. So I know something about the disadvantaged children and disadvantaged schools. I came through that Depression. I am proud to say I was alive in that Great Depression. I am proud to say I lived through it because it taught me a lot of lessons. It taught me the worth of an education.

Benjamin Disraeli, who was Prime Minister of Great Britain, said in the House of Commons in 1874--the reason I remember the date easily is it was the year before my foster father, Titus Dalton Byrd, was born. So it was 1874. Benjamin Disraeli said: Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.

I think the Senator will join me in saying we ascribe to that; that upon the education of the people of our

country the fate of this country depends. So this is a vote to improve the education of disadvantaged children. It is a vote to keep our word that we gave when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.

I congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts. I said he has been a leader. I said he is a leader and he was a leader on this bill. He spoke with President Bush and he worked this approach out with President Bush. I congratulate him for it, but we have to do what we can to live up to it, and that is what we are doing here.

The Senator reads it as I intended it to be read and as other Senators who are cosponsoring this amendment intended likewise.

There is no question about the fact that we were trying to give our children smaller classrooms. The Senator might know--of course he would not know how many students were in my graduating class. I was valedictorian of that class in 1934. If there had been one more student in that class, I might not have been valedictorian. There were 28 graduates. What a large class. But it was not by virtue of the kind of legislation that we have been supporting. That was the number of students in those southern Virginia coalfields.

We had good teachers. They were not paid a good deal, but we knew the worth of a good teacher. They were dedicated. What we are trying to do today is give our children smaller class sizes so they will get from the teachers the kind of attention they need. We are trying to give them good teachers. We are holding the teachers to high standards, also.

Yes, I am somewhat amazed and offended by the fact that our President is wanting $87 billion now for Iraq. That is $87 billion for Iraq. That is not counting the $69 billion the Congress has already appropriated, no questions asked, by the way, for Iraq, making a total of $166 billion for Iraq. So we are going to be asked to consider a supplemental for Iraq.

I am going to consider that. But why not consider more moneys for our own students, for our own teachers, for our own schools? That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to live up to the word the President and Senator Kennedy and I and others in Congress gave to the American people, to the students of our country, and to the parents, and to the teachers.

Mr. President, there is no question about it. I want to thank the distinguished Senator for his work in this field. I want to thank him for his work on the Armed Services Committee. And I want to thank him for his leadership in making laws that will better prepare our young people for the future, for what lies ahead of them. Of course, we need better educated people in our Armed Forces. Of course, we have to have better educated people if we are going to keep this country as the superpower of the world.

I want to thank him for what he has done in this respect. I know he must feel very proud of the record that has been established by his schools up there, to which he referred a little while ago. Those performances were in English and math. They are not easy subjects, as I recall--not the easiest. But there is no subject matter that is more important than that of English, grammar, mathematics. He must feel justly proud of the performance those schools have made, that has been made possible, to a considerable extent, by his work on this legislation. So I thank him for his contribution here to our debate today also.

I took a piece of plastic clay

And idly fashioned it one day,

And as my fingers pressed it still,

It moved and yielded to my will.

I came again when days were past--

The bit of clay was hard at last;

The form I gave it, it still bore,

But I could change that form no more.

I took a piece of living clay

And gently formed it day by day,

And moulded with my power and art

A young child's soft and yielding heart.

I came again when years were gone--

It was a man I looked upon;

He still that early impress wore,

And I could change him nevermore.

That is what we are talking about. That little piece of clay. That little piece of clay.

Just a closing thought about our teachers:

A builder builded a temple,

He wrought it with grace and skill;

Pillars and groins and arches

All fashioned to work his will.

Men said, as they saw its beauty,

``It shall never know decay;

Great is thy skill, O Builder!

Thy fame shall endure for aye.''

A teacher builded a temple

With loving and infinite care,

Planning each arch with patience,

Laying each stone with prayer.

None praised her unceasing efforts,

None knew of her wondrous plan,

For the temple the teacher builded

Was unseen by the eyes of man.

Gone is the Builder's temple,

Crumpled into the dust;

Low lies each stately pillar,

Food for consuming rust.

But the temple the teacher builded

Will last while the ages roll,

For that beautiful unseen temple

Was a child's immortal soul.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the amendment I have offered: Senators Harkin, Dodd, Dorgan, Kohl, Bingaman, Lieberman, Dayton, Pryor, Corzine, Mikulski, Schumer, Kennedy, Johnson, Edwards, Murray, Rockefeller, Lautenberg, Lincoln--the first name of the Senator who graces the chair and presides over this August body at this moment, with a degree of dignity and skill that is so rare as a day in June-- Leahy, Graham, Kerry, Levin, Clinton, Jeffords, Reed, Sarbanes, Cantwell, Landrieu, Stabenow, and Durbin.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.

Will the Senator yield?

My friend, you are living in a dream world if for a moment you think this President doesn't know what he is doing. You are living in a dream world. I hope to be with you in your dreams at some point.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his position on this matter, for his words today on this subject. I will always remember Senator Tom Harkin for standing up for the working people of this country. Through the years that I served with him, he has never deviated from that course. He has never veered from that course: standing up for working people, the common people, the men and women of America who work with their hands, who get their hands dirty, whose hands show the horns of toil and working. I will never forget him for that. He has always been that way.

I think he has a streak of that coal miner in him. He doesn't want to go back to the 1930s. What would have happened to me in the 1930s? I was married in 1937. I worked as a produce boy. I don't mind being called boy.

I was a produce boy in a company store in the mining camp where my foster father was a coal miner, where my wife's father was a coal miner. I was a produce boy, produce salesman. I got out on some Sunday afternoons.

I am a Baptist. I was a man who revered the Bible long before George Bush ever got to this place. When he was running around in knee pants, I believed in the old time religion. I wasn't a Christian to the left or to the right. I believed in the old time religion that comes from the King James version of the Bible. If you want to stir up the churches, take me. We will sing ``Amazing Grace.'' We will get them out into the aisles, those who are not afraid to say: Amen, amen. So he speaks the language of the working poor. No, he is not mistaken about President Bush. I respect President Bush. He is President of the United States, but he came from the other side

of the tracks. He didn't come from the side of the tracks I came from, or where the Senator from Iowa, I would venture, came from. I didn't come from the corporate boardrooms of this country.

I came from the coal camps. I lived during those days the Senator is talking about, back in the 1930s. I worked 6 days a week. I was glad to have a job. I remember when I was making $70 a month working in a butcher shop. I was a butcher. I was a produce boy. Yes, we worked long hours. We didn't get paid time and a half when I was in the butcher shops in southern West Virginia, but we were glad to have a job. I made $70 a month. Imagine living on $70 a month. Of course, things were cheaper then. But we didn't get time and a half. We had to work whatever time was required to hold our jobs.

My dad had to clean up his ``place'' back in the coal mines. They would shoot down the slate and the coal, and he was expected to clean that up before he went home. He was glad to have a job. There was always someone else there waiting on his job. If he didn't want to clean up the place, somebody was waiting to take his job.

I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership, and count me as one who stands with him.

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

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, am I at liberty to speak out of order? I do not intend to speak on that amendment.

Mr. President, after reading about the Bush administration's proposed rules with regard to overtime pay, there should be no question that American workers are under assault by the Bush administration.

The Denver Post reports that since President Bush's election in 2000, the Labor Department has repealed 41 worker-safety regulations in development, including two aimed at addressing hazardous chemical dangers. Within 2 months of taking office, President Bush sought to repeal the Labor Department's ergonomic standard to prevent repetitive stress injuries, and has issued four Executive orders to curb the rights of labor unions.

It is not enough that the Bush administration has sought to prevent Federal workers from unionizing or that the White House has blocked an increase in the minimum wage. It is not enough that over 3 million jobs have been lost under the Bush administration's watch or that over 9 million workers are unemployed. The administration now wants to take away the right of millions of workers to receive overtime pay.

America's workers should be very concerned about the overtime changes being proposed by the Bush administration. These rule changes would force workers in executive, administrative, and technical fields to labor for longer hours and could make as many as 8 million salaried and hourly workers, many of whom have grown to depend upon overtime pay, ineligible for it.

It is not just hourly workers in factories and restaurants who will be affected by these rules. We are talking about roughly 14 million U.S. workers who are considered to be eligible for overtime pay--from computer engineers, paramedics, and paralegals, to secretaries, grocery clerks, and delivery route drivers. We are talking about the policemen, firefighters, health care officials--the heroes of the September 11 attacks who worked around the clock. These are the workers from whom the administration wants to take overtime pay.

These are not innocuous rule changes. The Labor Department has been flooded with more than 80,000 letters and e-mails debating the merit of its proposed overtime changes, the most mail the agency has received on any wage-and-hour topic in at least a decade. The Washington Post quoted a number of these letters in a story last July:

``Shame on you, President Bush,'' read one letter.

``Please do not take away our overtime pay,'' wrote a Marylander, who said that her husband works overtime so that she can afford to stay at home to take care of their infant daughter.

``Deplorable,'' ``unfair,'' ``absurd;''--these are the words used to describe this administration's proposal. To these I would add callous, hard-hearted, and out-of-touch.

Overtime pay is about more than just making ends meet. In many cases, it is the money used for unexpected health care costs, to pay medical bills, to care for elderly parents. For many families, it is the money carefully squirreled away to pay for a college education years in the future--those things that make life more than simply going to work to survive. I don't believe that the administration has any real appreciation for how important these extra wages are to a family in these tough economic times.

After graduating from high school in the midst of the Great Depression, I sought employment wherever I could find the opportunity-- pumping gas at a filling station, working as a produce salesman, and becoming a meat cutter. It was difficult to make ends meet. So I and my wife, Erma, can well appreciate the willingness to work extra time to provide for a better life for the family. Such willingness to go the extra mile should be rewarded.

Earlier this week, Americans celebrated Labor Day to show our appreciation to this Nation's workers. If we really want to show our appreciation, the Senate should stand up for America's workers against the assaults of this administration and support the amendment by Senators Kennedy and Harkin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of that amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank both of these illustrious Senators, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is managing the bill before the Senate, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his courtesy and kindness.

I will be brief. I do intend to speak out of order. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the park boundaries for the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Harpers Ferry, located at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, is one of West Virginia's jewels. Its place in American history, coupled with the natural scenic beauty of the park and its surroundings, make for a one-of-a-kind experience for local residents and visitors alike. Now is the time to move forward with that effort.

Harpers Ferry has been the backdrop for remarkable historic events. Here, in one setting, several themes in America's story converge: exploration, industry and transportation, the question of slavery, the Civil War, and the natural splendor of our Nation.

We are taught that the Lewis and Clark Expedition began in Wood River, IL, on the Mississippi River in 1804. But, in fact, Harpers Ferry also contributed to that important historic expedition by providing a cache of supplies that helped sustain these brave explorers as they traveled to the Pacific Ocean and back.

One of Harpers Ferry's most famous incidents occurred in 1859 when the fierce abolitionist leader John Brown and a small band of raiders held Federal troops at bay in the Federal arsenal. John Brown's capture fueled the growing tensions on the issue of slavery.

The property includes the operational Baltimore & Ohio train station, and it borders a part of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Both the railroad and the canal made Harpers Ferry a key transit point during the Civil War.

In September 1862, 37,000 Union and Confederate troops wrestled for the control of Harpers Ferry. Over the course of 4 days, a famous West Virginian, GEN Thomas Jonathan ``Stonewall'' Jackson, battled Union troops that were under the leadership of COL Dixon Miles in the area of Schoolhouse Ridge and Bolivar Heights. When it was over, the largest surrender of Union soldiers, 12,500 in all, occurred. Jackson's victory allowed GEN Robert E. Lee to carry his fight further to Sharpsburg, MD, where the bloodiest single day battle of the Civil War the Battle of Antietam--was fought.

Harpers Ferry's rich history is matched only by its great natural beauty. Throughout the year, residents and visitors alike can be seen enjoying fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, and much more in this scenic park. In the summer of 2001, the Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project began at the park. Since that time, 12 peregrine falcon chicks have been released across the Potomac River on Maryland Heights. This and other efforts are underway to restore these incredible raptors to their native nesting sites in the Appalachian region.

Today, the park is home to a vast array of outdoor and recreational opportunities. The historical, recreational, and ecological significance

suggests that the time is right to expand the boundaries of Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. The boundary expansion has the support of a number of groups, including the Friends of Harpers Ferry, the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, and the Civil War Preservation Trust.

Harpers Ferry became a part of the National Park System in 1944. My legislation would expand its boundary by 1,240 acres, from its current 2,505 acres to 3,745 acres. In order to educate local residents about the expansion process, I directed the National Park Service, in the year 2000, to conduct a public outreach program. As part of that program, the Park Service asked for public response to potential expansion. Since the publication of the study, some lands have been purchased under the current acquisition ceiling. Further, the larger expansion proposal, which would be authorized by the passage of my legislation, has the strong support of 94 percent of the responders.

So, Mr. President, we must do all that we can to protect such very special places. Therefore, I am proud to introduce this legislation that I hope will protect an important place for West Virginia and the Nation as a whole.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the park boundaries for the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Harpers Ferry, located at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, is one of West Virginia's jewels. Its place in American history, coupled with the natural scenic beauty of the park and its surroundings, make for a one-of-a-kind experience for local residents and visitors alike. Now is the time to move forward with that effort.

Harpers Ferry has been the backdrop for remarkable historic events. Here, in one setting, several themes in America's story converge: exploration, industry and transportation, the question of slavery, the Civil War, and the natural splendor of our Nation.

We are taught that the Lewis and Clark Expedition began in Wood River, IL, on the Mississippi River in 1804. But, in fact, Harpers Ferry also contributed to that important historic expedition by providing a cache of supplies that helped sustain these brave explorers as they traveled to the Pacific Ocean and back.

One of Harpers Ferry's most famous incidents occurred in 1859 when the fierce abolitionist leader John Brown and a small band of raiders held Federal troops at bay in the Federal arsenal. John Brown's capture fueled the growing tensions on the issue of slavery.

The property includes the operational Baltimore & Ohio train station, and it borders a part of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Both the railroad and the canal made Harpers Ferry a key transit point during the Civil War.

In September 1862, 37,000 Union and Confederate troops wrestled for the control of Harpers Ferry. Over the course of 4 days, a famous West Virginian, GEN Thomas Jonathan ``Stonewall'' Jackson, battled Union troops that were under the leadership of COL Dixon Miles in the area of Schoolhouse Ridge and Bolivar Heights. When it was over, the largest surrender of Union soldiers, 12,500 in all, occurred. Jackson's victory allowed GEN Robert E. Lee to carry his fight further to Sharpsburg, MD, where the bloodiest single day battle of the Civil War the Battle of Antietam--was fought.

Harpers Ferry's rich history is matched only by its great natural beauty. Throughout the year, residents and visitors alike can be seen enjoying fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, and much more in this scenic park. In the summer of 2001, the Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project began at the park. Since that time, 12 peregrine falcon chicks have been released across the Potomac River on Maryland Heights. This and other efforts are underway to restore these incredible raptors to their native nesting sites in the Appalachian region.

Today, the park is home to a vast array of outdoor and recreational opportunities. The historical, recreational, and ecological significance

suggests that the time is right to expand the boundaries of Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. The boundary expansion has the support of a number of groups, including the Friends of Harpers Ferry, the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, and the Civil War Preservation Trust.

Harpers Ferry became a part of the National Park System in 1944. My legislation would expand its boundary by 1,240 acres, from its current 2,505 acres to 3,745 acres. In order to educate local residents about the expansion process, I directed the National Park Service, in the year 2000, to conduct a public outreach program. As part of that program, the Park Service asked for public response to potential expansion. Since the publication of the study, some lands have been purchased under the current acquisition ceiling. Further, the larger expansion proposal, which would be authorized by the passage of my legislation, has the strong support of 94 percent of the responders.

So, Mr. President, we must do all that we can to protect such very special places. Therefore, I am proud to introduce this legislation that I hope will protect an important place for West Virginia and the Nation as a whole.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am delighted to see my friend. I have several friends in the Senate, but there is one very special friend of mine who is presently in the chair. He is the President pro tempore of the Senate and a man who is well equipped for that position. He has had a long service in the Senate and, of course, long service on the Appropriations Committee. He has been chairman. He has been ranking member. He is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee now. I speak of course of my dear friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who is the Man of the Century for the State of Alaska, and rightly so.

I also am very proud to say I have another friend in the Chamber at the moment, among several friends in the Chamber, and this friend of whom I speak is the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that has in its jurisdiction the bill that is before the Senate at this time, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Senator Specter is a man--I speak of Alexander Pope, who said about another gentleman: ``Thou art my guide and friend.'' Arlen Specter is a man after my own kidney, as Shakespeare would say. And he recognizes the needs of the country, as I think I do. His heart is in the right place when it comes to the education of our young people, and I am very proud to call him my friend. I thank him for his courtesies always, which are characteristic of him. He is one of the special people who have served in this Senate with me.

Amendment No. 1543

Now to the business at hand. I have an amendment. Before I send it to the desk, let me make a brief statement.

When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a deal with the American people. I am speaking of a time which was nearly 2 years ago when we made this deal with the American people. We said that from now on we will hold schools more accountable--more accountable-- than ever before; we will require them to make sure that all children succeed academically, not just the wealthy, not just those who live in the nicer parts of town, but all children--poor students, students from Appalachia, across the prairies, across the Great Plains, across the Rockies, to the Pacific coast--yes, all the way to Alaska--children with disabilities, and students of all races and ethnicities. Schools must leave no child behind. But, in return, we promised to give schools the resources they need to make these improvements.

This bill does not fulfill that promise, and there is no better example of that broken promise than the title I program for disadvantaged students. Title I helps the students who need help the most, the millions who are being left behind. It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable for improving student performance. That is why, when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2012.

Now, I went to school--many years ago, of course; I started in 1924-- and it was a little two-room schoolhouse in a coal camp in southern West Virginia. It was at Algonquin, WV. That is the mining camp in which I started school. That is the mining camp in which my foster father worked in the mines.

We did not have the Government support in those days that students have now. I was one of the students who today would be considered a disadvantaged child. Of course, about all the children in that coal camp were disadvantaged. But we had caring teachers. We had good teachers.

I remember being in the primer, starting out in the primer, and the leading character in the primer was Baby Rae. I studied about Baby Rae. But those were disadvantaged children. All of us were disadvantaged. We all came from poor families, but we studied hard. We had caring teachers, as I say, and they encouraged us to study. Mine were foster parents, I having lost my mother when I was 1 year old in the great influenza epidemic in 1917 and 1918. But those foster parents cared for me, and they loved me, and they encouraged me to study and to study hard.

So I am a supporter, a strong supporter, of education. I come here as one who has supported Federal funds for education practically all the years I have been in Congress. And this is the 51st year I have been in Congress. There was a great debate in the early years when I was in the House about Federal aid to education. Well, it is an accepted factor now in our thinking. So today I have come to support an amendment which I will offer shortly.

Let me say again that when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2012. The authorized amount for fiscal year 2004 is $18.5 billion. That is enough to fully serve 6.2 million needy children, according to the Congressional Research Service. This bill before the Senate today provides just $12.4 billion.

That is enough to fully serve only 4.1 million children. The amendment I am about to offer would increase title I funding by $6.1 billion for a total of $18.5 billion, the fully authorized level for fiscal year 2004, and it would extend the full educational benefits of title I to 2.1 million children who otherwise would be left behind. This would allow us to keep the promise we made in the No Child Left Behind Act.

This amendment is fully offset, may I say, for fiscal year 2004, and it achieves this by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and reappropriating those monies in fiscal year 2004. This is the exact same mechanism that Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter are using to add $2.2 billion to the base bill. My amendment simply builds upon this and adds $6.1 billion more for title I.

Students and teachers across the country are desperate for more funding. In West Virginia, the Department of Education announced this summer that 326 of the State's 728 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State. May I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer, Mr. Smith, that in many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to make adequate progress. Let me repeat: In my own State, 326 of West Virginia's 728 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State, almost half. But in many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to make adequate progress.

I ask my fellow Senators: Where is the money going to come from to help these schools improve? The State governments, as we all know, are facing a fiscal crisis. Yet this appropriations bill underfunds title I by more than $6 billion. This bill, indeed, is a bit frail on the No Child Left Behind Act, and it is unfair to all the people in this country who are working so hard to implement the provisions of that act.

Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child to succeed, and they are holding up their end of the bargain. Now is the time for the Federal Government to hold up its end of the bargain.

As students all over the country return to their classrooms this month, it is important to remember that this amendment is not just about dollars; it is about hiring good teachers. It is about improving the curriculum; it is about reducing class sizes; it is about buying educational materials--all the elements that are key to helping students reach their academic potential.

I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law. But schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind.

I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We must keep our word.

Everything I have said is certainly meant to be no criticism of the chairman of the subcommittee or the ranking member or the members of the subcommittee. They have all done the best they could do. Mr. Specter has done the best he could with what he had, and so has the ranking member. I offer this amendment not in criticism of them or

the members of the subcommittee. They simply did the best they could with what they had. I fully support the chairman and ranking member and the subcommittee. I simply offer this amendment because I think the Nation's children deserve it. I hope Senators on both sides will support it to the fullest.

I send the amendment to the desk.

Yes.

Very well, yes.

Yes, it would.

Amendment No. 1542

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his accommodations that have been extended at this point. I send the amendment to the substitute to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have already spoken on behalf of the amendment. I do not ask for recognition at this point.

Yes.

Mr. President, Senators and Representatives are now returning to Washington, D.C., from their sojourns to their home districts. With the turn of a page on a calendar, the dog days of summer draw to a close, and our Nation's Capital City returns to life from its annual slumber. The business of government is set once more to spring into high gear as the oppressive heat of August turns to the cooler days of September.

Many of those who carry out the work of the American people were fortunate to escape the worst days of the oppressive Washington summer. But as policy makers return to their hectic schedules, we must remember that there are many thousands of Americans on the other side of the globe who were not afforded any relief from sweltering temperatures or allowed any bit of relaxation from their life-threatening missions.

There was no summer vacation for the 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the 34,000 soldiers in Kuwait, or the 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. These Americans sweated through all 31 days of August under their Kevlar helmets and heavy bulletproof vests. Many had no opportunity to enjoy the luxury of air conditioning or even a simple glass of ice water, for they were kept on high alert during every waking moment watching for snipers, booby traps, and assassins.

As the cost of our occupation of Iraq continues to grow, it is increasingly apparent to the American people that the White House has gotten the United States more deeply involved in Iraq than the administration's pre-war rhetoric would ever have led us to believe.

As of Friday, August 29, we have lost 282 Americans during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and nearly 1,400 have been wounded during that time. The news today is of two more soldiers killed in a roadside bomb attack. The number of American lives lost is quickly approaching the total number of Americans killed during 1991's Operation Desert Storm, when 292 troops lost their lives to hostile fire and accidents.

The dangers of Iraq have shown no signs of abating. The August 19 bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad claimed the lives of 23 international aid workers, and the August 29 bombing of a mosque in Najaf appears to have killed more than 80 worshipers.

Only a handful of Iraqi leaders who are pictured on the military's most-wanted deck of cards remain at large, but the perpetrators of the attacks seem to be broadening their set of targets. It appears that the violence is not just perpetrated by Iraqis, but that Iraq is becoming a new stage for terrorists to strike at the United States. The top Army officer in charge of ground troops in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, spoke in July describing our occupation forces as a ``terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity.''

While the sons and daughters of America continue to patrol the shooting gallery in Iraq, progress toward bringing reinforcements from our friends and allies has proceeded at a miserable pace. For every foreign soldier in Iraq, there are nearly nine American troops. Other countries with sizable militaries, such as France, Germany, and India, have flatly refused to participate in the occupation of Iraq without a U.N.-authorized peacekeeping mission. Turkey, our staunch ally on the northern border of Iraq, has announced that it will delay a vote on sending peacekeepers until some time in October.

Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that many of our allies are reluctant to commit their own troops to the aftermath of a pre- emptive war, considering how the Administration tried to bully them during our headlong rush to war against Iraq? While the White House was furiously trying to twist arms in Berlin, Paris, Ankara, and Moscow to gain acquiescence to a war in Iraq, millions took to the streets to protest the President's policy toward Iraq.

According to polls released by the Pew Research Center on March 18, 2003, the day before the war began, opposition to a war in Iraq was at 69 percent in Germany, 75 percent in France, 86 percent in Turkey, and 87 percent in Russia. Yet the White House scoffed at this opposition and belittled the need to unify the world in confronting Saddam Hussein. Could it be that our troops are now paying the price for the Administration's bullheaded rush to war without the broad and active support of the international community?

But even if more international troops arrive under the Administration's plans, Americans should not be lulled into thinking that the threat to our troops will be over. Pentagon planners are now working to divide the occupation of Iraq among the British, an unidentified foreign force, and U.S. troops.

It appears that this plan will continue to have American troops bear the responsibility of patrolling the ``Sunni triangle,'' where the bulk of the guerrilla attacks have been occurring. Our men and women in uniform will continue to walk through the dangerous back alleys of Baghdad, Tikrit, and Fallujah, facing daily attacks. For so long as U.S. troops continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the occupation mission in Iraq, our troops will remain overburdened and under fire.

Let there be no doubt, our troops are stretched thin. On June 24, 2003, I requested a study by the Congressional Budget Office on how a protracted mission in Iraq could affect our military readiness. In particular, I asked how many troops our armed forces can devote to a long-term occupation of Iraq, what stresses this might place upon the National Guard and the Reserves, and what costs and risks may be associated with the strain upon our forces.

The results of the CBO study, which will be released tomorrow, is quantified evidence that the long-term occupation is straining our forces close to the breaking point.

According to the advance copy of the CBO report that was delivered to my office today, if we are to rely primarily on the active duty Army to carry out the occupation of Iraq while maintaining our presence in Korea, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and elsewhere, we can only maintain 38,000 to 64,000 soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait over the long term.

Even if the Pentagon takes extraordinary measures, such as depending on large deployments of the National Guard and the Reserves and using Marines as peacekeepers, the CBO report estimates that we could still only sustain 67,000 to 106,000 troops in Iraq for the long term. The annual incremental cost for a continuing deployment of this size, assuming that the security situation becomes stable, could be up to $19 billion per year.

Some have suggested that the strain on our soldiers in Iraq could be relieved by adding 2 new Army divisions to the existing 10. The CBO report estimates that this option would cost up to $19.4 billion in one-time costs, would add another $9.5 billion to $10.1 billion to the annual defense budget, and would take from 3 to 5 years to field those troops.

The CBO report also analyzes how a large commitment of troops to Iraq would affect the ability of our armed forces to respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world, such as a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Not surprisingly, the larger the commitment the U.S. maintains in Iraq, the fewer troops we would have ready to respond to other threats. The statistics contained in the CBO report prompts more questions about the readiness of our military during a sustained occupation of Iraq.

The CBO also reports that our troop levels in Iraq will have to start declining by March 2004 if we hope to preserve readiness in our armed forces. Indeed, the Army has already drafted a plan to start rotating units in and out of Iraq by that time. But this plan also anticipates that foreign troops will arrive to take up the slack in the occupation mission created by a declining number of U.S. troops. So far, however, administration efforts to line up countries to join in this mission have been less than impressive.

That the White House failed to prepare the American public for the demands of post-war Iraq on our troops is painfully evident.

Now there are rumblings that the administration may be ready to swallow

its false pride and seek a new U.N. resolution to encourage foreign participation in the occupation of Iraq. This would be a positive development, one that the administration should have embraced a long time ago.

We have heard grandiose claims of international cooperation from this administration before. On April 8, 2003, President Bush promised a ``vital role'' for the U.N. in rebuilding Iraq. When pressed about what he meant, the President responded:

When we say vital role for the United Nations, we mean

vital role for the United Nations in all aspects of the

issue.

Let us hope that reality begins to match rhetoric.

I sincerely hope that the talk of a rapprochement with the U.N. is not more rhetoric or posturing by the administration. Our sons and daughters cannot be asked to bear the heavy burdens in Iraq essentially alone. The report that will be issued by the Congressional Budget Office tomorrow demonstrates that even our overwhelming military technology cannot offset the toll of maintaining a huge commitment of troops in Iraq for the long haul.

We can no longer afford to deliberate on whether to put a formal request for peacekeepers before NATO and the United Nations Security Council.

Every day frittered away by the administration is another day that our troops will bear the staggering burden of the dangers of occupation virtually alone.

Every month that goes by without more help from our friends and allies means billions more taxpayer dollars spent on our occupation of Iraq, and most sadly, more grieving American families.

For the sake of the brave men and women who serve our country in uniform on the dangerous streets and in the back alleys of Iraq, the administration should do now what it failed to do before the war. The United States must ask for the support of NATO and the United Nations to share not only the burdens but also the decisions regarding post-war Iraq. That appeal must be genuine and must be made now.

I yield the floor.