Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is good to see you, and it is good to be back in the Senate with you and our colleagues. With tongue in cheek, people ask me what I like about the Senate. I draw an analogy about when I was in elementary school. What I liked most about elementary school was recess. Now that I serve in the Senate, I am still quite fond of recesses. It is a great time to go back home-- whether it is Texas, Delaware, or anywhere--and reconnect with the folks we serve and with our families.

I just had an opportunity to talk to the Presiding Officer about what he did. It is good to be back and to recharge the batteries and to focus. Now that we are back, I look forward to doing that with you, Mr. President.

Twelve years ago this summer, six Democratic centrist Senators pulled together to provide support for the founding and launching of something called Third Way. Third Way is a think tank which seeks to find a third way to

deal with some of the issues and some of the challenges that face us today--not necessarily a Democratic or Republican approach but a different approach. Thinking outside of the box, every month or so Third Way presents smart people who come to work there with their ideas and their thoughts on what we might do or should be doing differently to move our country forward.

Just a few months ago, in one of the rooms outside of the Senate floor, a number of our colleagues, joined by General Wesley Clark, Congressman Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip from the House, and a woman named Sharon Burke from Third Way, joined together to talk about the path and the course our country is on and whether it is time for us to continue the course or stay the course or whether it is the right time, in some ways at least, to change course.

Third Way has done great work, working particularly with the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and offered some of their thoughts to us which are actually found in this document. It is not all that long. It is a very well documented and very sobering assessment. Given the source of their comments, I think it bears special attention. The world changed on September 11. I know that, and I think we all know that. In addition, the world has changed a whole lot since September 11.

This report from Third Way shows in ways which I think are sobering and compelling that some of those changes have not been for the better.

I think if you ask most people in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, what they think about me, among other things they might say, I think a number of them would say they have found me to be someone who goes out of his way to try to bring people together, to try to find common ground, to try to come up with a better solution to the challenges that we face day in and day out in this country and in the Senate.

I wish I could honestly say the same thing today about our President, but I am sorry to say that I cannot. I wish that instead of trying to politicize the war on terror and the situation in Iraq, or to insinuate that Democrats don't have the strength to stand up to our enemy, that he would sit down with us and talk about how we might move forward in Iraq and around the world.

I am reminded of the 8 years when I was Governor of Delaware. Every week that the Delaware Legislature was in session I would host, as my predecessor, Governor Mike Castle, and my successor, Governor Ruth Ann Minner have hosted every Tuesday, a bipartisan lunch for the leaders of the house and senate. We would meet in the Governor's house, which was close to the capitol, where we may have lunch together and talk for an hour or so, and then we would go to work for the legislative day. Sometimes we would talk about our families, sports, or the weather. A lot of times we talked about the issues that were before us.

One of the questions I would often ask of Democratic and Republican leaders in the house and senate who were gathered there in the Governor's house that particular day was whether they had criticism of a policy or an issue that we would propose. I would ask them: What do you think we should do? What do you like about what we are proposing and where do you think we could improve on our policies?

And with respect to some of the policies of this administration--the President's policies--in too many instances they haven't worked. At least with respect to what is going on in Iraq today, they have not made us any safer.

As one who served 23 years on active duty with the Reserve as a Naval flight officer, I served in a hot war in Vietnam and a Cold War for many years after that. I love our troops. I love the folks in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, people in the Guard and Reserve who serve with great distinction and honor. Anything I said or, frankly, we said as a group a few minutes ago when we released this report should be viewed as expressing our support and our thanks and gratitude for those serving us in harm's way together.

Back in 2003, it was estimated there were roughly over 5,000 insurgents in Iraq. That was 3 years ago. Now we believe there are more than 20,000 insurgents in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the number of Taliban attacks has skyrocketed in the past 3 years.

We learned this week that opium production is up almost 60 percent from last year. Listen to this: Afghanistan is now producing a third more opium than the world's heroin addicts are crying out for. They are producing more heroin in Afghanistan than this country and the rest of the world can consume. Who is profiting from this drug trade? The Taliban and the Afghan insurgency who are trying to destabilize the government we put in place.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea, emboldened by our distractions in Iraq and the lack of effective diplomacy by the United States, are now defying the international community in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

It is clear, at least to me and I believe to a lot of the people I talked to back in Delaware over the course of the last several weeks, that we need a new direction from this President, from this administration. At least so far we have not seen or planned to correct some of the mistakes we have made to put us back on the right track.

None of us have all the answers. I don't; I don't believe any of us do. But I do know one thing: Our President needs to get over his ideological aversion to diplomacy if we are going to solve the other problems facing us in Iraq and around the world.

As one of our American Ambassadors said to me not long ago when I was overseas: Just because we ignore someone doesn't mean they are going away.

With all due respect, I believe our President needs to reach out to the international community, to moderate Arab governments, to broker an agreement between sectarian governments in Iraq to head off civil war.

When I was abroad this last December, I met with officials from Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. I heard from a number of folks from a number of the countries, and the leaders of those countries that we visited, that they have tribal relations--tribes in Saudi Arabia, for example; Jordan has tribal relations with the tribes in the country of Iraq. Saudis, Egyptians, and others are majority Sunni, and they have relations there as well. Some of those countries have a lot of money. A good deal of it is our money because we buy their oil products. They have a number of incentives not to want to see that part of the world devolve into terrorism, to see Iraq become a hotbed of terrorism and to be destabilized. It is not in the interests of any of the countries I have mentioned and some I have not mentioned.

We have to be smart enough as a country and with our administration to call on the other countries to bring to bear not just their money to help the situation in Iraq but the relationships that their people have with the tribes in Iraq and, frankly, with the Sunnis and with other elements of those of the population in Iraq. We need to work with our allies to establish a real and credible roadmap to peace in the Middle East.

I remember having lunch about 15 months ago, in Washington on the other side of the Capitol, with Palestinian President Abbas, along with some of our colleagues. He had been in office for 5 months. He was elected in January of last year. Over lunch, I asked: President Abbas, when do you think it would be an appropriate time for us, for this country, to put in the Middle East a high-level, full-time envoy, to work every day to implement the roadmap to peace? When would be a good time to do that?

This was June of last year. He had been elected January 6 last year. I will never forget what he said to me. He said: Five months ago.

I was convinced that day, convinced when I have gone to the Middle East, I am convinced today that we have let a great opportunity slip through our fingers. One of the reasons the Taliban, al-Qaida or the other terrorist groups were able to recruit people to blow themselves up, to terrorize those countries and to try to kill the rest of us is because of their ability to point to the Middle East and say: Look at the Americans, they are only for the Israelis. They have no interest in the Palestinians having a homeland of their own.

To the extent we could have brokered over the last couple of years and put

the kind of energy, time, and investment into getting a negotiated settlement in the Middle East, as we have put other kinds of investments in Iraq and in Afghanistan, both we and those countries and, I think, our people and other people would be better off, but we have missed that opportunity. My fear is we are missing it again today. The roadmap for peace has become in the Middle East, at least for now, a roadmap to war.

Let me close by saying what is needed in this capital, in this country, is leadership that fosters a cooperative spirit. That may be a tribal man's hope over peace, triumph over reality as we approach an election 2 months out, but I believe that is what is needed--the kind of leadership that fosters a cooperative spirit. If we cannot get that leadership now before the election, my God, I hope we can find it when this election is over. I hope our President can give us that kind of leadership and work with those who are anxious and willing to truly make this country and the world a safer place during his 2 remaining years in office.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu of Louisiana be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2724.

Mr. President, today I commemorate the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War on the occasion of its 125th National Encampment being held August 10 through the 14 in Harrisburg, PA. The event honors the brave men who fought to preserve our Nation during the Civil War.

In 1866, Union Veterans of the Civil War organized into the Grand Army of the Republic, GAR, and became a social and political force that would control the destiny of the Nation for more than six decades. Membership in the veterans' organization was restricted to individuals who had served in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Revenue Cutter Service during the Civil War. In 1881, the GAR formed the Sons of Veterans of the United States of America to carry on its traditions and memory. On August 20, 1954, the U.S. Congress, under the leadership of GEN Douglas MacArthur and GEN Ulyssess S. Grant, III, formally chartered the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.

Today, more than 6,500 members represent the Union Veterans of the Civil War throughout the United States. Their members devote a great deal of time, energy, and resources to preserve the history of the civil war in schools throughout the United States. They study the American Civil War from all perspectives in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of one of the most important events in our Nation's history.

In closing, I would like to again praise the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War on the occasion of its anniversary for its work to perpetuate and honor the brave men who fought for us to preserve our Nation. As a veteran myself, I understand the importance of honoring our veterans and preserving our history, especially that of the Civil War. I hope my colleagues in the Senate join me in honoring the work of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.

Mr. President, I grew up in Danville, VA. The town of Danville, a town of about 30,000 people right on the North Carolina border, was famous for three things when I was growing up there. It was the home of the Dan River cotton mills, it was famous for being the world's biggest tobacco market, and it was famous for being the last capital of the Confederacy. I remember as a child riding back and forth to Danville, VA from our home outside of town and riding in the front of the bus, knowing that other people of color would ride in the back of the bus. I remember visiting downtown and going to restaurants, knowing if you were white you could eat there, and if you were not white, you could not. I remember seeing the water fountains, whites only, colored only.

I remember going to the Rialto theater with my sister, watching three movies on a Saturday afternoon for 25 cents. If you were white, you got to sit on the first floor. If you were not, you sat up in the balcony. I remember going to catch the bus across the street from my house and going about 10 miles on a bus to high school and knowing that the kids of color, about 100 yards further away from us, would get on their bus and head out to go to their school, driving by mine and going another 10 miles to their own school.

If I could have 3 minutes.

In addition to not being able to drink water at fountains with us, eat in the same restaurants, go to movies, ride on the bus or go to school with the rest of us, the other thing that folks of color couldn't do in my hometown was vote. They couldn't vote because they didn't pay a poll tax. They couldn't vote because they weren't smart enough allegedly to pass the test they had to take in order to become voters.

I came here in 1965, barely out of high school, 18 years old. I went to the Rayburn Building and happened to walk into a hearing in 1965 by the House Judiciary Committee on this legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The enactment of that legislation did more to change things in my town of Danville, VA, and a lot of towns in this country, especially in the South, than any one thing I can think of.

Yesterday, as several of us in the Senate rolled out something we called the Restoring the American Dream Initiative, we started off by trying to make sure that everybody who wanted to go to college had the ability to get to college. If we are going to be successful as a nation in the 21st century, we need a world class workforce. We can't have that unless we have well-educated, college-educated people. In order to have those kinds of opportunities, before we ever get to college we have to make sure kids have a decent chance to go to good elementary, middle, and high schools. And in order for anybody to have the American dream, it is important to have a chance to get a decent job, have a chance to be a home owner, raise a family, work hard, and live in a community and practice your faith.

The one best way to ensure that people of all walks of life have those opportunities is to make sure that they have the opportunity every November, or whenever, to go into the voting booth, be registered to vote, and exercise their constitutional right. By the passage of this legislation today, we reaffirm our commitment to that sacred right.

As one who came here 41 years ago, when my very first experience in the Capitol as an 18-year-old teenager was the debate on this legislation, to be back here today as a Member of the Senate, something I never thought possible, is an uplifting experience for me. I hope it serves as an inspiration to young men and women of whatever race or background they might be. I thank the leader.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, to my colleague and friend, Senator Feingold, I thank him very much for yielding, and I thank him even more for his leadership and that of Senator McCain in offering this amendment.

Before I talk about the amendment, I want to also thank Senator Inhofe and our ranking member, Senator Jeffords, as well as Senators Bond and Baucus, for bringing this bill to the floor today. It has taken 6 long years and a huge amount of work on the part of them and their staffs and our staffs as we have prepared for this debate today.

We are finally able to move this important legislation because of their dogged determination, really a collective determination and willingness to work with all of us to address our States' respective needs, and an openness to debating possible reforms for the way we plan and prioritize water resource projects.

This bill includes several provisions that are very important to my State of Delaware. I want to quickly highlight maybe two of those and talk about the importance of modernizing the Corps of Engineers.

First, this bill preserves something called the St. Georges Bridge over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the 14-mile canal that really connects the Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake Bay. It serves to divide Delaware in half. It takes up valuable space within my little State, disrupts our commerce and the movement of people and goods, and provides a shortcut for ships trying to get from the Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake Bay, and it helps to divert traffic away from my port, the Port of Wilmington. To say that I am not a great admirer of all that the C&D Canal does for my State would be an understatement. I have proposed, tongue-in-cheek, that we appropriate shovels to the people of Delaware so we can line up on either side of the C&D Canal and fill it in, and that we bring in plants and trees from other parts of the country to use up enormous quantities of water, and that we might plant them in the bed of the canal to soak up the water and then we can go across, like the children of Israel, on dry land. Well, none of that has happened, so we have to figure out how to get across the C&D Canal that disrupts commerce in my State.

In return for the imposition of this canal, the Corps of Engineers has been obligated for three quarters of a century to provide sufficient access across that canal. Yet, in recent years, in spite of population growth that has stretched the capacity of the current bridges, the Corps has sought to reduce the number of bridges across the C&D Canal. Thanks to the support of the chairman and ranking member, that will not happen.

The second important provision in this bill to our State is a late entry. A little over a year ago, some of you may recall that the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent to rename our new bridge over the C&D Canal along State Route 1 for former U.S. Senator Bill Roth, my predecessor. Senator Roth served in the Senate for 30 years and in the House of Representatives for a time before that. I see Senator Bond here; he served with him for a number of those years. Bill Roth, for over a third of a century, served the people of Delaware admirably and with distinction in the House and later, for many years, in the Senate. He also worked hard to make sure about 15 years ago that this new bridge over the C&D Canal would be built.

The bill to name the State Route 1 bridge at St. Georges for Senator Roth passed the Senate unanimously. It has been held up in the House for the past year. I appreciate Senator Inhofe's and Senator Jeffords' willingness to move it forward by agreeing to add it to the Water Resources Development Act. On behalf of our State and the Roth family, we express our deepest gratitude.

I also rise today to voice my support for Senator Feingold's and Senator McCain's Corps independent review amendment. It is essential that we apply the lessons that we learned from Hurricane Katrina. This amendment seeks to do that, at least in part.

This past April, I had the opportunity to tour both the devastation in New Orleans, as well as the wetlands that act as a buffer for that city. As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have spent many hours hearing from experts about why the levees failed in New Orleans.

One thing became inescapably clear: There were warnings that were not heeded. The McCain-Feingold amendment seeks to prevent that from happening again.

The McCain-Feingold independent review amendment--which I have cosponsored--requires an independent panel of experts to be constituted to review projects that will cost greater than $40 million.

That panel will be fully independent of the Corps and made up of anywhere from five to nine experts in engineering, hydrology, biology, and economics. This panel will be able to review every aspect of a proposed project, from the data and assumptions that went into the Corps' analysis into the actual design of the final project that is chosen.

Having such a review of the New Orleans levee system likely would have drawn attention to the flaws in the Corps' design, including the facts that they failed to account for the natural subsidence of the city and that the flood walls were not properly anchored in the swampy southern Louisiana ground.

We often talk about these proposals as ``Corps reform.'' But in a real sense, they are also congressional reforms. That is because the findings of the independent panels merely provide more information to us, the Congress. They are not binding. It will still be up to us in the Congress to decide how to proceed, and we will need to do a better job ourselves in the future. But we cannot be expected to make good decisions if we don't have good information.

Moreover, in these days of tighter budgets, we are not going to be able to gather support of our constituents for big navigation projects that they fear will destroy wetlands that are needed for flood protection or for a flood control project that people don't believe will work.

As the New Orleans Times-Picayune stated in a recent editorial:

Taxpayers shouldn't have to wonder if there's a rational

basis for spending billions of dollars.

I am reminded of something that LTG Carl Strock, who commands the Army Corps of Engineers, said:

Words alone will not restore trust in the Corps.

These amendments will provide some substantive change to back up the claim that we will never let what happened in New Orleans happen again.

I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold independent review amendment. I am pleased to be among its cosponsors. I urge its adoption.

I yield back my time.

I thank my colleague for yielding. I am moved by the comments of Senator Lincoln, and I suspect we could go throughout the Senate Chamber from desk to desk, from Member to Member, and each of us could tell a personal story from our own family as moving as I found her description of the life of her father.

In my own family, my grandfather, a wonderful role model as a butcher from West Virginia, had Parkinson's disease. He got up every morning and drove through the mountain roads to the butcher shop to cut meat. Every day I would watch him leave the House, his hands shaking, fingers shaking, wondering if he was going to chop one off, and he never did in all the years that he ran that butcher shop.

I think of the time, looking at Senator Harkin and myself and some others in the Chamber who served in the House, we served with Mo Udall. I remember riding back and forth on the subway between the House buildings, the Rayburn Building, riding over to the Senate Chamber with Mo Udall and watching his body slowly deteriorate. I think of Ford King, my brother in law, now deceased, who was controlled by ALS over a decade or so ago and watching his life slowly fade away as ALS took its toll on him. I think of Alzheimer's and my own mom who passed away last year, her mom who was a victim of Alzheimer's, and the millions of others who die from that disease in our country.

I think of my own healthy sons, thank God, 16 and 18 years of age, and I think of their friends having to prick their bodies or their fingers several times a day, as much as 10 times a day, to take insulin shots and know that is the way they are going to have to live for the rest of their life.

Today is a day of tremendous opportunity. It is an opportunity to push for the kind of medical research that will make a difference in the lives of the people--not the people I just mentioned, unfortunately, for the most part, but in the lives of their children and their grandchildren. It is an opportunity to help find treatment for diseases such as the ones I mentioned, Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes and autoimmune disorders and heart disease and even, if we are lucky, cancer.

We know that stem cells hold great promise. Already stem cells have been used to help paralyzed rats regain the ability to move. Stem cells have been converted into motor neurons which could help treat spinal cord injuries or Lou Gehrig's disease--ALS.

Stem cells have also been coaxed into becoming brain cells to one day help patients with Parkinson's disease, such as my own grandfather, such as our old colleague, Mo Udall.

Today, though, is about more than just curing diseases. It is also about keeping America's research centers competitive and relevant. Stem cell research is likely to be an important area of science and medicine for a long time to come. Instead of treading water, as we have done under President Bush's stem cell policy, America should be leading the way and making other countries play catchup, instead of us playing catchup to them.

We have done this in the past. The United States has always been a valuable contributor to the prevention and treatment of illness. We have developed vaccines and antibiotics that have saved literally millions of lives. We have made tremendous advances in the areas of biotechnology and pharmaceutical research.

Now we have an opportunity to make a national commitment to expand the frontiers of medical research once again.

If we focus our resources and attention today to find cures, we will save lives, and we will save money in the long run.

H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which is before us today, was introduced in the House of Representatives by my own Congressman, Mike Castle. Here in the Senate, it has been shepherded by two of our finest colleagues, Senator Specter and Tom Harkin of Iowa. This bill would greatly expand our ability to take the next steps in stem cell research by expanding the number of stem lines eligible for Federal funding. It would also strengthen the ethical rules that govern stem cell research.

Under the administration's current policy, the number of stem cell lines available for federally funded research has continued to shrink. There are now, I am told, only 22 lines available. What is more, many of those current lines are contaminated or have reached the end of their useful life.

The Castle bill would allow new lines to be derived from excess in vitro fertilization embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. The choice seems clear, at least to me and I know to a lot of people in my State. Rather than allow these embryos to be discarded and thrown away, with the consent of the couple who want to donate those embryos, with their permission, we can use those embryos to further lifesaving research.

These new stem cell lines will dramatically expand our ability to study and find treatments for a wide range of illnesses. The benefits will come not only from having more stem cell lines but from having better lines. By expanding our research policy, we can create stem cell lines that help us study specific diseases or create specific treatments.

I urge all our colleagues to support H.R. 810. I know there are a couple on the brink, who are undecided. They know who they are. I encourage them to listen to the folks from their own

States and their own families whose lives could have been enhanced, been lengthened--or in the future will be. Let's vote today to expand stem cell research so we, our children, our grandchildren, and a whole lot of people beyond them can benefit in the future.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter, one, for yielding time, and, second, I thank him for offering an amendment to give me an opportunity to join him in offering this amendment.

Before I get to my remarks, for folks who are listening to the debate tonight, it might be confusing. There is a question as to whether this dredge called the McFarland is seaworthy. There is a question about whether the enormous investment--as much as $20 million--is required for it to be seaworthy or to become seaworthy or remain seaworthy. This is the deal.

The Coast Guard has said as recently as 4 months ago that the McFarland is seaworthy. There is no suggestion--at least that I am aware of--on behalf of the Coast Guard that says $20 million or $2 million has to be spent now or next year to make it continue to be seaworthy.

The question is, What kind of investments would be needed to be made in the McFarland if it were to be transitioned to the Ready Reserve? In that case, I am told that an investment--as much as $20 million--might be needed in order to transition this vessel to the Ready Reserve. We are not proposing that the vessel be transitioned to the Ready Reserve. We are simply proposing that it be allowed to continue the work it does along the east coast and not long ago down on the gulf coast as well.

I think maybe that is clarifying and maybe a little bit illuminating for some of the people who are listening to this debate on the edge of their seats to determine the future of the McFarland.

The McFarland is based in Philadelphia and is one of the four hopper dredges currently owned and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the only Federal dredge stationed on the Atlantic coast.

The McFarland is used for maintenance dredging on the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay as well as on the east coast and the gulf coast of our country. It is also used for emergency and for national defense dredging wherever that might be needed.

The McFarland has been used to restore navigation after major emergencies, such as along the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina, and after the four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004. This dredge is also utilized when no private dredge is available and no reasonable bid is made by private industry.

In 1979, Congress passed a law instructing the Corps to use private industry dredges when industry has the capability to do the work at reasonable prices and in a timely manner. Congress also directed the Corps to retire Federal dredges when private industry demonstrated the capability to do the work. At the same time, the Corps was charged with maintaining a federally owned fleet to carry out emergency and national defense work.

In attempting to balance these responsibilities, the Army Corps produced a report in 2004 calling for the decommissioning of the McFarland dredge, saying that private dredgers had increased their capacity to do the same job for less. But the Corps report was sharply criticized subsequently by the Government Accountability Office for flaws in its analysis and its cost estimates.

As a result, a new report was produced last year by the Army Corps. While it still called for the decommissioning of the McFarland, it raised several troubling questions about private industry's capacity and the Army Corps' ability to respond to emergencies without the McFarland.

The report indicated that the Corps' dredge fleet is still sometimes needed, saying ``industry alone has not been able to meet peak demands.''

The report goes on further to say that when private capacity is

stretched, the Corps fleet is needed to protect the taxpayers' dollars and ensure reasonable bids. It states:

With such a limited number of vessels in the fleet, and

during peak workload periods when only one bidder may be

available, there is a tendency to exercise the principles of

supply and demand, and costs will rise. The Corps' presence

will serve as a deterrent for potential cost increases.

Without the McFarland, when private industry is at capacity and unable to respond to dredging needs on the east coast, we will have to turn to the Wheeler dredge, which is stationed in New Orleans. But this dredge is already in high demand. And in recent years, both dredges have been needed to respond to natural emergencies.

Emergency situations were considered by the Corps. They looked at a ``worst case scenario'' in their report, using the 2004 hurricane season as a good example of a worst case scenario. That year, private industry's capacity was stretched and natural disasters created an emergency need for still further dredge work.

The Army Corps pointed out in their report that the McFarland was needed in 2004 to respond to the four hurricanes that hit Florida. But the report downplayed the likelihood of a worst case scenario occurring again, saying:

Having four hurricanes in a row with the extent and

magnitude of damages experienced is not a common occurrence.

I wish that were true. Sadly, the following year, demonstrated that the worst Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma case scenario can come in different forms. And more active hurricane seasons are predicted to continue to occur this year, next year, and the year after that.

We would all love to believe that this type of disaster will not happen again and that we do not have to plan for that possibility. But we have no choice.

Active hurricane seasons should be expected, and we cannot fail to clear our navigation channels after a disaster--they are too important to our economy and our national security.

Finally, the Corps has found that smaller channels and smaller jobs sometimes do not attract as many bids from private industry. The Corps expressed concern about this in their report.

In discussing the industry's lack of ability to meet peak demands, it pointed out that private industry may not always have the right kind of dredge available to serve a smaller channel.

These same concerns can apply to smaller jobs, where it is not cost effective to move a private industry dredge to perform the work. In fact, without the McFarland, it might not be economical to use the remaining federal dredges to respond to such jobs. It could cost as much to move the Wheeler to the northeast Atlantic coast and back to the gulf as it would cost to operate it for 2 weeks.

In this case, it would be more economical to keep the McFarland where it is. This way it can be used when there is not enough private dredge capacity to meet the needs along the east coast.

We must ensure that we can maintain our waterways and access to our ports, whether small or large.

We should also continue to support the growing private dredge industry. However, we cannot and should not expect private industry to do work that is not profitable or beyond their capacity.

Nor can we plan for only the best case scenarios. Recent hurricane seasons have proven that we don't have that luxury.

To my colleagues, I urge support for this amendment. I thank Senator Specter for offering it. I am pleased, again, to join him in doing so.

I yield back whatever time I have not consumed.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise, reluctantly, today in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from New Jersey. I agree with my colleagues--certainly, with the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Maine, and others who have spoken against the amendment--that it is not the right path for us to follow.

I will say this, though. I agree with my colleagues who do support this amendment when they say that places such as New York and Washington, DC, are the most vulnerable to terrorist attack. Unfortunately, that is true. These are places that were attacked 5 years ago on 9/11, and they are surely the targets foremost in the minds of those who want to do us further harm. Those places deserve more first responder aid than other communities, including communities in my own State.

What my colleagues who support this amendment ignore, however, is that communities across the Nation face some vulnerability to terrorist attacks as well. This amendment would cut first responder aid for all but the largest communities by two-thirds or more. And with all due respect, I do not believe that is responsible. I could stand here today and list all the places in my own State of Delaware that I think are especially vulnerable. I will mention a few.

Delaware is home to some of the largest chemical companies and plants in the country. Right across the river, we have three nuclear power plants. They are closer to my home than they are to any of the Senators or the Governor of New Jersey, for that matter. We have I-95 that cuts right through my State, carrying all kinds of cargo, including hazardous cargoes. The Northeast Corridor of Amtrak runs right through my State. We have two major rail lines, all of which carry hazardous and dangerous cargo from time to time. We have all kinds of shipping going up the Delaware River, which divides Delaware and New Jersey. The cargo it carries is dangerous as well. Frankly, a lot of it is an attractive target for terrorists, those who would do us harm.

And everybody else, probably, in the Chamber today, or those who will be showing up to vote in a few minutes, could say the same. They could go through a litany of similar kinds of concerns as to targets in their own States that would make them vulnerable, too. But that is not the point of this debate.

This debate is about whether we want States such as Delaware or States such as South Carolina or States such as Washington or States such as Arkansas or New Hampshire or others--that are represented on the floor at this moment--whether we want our States to have the resources we need to achieve even minimum preparedness, goals that are set by the Department of Homeland Security for our country.

We will not be able to achieve those goals in Delaware and in a number of other States with the cuts that, unfortunately, this amendment proposed by my friend from New Jersey would require.

From their inception, the State grant programs funded through this bill have directed some 60 percent or more of their resources to the largest most vulnerable areas. And we should do that. In addition, the Urban Areas Security Initiative directs even more money to the largest most densely populated cities. All of it is distributed based on vulnerability. There are not any cities in Delaware or in very many other small States that are competing for those funds.

What the amendment before us, regrettably, would do is tie the Department of Homeland Security's hands, forcing those who manage these grant programs to direct virtually every dollar we appropriate in first responder aid to a handful of States and larger cities. The Department officials would have no ability to consider whether a State or city actually needs the money they are getting or whether a grant recipient is even capable of spending those dollars effectively.

As I mentioned before, I am all for giving the most vulnerable communities more money. We should. This amendment, however, takes that worthy goal, in my view, several steps too far, taking a significant amount away from 36 States and, apparently, would even cut the allocation for Washington, DC. I do not think we want to do that either.

Every State has seen a decrease in first responder aid in recent years, as money has been diverted to other priorities. I do not necessarily agree with those decisions, but I certainly do not agree the solution to this problem that this amendment before us suggests-- that is, to jeopardize the security of citizens in States such as mine and dozens of other States similar to it across the country--is the course we should follow.

I will reluctantly vote no on this amendment and encourage many of my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, the Senator has said it well. There is nothing much I can add. When it comes to proportioning these funds, we need to use common sense. If we do, I think we will vote no on the amendment. I thank the Senator from Maine for all the leadership she provides.

Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I cast a ``nay'' vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement today.

Last summer, when we were debating the Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, I expressed frustration with the direction of free-trade agreements and free-trade policy, in general. I expressed a hope that the administration would do more to consult with Congress and, particularly, with moderate, free-trade Democrats.

Many times, representatives of this administration have said that they want to bring back the strong bipartisan support for free-trade agreements and ``make it easier for Democrats to support free-trade agreements.'' Well, one of the ways they can do that is by consulting with and responding to concerns expressed by Democrats and moderates in Congress--before we are asked to vote up or down on those agreements.

When the Oman Free Trade Agreement was considered in the Finance Committee, 18 members voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Conrad that would ban the import of goods made by slave labor or by workers trapped in abusive conditions through human trafficking. And with that amendment approved, all 19 members of the Finance Committee were able to support the free-trade agreement. Clearly, supporting that language was a way to make it easier for Members of Congress to support this agreement.

Yet the administration decided to ignore that strong signal. They did not try to address the concerns voiced through the adoption of the Conrad amendment. They chose to omit the amendment from the implementing language they sent to the Congress for its approval.

This action may not backfire today: the Oman agreement may still pass. However, it will backfire one day, and I expect it to be in the not so distant future.

Next year, Congress will be asked to reauthorize trade promotion authority. But trade promotion authority is about trust, and the actions taken by this administration in agreement after agreement have not inspired trust. And at this point, they have very little time to reestablish that trust before the vote on trade promotion authority next summer.

Lowering trade barriers and promoting free trade is about more than just economics. It is about increasing opportunities and improving quality of life both here and abroad. In offering access to our markets, we can help to peacefully spread democracy and encourage developing countries to increase transparency in government, strengthen their judiciary, improve conditions for their workforce, and protect their environment. But this administration does not seem to recognize this opportunity, even when strong supporters of trade--like myself-- tell them that this is an important part of our support for free-trade agreements.

So today we have been sent a free-trade agreement that does not reflect an understanding of the concerns expressed by Members of Congress. This bill is not amendable. All I can do is vote yes or no. Last summer I voted yes, giving the administration the benefit of the doubt and hoping that they would listen to the concerns expressed by moderates in Congress. Today, I am going to vote no and hope that the administration will recognize that they must listen to the concerns expressed by the legislative branch and that they cannot take our votes for granted.

I invite the administration to use the time between now and the consideration of the Peru Free Trade Agreement to show that you are listening, to incorporate our ideas into that agreement, and to prove that you deserve the trust we showed in granting trade promotion authority.

I believe in lowering trade barriers, and that is why I have supported every trade agreement that has come before me, until today. But that will become considerably more difficult without trade promotion authority. I sincerely hope we can work together over the next year to save it.

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

Mr. President, like each of our colleagues in the Senate, I have a deep and abiding reverence for our flag.

As an 11-year-old Boy Scout, I learned flag etiquette and how we are supposed to show our respect for the flag. Later, I attended Ohio State University as a Navy ROTC midshipman and upon graduation took an oath to defend our country and its Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

I went on to serve our Nation as a naval flight officer for 23 years of Active and Reserve duty during the Vietnam war and until the end of the Cold War, much of it as a Navy P-3 mission commander.

We fly ``Old Glory'' on the front porch of our home throughout the year. We display it proudly in my Senate offices in Georgetown, Dover, and Wilmington, DE, as well as right here in Washington, DC.

Over the past 24 years, I have kicked off hundreds of townhall meetings by inviting attendees to stand and join me in pledging allegiance to our flag.

I wear an American flag lapel pin to work every day, and the American flag is even displayed on the Chrysler minivan I drive all over my little State.

I know it may sound old-fashioned or even corny to some, but I still get a lump in my throat more often than not when I pledge allegiance to our flag or sing our national anthem. In short, I love our flag and all of the good that it symbolizes about America.

In fact, I probably love our flag more today than all the days I have lived on this Earth. That is 59. But as much as I love our flag, I love our Constitution even more.

The U.S. Constitution is the foundation of the longest living experiment in democracy in the history of the world--America. Although written by man, I believe our Constitution was divinely inspired.

Among the rights that it guarantees us as Americans, none is more cherished than our right to freely express our beliefs. As much as we may disagree with the views of others, our Constitution seeks to guarantee that each of us has the right to convey our thoughts and views, however outrageous the rest of us may find them to be.

Our Constitution has been amended only 17 times since 1791 and just 6 times in my lifetime.

We have amended the Constitution to protect our freedom of speech, to worship God as we see fit, to protect our right to bear arms, and to ensure the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.

We have amended our Constitution to protect us from unlawful searches of our home and to guarantee our right to

assemble to present our grievances to those who serve us.

Constitutional amendments have abolished slavery, provided women and 18-year-old Americans with the right to vote, and limited our Presidents to serving just two terms in office.

The original Framers of our Constitution made it possible to amend the Constitution, but they did not make it easy. Our Founding Fathers believed they largely ``got it right'' the first time. History has demonstrated that they did.

When I served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, flag burning was not uncommon. I was never in the presence of anyone who desecrated or destroyed our flag in protests then. It is hard to know for sure how I would have reacted, but it would not have been pretty.

Having said that, it has been a long time since I ever saw anyone burning or otherwise seeking to desecrate or destroy an American flag, and I am not the only one who feels that way either.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote several years ago:

If someone destroys or desecrates a flag that is the

property of someone else, that is a prosecutable crime. If

someone is foolish enough to desecrate a flag that is their

own property, do we really want to amend the Constitution to

hammer a handful of miscreants?

In 1998, retired Green Beret Marvin Stenhammar testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and addressed the two same questions above with this statement:

As a true conservative, I ask you: When did it become

conservative to recommend several changes to the

Constitution? My brand of conservatism does not include this

doctrine . . . I feel you--

``You'' being the Congress--

have better things to do with your time and our tax dollars

than changing the Constitution for something that rarely

occurs and is typically done by immature idiots.

sI have given this issue a lot of thought over the past 30 years. I have searched my heart, and I have concluded that once we let our passions subside, Colin Powell and Marvin Stenhammar have spoken the truth.

Flag burning or desecration, as we think of it, rarely does occur in this country today. In fact, last night, I was watching the news on television with my youngest son. The footage the networks were showing either dated back to the Vietnam war or they were images of foreigners burning a flag in Iraq or some other foreign countries.

I think that begs the question: Do we really need to amend the Constitution in an effort to eliminate a form of protest that almost never happens in America today? I am not convinced that we do.

Come to think of it, I don't recall a time in my life when there was a greater reverence for the American flag than there is today in our country.

I was reminded of that fact just last summer when I marched in Fourth of July parades throughout Delaware in places such as Hockessin, Smyrna, Laurel, and Bethany Beach and saw literally thousands of people of all ages waving, wearing, or displaying the stars and stripes.

All across America today, we see our flag proudly displayed on millions of homes, office buildings, factories, schools, stadiums, construction sites, bridges, and on the vehicles we drive.

A spirit of patriotism swept across our country since 9/11 in a way I have never witnessed in my life, and it has never fully subsided. That spirit is a source of comfort and inspiration to me, as I believe it is to millions of Americans everywhere.

The ``miscreants'' or the ``idiots'' who used to burn flags here did so to bring attention to their causes. They wanted to inflame passions in order to garner broader media coverage for those causes.

A Washington Post editorial of June 27, 2005--1 year ago today--said it better than I could. It said:

When was the last time you saw someone burning a flag? If

the answer is never, that's because it hardly ever happens.

In fact, one of the few certain consequences of passing this

amendment would be to make flag burning a more fashionable

form of protest.

Given human nature today, the Post is probably right.

Another problem with the amendment is that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is flag desecration in several respects.

Most Americans would agree with us that burning an American flag in protest constitutes desecration, but how about a person covered with suntan lotion and perspiration lying on the sand on a hot sunny day at Bethany Beach or any beach for hours on an American flag beach towel? Or how about wearing an American flag swimsuit? What if a person wears American flag underwear, a neckerchief, or a sweatband of the stars and stripes?

What if they use their American flag neckerchief to wipe the dirt off their face or maybe even blow their nose on it? Do we really want to cause law enforcement officers, along with judges and prosecutors, to wrestle with questions such as these or do we want them fighting illegal drug trafficking, unlawful immigration, child abuse, assaults, rapes, and murders, and other serious crimes that are far more commonplace?

Let me suggest to my colleagues today not all behavior that dishonors our flag involves the physical desecration. I believe we desecrate our flag and what it symbolizes when we send American troops off to war without the body armor that they and their Humvees are supposed to have. I believe that we desecrate our flag and what it symbolizes if we don't provide for the needs of our soldiers when they come up with post-traumatic stress disorder, or without an arm, a leg, or their eyesight.

I believe we desecrate what our flag symbolizes when we discourage hundreds of thousands of Americans from voting by knowingly misallocating voting machines in some parts of America, causing people to give up after waiting for hours in line to cast their ballots.

I believe we desecrate what our flag symbolizes when we intimidate people whose religious beliefs are different from our own and try to compel them to worship God as we see fit. I believe that a handful of corporate CEOs desecrate what the American flag symbolizes when they loot the companies they lead and leave employees, pensioners, shareholders, and the rest of us holding the bag.

I believe we desecrate this beloved symbol of our country when we run up massive national debt that our children and our grandchildren will spend the rest of their lives trying to dig out from under.

I believe we desecrate what our flag symbolizes when some politicians who sought three deferments during an earlier war question the patriotism of those of us who served three tours of duty there or left three limbs on the battlefield of that war.

And I believe, my friends, that we desecrate all of the good that our flag symbolizes about America when we call on other nations to abide by the Geneva Conventions in providing humane treatment of the war prisoners they hold while we do not.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I will continue the rest of my speech at a later time today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today I was given the opportunity to speak on the Senate floor about the constitutional amendment that is before us. Time ran out before I was able to conclude my remarks. I would like to do that at this time.

One of the heroes of the Vietnam war in which I served was a former POW named Jim Warner. I would like to close my comments today with his words. It is an extensive quote, but I want to quote all of his letter.

Here is what he said:

In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner of

war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Force

base in the Philippines. As I stepped out of the aircraft, I

looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath, then, as

tears filled my eyes. I saluted it. I never loved my country

more than at that moment. Although I have received the Silver

Star Medal and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared

with the gratitude I felt then for having been allowed to

serve the cause of freedom.

Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when

I saw it for the first time, after five and one-half years,

It hurts me to see other Americans willfully desecrate it.

But I have been in a Communist prison where I looked into the

pit of hell. I cannot compromise with those who want to

punish the flag burners. Let me explain myself.

Early in the imprisonment, the Communists told us that we

did not have to stay there. If we would only admit that we

were wrong, if we would only apologize, we could be released

early. If we did not, we would be punished. A handful

accepted. Most did not. In our minds, early release under

those conditions would amount to a betrayal of our comrades,

of our country, and of our flag.

Because we would not say the words they wanted us to say,

they made our lives wretched. Most of us were tortured and

some of my comrades died. I was tortured for most of the

summer of 1969. I developed beriberi from malnutrition. I had

long bouts of dysentery. I was infested with intestinal

parasites. I spent 13 months in solitary confinement. Was our

cause worth all of this? Yes, it was worth all this and more.

I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph

of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag.

`There,' the officer said. `People in your country protest

against your cause. That proves you are wrong.'

`No,' I said. `That proves I am right. In my country, we

are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people

disagree with us.' The officer was on his feet in an instant,

his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table

and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting, I was

astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I

have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the

satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the

burning flag, against him.

We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish

those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate

America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to

hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread

freedom. . . . Don't be afraid of freedom.

Those, my friends, are the words of former POW Jim Warner.

There are many issues in the Senate that need our attention today--a path forward in Iraq, our large and growing dependence on foreign oil, the threat of global warming, the skyrocketing cost of health care, just to name a few. These are pressing issues which demand action not just from the Congress but from the President, too--not in the next administration, not next year, now. Instead, we are spending this week debating a constitutional amendment--however well intentioned--that is truly, in my judgment, not needed in America today.

Later this week, Senator Bennett and others will offer legislation that would criminalize flag desecration under specific circumstances without having to amend our Constitution. That measure would prohibit burning or destroying the flag with the intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace or damaging a flag that belongs to the United States or another person on U.S. lands.

Senator Durbin will seek to add to that legislation an amendment that would prohibit groups from demonstrating or protesting near a funeral of someone who died serving in our Armed Forces. This is in response to an extremist group that has been traveling the country--it came to Delaware--and disrupting funeral services for our fallen soldiers, making outrageous claims about our country. Their behavior is reprehensible. It desecrates our flag and everything it stands for. By God, it should be illegal--that kind of behavior--and the Durbin amendment will make it illegal.

We could take up both of these measures today and pass them, I believe, without objection. We could penalize flag desecration to the fullest extent possible without jeopardizing the values inherent in our Constitution. In my view, this approach is a balanced one in that it allows us to maintain our reverence both for our flag that we love and for the Constitution we revere.

As I said earlier in my remarks this morning, I still get a lump in my throat when I sing our national anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag and take a moment to truly consider what our flag stands for and the sacrifices made in its honor. It is a symbol of America. I love it now more than I ever have. But behind that symbol is our Constitution. It is the foundation on which our country has been built and endures today. It is what guarantees us the freedoms and the liberties that make this country of ours great. We should not amend that living document lightly, and we should not change it when we can find another way.

My friends, let's find that other way this week. Let's maintain our reverence for the flag and for our Constitution.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to honor LTC Robert J. Ruch, District Commander, Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the occasion of his Change of Command Ceremony which will take place on Friday, July 10, 2006. At that time, Lieutenant Colonel Ruch will pass command of the Philadelphia District to LTC Gwen E. Baker after providing the State of Delaware and the region with 2 years of honorable and meritorious service in carrying out his duties.

As the 53rd Philadelphia District Engineer, LTC Robert J. Ruch has commanded a 500-person engineering organization since 2004 that provides national, economic, and environmental security in the heart of the Northeast Corridor. His responsibilities have included dredging waterways for navigation, protecting communities from flooding and coastal storms, responding to natural and declared disasters, regulating construction in the Nation's waters and wetlands, remediation of environmental hazards, restoring ecosystems, building facilities for the Army and Air Force, and providing engineering, contracting and project management services for other government agencies upon request.

Established in 1866, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Philadelphia District encompasses the 13,000-square-mile Delaware River Basin and the Atlantic coast from New Jersey's Manasquan Inlet to the Delaware- Maryland line. Within its boundaries are more than 8 million people in eastern Pennsylvania, western and southern New Jersey, most of Delaware, New York's Catskills region and part of northeastern Maryland. It also includes two State capitals--Trenton, NJ, and Dover, DE--and the Delaware River ports complex from Philadelphia and Camden, NJ, to Wilmington, DE.

Just in the First State alone, Lieutenant Colonel Ruch's accomplishments during his 2-year tour of duty have been impressive. They include completion of major storm damage reduction projects at Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach and Fenwick Island, considerable progress on a new $70 million air freight terminal complex at Dover Air Force Base, partnership in a promising program to restore oyster populations in the Delaware Bay, commencement of a long-awaited project to reduce flood damages in the town of Elsmere, development of a trail concept plan to provide recreational opportunities along the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and even removal of an old abandoned shipwreck from the historic Christina River--not to mention a host of other successful projects in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, or the fact that all this was carried out while many of his Philadelphia district employees were deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq or helping out down south after the Nation's worst-ever hurricane season.

Commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers in 1986, Lieutenant Colonel Ruch began his military career with the 7th Engineer Battalion, 5th Infantry Division, Mechanized, at Fort Polk, LA, as a platoon leader and company executive officer. Follow-on assignments included liaison officer and company commander with the 2nd Engineer Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division at Camp Castle, Republic of Korea, and the Live Fire Engineer Trainer for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA. He then worked as an operations officer in the Pittsburgh District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, before moving on to Fort Riley, KS, as S3 of the 1st Engineer Battalion, and then of the 937th Engineer Group, Combat. And just before coming to Philadelphia, Lieutenant Colonel Ruch served with Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Belgium, as the senior staff officer for NATO Infrastructure in Crisis Response Operations dealing with operations in Afghanistan and in the Balkans.

Lieutenant Colonel Ruch holds a bachelor of science in geo- environmental science from Shippensburg University and a master's in engineering management from St. Martin's College. He is a graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced Courses and of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. His military decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Meritorious Service Medal, four oak leaf clusters, the Army Commendation Medal, three oak leaf clusters, the Army Achievement Medal and the Army Superior Unit Award.

After turning over the command of the Philadelphia District to LTC Gwen Baker on July 7, 2006, Lieutenant Colonel Ruch will move on to Fort Hood, TX, as division engineer of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division.

I rise today to congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Ruch for a distinguished career and to offer my special thanks for his enthusiasm, competence and effectiveness in serving the State of Delaware and the Greater Philadelphia Region.

We will miss him in the Delaware Valley and on the Delmarva Peninsula. We wish him and his family all the best in the years to come, including, as we say in the Navy, ``Fair winds and a following sea.''

Mr. President, 6 months ago, I was in Iraq with Senator Hagel. We met with a number of people. Among the people with whom we met in one of the beautiful palaces of Saddam Hussein not far from Baghdad Airport, were the leaders of our American military forces in that country.

During the course of that conversation, we heard these words from our top military leader: It is time for America to move toward the door. He didn't say it is time for us to walk out of the door, leave, close the door. He said: It is time for us to move toward the door.

Subsequent to that, we met with Iraqi military and political leaders and our own diplomatic leaders, and the message I heard in almost all of those meetings was: it is time for America to begin moving toward the door.

We have had a policy in Iraq, at least in the last couple of years, of stay the course. ``Stay the course'' is a good slogan, and there have been times in our history as a nation when staying the course was actually a pretty good strategy. This is not one of those times.

What is needed is a different--not a different slogan, but a different strategy, and the strategy we need would be not stay the course but change the course.

The American people would like for us to begin to bring our men and women home and, as it turns out, so would the Iraqi people. In talking with the President upon our return, I said: You know, Mr. President, sometimes less is more. In this instance, having a smaller presence, a less visible presence would actually be more supportive of our efforts in Iraq than not.

The Iraqi people don't want us to cut and run. They don't want us to leave. They want us to be close by. They want us to be not far away and to be helpful if we can be, if needed. But they don't want us to leave this year. They don't want us to leave entirely next year.

Senator Hagel just quoted the words of the Iraqi National Security Council. That is what we heard in Iraq last December. Their message has been pretty consistent, and it has been pretty much the same.

Last year in the Senate we voted by an overwhelming majority that 2006 needs to be a year of significant transition in Iraq. In other words, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, called on the Bush administration to take action this year in 2006 to change course in Iraq to make clear to the Iraqis and the rest of the world that the United States does not intend to stay in Iraq forever.

The amendment before us today, the Levin-Reed amendment, builds on that resolution we passed barely a year ago. It rejects the extremes on both sides of the Iraqi debate--the one side of the extreme that would say either we should stay in Iraq on an open-ended basis, and the other extreme to say we ought to withdraw all of our troops by an arbitrary deadline. This amendment rejects both of those, and it says instead: Why don't we find a way to change the course going forward?

The policy of ``stay the course'' isn't working for our troops. They have served bravely, they have served honorably despite very difficult circumstances in extended tours of duty. More than 2,500 of our finest have been killed in action. Almost 18,000 have been injured, including a former member of my staff, Marine Corps LCpl Sean Barney, who was shot in the neck last month in Fallujah. Fortunately, he is alive. He is going to live.

The President's ``stay the course'' plan also is not working for the Iraqis. Insurgent violence is on the upswing, and our efforts to help rebuild Iraq are at a standstill. Electricity output has been pretty much flat-lined in the last couple of years, and we haven't been able to finish building the schools and hospitals they want and need and that we would like to help them build.

``Stay the course,'' I say to my friends, is not working. This amendment is about a new direction in Iraq. It is about accountability. It is about being tough. It is about being smart. It is about changing the course, not staying the course. It is about laying out a plan for victory in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the advice I heard not 6 months ago that it is time for America to move toward the door-- not to leave, not to leave precipitously but to move toward the door and to allow the Iraqi people themselves to carry more of the burden in an effort to relieve from us some of that burden, an effort to make sure they have, in the end, a democracy and a country of their own to govern.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Marine LCpl Richard ``Rick'' Z. James. Rick epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life--and how we remember him--Rick reminds each of us just how good we can be.

Rick was born to Carol and Kenneth ``Jake'' James of Seaford in November 1985. He had two older siblings, Jeff and Tina, and a younger brother, Jonathan. Rick was a 2004 graduate of Seaford Christian Academy, where he played soccer, basketball, and baseball. His friends and family remembered him at his memorial service, describing Rick as having a playful, somewhat mischievous nature and as an enthusiastic athlete who thrived on competition and gave his all on the playing field. Fellow U.S. Marine Cpl. Kevin Martens of Salisbury described his friend of 10 years as ``fun, energetic, always trying

to make people laugh. He was a great guy to be around.''

His enthusiasm and thirst for excitement led to his decision to join the Marines shortly before graduation from Seaford Christian Academy in June of 2004. His mother Carol stated, ``That's all he ever wanted to do, and he was thrilled when he was doing military duty.'' Rick's father, when speaking to several hundred friends, family, and members of the community gathered for his son's memorial service, said that ``He always wanted to have the hardest job. In baseball, he wanted to be the catcher. In soccer, he wanted to be center-midfielder. He wanted to be involved.'' Above all, Mr. James reminded us that ``Rick had a dream and he followed it.'' He then urged us all, ``If you have a dream, follow it.''

This was Rick's second tour of duty in Iraq serving with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. The day the young lance corporal lost his life, he was providing security at an over-watch position within a building when he was struck by small arms fire near Ramadi, Iraq. Ramadi is one of the most dangerous spots for our troops in Iraq where, according to an embedded reporter on assignment for USA Today, ``about 8 out of 10 of Kilo's foot patrols engage in contact with the enemy.'' On a daily basis, our marines in Ramadi face threats of sniper attacks and catastrophic roadside bombs.

Rick James grew up in the tightly knit community of Seaford, DE. News of Rick's death rocked the community, as he was the second Marine from Seaford to die in a week's span, and the town's third Iraq war fatality since operations began in 2003. With two funerals within days of one another, the city of Seaford turned out in force to support the families of the fallen soldiers, lining the streets with American flags, in a demonstration of overwhelming compassion and patriotism.

One always wonders how a family survives a tragedy like this. After spending time with Rick's loved ones, it was very clear to me that this family, and their son Rick, found their strength through an unwavering faith in God and the support of their family, friends, and community. Pastor John Reynolds, the lance corporal's cousin said, ``Rick had a passion for his family. Rick had a passion for the Marine Corps. Rick knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that if something were to happen he'd spend eternity with his God. Rick died offering himself for the sake of others.'' Pastor Donnie Reynolds who spoke at the service for Rick perhaps said it best. ``Rick did not just exist. He lived out God's plan. I believe Rick James is an American hero.'' The evening before, during a quiet moment as we paid our respects to the family, Rick's father said, ``People now refer to his son as a hero, but he has always been a hero to me.''

I rise today to commemorate Rick, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss.