Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the next amendment we will vote on is the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, which tries to meet the undertaking this body made last year in passing an authorization for transit security money. That tries to address the problem. This amendment makes some small contribution. I intend to vote no on this amendment. I hope Members support the Shelby amendment in due course.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I offered an amendment that would ensure the continued funding and operation of the United States Fire Administration. I offered this amendment on behalf of myself and the three other Cochairmen of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, Senators DeWine, Biden, and McCain, as well as Senators Mikulski, Murray, Feingold, Corzine, and Stabenow. This amendment simply designates $52.6 million in funds for the United States Fire Administration, USFA. This amount is equal to the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request, and represents a slight increase of $1.3 million over last year's funding level. The amendment calls for no additional funding in the underlying bill, and thus requires no offset. USFA has traditionally been funded through the Department's preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery account. However, without a congressional allocation or line item for USFA in the Department's annual appropriations bill, Congress has failed to adequately acknowledge its continued support for the use of these funds. As a result, there is annual confusion and uncertainty regarding the level of funding USFA will ultimately receive. This amendment is therefore simply an exercise in good government, providing transparency and accountability in how we allocate our limited homeland security funds. This amendment is also quite modest. In 2003, the Senate unanimously approved legislation to reauthorize USFA through fiscal year 2008. This legislation, which was signed into law by the President on December 6, 2003, calls for $64.85 million in the coming fiscal year for USFA's operations. While I believe USFA should ideally receive funding at this fully authorized level, this amendment is a bipartisan compromise that will ensure that, at a minimum, the agency will be able to maintain its essential functions. At a time when there are sharp disagreements over our homeland security priorities, the U.S. Fire Administration remains a proven investment, providing critical training and resources to our Nation's first responders. In this regard, I was pleased that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in his remarks yesterday unveiling the Department's Second Stage Review Results, affirmed USFA's important role in the transformed Department. In designating USFA as a constituent element of the Department's new Preparedness Directorate, Secretary Chertoff noted the Fire Administration's expertise, declaring that this move would ``strengthen our linkages and our preparation within the fire services.'' In 1973, a landmark report entitled America Burning was produced by the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. Among many other findings and recommendations, America Burning called for the creation of a national agency dedicated to serving and improving the fire services. In response to that report, Congress created such an agency in 1974, which would later become what we now know as the United States Fire Administration. USFA provides training, guidance, and support to firehouses around the country from those who understand them best--fire service professionals themselves. USFA's current Administrator, R. David Paulison, is a terrific example of the agency's expertise. Chief Paulison, who has ably led the agency for the past 4 years, is a 30-year veteran of the fire services and former chief of the Miami-Dade County Fire Department. Among USFA's most vital functions is its role as the Nation's premier training center for our fire service leaders. The National Fire Academy is the centerpiece of USFA's training programs and has educated an estimated 1.4 million fire leaders since its first class was held in 1975. Although headquartered in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the Academy conducts courses all over the Nation in order to maximize the number of fire leaders who can benefit from its instructors' expertise. Significantly, the Academy now offers training and coursework in the National Incident Management System, NIMS, and the National Response Plan, NRP, two critical elements of our overall homeland security strategy. USFA also houses the Emergency Management Institute, EMI, which offers a full complement of courses and programs for state, local, and tribal emergency management officials from across the country. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security 3 years ago, there have been grave concerns in the first responder community that efforts were underway in the Department to reduce the role of USFA, as well as its support, perhaps culminating in the agency's eventual demise. This past February, the International Association of Fire Chiefs held a summit meeting of 17 major fire service organizations to address concerns about USFA's funding, and its future within the Department of Homeland Security. On April 8, 2005, the findings of that summit were unanimously endorsed by the 45 national fire groups that comprise the National Advisory Committee of the Congressional Fire Services Institute. Among the goals in this agreement was the following: [T]he fire service recommends that both the President's budget and the DHS's appropriations bills have a separate line item for the USFA. Currently, the USFA funding is included in the ``Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery'' account, and it is hard to determine exactly how much money has been appropriated for the USFA. Since Congress specifically authorizes funding for the USFA in a separate bill, there also should be a line item in the president's budget and appropriations bills to hold the President and Congress accountable to the authorization levels that they approved. This amendment would achieve this reasonable and modest goal, which was unanimously and vigorously supported by our Nation's major fire service groups. This amendment is endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the Congressional Fire Services Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from IAFC President Bob DiPoli be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 1224

Mr. SARBANES. The Amtrak is not in our committee.

Mr. SARBANES. Correct.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Before my distinguished colleague from Delaware leaves the floor, I want to commend him for his perseverance in pressing this issue. This is clearly not the first time he has brought this matter to our attention. I want to underscore what he said in closing. Obviously, there is a threat, and we need to address this threat. This is the opportunity to do it. Rail, transit--we know they are high on the target list. The GAO actually did a study. One-third of all terrorist events that occurred have involved transit systems around the world. Last year, in fact, we passed legislation, an authorization for transit to do $3.5 billion over 3 years--$1.1 billion this year. An amendment to come later, Senator Shelby's amendment, addresses that and tries to provide appropriations at the authorized level. The rail also cries out for an appropriate appropriation, which is contained in the Byrd amendment that is part of this package we are going to be considering here. But the Senator from Delaware is absolutely correct. This is our chance to provide the resources so we can begin to do the obvious things that need to be done. There is a whole list of them. Every one of them is common sense. None of them is sort of a potential waste of money. All the transit people, the rail people tell us we need to do these things, and if we can do these things, it would substantially enhance security. It wouldn't guarantee security. We live in a world where we can't guarantee security. But it would enhance it, surely.

Mr. SARBANES. Right.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. The infrastructure we are trying to work with is an infrastructure from a previous century. That alone needs to be significantly improved. Actually, the British are confronting that problem now. One of their difficulties is that this deep tunnel, from many years ago, access to it is extremely limited. We have to get started. That is what it comes down to. We have to get smart. These amendments, the Byrd amendment and the Shelby amendment, offer us a chance to take a significant step in order to enhance our capabilities. I thank the Senator for his very strong statement.

Mr. SARBANES. It is not in our committee.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The need to improve security throughout our Nation's public transportation system has been apparent for quite some time. In fact, last year in the committee, I worked closely with Chairman Shelby and with Senator Reed of Rhode Island who have been leaders on this issue both within the committee and throughout the Senate, on the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. That legislation came out of the committee unanimously and was approved in the Senate last October 1 by unanimous consent. So every Member of this body, in effect, validated that legislation. That bill authorized $3.5 billion over 3 years in security for our Nation's mass transportation systems. Of that amount, $1.16 billion was scheduled for fiscal year 2006. This funding level was authorized to begin to address the critical security needs that exist throughout the thousands of public transportation systems in our country. The amendment offered by the chairman of the committee, which I have joined in cosponsoring, along with my able colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, and others, seeks to provide the appropriations level to sustain the authorized level, which this body has heretofore approved. In the wake of the tragic attack in London last Thursday, which has claimed over 50 lives and left hundreds more injured, we clearly need to more fully fund transit security, and going to the previously Senate-authorized level seems to make imminent good sense. The Senate anticipated this problem in the authorization, and the committee brought out well-considered legislation which this body passed unanimously. We have not provided the wherewithal to support the authorization, and this amendment seeks to do exactly that. The threat to transit is not new. We have had terrorist attacks against transit systems in Moscow, South Korea, and London. In fact, in 2002, the GAO found that one-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide were against transit systems. Despite this significant threat, security funding has been grossly inadequate. Our Nation's transit systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements, including those that have been identified by the Department of Homeland Security. In an editorial last Friday, the Baltimore Sun stated that, ``Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.'' They go on to state: Transit officials estimate it would take $6 billion to make buses and rail systems safe. And Congress has in the past considered authorizing $3.5 billion over three years for the same purpose. That is a direct reference to the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which, as has been noted, passed the Senate unanimously. These moneys will be used for such necessities as: security cameras, radios, front-line employee training, and extra security personnel. They are not extravagant requests. Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup control operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has been unfunded. This amendment provides the funding to match what was set out in the authorization. We know that transit systems are potential targets for terrorist attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. We can wait no longer to address these critical security needs of the transit systems throughout the Nation. This amendment begins the important process of providing these critically needed funds. Again, I thank the able chairman of the committee for his excellent leadership on the transit security issue and Senator Reed for his strong and continued commitment on this issue and his perseverance over a sustained period of time. I thank all of our colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Baltimore Sun of July 8 referenced in my statement be printed in full at the end of my statement.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1046.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the managers of the legislation for accepting this amendment. The amendment provides for a study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as a national historic trail. I was joined in this by my able colleague, Senator Mikulski, and by the two Virginia Senators, Mr. Warner and Mr. Allen. The year 2007--less than 2 years from now--marks the 400th Anniversary of the Founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America. The critical role that Captain John Smith played in the founding of Jamestown and in exploring the Chesapeake Bay region during the years 1607 to 1609 was a defining period in the history of our Nation. His contemporaries and historians alike, credit Smith's strong leadership with ensuring the survival of the fledgling colony and laying the foundation for the future establishment of our Nation. With a dozen men in a 30-foot open boat, Smith's expeditions in search of food for the new colony and the fabled Northwest Passage took him nearly 3,000 miles around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the Virginia capes to the mouth of the Susquehanna. On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the first point of contact for scores of Native American leaders from around the Bay region. His relationship with Pocahontas is now an important part of American folklore. Smith's notes describing the indigenous people he met and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are still widely studied by historians, environmental scientists, and anthropologists. The remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries served as the definitive map of the region for nearly a century. His voyages, as chronicled in his journals, ignited the imagination of the Old World, and helped launch an era of adventure and discovery in the New World. Hundreds, and then thousands of people aspired to settle in what Smith described as one of ``. . . the most pleasant places known, for large and pleasant navigable rivers, heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation.'' Even today, his vivid descriptions of the Bay's abundance still serve as a benchmark for the health and productivity of the Bay. With the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown quickly approaching, the designation of this route as a national historic trail would be a tremendous way to celebrate an important part of our Nation's story and serve as a reminder of John Smith's role in establishing the colony and opening the way for later settlements in the New World. It would also give recognition to the Native American settlements, culture and natural history of the 17th-century Chesapeake. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic watertrail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region. Equally important, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Watertrail can serve as a national outdoor resource by providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 millions Americans living in the Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area. The water trail would be the first National Watertrail established in the United States and would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and canoes to travel from the distant headwaters to the open Bay--an accomplishment that would inspire today's explorers and would generate national and international attention and participation. The Trail would complement the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Initiative and help highlight the Bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary. This proposed trail enjoys bipartisan support in the Congress and in the States through which the trail passes. The proposed trail has been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The measure is also strongly supported by The Conservation Fund, Izaak Walton League, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. But designating a new National Historic Trail is essentially a two- step process. First, Congress must authorize the Department of Interior to undertake a study of the national historic significance of the proposed trail and the feasibility of designating such a trail. National Historic Trails must meet 3 criteria: they must be nationally significant; have a documented route through maps or journals; and provide for recreational opportunities. Once the study is complete-- usually a 3-year process that involves public hearings and input--a recommendation is submitted to the Secretary of Interior to designate the trail and Congress must enact legislation to authorize the trail. We hope to make up some of the time by the work that is already underway by public and private sector organizations to document the history of Jamestown and John Smith's travels. However, unless we can get this provision enacted shortly, the Park Service will be unable to complete the study and make recommendations on the proposed trail in conjunction with that anniversary. Mr. President, we hope to get this study done before the Jamestown celebrations. In 2007, they are scheduled for celebrations at Jamestown. It will be a big national event. The Captain John Smith Watertrail is obviously very much connected to the Jamestown settlement. It involves, of course, the Chesapeake Bay. We are very hopeful this study will prove the feasibility of designating this water trail. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in putting this idea forward. Again, I thank the managers of the legislation for accepting the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry: Was the amendment agreed to?

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join in cosponsoring this amendment. I thank the Chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this amendment forward. It is an enormously important contribution to the effort that is underway now to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by placing his memorial between President Roosevelt's Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall. I thank the Senators for their kind comments. My dear friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, and I worked together on this project to help move it along. It has had overwhelming support in the Congress and in the country, but raising the money has been a difficult proposition. Let's be very clear about this--an enormous effort has gone into bringing this memorial to fruition and significant moneys have been raised. While we are not yet there, this amendment will provide a tremendous boost to the fundraising effort. It shows clearly the support of the Congress. Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, by coming forward with the amendment, at this critical time, have given this entire effort an impetus, which will bring it to a successful conclusion. Interestingly enough, I, too, was there when Martin Luther King gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, that Mr. Warner, the able Senator from Virginia, referred to earlier. It was clearly a historic occasion that helped to shape the nature of our country for the better--much for the better. Dr. King fought to establish the proposition that people should be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. He enunciated that principle time and time again. The other thing he did was he advocated his position in a nonviolent way. He asserted that in a democratic society, these goals could be achieved through peaceful means, through nonviolent means. He channeled the energy and the commitment that was devoted toward achieving racial equality in this country into peaceful paths. And our country has been much the better for his efforts. So much work has gone into this Memorial--first in getting it approved and then in finding the location for it on the National Mall. But, it has been worth the effort because when schoolchildren come to the Nation's Capital in the year's to come, part of their visit to Washington will involve a trip to the Martin Luther King Memorial. The plans that have been prepared are quite impressive. They will have an opportunity to visit that Memorial and to reflect upon the contribution which Dr. King made to our Nation: the healing he brought about, the realization of the American dream, that all of our people-- all--have an opportunity to participate and to advance themselves and their families. So I join with my colleagues. I thank them for their very kind remarks. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia reminding us of the effort that went into helping bring us to this day. I especially again thank Senators Cochran and Byrd for coming forward with this amendment at a very critical time, to give an impetus to the effort to do the fundraising that is necessary to build this Memorial and to have, in effect, this national treasure on the Mall. Dr. King's statue is, of course, here in the Capitol, as we know. It is fitting now that we move beyond the Capitol and create this Memorial on the Mall in recognition of all he stood for and what he represented in terms of realizing the words and ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I thank my colleagues very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, when Sol M. Linowitz died recently, at the age of 91, this country lost a distinguished citizen and his family lost a loving, wise and generous husband, father, brother and grandfather. Those who had the privilege of working with him--and there are many of us--lost a colleague and wise counselor and, above all, a dear friend. It says much about Sol Linowitz that he opened his 1985 memoir, The Making of a Public Man, with a citation from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: ``It is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived.'' That is precisely what Sol did over the course of what his brother, Bob Linowes, described--too modestly--as Sol's ``exemplary and productive life.'' Indeed, it can be said of Sol Linowitz that almost from his birth in 1913 until his death earlier this year, he reflected in his own life the highest ideals, aspirations and achievements of 20th- century America. Sol Linowitz was the eldest of Joseph and Rose Linowitz's four sons. Both his parents had come to this country as adolescents from what was then the Russian empire. They met and married in this country, settling in Trenton, NJ, and raising their family there. Of his parents Sol has written simply but eloquently: they ``were not highly educated people; they had come across the ocean . . . bringing their hopes and little more . . . their life was a struggle.'' From his parents he received the priceless gift of principles by which to live his own life: the fundamental importance of education; values taught by example, not rhetoric; people helping others in need. He grew up in a neighborhood of families similar to his own, except that they had come from Ireland, and Italy and in an earlier time and under different conditions, from Africa. He could see that his parents ``most of all loved and trusted this country.'' On the strength of advice from a high school teacher and a modest scholarship, Sol Linowitz went to Hamilton College, where he went on to become the Class of 1935 Salutatorian. Advice from a distinguished Hamilton alumnus, Elihu Root, led him to law school; when he told Root that he was thinking of becoming a rabbi or studying law, Root replied: ``Become a lawyer. I have found that a lawyer needs twice as much religion as a minister or rabbi.'' Once again, this time at Cornell Law School, he rose to the top of his class, finishing first and serving as editor-in-chief of the Cornell Law Quarterly. A number of his law- school friends, like Senator Edmund Muskie and Secretary of State William Rogers, went on to become eminent public servants and practitioners of the law. But Sol wrote with typical understatement in his memoir that ``the most significant social contact'' of his years at Cornell was Toni Zimmerman, a Cornell student. All who know Toni Zimmerman Linowitz would certainly agree. Sol and Toni were married for 65 years. Sol chose to practice law in Rochester with the small family firm of Sutherland and Sutherland. Following government and military service during World War II, he and Toni returned to Rochester. Sol resumed his law practice. At the same time, he entered into the sustained engagement in community and national affairs that was to illuminate his entire life. Sol Linowitz's commitment to public service extended far beyond his government service, which began with his OAS ambassadorship, in 1969. He found an extraordinary range of opportunities to serve. For many years he was a trustee of Hamilton College and of Cornell University, which had both served him so well--and also of Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, and the University of Rochester and the Eastman School of Music, in Rochester. He was chairman of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He served as president of the National Urban League. He was a co-founder of the International Executive Service Committee, in 1964, and the founder of the InterAmerican Dialogue, in 1982. He was an advisor to three U.S. Presidents, and was President Carter's representative in the Israel-Egypt negotiations following the Camp David Accord. With Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, Sol Linowitz led the U.S. team that negotiated the Panama Canal Treaties. It has been reported that years later Sol said of this daunting challenge, ``In retrospect, I'd have to say that assignment was probably the most difficult and the most challenging of my life. It is also the accomplishment of which I am most proud.'' Sol had reason to take pride in his achievement. The treaties were brilliantly drafted and negotiated. They put an end to a growing source of friction in U.S. relations not just with Panama but with all of Latin America, and assured the continuing, smooth operation of the Canal. It was in my capacity as a manager of the floor debate over the Senate's advice and consent to the treaties that I worked closely with Sol Linowitz over many months and got to know him well. He was an extraordinarily skillful diplomat, an honorable and dedicated public servant. He was also a person of singular intelligence, integrity, and human compassion. It was my privilege to consider him a friend. Sol opened his memoir with the quotation cited above from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In closing, he turned to Archibald MacLeish. MacLeish, he noted, ``once said that 'America is promises,' but these promises have not been kept equally to all. Those of us for whom the most extravagant promises of this land have become a reality are, I think, required to seek appropriate expressions of their gratitude.'' Sol Linowitz never ceased to find opportunities to express his gratitude. Again and again over the course of his long and productive life, he found innumerable ways to make our Nation a better place for all its people. At a memorial service at Adas Israel Congregation on March 29, 2005, Sol Linowitz was remembered in a series of moving tributes from members of his family, friends and colleagues. Every tribute reminded us yet again how deeply the loss of Sol Linowitz is felt. He was ``a man comfortable with himself, and thus everyone was comfortable with him,'' said Jim Lehrer. ``He asked questions and then he listened to the answers.'' Bernard Kalb observed, ``Sol Linowitz may have been the president of Xerox but no one has yet succeeded in making a copy of Sol.'' Mr. President, I ask that the service be printed in the Record. The service follows.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to acknowledge two young Marylanders who were recently chosen to present and display their history projects in Washington, DC, as part of the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy. With an eye toward increasing informed participation, National History Day--which as a national program celebrates its 25th anniversary this year--promotes history-related education in Maryland and throughout the Nation. Each year, the program allows students to use critical thinking and research skills and to create exhibits, documentaries and performances related to a particular historical subject. This year, 29 students were chosen from a pool of half a million to display their projects at various sites throughout the Nation's Capital. Ryan Moore, a student at Mill Creek Middle School in Hughesville, Maryland, used his skills and critical thinking to create a project entitled ``Television: A Key Player in Communicating the Candidate's Message.'' He will display and present his project at the White House Visitor Center. Lauren White, a student at Plum Point Middle School in Huntington, MD, similarly stood out from the crowd in creating a project entitled ``More Powerful than Words: The Photo Stories of Lewis Wickes Hine.'' She will display and present her project at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. I congratulate both Lauren and Ryan as they are honored for their presentations, and commend them for their dedication, commitment, and creativity.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day. Second Harvest, the lead sponsor of the June 7 observance, has performed an important public service in challenging us to reflect on the very real problem of hunger in America. I commend Second Harvest and all the sponsoring organizations for their efforts. Our Nation has enormous wealth, and yet far too many Americans must deal with the pain and consequences of hunger. Approximately 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, are ``food insecure''--quite simply inadequately nourished. Hunger may be more subtler in its manifestations and effects than malnutrition but it relentlessly undermines health, and it compromises one's ability to do well in school or on the job. Inadequate nutrition in children correlates with anemia, stunted growth, weight loss and extreme fatigue. Studies done by the highly respected Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy at Tufts University show that inadequate nutrition can adversely affect a child's achievement in school. Hunger also can cause severe anxiety and depression. Although Congress has taken measures to prevent hunger and food insecurity, much remains to be done. Federally funded programs like the Food Stamp Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly referred to as the WIC program, provide assistance to low-income children by improving access to nutritional meals. It is therefore deeply regrettable that the President's 2006 budget has made it more difficult for low-income families to receive nutritional assistance. The White House's budget request for the Food Stamp Program amounts to a staggering cut of more than $500 million over 5 years by forcing over 300,000 low-income participants out of a program that acts as a crucial safety net for millions of Americans. Substantial cuts to the WIC program would result in 670,000 women and children losing important nutritional assistance by the year 2010. It is deeply regrettable that the Budget conference report approved by the Congress mandates a mandatory cut of $3 billion in agriculture appropriations, leaving Food Stamps and other domestic hunger-relief programs vulnerable. At a time when more families are forced to struggle with unemployment and low wages, a lack of affordable housing, rising health care costs, and the disappearance of hard-earned pensions, National Hunger Day serves to remind us of the need to vanquish hunger; in this prosperous Nation, there is no reason why millions of Americans should have to face the prospect of hunger, or watch their children go hungry. The conference report on the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution Budget conference report is a callous response to an urgent challenge, and National Hunger Awareness Day is a time to pledge that we will not rest until the challenge is met.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend the very able Senator from Connecticut both for his statement and for the letter that he and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Biden, sent to a number of us about the necessity of trying to get these materials which we have sought. Clearly the Congress needs this information in order to do its job. The position of the Senator from Connecticut on the cloture motion, as I understand it, is that we ought not to invoke cloture and move to a vote on Bolton until the material is provided. If the material is made available and we are in a position to make judgments, then I take it we can move forward in the normal course of the debate toward a final vote on Bolton's nomination; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. That strikes me as an eminently reasonable position. It needs to be made clear that there is material the executive branch is refusing to make available to the Senate, and which we need in order to be adequately informed in carrying out our responsibilities of advising and consenting on this nomination.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first, I commend the very able Senator from Connecticut not only for his statement on the floor, but the very reasoned and judicious way he has proceeded in considering this nomination. I join with those who think the refusal to provide the information constitutes a sufficient basis not to invoke cloture while we continue to press the administration to provide the information the Senate needs in order to do its job. I spoke yesterday with the distinguished Ranking Member of the committee, Senator Biden, on the floor about this issue, and I have done so again here today with my friend, the Senator from Connecticut. I strongly urge my colleagues to take that position because it is a very important question of the role the Senate should play, and whether we really are an independent branch of the Government that will act to carry out our responsibilities. Let me now address the substance of the Bolton nomination. In the 60 years since the founding of the United Nations, a number of extraordinarily distinguished men and women have been chosen to represent us in that body as the U.S. ambassador: Warren Austin, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., James Wadsworth, Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Goldberg, George W. Ball, James Russell Wiggins, Charles Yost, George Bush, John Scali, Daniel P. Moynihan, William Scranton, Andrew Young, Donald McHenry, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Vernon Walters, Thomas Pickering, Edward Joseph Perkins, Madeleine Albright, Bill Richardson, Richard Holbrooke, John Negroponte, and John Danforth. The fact that at least 17 of them, spanning 8 administrations-- Republican and Democratic--have been elevated to serve on the President's Cabinet demonstrates the critical importance in which this position historically has been held. The fact that we proudly remember so many of these names, after the passage of a number of years, underscores both the visibility of the U.N. ambassador and the statesmanship that the position requires. On a daily basis, our ambassador to the U.N. speaks to the entire world on behalf of the United States. The comments our ambassador makes and the relationships he or she cultivates make the difference between a United States that is respected as a leader in the world, setting an example of American values and principles, and a United States that is ignored and misunderstood. In today's world, this difference affects the lives of millions at home and abroad. The United Nations is not a tool to be used ``when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along,'' as Mr. Bolton has suggested but is, rather, an essential and ongoing forum for the advancement of U.S. foreign policy and the protection of U.S. national security interests. The U.N. makes decisions that affect war and peace. It helps to determine whether the United States will have international support and allies or will be forced to undertake difficult missions on its own in the face of broad opposition across the globe. Skillful work at the U.N. enables us to have burden sharing, both in terms of the commitment of human resources and the commitment of financial sources. The United Nations offers us an opportunity to make our case to the world, to demonstrate international leadership, and to build multilateral cooperation. As Secretary General Annan commented in a recent speech, the U.N. ``is not just a building in Manhattan, or a piece of international machinery. It embodies a conviction on the part of people everywhere that we live on a small planet, and that our safety, our prosperity, our rights--indeed, our freedoms--are indivisible.'' For this reason, our representatives at the United Nations must be men and women of exceptional wisdom and credibility, who can listen and persuade, whose counsel and leadership other nations will seek and rely upon. Despite the need for a U.N. ambassador who recognizes and can make the most of the U.N.'s potential and promise, we have before us now a nominee to be our ambassador to the U.N., who over a number of years has demonstrated outright hostility toward the United Nations as an institution and toward the fundamental legitimacy of international law. Mr. Bolton has argued repeatedly that the United States has no legal obligation to pay its dues to the United Nations and that treaties are nothing more than ``political commitments''. He called the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has been endorsed by our military and submitted by President Bush as an urgent priority for Senate advice and consent, ``an illegitimate method of forcing fundamental policy changes on the United States outside the customary political process.'' He is quoted as saying: It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short term interest to do so--because, over the long-term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States. To send someone as our ambassador to the United Nations who does not demonstrate a basic respect for the institution and its legal foundations is a disservice to our national interests. This has nothing to do with whether reforms are needed at the U.N. or whether we should more closely monitor its activities. Many of us are committed to doing both of those things. It is a very basic question of one's mindset about the United States, about the United Nations and about international law. If other nations believe that the U.S. is not out to reform the United Nations but to undercut it, then they are likely not to be receptive to any of our criticisms or recommendations. Secondly, it is clear that Mr. Bolton does not have the diplomatic skills or, indeed, the demeanor to represent our country effectively at the U.N. There are certainly moments when the situation may call for bluntness, when abandoning diplomatic niceties can convey the urgency of a particular issue or position. However, Mr. Bolton has shown a propensity for making extreme and provocative statements that have caused unnecessary conflict and confrontation. It is not an occasional outburst that might, on occasion, be justified by the situation but, regrettably, a routine way of doing business. Does it help us in trying to shape the direction in which the U.N. is to move when Mr. Bolton says that the Security Council should have one permanent member, the United States, ``because that is the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world''? Does anyone think that Mr. Bolton's assertion that ``if the U.N. Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference'' will help us in persuading other countries to support U.N. reform efforts? These are not isolated misstatements or slips of the tongue but, rather, his customary and consistent approach to dealing with others who disagree with him. Even given the opportunity to demonstrate a less confrontational approach, he has repeatedly declined to do so. Mr. Bolton, time and again, has shown himself singularly lacking in the willingness to hear, to consider, and to respect opposing points of view. Contrast that attitude with these comments made by Ambassador Moynihan and Ambassador Kirkpatrick when they were nominated for this position. Ambassador Moynihan, in his confirmation hearing before the committee, said: A certain principled statement of views on both sides can be useful: it requires that we respect what others think and try to understand what they think and ask that they do the same in return. . . . Things where we disagree are marginal compared with where we do agree. And yet it is so easy to grow estranged at the first problem, the first question is how to get away from a confrontation system back to the quest for understanding and agreement in a situation where this is wholly possible and entirely necessary. Similarly, Ambassador Kirkpatrick, in her confirmation hearing before the committee, said: I do not think that one should ever seek confrontation. What I have every intention and hope of doing is to operate in a low key, quiet, persuasive and consensus-building way. This nomination came out of the committee without recommendation. There was a 9-to-9 divided vote. By contrast, all of the previous nominees to be U.N. ambassador were brought to the floor by very strong committee votes and approved on the floor by very strong votes--most of them unanimous, none of them really close. In addition to Mr. Bolton's extreme policy views and his confrontational demeanor, there is the issue of his professional conduct. There is ample evidence that he has attempted to politicize intelligence in a way that I believe has harmed our Nation's diplomacy. Mr. Bolton sought the transfer of two intelligence analysts with whom he disagreed on substantive matters. He repeatedly attempted to stretch the facts to back his own ideological predisposition. He created such a climate of intimidation in the State Department that the Secretary of State found it necessary to set up a special meeting with the Intelligence and Research Bureau in order to directly reassure the analysts. To make matters worse, Mr. Bolton told the committee that he had not tried to have analysts punished or disciplined, and he denied that he sought retribution against them. He said, ``I shrugged my shoulders, and I moved on,'' when his attempts to have them reassigned were rebuffed. And yet we have learned from extensive interviews with numerous administration officials that he did try to have the analysts removed from their positions, that he did seek to punish people for disagreeing with him, and he did persist in his efforts for many months after, as he says, he shrugged his shoulders and moved on. That he was ultimately unsuccessful in his efforts does not speak for Mr. Bolton. What it speaks to is the steadiness and determination of those professionals who withstood his demands, who refused to bend to the inordinate pressure he was applying. Given this conduct, when he goes before the United Nations to make a statement about evidence of nuclear weapons production or a terrorist plot or whatever it may be, what credibility will he have, knowing that he sought repeatedly to punish intelligence analysts who delivered contradictory information; knowing that he is sort of a man who, as Robert Hutchings, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, put it, ``took isolated facts and made much of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It was a sort of cherry picking of little factoids and little isolated bits were drawn out to present the starkest possible case''? We need a credible spokesman at the United Nations, and Mr. Bolton's conduct casts serious doubt on his ability to be one. Moreover, Mr. Bolton's poor administrative and management skills, in my view, raise serious questions as to whether he can exercise a senior leadership role. The testimony of Carl Ford, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, was especially powerful on this point. Mr. Ford told the committee: In my experience, throughout my time in the executive branch, I've really never seen someone so abusive to such a subordinate person. He said he could think of no one else who comes even close to John Bolton in terms of the way that he abuses his power and authority with ``little'' people. Secretary Powell's Chief of Staff, Larry Wilkerson, described to the committee staff the kinds of problems he had on a daily basis in dealing with Bolton. Assistant secretaries, principal deputy assistant secretaries, acting assistant secretaries coming into my office and telling me, ``Can I sit down?'' ``Sure, sit down. What's the problem?'' ``I've got to leave.'' ``What's the problem?'' ``Bolton.'' When asked if he got similar complaints about other Under Secretaries, he replied: On one occasion, on one particular individual. The rest were all about Undersecretary Bolton. In summarizing this experience Wilkerson stated, ``I think he's a lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there''--meaning at the U.S. mission to the U.N.--``that have to be led. They have to be led well, and they have to be led properly.'' Being ambassador to the United Nations is not just a representational job; it is also a management job. There are 125 full-time, permanent State Department employees working there at our mission alongside numerous detailees from other agencies and departments. The ambassador has supervisory responsibility over all these people. Most are career civil servants, and they are there to represent the policies of the President and to serve the interests of the Nation.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?