Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of millions of Americans and their families holding out hope that the Senate will do the right thing today, which is to support embryonic stem cell research so that scientists have the resources they need to potentially save millions of lives.

I voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act when I was in the House, and I strongly support it.

My support for this promising research is painfully personal. When I visit my mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, and see her vacant stare, in which she doesn't even recognize her own family, I just cannot comprehend how anyone in this body can vote against this bill and deny families their last hope for a cure from the loneliness and confusion caused by this horrible disease.

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into virtually any cell in the body and thus have the potential to cure people like my mother and many others. That is why this research is so vitally important.

Millions of Americans just like my family are waiting in hope that we will do the right thing. Those with loved ones suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or juvenile diabetes wait in hope that their prayers will be answered and cures will be found in their lifetime. Across America, families in which a child or a parent is paralyzed from a traumatic accident hold out hope that we will do the right thing and give their loved ones back the life they knew before their injury.

President Bush and other opponents of this legislation know all too well the overwhelming public support for this promising research, but they still can't bring themselves to stand up for the people's interests over the special interests, stand up for sound science over ideology. Instead, they say one thing and do another.

You can't say you support cures, then turn around and oppose the most promising research. You can't say you support research and turn around and oppose the vital funding that will make breakthroughs possible.

For those who insist on playing politics with people's lives, make no mistake about it: The American people are

watching, and they will not take kindly to seeing their last flicker of hope being extinguished.

The only thing more callous than no hope is false hope.

To those who say they are for research but vote against this legislation, they must answer to the mother who must care for her child who can't walk because of a spinal cord injury, to the wife who must help her ailing husband battling Parkinson's disease, to the father forced to watch his daughter inject herself with countless insulin needles for the rest of her life.

By saying one thing and doing another on this issue, you are creating false hope and putting these and millions of other families on yet another roller coaster of despair. I know this is true because my sister and I and our children deal with it when we look into the eyes of my mother who no longer recognizes our faces. My mother and her terrible suffering brought me to this fight, but my children and the hope for a cure for future generations inspires me to keep fighting.

We have an obligation to stand up and do what is right today in the Senate. American families and future generations simply cannot afford for us to fail them now.

Mr. President, I would have hoped we could come together on this amendment. I do not consider it an effort to pit States against States.

I heard the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland Security refer many times to the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation said all Homeland Security funding should be driven by risk, allocation should be driven by risk and strictly by risk.

Our amendment, however, does not take their conclusion, in recognition that States have responsibility and needs, to the ultimate conclusion of all money should be focused strictly by risk. It recognized that all States have some degree of responsibility within the context of a Federal mandate. It says, as the administration has said, that it should at least receive .25 percent of all of those funds. We are in line with what the 9/11 Commission said.

If we are going to quote the 9/11 Commission, then we should quote it in its entirety. Also, we are in line with where the administration's own recognition is.

In my mind, this is not small States versus big States, small cities versus large cities, rural versus urban. It is about risk. Very small States can have very big risk. Ultimately, they would be--if their risks are established as they believe them to be--beneficiaries at the end of the day with our amendment.

While the District of Columbia is obviously not a State, it is small in size and in population compared to many of the States of the Union, but it has great risk because it is at the seat of our Government, with national monuments and national landmarks. In fact, when it is driven based on risk, it should do much better.

To suggest I would offer an amendment that would hurt my own State, as I saw on that chart, is simply not the reality.

I understand a number of small States, for example, face great risks from nuclear plants, to ports, to dealing with security risks at their borders. Those risks, if we use risk assessment, will drive where the money should go.

Of course, risk can change in the future, depending on the nature of the threats we face.

Just as Members of this Senate are asked to support issues in the national interest, such as supporting our agriculture, protection from hurricanes, help after flooding, whether those issues impact our particular State, we and all Senators act in this respect in the national interest to support getting our Homeland Security dollars to the places at greatest risk. In fact, the Senator from Hawaii mentioned the cuts to communities such as New York City. When it is not based on risk assessment, that is the result we have.

I agree with those who have said that the Department of Homeland Security can do a far better job. We are in unanimous agreement with that. I looked at the list of national critical infrastructure. I look at some popcorn factories, some petting zoos. Those are in this infrastructure of which there is great risk. That obviously is not the case.

Ultimately, we need a process that drives our limited resources to where the greatest risks are and where the greatest threat is. Certainly, I believe that allocation as the 9/11 Commission called for in a bipartisan unanimous report, looking at all of the equation of Homeland Security and intelligence reform, is the way we should drive these moneys.

We are silent on effectiveness. We do not alter effectiveness as part of the equation. We stated so yesterday to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security when he asked us. As a matter of fact, our legislation says to the maximum extent practicable. It does not undermine the very essence of making sure we have effectiveness. We want effectiveness. But is there effectiveness when you are giving allocations of moneys for which there is virtually no risk in many parts of the country or a much lesser risk?

I hope those who come from small States but have big risks would actually be supportive of our amendment.

In my mind, I find it interesting there are those who continuously vote against the amendments that have been offered to try and raise the Homeland Security funding overall but suggest we should not distribute the existing funding based on risk. In my mind, our amendment is actually about creating a standard in which all--large and small, rural and urban, regardless of what part of the country--receive a baseline guarantee but also receive those moneys needed to deal with risk. Any formula is always subject to, when there is an element that is to be determined on the basis of risk, how well the executive branch operates, but that is true no matter what. We need to keep the executive branch's feet to the fire and make sure that risk is truly risk, not as we see on some of the lists given in terms of infrastructure in the country that clearly has no risk.

At the end of the day, to suggest we should have a general distribution formula of Homeland Security moneys when the September 11 Commission unanimously said that is not in the best interests of the country, that is not the best way to protect the country, and ultimately where those entities who complain they do not have the resources necessary to meet their homeland security challenge could get

greater resources if their risks are, in fact, established, is to undercut the very essence of their argument.

I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Cornyn added as a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to ask a question. Does that allow the remainder of the time I had reserved to be used by myself for the purposes of responding?

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by several of my colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Vermont and Delaware. I agree with them that one of the core issues is overall homeland security funding. There is no question about that. The No. 1 responsibility, certainly, of the Federal Government and of government in general is to protect its citizens. We are woefully underfunding the ability to protect our citizens, whether that is in the cargoes of our ports or the cargoes underneath our airplanes, whether that is in the context of first responders, interoperable communications, whether that is in the context of mass transit.

Unfortunately, in the wake of London, in the wake of Madrid, and in the wake of Mumbai, the Senate voted against amendments that ultimately would have increased the funding so that those wake-up calls would never be realized in the United States. That was the will of the Senate.

Several of my colleagues have actually made the case that their States have very significant risks, whether that risk is a nuclear powerplant by a border with another country, whether that risk is chemical facilities right across the river, whatever those risks are. I find it interesting that our colleagues have come to the floor to make the case that they, too, have risks. We acknowledge that. We do not eliminate all funding for all States. On the contrary. We guarantee a baseline of funding for all States. But we say that the bulk of that funding, as it has been time and time again, even very recently, supported by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the former chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission in a letter to House Members who offered legislation that, among other things, would make sure that all homeland security funding would be based on risk, as their unanimous bipartisan vote took place in the 9/11 Commission outside of the constraints of the politics of the situation--they made that conclusion. They still support that conclusion. That is the very essence of the Menendez- Lautenberg amendment. We understand. And we believe that those who have made the case for risk should do better because they have real risks. That is, in essence, what our amendment says. If you have the risk, you should have the resources.

I agree with all of my colleagues who said they deserve to have more funding to protect America and to protect Americans. That is certainly what I believe is the very essence of what we tried to do in the first instance by taking that money which we do have and focusing it on risk.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me first say I totally agree with my colleague from Vermont. We are dramatically underfunded for what we need for homeland security. That truly is the core of the issue. I appreciate the spirit of the debate he has had with us on this issue and his comments. I simply believe that as we seek to fund it fully, the question becomes, What do we do now? The bipartisan, unanimous 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security funding be based on risk. That is what this amendment does.

Many of my colleagues have actually made the case, by virtue of what they have said, that risk-based funding should be the very essence of our foundation. They made a good case for their respective States for risk-based funding when they argued that their States have high-risk targets. This amendment does nothing to eliminate the effectiveness component. It does not eliminate the minimum guarantees for States. But threat after threat has been revealed, and that makes it very clear where the greatest threats are in our country. That ultimately should be our thrust, driving our resources, those which we have, as we try to build more to where the risk is.

We are all in this together. We are called upon to vote for agriculture, hurricanes, and other things. I ask Senators to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York. Sadly, today is an all too appropriate day to be offering an amendment to increase transit funding. Yesterday, the savage bombing of eight commuter trains in Mumbai--densely packed during the evening rush hour by people just trying to make their way home--showed once again that terrorists find public transportation to be an extremely attractive target. Currently, the Indian government reports that over 200 people died in the blasts, and the death toll is rising. And so our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Mumbai, and our minds should be riveted back here in the United States.

Two years ago, we saw tragic bombings in Madrid; last year, in London; yesterday, Mumbai. Each of these should have served as a wake- up call to this country, a call to action for Congress to act to secure the over 14 million Americans who use public transportation to get to work each day. The recently disclosed plot against the tunnels under the Hudson River highlights the need for action. One of the targets was the PATH subway tunnel that carries over two hundred thousand people a day back and forth between New York and New Jersey. And yet, we continue to spend a virtual pittance on transit security. The Federal Government spends about $9 on security for each airline passenger, but only about 1 cent for each bus or train rider. While we need to secure our airways, we also need to secure our streets, our rails, and our subways.

According to the American Public Transportation Association, our Nation's transit systems need over $5 billion in capital equipment and $800 million per year in annual operating expenses in order to adequately meet security needs. One hundred and fifty million dollars a year is not going to get us there. The Schumer/Menendez amendment provides $300 million--not the entire amount we need but a crucial increase over what we are currently providing. In addition to adding $200 million for additional transit security grants, the amendment also provides money for research into new security technologies for transit and intercity rail. We all know that airport-style screening of everyone boarding a train isn't going to work. But that doesn't mean we can simply give up. New technologies offer the promise of being able to detect explosives and chemical weapons far quicker and less obtrusively than we do now, but we need to put the money into researching those technologies. This amendment will do that. This amendment also provides money to help local law enforcement authorities out with overtime when their region is declared to be a high threat area, which is sorely needed in high-risk areas such as the New York and New Jersey metropolitan region.

I never want to be standing here and discussing an attack that happened a day earlier on an American subway system, on American trains, or on American buses. It is bad enough that I have to stand here today and discuss yesterday's tragic events in India. But this is one more wake-up call to a Congress that has continued to hit the snooze button when it comes to transit security. I want my colleagues to ask themselves what they would be willing to do, what commitment they would be willing to make, if yesterday's news had been about trains in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Buffalo, or any other American city. Well, we don't need to wait for an attack on American soil. We can make that commitment now, we can provide the resources now so we don't look back some day and ask ourselves, ``Why didn't we do then what we need to do today?'' And we should ask ourselves now, ``How much more would we be willing to spend after the fact?'' It is far more expensive to respond to an attack than to try to prevent one. The Schumer/Menendez amendment is not the final step, but it is a necessary step, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4634, as modified.

Mr. President, on July 7, just last Friday, media outlets across the Nation reported the news that the FBI had apparently foiled a plot to bomb the transit systems that connect New York and New Jersey.

The revelation of this latest plot paints a clear picture of where the terrorists intend to target their actions. Clearly, they want to strike where they can create the greatest loss of life and economic damage. Time and time again, we see that areas like New York, New Jersey, Washington State, California, Chicago, and others are high on the target lists of terrorists.

These most recent threats against New York and New Jersey are only one example of this in one key area.

Why had the terrorists chosen to attack the tunnels and rail system that connect the city of New York with the citizens of New Jersey?

Because they wanted to inflict great damage, not only to the tunnels and the trains and the people on them, not only to the city of New York and the citizens of New Jersey, not only to the metropolitan area that encompasses New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut--no, the terrorists chose to plan their attack on the New York-New Jersey transit system because they wanted to inflict great damage on the entire country.

More than 100,000 people use the Holland Tunnel everyday. More than 200,000 people ride the PATH trains every day.

Mr. President, 18.7 million people live in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, nearly 6.5 million of whom come from New Jersey. New York is home to the financial heart of our country, with key financial institutions housed right across the river in New Jersey. Imagine what would happen to the Nation, not just New York or New Jersey, if these financial institutions were shut down.

The port in New Jersey, the largest container seaport on the east coast, the third largest in the Nation, handled more than $132 billion in goods in 2005 and creates over 200,000 jobs. Imagine what would happen to the Nation, not just New York or New Jersey, if commerce were shut down in this port.

The greatest ``zone of vulnerability'' in the U.S. is in South Kearney, NJ, where 12 million people live in proximity to a chlorine chemical plant. An explosion at the facility would endanger the life and health of people caught in the path of the prevailing winds to that great extent.

The FBI has placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the ``National Critical Infrastructure List'' and has called the area between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport the ``most dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' An article in the New York Times pointed out that this 2-mile area provides ``a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communications networks and highway system.'' Imagine what would happen to the Nation, not just New York and New Jersey, if the most dangerous 2 miles in America was attacked.

Clearly, as we saw last Friday, the terrorists can imagine exactly what would happen if they attacked New York and New Jersey.

If the terrorists understand that New York and New Jersey are targets, why can't the Department of Homeland Security?

The recent inspector general report on Homeland Security's National Database shows that we have it wrong. Certainly the Department of Homeland Security has it wrong, once again.

According to a recent article by the New York Times, the report ``reads like a tally of terrorist targets that a child might have written: Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn factory, the Mule Day Parade.''

The inspector general found that the list included items ``whose criticality is not readily apparent'' but are still included in the Federal antiterrorism database and that ``the presence of large numbers of out-of-place assets taints the credibility of the data.''

The fact that this database is being used to help determine risk- based funding simply makes no sense.

The bottom-line is that States and municipalities across the country that actually are under the greatest risk should receive the greatest number of homeland security dollars based on that risk. I cannot understand why the Department of Homeland Security would not use a truly risk-based formula when awarding their grants.

That is why I am offering the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment today. The amendment states that no funds in this bill should go to homeland security grants unless they are based on an ``assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence, to the maximum extent practicable.'' Not exclusively, but ``to the maximum extent possible.''

The amendment also allows, in specific cases, for each State to receive a minimum of .25 percent of the grants. Let me be clear; while I would prefer to give all funds based on risk, I believe that this compromise which makes this amendment different than previous amendments based on risk, will allow more support for this amendment.

It also moves in the direction of where the White House has said they want to see us go on the question of homeland security funds. This is also the same minimum percentage included in the House legislation recently endorsed by the former Chairman and former Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I certainly hope with this minimum percentage guarantee that our Senate delegation will be able to support this amendment.

Since we only have a finite amount of money, this is not a place where revenue sharing should be the policy. Just as Senators from agricultural areas of the country call on those of us who may not have much agriculture for our support, just as the Senators from ravaged flood areas call on us for our support, just as Senators from areas hit by hurricanes call on us for our support, those of us who come from high-target areas across the country call on the rest of the Senate for equal treatment when it comes to risk-based funding.

Many of us in the Senate have been fighting for risk-based funding for years. I know Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Schumer, and others have led the fight in the Senate. I know our senior Senator from New Jersey has been a leader over and over again. We are thankful to him for his leadership. I fought for risk-based funding as a former Member of the House of Representatives. I included risk-based funding in the Menendez substitute to the intelligence reform bill in 2004 which was, unfortunately, voted down by my Republican colleagues. I fought for risk-based funding in the conference report on that legislation. I continued to fight for risk-based funding when I introduced the risk- based Homeland Security Funding Act in the House, which Senator Lautenberg also introduced in the Senate. Most recently here in the Senate, we have introduced legislation to make sure we fully and finally implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which includes risk-based funding. But today we are here to fight the next round of this battle.

I am proud to have Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, and Schumer as cosponsors of this amendment.

It is important when we talk about homeland security. We have seen the votes on a host of these funding issues. You can't have the administration talking tough on homeland security and then acting weak. Cutting funds to homeland security grants simply makes no sense.

For those from New York and New Jersey and from other parts of the country--Pennsylvania or Washington, DC--for those from those areas where loved ones were killed on September 11 of 2001, this is not an abstract policy discussion. This is not an abstract policy discussion for us. This is personal. Over 700 people from the State of New Jersey were killed. My former congressional district looks directly at the site where the Twin Towers once stood. In New York and New Jersey, we still live with the aftermath of these attacks on a daily basis. Just today, we learned in a Quinnipiac poll that 77 percent of New Jerseyans expect a terrorist attack in the United States in the next 6 months.

The No. 1 role of our Government is to keep us safe. That is what Americans expect. That is what the people of New Jersey have been saying to me all along. They believe--and we can see from the nature of these revelations of the plots--they are going to be attacked, and they need the Government to meet its No. 1 responsibility to them; that is, to keep them safe.

How can we keep them safe if we allow the funding for homeland security grants to be underfunded? How can we keep them safe if we aren't making sure that the places at greatest risk of attack get the most money to protect against those attacks? And how can we come to a conclusion that we don't assign--even with this compromise amendment which still provides 2.5 to all of the States but still takes the majority of that money to where the greatest risks are, how do we not hold the view that this is one country and these attacks, in fact, would affect the entire Nation?

The Senate has both an obligation and a moral responsibility to protect the people of the United States. The only way to do that is to take all possible steps to prevent terrorist attacks.

One of the critical ways is to follow the 9/11 Commission's report, a unanimous and bipartisan conclusion that homeland security funding should be based strictly on risk. We have taken that as a foundation, amended it somewhat to create, hopefully, a greater groundswell of support but still with the fundamental principle that ultimately the majority of our homeland security funding should go to where the greatest risks in our country are and the greatest risk that ultimately would affect the Nation in its commerce, in its security, and in its ability to sustain itself.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.

I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

That is correct. We are silent on effectiveness because we think effectiveness is very important as part of that equation.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue of great importance to the State of New Jersey, to the United States of America, and to all of those who stand against acts of terrorism and violence: the attack on Pan Am flight 103.

The attack on Pan Am flight 103 shocked the world and claimed the lives of 189 Americans, including 38 citizens from my home State of New Jersey.

After these terrible attacks, and significant pressure from the international community, the Libyan Government finally agreed to pay $10 million to the families of those who were murdered.

The Libyan Government still owes $2 million to these families, which it promised to pay as soon as it was removed from the state sponsor of terror list, an action the State Department announced on May 15. The 45-day waiting period ended today, and the Libyans will be off the list. But we cannot allow them to be off the hook.

Libya, according to a Washington Post article, declared yesterday that it no longer has a legal obligation to make the final payment of $2 million to the families of those killed. Libya is trying to argue that it doesn't have to pay this money because they were ``supposed'' to be taken off the terror list earlier. But what Libya forgets is that it had to earn the right to get off the terror list and that Libya's own actions are what delayed the process. In fact, the reason the process was delayed is because we discovered that the Libyans had been plotting to kill a member of the Saudi royal family, among other incidents.

Why should American families be deprived of their payment because of Libya's mistakes? Libya's argument is not only factually incorrect, it is immoral. At a time when we are fighting terrorism around the world, at a time when our men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists, at a time when we should send a message to the world that terrorism and the murder of U.S. citizens cannot be tolerated, we cannot allow the Libyans to get away with at least paying these grieving families that which they are owed. This money is not going to bring back their loved ones. It is not going to heal the pain. But it is an obligation that should be met.

Let me be clear: This money in no way absolves Libya of its actions in this incident. This money in no way will replace those who were murdered. This money in no way makes up for the loss, pain, and suffering of the families. But a promise made should be a promise kept, and Libya must keep its promise, period.

I hope the Libyans hear this message loudly and clearly. I also hope the administration hears the message loudly and clearly. Our State Department should be advocating for American families, not for facilitating the Libyans in breaking their commitment. We should not allow any implementation of diplomatic engagement until the Libyans honor their commitment.

I promise that, along with a number of other Members of Congress who represent families from different parts of the Nation who lost a loved one on Pan Am Flight 103, we will not rest until this payment is made, until the Libyans fulfill their promise. A promise made must be a promise kept. It is outrageous for the Libyans to act any other way. It would be equally as outrageous for our Government to act in any other way other than to make sure that we help these families in having this commitment honored.

I thank the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, who has been a leader on the Pan Am Flight 103 attacks from the beginning, continuing to fight for the citizens of New Jersey and all of the other families who suffered in these terrible attacks. I am proud to join him, now that I am in the Senate, in this effort. I am committed to making sure that these families ultimately receive the commitment and the fulfillment of that commitment that the Libyan Government made. Our Government should ensure that we do no less.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, to decide our future in Iraq, we must first understand our past in Iraq.

Frankly, I never believed this administration's false arguments about why we should go to war in Iraq. And I believe this administration has never had a strategy for success in Iraq.

That's why I voted against the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration led us into this war based on false premises and false promises.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq without the troop numbers needed to complete the job.

The Bush administration failed to provide the troops with the equipment they needed letting them go into Iraq without proper body armor or properly armored vehicles

The Bush administration failed to create a real international coalition so that the United States wouldn't have to bear the highest cost in blood and national treasure.

And President Bush went into the war without a plan to win the peace.

This was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.

The Bush administration's record in Iraq represents a massive failure of leadership--a massive failure of Presidential leadership.

Let me be clear. While I did not support the war, I have always supported the troops on the battlefield. Our troops have succeeded in the tasks they were given. They have fought for freedom and security in the most difficult of situations. They have risked their lives to protect ours. And the Nation is indebted to them for their service.

In New Jersey, over 3,169 New Jerseyans are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and 71 service members with ties to New Jersey have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Iraq or Afghanistan and our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. Obviously, our troops are committed to this call to duty. They have not questioned the why, or the wherefore, they have simply, honorably, and valiantly answered the call of their country.

But we are all living with the consequences of this failure in Presidential leadership today:

Iraq continues to explode with sectarian violence.

Reconstruction efforts have not restored Iraq to prewar levels of oil production, security concerns continue to impede progress, while accusations of contractor corruption continue.

We have not been able to internationalize the effort of training and security in Iraq because of the administration's closed-minded decision to keep countries from helping with reconstruction unless they supported the administration's decision to go to war.

On top of the other failures, the administration refused to engage in real diplomacy to create regional security with Iraq's neighbors.

The United States has spent nearly $319 billion in Iraq. Our monthly burn rate is over $8 billion. Over 2,500 American lives have been lost, over 18,500 soldiers have been wounded--many of them severely.

And we were all horrified to hear the news just yesterday that two U.S. soldiers, PFC Kristian Menchaca from Houston, TX and PFC Thomas Lowell Tucker, from Madras, OR, were kidnapped and slaughtered by the insurgents.

My heart goes out to the families of these soldiers and to all who have lost loved ones in Iraq.

I believe we have paid a heavy price for the war in Iraq--in blood and in national treasure.

But we must account for not only the literal cost of the war but also what we have not done because of the war--the opportunity cost of the war in Iraq.

We also cannot forget that our fight against terrorism started where it should have in Afghanistan. But because of the President's war in Iraq, this administration then took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

The administration never finished the job in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of 9/11 were planned.

This was the right place to pursue the national security of the United States. It was in Afghanistan that the murderers of September 11 were located. We had Osama bin Laden pinned down in the mountains of Tora Bora. But instead of having a large contingent of the best trained, best equipped, most technologically advanced military in the world go after him, we outsourced the job to Afghanistan warlords. The result? Osama bin Laden got away.

Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of the Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan.

During just the past few weeks, over 250 people have been killed in the upsurge in violence and we see techniques borrowed from Iraq, like the use of improvised explosive devices, now being used in Afghanistan.

According to the New York Times, Pentagon officials say that 32 suicide bombs have been exploded in 2006, which is already 6 more than exploded in all of 2005. Roadside bombings are up 30 percent over last year and the Taliban are fighting in groups triple the size of last year. Just this Monday, we heard reports that the Taliban used women and children as human shields during a fierce firefight with British troops. And after a deadly traffic accident involving the U.S. military, an anti-American riot exploded in Kabul last month. Meanwhile, Bin Laden makes his tapes and remains free.

President Bush's war has also hurt us here at home. The fact is that because of the cost of President Bush's war at almost $319 billion, we cannot afford to take care of some of the basic needs of our citizens here at home. This administration is cutting funds for firefighters, for education, for our seniors, for healthcare, and for homeland security funding in New Jersey and New York to protect our ports and our transit systems. They are underfunding the very veterans who are securing our

country and who come back from war wounded or traumatized. The Bush administration is cutting funding to all of these people--our nurses, teachers, and seniors--while spending billions in Iraq every month.

As we start a new hurricane season, I look back on Hurricane Katrina and I see the terrible price the people of the Gulf Coast paid when their National Guard troops were away in Iraq and unable to protect them here at home. Our homeland is simply less secure when our National Guard and Reserves are being kept in permanent rotation away in Iraq.

Clearly, it is time to change the course; we need a new direction in Iraq.

That's why I am supporting the Levin and Kerry amendments today.

The Senate has already spoken saying that 2006 must be a year of transition. That is why the Levin amendment says that we must begin transitioning out troops now while still protecting our people and helping with security. With the Levin amendment, we make it clear that the time has come to change the course, rather than stay the course.

I am also supporting Senator Kerry's amendment which takes the first and most important step by setting a date of July 1, 2007 to have all U.S. troops transition except those critical to training Iraqi security forces, working on specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting our U.S. personnel and facilities, like our embassy.

Let us be clear. This amendment does not say we should remove all of our troops from Iraq right now.

With this amendment, we are saying that it is time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own destiny.

With this amendment, we are sending a message that over the course of the next year, the Iraqis must take full control of their own country, their own security, and their own future.

With this amendment, we are saying that we respect the message of the Iraqis' own elected, sovereign government. At a time when the Iraqis have put in place the entire cabinet of the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki; at a time when the United States and coalition forces have trained and equipped more than 116,000 Iraqi soldiers and more than 148,000 Iraqi police and other security forces; at a time when sectarian violence has taken over terrorism as the most serious security threat in Iraq; at a time when 69 out of the 102 army combat battalions, are either soon able to take the lead or able to operate independently, isn't it time for the Iraqis to start taking responsibility for their own destiny?

In fact, the Iraqis have made this point themselves. The Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said in a Washington Post article this week:

Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and

the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions,

learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to

Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and

allies are standing by with support and help should we need

it.

He also said that the eventual removal of coalition troops ``will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be'' and that ``the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.'' Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki supports a transfer of responsibility for 16 out of 18 provinces by the end of 2006 and his security adviser believes that we can reduce coalition forces to less than 100,000 by the end of this year with most of the multinational force gone. The Iraqis are clearly saying that they are ready for this transition to happen.

A few days ago, Republican Senators made a great deal of Iraqi sovereignty when I, and Senator Nelson, proposed a Sense of the Senate amendment that urged the government of Iraq not to grant amnesty for those who had killed U.S. soldiers.

We heard a lot about sovereignty.

If the Iraqis are to be respected as a sovereign government, as many argued on the floor of the Senate a few days ago, shouldn't we respect their knowledge and wishes as it relates to the very issue of troop redeployment and their ability to sustain their own security?

It is only when the Iraqis and the rest of the world know there is a certain timeframe for a real transition that they will make the hard choices, negotiations, and compromises to maintain a stable government of national unity. It is time for the U.S. to cap the open-ended commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq and to ``remove the training wheels'' on the Iraqi security forces. The sooner the Iraqi security forces believe they are fighting for their country, the sooner they help stop the sectarian violence. Until that happens, the fledgling Iraqi Government will continue to rely on U.S. forces to keep them from making the difficult decisions and taking tough actions. It is time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate.

Clearly, it is essential to set a date certain for transition so that Iraqis will take responsibility for their country.

It is also essential to set this date certain for transition so that the international community will start to take responsibility for reconstruction and security in Iraq, as well.

The United States cannot go it alone; we must internationalize reconstruction, security, and create an international process to end sectarian violence. It is in everyone's interest to create a stable and secure Iraq. That is why I support the proposed Summit in Senator Kerry's amendment which brings together all of the players--the EU, NATO, the UN, and Iraq's neighbors--to come up with a plan to solve the political problems, to deal with the militias, and to revive reconstruction efforts.

And this Summit will also deal with a key issue to Iraq's stability-- oil. Ultimately, all parties need to be brought in to the process and share the oil profits whether through a national fund or some form of revenue sharing. We cannot forget that Iraq has the fourth largest oil reserves in the world. The goal is to reduce insurgent attacks, improve security along the pipeline and create strong oversight over current pipeline reconstruction. The Iraqis need a stable income stream to restore economic stability and help pay for reconstruction and security so we must get oil production back above prewar levels.

I also believe that our worldwide troop deployment must reflect our priorities in the fight against terrorism. Senator Kerry's amendment creates an over-the-horizon troop presence in case we need to deal with other terrorist issues or regional security issues. With the reduction of troops in Iraq we will be able to redeploy certain troops to other key areas, such as Afghanistan. And we will also be able to bring our National Guard and Reserves home to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil and to help during natural disasters.

Let me conclude by saying that there are those who want to politicize the war to present the American people with a false choice--either stay the course by keeping our troops in Iraq or empower the terrorists by cutting and running. I would ask all of you not to fall into the trap of this false choice or simplistic solutions.

Let me be clear, this amendment is not a simplistic choice to leave Iraq today and to let it fall into the hands of the terrorists.

With this amendment, we will begin to fulfill the transition the Senate voted for and the Iraqis have said they intend to pursue.

With this amendment, we are voting to leave sufficient troops in Iraq at the end of that year to fight counterterrorism, to finish training Iraqi forces, and to protect our people and our embassy.

With this amendment, we are voting to put troops over-the horizon in case of other terrorist activity or regional conflict.

With this amendment, we are voting to create regional stability and get the international community to the table.

With this amendment, we are voting to get our National Guard home to keep us safe and secure in our cities and towns.

With this amendment, we are voting to finish the job in Afghanistan.

With this amendment, we are changing the course of events in Iraq--a change of course that will still meet our objectives, save American lives, and ensure our ability to both protect our people at home and meet the other challenges we have as a nation.

Let us remember that this was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.

Let us remember what this administration has told us about this war.

Let us remember the unfound weapons of mass destruction; remember the missing mobile weapons labs; remember the yellow-cake uranium in Africa; remember Saddam's nonexistent vast stockpiles of chemical weapons; remember when Secretary Rumsfeld told us that, ``We know where the WMDs are;'' remember the non-existent link between al-Qaida and Saddam; remember the claims that Iraqi oil and other countries, not the U.S. taxpayer, would pay for the cost of reconstruction; remember when the administration told us that the war would cost somewhere between $50 and $60 billion; remember when Paul Wolfowitz said that ``it seems outlandish'' to think that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq; and let us remember when President Bush told us on May 1, 2003 that ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended'' while he stood in front of a sign that said ``mission accomplished.''

Let us remember the lies.

So I ask: Are we willing to continue to sacrifice the lives of young Americans so that this same administration can stay the course, a course without direction, for a cause that President Bush has already said that he will abandon to the next president? I hope not.

I will say again, do not fall into the political trap and rhetoric from those who will try to mischaracterize this amendment.

I voted against the Iraq war when many on the other side tried to falsely characterize those of us who didn't believe the evidence that the administration presented, who thought we should work through the international process, who didn't believe the administration had done any postwar planning. For standing up for what we believed in, they tried to mischaracterize us as anti-American and unpatriotic. I was willing to take a difficult stand, and stand up for what I believed was right for the country and for the people of New Jersey. That is why I voted against the war.

Today, with over 2,500 lives lost, almost $320 billion spent in national treasure, with $8 billion used each month, I know I made the right decision.

The Senate has an opportunity to act now, to enact a policy worthy of the sacrifice of our soldiers.

And that is why I am voting for the Kerry and Levin amendments.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for both yielding time and for the amendment he has offered which I am proud to cosponsor with him.

I am astonished at some of the debate in the Senate. We are twisting and turning not to take a simple position on behalf of the men and women who serve in the uniform of the United States in Iraq and to send a message elsewhere in the world. What is that simple position? It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States. What is so difficult, what is so wrong about sending that message?

I heard some of our colleagues say that this is a nonexistent problem. If it wasn't for Senator Nelson's amendment, we would not have had the clarifications that have been forthcoming. I would like to see the Prime Minister of Iraq say that formally, in public, as the position of the Government of Iraq.

Then I hear some of our colleagues saying that we have to respect the Iraqis and their sovereignty. This administration has been telling the Iraqis from day one what they want them to do in a variety of ways. They have been telling them how they have to form their government, how inclusive that government has to be. They have had a whole checklist of things they have been telling the Iraqis they want them to do. And now, when it comes time to defend the men and women of the United States in the Armed Forces by simply sending a sense of the Senate that we want to urge the Government of Iraq not to include in any amnesty plan those who have committed murders of U.S. soldiers or who have injured them, we cannot actually pass a sense of the Senate that says that? This is a nonexistent problem?

Let me state how nonexistent it is and how important it is to send this message. We woke up to the very sad story of two missing soldiers who were found dead, PFC Kristian Menchaca and PFC Thomas L. Tucker. Let me tell the Senate what Private First Class Menchaca's uncle said:

Don't think that it's just two more soldiers. Don't

negotiate anything. They [the killers] didn't. They didn't

negotiate it with my nephew. They didn't negotiate it with

Tucker.

And we are concerned about Iraqi sovereignty when we have been telling the Iraqis what we want them to do, but we are so concerned about Iraqi sovereignty that we won't send a sense of the Senate to make it clear for this and any other future Iraqi Government that it is the Senate position that they should not consider amnesty for those ultimately who have committed the crime of killing American troops? That is beyond my comprehension.

It seems to me the reality is we need to make a very clear statement today, a clear and unequivocal statement of what the position of the United States is as it relates to the protection of our soldiers and our view that no amnesty program should exist now or in the future that puts the lives of American soldiers in a position to be bargained for, negotiated for, and given amnesty for. The only way to send that very clear, unequivocal message is to support Senator Nelson's amendment.

To suggest we are so concerned about their sovereignty and their wisdom to the extent we would send a message that you can leave American soldiers in harm's way--and yes, we will respect your sovereignty. To the extent we won't do anything about you, ultimately, considering an amnesty plan that would allow the lives of U.S. soldiers to be the subject of forgiveness, that is not what I believe the American people want to see. That is certainly not honoring the lives of those who gave their lives on behalf of their country or honoring their families. Only Senator Nelson's amendment does that.

It should be strong. It should be bipartisan. It should be unanimous.

I yield back the remainder of my time to Senator Nelson.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kennedy in his call to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 and to cosponsor this amendment. In my mind, this amendment is not just about wages, it is not just about fairness; it is about dignity. Certainly, there could not be any finer advocate for our Nation's workers than my colleague from Massachusetts, who has pushed relentlessly to get this body to act and provide that opportunity for dignity and to provide a long, overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage.

Yet despite his efforts, despite coming to this floor time and time again to call for a simple yet critical wage increase, this body has not heeded his calls. Despite the fact that some 7 million American workers are struggling to keep their heads above water, this body has chosen inaction.

That is a disgrace.

I think it is shameful that Members of this body have walked away time and again when given the chance to provide hard-working Americans with what is at the core of the work ethic we hold as a Nation--fair pay for a hard day's work.

We are not talking about a giveaway or a free ride; we are simply talking about a fair and decent wage that ensures those working their hardest make enough to get by. To be honest, workers making the Federal minimum wage today don't make enough to get by. The average worker earning the minimum wage and working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, to support a family of three will only earn $10,700 on the current minimum wage. That is $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three.

No family can afford to live on those wages, especially not a family in a high-cost State such as New Jersey. In New Jersey, which has the highest median income in the Nation and one of the highest average rent costs in the country, $5.15 an hour is simply not enough to get by. People in New Jersey know that. Leaders in New Jersey know that, and that is why our State acted to increase the minimum wage to $6.15 last October. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25, as this bill would do, would benefit an estimated nearly 200,000 New Jerseyans.

I am proud that New Jersey has been a leader for increasing the minimum wage. I heard Senator Kennedy's reference to some studies about it. In fact, we are lifting people up in the process. New Jersey's move to be a leader, rather than wait for the Federal Government to lead the way, is providing a better standard of living for New Jerseyans.

We need leadership now in Washington. While Congress refuses to act, millions of workers across the country are being left behind. Nine years is far too long for those workers to wait. Nine years is too long for those who work around the clock, hoping to save a little extra for groceries, so they can buy school supplies or clothes for their children or for those who are saving so one day they can live in a place that they are proud to call home.

Mr. President, that is what this amendment is about. It is about more than just wages. It is about providing a decent and fair standard of living for those who share in the dream of America, as every other worker in this country. It is for those who work their hearts out every day so that they may provide a better life for their families. It is so that children in this country never have to know what it feels like never to have enough.

Increasing the minimum wage would give more than 7 million children of minimum wage earners a chance for a better life.

As the son of poor immigrants, hard-working parents who worked day in and day out as a carpenter and a seamstress in a factory, I knew what it was not to have enough. My parents didn't have time to fight for better wages. They were working hard to achieve the American dream. Similar to so many before them, my parents saw hard work as a path to a better life for themselves and their children. That continues to be the story for so many hard-working Americans.

But unless wages rise to keep up with the rising costs, to meet the realities facing working families, that dream will be out of reach for millions of minimum wage earners, who earn a wage that is worth less than it was nearly 30 years ago.

Now, I ask how the Members of Congress, who get a cost-of-living adjustment, can at the same time say to those people in this country working at the minimum wage--even after you

work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, which puts you at the poverty level--Members of Congress get an increase in the cost of living, but they cannot vote after 9 years to give those hard-working minimum wage workers the first increase in 9 years.

Every day that we stand idle, the minimum wage continues to lose value, our Nation's workers fall further and further behind. We have to give working families the chance to work their way out of poverty. We want Americans to be self-sufficient. Yet when we have individuals who get up every day and do some of the hardest work that our country has to offer--and it is honest work and decent work, but it is hard work-- every day they get up and go to work--and they cannot afford to be ill because most of them don't get health care. If they don't go to work that day, they don't have the resources to take home for their families. Can we not say as a Nation that we want to honor their work, that we want to reward their work, so that work becomes the vehicle by which there is self-sufficiency? That is what we say when we are unwilling to increase the minimum wage.

The increase we are proposing would put more than $4,000 in the pockets of these hard-working Americans. This is enough to help a low- income family afford 2 years of child care, a year and a half in utility bills or a year of tuition at a public college.

This may be a simple increase for some, but an extra $2.10 an hour will mean a lot more for the 15 million workers who have been waiting and waiting and waiting for 9 years for a better wage, a better standard of living, for hope and opportunity, and for a message that their work is rewarded.

Mr. President, these workers have waited long enough. They are waiting for leadership. They are waiting for a Congress that accepts cost-of-living adjustments to ultimately recognize that they, too, need an adjustment in their salary. Let's get our priorities straight and stand up for our Nation's families. Let's show true leadership and provide these workers across the country what they deserve. Let them work their way out of poverty. Let's pass this amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I was outraged this morning when I read a Washington Post article that suggests that the Prime Minister of Iraq is willing to allow an amnesty for those who have taken American lives. In this article, the Prime Minister of Iraq is quoted as saying:

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those ``who

weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood. . . .''

That is where his quote ends. Mr. Prime Minister, how about American blood? Are you willing to have reconciliation on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom?

Then to read on in this article, where a top adviser to Prime Minister Maliki is asked about clemency for those who attack U.S. troops, he is quoted as saying:

``That's an area where we can see a green line. There's

some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the

MNF-I,'' the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, ``that there

is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief

that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and

defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned

definitely, I believe.''

Pardoned definitely? So those who were armed and killed Iraqis, they will not be pardoned. Those who were armed and killed Americans, they will be pardoned? That is outrageous. President Bush, you went to Iraq and you said you wanted to look into the eyes of Prime Minister Maliki to know that he is a man you can trust, a man who will move us forward. I don't know how deep you looked into his soul, but you have to pick up the phone today and tell Prime Minister Maliki that we will not have the ability to pardon anyone with the blood of American soldiers on their hands.

Today we have hit the mark of 2,500 Americans who have given their lives to give the Iraqi people a chance. We have thousands of our young men and women who have returned to America wounded, who have lost their legs, who have lost their limbs, lost their sight, have had half of their faces blown off. Their blood was shed in Iraq. Are we going to stand by and permit an amnesty to be given to those who killed our fellow countrymen?

I intend to, with Senator Nelson, offer a resolution that makes it very clear that the Senate believes the Iraqi Government should not grant amnesty to persons who have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future, and that President Bush should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the U.S. Government opposes granting amnesty in the strongest possible terms. This has to end immediately.

I hope, when we offer that resolution, the Senate will speak with one clear and unequivocal voice that the blood of Americans and the lives of Americans is not subject to any pardoning, and is certainly not part of an offer that can be made that stains the honor and the sacrifices made by Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment Senator Nelson and I have offered on this issue of amnesty for those who have killed American soldiers.

I know the latest statements that have come out. I hope that is ultimately where the intention is. But it became very clear to me. I hope my colleagues have had the opportunity to read today's Washington Post article. It says: ``Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military.'' When you read the statements there, I have to be honest, they were very unequivocal but unequivocal in a way that we could not accept as the U.S. Senate.

As I continued to reread this article, my anger grew. In the article it refers to the Prime Minister of Iraq acknowledging that reconciliation could include an amnesty for those ``who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood.'' That is where the quote ends. There is not one single mention of American blood. Is that a misinterpretation? Is that an oversight on the day on which we recognize the loss of 2,500 American soldiers and the thousands and thousands who have shed their blood and come back injured? Is that an oversight?

How about American blood and American lives, Mr. Prime Minister? Are you willing to have reconciliation on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your country and your people a chance for freedom? Is there so little value to the 2,500 American lives that have been lost and the over 18,000 wounded on behalf of your country that you wouldn't even think about including American lives when you were talking about Iraqi lives? No way. No way.

Then I look at the article and look at the quotes attributed to Adnan Kadhimi, a top adviser to Maliki. What does he say? He says:

The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation,

and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty . . .

Then he goes on to talk about amnesty. He says:

We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance

can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of

criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or

damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure, if it is

minor, will be part of it.

So we have this elaborate plan that talks about even infrastructure, but doesn't talk about American lives. And then, when asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he goes on to say--the adviser to the Prime Minister--that ``that's an area where we can see a green line.''

There is some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq that there is ``a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe.''

Well, who in the U.S.-led multinational force has an understanding

with the Iraqis that it is OK to offer amnesty for those who have killed Americans? I would like to know the answer to that question.

I do believe very strongly that Senator Nelson's and my amendment should be embraced by the entire Senate. We cannot allow to chance that those statements attributed on the record--one directly by the Prime Minister and one directly by his top adviser--can be equivocated on. We have to send a very strong message that we will not tolerate amnesty to those who have taken the lives of American soldiers and for those who have spilled American blood in defense of their country.

Just a little while ago, we had a moment of silence for the 2,500 American soldiers who have died in Iraq. Let's do much more than have a moment of silence in the face of these statements. Let's make sure the taking of American lives can never be rewarded with amnesty. The Senate has an opportunity to make a clear, unequivocal statement that it is unacceptable, and I believe that it should take this opportunity. It is not only with a moment of silence that we show our respect, it is with our deeds that we show our respect.

Let the Senate act unanimously and speak with one voice to make it very clear that this should not even be a thought on behalf of the Iraqi Government. Then we will have honored the lives of those people, our fellow Americans, who gave the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their country.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as a coauthor of the amendment of my distinguished colleague from Florida, I hope he will continue to pursue his amendment. It is incredibly important to send a very clear message on behalf of the United States about what is and is not acceptable as it relates to the future of our young men and women in the armed services of the United States.

We are told on the Senate floor: Don't react to the morning's papers. But, in fact, it is our reaction to it that brings about a clarification from the National Security Adviser of the Iraqi Government that moves us in the direction which should have been the position of the Iraqi Government from the outset.

I am amazed how I have heard some of my colleagues in this Chamber stretch and twist and turn to justify a position which even now the Iraqi Government supposedly rejects. We had some history lessons about amnesty. Most of those were as it related to civil wars. But I remember how President Bush started this engagement. He said to the Nation: You are either with the terrorists or you are with us.

As I listened to my colleagues suggest that amnesty is something we should actually be in favor of for those who have committed acts against the Armed Forces of the United States, for those who have killed American soldiers, for those who have wounded American soldiers, it is beyond my imagination that there are Members of the Senate who believe that is the signal we want to send throughout the world. What happened to ``you are either with the terrorists or you are with us''? What happened to making it very clear that our men and women are not sitting ducks for those who think they could ultimately seek to kill them and then walk away and get amnesty? I don't understand--if a terrorist survives our arrest or attack, does that mean that if they suddenly see the light, we will say: Yes, it is up to the Iraqis to give them amnesty? Is that the message the Senate wants to send?

It is beyond my imagination--we hear about the challenges of democracy in Iraq. Democracy is about the rule of law, and then ultimately we would set aside the rule of law and say you can kill American soldiers and we will have no say. Imagine that as the Nation sends its sons and daughters abroad to shed their blood and to give their lives, that we should have no say? That is what we heard on the Senate floor, that we should have no say, that we should let the Iraqi Government pursue even a course which might include amnesty against those who kill American soldiers. That is the message we want to send? I think not.

The essence of the message we want to send is that we do not believe and do not accept and are outraged by the fact that there may have even been a consideration that there could be amnesty for those who killed American soldiers but not amnesty for those who killed Iraqis. That is the world's worst message we could send. We have to send a very clear message that we will not allow our sons and daughters to have their lives lost, and that their lives are not expendable and cannot be bartered for amnesty. That is what Senator Nelson is trying to do with this amendment. Why it is so difficult for the Senate to come together in a bipartisan effort to send that very clear message, not only in Iraq but throughout the world, that this is simply not a standard which is acceptable, is beyond belief.

This amendment is very clear, it is very simple, but it is also very powerful. It is a message that you can't kill our soldiers and walk away with impunity. Truly, you are either with the terrorists or you are with us, but you can't be a terrorist and then suddenly get caught, see the light, and then ultimately walk away with amnesty. That would be a horrible message for the Senate to send.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Durbin to introduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act. Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who has been a champion for women battling postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same goals as the legislation I am introducing today.

In the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.

Recently, the great State of New Jersey passed a first-of-its-kind law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The attention Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey--who personally battled postpartum depression--have brought to the issue is remarkable. Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum depression affects women all across the country, not just in New Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.

In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000 women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves. People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues,'' but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate help.

The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their families must be educated so that they understand what might occur after the birth of their child and when to get help. The legislation I am introducing today will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check-up visits. It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families will be able to recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve.

The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression, the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking condition.

We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education, screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Durbin to introduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act. Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who has been a champion for women battling postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same goals as the legislation I am introducing today.

In the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.

Recently, the great State of New Jersey passed a first-of-its-kind law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The attention Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey--who personally battled postpartum depression--have brought to the issue is remarkable. Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum depression affects women all across the country, not just in New Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.

In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000 women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves. People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues,'' but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate help.

The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their families must be educated so that they understand what might occur after the birth of their child and when to get help. The legislation I am introducing today will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check-up visits. It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families will be able to recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve.

The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression, the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking condition.

We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education, screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, to introduce a bill designed to improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural schools across the country. Investing in education is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human capital. Our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation of Americans.

In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. The Protecting America's Competitive Edge, PACE, Acts, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of, helps provide the tools at all levels of our educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of not reaping the full benefits of America's innovative future, such as minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools.

For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African American, or Native American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be African American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford to leave 40% of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the United States.

That is why I introduced an amendment during the committee markup of the PACE-Energy bill, joined by Senator Allen, which will create a series

of outreach programs designed to get more minority elementary and secondary students excited about science, to make them want to enter these fields that will be such a crucial part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic Engineering Science and Technology Week, HESTEC, has been operating very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the Nation.

But these types of programs are only one part of getting students hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the joy of scientific discovery first-hand--we will still lose them. And that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well- equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in science forever.

Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, called ``America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science,'' made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in science and technology. It found that schools that have high percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools had some of the same problems.

We cannot expect our country to be adequately prepared for the future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be prepared. That is why I am proud to introduce the partnerships for access to laboratory science bill, originally championed by Congressman Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions, and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. The bill authorizes $50 million in matching grants to help fund comprehensive science instruction improvement plans, with the grant money able to be used for such things as purchasing scientific equipment, renovating laboratory space, designing new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and providing professional development for high school science lab teachers. This last one is particularly important because one of the key conclusions from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.''

We need to do a lot to ensure that our Nation stays competitive throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, to introduce a bill designed to improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural schools across the country. Investing in education is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human capital. Our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation of Americans.

In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. The Protecting America's Competitive Edge, PACE, Acts, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of, helps provide the tools at all levels of our educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of not reaping the full benefits of America's innovative future, such as minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools.

For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African American, or Native American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be African American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford to leave 40% of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the United States.

That is why I introduced an amendment during the committee markup of the PACE-Energy bill, joined by Senator Allen, which will create a series

of outreach programs designed to get more minority elementary and secondary students excited about science, to make them want to enter these fields that will be such a crucial part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic Engineering Science and Technology Week, HESTEC, has been operating very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the Nation.

But these types of programs are only one part of getting students hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the joy of scientific discovery first-hand--we will still lose them. And that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well- equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in science forever.

Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, called ``America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science,'' made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in science and technology. It found that schools that have high percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools had some of the same problems.

We cannot expect our country to be adequately prepared for the future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be prepared. That is why I am proud to introduce the partnerships for access to laboratory science bill, originally championed by Congressman Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions, and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. The bill authorizes $50 million in matching grants to help fund comprehensive science instruction improvement plans, with the grant money able to be used for such things as purchasing scientific equipment, renovating laboratory space, designing new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and providing professional development for high school science lab teachers. This last one is particularly important because one of the key conclusions from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.''

We need to do a lot to ensure that our Nation stays competitive throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today we have another clear chance to see the priorities of the other side of the aisle. While my Republican colleagues claim to have a plan to address gas prices, college tuition, and middle-class tax breaks, today the American people can see what the true agenda is: another gift to the wealthiest Americans who need it the least.

Tomorrow, we will vote on whether we should consider permanently repealing a tax that only affects those who inherit estates larger than $4 million. We will be voting on whether repealing this tax should be a top priority for the United States Senate. And we will be voting on whether repealing a tax for those with multi-million dollar estates is a good way to spend the American people's tax dollars--$1 trillion of those tax dollars, to be exact.

In my State of more than 8 million, only 1,100 New Jerseyans paid any estate tax in 2004. Of those New Jerseyans who inherited an estate, a small 1.5 percent paid any estate tax when the exemption was $2 million. Today, that exemption has doubled, and in three years, it will have more than tripled, so even fewer New Jerseyans will be affected. I strongly support giving estate tax relief to family farmers, small business owners and others who need it, but that's not what this bill does. This bill showers a trillion dollars in benefits on the top half percent of Americans at a time of record debt and deficits.

By contrast, however, more than 120,000 New Jerseyans have benefited

from a tax deduction for college tuition that Republicans have let expire. We had the chance to extend this deduction in the most recent tax bill, but somehow, the tuition deduction just didn't make the list of priorities in a $70 billion bill of tax cuts.

We cannot honestly pretend that repealing this tax is a priority for the American people; 99.5 percent of Americans aren't affected by this tax. And 3 years from now, under current law, even fewer will be subject to it. Congress has already acted on the estate tax, increasing the exemption level from $1.3 million to $4 million, so that only a quarter of the estates taxed in 2000 pay a tax today. Under current law, those who inherit a $7 million estate in 2009 will pay no tax.

And yet, the American people are being told that this is about saving them from more taxation. Small businesses are being told that the estate tax could be the death of their business. The average American is now in fear that they, too, might have to pay a burdensome tax when a parent dies. But the American people should see these for what they are: scare tactics.

Instead, the American people should be up in arms that this is the issue their Senators think is a high priority. They should be furious that instead of dealing with any of the issues they are concerned about, instead of addressing energy prices, instead of providing a tuition deduction to help families with the cost of college, we are talking about repealing taxes for the super wealthy.

So let's not be swayed by a few stories or scare tactics.

Instead, let's look at the facts. The fact is that under the current exemption, only 135 small businesses Nation-wide have to pay any estate tax. The fact is that while full repeal would help those with multimillion dollar estates--such as Vice President Cheney, who would save up to $60 million from repeal or former Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond, who would save $164 million--full repeal would actually hurt most small businesses, according to the Small Business Council of America.

And the fact is, while this may save a few millions for a handful of multimillionaires, the American people will be paying off the cost of repealing this tax for years to come.

Let's see this for what it is. This is a tax that does not affect 99.5 percent of Americans. This is not a tax crisis, and it is not a family business crisis. Repealing it is irresponsible. Greater debt upon the next generation of Americans for the benefit of a wealthy few is morally wrong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Renee Bumb to be a U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this outstanding individual that the White House has selected to serve on the Federal bench.

I take a moment to share with our colleagues a few of her accomplishments. Ms. Bumb is a graduate of Ohio State University and the University of Chicago Graduate School of International Relations. She attended my own alma mater, Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, where she served as editor in chief of the law review and has been a loyal New Jerseyan ever since.

Ms. Bumb's reputation in the southern New Jersey legal community is both well known and exceptional. As assistant U.S. attorney, Ms. Bumb has been known for many efforts and is a staunch anticorruption prosecutor. She is best known for her prosecution of the former Camden City mayor. She has twice received the Director's Award, the highest award given to an assistant U.S. attorney presented by the U.S. Attorney General. Ms. Bumb is currently the attorney in charge of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Camden, NJ.

The American Bar Association has rated Ms. Bumb as well qualified for the position to which she has been nominated. It is a view I share as well.

I would also like to talk about the package of four nominees for district judge of New Jersey that Ms. Bumb is a part of. It is a package that is balanced in every sense of the word, from geographic to gender perspectives, as well as to quality. I should note that Ms. Bumb is not the first nominee of that package to be confirmed by the Senate. The day before the Memorial Day district work period began, the Senate confirmed Susan Wigenton to be a district court judge. Judge Wigenton graduated from Norfolk State University and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law from the College of William and Mary. She has spent the last 8 years doing an exceptional job as a U.S. magistrate judge for the district of New Jersey, and she will do an exceptional job in the district court.

I look forward to working with Senator Lautenberg, the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and the leadership in bringing the nominations of the other two nominees, Noel Hillman and Peter Sheridan, to the Senate floor for confirmation votes. This entire four-nominee package is one that every New Jerseyan can and should be proud of.

There truly is no higher calling than the calling of public service. That is why I am pleased to see people of this quality who are willing to serve our Nation in the administration of justice. The confirmation of a judge to a lifetime appointment is a vital responsibility given to this body by the Constitution and one I take very seriously. I join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in support of Ms. Bumb and her confirmation. I look forward to her continued service to our State and Nation. I am confident she will put our shared Rutgers education to good use.

I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Renee M. Bumb to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.