Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for an effort that I believe is long overdue. I am honored today to join Senator Inouye as a co-sponsor of the U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008. As co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus and a former soldier, I am proud to pay tribute to the U.S. Army, which has dutifully served our Nation for over 230 years.

The Army is the only service branch that currently does not have a comprehensive museum honoring its members and veterans. The Commemorative Coin Act will help raise the revenue needed to build a museum dedicated to the men and women who have for so long protected the sovereignty and freedom of our country. The museum will serve to commemorate the enormous sacrifice of our soldiers, and will be a symbol of the Army's dedication to the fight for freedom.

Since the days of the Continental Army of the Revolution, to the highly mobile and technological force of today, the U.S. Army has been the bulwark against which tyranny and oppression have consistently failed. It is time we permanently memorialize the sacrifice that the U.S. Army has given to the cause of liberty around the world.

I urge the Congress to quickly grant its approval to the U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008.

Mr. President, there is confusion as to the order of the speakers. I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, be recognized for up to 15 minutes, in morning business, to be followed by me, to be recognized for up to 35 minutes in morning business.

May I ask how long Mr. Webb, the junior Senator from Virginia, wishes to speak?

I amend my request that it be, first, Senator Casey for 15 minutes, Senator Webb for 10 minutes, and myself for 35 minutes in morning business.

This is the new request: I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, be recognized for up to 15 minutes, after which I will be recognized for up to 35 minutes, and then the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, will be recognized for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding, under a previous unanimous consent request, that I would be recognized for up to 35 minutes.

Mr. President, I don't very often do this, but I am going to make a presentation today, and I would like to give it a title, and the title is ``The Third Reason.'' The subtitle very likely could be ``The third reason we are winning in Iraq, and we should be in Iraq.''

I have to say that I have had occasion to be there many times, and there is no doubt in my mind and, I don't doubt, in many people's minds that we are actually winning in Iraq. But before I address this, I would like to point out something very few people are aware of; that is, the mess that was inherited by George W. Bush right after 9/11.

First of all, if we look back during the 1990s, there was this euphoric attitude that the Cold War was over and we no longer needed a national defense system. So during the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, we started decimating the system. And I have the documentation here because a lot of people don't understand this.

If you would take what happened in the first year, or the last year of the previous administration over the first year the Clintons had control of the budget, and if we had taken a flat amount to determine how much we were going to be spending on defending America, then draw a straight line and only add into that the inflation--in other words, that is what it would be if we didn't do anything else--well, the budget that came from the White House is this red line down here. If you take the difference between the red line and what would have been a flat budget, it is $412 billion. In other words, $412 billion came out of our defense system. However, the good news was that Congress looked at that and said that is too big of a cut, so they intervened and raised President Clinton's budget up to this brown line in the middle. So what was inherited by this President was an amount $313 billion less than it would have been if it had just been a static amount.

Now, that would have been bad enough--and I have always contended we have to make that the No. 1 priority in America: to defend America--but to make it worse, on 9/11 we went to war, and then we were pushed into a situation of going into and liberating Iraq, and all of a sudden, people started standing on the floor of the Senate and saying things like: Well, how in the world could this President be getting into deficits, how could he be spending so much, and all of this. This is the reason: because we started off $313 billion less than during the time period of the previous administration. That is the seriousness of it.

Now, I say that just because I recall so well the confirmation hearings for the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld. During his confirmation hearings, they were making statements at that time about what were they going to do with the problems that were there and that we are underfunded in the military, that our modernization program has gone sideways, our force strength is not what it should be, and what should we do about that. This was all live on TV.

During the confirmation hearing--and I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee--I said: Mr. Rumsfeld, we have a problem I see as very serious, and that is you are going to get all of your generals around you, we are going to get all these smart people, and they are going to be asked what are we going to be confronted with 10 years from today, and the generals, as smart as they are, are going to be wrong.

I can remember what I said at that meeting 7 years ago. I said: The last year I was in the House of Representatives, I was attending a House Armed Services Committee hearing, and in that committee hearing an expert witness said: Ten years from now, we will no longer need ground troops in America.

Of course, we saw what happened in Kosovo and Bosnia, and we knew that was wrong. So I said: Since we can't tell where we are going to be 10 years from now, and there is a lead time in preparing for war or a contingency, what is the answer to this thing? We don't know if we are going to have the best strike vehicles or lift vehicles or the best artillery pieces.

He said: I have made a study of that, and you are asking the right person, because in the average year, for the 100 years of the 20th century, we spent 5.7 percent of our GDP on defense. At the end of the 1990s, it went down to 2.7 percent.

I said: Down to 2.7 percent. Where should it be?

He said: We don't know for sure but somewhere in excess of 4 percent, probably 4\1/2\ percent, which is still less than it was for the previous several hundred years.

That was kind of interesting to me because when you look right now, how many people in America realize there are some things we have that are not as good as some of our potential adversaries?

I would say that one of my heroes prior to the time he was Chief of the Air Force was GEN John Jumper. General Jumper stood up and said publicly--in 1998, I believe it was--he said: Now the Russians are making a strike vehicle that is better than our best, and he talked about the SU-27s and the SU-30s. Our best were the F-15s and the F-16s. That was a shocking statement. So we started working on the F-22 and the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter.

Right now, the best piece of artillery we have in our arsenal is World War II technology. It is a Paladin. It is something where you have to get out after every shot and swab the breech the way you did back in World War II. So now we are stepping ahead. But this has all happened during this administration, where we now have the new FCS-- Future Combat System--that is going to revolutionize, for the first time in probably 40 years, how we fight battles.

I only say that because this is something we are going to have to contend with in the future, and it also paints a pretty good picture as to where we were when this thing happened on 9/11.

I would like to suggest there are three reasons we went into Iraq. The liberation of Iraq is the first one, and that is called to my mind now because I had an experience--you will enjoy this, I say to my good friend from Arkansas, who is occupying the chair--

two weekends ago when I happened to be in a place referred to now as JFK's winter White House. It was the Kennedy compound in West Palm Beach, FL. Ironically, it was sold to a very strong, wealthy, partisan Republican, and we were having an event down there. I looked out to the audience when giving a talk, and there were a lot of my heroes, among them Alexander Haig, who was previously Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan. He told the story of Saddam Hussein, that in 1991--and this is right after the first Persian Gulf war--we had what we called the first freedom flight into Kuwait. Now, it was so early in the end of the war that the Iraqis did not know the war was over, and they were still burning the fields down there, the oilfields, and all of a sudden, day would turn into night as the wind shifted and smoke went back and forth.

It wasn't all Republicans, I might add. Tony Cuello, who at that time was the majority whip in the House of Representatives, was there also.

Anyway, we had an occasion to go to Kuwait, and one of the persons on that trip was then the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States, a man of nobility, and he had his daughter, who was around 8 years old, with him. They wanted to go see what their home looked like in the Persian Gulf. So we went there, only to find out that Saddam Hussein had been using that home as a headquarters. We went up to, I think it was the little girl's bedroom, or one of the bedrooms, and found that it had been used as a torture chamber. There were body parts strewn around the room, stuffed into walls, and horrible things had been going on. A little boy had his ear cut off because he was caught with a little tiny American flag within sight.

We talked about the horrible atrocities going on and personally witnessed some stories of individuals, people who were sentenced to a torturous death by Saddam Hussein. Many of them would beg that their body be eased into a vat of acid head first so that they would be able to die quicker than feet first.

We saw the fact that the weddings, any weddings that were taking place out in the streets at the time of Saddam Hussein, they would raid the weddings, they would kill the people, rape the girls, and bury them alive. We saw mass graves, hundreds of people had been buried alive or tortured to death.

I guess what I would say is, the first reason we went to Iraq, as I think we would go anywhere, our country would go anywhere, is to aid a country that had this type of Holocaust-type of atrocities taking place. So that was the first reason was to end Saddam Hussein's regime of torture. It was successful. We did it.

The second reason was because Iraq was a major terrorist-training area. There are four areas where they trained. You know about Samara and Ramadi because people now realize--they are pretty familiar with that. But you may have forgotten or may never even have known about some of the other areas. Sargat, for example, was an international terrorist training camp in northeastern Iraq near the Iranian border. It was run by Ansar al-Islam, a known terrorist organization. Based on information from the U.S. Army Special Forces, operators who led the attack said: It is indeed more than plausible that al-Qaida members trained in that particular training camp.

That is in Sargat. The Green Berets discovered, among the dead in Sargat, foreign ID cards, airline ticket receipts, visas, passports from Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran, and many other places.

At Salman Pak, it was a facility south of Baghdad, and we have a number of videos and computer disks, documents, and other materials, including explicit jihadist propaganda, which revealed terrorist training footage, and the targets were clearly Americans. The foreign Arabs were being trained as hijackers of airplanes. That is interesting. They had a fuselage of an old Boeing 707 on the ground in Salman Pak, where they were training terrorists to hijack airplanes.

Now, we have no way of knowing whether those were the perpetrators of the crime that took place on 9/11, but very likely that could have been the case. Now, the bottom line, though, is the second reason for the liberation of Iraq was to do away with all of the training camps, the four specific training camps that I am talking about, and we did that.

So I would like, before getting into reason No. 3, to kind of compare what is going on from a perspective that most of you guys probably have not heard; that is, I have had occasion to be in what we call CENTCOM and Africa--that is where the major problems are--some 19 times. And let's go back and kind of compare the last three visits there--not the last three but three of the last visits.

One was before the surge. It was June of 2006. And that was in the wake of Zarqawi's death. We remember that so well. The Iraqis were operating under a 6-month-old parliament. Al-Qaida continued to challenge coalition forces throughout Iraq. Things were not going all that well, but the coalition forces did launch 200 raids against al- Qaida and cleared out some of the strongholds.

But I had occasion to talk to Defense Minister Jasim. And in visiting with him, we talked about the current situation in Iraq. And he felt it could be done. It could be done--our people would be able to be trained over a period of time with proper training to take care of this. And we talked about some of these things that our press talked about back in the United States.

He said the big conflict between Sunnis and the Shias was mostly a Western concept, and he used as evidence of that individuals in his own family. He happened to be married--I could get this backwards--either he was a Sunni married to a Shia or vice-versa.

We had a good discussion. But we could see very clearly that we believed things might be getting a little better, but they were not as better as we hoped. Let's fast-forward to May of 2007.

I returned to Iraq and visited Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad, and some of the other areas. And this is after the surge. The surge took place in January. So this was in May; this was 3 months later. So Ramadi went from being controlled by al-Qaida and hailed as their capital. We might remember this. About 15 months ago they had a news conference over there where they said that Ramadi was going to become the capital of terrorism in the world, the world capital.

Well, by May of 2007 it was under total control, totally secure not by U.S. troops but by the Iraqi security forces. The neighborhood security watch programs were working. It was kind of like the programs we have in this country. We have a neighborhood watch program, and they go out and they look and see what they can do to make things more peaceful.

And you have heard the stories of how they would go out and they would take an orange spray can, and they would draw circles around the undetonated IEDs. This was going on, and it seemed to be going very well. That is the first time that I realized--I am kind of a slow learner--I realized that the leaders in Iraq were not the political leaders but the religious leaders, the clerics and the Imams.

Prior to the surge, the average--we had intelligence people there-- the average of the messages that were in the mosques on a weekly basis were 80 to 85 percent anti-American. Since April there had not been any anti-American messages.

The joint security stations seemed to be going very well there. That was where, instead of going back, our troops going back into the Green Zone in Baghdad after they were out on a raid or doing their work on a mission, they would instead go to some of the homes of the Iraqi security forces and actually bed down with them, they developed personal, intimate relationships with them.

The burden sharing was increasing. Fallujah came under the control of the Iraqi brigade. And that was an area that we might recall where our Marines went World-War-II style door to door.

In Anbar, it changed from the center of violence to a success story. In Baghdad, the sectarian murders decreased by 30 percent, and joint security stations stood up forming deep relationships between the coalition forces and the Iraqis. It was referred to by General Petraeus as ``brotherhood of the close fight.''

And there is some other good news, too. The media became about halfway honest. This was kind of interesting because I can remember on earlier trips, the first thing the troops would ask me when I would go in is, they would say: Why is it the American people do not understand what we are doing? Why do they not like us? Why is it the media do not like us?

I can remember LTC Tim Ryan. He said, as I have here:

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world

view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further

erosion of international support for the United States'

efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve

and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their

incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members

of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting

the enemy.

Well, that is what I heard from many of them, but this is one that we can actually quote.

Well, that is something that is changing. I think we saw a few months after I returned from that trip, two of the journalists--one was Michael O'Hanlon, the other Kenneth Pollack--wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, and this was actually above the fold on the front page, to let you know. If you want to look it up on your Web site, it was July 30, 2007.

They said things such as: Troop morale is high, and they had confidence in General Petraeus and his strategy. Civilian fatality rates were down roughly a third since the surge began. Streets in Baghdad were slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers and so forth. American troop levels in Mosul now numbered only in the hundreds from where they were before. More Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. And, keep in mind, these were statements that were made and were in the New York Times, which has not really been a bastion of support for the President or the war.

But here is another one. I happened to see this one September 2, 2007. Bob Schieffer had an interview televised with Katie Couric. Katie Couric is another one who has never been a supporter of the President. And they said this. This is a quote now. She was responding to questions.

Well, I was surprised, you know, after I went to eastern

Baghdad. I was taken to the Allawi market which is near Haifa

street--

Which several of us have been to--

which was the scene of a very bloody gun battle back in

January, and, you know, the market seemed to be thriving, and

there were a lot of people out and about, a lot of family-

owned businesses and vegetable stalls, and so you do see

signs of life that seem to be normal. . . . The situation is

improving.

That was not me. That was not Senator Jim Inhofe who has always been supporting this effort. That was Katie Couric.

Before giving the press too much credit, though, let me suggest to you that if you look at this chart--this is something I stumbled onto yesterday--and since the success has been there, you notice they are not saying it is not successful, but they are not covering it. This is the coverage in September of 2007. It dropped down by about half in October, then it dropped down again in November. So I guess what we are saying is, if they cannot print something bad because nothing bad is happening there, they do not print anything at all.

Well, I returned to Iraq on August 30, and the surge continued its success. I traveled to the Contingency Operating Base Speicher in Tikrit and to the Patrol Base Murray south of Baghdad and visited Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. And so, again, the same changes that took place 3 months later were taking place and were much better. Less than half of the al-Qaida leaders who were in Baghdad when the surge began were still there. There was a 75-percent reduction in religious and ethnic killings in the capital, double the seizure of insurgents' weapons, and a rise in the number of al-Qaida killed and captured.

So, you know, the surge knocked out some six media cells which make it harder for al-Qaida to spread their propaganda. Anbar's incidents and attacks were down from 40 a day to less than 10 a day. Economic growth, you heard what Katie Couric said about the markets. I was in the same crowded markets. They were selling fresh food like normal times.

The large hospital project in the Sunni Triangle is back on track. The Iraqi Army is performing very well. The Iraqi citizens formed a grassroots movement called the Concerned Citizens League.

Baghdad returned to normalcy. Little kiddie pools, the lawns that were cared for, amusement parks and markets, and the surge provided security. Security allowed the local population and governments to stand up. Basic economics has taken root. Iraqis are spending money on Iraqi projects.

Now that is the good news. Here is the bad news. General Petraeus, after all of his success, the far left had crossed the line--I think we all remember this--when a full-page ad, paid for by moveon.org, besmirched the motives and the honor of our No. 1 commander on the ground in Iraq, General Petraeus.

Remember, they called him General ``Betrayus.'' I supported Senator Lieberman's condemnation of moveon.org's attempt at character assassination, as well as Senator Cornyn's resolution. Senator Cornyn's resolution stood behind General Petraeus. And there were 28 Senators in this Chamber who supported moveon.org, an act, I am sure, will be remembered.

While no American is above scrutiny, this was clearly a calculated move on the part of this organization to undermine the noble efforts of this patriot to execute the duties that we in the Congress unanimously sent him to accomplish.

You simply have to wonder whose side some of these people were on. This goes to show how far some will go to root for American failure in Iraq. These organizations are clearly placing their political agenda ahead of the best interests of the United States and particularly the men and the women who are in uniform.

So let's just for a minute set Iraq aside and look at Iran. Beyond the obvious consequences that would befall an Iraq without U.S. support, lack of a secure and stable Iraq means instability in the Middle East; namely, an unimpeded rogue Iran. A crippled Iraq will create a power vacuum. Remember what Ahmadinejad said on August 28, 2007.

Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of

course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of

neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with

the help of the Iraqi nation.

Maybe it was good that was said because people know what kind of person he is, and they know he was prepared and wanting to fill the gap, a gap, a vacuum that is not there now.

Arab nations in the region have expressed their concern about Iran and are eager to contain the growing Iranian power. The world knows what Iran is capable of. The world has seen their aggression.

BG Jimmy Cash, U.S. Air Force retired, former command director inside the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, that was 1987 to 1989. He was the only person who could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting President of a missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond.

No political or civilian had more knowledge about day-to-day military actions around the world. He said--and this is a quote. This is BG Jimmy Cash:

I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every

day, and all day long, for months, they killed hundreds of

thousands of their own people. . . . They were fighting for

control of the Middle East.

Iran's nuclear work continues, including the enrichment of uranium, which could easily be used as part of a nuclear weapons program. I think we all understand that.

In the last 2 years, Iran has continued developing ballistic missile technology, launching missiles over 2,000 kilometers. Coalition forces have intercepted Iranian arms shipments in Iraq, including materials that are used to make explosively formed penetrators--that is EFPs-- which are the most deadly of IEDs, which are being used against our American troops.

Coalition forces have also detained Iranian agents in Iraq. On January 7, Iranian gunboats--we remember that, how they were harassing some of our U.S. warships at the time.

Iran has now turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance--freedom-loving nations throughout the globe. The world cannot afford to have Iran in control of the Middle East.

So Iraq remains as the critical link. Iraq is at a decisive turning point in their journey toward democracy. The surge has created opportunities that the Iraqi people have not taken for granted. The ``awakening'' is spreading from Al Anbar Province to Diyala Province. I saw it coming years ago. Years ago, I can remember going, as many of my colleagues had, from place to place in Iraq--long before the surge-- seeing that our troops, when they would receive goods from home, such as cookies and candies, and they would take their packages and repackage them in small packages and throw them out to these kids way out in the countryside, and the kids would wave American flags. That was out there. We knew that success was taking place.

The once turbulent and violent Al Anbar Province is returning to Iraqi control--Iraqi control, not our control. The Government of Iraq enacted The Justice and Accountability Act--that law--on January 12, showing real progress toward former baathist reconciliation.

Al-Qaida is a spent force in Iraq. It is retreating to the Horn of Africa.

Speaking of Africa, I have had occasion to be in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa. I have to say this with some degree of pride--this picture you are seeing in the Chamber now is of a little girl who was actually found as a little orphan girl who was 3 days old, south of Djibouti. My wife Kay and I are blessed with 20 kids and grandkids. Our daughter had nothing but boys, so she has now adopted this little girl, and that little girl is my granddaughter.

Some good things are happening over there. But I have to say that looking at the squeeze that is taking place in the Middle East, a lot of the terrorist activity is going down into the Horn of Africa. The occupier of the chair is fully aware that we--both sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, we are very proud of the fact that we are setting up and helping the Africans set up African brigades.

Syria has ceased supporting foreign fighters in Iraq. The Saudis are cracking down on supporters of Islamic terrorists in their own country. Iran is isolated. The world must remain focused and steady.

Iraq is an example to the world of how to reject terror and confront those who practice it. It is not going unnoticed. Political leaders see this. The world sees now that little kids are not being tortured to death in Iraq. Girls are now going to school instead of being raped and murdered. No more mass graves, no more vats of acid. And the butcher, Saddam Hussein, is dead.

Yes, we are doing a difficult thing, but we are doing the right thing. Just as Americans always try to do the right thing, we are doing the right thing there. But think of it for a minute. Isn't Iraq trying to do what we were trying to do 230 years ago? We were seeking a parliament at that time 230 years ago, and that is what Iraq is doing today. We were seeking a constitution. That is what Iraq is trying to do. We were seeking democracy. We were seeking freedom. Iraq is seeking the same things we were seeking some 230 years ago.

The Iraqis are watching us. They are risking their lives, the same as we were risking our lives some 230 years ago. I think of that first election that took place up in Fallujah, when the Iraqi security forces were going--knowing they were going to be shot at, but they were willing to do that--to go vote. Remember the purple fingers. That is what was taking place.

I would have to say this: We went through the same thing in this country. I have always said one of the best speeches made was Ronald Reagan's ``Rendezvous With Destiny,'' when he talked about the Cuban who trying to escape Castro's Cuba. As his ship washed up on the shore of Florida, a lady was there and said--and he was talking about the atrocities of Castro's Cuba--and she said: I guess we in this country don't know how lucky we are. He said: How lucky you are? We are the ones who are lucky because we had a place to escape to.

I would have to say that the first reason was to end the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. The second reason was to shut down the terrorist training camps. The third is they are doing exactly what we did 230 years ago.

When you stop and think about the message and the inspiration we had from our forefathers, and when you stop and think about the message that was given when a tall redhead stood before the House of Burgesses and made a speech for them at that time--and it is certainly for us today, and certainly for Iraq today--he said:

They tell us, sir, that we are weak--

This is exactly what they have been saying to the Iraqis.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak--unable to cope with so

formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will

it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are

totally disarmed . . . ? Shall we gather strength by

irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of

effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and

hugging the delusive phantom of hope . . . ? [W]e are not

weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of

nature has placed in our power. . . . armed in the holy cause

of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess,

are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against

us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone.

This is important.

. . . we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a

just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who

will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The

battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the

vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides. . . .if we were

base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from

the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and

slavery! Our chains are forged.

Some would say that we should retreat, we should leave. But that man stood before the House of Burgesses and said:

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish?

What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as

to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid

it, Almighty God!--I know not what course others may take;

but as for me--

Said Patrick Henry--

give me liberty or give me death!

I guess what I am saying is, the Iraqi freedom fighters are not unlike what we were some 200 years ago. Wouldn't it be great if we were to provide the inspiration for them that our forefathers provided for us?

That is what is happening right now. We are winning. We are doing the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Walker, a fellow, be given the privilege of the floor for this legislative day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 2551 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.

I have said many times on this Senate floor that we do have a crisis in energy and that we need all of the following: We need nuclear energy, but we also need clean coal technology, we need oil and gas, we need renewables. We need all of the above. I feel very strongly about this, and I know there is a disagreement on that issue, even within our committee. But I am concerned about the continued delays in opening our Nation's repository at Yucca Mountain, that it would hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. It seems as though right now we are making a major breakthrough. People who were objecting to nuclear energy just a few years ago are now realizing that it is clean, it is safe, it is abundant. Not that I use France as our model very often, but in this case, they are between 80 and 90 percent nuclear, and they have done the right thing.

A bit of history on this. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a program to locate and develop a repository for nuclear waste, including both Defense waste, a legacy from the Cold War, and civilian spent fuel. In 2002, after 20 years of research, the President recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain should be developed as the repository. The State of Nevada objected. I wasn't surprised to see that happen, and it did. It certainly is their right to do so under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, Congress passed a joint resolution affirming or reaffirming the administration's recommendation of Yucca Mountain with strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses.

The location has been decided. The debate is no longer in existence of whether a repository should be built at Yucca Mountain. That decision was made in 2002. The task that remains is to develop a repository that protects public health and safety and the environment, a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is high time we accomplish these tasks now. This is very serious. We passed laws and resolutions to do it. We have collected over $27 billion--that is with a ``b''--$27 billion for electricity from consumers to pay for it. The courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that we have the obligation--not the legal right to do it, the legal obligation.

Now, I am frustrated that the Department of Energy is 20 years behind schedule. However, I am pleased that DOE appears to have made significant progress in the past few years and will hopefully file a license application this year, despite the persistent assault on program funding.

I understand that opposition to Yucca Mountain remains, advocating that we abandon it in favor of interim storage. There have been many proposals on interim storage, and I expect there will be more in the future, but we have interim storage right now at 121 locations in 39 States. Make no mistake, interim storage is a temporary fix. It forces future generations to solve a problem that we ought to be resolving today. It is time to move forward with a permanent solution at Yucca Mountain.

I have visited the site. I have a question for those who would want to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?

Let's think about this for a minute. The logical first step to finding a new repository site is to begin by reevaluating sites that have been considered before. I have a map--which is not here, but it will be here before I finish talking--showing the 37 States that DOE and its predecessor, the Energy Research Development Administration, have evaluated in the past based on the presence of favorable geologic formations. Those States are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and it goes on and on, including my State of Oklahoma--37 of the 50 States. Now, 37 States have been considered as possible candidates for developing a repository. Does it really make sense to abandon a site where we have already invested 25 years and $8 billion before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even considers it, only to turn around and start from scratch, reevaluating sites in 37 States? I don't think so.

As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and generations to come, and the bill I am introducing now will do just that.

DOE has indicated there are legislative provisions they need to complete the licensing process and begin construction of the repository our electricity consumers have paid some $27 billion for already. Senators Domenici and Craig introduced their NU-WAY bill, S. 37, which includes those provisions within the jurisdiction of Environment and Public Works. My bill includes the remaining DOE provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. My bill goes beyond that. My bill will incorporate a flexible framework for future generations to apply their knowledge and innovations to improve the repository.

The task at hand is to develop a safe repository using state-of-the- art technology and cutting-edge science. The trouble is technology that is state of the art now won't be 50 years from now, much less 100 years from now. When you are making decisions on how to develop a facility that will be safe for up to a million years, we should not limit ourselves to science and technology that is available today. We should establish a flexible framework that incorporates technological advances into the facility design over time, one that allows our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to improve on the project we have started. In other words, we know that even though we are using the million-year benchmark, things are going to happen next year and the year after and the year after where we can have dramatic improvements. But the one thing we have to do is make the decision today--or keep the decision that has already been made.

Several international bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, have advocated repository development in stages that will incorporate technological advances over time--just what

we are talking about. The reformed licensing process in this bill integrates that concept into the current licensing process. My bill reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, operation, and closure of the repository.

I have to say we have come a long way already on this. When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air within this committee, we had not had an oversight committee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 12 years. I don't care what the bureaucracy is, you have to have oversight. Well, we have come a long way.

The threshold for approval of construction of a repository is based on a determination that the facility could be safely operated for 300 years. During this time, a long-term science and technology program will be established to monitor and analyze the repository's performance and to conduct research into technologies that would improve the facility. The repository license will be amended every 50 years at a minimum to incorporate these improvements. During this phase, waste would remain retrievable so that future generations may recover valuable material or upgrade disposal systems, for example.

When the DOE applies to permanently close the repository, it must then demonstrate compliance with EPA's radiation standard before ceasing operations at the site. Until then, the facility will be subject to the strict NRC regulation and oversight as an operating facility.

Today, this program has been litigated into a corner. After several lawsuits, the EPA has responded by drafting a radiation standard for 1 million years. That is right, based on what we know today, DOE must prove a reasonable expectation that Yucca Mountain will be safe for 1 million years before DOE can even begin building a repository. This is a ridiculous and arrogant requirement that assumes we know right now all that will ever be known about the management of spent nuclear fuel and its impact on public health and safety. That compliance decision only makes sense when DOE decides to close the repository and cease operations. Until that time, repository enhancements reflecting 300 years of scientific innovation will improve its protection of public health and safety and, I might add, the environment.

Now, my approach is not about kicking the can down the road and forcing future generations to solve the problem. That is what concerns me about a lot of the things we do around here. My wife and I have 20 kids and grandkids, and they are the ones who are going to be doing a lot of the things we should be doing today. My approach is about meeting a legal and moral obligation to build the best facility we can now, laying a solid foundation for future generations to improve it based on what they learn.

I am confident we can build a repository that will protect public health and safety and the environment, but I am equally confident that 50 years from now our grandchildren could build a better one. Fifty years from now, they will have learned a lot about the actual performance of repositories; something we can only predict right now, they will know by that time. Fifty years from now, the waste placed in the repository may require isolation for a few hundred years instead of a million.

Lastly, my bill includes provisions necessary to support new nuclear plant construction. Before receiving a license, nuclear plants must meet two requirements. The first is that companies must sign a contract with DOE to provide for the disposal of spent fuel. My bill modifies those provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to make them current. The second is known as waste confidence. Nuclear plants must demonstrate there is confidence that the spent fuel will be managed and disposed of in a manner that protects health and safety. My bill clarifies that the repository program meets this requirement for disposal.

So when a society takes on the task of building a complex, first-of- a-kind facility envisioned to remain robust for a million years, it immediately raises questions about generational equity. As Senators, we must balance fairness to the future generations that haven't been born yet with fairness to the generations we currently represent. Finding that balance must be based on several principles, including protecting the health and safety of current generations; protecting the health and safety of future generations; minimizing the impact on the environment; meeting the need for reliable, cost-effective energy; meeting legal obligations; minimizing taxpayer liability; and the costs are covered by those who benefit from the waste. My bill adheres to these principles and strikes that balance.

Rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise have been highly exaggerated. It is time we focus on developing the safest state-of-the-art repository we can, one step at a time. We owe it to our generation and to the generations that follow.

I have to say, regarding all of the emphasis recently on the concern we have for the environment, nothing is cleaner, nothing has been shown better for the environment than this type of energy, which we have to have in our mix.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.

I have said many times on this Senate floor that we do have a crisis in energy and that we need all of the following: We need nuclear energy, but we also need clean coal technology, we need oil and gas, we need renewables. We need all of the above. I feel very strongly about this, and I know there is a disagreement on that issue, even within our committee. But I am concerned about the continued delays in opening our Nation's repository at Yucca Mountain, that it would hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. It seems as though right now we are making a major breakthrough. People who were objecting to nuclear energy just a few years ago are now realizing that it is clean, it is safe, it is abundant. Not that I use France as our model very often, but in this case, they are between 80 and 90 percent nuclear, and they have done the right thing.

A bit of history on this. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a program to locate and develop a repository for nuclear waste, including both Defense waste, a legacy from the Cold War, and civilian spent fuel. In 2002, after 20 years of research, the President recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain should be developed as the repository. The State of Nevada objected. I wasn't surprised to see that happen, and it did. It certainly is their right to do so under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, Congress passed a joint resolution affirming or reaffirming the administration's recommendation of Yucca Mountain with strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses.

The location has been decided. The debate is no longer in existence of whether a repository should be built at Yucca Mountain. That decision was made in 2002. The task that remains is to develop a repository that protects public health and safety and the environment, a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is high time we accomplish these tasks now. This is very serious. We passed laws and resolutions to do it. We have collected over $27 billion--that is with a ``b''--$27 billion for electricity from consumers to pay for it. The courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that we have the obligation--not the legal right to do it, the legal obligation.

Now, I am frustrated that the Department of Energy is 20 years behind schedule. However, I am pleased that DOE appears to have made significant progress in the past few years and will hopefully file a license application this year, despite the persistent assault on program funding.

I understand that opposition to Yucca Mountain remains, advocating that we abandon it in favor of interim storage. There have been many proposals on interim storage, and I expect there will be more in the future, but we have interim storage right now at 121 locations in 39 States. Make no mistake, interim storage is a temporary fix. It forces future generations to solve a problem that we ought to be resolving today. It is time to move forward with a permanent solution at Yucca Mountain.

I have visited the site. I have a question for those who would want to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?

Let's think about this for a minute. The logical first step to finding a new repository site is to begin by reevaluating sites that have been considered before. I have a map--which is not here, but it will be here before I finish talking--showing the 37 States that DOE and its predecessor, the Energy Research Development Administration, have evaluated in the past based on the presence of favorable geologic formations. Those States are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and it goes on and on, including my State of Oklahoma--37 of the 50 States. Now, 37 States have been considered as possible candidates for developing a repository. Does it really make sense to abandon a site where we have already invested 25 years and $8 billion before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even considers it, only to turn around and start from scratch, reevaluating sites in 37 States? I don't think so.

As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and generations to come, and the bill I am introducing now will do just that.

DOE has indicated there are legislative provisions they need to complete the licensing process and begin construction of the repository our electricity consumers have paid some $27 billion for already. Senators Domenici and Craig introduced their NU-WAY bill, S. 37, which includes those provisions within the jurisdiction of Environment and Public Works. My bill includes the remaining DOE provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. My bill goes beyond that. My bill will incorporate a flexible framework for future generations to apply their knowledge and innovations to improve the repository.

The task at hand is to develop a safe repository using state-of-the- art technology and cutting-edge science. The trouble is technology that is state of the art now won't be 50 years from now, much less 100 years from now. When you are making decisions on how to develop a facility that will be safe for up to a million years, we should not limit ourselves to science and technology that is available today. We should establish a flexible framework that incorporates technological advances into the facility design over time, one that allows our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to improve on the project we have started. In other words, we know that even though we are using the million-year benchmark, things are going to happen next year and the year after and the year after where we can have dramatic improvements. But the one thing we have to do is make the decision today--or keep the decision that has already been made.

Several international bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, have advocated repository development in stages that will incorporate technological advances over time--just what

we are talking about. The reformed licensing process in this bill integrates that concept into the current licensing process. My bill reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, operation, and closure of the repository.

I have to say we have come a long way already on this. When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air within this committee, we had not had an oversight committee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 12 years. I don't care what the bureaucracy is, you have to have oversight. Well, we have come a long way.

The threshold for approval of construction of a repository is based on a determination that the facility could be safely operated for 300 years. During this time, a long-term science and technology program will be established to monitor and analyze the repository's performance and to conduct research into technologies that would improve the facility. The repository license will be amended every 50 years at a minimum to incorporate these improvements. During this phase, waste would remain retrievable so that future generations may recover valuable material or upgrade disposal systems, for example.

When the DOE applies to permanently close the repository, it must then demonstrate compliance with EPA's radiation standard before ceasing operations at the site. Until then, the facility will be subject to the strict NRC regulation and oversight as an operating facility.

Today, this program has been litigated into a corner. After several lawsuits, the EPA has responded by drafting a radiation standard for 1 million years. That is right, based on what we know today, DOE must prove a reasonable expectation that Yucca Mountain will be safe for 1 million years before DOE can even begin building a repository. This is a ridiculous and arrogant requirement that assumes we know right now all that will ever be known about the management of spent nuclear fuel and its impact on public health and safety. That compliance decision only makes sense when DOE decides to close the repository and cease operations. Until that time, repository enhancements reflecting 300 years of scientific innovation will improve its protection of public health and safety and, I might add, the environment.

Now, my approach is not about kicking the can down the road and forcing future generations to solve the problem. That is what concerns me about a lot of the things we do around here. My wife and I have 20 kids and grandkids, and they are the ones who are going to be doing a lot of the things we should be doing today. My approach is about meeting a legal and moral obligation to build the best facility we can now, laying a solid foundation for future generations to improve it based on what they learn.

I am confident we can build a repository that will protect public health and safety and the environment, but I am equally confident that 50 years from now our grandchildren could build a better one. Fifty years from now, they will have learned a lot about the actual performance of repositories; something we can only predict right now, they will know by that time. Fifty years from now, the waste placed in the repository may require isolation for a few hundred years instead of a million.

Lastly, my bill includes provisions necessary to support new nuclear plant construction. Before receiving a license, nuclear plants must meet two requirements. The first is that companies must sign a contract with DOE to provide for the disposal of spent fuel. My bill modifies those provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to make them current. The second is known as waste confidence. Nuclear plants must demonstrate there is confidence that the spent fuel will be managed and disposed of in a manner that protects health and safety. My bill clarifies that the repository program meets this requirement for disposal.

So when a society takes on the task of building a complex, first-of- a-kind facility envisioned to remain robust for a million years, it immediately raises questions about generational equity. As Senators, we must balance fairness to the future generations that haven't been born yet with fairness to the generations we currently represent. Finding that balance must be based on several principles, including protecting the health and safety of current generations; protecting the health and safety of future generations; minimizing the impact on the environment; meeting the need for reliable, cost-effective energy; meeting legal obligations; minimizing taxpayer liability; and the costs are covered by those who benefit from the waste. My bill adheres to these principles and strikes that balance.

Rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise have been highly exaggerated. It is time we focus on developing the safest state-of-the-art repository we can, one step at a time. We owe it to our generation and to the generations that follow.

I have to say, regarding all of the emphasis recently on the concern we have for the environment, nothing is cleaner, nothing has been shown better for the environment than this type of energy, which we have to have in our mix.

Mr. President, as one of the Senate's commercially licensed pilots, I rise to talk about an issue near and dear to my heart--flying. As many in this Chamber know, I love flying and have flown thousands of hours, attended the well-known AirVenture aviation event in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, each year, and even recreated Wiley Post's trip around the world. I have received notable recognition for this beloved hobby.

Today, I am here to acknowledge a group of people who share my love of flying--volunteer pilots. Non-profit, charitable associations called Volunteer Pilot Organizations, VPOs, provide the resources to help these self-sacrificing men and women serve people in need.

There are approximately 40 to 50 VPO's in the United States ranging from small, local groups to large, national associations. Air Charity Network, ACN, is the Nation's largest VPO and has seven member organizations that collectively serve the entire country and perform about 90 percent of all charitable aviation missions in the U.S. ACN's volunteer pilots provide free air transportation for people in need of specialized medical treatment at distant locations due to family, community or national crises. They also step in when commercial air service is not available with middle-of-the-night organ transplant patient flights, disaster response missions evacuating special needs patients, and transport of blood or blood products in emergencies.

ACN and its more than 8,000 volunteer pilots use their own planes, pay for their own fuel, and even take time from their ``day'' jobs to serve people in need. These Good Samaritans will provide charitable flights for an estimated 24,000 patients this year alone and their safety record is phenomenal. In their more than 30 years of service, the pilots of ACN have flown over 250,000 missions covering over 80 million miles and have never had a fatal accident.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, ACN aircraft were the first to be approved to fly in disaster-response teams and supplies. Similarly, in 2005, ACN pilots flew over 2,600 missions after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reuniting families torn apart by the disaster and relocating them to safe housing. Their service was invaluable to the thousands of people they saved during these national crises.

Despite this goodwill, there is a loophole in the law that subjects these heroes and charitable organizations to frivolous, costly lawsuits. Currently, although volunteer pilots are required to carry liability insurance, if they have an accident, the injured party can sue for any amount of money--the sky is the limit. It would be up to a jury to decide on an amount. If that amount is higher than the liability limit on a pilot's insurance, then the pilot is at risk of losing their personal investments, home, business and other assets, potentially bringing them financial ruin.

Additionally, the cost of insurance and lack of available non-owned aircraft liability insurance for organizations since the terrorist attacks of September 11 prevents VPOs from acquiring liability protection for their organizations, boards, and staff. Without this insurance, if a volunteer pilot were to have an accident using his or her own aircraft, everyone connected to the organization could be subject to a costly lawsuit, despite the fact that none of those people were directly involved with the dispatch of the flight, the pilot's decisions, or the aircraft itself.

Exposure to this type of risk makes it difficult for these organizations to recruit and retain volunteer pilots and professional staff. It also makes referring medical professionals such as hospitals, doctors, nurses, social workers, and disaster agencies like the American Red Cross, less likely to tell patients or evacuees that charitable medical air transportation is available for fear of a liability suit against them. Instead of focusing on serving people with medical needs, these organizations are spending considerable time and resources averting a lawsuit and recruiting volunteers.

This is why today I am introducing the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2007, which I cosponsored in the last two Congresses, to help close this costly loophole. My bill amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, VPA, which was intended to increase volunteerism in the United States, to include groups such as ACN and the American Red Cross in the list of types of organizations that are currently exempt from liability. More specifically, it will protect volunteer pilot organizations, their boards, paid staff and non-flying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. It will also provide liability protection for individual volunteer pilots over and above the liability insurance that they are currently required to carry, as well

as liability protection for the referring agencies who inform their patients of charitable flight services.

Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate in the past several Congresses and passed overwhelmingly in the House in the 108th Congress by a vote of 385-12 and by voice vote in the 109th Congress. Clearly, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act has significant support. The companion version, H.R. 2191, was introduced in May by my colleague, Congresswoman Thelma Drake, with ten original, bipartisan cosponsors.

My bill will go a long way to help eliminate unnecessary liability risk and allow volunteer pilots and the charitable organizations for which they fly to concentrate on what they do best--save lives. Please join me in supporting the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2007.

Mr. President, as one of the Senate's commercially licensed pilots, I rise to talk about an issue near and dear to my heart--flying. As many in this Chamber know, I love flying and have flown thousands of hours, attended the well-known AirVenture aviation event in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, each year, and even recreated Wiley Post's trip around the world. I have received notable recognition for this beloved hobby.

Today, I am here to acknowledge a group of people who share my love of flying--volunteer pilots. Non-profit, charitable associations called Volunteer Pilot Organizations, VPOs, provide the resources to help these self-sacrificing men and women serve people in need.

There are approximately 40 to 50 VPO's in the United States ranging from small, local groups to large, national associations. Air Charity Network, ACN, is the Nation's largest VPO and has seven member organizations that collectively serve the entire country and perform about 90 percent of all charitable aviation missions in the U.S. ACN's volunteer pilots provide free air transportation for people in need of specialized medical treatment at distant locations due to family, community or national crises. They also step in when commercial air service is not available with middle-of-the-night organ transplant patient flights, disaster response missions evacuating special needs patients, and transport of blood or blood products in emergencies.

ACN and its more than 8,000 volunteer pilots use their own planes, pay for their own fuel, and even take time from their ``day'' jobs to serve people in need. These Good Samaritans will provide charitable flights for an estimated 24,000 patients this year alone and their safety record is phenomenal. In their more than 30 years of service, the pilots of ACN have flown over 250,000 missions covering over 80 million miles and have never had a fatal accident.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, ACN aircraft were the first to be approved to fly in disaster-response teams and supplies. Similarly, in 2005, ACN pilots flew over 2,600 missions after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reuniting families torn apart by the disaster and relocating them to safe housing. Their service was invaluable to the thousands of people they saved during these national crises.

Despite this goodwill, there is a loophole in the law that subjects these heroes and charitable organizations to frivolous, costly lawsuits. Currently, although volunteer pilots are required to carry liability insurance, if they have an accident, the injured party can sue for any amount of money--the sky is the limit. It would be up to a jury to decide on an amount. If that amount is higher than the liability limit on a pilot's insurance, then the pilot is at risk of losing their personal investments, home, business and other assets, potentially bringing them financial ruin.

Additionally, the cost of insurance and lack of available non-owned aircraft liability insurance for organizations since the terrorist attacks of September 11 prevents VPOs from acquiring liability protection for their organizations, boards, and staff. Without this insurance, if a volunteer pilot were to have an accident using his or her own aircraft, everyone connected to the organization could be subject to a costly lawsuit, despite the fact that none of those people were directly involved with the dispatch of the flight, the pilot's decisions, or the aircraft itself.

Exposure to this type of risk makes it difficult for these organizations to recruit and retain volunteer pilots and professional staff. It also makes referring medical professionals such as hospitals, doctors, nurses, social workers, and disaster agencies like the American Red Cross, less likely to tell patients or evacuees that charitable medical air transportation is available for fear of a liability suit against them. Instead of focusing on serving people with medical needs, these organizations are spending considerable time and resources averting a lawsuit and recruiting volunteers.

This is why today I am introducing the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2007, which I cosponsored in the last two Congresses, to help close this costly loophole. My bill amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, VPA, which was intended to increase volunteerism in the United States, to include groups such as ACN and the American Red Cross in the list of types of organizations that are currently exempt from liability. More specifically, it will protect volunteer pilot organizations, their boards, paid staff and non-flying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. It will also provide liability protection for individual volunteer pilots over and above the liability insurance that they are currently required to carry, as well

as liability protection for the referring agencies who inform their patients of charitable flight services.

Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate in the past several Congresses and passed overwhelmingly in the House in the 108th Congress by a vote of 385-12 and by voice vote in the 109th Congress. Clearly, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act has significant support. The companion version, H.R. 2191, was introduced in May by my colleague, Congresswoman Thelma Drake, with ten original, bipartisan cosponsors.

My bill will go a long way to help eliminate unnecessary liability risk and allow volunteer pilots and the charitable organizations for which they fly to concentrate on what they do best--save lives. Please join me in supporting the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2007.

Reserving the right to object, I make an inquiry of the minority leader: Wouldn't it work out well if later on during quorum calls we have an opportunity to speak and then have all those speeches appear in the Record in continuity?

Mr. President, the first call I received from Trent Lott was in 1986 when I first ran for Congress. Though the polls hadn't yet closed and I still didn't know that I won, Trent called me up to congratulate me. In 1994 when I ran for my Senate seat, Trent Lott again called me on election night to tell me congratulations. Trent and I have worked together for 21 years and he has always been the best political mechanic in Washington. I take great pride in having helped launch the successful political career of Trent Lott by being one of his first supporters in his bid for the Republican Whip position.

People quite often take shots at Trent without justification. Don Imus used to say on his morning radio program that it looked like Trent ``combed his hair with a sponge.'' Well, I have to admit it did look that way sometimes, but if that is the worst you can say about Trent, I think he is doing just fine.

One lesson I've learned from Trent is that you shouldn't take things too seriously. I've seen him laugh in the face of adversity on more than one occasion, most recently when Trent's home in Mississippi was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. Romans 5:3 tells us to rejoice in our sufferings because ``suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope,'' and certainly I've seen that in the life of Trent Lott.

When he talked this morning about his four pillars of family, faith, friends, and freedom, the one that people didn't talk much about was his faith. I have prayed with him at a weekly meeting for many years, an I have to say this about him: he is a faithful and obedient person to his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So many of my colleagues say they have lost a friend, a colleague, and a statesman, but I have lost a brother. I rejoice in the contributions that Trent Lott has made throughout his life.

Mr. President, now December 18 and we are all anxious to get home. Additionally tomorrow is my 48th wedding anniversary. That's why I want to get home. Standing in our way is final disposition of the 2008 appropriation bills. The leadership has brought before us an omnibus bill that combines the remaining 11 regular appropriation bills not yet signed by the President. That in and of itself is a failure. Instead of working to pass the annual appropriations bills and ensure the continued operation of our Government, congressional Democrats have spent the majority of the 110th Congress playing political games with critical funding for our troops, attempting to pass surrender resolutions, and pushing a path to amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants in our Nation. Two months past the end of the fiscal year, Congress only managed to pass one of the annual appropriations bills, instead choosing to roll billions of dollars in funding into an Omnibus appropriations bill hours before Congress is supposed to recess for the year. In fact, this year we observed the latest date in 20 years that Congress failed to send a single annual appropriations bill to the President's desk. This Democrat-controlled Congress should be labeled as nothing but irresponsible. Additionally, I am here to point out that this bill violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate because it is legislating on an appropriations bill.

Title I of Division C, which appropriates money for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, the following projects have either not yet be authorized or the amounts appropriated for them under this bill exceed the authorized levels:

Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration study; coastal Mississippi hurricane and storm damage reduction study; rural health care facility on the Fort Berthold Reservation of the three affiliated tribes; North Dakota environmental infrastructure project.

During consideration of H.R. 1492, the Water Resources Development Act, Public Law 110-114, I elaborated for my colleagues in great detail the history and function of the authorization process and stated that I would oppose any appropriation bill that attempted to fund projects either not previously authorized, or above their authorized level. As I made clear in my statements on September 24 prior to passage of the conference report and again on November 8, prior to the Senate's veto override vote, the authorization process is the foremost mechanism we have to control spending. We are violating it in this bill.

In addition to these increases in spending, the omnibus includes numerous provisions authorizing or modifying other projects and policies of the Corps in nonspending ways. These legislative provisions, too, should be decided within the authorization process, not in an omnibus appropriations bill.

Just over a month ago, we authorized $23 billion in projects for the Corps of Engineers, and Chairwoman Boxer and I have already begun discussions on a new authorization bill for 2008. So, I have to ask why are we violating not only the Standing Rules of the Senate, but creating an opportunity for criticism on our ability to control spending. It makes no sense, it is not necessary and I believe goes to the heart of why the public has such a low opinion of Congress. They don't trust us. Why should they, we cannot seem to follow our own rules.

Before I close, I would like to point out one more area of unnecessary and irresponsible legislating in this omnibus appropriation bill. There are several provisions to address climate change scattered throughout the bill. These provisions include creation of new requirements and a new mitigation incentives fund for the Economic Development Administration, in title I of Division B; a sense of Congress with a call for a mandatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in Division F; and the creation of a mandatory greenhouse gas registry, in title II of Division F, which appropriates money for the Environmental Protection Agency. We are in the middle of a regular order process for the consideration of climate change legislation. To include these provisions now, at the last minute on an omnibus, is a total affront to that process.

The proposed registry language is a completely standardless grant to the EPA, possibly an unlawful delegation of Congress' power to legislate. The language directs EPA to develop a mandatory reporting program of greenhouse gas emissions ``above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.'' There are no other standards or directions to the Agency. There are no standards by which a reviewing court can judge EPA's actions.

This registry language should be removed or, at a minimum, allowed to sunset at the end of fiscal year 2008 without implementation or effect.

In another provision, the appropriators express concern about proposed new power plants in Texas. This provision, at the very least, should refer to all fossil fuel generation, not just single out coal- fired generation.

Colleagues, I have no illusions that my attempt here today to bring about discipline on the spending process will succeed, but I cannot allow the bill to go through without registering in the strongest possible terms my objections to what we are doing here today.

I have no doubt that each of the Army Corps projects mentioned above have merit, and I would be happy to work with the sponsors, as would, I am sure, Chairwoman Boxer, during the authorization process, but doing it now is wrong. It violates our rules, it removes discipline from the process.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend from Virginia and also the chairman of the committee. They have done a great job in getting this bill up, and I was concerned that we weren't going to get to it today. That wouldn't have been a good message to send.

I think we have a good authorization bill, although I think there are some shortfalls. I am encouraged by the funding levels we are authorizing for the F-22, the F-35, the KC-X, and the Future Combat System--although with the Future Combat System we did take a cut of about $205 million. That is something I hope we will be able to get restored next time. It is interesting that a lot of people don't realize how important the Future Combat System is. We have not had a major renovation in transformation on the ground in decades. I do believe that cut needs to be restored, and I think we can work on that in the future.

I am further encouraged that the bill authorizes a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay raise. I believe that is very important at this time, as is the authorization of funding for Afghanistan and Iraq. I will be going there again in about 3 weeks. Every time I go, I see the great successes they are having, and I get very excited. However, while we have authorized something that is adequate in this case, the appropriations aren't there yet. I think it is vital that we get this done immediately.

There are other areas I want to concentrate on next time. I think the Train and Equip Program is one of the best things we have, the program expanding the IMET Program, where we would be able to train a lot of the military officers of other countries, primarily countries that are found in Africa and others. There was a time when we thought that in our IMET Program we were doing them a favor by allowing them to come and be trained by us. But now I think we understand that if we don't do it, other countries will. There is no better way to ensure the allegiance of countries than to train them. I think that needs to be improved.

I hope we will get to the point where we recognize that if we in the United States want to have the best of everything--I am talking about the best lift programs, strike programs, ground programs--we are going to have to really do a better job at the top line. We went through 100 years in this country of spending 5.7 percent of our GDP on military, and it went down, at the end of the nineties, to about 2.7 percent. It is now hanging at about 3.6. I think the expectations of the American people are that we should have the best of everything to do that. We are going to have to increase the top line. I believe we will be able to address that in the next session.

I am glad the bill is here today. I look forward to getting this passed and sending the message to our very courageous fighting men and women that help is on the way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Domenici for all his hard work. It is one of the few times I can recall that I have disagreed with him on a position. I do so on this particular bill. Let me first say while the chairman of the EPW committee is still here, I agree with the comments she made. We have some provisions in here that are an improvement but, in my mind, not enough of an improvement to pass this bill. First let me say I what I think is wrong with this. The renewable fuels standard increase is

going to mandate an increase from 7\1/2\ to 15. That is of corn ethanol. Then other bio increases are more than that. But as far as the corn is concerned, in my State of Oklahoma, I have been talking to the livestock people and the poultry people, the meat industry in Oklahoma, the backbone of our economy. They are very distressed because of the increase in the cost of feedstock. This is going to make it that much worse. There are other problems with that, too, with ethanol's effect on food prices: economic sustainability, transportation infrastructure needs, the water usage in this process. It is something I think is a bad provision.

It is going to pass, probably with 80 votes. Maybe I will be the only vote against it. But another thing, I am not as impressed with the CAFE standards. I know everybody is talking about, yes, we have to do this. We have to have these mandates. You have to keep in mind this is still America. We have choices in America. In western Europe they don't. Some other countries they don't. So we are going to be emulating them. If you will listen to the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institute, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the National Academy of Sciences, all of these groups say this provision is going to be a safety threat for Americans.

On the tax provisions, I do appreciate the fact that they were able to bring down some of these. There are still some tax increases but nothing like it was at one time. I think it is important for people to understand this does extend a $1.4 billion tax, the FUTA tax. This was established in 1976 to repay loans from the Federal unemployment trust fund. They were all repaid by 1987. So they keep finding a vehicle to renew a $1.4 billion tax increase on the American people. It is right here in this legislation.

One of the things I guess that bothered me more than anything else was when we did the highway bill, the highway reauthorization bill was a good bill. We spent a lot of time on that. We had provisions in there to give the States more flexibility with their money to meet the needs in their States with the recognition that the States are closer to the people. They know what their needs are more than the Federal Government does. We got those provisions in there. Because some people in the House didn't want the States to have that flexibility, we beat them in conference so they put it in this bill. So now we have two provisions in this bill that are going to make it more difficult for States. In fact, it is going to take away their flexibility. We are taking away States rights with this bill. That is what it does.

I will tell you what it doesn't do. It has no provisions for nuclear power. Everybody understands we have to address that. That was one of the provisions when we first started talking about this. Nothing in there for clean coal technology, for exploration, to promote refinery expansion. We had a bill called the Gas Price Act. No one should have been opposed to it. I begged to have this as a part of this bill. Those who put it together found it wasn't something that could be acceptable. It would increase our refinery capacity and resolve many other problems with some of our closed military bases. That was not a part of this bill and should have been.

This bill will mean a profound increase of the cost of fuel at the pumps. People have to know that. We can talk about how good it is and send out our press releases, but in the final analysis, it is going to increase the price at the pump. It is going to make it more difficult. It is going to exacerbate the problem of what I consider to be an energy crisis.

So it is not an energy bill. It is one that I may be the only one opposing, but I thought I would share with you why I will.

Mr. President, every American owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women who lost their lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor. They gave all they had in selfless service to the Nation. We recognize the contributions and sacrifice of the survivors of the attack who went on to secure our freedom and our cherished way of life. In the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges and countless unknowns, they never demanded praise, they never presumed eminence. They taught future generations the importance of recognizing and remaining vigilant against tyranny in all forms. We also remember the families of the fallen service members. They bore the greatest burden and bravely perpetuated the dignity and the memories of the heroes taken from us on that infamous day.