Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think we need to be real clear what we are talking about. What we are talking about is telling the enemy what we are going to do. If there is one thing they have said, our military has said we cannot do, is to leave precipitously and let them know when we are going to do it. But that is what we are talking about.

You know, when General Petraeus came a couple of weeks ago, I knew exactly what he was going to say because I was over there--I have been over there actually 15 times in the AOR of Iraq, not always in Iraq, sometimes Afghanistan, Djibouti and all of that.

But I have watched very carefully, from time to time when I have been there, what progress has been made. I was in shock the last two trips we took. The last two trips, it was so evident in that one area, starting with Anbar, where most of the problems were. And I was in Anbar Province, in Fallujah, during all the elections that took place, and it was chaos up there. We remember our marines going door to door World War II style and all the things that were going on there. It is now totally secure. It is not secure under us, it is secure under the Iraqi security forces.

We remember only a year ago the terrorists said Ramadi was going to be the terrorist capital of world. It is now secure. All of the way through down there, south of Baghdad, the same thing is happening.

What has happened with this surge are three different things: No. 1, the surge itself. That is more people. No. 2, we had General Petraeus going in. No. 3, they did get the message from some of these surrender and cut-and-run resolutions that there was the threat that we would pull out, and, consequently, the Iraqi security forces have done things they have never done before.

I learned something when I was over there, and that was it is not the political leaders, it is the religious leaders who are calling the shots. Our intelligence goes to all the weekly mosque meetings. Prior to the surge, 85 percent of the mosque meetings were anti-American messages. Since the surge, since April, there hasn't been one.

So this is the kind of progress that is being made. We now have volunteers going out there with spray cans, putting circles around the undetonated IEDs, doing this on their own, risking their own lives to help Americans.

We have this imbedded program, where they actually go in joint security stations and live with the Iraqis. It is something that has been very successful in developing close relationships. So this is the kind of success we are having.

I was up in Tikrit the other day. Remember, that is Saddam Hussein's hometown. Even up there, in that home territory up there, with the exception of Diyala, it all looks real good. That is the bottom line. We have success.

If we pass something now that tells them, in a period of time you can expect us to leave, and this is what we are going to do, we are giving them our playbook. If you look and see what some of our top leaders have said about that, General Petraeus said: We cannot leave without jeopardying the gains we have started to achieve.

Those are the gains I talked about. Secretary Gates said: If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al-Qaida most certainly would use Anbar Province as another base from which to plan operations.

This is the type of thing we would be doing. I cannot imagine anyone would vote for any type of amendment that would tell the enemy specifically what we were going to do and when we were going to do it.

Ambassador Crocker says: I cannot guarantee success in Iraq. I do believe, as I have described, it is attainable. I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our efforts will bring failure, and the consequences of such failure must be clearly understood by us all.

What are those consequences? It would be a vacuum. We have heard loudly and clearly from such people as President Ahmadi-Nejad who said:

I can tell you there will be a power vacuum in the region.

[This is if we leave precipitously.] We are ready with other

regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, and the people of

Iraq to fill that vacuum.

In other words, we leave, Iran comes in, al-Qaida comes in, all the advances, all the sacrifices, all the lives that have been lost will have been lost in vain.

I cannot imagine anyone would vote for this amendment. I encourage my fellow Senators to oppose it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask the Senator from Texas, I was down here yesterday spending quite a bit of time on this particular issue. I was not aware the Senator from California was going to come in with her amendment. I assume the first vote we have is going to be on the Boxer amendment; is that correct?

Well, let me just suggest to you, I think if the defining moment--if you really agreed with what MoveOn.org did and what they said and how they demeaned one of the finest officers in the history of this country--the guy has a Ph.D. from Princeton; he is not just a normal person. The guy was unanimously agreed to and supported by the group here to go and do this work and take over the war in Iraq. This is the right guy for the right time. Huge successes are taking place.

I listened with some interest this morning to the House Foreign Relations subcommittee proceedings yesterday, and the very people who were complaining that General Petraeus consulted with the White House to come up with his information are now saying he should have consulted with White House and did not do it. You can't have it both ways.

I would just say this: The vote we are about to take is not a vote on an amendment by Senator Boxer; it is a vote as to whether you agree with MoveOn.org coming in and saying the things they have articulated about one of our top military leaders. That is what the vote is all about.

I urge everyone to oppose the Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, first, I thank the majority leader for his comments. It will be my intention, after I conclude my remarks concerning a fallen marine, that the floor be given to the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, for a period of approximately 15 minutes.

Mr. President, today I rise to remember the life of one of America's heroes, Marine CPL Jeremy David Allbaugh. Corporal Allbaugh came from Luther, OK, and graduated from nearby Harrah High School. Before graduating, he was chosen to be a U.S. marine, becoming a member in the 1st Battalion, 4th Marines. Tragically, Jeremy died on July 5, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province near the city of al-Qa'im, when his humvee was struck by an improvised explosive device.

There are no words that can truly express the dedication and selflessness of this young marine. There are no words that can adequately convey our thoughts for their loss to his family, who are here with us today. They have given everything to our country, something many find it difficult to comprehend and a sacrifice fewer will ever face. But I will say these words so as to honor Jeremy's last request, a request which America will always oblige her heroes, which was: ``Remember me.''

Before deploying to Iraq with his Marine unit, Jeremy had a conversation with his brother, Army 2LT Jason Allbaugh, in which Jeremy made two simple requests. He said: If something happens to me, do me a favor. Jeremy said: Do two things for me. Take care of mom and dad, and remember me.

Jeremy, today we do that. We remember your life of service and thank you for giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation.

Growing up, Jeremy seemed destined to become a marine. His brother Jason--and I visited with him--said as far back as he could remember, Jeremy wanted to be a marine. Most kids had the conventional costumes on Halloween but not Jeremy. He wore fatigues. Jeremy also wore a camouflage backpack to school. His dream became reality 3 years ago when, 2 months shy of his 18th birthday and prior to graduating from high school, Jeremy joined the Marine Corps. His father Jon and his mother Jenifer, seeing how much Jeremy loved his country and his desire to serve, supported his decision and gave their permission.

That decision could not have been an easy one. All parents can understand their concern, especially parents of our servicemembers who face the possibility that their son or daughter could see combat in Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else in the world. Although their concern was great, I am sure it was surpassed only by the enormous pride they felt for their son Jeremy.

Jeremy, driven by a sense of duty, was willing to leave the comfort of his family and friends and the life he knew and answer the call for his country. Jeremy arrived in Iraq this past April. Jenifer said in Jeremy's weekly phone calls he gave the family a much different picture of what was going on in Iraq compared to what was being reported in the media. There were a lot of good things being done there, Jeremy told his family. There were Neighborhood Watch programs, new schools, hospitals, clinics being built in the area where he was assigned. I know this is true because I was there when Jeremy was there, and I saw this for myself in some 15 trips to the area of operation in Iraq.

When asked how the local Iraqi people treated the marines, Jeremy was upbeat. ``They appreciate what we do,'' he said. Jeremy believed in the positive changes he saw happening in Iraq, and he loved being a part of it.

Jenifer wishes so desperately that the American people knew and understood the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. She hopes that more people will start to talk firsthand to our troops who are over there, not only to politicians in Washington. I, too, wish more people would talk to our troops who are over there and see their pride, their courage, their sense of honor and duty. Jeremy exemplified these qualities.

Maybe that is why Jenifer wishes people would talk to the troops, because she knows they would be talking to men and women similar to her own son.

Similar to so many of America's fallen heroes, Jeremy was young, only 21-years-old, when an IED took his life. Jeremy joined the Marine Corps after 9/11 and after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He knew what it meant to serve. He knew what it meant to be a marine. He knew what chances he was taking. Jeremy's courage and selflessness are common for someone of his young age serving over there. Perhaps Jeremy's last wish, the wish that he be remembered, was his most selfless act.

When we remember Jeremy, we remember that which is great about our country, and his death will force us to remember the sacrifices of those throughout our history who have given their lives in defense of the Nation. We remember; we will always remember.

Rev. Jeff Koch, Pastor of the First Christian Church of Blackwell, OK, where Jeremy was honored before being laid to rest, said Jeremy ``paid the ultimate sacrifice so tonight we can sleep easy.''

I, too, believe this. Because of Jeremy's sacrifice, America can sleep easier. But I will rest easier knowing Jeremy lived and that, though they are rare, men and women similar to Jeremy are out there right now, protecting our lives and freedoms and our liberties. In this long war against terrorism and tyranny, America will continue to rely on men and women such as Jeremy, men and women who have been called to duty, men and women willing to put service before self.

We remember the life of Jeremy David Allbaugh, a marine, a friend, a brother, a grandson, and a son. We remember and pray for his family, father Jon; mother Jenifer; brothers Jason and Bryan; sister Alicia; and his grandparents, John, Dorothy, and Peggy.

Today, on the floor of this great deliberative body and in the annals of our Record, we mourn Jeremy's passing and forever honor and remember his life. Jeremy Allbaugh is a living memory to us, of what is great about America.

So we say: Rest easy, Jeremy. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Madam President, first of all, let me say I applaud both of the Senators who are working in an exemplary way to try to achieve something that is very difficult to achieve. I applaud them for their effort.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

All right. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the purpose of considering my amendment No. 2271 and then to revert back to this pending amendment. It is my understanding that this amendment is one of 10 amendments that is going to be considered.

All right.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion since last week when MoveOn.org, with a very liberal antiwar stance--which we understand has been their position for quite some time, raising millions of dollars for various Democratic Party candidates--ran an ad. Up until the September 10 ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus ``General Betray Us,'' MoveOn.org seemed to be in line with the Democrat's public statements supporting the troops but opposing the war.

It is my understanding my good friend, the junior Senator from Texas, is going to be having a resolution that will be coming up shortly. I want a chance to talk a little bit about that resolution.

I believe that MoveOn.org's ad crossed the line by attacking the character and integrity of America's top military leader in Iraq.

General Petraeus is a man of honor, honesty, and integrity. He is a West Point graduate. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division, as well as a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division.

He was the aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; he has done it all. He was the Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He was the top graduate--not one of the top graduates, but the top graduate--of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He earned M.P.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University. We are talking about a Ph.D. from Princeton University. This is not an ordinary officer. This is a man with incredible credentials.

He has won multiple awards and decorations, including being recognized by US News & World Report as one of America's 25 best leaders in the year 2005.

He is our top military commander in Iraq and commander of the Multi- National Force-Iraq, confirmed by the Senate as the right man for the job. He was confirmed, I might add, unanimously by the Senate.

The very day General Petraeus sat before Congress to offer his latest report, MoveOn.org ran a full-page ad in the New York Times attacking his message before they even heard his message.

The ad accused General Petraeus of ``Cooking the Books for the White House'' and called him ``a military man constantly at war with the facts.'' Their shameless attack on his character did not stop there. They accused him of being a traitor, calling him ``General Betray Us.''

Well, anyway, MoveOn.org's attempt to discredit General Petraeus is deplorable, and I join with other Members of the Senate in condemning its actions.

I have no issue with news agencies or individuals offering and debating opposing views. That is what we do on this floor every day. However, MoveOn.org crossed the line when they ran the ad attacking the motives and honor of our No. 1 commander on the ground in Iraq.

I support Senator Lieberman's condemnation of MoveOn.org's attempt at character assassination, and I call on them to retract their scurrilous ad with another full-page ad apologizing for their error in judgment. But they would not do it. You know they would not do it. Still, we can try. They don't have the character to do it.

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 his duties that we in Congress unanimously sent him to accomplish.

It amazes me how far some will go to root for American failure in Iraq. MoveOn.org clearly placed their political agenda ahead of the best interests of the United States and particularly the men and women of the military when they chose to run that ad.

Now, something interesting happened. A reporter from the Washington Post came up with this, did a little research. According to the director of public relations for the New York Times, the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,000. According to a September 14 Washington Post article, the New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for the full-page ad.

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to the Post they paid only $65,000 for the ad. The Post reporter called the Times advertising department without identifying himself and was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday. The New York Times refused to offer any explanation for why the paper would give them a rate one-third of their published rate.

Now, my first visit to Iraq was in August of 2003, and my latest visit was on the August 30, 2007. The Iraq I saw last time is not the Iraq I visited in 2003. I would like to say also that between those years I have actually been to the Iraqi AOR, area of operations, some 15 times. During that period of time I have seen these things.

I knew what General Petraeus was going to say when he came here last week because I was with him a few days before that. I read General Petraeus's and Ambassador Crocker's prepared statements and listened intently to their testimonies. I compared their assessment with the assessments I have made over the past 4 years visiting Iraq. It appears our assessments are based on similar events that have occurred in Iraq.

I watched Ramadi as it changed. You might remember a year ago they claimed Ramadi was going to become the terrorist capital of the world. Ramadi is now totally secured.

I visited Fallujah. I have been there several times. I was there during all the elections. I watched those Iraqi security forces go and vote. I watched the American marines go door to door World War II style. Fallujah now--which was the hotbed in Anbar Province of Iraq--is now under total security, and not with U.S. forces but with Iraqi security forces.

I visited Patrol Base Murray, south of Baghdad, and met with local Iraqis who came forward and established provisional units of neighborhood security volunteers. These individuals heard the Americans were coming and were there and cheering, waiting for them to arrive.

I watched these Neighborhood Watch and Concerned Citizens groups take root in Anbar Province and slowly make their way to other cities spreading across Iraq--local civilians willing to stand up and take back their neighborhoods, their cities, and province.

Citizens are marking IEDs with orange paint--undetonated IEDs and PRGs--identifying al-Qaida in their towns and testifying against them. It is something that was not happening a few months before or prior to the surge. They are guarding critical infrastructure and working side by side with the U.S. forces.

I saw the anti-American messages at the mosques. Our intelligence goes into the mosques for each of their weekly meetings. Up through December of this past year, they averaged that 85 percent of the messages were anti-American messages. Since April of this year, there have been no anti-American messages. I guess I learned something that no one else seems to agree with; that is, we spend entirely too much time talking about the political leaders, when the religious leaders are the ones responsible for these major changes. These are the ones who are standing in the mosques and talking about Americans and the coalition forces as their allies, not as adversaries, as they were before.

I visited the Joint Security Stations in Baghdad. It used to be our kids would go out on a mission during the daytime, and they would come back at night to the green zone. They do not do that anymore. These Joint Security Stations--even as to the report that came in, our goal was to have 34, and there are now 32 of those Joint Security Stations. These guys go out, and instead of coming back, they sit and become friends with the Iraqis and actually sleep in the homes of the Iraqi security forces.

I watched the surge operations take effect, visited a former al-Qaida sanctuary, and saw a strengthening of Iraqi forces resulting in an increase in burden sharing.

I observed a steady decrease in the number of attacks in Anbar from 40 to less than 10 a day.

I visited the markets. There is a lot of talk about that. A lot of people go and visit the markets with all kinds of protection. I went to the markets without any protection, and I talked, through an interpreter, to people. I picked out people holding babies, and they were all glad to see us.

I met with U.S. and coalition leaders and commanders, Iraqi leaders and commanders, and local civilian groups on each trip.

I watched the political, economic, and diplomatic growth over time. It has been uneven and frustrating, but it has been a movement in the right direction.

I guess the bottom line is Iraq is achieving progress. No one can debate that. It is not just General Petraeus. It is what the Iraqis say. It is what they are saying, the religious leaders and the political leaders. It is happening, happening since the surge. The surge is clearly working.

The coalition forces are handing back control of Iraq to the Iraqis and to the Iraqi security forces. Local leaders who want better lives for their people are bravely standing up and rejecting the fatalist, cynical, and hate-filled diet fed to them by al-Qaida and other extremists.

Iraqis are realizing that al-Qaida does not offer a long-term vision of hope or an opportunity for them any more than it would for the average Californian or New Yorker or Oklahoman.

A backlash and rebellion against al-Qaida has been going on over the last 6 months in places such as Anbar Province and Babil Province south of Baghdad. When the tribal leaders and clerics in Anbar made the conscious decision to reject al-Qaida, they virtually overnight transformed their province into a model for the rest of the country to emulate. The ``concerned citizens'' of Babil Province--I was there-- recognized the progress made in Anbar and decided they wanted to do the same thing. So it is spreading. It is spreading into areas even up toward Tikrit, the hometown of Saddam Hussein.

So al-Qaida understands the importance of the collective American will when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. They understand they have absolutely no chance of winning this war over the long run militarily. They understand their only chance of achieving victory is to get the American people to call for a withdrawal. If we pull out of the fight, they win. There is no other way to characterize it. This is a strategic military objective for them. Like with any military objective, they have developed a tactic to achieve it. Their tactic in this case is to tear away the American will to win by committing horrific and brutal attacks against innocent victims. They understand that Americans agonize over the pictures and the news reports of those atrocities.

Let there be no doubt about it, our will as Americans to fight for freedom and democracy around the world is under attack by a brutal and ruthless enemy. That enemy would be emboldened by a victory in Iraq. Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists and extremists from which they can launch their wicked atrocities around the world.

We could accept the offer of Iran's President to step in and fill the vacuum. He has clearly said: If the Americans pull out, we go in. However, this offer comes from a man who has vowed the extermination of the Jewish State of Israel, and he has vowed to expand his nuclear program and clearly puts us in jeopardy of being held hostage.

It is not in the American ethic to turn our back on people who are striving for a better way of life for their children. It is not in our national interest to leave a failed Iraqi State.

The surge is working, largely due to the leadership of one great American--GEN David Petraeus. MoveOn.Org should just once retreat from their attack on America and apologize to that great American hero, GEN David Petraeus.

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

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

Mr. President, there is some confusion about my amendment. I think we have reached an agreement, and we will shortly be sending up my amendment No. 2796, as modified. I believe it will be accepted on both sides. So we will stand by for that to happen.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No. I would respond to the Senator from Montana that we just adopted my amendment, as modified, and that is the reason I was on the Senate floor at this time.

Mr. President, I am going to wind the clock back to 1994. I had the occasion of voting twice against NAFTA, once when I was in the House and once when I was in the Senate, in the same year because I came in in a special election. I remember at that time we had a delegation of six, four House Members and two Senators from Oklahoma, and I was the only one out of six who voted against NAFTA.

Ironically, the very arguments I made in the House and Senate back in 1994 are the same things we are hearing now. I said at that time I could see what was going to be happening in the future; that we would be having Mexican truckers coming in; that they would be competing in a way where they would not have to qualify with all of our environmental standards, our safety standards, our wage and hour standards. It appears to me that is the case.

I listened very carefully to my good friend from Missouri, but I have not seen--and having reviewed the IG report--that all of these questions have been answered. I have to say I am inclined to agree with the Senator from North Dakota that the problem that existed in 1994 still exists today, and I would probably oppose this amendment.

I would like to also make a comment, a request. When I have a chance, after the disposition of this, I would like to bring up amendment No. 2796 for its immediate consideration. I will wait and see if I can get in the queue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for consideration of amendment No. 2796.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the test language, the IG said, apparently has been corrected. I only remind my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Missouri that when I had the English language amendment up, we used the same definition I believe they are using right now in order to make sure there is adequate knowledge of English language by Mexican truckers. I will read what it said: Applicants have up to three chances to read and write one sentence correctly in English. That is the test, which doesn't give me a very high comfort level.

The amendment I am offering, No. 2796, would prohibit the FAA from using any money in fiscal year 2008 to implement their proposed new ATC training system. It is called the ATCOTS. The FAA has sped up the schedule for transition without giving sufficient attention to the transition from the old to the new. By prohibiting the FAA from using fiscal year 2008 funds to implement this new training system, there will be additional time to plan for the transition, if we decide the transition at that point is something we want to do.

Finally, there has been no explanation on why the existing system does not work. This additional time can be used to examine the current system and determine where it needs to be changed, if it needs to be changed.

This is how the current system works. This is how the FAA wants to change it. Currently, candidates must enroll in an FAA-approved education program and pass a preemployment test which measures his or her ability to perform the duties of a controller. Let's keep in mind, we are talking about controllers who have our lives in their hands. It happens that I am in my 51st year of aviation. Just as recently as 2 days ago, I was flying, and I have a great deal of respect for these people. To me, the training must absolutely be perfect. The candidates currently must enroll in an FAA-approved education program and pass a preemployment test which measures their ability to perform the duties of a controller. Then the FAA has designated 15 institutions around the country for preemployment testing. The candidates must also have 3 years of full-time work experience and have completed a full 4 years of college. These have to be people who have a college education, have to have 3 years of on-the-job training. Then they have to, of course, have gone through this preemployment test. Then if the candidate successfully meets those three tests, they are eligible for employment as an air traffic controller.

Successful candidates attend the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City for 12 weeks to learn fundamentals of the airway system, the FAA regs, controller equipment, and aircraft performance characteristics. Upon graduating from the academy, the candidates are assigned to an air traffic control facility as ``developmental controllers'' where they receive training on specific controller positions. Generally, it takes 2 to 4 years, depending on the facility and the availability of facility staff or contractors, to provide the on-the-job training.

Currently, there are two separate contractors that provide training for potential controllers: one contractor at the academy and one contractor for on-the-job training at the facility. What the FAA wants to do is to combine these two contracts into one, thereby speeding up the training, they believe, and getting more controllers to train faster.

Because controllers hired--and most of us have been around long enough to remember this--after the PATCO strike are now eligible for retirement, the FAA estimates they need to hire and train approximately 15,000 new air traffic controllers over the next 10 years. They believe the air traffic control optimum training solution, which is called ATCOTS, will accomplish this because it will, No. 1, leverage current industry best practices to develop innovative training services delivery solutions; No. 2, achieve efficiencies by reducing time and the cost it takes to certify professional controllers; No. 3, institute continuous improvement within the training program; and No. 4, establish a performance-based contract management system. That is what the FAA hopes to achieve, but I have yet to understand how.

Recently, the FAA announced that they plan to issue a request for proposals for this new single controller training contract in January of 2008, with an expected award in June of 2008. That is less than a year from this month. This is despite assurances to the Oklahoma delegation that there would be a multiyear transition to ATCOTS. In other words, it is going to take several years to make the transition, if it is desirable. Now it appears ATCOTS could be fully implemented within 1 year, although there is no clear transition plan. The winning bid is supposed to provide the transition plan.

Furthermore, there is no clear assurance that the millions in taxpayer dollars already invested in the FAA training academy in Oklahoma City will continue to be used. Per the documents I have seen, if the winning bidder should choose to conduct the initial classroom instruction elsewhere, they have that option. I question why we would abandon the academy and our Federal investment there.

Finally, I do not believe there has been sufficient examination of the cost benefits of this new training program. Rather, there has been a rush to fix a system that no one has been able to explain, at least to me, how or if it is broken.

My amendment merely slows down the process so Congress can have more time to examine what are the shortfalls of the current training system and how the proposed ATCOTS system will improve the training. This is like so many things we rush into. We lay out the predicate that we are going to spend all this time and be deliberate in making sure we are not getting into something that is not, in fact, a lot better than the old system, when we have yet to see anything to at least convince me or any plausible argument that there is a problem with the existing system.

While I could have introduced an amendment to stop this, I didn't want to do that because I thought if it is more efficient, then it might be something we may want to consider. But I can assure my colleagues that nothing has been done so far that would convince me that it is a better system. I don't think we should be using 2008

funds. My amendment would give us another year to determine whether this is the wise thing to do. I believe it is a reasonable approach.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, consistent with our policy of going back and forth across the aisle, I ask unanimous consent following the remarks of the Senator from Ohio, that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes and that I be followed by the junior Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, this morning we did a great thing in the confirmation of Tim DeGiusti to the Federal court. Understandably, we are short of time this morning because of what is happening at the White House, but let me finalize a couple of ideas and some comments I was going to make.

First, when you have someone who has the highest rating, whether it is from Martin Dale Hubbell or the American Bar Association, which this candidate did and does, and he also as a military lawyer is familiar with courts-martial procedures--there are a lot of people out there with these qualifications. This individual goes far beyond that. It is interesting that

while he is a Republican, our Democratic Governor in Oklahoma, Gov. Brad Henry, is a very strong supporter of this now-confirmed nominee. Also, my predecessor, David Boren, who is now President of the University of Oklahoma, was a very strong supporter of this individual. I quoted him a few times during this process, as to how outstanding this candidate is.

I would like to share an experience I had 41 years ago. A man named Ralph Thompson, who is currently a senior status Federal judge in Oklahoma in the same Western District in which his son-in-law has been confirmed this morning, and I, and another person named David Boren, 41 years ago, were elected to the Oklahoma House of Representatives. I remember it so well because in February of 1967, 40 years ago this year, we all three came to Washington, DC, for the first time. That is, State legislators Ralph Thompson, Dave Boren, and of course myself. David Boren's father was a Congressman so he had a pretty good entree into the Capitol. I remember so well the three of us were walking around the Capitol at night--my first time ever being in the Capitol area of Washington. I remember, after walking through Statuary Hall and all these great features we have in our Capitol, that we kind of professed to each other, we decided one day--Ralph Thompson and David Boren and I--we said we would like to be Members of the Congress, either in the House or in the Senate. But Ralph Thompson said: Or a judge in the U.S. district court.

As it turned out, David Boren was a Member of the Senate; I am a Member of the Senate; and Ralph Thompson became--I believe he will go down in history as maybe being the outstanding Federal district judge in the history of Oklahoma. I have heard so many people talk about that.

I knew Ralph so well at that time--keep in mind, this is 40 years ago--and his beautiful wife Barbara, whom I might add has been Mother of the Year and received every possible honor you could have. Lisa, Maria and Elaine--they cranked out three little girls, and Elaine was the girl who later married Timothy DeGiusti. Get the connection? You have a great judge and then you have a son-in-law who is going into the same Western District of Oklahoma to replace him. It is an unusual situation. But this is one of these wonderful things that can happen in this country of ours. I am so happy this is behind us now and it happened prior to the August recess.

Mr. President, let me mention something else I think is critical. I have heard ugly rumors that the President of the United States might end up vetoing what we call the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act. Let me say I don't understand. I am coming from a conservative perspective. I am ranked by the American Conservative Union, No. 1 out of 100 most conservative Member. Yet I am saying to you there are two things we ought to be spending money on in this country. One is national defense and the other is infrastructure.

We have a crisis in our infrastructure. The big bill on transportation infrastructure we passed a year ago is going to do nothing more than maintain what we have now, and it is anticipated in 20 years we will increase our traffic by 50 percent. What are we going to do?

The same thing is true with the Water Resources Development Act. We have not had a reauthorization in 7 years. It should happen every other year.

When you say I don't care if this thing is $10 billion or $20 billion, the amount is not significant because it is not spending money, it is authorizing. If we authorize something--hopefully, we will pass this bill today. If we authorize something, it may never be appropriated or it may be appropriated 10 years down the road. So it does not have any remote effect on the budget today.

I think it is dishonest for people to say this is somehow a spending bill and therefore we should vote against it. That is not true at all. I have the history of this body right here in my hand, and I have given several presentations on this recently. I say to my friend from Montana, who is new in this Chamber, this discussion has been going on between appropriators and authorizers since 1816.

In 1867, they realized they needed to segregate the functions of authorization and appropriations so they established the appropriators, the Appropriations Committee. That was a good thing. But what happened on that, which has been the case for a long time, the appropriators slowly took over a little bit at a time so they ended up authorizing their own appropriations. That is what we don't want.

Let me give an example. In the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I am honored to sit, we go through all types of items, such as missile defense, as an example. We will have the boost phase and the midcourse phase and the terminal phase and we will have maybe two systems on each one. They are not redundant, but there are many people who say: Wait a minute. Maybe we should do away with that system because we can save this much money.

But take the midcourse. We had the Aegis System and then we had the THAAD system in the terminal phase. These are not redundant because they take care of an incoming missile from different areas with different technologies. You would not know that if you are just an appropriator because you don't have the staff to go in and study and get into the details. But we authorize, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, because we do have that expertise.

I say the same thing is true in my other committee that I used to chair. It was the Environment and Public Works Committee. As it applies to this particular bill, the WRDA bill--we have a set of criteria and evaluated equally all these projects. There will be many projects that have been authorized that I will come on the floor and oppose vigorously when appropriations time comes. But at least we will know they have gone through a process and they meet certain criteria. That is what is important. If you take that away, that is the first line of defense, doing away with superfluous types of earmarking.

This is the only part of that system that offers discipline in the whole appropriations process. That is what this is all about. That is why the WRDA bill is so significant. Yet people who are liberal, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans who come together and realize we have an infrastructure in this country that has been sadly neglected, and we are going to have to do something about it, our opportunity will be today and I hope we can do the responsible thing and pass it.

Then, during the August recess, you are going to hear this person, who is rated the most conservative Member of this body, out talking all over the Nation why this is the conservative approach to logically authorize these projects and then determine which ones are worthwhile.

At least we know these have met a certain criteria.

I will yield to the Senator.

It is. Reclaiming my time, I think you are being very generous when you say we don't always agree on every issue. In fact, there are no two people who probably disagree more. That tells you something. That tells you we have to do this. This is something this country cannot do without.

Let me give you an example. I spent several years as the mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK. The greatest problem we had was not crime in the streets, it was not prostitution, it was unfunded mandates. Now, what we do in this is go back to some of these small communities and say: We have mandated that in your drinking water system, your wastewater system, you do these things. And we should be responsible for helping you to comply with these mandates. It is very important.

There is a group called Citizens Against Government Waste. I have right here--and I am going to submit this as part of the Record. For 16 years prior to right now, they have identified 76,000 projects they thought were--that fall into this category of being earmarks.

Do you know the interesting thing about this, I ask my friend from California, Senator Boxer. It is interesting that all of these projects, with very few exceptions, were not authorized.

Now, if you look at what the Congressional Research Service comes up with, around 115,000, those include the ones that were authorized. So that tells you where the problem is. The problem is not in projects that were authorized, it is in projects that are not authorized. That is why we are doing the responsible thing today. I am hoping there is no one on either side who will hold up this bill because we have to keep moving with it before the recess.

If the chairman will yield, I concur completely with your understanding. As I read the language, it clearly comes from the general fund and not the Highway Trust Fund. Given the precarious situation with Highway Trust Fund finances, it would be a mistake to place further burdens on it, and as per SAFETEA-LU, all additional emergency repairs come from the general fund.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the United Orphanage and Academy in Moi's Bridge, Kenya. As many of my esteemed colleagues know, Africa has a special place in my heart. I visit the continent several times a year to see a number of dear friends. My own granddaughter, Zegita Marie, joined our family through adoption from Ethiopia.

As we hear virtually every day, Sub-Saharan Africa is in crisis; the statistics of devastation are staggering. In 2006, 2.8 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa contracted HIV and nearly 1 million children died from malaria, according to the World Health Organization. The United Nations estimates that in the same year, there were 12 million AIDS orphans living in the region. These pandemics are further compounded by famine, unsafe drinking water, corruption, and war.

Much has been said of these heart-wrenching situations, but today my message is one of hope. During my travels, I have found Africa to be a place of beauty, courage, and ingenuity. Kenya alone is home to more than 42 distinct ethnic communities, the soaring heights of Mt. Kenya, and one of the largest drama events in Africa, the annual Kenya Schools and Colleges Drama Festival.

Embodying these characteristics, the United Orphanage and Academy cares for 40 children impacted by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Founded in 2001, this beacon of hope lies in rural northwest Kenya, near the Ugandan border. Children ages 4 to 14 are provided with food, shelter, clean water, and quality education. One hundred students are currently enrolled in classes from pre-kindergarten through second grade. Moreover, the home is a place of reconciliation and unity as children from five distinct ethnic backgrounds and numerous tribes learn to work, play, and grow together.

The vision for the orphanage stemmed from humble beginnings, as conversations between Rev. Stephen Chege and Henri Rush, an elder at Westminster Presbyterian Church, evolved into a vision to ``develop a caring and spiritual space for children to live and grow when they come to the point of having no family or guardian support available to them.'' As a result, an ambitious roadmap has been set in place, encompassing everything from procuring a van for vital transportation needs to constructing additional classrooms.

Today, I would like to highlight efforts to expand this mission. Great need requires great hope, and great hope requires great action. Reverend Chege, Mr. Rush and their partners seek to double the capacity of the orphanage to house up to 80 children. Furthermore, plans exist to expand the school to include grades K-12 and further vocational training. The philosopher Aristotle once said: ``All who have

meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.'' In my humble estimation, the fate of Africa depends, in large part, on the education of young men and women who learn to lead their communities with wisdom and integrity.

I am filled with hope when I see individuals and communities coming together to respond to perhaps one of the greatest crises of our time, and I am encouraged when such initiatives emerge from transcontinental friendships. I believe the United Orphanage and Academy embodies the values and provides the tools necessary to equip Africa's youth to embrace a world of challenges and possibilities.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small but important bill that seeks to improve the quality of the air we breathe and increase the level of public involvement under the Clean Air Act.

The senior Senator from Rhode Island joined me in sponsoring an identical version of this bill as an amendment to the energy bill. Unfortunately, there was an objection to clearing that amendment for unknown reasons.

The objection was a surprise, particularly given the widespread support across a variety of industries and advocacy groups. In fact, the Natural Resources Defense Council and American

Lung Association sent Senator Reed and me a letter of support.

Under current law, the Clean Air Act allows a petition for a new renewable fuel or renewable fuel additive, including mid-level ethanol blends, to be approved without EPA taking any action whatsoever, not asking for public comment, not conducting studies on the safety or emissions impacts and not reviewing existing emissions or safety studies. In fact, current law provides that a petition is deemed approved even if EPA fails to act or make a determination one way or another.

Environmental law and the Clean Air Act specifically, is premised upon public input and involvement. It is critical that this section of the Act, as elsewhere, provide for adequate stakeholder involvement. My bill would force EPA to give public notice and seek public comment from all interested persons on any petition for a new renewable fuel or renewable fuel additive.

Safeguarding air quality is critical, but guaranteeing that the engines that consumers rely on is important as well. Studies done by Australia's EPA found that mid-level ethanol blends can cause the following problems with motor vehicle and small, off-road engines: failure of exhaust components, for example catalyst, due to heat/ durability, engine damage and seizure, engine stalling and stopping, failure of engine cut-off switches, unexpected engagement of cutting blades/chains, and fuel leaks and blockage of fuel lines. My bill directs EPA, with DOE's and USDA's assistance, to study whether the use of higher ethanol blends pose safety, air quality, or engine operability concerns in motor vehicle and nonroad engines, and equipment.

Ethanol proponents should support this bill. The ethanol industry cannot afford to have consumers turn against their product if higher levels of ethanol blends cause their snowmobile, chainsaw, or boat engine to shut down. If EPA's study shows that these higher blends are safe for all engines, then the ethanol industry will benefit from the study.

This bill is about good Government and transparent Government. EPA should not be permitted to approve these petitions ``in the dark of night,'' without public participation.

The bill that I am introducing today, like the amendment that Senator Reed and I offered during the energy bill, will simply make sure that EPA carries out its duty to protect human health and the environment, increase the public's role under the Clean Air Act, and shed light on a currently private process.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small but important bill that seeks to improve the quality of the air we breathe and increase the level of public involvement under the Clean Air Act.

The senior Senator from Rhode Island joined me in sponsoring an identical version of this bill as an amendment to the energy bill. Unfortunately, there was an objection to clearing that amendment for unknown reasons.

The objection was a surprise, particularly given the widespread support across a variety of industries and advocacy groups. In fact, the Natural Resources Defense Council and American

Lung Association sent Senator Reed and me a letter of support.

Under current law, the Clean Air Act allows a petition for a new renewable fuel or renewable fuel additive, including mid-level ethanol blends, to be approved without EPA taking any action whatsoever, not asking for public comment, not conducting studies on the safety or emissions impacts and not reviewing existing emissions or safety studies. In fact, current law provides that a petition is deemed approved even if EPA fails to act or make a determination one way or another.

Environmental law and the Clean Air Act specifically, is premised upon public input and involvement. It is critical that this section of the Act, as elsewhere, provide for adequate stakeholder involvement. My bill would force EPA to give public notice and seek public comment from all interested persons on any petition for a new renewable fuel or renewable fuel additive.

Safeguarding air quality is critical, but guaranteeing that the engines that consumers rely on is important as well. Studies done by Australia's EPA found that mid-level ethanol blends can cause the following problems with motor vehicle and small, off-road engines: failure of exhaust components, for example catalyst, due to heat/ durability, engine damage and seizure, engine stalling and stopping, failure of engine cut-off switches, unexpected engagement of cutting blades/chains, and fuel leaks and blockage of fuel lines. My bill directs EPA, with DOE's and USDA's assistance, to study whether the use of higher ethanol blends pose safety, air quality, or engine operability concerns in motor vehicle and nonroad engines, and equipment.

Ethanol proponents should support this bill. The ethanol industry cannot afford to have consumers turn against their product if higher levels of ethanol blends cause their snowmobile, chainsaw, or boat engine to shut down. If EPA's study shows that these higher blends are safe for all engines, then the ethanol industry will benefit from the study.

This bill is about good Government and transparent Government. EPA should not be permitted to approve these petitions ``in the dark of night,'' without public participation.

The bill that I am introducing today, like the amendment that Senator Reed and I offered during the energy bill, will simply make sure that EPA carries out its duty to protect human health and the environment, increase the public's role under the Clean Air Act, and shed light on a currently private process.