Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think the Senate is clearly in a slowdown. It is not fulfilling its responsibility to evaluate and vote on Presidential nominees for our courts in America.

We are now into the fourth month of 2008 and only one circuit judge, Judge Haynes, who received an ABA rating of unanimously well qualified--the highest rating by the bar--has been confirmed, and that confirmation only happened last week, April 10. So we have gone quite a long time here. We still have 10 pending nominations to the appeals courts that need hearings, need votes out of the Judiciary Committee, and need up-or-down votes on the Senate Floor.

Why is this a problem? I will tell you. Because President Bush campaigned on, and effectively, I believe, won the day on the argument that judges should be, as now Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing, neutral umpires. They are supposed to call the balls and strikes. They are not supposed to be on one side or the other. They are not supposed to be setting forth their personal political agendas in the guise of ruling on disputes of law in a courtroom. That is an abuse of the power of the judiciary. Members of the Judiciary are given lifetime appointments. They cannot be removed except through impeachment or death, and their salaries can not be reduced. It is critical that those judges show restraint and remember their proper role in our three branch system.

Now, the truth is that for many years my liberal activist colleagues have delighted in having Federal judges, and sometimes State judges, promote and affect a political agenda they could not win at the ballot box. That is what it is all about. But we need judges who respect the rule of law and who understand they are not policymakers. If they want to set policy, let them run for Governor, let them run for President or the Senate. So President Bush has consistently submitted nominees with high ratings, even from the American Bar Association, which frequently, I submit, is more activist than I would favor. Indeed, they meet and have all these resolutions and pass these resolutions on issues with which I do not agree. I am a member of the ABA, but I don't agree with some of the positions they take in these resolutions. They meet in some big conference, unrepresented by the members of the bar, and they do these things.

I mention all that to say they have been rating these present nominees very well. They have been giving them high ratings because they are men and women of good legal ability, sound judgment, and President Bush would not nominate them if they were not committed to the proper role of a judge, in my view.

Circuit court vacancies--these are the 11 circuits we have. The circuit courts are the first level of appellate courts above the Federal district court, the trial courts. When you appeal a criminal conviction or a civil judgment in America, you appeal first from the district court to the circuit court. That is one step below the Supreme Court. Then you can appeal from there to the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts and his team, right across the street. That is the way the system works. These appellate courts are important because the Supreme Court only takes 100 or so cases a year, and many of the rulings of the circuit courts have become final. That is one reason people consider them to be important. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will rule.

Despite the fact that there are 10 nominees for the 13 vacancies in the circuit courts, the Judiciary Committee, our committee, of which I have been a member now for almost 12 years, has only given a hearing to 1, and that was over a year and a half ago when Senator Specter was chairman, the Republican chairman.

Peter Keisler, the circuit nominee for the D.C. Circuit here in Washington, was given a hearing in August 2006, but he has still not been voted on, called up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. He is a fabulous nominee. One of the reasons he is being objected to is the same reason they objected to Miguel Estrada, the same reason they objected to a lot of other nominees--he is so capable, he would be on the short list for the Supreme Court of the United States. If they can kill them off at this level, they will not be considered sometime in the future. That is just a fact. I have been here. I know how this works. There is no reason Peter Keisler ought not to be confirmed. He had a hearing in August 2006, and he still has not been brought up for a vote in the committee.

Catharina Haynes was highly rated too. She was confirmed last week after we began to complain about this. That was the first circuit court nomination hearing since September of last year.

The Fourth Circuit is in a crisis. The vacancy rate is alarming. One- third of the seats are vacant. Four nominees are pending for those vacancies, but none has even been given a hearing.

Robert Conrad, former Federal prosecutor, has been waiting for a hearing for 265 days. He is also, at this point, a Federal district judge, a Federal district judge for the Western District of North Carolina. He was nominated for a judicial emergency. He has the support of both his home Senators, received a unanimous ABA rating of ``well qualified,'' the highest rating you can get. He is a consensus nominee. The Senate unanimously confirmed him for his current district judge seat, and the ABA, then, ranked him unanimously ``well qualified.'' The whole ABA 15-member committee voted him the highest rating, unanimously. So why hasn't he been given a hearing?

Steve Matthews has been waiting over 205 days. We have others out there who I think are being slowed down.

Mr. Conrad is an excellent nominee, in my opinion. He has a number of qualifications. I remember he was given the duty to conduct one of the investigations that occurred in the Department of Justice. He testified. I remember him testifying because I liked the honesty and directness in his testimony. He chose not to prosecute anybody for those offenses, but by all accounts he examined it carefully and fairly. Among other qualifications he had, he played point guard on the Clemson University basketball team in the ACC where he was an academic All-American basketball player, among the other things he did, which has always impressed me.

I would say there has been talk about invoking the so-called Thurmond Rule. The Thurmond Rule could sort of be, if you want it to be, an excuse for slow-walking nominees and not approving the nominees who ought to be approved just because there is a Presidential election on the horizon. Majority Leader Harry Reid mentioned last night that the so-called rule would be invoked in June. Senator Leahy has mentioned before that he would invoke it in the second half of this year. Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election.

I remind my colleagues that our now chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Leahy, when he assumed control over the committee, stated he would institute the Thurmond Rule starting the spring of this year. He said:

The Thurmond rule, in memory of Senator Strom Thurmond--he

put this in when the Republicans were in the minority--which

said in a Presidential election year, after spring, no judges

would go through except by the consent of both Republican and

Democratic leaders. I want to be bipartisan. We will

institute the Thurmond rule.

Those were his remarks at Georgetown University Law School in December 2006.

In May 2007, he reiterated that the Thurmond Rule would kick in next April. Senator Leahy said:

Obviously the Thurmond rule kicks in.

But let's be very clear about it. The Thurmond Rule as interpreted is a false myth. Senator Leahy, before the statements he made in 2006 and 2007 during the Bush Presidency, has admitted as much. In fact, as Senator Leahy said in 2000, when the situation was somewhat different-- during President Clinton's final year in office, like this is President Bush's last year:

There is a myth that judges are not traditionally confirmed

in Presidential election years. That is not true. Recall that

64 judges were confirmed in 1980; 44 in 1984; 42 in 1988,

when a Democratic majority in the Senate confirmed the Reagan

nominees and, as I have noted, 66 in 1992, when a Democratic

majority in the Senate confirmed 66 Bush nominees.

Those are not my words. Those are Senator Leahy's words.

I see the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is here. It is time for him to speak. I will just say that we, as Members of this Senate, have a Constitutional responsibility to move judicial nominees. We should not be playing games. Good nominees with strong support ought to be moved forward. A lot of these nominees have not been treated fairly. It is time to move them forward.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we had a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, in which General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker made their reports back to the Congress, as they promised. They also testified yesterday afternoon before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and today they are before the House committee. I think they had about a 30-minute break or less between the testimony here and their testimony in the Foreign Relations Committee. I thought General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did a marvelous job and were asked a lot of tough questions, which is the Congress's responsibility, I don't dispute.

What I wish to share with my colleagues today relates to the testimony of General Jack Keane, who testified this morning before the Armed Services Committee.

General Keane was former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. He is a paratrooper, a combat veteran, a student of the military for 37 years, a four star general who has made four trips to Iraq in the last year, and he has made a number of suggestions and continues to be, in my opinion, one of the most respected observers of the Iraqi military situation we have in our country today.

In fact, I happened to be on ``The Charlie Rose Show'' with him and Senator Jack Reed last night. Reference was made that he was an adviser to Presidential candidate and Senate Member Hillary Clinton. He said that, in fact, he had provided advice to her, but he had provided advice to all three of the leading candidates still in the race and three of those who dropped out. His advice is widely sought. His criticism was real over a year ago when he felt the policies we were executing in Iraq were not good policies and not effective. He believed a change in policy was called for. To a significant degree, the surge, and even more importantly, the tactical changes that took place with the surge were suggestions that he had made. Of course, General Petraeus also executed them, and it represented General Petraeus's view, but General Keane did make a valuable contribution in the new policy we have undertaken.

Now, the American people are concerned about Iraq. They are rightly worried that we have a long-term commitment, and they wonder whether there is a good and decent government at the end of that commitment, whether it will be worth the effort we are putting forth, and whether we have a realistic chance of success in Iraq.

I have asked General Petraeus each and every time he has testified before me: Do you believe we have a realistic chance of success? He said that when he first went over there, when things were going badly and he knew he had to make some changes, he said: Yes, Senator. If I didn't believe I could be successful, I wouldn't go, I wouldn't take the job. Since then, he has twice reported based on his time there that he thinks we have a realistic chance of success.

What did General Keane say to us today? This very fine, highly respected professional military officer said this:

The character of my visits to Iraq is to spend considerable

time with the Iraqi people, their Sheik and Tribal leaders,

as well as time with our U.S. military, Iraqi military, and

civilian leaders, and our troops.

That is a direct quote. I will continue to quote General Keane:

First and foremost, we have the most talented and capable

leadership team in Iraq represented by General Petraeus and

Ambassador Crocker. Nothing in my 40 plus years in national

security compares to this extraordinary team who provide the

very best of leadership to their marvelous teammates and

troops.

He talks about the dramatic turnaround:

The security turnaround in Iraq from the hell of 2006 and 3

years of failed strategy is one of the most stunning

achievements in the annals of counterinsurgency practice. It

was achieved in a matter of months versus the years it

normally takes to turn around one of the most formidable

insurgencies the West has ever faced. Fundamental to that

success was the use of proven counterinsurgency practice to

protect the people with sufficient amounts of Iraq and U.S.

troops. This was a catalyst--

He says--

for the widespread Sunni awakening movement, which is truly

underappreciated here in the U.S. What really happened is the

Sheiks and Tribal leaders decided they could not achieve

their political objectives with al-Qaida Iraq in fighting the

United States and the government of Iraq. As such, the

overwhelming majority of Sunni leaders made four strategic

decisions to (1) stop the violence; (2) leverage the United

States leaders to influence the government of Iraq; (3)

reconcile with the government of Iraq; and (4) provide their

``sons'' to work with us and the Iraqis to help defeat the

Madam President, the amendment offered by my colleague is an amendment that does not effectively replace the amendment I have offered.

My amendment that will be coming up next is a broad amendment. But this amendment contains immigration reform language that suggests once again that enforcement cannot be effectively done without a comprehensive amnesty approach. It fails to include any provision for State and local law enforcement, fails to include any provision for border fencing, fails to include any provision to advance specifically the effective operations streamline policy that is being done now in four border areas, that needs to be done in 20, and that has resulted in a 60-percent reduction in illegal entry in those four areas. The Menendez amendment does not particularly cover that area. I would ask that it not be passed and that my amendment coming up next would be the one more appropriately effective to carry out the will of this Congress.

Madam President, this Senate has repeatedly voted on issue after issue after issue that would move us toward a lawful system of immigration. But for one reason or the other, those votes have not been translated into action or funding. As a result, we have not made the progress we should have made. We have created a lack of confidence in the American people who are cynical about what we do. My amendment is broad. It would allow a budget-neutral reserve fund for any immigration factor, but it specifically mentions six. It does not in any way suggest these enforcement measures should be delayed until some amnesty proposal or comprehensive reform is passed. The programs include Operation Streamline. Four of twenty southern border sectors now are prosecuting illegal entries, and they have seen a 60-percent reduction in illegality. We would like to see that in all 20, of course. It would commit us to construction of the fence and four other areas.

I urge support for this amendment, which would clearly move us in the direction we have been voting in the past.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Madam President, we are dealing with an important issue; that is, the budget of the United States. Under the Budget Act and rules we have established, a budget can be passed without a 60-vote margin, a supermajority. Only a simple majority is required. I think that is a healthy rule because for years there were so many difficulties in creating a budget. So it really gives the majority party the power to pass a budget.

The power of a majority party alone to pass a budget means that document is a defining document, and it defines the agenda for that party. It tells where they stand on matters of taxing, spending, deficits, and the like.

I say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who promoted their move to majority status--and I certainly understand that goal-- indicated over the last several years President Bush was spending too much, they would be more responsible when given the control of the Congress and they would produce a better budget for working families in America.

I note that this budget has a major increase in spending--as did last year's--over the President's request for domestic discretionary spending. It contemplates a major tax increase and it will, fairly and objectively stated, increase the deficit. I am concerned about that and I wished to make that statement.

Chairman Conrad is a wonderful gentlemen, a fabulous leader of the committee. He asked that I offer the amendment on the floor and not in the committee, and I agreed to do that.

I would like to explain the amendment I have offered. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for border security, immigration enforcement, and a criminal alien removal program. It sets aside room in the budget to fully fund existing border security and immigration enforcement programs. It is another statement. Also, the members of this Congress meant what we said when we said we wanted border security and to complete the fence and many other immigration reform measures that we voted on last year. I will talk about that later. We voted on those things. One of the things that is eroding public confidence in this Congress is that we vote for things and we say we are for things and some of them pass and some of them are blocked, but even those that pass don't get carried out. So a Congressman or Senator can say I voted to build a fence, whereas, they may not at all be taking the necessary steps to fund or otherwise ensure that the fence gets built. There are other items that are necessary to create a lawful form of immigration, but that is where we are.

This amendment, I think, is another opportunity for the Members of our body to say we are prepared to move forward and do the things that are necessary to follow through on what we promised when we cast votes previously. My amendment is broad. It covers all border security and immigration enforcement programs. But, specifically, it highlights six programs that will need special attention in this year's budget cycle.

Those programs are: Operation Streamline, the so-called ``zero tolerance'' prosecution policy for illegal entry now in place and being utilized by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security in 4 of the 20 border sectors. I will go into detail about these later. Then there is the border fence construction amendment that would complete the 700 miles that we voted on. It would maintain the presence of a National Guard at the border. It would provide help and assets to effectively execute the criminal alien removal program, to remove those who have been convicted of crimes, as it is supposed to be. The section 287(g) program, which trains State and local officers, would be expanded, as we voted before to do. And the US-VISIT exit portion of the immigration law that was supposed to have been completed in 2005 yet remains uncompleted.

I offered this amendment earlier, but I think some objected that the amendment would create open-ended funding for immigration programs. But this money is not free to be spent. It is not open-ended in reality. It has to be paid for. Full funding for each of these items can only be approved if the proper committees come up with the proper funds.

Simply put, my amendment gives Congress budget flexibility to fund these immigration enforcement programs if we can find a way to pay for them. And we certainly can. These are not that expensive in the scheme of things. They are matters our constituents care about and that we have voted for on a number of occasions.

Also, I note the budget resolution our Democratic colleagues have passed includes at least 35 of these reserve funds, and only 4 of them have any limitation on funding. The other 31--88 percent--are drafted just like my amendment.

So here are the proposals. First, it would allow for funding to expand the zero tolerance prosecution policy for illegal entry. Until recently, only the most serious illegal entries and reentries were ever prosecuted. Routine offenders caught by the Border Patrol were processed in a matter of hours and, if they were from Mexico, they were simply returned to Mexico. If they were not from Mexico, they were released on bail and asked to come back so they could be shipped back to South America or the Middle East or wherever, and we would send them back to those locations. Of course, 90 percent never showed up once they were released because their goal was to get in illegally from the beginning. That has been improved a good bit. We are still, in most of our border sectors, releasing people immediately to return to Mexico. There was a CNN report on this recently. I saw the video. Within hours of two individuals being arrested, they videoed the Border Patrol agent walking them, escorting them, back to the middle of the bridge that divides our countries and basically sending them off back to Mexico. The conclusion of the program was that these individuals, probably the next day, again commenced their effort to enter illegally. Since they weren't recorded as being apprehended, the program indicated they probably successfully made it into the United States. The result has been a ``revolving door'' at the southern border.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, between 20 and 30 percent of all illegal immigrants physically removed from the United States will return within the same year. So a third of them come back, we know, the same year. In 2004, of the 169,000 illegal immigrants removed from the United States, 65,000 returned illegally. In 2006, 37,000 out of 195,000 returned.

In recent months, however, progress has been made. The new zero tolerance prosecution policy, called ``Operation Streamline'' by the Department of Homeland Security, has been put into place in 4 of the 20 border sectors--Del Rio, Yuma, Laredo, and Tucson.

In just over a year, the guaranteed jail time given under this program, the conviction process--instead of escorting them back but having an actual prosecution because it is a crime to enter illegally in that manner--has resulted in a 50-percent decrease in the number of arrests in Del Rio and a 68-percent decrease in the arrests in Yuma, proving, I think, with certainty that this kind of consistent prosecution and conviction is a critical factor in deterring illegal entry.

In fact, Secretary Chertoff, a former Federal prosecutor I served with and have known for some time, was in my office last week. I have been a critic of some of the things he has done, and I have admired some of the things he has done. Secretary Chertoff believes this prosecution sends a different kind of message--and I believe it, too-- that the United States of America is serious about deterring illegal entry into our country. When you are simply escorted back to the border and turned loose, that sends a pretty clear message it is not a big deal to enter illegally. These people are not serving long periods of time in jail, but they are prosecuted. A record is made of it, they serve some time in jail and a second offense can lead to a higher punishment.

So I am strongly encouraging DHS and the Department of Justice to expand the zero tolerance policy to the entire southern border by the end of the year 2009. Their efforts ought to be praised. In fact, their success in deterring illegal entry exceeded what most people would have ever expected. It is a proven technique that ought to be replicated across the border. It would need extra funding to make this happen.

This amendment would allow for that. I will note, parenthetically, does it cost us more as taxpayers to prosecute everybody who comes across the border when, in fact, you see a 68-percent reduction in the number who come? I suspect that maintaining a clear message that our borders are not open will cause the number to reduce, and the number of illegal entries is what drives up our costs. If you reduce the number who attempt to come illegally, you reduce costs at the same time.

No. 2, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 required the construction of 700 miles of fencing on the southern border. Eighty Senators voted for the Secure Fence Act. 26 were Democrats. In the House, the bill passed 283 to 138. We know the fence construction, combined with other border enforcement increases, is already having some deterrent effect.

Last year, illegal entries at the border, across the entire border fell by 20 percent. Let me ask--I like to ask this question--how many people were arrested last year? That is how we determine basically what is happening. The number of arrests fell 20 percent. Well, last year we arrested, even after a 20-percent drop, 877,000 people trying to enter this country illegally. It was over a million the year before--1.1 million.

A survey conducted by the Mexican Government, released in November, showed a 30-percent drop since 2005 in the number of Mexican nationals ``looking for a job in another country, or preparing to cross the border.''

In other words, the message is getting out. The National Guard increased border patrol, fencing, and prosecution, but people will follow what reality tells them.

In San Diego, where the first 14 miles of fencing were built years ago, the results were significant and immediate. Crime rates fell dramatically. According to the FBI crime index, crime in San Diego County dropped 56 percent. Vehicle drive-throughs fell from between 6 to 10 per day, to only 4 drive-throughs in a year. Those occurred only where the secondary fence was incomplete.

It does make a difference. Good barriers make a difference. Good borders make good neighbors. If you want to enforce your immigration laws, you have a million people a year coming illegally, and if you are not prepared to build some sort of barrier that is effective, you are fooling yourself and attempting to fool the American people. That is the fact.

Drug trafficking dropped in the area--marijuana smuggling by 38 percent and cocaine smuggling by 88 percent. These new miles of fences along the other parts of the border are expected to mirror the San Diego success. There are news articles already describing the deterrent effect of the new fencing in Arizona. This is new fencing. On November 4 of last year, an article in the Houston Chronicle, titled ``Fences Presence Felt: Residents on both sides of one border crossing say barrier is doing what it was intended to do'' stated these things:

The fence works, residents north and south of it say.

``From a law enforcement perspective, it's curtailed a lot

of our problems,'' said Sharon Mitamura, a deputy sheriff who

patrols the border on either side of Columbus.

``That fence, I love it,'' Robinson, a Minuteman in New

Mexico said. ``But being a Minuteman in New Mexico is getting

pretty boring. There's no illegals here to be found,'' he

said wistfully.

The bottom line is, the message is being heard: Our borders are no longer open in certain areas. And to continue sending that message we must complete the 700 miles of fencing the Secured Fence Act of 2006 requires.

By the end of 2008, the administration, unfortunately, plans on completing only 370 miles of actual fencing. We need to ensure that funding for the construction of the remaining 330 miles are included in the budget. This amendment will help ensure that occurs.

Now, No. 3. This amendment would allow funding for the National Guard. In May of 2006, the President announced the deployment of 6,000 Guard members to assist Customs and Border Control with surveillance, installing fences, and vehicle barriers.

Since June 15 of 2006, the National Guard units have assisted the Border Patrol by executing logistical and administrative support, operating detection systems, providing mobile communications, and augmenting border-related intelligence.

Operational successes made possible with the National Guard members include direct assistance in 88,000 apprehensions. They cannot themselves apprehend because of the Posse Comitatus Act, but they are able to provide intelligence and surveillance. They accounted for increases in the amount of drugs seized. Marijuana seizures went up by 309,000 pounds, with the National Guard locating 201,000 pounds of that. There have been 91 aliens rescued from being in trouble in the desert. So they even help save lives in the desert.

Although Operation Jump Start has been effective, it is currently scheduled to end. Guardsmen currently stationed on the border number around 3,000. By this summer, the number will be zero--zero. The Senate has already voted twice that the Guard should stay on the border through the end of this calendar year at a minimum.

The Ensign amendment offered during comprehensive reform authorized Governors to deploy Guard troops through 2008 to engage in border control activities to meet training requirements. That was agreed to 83 to 10. My amendment, offered to the DOD appropriations bill, funded Operation Jump Start through the end of fiscal year 2008. It was agreed to by unanimous consent but was stripped from the conference committee.

See, we all agree to it. Everybody is for the Sessions amendment. Yes, we should keep the National Guard longer. But it goes off to a conference committee because we have a bill and the House Members have a bill and the conference committee meets--sometimes I refer to them as masters of the universe--and they just take them out, so the bill comes back to the floor and passes and funding for the National Guard on the border doesn't become law.

So I, along with the majority of the Senate, do not believe Operation Jump Start should end before operational control of the border has been achieved, as required by the Secured Fence Act, which 80 Senators voted for. If we want to continue stationing Guardsmen on the border in 2009, we must make sure the budget resolution permits funding for the continuation of Operation Jump Start.

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security's Criminal Alien Program is to identify criminal aliens--criminal aliens--who are incarcerated in Federal, State, and local facilities, evaluate whether they should be removed at the end of their sentences, and to coordinate a seamless transition from prison to DHS deportation proceedings. A perfectly logical thing. Despite this important mission, DHS is only just beginning to effectively implement the Criminal Alien Program. Congress provided $400 million in 2008 for this program.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harry Lapin, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that 27 percent of the entire Federal prison population is composed of non-citizens--individuals who committed crimes after they entered the country. They are not in jail for immigration offenses. I am not talking about that. We are talking about assault, robbery, drug trafficking, murder, and the like. That is a dramatic number.

We don't know the exact percentages for all State and local prison facilities, but we do have some snapshot statistics. These statistics illustrate that the percentage of State and local jail populations made up of illegal aliens is likely to be similar to Federal prison percentages in a number of areas.

According to a February 2008 California Public Policy Institute report titled ``Crime, Corrections, and California,'' 17 percent of California's jail population was born outside the United States. The New York Times reported that the Los Angeles County Sheriff has reported that 23 percent of inmates in county jails were deportable.

A Center for Immigration Studies study, authored by Manhattan Institute Scholar Heather McDonald, states that:

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for

homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens.

Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are

for illegal aliens.

A 2007 DOJ report indicates that 73 of 100 criminal aliens are rearrested at least once, and that the average criminal alien is rearrested six times before

deportation. A 2005 GAO report found the average arrest rate for a sample population of aliens incarcerated in Federal, State, and local jails to be even higher, an average of eight arrests per illegal alien.

In 2009, we have the opportunity to expand and carry out effectively the existing Criminal Alien Removal Program and to fully evaluate all non-citizens in Federal, State, and local prison populations. It would ensure that criminal aliens are deported to their home countries at the end of their sentences and that they are not released back into society first.

This is the problem. What if a person is in jail serving a sentence, is going to be released, and is an illegal who, by law, must be deported as a result of being convicted of a crime in this country. If you allow them to be released from the State or Federal jail before you set up the procedure to have them deported, how many do you think are showing up to be deported? They are not showing up. It completely eviscerates the whole concept of the system.

Of course, if we are going to have a deportation system, we need to be evaluating those persons who appropriately and lawfully should be deported as a result of their convictions for crimes--drugs, assaults, murder--and they ought to be deported. It is just not happening effectively, and it indicates to me that our Government still does not get it--about the things necessary to create a lawful system of immigration that we can be proud of. We ought to be encouraging law- abiding people to come here--people with skills, people who speak English, people who are going to contribute to our society--and not allowing our immigration slots to be filled with persons who come and commit crimes. How logical is that?

The success of any nationwide law enforcement effort depends on effective partnerships with all levels of law enforcement. Federal immigration agents alone--there are less than 20,000 in the interior of the United States--will not solve our interior enforcement problem. It is just a fact. A partnership with the 700,000 State and local law enforcement officers is essential if we want to make this system work. And everybody knows that, frankly. Some who don't want the system to work know it too, and that is why they oppose any effort to give any increased ability of local law enforcement to supplement our effort.

To achieve that partnership, cross-designation of State and local officers as Federal agents through the 287(g) program, as done in my home State of Alabama and some other States, should and can occur throughout the country.

We talked about this for years. The program was on the books. We had to push the Department of Homeland Security to partner with Alabama's State troopers to create these cross-designated officers, and it was not easy, but we finally got it done. It has worked exceedingly well and it should be done around the country.

The latest reported figures show that 34 law enforcement agencies in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,--which has a pretty good program, I know--Georgia--and Saxby Chambliss and Senator Johnny Isakson have sponsored this legislation because it was first championed by Congressman Charlie Norwood from Georgia, now deceased, and they became interested in this--Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia--have all signed memorandums of understanding with the ICE agencies, and nearly 600 officers have been trained.

But that is just a small fraction of the potential that is out there. Over the past 2 years, these officers have been credited with identifying more than 37,000 people with possible immigration violations. State and local law enforcement agencies that voluntarily-- nobody is mandated under this--offer their services to help enforce Federal laws should be supported and affirmed. The training we require them to receive should be paid for, and the expenses they incur while assisting the Federal Government in enforcing our immigration laws should be reimbursed. So increasing this funding would be helpful.

My final point would be to the US-VISIT system. Researchers at the Pew Hispanic Center estimate that as much as one-half of the illegal alien population was admitted legally. Other numbers are about 40 percent. They come here on some sort of visa or legitimate crossing card but they just stay and do not return.

We don't know who the visa overstayers are because we don't record when visa holders leave or even if they do ever leave. Until the US- VISIT exit system is put into place, we are never going to be able to identify visa overstays. This system was first required 10 years ago. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 required an automated entry and exit data system that would track the arrival and departure of every illegal alien as they crossed our borders.

Following the September 11 attacks, Congress repeated the mandate. Several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Border Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 require the immediate implementation of the automated entry and exit data system and call for enhancements in its development.

On September 2005, DHS announced that it would have the entry portion of the US-VISIT system installed at the land border ports of entry by December 31, 2005. Implementation of the exit portion at our land borders has yet to occur. Only pilot programs now exist at airports and seaports--this despite the fact that deadlines for US-VISIT exit completion are in current existing law. Are people upset about this? No doubt. We have passed law after law. They are just not getting executed. For example, December 31, 2003, was the deadline for exit system implementation at airports and seaports. December 31, 2004, was the deadline for exit system implementation at the 50 busiest land ports of entry. December 31, 2005, was the deadline for the exit system implementation at all ports of entry--land, air, and sea.

Failure to complete this system, I am sad to say, is an indication of a lack of seriousness about immigration reform by the executive branch, and it is an affront to Congress and to the rule of law. Until its completion, Congress cannot move forward responsibly on a myriad of other immigration-related issues, such as expanding a temporary worker program to meet domestic labor needs that may be critical.

How can you have a strong entry and exit system when you can't even know whether somebody leaves the country when they promised to leave or they exceeded their time limit? This is not impossible to do. Workers all over America clock in and clock out when they go to work every day with some card that is computerized. Americans can place their card in a bank machine in France or Brazil or anywhere else and get money from their banks in the United States. Surely we can clock out people who leave this country.

My amendment makes sure there is room in the budget resolution to fund the completion of the US-VISIT exit system and the other important components of a legitimate, workable, lawful system of immigration that we in this Nation should have.

The American peoples' instincts on this are absolutely right. We allow a million people to enter our country legally every year. We ought to improve that system in a lot of different ways, but we cannot allow large numbers of people to enter our country unlawfully because it makes a mockery of law. It breeds disrespect and anger in people who wait for months or years to be chosen to enter the country when somebody they know enters illegally.

It is the right thing for us to do, to create a lawful system of immigration that meets our highest standards as Americans. It is time to get that done. Each one of these things I have mentioned in this legislation is a critical component of creating that lawful system. It cannot be done without these. More needs to be done than these, but these are critical.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment as they have supported most of these matters already that are referred to in the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the chairman. Senator Gregg and he have alternated chairmanships of the Budget Committee. It is a contentious committee, there is just no doubt about it, because we have things about which we disagree that are important to our members and our constituents. But I think both of them have done a really good job of conducting the committee with grace, gentility and courtesy, so it was not at all unusual that I would agree with that request, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on the occasion of her retirement from the Department of Defense, I wish to recognize Dr. Patricia Sanders for her nearly 35 years of dedicated service to the security of our country. In her most recent assignment, she served as Executive Director at the Missile Defense Agency, where she advised the Director on issues related to the management and operations of one of the most dynamic organizations within the Department of Defense. Dr. Sanders has made an enormous contribution to the successful development and fielding of a defense to protect a nation, American troops deployed abroad, and our allies and friends from attack by ballistic missiles.

Dr. Sanders graduated as a National Science Foundation Fellow from Wayne State University in 1972 with a doctorate in mathematics, where she also was educated in economics, organizational management, and other disciplines. She went on to hold several university faculty positions. It is to our great benefit, though, that Dr. Sanders decided to pursue a career in government.

Her service within the Department of Defense as a member of the test and evaluation community has been extensive. Prior positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense included serving as the Director of Land Forces in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation and as Staff Specialist for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Dr. Sanders served as Deputy

Director for Analysis with the U.S. Space Command, Science Adviser to the Command, Control, Communications and Countermeasures Joint Test Force, and Chief of Modeling and Simulation and Technical Advisor to the Electronics Systems Division at the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center.

Dr. Sanders has extensive experience as a member of the Department's senior executive service. Before coming to the Missile Defense Agency, she was the Director for Test, Systems Engineering and Evaluation in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, responsible for ensuring the integration of all engineering disciplines into the system acquisition process, providing technical risk assessments and oversight of developmental test and evaluation for many of the weapon systems used by our Armed Forces today.

Dr. Sanders held numerous positions within the Missile Defense Agency and its predecessor organization, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. She came to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in 1999 to be the Deputy for Test, Simulation and Evaluation. In this position, she was also the senior technical advisor to the Director. She served in this capacity until the Secretary of Defense gave the missile defense program a new direction.

In early 2002, the start of one of the most dynamic periods in the Agency's history, and shortly after the Missile Defense Agency was established, Dr. Sanders was appointed the Deputy Director for Ballistic Missile Defense System Integration. She played a critical role in managing the development and fielding of an integrated missile defense system. Dr. Sanders played an instrumental role in developing the concept for the Ballistic Missile Defense System and advising Department leaders on the authorities and responsibilities required to develop and field an effective missile defense system.

As Executive Director, a role she assumed in 2005, Dr. Sanders advised the Director on issues related to Agency management and operations. She also took on numerous tasks delegated by the Director such as directing the development of strategic communications campaign plans. Perhaps the most striking example of this came in the U.S. Government's European Site Initiative, where her vision for and guidance to this endeavor contributed to the development of a broad consensus among national leaders, combatant commanders, and the international communities on the growing need to establish a long-range missile defense capability in Europe. Dr. Sanders also helped to realize important cooperative agreements with Japan and Israel, which today are helping contribute to a truly worldwide ballistic missile defense capability.

During North Korea's provocative missile launches in July 2006, Dr. Sanders coordinated the Agency's actions during this crisis and established a dedicated crisis action team of highly trained staff to provide situation awareness to the President, combatant commanders, and the entire missile defense developer community. She educated senior military and civilian decisionmakers on the capabilities afforded by the deployed elements of the system so that the Nation's plans to deal with the crisis were based on accurate and timely information.

As the Agency's senior leader dealing with operational and management functions, Dr. Sanders impacted the Agency's operations on a daily basis. She served as a senior interlocutor with all external defense agencies, the Services, and Members of Congress. The Agency's senior civilian, she was also the final arbiter of all issues related to personnel administration and development, directing and managing a diverse staff spanning seventeen time zones. In just the last 2 years, the Agency underwent a conversion to the new National Security Personnel System and made plans to execute a Base Realignment to Huntsville, AL, by 2011. To help the Agency weather this challenging period, Dr. Sanders instituted several major efforts in strategic human capital planning. She restructured the Agency's strategic mission planning and communications activity, directing a much-needed overhaul of long-range congressional and public affairs strategies. She also created and chaired a Base Realignment and Closure Panel to develop strategies for the transition to Huntsville and established working relationships with local officials in northern Alabama and with the Tennessee Valley Association. As a direct result of her leadership, the Agency has received more volunteers for relocation than anticipated.

For many years now Dr. Sanders has been a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and, at one point, served as chair of AIAA's Flight Test Technical Committee. She is a past president of the International Test and Evaluation Association and has served on the board of directors for the Military Operations Research Society. She also has devoted significant time to mentoring future Defense Department civilian leaders. Throughout her career, Dr Sanders has been a champion of diversity and has been dedicated to recruitment and retention of young professionals in the Federal Government. She has been a dedicated mentor to women in the engineering field and has been a role model and pathfinder for women in defense. In addition, while at MDA, Dr. Sanders instituted a mentoring program for defense acquisition professionals, established an active career intern program and a Presidential management fellowship program.

Dr. Patricia Sanders has consistently exemplified the finest attributes of a senior executive dedicated to public service. Her contributions, leadership, and service are well known throughout the Department. I am honored and proud to enter this tribute to Dr. Patricia Sanders into the official record. On behalf of all my colleagues, and with deep gratitude in my heart, I wish her the best as she embarks on the next journey in her life.

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

Madam President, I ask to be notified after 5 minutes.

Madam President, yesterday 12 Senators announced their intention to file 15 bills that would deal with the broken immigration system we have--15 responsible pieces of legislation that would be effective, in discrete, separate ways, to close some of the loopholes that are making our immigration system not work.

This is important. It is important for the Senate to undertake this. I believe we should follow through, in the wake of last year's defeat of the massive amnesty proposal, with what so many Members have promised: real reform and real enforcement and border security first. That was what we decided last summer, I think, by most observers. We decided that amnesty before enforcement was backwards, and we needed enforcement first. That is what we talked about, and that is what the vote indicated when there was a massive defeat of that comprehensive bill.

Now, the majority leader this morning, to my dismay, called that discussion yesterday fanfare. He said he hoped the American people can see what is going on here. Let's be frank about what is going on here. The majority leader, by those words, indicates to me he has no intention of moving forward with enforcement legislation. The leader of the Democrats in the Senate has indicated he does not want to go forward with it and that he is still in last year's and the year before's philosophy that the way to handle immigration is to refuse to pass anything that impacts positively enforcement until he is able to force through a massive amnesty.

I will not go into the details of that discussion last year, but it was honest and detailed and long. When the debate was over, the American people and this Senate voted it down. We rejected it because it will not work that way. We must have the enforcement first. There are so many loopholes out there.

It is disappointing. That is, frankly, where we are. Fourteen of his colleagues on the Democratic side voted to reject that plan. There were only 46 votes for it. You needed 60 to pass it. The suggestion that we are going to go back to a comprehensive plan such as that is not sound.

These bills that have been offered by a fine group of Senators are excellent, responsible pieces of legislation. They help control some of the problems we have. I am disappointed it looks as though we are going to have to work hard to force an opportunity to even get votes on some of these critically needed pieces of legislation.

Of the 15 bills that are in the package that was announced yesterday, over half of them have had prior votes in the Senate.

Senator DeMint's fence completion bill, S. 2712, has been the subject of four votes. The fence completion bill--and we voted on it, voted on it, and it wins every time--but you look out here, and all we have is a broken virtual fence that will not work, and very few miles of fence, very little of the double border. It is not occurring.

Senator Domenici's bill, to keep the National Guard there longer, has been voted on twice.

My bill requiring mandatory minimums for those who enter the country illegally has been voted on twice. It is a pretty tough bill. Somebody said we introduced a tough package. It would require 10 days detention at a minimum if you come here illegally. How extreme is that? If you come back a second time, a longer period. My legislation would also establish new worksite enforcement measures. That has been voted on at least twice in the Senate.

Various forms of the Chambliss-Isakson bill, creating effective partnerships between law enforcement and the Federal Government in State and local agencies, has received numerous votes.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for talking about some of the legislation that was announced yesterday in a press conference--15 pieces of legislation, offered by 12 Senators, that they believe would help create a lawful system of immigration and that they would like to discuss and debate and vote on this year.

My friend, the Democratic leader, said he didn't like it, apparently because a number of those Senators gathered and announced at a press conference their ideas. He called that ``great fanfare, a press event,'' with a little bit of a sniff, I think. And then he said these words: ``I hope the American public sees it for what it is.''

That kind of hurt my feelings. Can we not have a press conference to announce legislation that is going to improve America and talk about it? Is he suggesting that there is a nefarious plan afoot here? What is it that he is not happy about?

I just suggest that it was a revealing comment by the majority leader, with his inside-the-beltway hat on. What was revealed by that comment? He is suggesting that we should not bring it up because a lot of people in the media and the ``masters of the universe,'' I call them, who want to control all this immigration and make it do what they want it to do--and they realize the American people do not agree with them, but they want to do it anyway. So I think it was a revealing comment when the majority leader said that something is afoot here. What he is concerned about is that these bills might actually be brought up, as Senator Vitter has announced, as a good piece of legislation--may actually be brought up and, heavens, they might be asked to vote on it with an election coming up; that it is unfair to ask the U.S. Senate to vote on legislation that the American people would like to see pass, that could help create lawfulness in the immigration system, with an election coming up. He hopes the American people ``see it for what it is.''

Well, if the fact that an election is coming up helps our colleagues to be more alert to the real need for reform, the real need to end unlawfulness in immigration, then so be it; maybe that is a good thing. I don't see anything wrong with asking a Senator, who is paid by the taxpayers of America a decent wage, a good wage, to vote on important pieces of legislation that the public cares about.

I suppose the majority leader, who would oppose, apparently, the legislation--or at least some of it--that we are talking about here would prefer that we wait until early next year, after the election, and he would have a better chance then of cobbling together the votes to kill the reforms that are needed. Maybe that is what he has in his mind. But we are entitled as Senators to have votes on bills. Hopefully, we will move forward with some good legislation that will work.

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

Mr. President, it is with sadness that today I note the loss of a great American and a hero of the civil rights movement, Mrs. Johnnie Carr.

Mrs. Carr passed away in Montgomery on February 22, 2008, at the age of 97, but her lifelong struggle for equality in America will be an inspiration for many years to come.

I had the great privilege to know Mrs. Carr personally. I was always struck by her deep faith and commitment to improving our State. She was an independent thinker, and her remarkable strength served her well as a leader.

Mrs. Carr lived all her life in Montgomery, where she was a foot soldier in the fight for equality. She was a founding member of the Montgomery Improvement Association, an organization that proved instrumental in the important civil rights events in Alabama during the 1950s and 1960s.

Carr was the schoolmate, friend, and partner of Rosa Parks, who was the recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal and who was honored, 2 years ago, by having her body lie in honor in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.

Fred Gray, lawyer for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and author of ``Bus Ride to Justice,'' a valuable history of the civil rights movement in Alabama, points out that Johnnie Carr was one of the organizers of the bus protest. Gray eloquently notes that her boycott ``Set in motion the modern civil rights movement and gave birth to a world leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a future Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.'' That protest succeeded as a result of unified African- American community leaders like Johnnie Carr.

Later, in 1964, Carr became the lead plaintiff in the historic school desegregation case, Carr v. the Montgomery Board of Education, a victory for color-blind public education and one of many important cases heard by U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson. Indeed, this case was the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court approved ``quotas, goals, and time-tables'' as corrections for past discrimination, Gray writes.

She committed her entire life to equality and her faith, which provided her the courage to make a difference.

It is fitting that Mrs. Carr followed Dr. King as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association. For more than four decades she led campaigns to promote voter registration and integrate public facilities.

Always a strong leader, Mrs. Carr promoted cooperation and consensus during a difficult period in our Nation's history. She reached across racial lines to promote positive change for Alabama, serving as both an active member of Hall Street Baptist Church and as a missionary for the Montgomery Antioch District.

Many individuals and organizations have recognized Mrs. Carr's long history of leadership and advocacy. It is a privilege to lend my voice to the choir of those who have honored the spirit and dedication of this American hero. She left a lasting legacy in this country that will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the wise comments of Senator Shelby on this question. I will share a few thoughts about where we are in this process. It was a big, long, fair competition for this new KC-45 tanker aircraft. The Air Force announced it last Friday. They announced they had selected Northrop

Grumman as the lead contractor for the new plane. Northrop plans to build it in my hometown of Mobile, AL. We could not be prouder. I, at one point, chaired the Air/Land Subcommittee as we discussed the need for this aircraft. Long before there was any indication that any of it would be built in Alabama, I became convinced that it was a needed plane.

I will say this to my colleagues who seem to be arguing that it is not an American aircraft: The lead contractor is Northrop Grumman, which is a Los Angeles/American company. They partnered with EADS, a European company.

Some have said openly that it is an aircraft that is going to be built in Europe. A lot of people probably have heard that. But the truth is, it is going to be built in the United States, in Mobile. I can show you the spot and the place. Old Brookley Air Force Base. They had as many as 40,000 employees. It was closed in 1965. Indeed, the econmy of the town of Mobile's was impacted, until the last half dozen years when it has taken off strongly. But in these last 35 or more years, it has genuinely been believed not to have kept up with the rest of the country as a result of the closure of that huge base. This will be at that facility.

I suggest and state that in reality what we are talking about is the insourcing into America of an aircraft production center that will bring 2,500 jobs to our area, 5,000 for the State, and, more importantly, even 25,000 jobs nationwide at 230 different companies that will be involved in the building of this tanker.

I just want to say one thing. I think Senator Shelby talked about it. I want to say one thing in the beginning, as a recovering former lawyer. We had a competition for this aircraft. We had two bidders and, to my knowledge, during the time that this bidding process was going on, no one was saying we should not have competition. No one was saying that because one of the partners was European based--of course, they are our allies fundamentally on most issues of importance in the world, and our partners in the Joint Strike Fighter, one of our top fighter aircraft. But nobody said that disqualified Northrop's bid. Do you follow me?

So we go through months and months of meetings with the Air Force, and with their hard work they developed an objective set of criteria and evaluated the aircraft. Nobody was saying that somehow this Northrop team should not be in the game, should not be allowed to bid because we all know the fact that there was a vigorous competition reduced the bids substantially of both companies because they had to be competitive. If it had been a sole-sourced bid, it would not have been. This was a good thing for us to have had. That is all I am saying.

Now, some have hinted that we ought to have politics enter into this process after 2 years, and the right company didn't win and we ought to somehow overturn that. It is not good sense to me to make that argument. Of course, it would not hold up in a court of law. The Air Force, rated the aircraft objectively, and they made an objective decision. It was not contested before, and I do not think it will be successfully contested now.

The Northrop aircraft won, according to the Air Force officials, because it offered the best value to the Government and the best plane for our war fighters. Sue Payton, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, said during the announcement on Friday:

Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the

Government when you take a look at it, in accordance with the

Madam President, I thank my colleague for raising some of those issues. Our area was hardest hit in one area I visited not long ago, and just now we are seeing houses come back. It has been sad. I think that it has taken this long to move, going on 3 years, and you wonder why we couldn't make that happen earlier. A lot of money has been spent on interim housing and other things, that had it been spent in a way that goes directly to housing, to building new housing in safe areas and raised up so we wouldn't have a risk in the future, we would

have been a lot better off. I know it is hard because I have been there and I have seen how hard it is to move the process in a faster way. I hope in the future we will learn to do it better.

I thank my colleague for raising it.

Budget

Madam President, all of us realize our country faces a fiscal crisis. Unless we take action, we are going to see dramatic damage to our economy in the years to come. With the retirement of the baby boomers, our current spending levels on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in particular are simply unsustainable.

Absent reform, the Social Security trust fund is expected to be exhausted by 2041, the Medicare Part A trust fund will be exhausted in 2019--only 11 years from now--and the cost of these Federal programs will actually exceed the current budget. The resulting deficits will be so large that many predict the Government will not be able to borrow its way out of the problem. So we do need to take some steps now.

Some may think these grim predictions, these projections are not accurate. Maybe things are not as bad as some are projecting. But I do not think anybody can doubt we are moving to a period of time when our ability to fund the entitlement programs, plus our general expenditures, will be beyond our capacity--really beyond our capacity. It becomes more difficult each year we delay in getting there.

Next week we will be marking up, in the Budget Committee, this year's budget. I have served on the Budget Committee for a number of years. Last year, we had a budget, and it was a bit discouraging. We have had discouraging budgets for some years, frankly.

I want to make some remarks to clarify what I think is a problem. Some would say it is partisan, but I think we might as well talk about it because, prior to the last election, our Democratic colleagues vigorously attacked the Republicans for not fixing our fiscal situation. They said: You are in the majority. There was, in truth, much merit to those criticisms. I do not think the Republican majority did a very good job, and people were not happy about it. It was a factor in the last election.

In fact, in the last election, 2006, when my Democratic colleagues were promising to do better--and they achieved a majority in both Houses of Congress--the polling data showed the Democratic Members of Congress were believed to be better able than Republicans to confront this deficit problem we were facing. So it was a factor, I think, in the last election.

I note that over the last several years substantial progress was made about the deficit. We do not need to be too negative here. The deficit fell from $413 billion in 2004 to $162 billion last year. That is more than half--well more than half--that we reduced it. I, frankly, was very hopeful that if we could continue to contain the growth in spending we would see that deficit continue to fall.

But two things have happened that, frankly, make this a difficult year. First, the Congress voted for a $170 billion stimulus package to send everybody checks and other things--$170 billion. Last year, our deficit was just $162 billion. This year we added on top of all of our spending another $170 billion.

Since we were already in deficit, where did we get the money to pay the $170 billion? Nobody disputes it: Every single dollar of the $170 billion proposed is paid for by more debt. It is borrowed. It is going to be a debt we will carry and our grandchildren will carry, frankly. And we will pay interest on it. So this year's budget is going to look bad, and it is going to be difficult because we have another $170 billion, and that is more than the deficit of all of last year.

Secondly, we still have very considerable expenses related to the war on terrorism. That hurts. But that was included in last year's deficit.

The next thing--that is troubling for us all--is the economic slowdown. We tax the American people pretty heavily--frankly, more than I like to see them taxed. We tax upper income people with even higher marginal tax rates than we tax lower income people.

When the economy is doing well--and somebody should do a better study about this, I think, than has been done to date--when the economy is doing well, upper income people tend to do very well. So their business--maybe they own 10 or 12 of this or that outlets in some city. The economy is booming. The CEO, the owner, makes $300,000 a year, and he pays that 35-percent marginal income tax rate to the Federal Government.

Now, if the economy slows down, instead of making $300,000, he makes $100,000. It looks like a lot of money, but it certainly will not benefit the U.S. Treasury nearly as much because the marginal rate on $100,000 will be lower than 35 percent. And he will only be paying on $100,000.

So I say, we have created a tax system that has tied itself to a growing economy, and we are not in a growing economy this year. It looks like the economy is going to slow down, and it is troubling. So we cannot project the same level of revenue to the U.S. Government that we had the last several years, which had been surging. It was 13 percent, 11 percent, 10 percent the last 3 years in growth. So we are facing a difficult issue.

My Democratic colleagues, during this past election, promised to cut spending and do better than those who had been in power. My very fine colleague Senator Conrad--who I think, if he had more support among his majority colleagues, would be able to do more than he is doing--said these things last year. This is the chairman of the Budget Committee:

So for those of us who are concerned about spending, sign

me up.

On ``60 Minutes'':

We need to be tough on spending.

I think most of it is going to have to be on the spending

side of the equation, given the magnitude of the baby boom

generation.

I think we should sharply inhibit the growth of spending.

Well, those were some promises that were made last year. They have also promised and made a big to-do about the tax gap.

Now, the debate over the tax gap was simply this: Well, we don't want to promote in our first budget--last year, that was the first Democratic budget--a tax increase, so what we will do is we will use the same current tax rates, and what we will do is collect more and get those people who are cheating. We had reports from the IRS that said that was not going to work. We had experienced Senators, such as Senator Grassley, former chairman of the Finance Committee, who said: That is not going to work. Senator Gregg, former chairman of the Budget Committee, and now ranking Republican on that committee, said: It is not going to work.

Oh, but they used that argument. When the budget was passed, this extra income they projected would be received into the Treasury as a result of enhanced enforcement by the IRS, that that was going to help them, allow them to spend more money and not increase the debt. OK. That was the debate we had last year when we passed a budget: a commitment they would raise more money by collecting from those who are not paying as much as they are supposed to pay. It did not happen. I will talk about that in a minute.

But I want to say this: A budget is a defining document for a political party. It is organized 51-49 with a Democratic majority here. We passed a Budget Act a number of years ago--because we could not pass budgets because of filibusters--to eliminate the filibusters during budget debates. You can pass a budget with a majority vote. So the majority party, as the Republicans could do in the past, was able to pass a budget without support from the other party. Anybody who is in a majority in the Senate ought to be able to pass a budget. It also is a document that says something about the priorities and the direction that the majority wants to see the country go: how they are going to get there. It is a very important, defining document.

Senator Gregg, last year, was very eloquent. He is such an experienced and wise Senator, who watches this carefully. He has studied these issues carefully. He predicted their budget was not going to add up last year when we passed that budget. But they insisted that it would work, as it was passed, and history now can tell us what happened. Looking back, it is clear--even in a period of good economic growth last year--the promises that were made were not kept. They told us they would cut the existing spending or reduce the

rate of increase in spending. Yet last year the majority attempted to add $23 billion to President Bush's discretionary spending request, which already reflected a $60 billion increase.

So President Bush's budget had a $60 billion increase in discretionary spending. This excludes Social Security, Medicare, and the military--or the war supplementals. It excludes those entitlement programs. He proposed $60 billion in increases. Our colleagues passed a budget in the Senate that was a $23 billion increase above that.

Contrary to cutting spending, I would suggest my colleagues did not fulfill their promises, but actually proposed a budget that increased spending 50 percent more almost--40 percent-plus more than President Bush proposed. Over a 5-year period, that budget would have hiked nondefense discretionary spending by $205 billion. But we did have somewhat of a battle last year, and as the great omnibus bill came through at the end of the year--that monstrosity--President Bush threatened a veto, and he forced a cut in spending. Republicans in the Congress backed him up on that veto threat, and that was achieved at the end.

It appeared that we had a spending program that was more akin to President Bush's $60 billion increase than to an $83 billion increase as proposed by my Democratic colleagues. But it wasn't all that good, frankly, because, as has been the case for decades, there are other options to get around the budget--gimmicks and devices. By abusing the emergency spending designation last year, the majority party was able to spend an additional $24 billion anyway, by calling it an emergency.

If we have a budget and we agree to commit to that budget and legislation is proposed that goes above that budget, it is subject to a point of order, and you have to have 60 votes at least before you can spend it. But if you can get enough votes, if you can get 60 votes, you can just declare something an emergency, and you can put the money in the emergency spending with 60 votes, and it doesn't count against the budget because you have declared it an emergency. So that is on top of the deficit budget we have.

Also, there were great promises that any new spending programs would be offset. This is the pay-go rule. How do you offset a new spending program? You can cut spending somewhere else or you can increase taxes. That is the only way to do it under pay-go. But our colleagues have often--this pay-go rule that had been so much ballyhooed here by our colleagues--they either ignored it or gimmicked the pay-go rules last year. Such gimmickry resulted in $143 billion in deficit spending.

For example, let's look at the SCHIP reauthorization. I hope my colleagues will just think about this. I take no pleasure in this. I have seen Republicans do this too. But this is really a blatant example. The bill we passed last year increased funding for SCHIP, the insurance for children, increased spending over 5 years by $35 billion. But in fiscal year 2013, that spending level was decreased by 85 percent. Now, I ask my colleagues: Why? Why would we dramatically increase funding for the SCHIP program and then in an outyear--2013-- slash it by 85 percent? The reason is they score the cost of it over 5 years. So for 4 years we would have a dramatic increase, and in the fifth year they make a dramatic 85-percent reduction. The question is, Why was that done? So it would fit within the score, the 5-year score. But what is really going to happen? Does anybody in this Senate think that in 2013 we are going to cut the children's insurance program by 85 percent? Of course not. This is a gimmick. It was a gimmick to make it fit within the budget, to appear not to be in violation of the pay-go rule when, in fact, we know we couldn't possibly reduce that program by 85 percent.

Not only does the pay-go rule fail to control spending, it will put us on an almost guaranteed path to large tax increases. Under the Democratic budget that passed last year, any existing tax cut, any existing lower tax rate that expires sometime in the future would be allowed to expire--for our colleagues, to continue those current levels of taxes, to continue them at a lower rate is considered a tax cut. So to extend the dividend cuts, extend the capital gains cuts, extend the lower rates for lower income workers, it amounts to, under their definition, a tax cut. It takes 60 votes under this pay-go rule to pass a tax cut. President Clinton said he opposes these tax cuts that President Bush passed, and I think that represents the majority view of my colleagues, so we are looking at a period of time that we could see additional increases in taxes, and to keep them at the current rate, they will score it as a tax cut. We will either pay for it under this definition by reducing spending or increasing taxes somewhere else. We are not going to reduce spending because we have already seen the majority party has proposed a budget that spends more than President Bush proposed, and he proposed an increase in spending.

It is sort of a perverse little deal. Under this pay-go rule, my colleagues assume that spending will go up each year, so that doesn't have to be offset. It goes up at a certain rate, but they say if you extend the current tax rates, that is a tax cut. It provides an incentive and an advancement of spending and a detriment to tax reductions.

Now, with regard to the tax gap, it would be pretty humorous, frankly, if it weren't so serious. Their proposals on this tax gap, this idea that they are going to raise more taxes by having the IRS increase collections, was one of the wildest political chimeras this Senate has seen in quite a number of years. As I have indicated, senior Senators such as Senator Grassley and Senator Gregg pointed out how it was not going to work, and they cited the IRS and other things that showed it, but we passed it anyway. We scored the budget on the assumption the money would come in. It was going to raise $300 billion over 5 years, just in enhanced collections. So we assumed we were going to enhance tax collections by $300 billion over the next 5 years last year when we passed this Democratic budget. But we see now, from the best estimates we have for the effort of closing the tax gap, it is not going to raise $300 billion, it will raise $200 million over 5 years, $40 million a year--hardly enough to impact the overall deficit situation we are in at all. The House has recently passed legislation that actually is going to widen the tax gap, unfortunately.

Our colleagues promised to enact middle-class tax relief, but that has not been done. There has been no action to extend the marriage penalty relief we have today, the $1,000-per-child tax credit we have, the 10-percent tax break credit--the 10-percent tax bracket for low- income workers, or any kind of estate tax reform. So we have had that talk, but we haven't passed it, and we are heading to the point where we are going to have a pay-go problem to even extend these current rates, and they are going to score that as a tax cut and demand to know where we are going to get the money from. The capital gains reduction that virtually every economist agrees results in increased revenues to the Government from capital gains taxes will expire in 2010. The 10- percent tax bracket--the low 10-percent tax bracket that didn't previously exist but was created as a result of President Bush's tax cuts would expire, and it would go back to 15 percent for lower income individuals. Setting a dividend rate at 15 percent will end; it will go back to the marginal rate for many people of over 30 percent. Does anybody think that is going to help the stock market to increase-- double--the rate for dividend taxes you have to pay? So the best scores we have are that we are heading toward a $900 billion tax increase that will impact directly--and everybody indirectly--116 million taxpayers.

What about entitlements? The majority party talked about doing something about entitlements. I think Senator Conrad truly believes we should do something about it. He has worked hard at it, but he has never gotten the support on his side of the aisle to ever make a dent in it. We have to think about entitlement spending.

At this point in time, entitlement spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--exceeds half of our budget, half of what we spend. That number is growing. Some have it up to 100 percent of the current budget level in a number of decades unless something were to change. At least President Bush consistently has offered programs to improve and contain the growth in

these programs. He talked about Social Security reform, and the door was slammed shut. My colleagues wouldn't even discuss it. He has talked about Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody would talk about that last year. It was absolutely not a part of last year's budget.

So I think this is irresponsible. If we are heading on a glidepath that takes us to trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, driven overwhelmingly by the 6, 7, 8 percent increases annually in Medicare and Medicaid, why can't we begin to reduce that growth rate and bring it more close to the inflation rate of 2, 3 percent, maybe 4 percent, 5 percent increases each year?

Finally, I thought one of the most effective critiques of the Republican majority leadership in 2006 and the years before was we weren't passing our appropriations bills on time. They had too much pork in them. Stuff was put in them in the dead of night, and we didn't have a chance to read it and do anything about it. That was the valid criticism of the Republican majority.

What happened this past year after our colleagues won the majority, claiming they were going to do better? Did they do better? Well, we have 12 appropriations bills each year. We should enact each one of them individually. They should be brought up on the floor one-by-one. There should be an opportunity to offer amendments, and they should be voted up or down, right? No, that is not the way it goes. This past year, we had the largest omnibus bill in 20 years. The majority sent us, near Christmas, a 1,600-page omnibus package that combined into one bill 11 of the 12 appropriations bills, and then it hit this floor; there was no time to read it. We didn't know what kind of pork or policy had been added to it. We were challenged to vote for it or not. It was $555 billion. That is worse than we have had in terms of an omnibus package in 20 years.

Frankly, the majority leader, Senator Reid, has indicated that he may not even bring up the appropriations bills or we may have another great omnibus bill this year, but after the election. Well, the election is in November. The fiscal year starts October 1. It is our responsibility to have the appropriations bills passed before the beginning of the fiscal year, October 1.

It is as if he is throwing in the towel before we even get there. Frankly, as an aside, I truly believe we would do much better if we went to a 2-year budget and 2-year appropriations, as over half of the States have. That would help us in this process because this happens every year, and it is getting worse, it seems, every year.

We will soon have the new budget resolution. It will hit the committee next week. I am a member of the committee. It was a failed and unhealthy budget last year that was moved forward by our Democratic colleagues. I am afraid this one will not be much better.

I noticed that the Democratic Presidential candidates are offering a lot of new proposals. Senator Obama, who now leads, has offered 158 of them that would cost at least $312 billion in new annual spending, or $1.4 trillion over 5 years, as we tend to score those things. That doesn't include all of his proposals that are out there.

Madam President, I will conclude by telling the American people and my colleagues that next week we will begin a defining process. Next week, the majority party will offer a budget. Because of the budget rules, with 51 votes, they will be able to pass this budget. So because the Democratic majority has 51 votes, they can pass the budget they want. But we need to examine it because it will tell us and America what their priorities are, what their commitment is, how willing they are to sacrifice and make sure we have fiscal responsibility in this country.

Based on last year's budget, I am afraid it is not going to be any better. Based on the fact that Senator Reid says he doesn't expect we will finish the appropriations process until after the November elections, I don't sense any commitment to do better than the Republicans did when they had the majority. Certainly, this year, their performance was worse. This past year, it was worse, and it doesn't look as if it will be better in the future.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity to share my concerns. I hope we can be frank about these matters because the majority party knows it has a very serious responsibility when it submits a budget. We knew it when we had the majority. I sat on the Budget Committee. Senator Conrad and his colleagues know they have that responsibility. They also know they have the votes to pass this. Therefore, there can be no excuses. There is nowhere to hide. Are you going to do anything about entitlements? Are you going to guarantee tax cuts? Are you going to submit a budget that projects lower spending or one that is filled with gimmicks to hide even more spending increases? It is a big deal. We will be talking about this for some weeks. I hope our colleagues will focus on this.

Madam President, what is the time agreement?

Madam President, my colleagues desire to do a colloquy. I am pleased to yield to them as long as there is some time left somewhere along the way. I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after this colloquy concludes.

Madam President, what is our time on this side?

Madam President, I understand the pending business has been the legislation by Senator Feingold, Senator Reid, and Senator Menendez to require another report within 60 days involving the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of National Intelligence. All of them are supposed to drop the war on terrorism they are leading and have explained to us repeatedly and in meticulous detail and write another report.

They keep asking for reports. They asked for a report by General Petraeus when we sent him to Iraq last summer. We voted overwhelmingly, a bipartisan vote, to send him. We were worried at the time, I have to admit, about how things were going in Iraq. I remember asking him: General Petraeus, if things don't get better, if you believe we cannot be successful, will you tell us? He said that he would. He also said he believed we could be successful if we utilized the plans and ideas and programs he was going to execute and was executing. He went and he came back and gave us a report in September. GEN Jimmy Jones, a retired Marine general, and 12 other participants went to the region and returned to give us a report, as did the Government Accountability Office.

We heard all those reports, and we sent General Petraeus forward and we said, continue on, because we were beginning by September to see some substantial reduction in violence in the neighborhoods in Iraq. We didn't know if it was permanent, how far it would go, but the trends were beginning, for at least a few weeks prior to his report, to look considerably better.

As a result of all of that, we allowed General Petraeus to continue with the plan as he explained to us because we evaluated that the strategy he was implementing was working. Since then, we continue to see the most miraculous, one must say, reduction in violence--60, 80, 90 percent in some areas in the country, 60 percent nationwide reduction in violence. We have had circumstances where the local people have joined in awakening groups, or citizens groups, and have turned against al-Qaida. Some of the people had been working with al-Qaida, frankly, but they realized this was a violent, vicious, dominating group with whom they had no prospect of ever living peacefully.

General Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified this morning before the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, and he discussed that issue. The marines met with these local tribal leaders and made an arrangement, and they turned on al-Qaida, attacked them and have killed them, and they have helped us kill them because they do not agree with them anymore and they have learned the true nature of this group.

The violence is dropping, and Shia groups and councils and awakening groups are forming in other areas of the country. In Al Anbar, a mostly Sunni province, remarkable progress toward stability and a decline in violence has been made. So why do we want to ask for another report?

I note that this bill, S. 2634, was dropped in the same day and by the same people who authored the bill to demand a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, an independent group, said that such a withdrawal would be a ``victory of historic proportions'' for al-Qaida.

I want to be frank: The people who are proposing this report, the people who have called for the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq want us out of there and do not care about any of the consequences.

We are a great nation. We committed our military. We committed our Nation. We committed our resources. We committed the lives of our military by more than a three-fourths vote to this enterprise, and in recent months we have had a most dramatic turn for the better. Why now would we want to promote a precipitous withdrawal? Why now would we demand more and more reports that, if read carefully, have no potential to lead to a constructive benefit toward the mission we have undertaken? I don't think it would do anything other than make it more difficult for our military, more difficult for General Petraeus and our Defense Department to be successful.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. Let's be mature as a nation. Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This matter is not over, don't get me wrong. I don't portend to suggest in any way that these better numbers and downward trends in violence and progress made politically is guaranteed to continue. We are going to have hiccups and problems, I am certain, but it is certainly going in the right direction today.

I would urge us not to destabilize that, not to pass resolutions that can only be interpreted by our allies, by the Iraqis, by our own soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that are there in Iraq as an ambivalent attitude toward what they are doing, by placing their very lives at risk for this policy. Why in the world would we want to send such a message?

I think it would be a big mistake, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

I thank the Chair and would ask how much time is left on this side.

I yield back the remaining time, and, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments in response to my eloquent colleague from North Dakota. The rhetoric he utilizes has been used for a long time.

We have heard this rhetoric before each one of our evaluations of the way ahead in Iraq. And we have each time concluded that our national interests call on us to remain active and strong in Iraq and active and strong against terrorism around the world.

I would note, to remind everyone, every intelligence agency in the world thought weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq when the war began. In fact, Saddam Hussein did not seriously deny that these weapons existed. Saddam denied the U.N. inspectors the right to look for WMD, even though he had agreed to do so after suing for peace in 1991. At that time, after he had invaded Kuwait, we agreed not to take Baghdad and grab him by the scruff of the neck. He agreed he would allow his country to be inspected by the United Nations.

He did not do that. He systematically violated 13 U.N. resolutions. As the well-known magazine, The Economist, said: We either have to give up and let Saddam break the embargo or we have to fight? They said: We believe we should fight.

That, I suggest, is the fundamental reason we had to authorize the President to use force. A lot more can be said about it, but those were some of the things we were considering at the time. I would note also that an official commission report concluded that, while U.S. forces did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein planned to work his way out from under the sanctions and to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.

That has been clearly established. Most of us were surprised we did not find nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq. I have to tell you, I was surprised. In 1991, when we had the first Gulf War to repulse Iraq, which had invaded Kuwait, we discovered that Iraq's nuclear program was far more advanced than we had previously thought. That is indisputable.

We know that after 1991, and before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam had utilized weapons of mass destruction, poison gas, against the Kurds of Iraq, killing thousands of his own people. How could he not have weapons of mass destruction? It still remains baffling to me that we did not find them.

So I wish to rebut this old rhetoric that somehow President Bush lied to get us into the war. We spent months discussing this and debating all the issues. We had private briefings. We knew basically everything the President knew. And what we knew was the CIA Director George Tenet, who had been appointed by President Clinton, told the President of the United States: It was a slam dunk; that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq.

That is the kind of information that the President acted on. He was not lying to the American people. This Senate authorized the President to use force in Iraq by a more than three-fourths majority vote. A majority of both parties, a majority of the Democratic Senators, a majority of the Republican Senators voted to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. And that is how we got here.

So the question is: What do we do now? This is a great Nation. We are not some fly-by-night bunch who can change our minds every time the poll numbers change. We have responsibilities to our Nation, to our allies. We have committed our men and women to harm's way. We have lost a large number of American soldiers to execute a policy we sent them to execute.

I have to tell you, we lost far fewer in the initial invasion than I imagined, but have lost far more than I imagined in the post-invasion period. Things are never quite certain in war, however.

People who fight you and desire to kill you usually do not want to be killed themselves. Military action is a tough thing and always causes us to remember we should avoid it whenever we possibly can. It should be a last resort. It is only acceptable when we have no real other alternative.

I do not believe the Lord is happy when his children fight and kill one another. It cannot be a good thing. It is a bad thing. Sometimes, because we are so flawed and we have options that are so grim, military action becomes the best decision that can be made under the circumstances. I think that is where we were in 2003 when it came to the Iraq debate.

In the fall of 2006, in an election that came during one of the worst periods of time in Iraq, the Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress. The President's polling numbers were terrible. The following summer we had a national debate about whether to allow General Petraeus to continue the surge. We had a commission that General Jones headed, with 15 members. I asked him at the hearing: General Jones, do you and the members of your commission believe we have a chance to be successful if we execute this surge? He said: I do. He looked around. Any of the other members want to rebut what I have said or have a different opinion? Not a single one did.

That commission unanimously reported that they thought we could be successful. We had General Petraeus testify, and we had the GAO issue a report in September after the surge had actually begun.

We noticed some progress. But it was premature to see that as a sustained trend. We knew that. And we continued again at that time to allow the surge to go forward. We believed things were going to get better. That was my conclusion after hearing everyone's opinion.

I remember asking General Petraeus: Sir, will you tell us the truth, the good and bad? And he committed in private and in public to do that.

Will you give us your best judgment? Will you let us know if you think this is not an acceptable, feasible action in Iraq; that we need to acknowledge that we can't be successful? He made that commitment.

So what has happened since? We sent five additional brigades into Iraq as part of the surge. Three have already returned to the United States. The other two are planned to be returned by summer. We will be at or possibly below the 15 combat brigades that we had in Iraq before the surge.

General Casey was asked today in the Armed Services Committee about that plan and whether it meant we could move from having our soldiers on 15-month deployments to 12 month deployments. He said: When we get back to 15 brigades--and at this time we are projected to be there by July--he believed then that we could go back to a 1-year rotation instead of the longer 15-month rotation. 15 month rotations have been so painful to our military personnel and their families. That is a long time. We need to keep it to 12 months if we possibly can.

We are anticipating three reports in April. General Petraeus will come, as he promised, to give us a report on the status of Iraq and what he thinks about our future military commitment and soldier strength there. We will also receive a report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a report from Admiral Fallon, the CENTCOM commander who has Iraq the rest of the Middle East

under his command. We will have those three reports in April. That is the time for us to begin to evaluate again what our next step will be.

General Petraeus has said that we need to be careful to consolidate the gains we have made, to help the Iraqi people and government move to a more stable footing for the long term. If we were to pass the Feingold legislation, it would be a slap in the face to our commander on the ground who is absolutely one of the finest generals this Nation has ever produced. It would be unthinkable that we would, in a time of great success, reject the commander's recommendations and the military's recommendations after we took their recommendations when things were not good a year ago. We were worried a year ago. There was cause for legitimate concern. I do not deny it. But, goodness sakes, we have had some success in recent months.

The military estimates that attacks against coalition forces and Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians have collectively fallen by 60 percent against Iraq since June of last year. Iraqi Army estimates put the number as high as an 80-percent reduction. In June there were almost 1,700 IED explosions across Iraq. That number fell to 600 in December. While one U.S. combat death is so serious that we are not able to articulate the gravity of it, we are seeing, I am pleased to say, a major reduction in casualties among our troops and Iraqi troops. It is quite remarkable. December of 2007 was the second lowest combat death total of the war for American forces behind May of 2003. January and February of this year have shown comparably low death rates. That is something for which we can be thankful. Every single life is important. But we have to understand that when we commit troops to combat, there are going to be casualties. Having a good movement in the right direction is a cause for confidence, not a basis to cut and run.

From January to December of 2007, sectarian attacks and death among Iraqis in the Baghdad area decreased by 90 percent. I want to just say, we should be skeptical of these numbers when we hear them just one time. Are the trends sustained? How accurate are these facts? Those are legitimate questions for members of Congress to ask.

When I see soldiers in the Atlanta airport--most of them are on their R&R or coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan--I speak to them about their experiences. I spend a lot of time in the Atlanta airport, more than I like. I ask them how things are going. And I am hearing, from them, information that directly confirms the reports we are getting.

Just this month, a soldier I met was saying he worked at a base in Iraq. He said they used to take incoming rounds against the base throughout the day every day. Now they go days without any attacks. Another soldier told me things were getting boring. Every morning they used to meet. There would be some emergency, some serious challenge they had to address. Now when they meet, they can go weeks without anything serious happening. These observations are from sergeants, enlisted people, junior officers. It confirms, I will just say to you, the information we are receiving.

How has this success happened? What has occurred? The ranks of Sunni volunteers who have chosen in recent months to switch sides and turn against al-Qaida as members of local citizen councils have grown to more than 91,000, according to statistics from the U.S. military. The Sunnis, who are the minority group in Iraq, used to run Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They have been taken from power. They were strong Baathists. They were attracted to al-Qaida and their false promises. Many, though not most, were in cahoots with al-Qaida. They have now rejected al-Qaida. Whole tribal regions have publicly renounced them. They said they don't care about their people. They try to run their neighborhoods. They are corrupt. They don't support them. And 91,000 have joined local citizens councils part of the awakening, they call it, to turn against al-Qaida.

Sunnis are turning these guys in. Most al-Qaida are foreigners. They don't live in Iraq. So the Sunnis know who they are. The Sunni folks know them. Once they turned on al-Qaida, we have seen a dramatic change in the Sunni areas.

Shia groups, citizens councils are growing around the country as well. More and more the people are getting tired of murderous killers and religiously driven extremists. They realize this is no foundation on which to build their future. Three critical laws have been passed. Critics say: We have to have laws passed. Surely we do, although the President and all the masters of the universe in America, I guess, determined that we would pass an immigration law. They said we had to do it. We had to have this program, this amnesty. They were going to ram it right through here. It failed flatter than a fritter. So just saying a bill needs to be passed in a democratic parliamentary situation doesn't mean that is so easy to be done.

Three critical laws were passed by the Iraqi Parliament on February 13 of this year. They enacted a $48 billion budget for 2008. They granted amnesty to thousands of Sunni detainees and passed a provincial power law defining the relationship between the central government and provinces. These last two were on the list of benchmarks demanded by Congress.

Last fall when General Petraeus was here, the critics of the war said: You are not meeting these benchmarks. We are not interested in the military side. We are only interested in the political side. Well, we are making some progress now in the political area. In one sense things are even better than they appear on the political side because, throughout the region, reconciliation has been undertaken, and Baathists have been accepted back into Government positions, even in the absence of a national law. The oil money was and is being fairly distributed, even though they haven't agreed on an absolute firm legal formula for distribution of revenues.

Last Friday, February 22, the Shiite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr, who controls the Mahdi army, instructed his followers to extend their cease-fire against the Sunnis and the Americans for another 6 months. This is a big deal. The Sunnis have come around and now al Sadr, with the Shia, has also recommended that his followers continue their cease- fire.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, with whom I have met in Iraq, said this last week:

We are indeed seeing the signs of that political surge.

Putting all of that together would have been just unthinkable

6 months ago.

Let me say this Feingold bill would be disastrous if it were passed. It would cut off funding after 120 days for any missions not approved by Senator Feingold and politicians in Washington. It would replace the deployment decisions and recommendations of General Petraeus with political decisions. Some, I guess, who are in the moveon.org camp think General Petraeus is a betrayer. That is what they put in an ad in the paper last year. I say he is one of the best generals we have had. He has had a remarkable tenure of success in Iraq.

The Feingold bill would forbid us from training any members of neighborhood councils that have sprung up under the Sunni awakening, unless we could certify that they had never been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the U.S. Armed Forces. Well, we want them on our side. I don't know what motivated them at one point or another to oppose the United States. But if they have made a decision, as a lot of Sunnis clearly have, to switch sides, to turn in al-Qaida, to kill al-Qaida, isn't that good enough? Why shouldn't we welcome them back into the fold of the Iraqi Government and give them a chance?

We have to be careful. In fact, I think the State Department and the military are too naive in their belief that the prisoners we now have in custody can be released in the interests of reconciliation. Many of these, I am afraid, are just killers and murderers and thugs. Releasing too many of these people can create violence in the community. I don't doubt that some have had a change of heart because many have. But we have to be careful about how many of these prisoners we release.

This bill would prevent us from attacking terrorists or sectarian militias unless we can be sure that the targets are ``members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.''

How is this supposed to work in practice, let me ask? Will we ask al- Qaida to wear special hats or badges or uniforms so we can distinguish them from simple local terrorists?

The likely consequences of this legislation would be renewed sectarian violence, expanded ``breathing room'' for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, and decreased possibilities for political reconciliation. It would create major political instability in Iraq.

The frequently referenced final report of the Iraq Study Group described, in grim detail, the results of an American decision to abandon Iraq:

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for

catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United

States in initiating events that have led to the current

situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States

to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of

troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq

would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and

further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of

the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term

results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human

suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the

global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a

historic victory.

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range

consequences could eventually require the United States to

return.

This was a serious evaluation by serious men and women who have studied this area in depth. I do not think anybody can deny that this is a realistic description of what would occur if we were to pass the Feingold bill.

Well, Mr. President, I see others here who want to talk, and it looks as though we will have more time tomorrow. I say to my fine colleague from Florida, I enjoy serving with him, as he is chairman of our Strategic Subcommittee in Armed Services.

I conclude by saying, we are a great nation. We made some tough decisions. We went through a full debate last summer. We decided to give General Petraeus a chance. We gave him a chance. We supported the surge in a bipartisan vote. We sent the money. We sent him the resources to carry out the surge. It has been successful beyond anything we could have imagined at the time. And now, to undertake a precipitous withdrawal, directly contrary to his opinion as to what should be done to help continue to secure Iraq, would be unthinkable. No great nation should flip-flop around like that, certainly not the United States of America.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, the congressional budget process, which we will begin again soon, is clearly broken. Since fiscal year 1980, only three times has Congress enacted all its appropriations bills by the start of the next fiscal year, which is October 1. During that same time, 138 continuing resolutions have been needed to keep the Government running. In other words, if Congress does not appropriate money, it cannot be spent by the executive branch. It cannot be spent by the Government, period. So when we do not pass an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Defense or the Department of Housing and Urban Development, they cannot operate. They shut down. As a result, we come through with continuing resolutions to allow funding to continue at the previous year's level while we debate and argue over the appropriate appropriations for that next fiscal year.

Repeatedly, we have been late. On average, there have been 4.8 continuing resolutions each fiscal year. On average, we have been almost 3 months late passing the appropriations bills, putting us well into the next fiscal year. For fiscal year 1996, 10 years ago, the final appropriations bill was signed almost 7 months late.

Over the past 13 budget cycles, Congress has passed 10 omnibus spending bills. These omnibus bills occur when, instead of passing each of the 12 appropriations bills separately, as we are set up and plan to do, they cannot pass them individually. Because they are so far behind, all the bills are cobbled together in an omnibus bill and moved at one time, which creates so much momentum that it is difficult to stop a bill such as that. It is certainly almost impossible to read and know what is in it. On average, these spending packages have combined 7.6 regular appropriations bills. So the average omnibus bill is 7.6 of the 12 appropriations bills piled all together in 1 bill and passed, basically rammed through the Senate and the House.

Last year, Congress enacted a $555 billion, 1,600-page omnibus package that combined 11 of the 12 required appropriations bills in 1. It was passed in late December, not long before Christmas, when people were anxious to go home. I am sure that is part of the plan. It all moved forward. Mr. President, 1,600 pages--it is unlikely many Members of this Senate read it. Basically, what they would do is send out their staff to determine if something they especially cared about was in it, and if what they wanted was in it, they would vote for the bill. That is the way things have gone around here. It is not a good policy. The package we passed last December was the largest omnibus bill since 1988, when we enacted a $598 billion package that included all 13 bills.

Finally, this broken budget process has resulted in almost $1.7 trillion in deficit spending over the past 13 budget cycles.

There is no single cure, I will certainly admit, for all of what ails Congress and the way Congress spends the people's money. However, a biennial, 2-year budget, 2-year appropriations would be, I am convinced and have been for quite a number of years, a tremendous step in the right direction. It is a good-government reform. I wish to talk about biennial budgeting a bit.

Biennial budgeting has been supported by the last four Presidents. It is a very simple concept. Under current budget law, Congress must pass the twelve 1-year appropriations bills each year to fund the Federal Government. With biennial budgeting, twelve 2-year appropriations bills would be enacted instead of 1-year bills. A change from a 1-year to 2- year budget cycle would have many great benefits.

I emphasize, this is not a partisan matter. This is a matter that I believe will strengthen the Congress and help us increase some of those very poor ratings we have with the American people.

A change from a 1-year to 2-year budget would deal with this problem that is a reality for us: that under the current system, the budget process, the appropriations process is never-ending. We should have completed this process last year before October 1, the start of the new fiscal year, the appropriations funding for the next fiscal year. We did not get that done until late December. Now we are going to be starting soon trying another series of 12 appropriations bills to try to pass them before October 1.

Last year, it took 325 days from the release of the President's budget until the appropriations process was completed on December 26. Now, only 40 days later, the process has begun again with the submission of the President's new budget on February 5.

By limiting budget decisions to every other year, Congress would have considerably more time to spend passing critical legislation. Whether it be immigration reform, which we need to do, tax cuts, or legislation addressing our Nation's housing problems, Congress could focus more on important legislative matters rather than just always every year backed up, jammed up with appropriations debates, arguing over pork and earmarks, among others.

Some will argue that 2-year budgeting would increase the need for enacting supplemental spending. They say we will have more supplemental emergency spending. As such, we will not save a lot of time, and it still will not be a healthy process.

I ask this: How much more supplemental emergency spending can Congress do?

Over the last 10 budget cycles, even though we are passing regular appropriations bills every single year, Congress has enacted at least 25 supplemental emergency appropriations packages. These packages have approved almost $884 billion in additional emergency spending. That is a shocking number.

But I will add this. When someone does bring up an emergency spending bill--and there may be a number of times that it is quite legitimate-- and asks that it be brought up and spent above the budget--and that is what emergency spending does; we approve a budget, we should stay within the budget--we pass an emergency bill and it busts the budget. It goes above the budget. We say it is emergency spending that is so important that we don't adhere to the budget and we are going to spend the money anyway. Of course, all of that goes straight to the debt, since we are already in deficit. Any additional spending over our budget is even more monies that go to our debt. But it takes 60 votes, at least. A person is able to come to the floor and object and create a discussion and demand a supermajority of 60 votes to have emergency spending. I think that in itself should deter some frivolous use of emergency spending, I really do.

I think we would be better off, even though I am sure we will have emergency spending packages with a 2-year budget, because we certainly have had them even with a 1-year budget cycle. I do think the taxpayers won't be defenseless when those emergency bills come up.

Another big thing. All of us in the Congress, and I think all of us in the Senate, know in our hearts, know in

the deepest part of our being, that we are not doing a good job of oversight over this massive Government we are supposed to be managing. We don't do a good job of oversight. One reason we don't do oversight in an effective way is because we have to pass the funding bills. We are always arguing over how much should be spent on this or that program, how much should be spent on this or that pet project, and we spend our time doing that and not going out and looking at agencies and departments with a fresh view.

The Office of Management and Budget has made a long list of agencies that are poorly performing, that they question the legitimacy of. If we would focus on that effectively, I think we could do a much better job.

Also, I would suggest that with a 2-year budget, Federal agencies could focus more on their core missions. The Department of Defense, for example, spends untold hours preparing their budget every year, and it creates a lot of uncertainty because they are never sure whether this or that program will be continued. It causes quite a bit of stress and uncertainty. Agencies are spending thousands of hours on their annual budget process.

Constituent groups and organizations could save a lot of money. They come up every year. We see them. They are some of the best people we know, and those people come up every year. They wouldn't have to come up but every 2 years with biennial budgeting. Save some money for those agencies and departments that are worried about their budgets and maybe even save our constituents a little money on air travel.

Finally, a 2-year budget would create a more stable system of government because Congress has proven it cannot complete its budget process each year. It can't do it. Funding delays would surely occur less often and less frequently with a 2-year budget, and the Federal agencies could function more effectively.

Process often does drive policy. The current budget process, the current appropriations process, we know, is not working. It is an embarrassment to us. It embarrasses us every year, not just because the Democrats failed last year in their first year in the majority, but because Republicans failed too, consistently, to pass budgets in an effective way. It is a bipartisan problem. We need to look no further than the $400 billion deficit projected for this year, or our Nation's $9 trillion debt to know we are not being effective in managing the taxpayers' money.

By itself, a 2-year budget will not end the profligate spending of Congress, that is for sure. But a 2-year budget cycle would be a huge improvement. I have no doubt about it. Twenty-one States currently operate with a 2-year budget cycle. I think it is time for Congress to do the same.

When I was working on this the last several years, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, I felt as though there might be a slight advantage to the majority party because the majority party has an agenda. They have items they feel obligated to effectively promote. But they are not able to do it oftentimes because all the time on the floor of the Senate is spent on trying to pass appropriations bills. So whether it helps the majority or the minority party, I am not sure, but it will help the taxpayers. It is good government reform.

It is not a partisan thing we are talking about. We are talking about a historic change in the way we do business that will help every agency and department of government because they will have at least 2 years of a solid budget from which to work. They will only have to put together their proposals every 2 years instead of every year. Congress will be able to deal with it one time, and then during the off year, we would be able to examine how we are spending money and make new proposals and new ideas for improving the health care system of America, the savings system of America, and the defense of America.

I thank the Chair, and I note my colleague Senator Alexander from Tennessee is here. I know he strongly shares this view. We have both worked with and met with Senator Pete Domenici, long-time former chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, who has championed this battle. Frankly, I think it would be a nice tribute to Senator Domenici if, when he completes his tenure, distinguished as it has been in the Senate, we were to pass a 2-year budget.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is great to be with my colleague, Senator Nelson. His great knowledge of space and military defense issues is very valuable to this country. He chairs the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces in the Armed Services Committee, in addition to his NASA work on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. I value his leadership and

expertise, and I am going to share some thoughts that dovetail nicely with one of the points he was making about U.S. reliance on Russia as a legitimate partner.

We desired and hoped as a nation that the fall of the Soviet Union would usher in a new period of cooperation with Russia. We hoped they would be a legitimate partner with us in improving both of our nations, and the world. We have the capability to create a partnership that can foster progress, prosperity, and peace in the world. But the reality is that a lot of things are happening to cause us great concern. We as a nation are going to have to face up to the fact that the Russians are not reliable. They may not be reliable as a partner in space; they certainly are not reliable in helping to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

So we have some big issues facing us, and I thank the Senator from Florida for at least raising that point about space.

Let me quote from yesterday's New York Times, an article by Matthew Wald entitled: ``U.S.-Backed Russian Institutes Help Iran Build Reactor.'' The headline alone is hard to believe.

This article begins:

The Energy Department is subsidizing two Russian nuclear

institutes that are building important parts of a reactor in

Iran whose construction the United States spent years trying

to stop, according to a House committee.

The article goes on:

The institutes, both in Nizhny Novgorod, gave American

officials copies of sales presentations that listed the

Bushehr reactor, which Russia has agreed to fuel, as one of

their projects. One institute is providing control systems,

including control room equipment, and the other hundreds of

pumps and ventilation fans. The Energy Department is

subsidizing the institutes under the Initiatives for

Proliferation Prevention, a program set up in 1994 after the

collapse of the Soviet Union. The program was intended to

prevent newly impoverished scientists and their institutions

from selling expertise to States or terrorist groups that

want nuclear weapons.

A good goal, for sure.

The article goes on:

The United States supplements the salaries of scientists

and pays overhead at those institutes, according to the House

Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. It was not

immediately clear whether the Energy Department was

contributing to the salaries of the very scientists involved

in the Bushehr reactor project. Two Michigan Democrats--

Representatives John D. Dingell, chairman of the House

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak, chairman

of the Committee's Oversight and Investigations

Subcommittee--asked that question in a letter sent on

Wednesday to the Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

The article quotes their letter saying this:

What policy logic justifies the Department of Energy

funding Russian institutes which are providing nuclear

technology to Iran?

Pretty good question. It goes on to ask this additional question:

How does this advance our nonproliferation goals?

So I salute our House colleagues, Democratic Chairman Dingell and Congressman Stupak for asking these questions. The U.S. is going to have to grow up and acknowledge some things are happening within Russia that are not positive. We wish it were not so. We wish we could be in better shape with Russia today, and it is most discouraging and troubling that we are not.

I had the opportunity to visit the Nizhny Novgorod region in the early 1990s before I was a Senator. We spent about 2 weeks there living with some wonderful Russian people. It was an exceedingly informative and wonderful trip and I value the relationships we built at that time.

But the Government of Russia is on a dangerous track now, I am afraid. We might as well begin to talk about it. Congressmen Dingell and Stupak's letter notes that in October 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded:

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of

technical capabilities that could be applied to producing

nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so.

If we will remember, the National Intelligence Estimate was written by a committee headed by State Department persons, not professional intelligence officers, who concluded that the Iranians were not attempting to build a nuclear bomb. But in that report they did note that Tehran is pushing forward aggressively with creating a nuclear reactor to generate electricity, despite the fact that Iran sits on an untold wealth of natural gas and oil. Also, the report buried the fact that learning how to enrich fuel for use in nuclear reactors is by far the most important step in building a nuclear bomb. If you can handle that problem, it takes you very little time to create a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Dingell and Mr. Stupak go on to quote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006 saying:

The United States faces no greater challenge from a single

country than from Iran.

So the Congressmen say this in their letter to Secretary of Energy Bodman:

Given these dire warnings, it is troubling that the

Department of Energy would subsidize or otherwise support

Russian entities providing technology and services to the

Iranian nuclear program.

I would agree. This is not the first time this issue has been discussed. In December 21 of last year, Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, wrote in the Weekly Standard online that:

Perhaps the only thing more disappointing than Moscow's

shipment this week of lightly enriched uranium to fuel the

power reactor in Bushehr in Iran was Bush's endorsement of

it.

Mr. Sokolski quoted President Bush as saying:

If the Russians are willing to do that, [supply the

uranium,] which I support, then the Iranians do not need to

learn how to enrich.

So this apparently is a continuation of a State Department tendency to excuse problems with Iran and Russia. And the President apparently was making a comment consistent with that view. The article goes on to state:

Technically, this will only bring Tehran closer to getting

a bomb. If the fuel is diverted and used as fresh feed for

Iran's uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz it could

dramatically reduce the time and effort needed to make a

bomb's worth of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.

Russia shipped 82 tons of lightly enriched uranium. At any time while it is loading the fuel, Tehran can seize it and have enough uranium to feed its centrifuges at Natanz to make up to 150 crude nuclear weapons.

Former Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, repeatedly detailed his concern over Russo-Iranian cooperation in testimony and speeches. Now that he has left the Department, it looks as though people have decided to sweep the matter under the rug.

For an illustration of how dramatically our policy as shifted since Mr. Bolton's departure, listen to this statement from a State Department press briefing in January 2003:

``We believe that President Putin shares our deep concern at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. We have made clear to Russia that any further nuclear cooperation with Iran, including construction of additional power reactors, will assist directly or indirectly Iran's ambitious request for nuclear weapons.''

So back in 2003, we were more alert to the danger posed by the Bushehr project, and we were stating the unvarnished facts about it. This kind of activity could only assist, directly or indirectly, Iran's ambitious quest for nuclear weapons.

The State Department spokesman went on to say:

We underscored to Russia that an end to Russia's nuclear

assistance to Iran would allow the United States and Russia

to reap the full promise of our new strategic relationship,

benefitting Russia economically and strategically far more

than any short-term gain from construction of additional

reactors or other sensitive transfers to Iran.

And then he went on to suggest and state:

If the Russians end their sensitive cooperation with Iran,

we have indicated we would be prepared to favorably consider

such transfers of spent fuel back to Russia--

That now cannot be done legally without our accord--

an arrangement worth potentially several billion U.S. dollars

in revenue to Moscow.

So we had a carrot and a stick there. It looks as if it was not a very good offer because the Russians did not accept it. They completed their work at Bushehr.

Now, with regard to the question of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, I believe that it created the very damaging false impression that the Iranians had no interest in going forward with creating a nuclear weapon. That was the headline that the press drew

out of it. The Estimate, I believe, was written and designed to create that headline. And the people who wrote it should be held to account for the misapprehension they have created.

The NIE was done by a team under Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell, and I guess he did review it, as did General Michael Hayden at CIA. But neither one of them personally signed it as an absolute position of the DNI or the CIA. Admiral McConnell testified about this report at a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing the day before yesterday. He said this:

If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would

change a few things.

He later added:

I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear

program. I would have included that there are the component

parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant,

had halted.

The portion of their nuclear weapons program that was halted was the portion which the intelligence community deemed least important; the most important part is still ongoing. I say that to say we are not in some academic exercise here. We are dealing with a rogue state, Iran, that has been determined to obtain nuclear weapons and has been working on it for years. The Iranians are receiving assistance from the Russians who, in turn, are receiving support and cooperation from us.

We are going to have to talk about this a good bit more as time goes by. But a lot of things are happening that are very troubling. As I said, I wish it were not so. For example, the Iranians tested a satellite launch vehicle earlier this week. On February 4, the Jerusalem Post reported that a successful satellite launch by the Iranians would lead to ``a dramatic improvement in their missile capability.'' Ahmadinejad was present at the launch site and gave orders to launch the rocket himself.

This is what he said:

Our presence in space is a necessity. Any country that

respects itself should control the most advanced technology.

Does that include nuclear weapons?

We are grateful to God for witnessing the first and

determined step toward an Iranian satellite.

The Iranians are spending a lot of their money on satellites and weapons systems and even nuclear weapons. That is a fact. So we are going to have to reevaluate our relationship with Russia in light of their ongoing assistance to Iran. That is a fact. I wish that things were different. They are not.

It is worth noting that there has been a string of belligerent and unwise actions by the Russians recently.

For example, in January of 2006, they cut off natural gas supplies to the Ukraine, a deliberate act to try to pressure the Ukraine's--their former satellite.

In May of 2007, Russian cyber-attacks shut down the Internet throughout Estonia, a former Russian satellite, now independent. Estonia has no desire whatsoever to be back as a part of the Soviet Union.

In August of 2007, Russian jet fighters invaded the airspace of the Republic of Georgia and dropped a missile on Georgian territory. Georgia is a free nation with elections and a highly intelligent leadership team, many of whom were educated in the United States. They absolutely have no desire to fall under the sway of the Russians again.

But this is the way that Putin behaves. Russia has supported the Georgian separatist movement. They have actively supported anti-Western opposition in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. They are ramping up their military spending dramatically when there is no perceived increase in the threat to Russia. What serious argument can be suggested that Russia is under military threat? From the EU? We cannot even get the EU to pull the trigger in Afghanistan.

Some of them will not even carry guns. They are not threatening Russia.

In the summer of 2007, Russia started bomber flights outside its territory encroaching on the airspace of the United Kingdom, Norway, and Guam. In September of 2007, Russia loudly announced the test of a superstrength conventional bomb. In October of 2007, Putin announced a ``grandiose plan'' to restore Russia's Armed Forces and develop new nuclear weapons. While we are dramatically reducing the number of nuclear weapons in our country, they are developing brand new weapons and testing missiles to evade U.S. missile defenses.

What about their relationship with Iran? Putin visited Iran in October and pledged enhanced Russian-Iranian cooperation, including on nuclear energy. Russia resumed work on the Bushehr reactor and provided Iran with enriched uranium to fuel it. Moscow also conducted major arms sales with Iran, China, Syria, and Venezuela, including fighter aircraft and antiaircraft missiles. With the Chinese, Russia has used the threat of a veto to water down and block meaningful U.N. action on Iran's illicit nuclear program.

One of the oddest Russian behaviors is their decision to trump up an issue over our perfectly legitimate and reasonable decision to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin says that our decision to go forward with this project is a tremendous threat to Russia, but there will only be ten defensive missiles stationed there. The interceptors are not designed in any way to defeat a Russian attack, which would involve hundreds of nuclear weapons. But, no, they are trumping up a dispute between the United States and Europe and Russia over this. Some say it is for domestic political consumption to help Putin consolidate his power. Whatever the reason, it is not healthy. This Nation has to wake up and be able to understand that Russia, fueled by all this new oil money and an increasingly autocratic regime under Mr. Putin, is not a healthy partner. We have to ask some real questions. Are they going to be a legitimate partner for a better world?

This article in yesterday's New York Times was very troubling to me and represents another example of confused thinking that may exist within the bowels of our Government regarding our relationship with Russia and with Iran. We have to be realistic and honest and accept the fact that things are not going well, that in many ways Russian activity grows darker and darker and less and less positive. They continue to expand their relationships with rogue states and bad actors, and frustrate the legitimate actions of the developing world to create a more prosperous economy and more peaceful world. We will probably talk about this more as time goes by. We might as well start right now, questioning how reliable Russia is as a partner.

Should we be participating in space programs with the Russians? Frankly, it has cost us more than we have gained from their assistance, experts say. So this partnership has mainly been a good way for the Russians to gain insight into our technologies, but it has not been an advantage to our space program. If we don't watch it, we will be dependent on them in a way that can keep us from following through on our goals for space.

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

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

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to try to clarify an issue that has caused a lot of concern for years now. It has now come to a conclusion, and I am glad it has. I am glad to learn waterboarding has not been used but three times by our country and has not been used in almost 5 years. From the reports and statements made by Members of Congress and extreme groups around the world, one would think we have had a systematic effort to waterboard people and otherwise torture and abuse them. Only one prisoner has died since they have been in U.S. custody since the beginning of the war on terror. We treat them very well. I have been to Guantanamo Bay on more than one occasion. I have seen how interviews are conducted. So have large numbers of our body.

As I indicated in earlier remarks, we wish the world were safer than it is. Unfortunately, it is not as safe as we would like. Those of us sitting comfortably at home forget the real threats out there. We tend to forget there are determined groups who want

to attack the United States as they did on 9/11 and kill our people. This is an unpleasant task. When confronted on the battlefield, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we shoot them and we kill them and we drop bombs on them and we kill them because these are life-and-death matters that Congress has authorized. I wish that were not necessary. I know it is a failure of us in some form or fashion. But as a practical person, we know no other alternative than to defend ourselves. We are required to do that.

I was reading an article from the Mr. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., in the Washington Times today. He talks about what Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, said a few days ago in hearings. Director McConnell said:

The number of terrorist attacks and deaths were greater

than in the past six years combined.

He was talking about the battle for Pakistan and its survival.

The article states:

Another [statement] from Mr. McConnell . . . is that al

Qaeda plans more attacks against the United States and was

working on a plan for attacking the White House as recently

as 2006. Homegrown al Qaeda cells here have been primitive,

but Mr. McConnell registered his concern that new, more

sophisticated cells might threaten us domestically in the

years ahead.

And that is a fair summary, I think, of Admiral McConnell's comments.

Since we have now openly talked about the waterboarding question, and Members of Congress and the public have now gotten the information, I think we need to make sure we know exactly how those three occurrences developed.

The first thing we know is it worked. I hate to say, it worked. No. 2, the Agency--only the CIA used water- boarding; never the U.S. military, never the Department of Defense; not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan--it was never utilized by our military, but the Central Intelligence Agency on three occasions since September 11.

As the article says, they utilized it only on those:

[T]error leaders who have posed the utmost threat to our

[national] security, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, [who was the]

mastermind of [the] attack on our warship the USS Cole in a

neutral port.

We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, about that dastardly attack. And I remember about a year after the Cole was attacked--where we had 18 American sailors killed by this vicious attack; and it could have been a lot more--the Navy commissioned a ship down at Norfolk, VA; and as we walked out of the ceremony, a young sailor hollered out--and it still makes my hair stand up--``Remember the Cole.''

Well, we got the perpetrator, and justice was done.

Abu Zubaydah, [who was] the brains behind the thwarted

millennium attacks--

That we were able to block--

and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed September 11. . . .

The attacks on September 11. KSM, that is his name now for the professionals, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

So I believe the Attorney General of the United States, after researching this matter carefully, and after our intelligence agencies gave it thoughtful review, concluded we do not need to have waterboarding now, that these three instances were justified.

Attorney General Mukasey, a former Federal judge--approved overwhelmingly by the Senate--was asked to make an opinion on waterboarding. He said he believed those actions were justified under those circumstances, and he would not say we would never ever do it again in the future. He said circumstances would determine how you handle those kinds of situations.

Let me note, again, for a lot of people, these are not honest and legitimate soldiers of a nation state. The people who are subjected to this procedure are persons who are unlawful combatants. They are persons who do not fight according to the rules of war, and they do not wear uniforms. They deliberately attack civilian personnel. They do it through subterfuge and violence, and their goals are outside all rules of warfare. Until some recent cases, they were clearly considered not to be provided any protections under the Geneva Conventions.

So I will say, Madam President, we hate to talk about these things. We wish we did not face the kind of threats from the diabolical terrorists that we do. We wish we did not have to go to war and shoot and kill many of them. But we, as a nation--the Congress; both parties--have authorized that activity. We fund that activity. Our soldiers are out there putting their lives on the line at this very moment to execute that policy, placing themselves in harm's way.

I am glad the Attorney General has reviewed it carefully. I am glad he is able to say waterboarding was utilized only three times, that it had not been used in 5 years. But I am glad he also said he would not say it would never be done again. This would be unwise advice to the enemy we face.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like for my colleagues to join me in congratulating Forest Avenue Academic Magnet Elementary School in Montgomery, AL, which has been named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School of 2007. I recently met with principal Jan Hill and teachers Jennifer Rodopoulos and Gina Thomase from Forest Avenue, and I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to talk with them about education and this great achievement. Blue Ribbon Schools are selected because they are showing dramatic achievement gains in working with students from disadvantaged backgrounds or they are in the top 10 percent of their State on State tests. This is a remarkable accomplishment, and I applaud the hard work principal Jan Hill and the many other hard- working faculty and staff have done to receive this high honor. I know that the lives of students at these schools are being changed.

Madam President, I would like for my colleagues to join me in congratulating K.J. Clark School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology in Mobile, AL, which has been named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School of 2007. Blue Ribbon Schools are selected because they are showing dramatic achievement gains in working with students from disadvantaged backgrounds or they are in the top 10 percent of their State on State tests. This is a remarkable accomplishment, and I applaud the hard work principal Dianne McWain and the many hard-working faculty and staff members have done to receive this high honor. I know that the lives of students at these schools are being changed.

Madam President, I would like for my colleagues to join me in congratulating Virgil I. Grissom High School in Huntsville, AL, which has been named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School of 2007. Blue Ribbon Schools are selected because they are showing dramatic achievement gains in working with students from disadvantaged backgrounds or they are in the top 10 percent of their State on State tests. This is a remarkable accomplishment, and I applaud the hard work principal B.T. Drake and the many hard-working faculty and staff members have done to receive this high honor. I know that the lives of students at these schools are being changed.