Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining Republican time be divided equally between Senators Graham, Thune, and Sessions, and that I be allowed to speak at this point.

Mr. President, we know what the deal is. The Senator from Iowa knows what the problem is. The Democratic leadership is refusing to allow amendments on the farm bill, and the farm bill is not going to pass until they do. And they are going to allow amendments at some time, and we are going to pass a farm bill. That is what the truth is, and everybody knows it here.

But I want to talk about something that is really troubling to me. We had a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee. The Secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, and GEN George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, told us that they are reaching a crisis in maintaining support for our troops in Iraq, that they need desperately for this Congress to fulfill its responsibility to support the troops we have sent into the field in harm's way to execute the policy of this Nation.

They are there because we sent them there. They are doing fabulous work, and they need support.

Just remember, this summer we had a long debate about what to do. President Bush said we need to change our policy. The American people said we need to change our policy. We sent General Petraeus there. I see the Senator from Texas. I don't know if she wants additional time.

I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Texas.

We really need to do this. We voted after a full debate this summer to give General Petraeus a chance, asked him to come back and report in September. We voted 80 to 14 to fund the surge, and General Petraeus came back with positive reports in September. But it was early. We were not sure what was going to be the true trend. Since September, the situation in Iraq has improved to a degree I did not expect possible. The casualties are down two-thirds from earlier in the summer. It appears al-Qaida is completely on the run. Great progress has been made. It is unthinkable at this point, after all we have been through, the difficult times we had this summer, when progress is being made clearly, indisputably, that we would now jerk the rug out from under our soldiers. We have to do this. We need Senator Reid to quit saying we are losing and quit saying this is not working, while our soldiers are making progress. How demoralizing is that?

I urge my colleagues to vote to support our troops at this critical point as we are making progress.

Mr. President, this summer, we had grim numbers coming out of Iraq and we had an election and we went through a soul-searching analysis of what to do. By an 80-to-14 vote, this Senate voted to send General Petraeus to Iraq and give him a chance to succeed. We had his full report in September. We had other reports from General Jones and GAO, and we concluded to continue this.

In recent weeks, progress has exceeded what we could have expected possible. This is not the right time to tie the hands of our military leaders. It is not the right thing to do--to leave any doubt that we are going to support the troops we have sent into harm's way.

I urge colleagues to not leave our troops in uncertainty and stand firm with a policy that seems to be working. Let's continue to monitor it. If it fails, we need to know that. But, right now, things are going well, and it would be wrong to undermine that in any way.

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, we are facing a number of challenges in the Senate and in the Congress, but none is more important than our willingness and our responsibility to properly support the men and women in our Armed Forces who are serving us today in Iraq and Afghanistan; serving us because we voted to send them there, doing the policy of the United States that has the support of the President, the Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief, and that has been supported by the Congress.

Yes, we have had a lot of debate, a lot of dissension, and a lot of complaints, but when the chips have been down, time and time again we have authorized and funded the activities that are going on now in the name of the United States of America in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

We had an election last fall. We have heard people talk about that. But the American people did not say: We want to pull out of Iraq regardless of the consequences. They said they were not happy, and none of us were happy with the way things were going.

It seemed to be drifting in a bad way, and there seemed to be no positive results coming. So we had, after this election, last spring, April and May, a big debate about it. And President Bush said: We need to change policy. I am going to send a new general over there, General Petraeus, and we are going to change tactics, and I am going to ask you to approve additional troops. I am asking for a surge in troops.

So we talked about it. We debated it right here in the Senate. This great Nation's legislative branch responded to the President's call and had a debate on it. We had no obligation to fund that. None whatsoever. But earlier in the summer, we voted 80 to 14 to fund the surge in Iraq and to send General Petraeus and to give him a chance to utilize a new tactic and a new strategy for confronting the terrorist forces we were facing there, in particular al-Qaida, which was a strong entity at that time.

I have got to tell you, I was worried things had not gone as well as we had expected. We had had a bad year, and casualties were up and attacks were up and it was a tough time. But as part of that debate, we asked General Petraeus to come back in September and give us a report. My Democratic colleagues and others, all of us were concerned. We wanted a report to see how things were going because we were not going to have a blank check and unended obligation to Iraq if things were not going to work.

That is a fundamental synopsis of the situation. I believe that is a fair analysis. So General Petraeus came back and gave us his report. General Jimmy Jones had been sent and a group of other independent evaluators with experience in military matters.

That commission was sent over there at the direction of Congress. When we passed the supplemental to fund General Petraeus and the surge, we required another report, not just General Petraeus, but the Jones Commission to come back and make a report. We asked the General Accounting Office to do an evaluation also, the independent GAO.

So they all came back in September. We had hearings and debate and suggestions and we continued to go forward. We voted, in essence, to continue to allow General Petraeus to pursue the plans he was carrying out. Some progress had been made. It was notable, but it was not sufficient for us to say with certainty that a major change positively had occurred. We could not be certain of that. But it looked as if some progress was being made with more troops and new tactics.

So we said then: Let's go forward. And we did. Now we have seen some very dramatic positive developments in Iraq. The Iraqi people, by all accounts, I think few can dispute this, have believed the American troops are reliable allies. We have changed our tactics in how we deal with the local Iraqi officials and tribal leaders and mayors and chiefs of police.

We are doing a much better job--General Petraeus is--of partnering with them. They have turned against al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's troops, that terrorist group they thought was going to take over Iraq. And Al Anbar, the worst area in Iraq for al-Qaida, has made a transformation. Al-Qaida is on the run throughout Iraq. Violence is down substantially.

Can I guarantee you it will continue to go down? I cannot. I can tell you that deaths of American soldiers are down by two-thirds this last month; and attacks on Iraqi civilians, which always cost more lives than attacks on our American soldiers, are down by a similar margin. Attacks on Iraqi soldiers are also down.

Al-Qaida has virtually been removed. Sadr's group has quieted down and

seems to be working with the Government. The Government has not performed like we would like it to. The Parliament, they have not performed like I would like to see them perform. I think they deserve criticism for that. But it is not an easy thing for them to do, just to walk in and reach agreements that affect the future of Iraq and the oil revenue and military power within Iraq for generations to come.

It is understandable they would be somewhat reluctant. But they need to do better. But, fundamentally, as of this date, things are so much better than they were in April and May, and so much better even than they were in September. That is quite remarkable. No one, I think, can deny that.

We are a great nation. We have a great Congress. And we went through a national post-election discussion about what to do. Were we just going to pull out regardless of the consequences? Were we going to give General Petraeus a chance to employ new tactics? We voted to give him a chance. It is beginning to work better than I think any of us would have predicted so far. It is rather dramatic.

So I would say to my colleagues, at this point in time, for goodness' sake, let's not now start cutting back on the ability of our soldiers to have the resources they need to continue what they are doing. Let's not try to pass legislation that directs General Petraeus how to conduct operations in Iraq.

What do a group of politicians in a dysfunctional Congress have to offer to one of the most brilliant generals this Nation has ever produced, General Petraeus? In a few short months he has achieved dramatic progress there.

We are committed there. Our soldiers are committed. They are serving us now. I had an e-mail the other day sent to me from a relative of a soldier in Iraq. He was saying things are better. The only concern he had was what the Congress would do, whether we would pull the rug out from under them, if we are going to deny them the resources they need to continue the progress. After all this effort, to walk away from what we have done is, to me, unthinkable.

We are at a point now where instead of giving a supplemental that will allow the military to plan the year's activities, plan to go forward with, as you know, General Petraeus's commitment to reduce troops by next summer, we are talking about a $50 billion supplemental with all kinds of strings attached to it. The President is not going to accept it. He cannot accept it. He is not going to accept it. So for us to continue to pursue a supplemental with excessive strings attached that is too small, leaves the military uncertain of the support of the American people and the Congress is a bad thing for us to do. It really is. It is not good.

Well, they say, let's keep the military out there. Let's let them know we are watching them. We are going to keep control of them instead of giving them the funding they need for a year or more. Let's do it a few months at a time. Then we can bring them in here, and we can beat them up. We can appeal to our antiwar people out in the country and let them know we are fighting for them, and we will do all these things. And it won't hurt anything.

But it does hurt. If you were walking the streets in Baghdad right now attempting to execute the policy of the United States, placing your life at risk, does it not make any difference to you whether Congress is behind you? I think it does make a difference. While questioning General Casey yesterday, the chief of staff of the Army, former commander in Iraq, I said, I am concerned that what we are doing is going to undermine the confidence American soldiers have in the support they have at home. It will embolden the enemy and make our allies less certain of our commitment. I said, I know you don't want to be drawn into a political debate, but that seems to be the situation. He summed it up this way. He said: Senator, as I said in my opening statement, it sends the wrong message.

Doesn't it send the wrong message that we can't, after a full debate this summer, now continue for a few months to support our troops? They are in the field now. Why stand we here idle? Why are we not doing our part to show them the support they need? We will watch this situation in Iraq. If it gets worse and things are not moving effectively, then we ought to, as a Congress, continue to consider whether to remove our troops, to cut off funding. But that is not what we are going to do. We are not going to cut off funding for our troops while they are making the kind of progress they are making. It is not going to happen. So if we are going to actually follow through eventually and give this money to them, why don't we do it in a way that helps them to be even more successful instead of doing it in a way that makes it more difficult for them and places our soldiers and troops at greater risk?

This is what the Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote a few days ago, November 8, about the budget situation we are now in. Yes, we did pass a Defense appropriations bill. But we funded the military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan by separate supplemental appropriations. It allows us to have more control over what is actually being spent on the war effort to do it separately. He wrote this letter. This is Secretary Gordon England:

I am deeply concerned that the . . . Defense Appropriations

Conference report under consideration does not provide

necessary funding for military operations and will result in

having to shut down significant portions of the Defense

Department by early next year.

He goes on to say:

Without this critical funding, the Department will have no

choice but to deplete key appropriations accounts by early

next year. In particular, the Army's Operation and

Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-

late January, and the limited general transfer authority

available can only provide three additional weeks of relief.

This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on

the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base

operations, and training activities. Specifically, the

Department would have to begin notifications as early as next

month to properly carry out the resultant closure of military

facilities, furloughing of civilian workers, and deferral of

contract activity.

If you were Secretary of Defense, what would you do if you have soldiers in the field authorized by the Congress, authorized by the Commander in Chief, and you run out of money? You have to lay off your civilian personnel, and you have to get the money to the soldiers whose lives are at risk.

Secretary England goes on to say:

In addition, the lack of any funding for the Iraqi Security

Forces and the Afghanistan National Security Forces directly

undermines the United States' ability to continue training

and equipping Iraqi and Afghani security forces, thereby

lengthening the time until they can assume full security

responsibilities.

These are not idle threats. The money is running out. We ought not to be dangling the Defense Department out there, leaving them hanging with uncertainty, having them spend hours and hours figuring out how they are going to juggle personnel, developing plans to lay off nonessential civilian personnel, although I suppose in some sense are all essential, but laying off civilian personnel and canceling contracts. It will result in substantial expense to the Government for penalties and that kind of thing. We ought not to be doing that.

This is what Secretary of the Army Geren said yesterday at the Armed Services Committee hearing:

Let me just conclude with a brief comment on the

supplemental.

Very quickly we run through the resources that are

available to us.

Dr. Gates has told us to start planning for what we're

going to do when we--if we reach the point where we do run

out of our O&M funding and start making plans for what we as

an army would do with that eventuality.

He pleaded with us:

Last year, we had bridge funding that helped us through

this period. This year, we don't have that funding. So we

just ask that--we know there are many issues you all are

working on and working through regarding that supplemental.

But it's very important for us to be able to provide the

orderly and reliable support to our soldiers, for us to get

that funding.

Isn't that a reasonable request for him to make? I know moveon.org doesn't want us to fund the military. But we voted 80-14 to do this as a Senate, and the House also supported it. Why are we putting the military in a position to go through incredible gymnastics to try to manage this effort, because we are leaving them hanging about whether we are going to give them the money to support our troops?

Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Armed Services

Committee, asked this of General Casey. General Casey is the chief of staff of the Army. He asked:

And I want to ask General Casey, if I might, a question

because earlier this year the Army--it was at an Army posture

hearing, I believe, that your predecessor, General

Schoomaker, raised concerns about the effect of not

delivering adequate and predictable funding, particularly in

the form of supplemental funding for the war effort.

We're 46 days into the first quarter of fiscal year 2008.

We don't have an authorization bill. We don't have a bridge

funding bill for the [Department of Defense]. And we don't

have an [fiscal year 2008] global war on terror supplemental.

Senator Thune goes on:

We recently sent a defense appropriations bill to the

president which he has signed into law, but that has little

effect on the war effort.

So my question is what will be the effect of no timely

bridge funding or supplemental funding. Will you have to

cancel service contracts, lay people off, slow down work at

depots, those sorts of thing? If you could, address that

subject.

This is what General Casey said, a career military man:

Secretary [of Defense] Gates has instructed us to begin

planning for that possibility. The signing of the

appropriations bill did two things. One, it gave us money for

our base budget, but it also stopped the continuing

resolution funding that was going to support the war.

So now we're faced with having to fund the war without a

bridge out of the base budget. Our Army O&M account is about

$27 billion. When you look at our Army base budget . . .

you're talking about $6.5 billion, $6.6 billion a month.

If the Army is asked to fund this without any type of

bridge or without any additional resources, we're going to

run through that $27 billion . . . around mid February. And

we cannot wait until then to start making some of the

decisions that will have to be made.

Our employment contracts, many of them, require 60 days' or

45 days' notice before you can furlough somebody. We have

many of the services that are provided by civilians, by

contractors, and it would have a hugely detrimental effect on

the home base.

We will beggar the home front to make sure our soldiers

that are in theater have everything they need, and it will

put a terrible burden on our soldiers, on families, on the

institutional Army, our ability to train.

Timely funding is absolutely essential. An organization of

our size cannot live effectively with unpredictable funding.

And we need that supplemental passed soon, or we're going to

have to start planning for the possibility that we're not

going to have it.

Can anybody dispute that General Casey is exaggerating about that? Can anybody dispute that uncertainty in funding has a terrible impact on the Pentagon?

Senator Thune asked another question:

General Schoomaker also testified that the Army was forced

to cash flow itself through the first quarter of . . . 2006.

Could you explain what that means? And will the Army have to

do that again?

General Casey:

We're in that position now. The O&M account is our account

that offers us the greatest flexibility. Most of the other

accounts are constrained by specific--we call the term color

of money.

But we would find ourselves having to spend the O&M money

not only to support the Army but to support also the war

effort. So we are in that position today and using up the

funds at a rate of $6.5 billion a month against a $27 billion

total.

So I hope in the weeks to come our leaders in the Senate will begin to work together in a way that can allow us to approve this funding-- that I think with certainty we will ultimately approve--sooner rather than later and not go through this painful exercise.

I have to say, I really think it would be a lot better for our country, I think it would be a lot better for our military, I think it would be a lot better for our allies, and I think it would put us in a much better position against our enemies if the leader of the Senate, the majority leader, would quit saying this is a doomed, failed effort. It is not helpful.

We have voted to support this effort, and we do not need to be saying publicly it is not going to work when, in fact, we are achieving more success today than any of us would have thought possible just a few weeks ago.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I want to commend a distinguished resident of the State of Alabama, Dr. Andrew Mays. Dr. Mays lives in Birmingham, AL. He is a well-respected member of the medical community in our State, serving as a faculty member in the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine's Department of Ophthalmology, as well as operating a private clinical practice. He serves our State public education and health systems at the Callahan Eye Foundation Hospital, where he concentrates his research and practice in combating the devastating effects of the eye disease glaucoma. Dr. Mays also sits on the Board of Directors for the Alabama Academy of Ophthalmology.

However, I speak to you today not to praise Dr. Mays for his accomplishments in medicine, but to congratulate

him on being awarded the first prize in the 2007 Van Cliburn International Competition for Outstanding Amateurs. Dr. Mays beat 74 other contestants on June 3, 2007, to earn this mark of distinction. This competition lasts a week, and allows competitors over the age of 35 who do not earn their livelihood through playing or providing instruction on the piano to vie for a chance to win this distinguished title.

Michael Huebner of the Birmingham News once stated that Dr. Mays possessed ``a heart and mind of extraordinary capacity.'' Drew Mays possesses wonderful talent. He polished and sharpened this talent at the School of Music at the University of Alabama, earning both a Bachelor of Music in 1982, summa cum laude honors included, and a Master of Music degree in 1987 from this fine institution. In addition, he earned the opportunities to study at the Conservatory of Music in Hanover, Germany, and the Manhattan School of Music in New York City, where he began his Master studies.

Not only has Dr. Mays made a name for himself through medicine and music, he is a man dedicated to family values. He and his wife, Dr. Therese Mays, have four young children. Dr. Mays had his family by his side as he won the Van Cliburn competition this year. I had the pleasure of meeting him and his wife when they came to visit my office during a trip to play at George Washington University through a Smithsonian Associates program. During the recital he gave at the Jack Morton Auditorium on the GWU campus, you could see the bond these two shared as musicians and partners, as his wife nodded along to the twists, turns, and rhythms of his performance.

I commend Dr. Andrew Mays for all of his accomplishments and successes, and I am proud to be able to represent such a wonderful man. I share with this body today my pleasure in congratulating Dr. Mays for winning this prestigious competition, as he is certainly a worthy recipient.

Mr. President, I believe 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I just have a comment to add to those of Senator Bond about the danger to farmers of making mistakes on energy policy. Energy prices are rising significantly. I saw some numbers recently that indicated for an average family, where one person commuted 29 miles to work every day, $3-a-gallon gasoline could mean $60 to $80 a month more than they would pay for gasoline alone. That is after-tax money out of their pockets. That is a real cost.

We absolutely need to strengthen the energy portion of this bill. We need to do more to have a domestic supply of energy. But we also need to be sure we are not driving up the cost of energy so it falls hard on people such as farmers who utilize a lot of energy and a lot of gasoline and diesel fuel. It could be a real problem for them. I agree with Senator Bond that we need to be careful about this because we should not have as our goal driving up the cost of energy.

A lot of the policies I am hearing about are going to have little impact on the environment but a lot of impact on our wallets. My thoughts about the Ag bill are that I hope we will be able to pass a bill we can be proud of. I hope to be able to support it. That is what I am looking to do. I will offer an amendment or file it a little later--I know we are not voting on them now--to deal with assisting farmers who suffer losses from disasters in their region. It can be painful for them. I would like to share some thoughts on this.

Our current crop insurance, as valuable as it is, has not proven to provide a fully adequate financial safety net for our farmers. The current system can be too expensive and not flexible enough. Farmers come to me all the time and say: I would like to plow under this crop and replant now, but the insurance people think if I let it go to full maturity, I might make enough money off of it that I wouldn't have to claim any insurance. So you have to wait on the insurance people before making a decision. They come out there. They have to make judgments. This is a burden. It can eliminate quick decisionmaking and can be costly.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Government- subsidized Crop Insurance Program has expanded significantly over the last 25 years, and that is what we wanted to happen. We wanted more farmers to take out crop insurance. But yet CRS has found that despite this expansion, the ``anticipated goal of crop insurance replacing disaster payments has not been achieved.'' Indeed, CRS reports that since 2000, ``the federal subsidy to the Crop Insurance Program has averaged about $3.25 billion per year, up from an annual average of $1.1 billion in the 1990s and about $500 million in the 1980s.

During this same time, from 1999 to 2006, CRS reports that the average per year ad hoc periodic disaster payment to fund persons who need payments in addition to the crop insurance has totaled $1.3 billion a year. Since 2002, CRS reports that the cost to the Federal Government of Crop Insurance Programs combined with ad hoc supplemental disaster payments has averaged $4.5 billion per year.

According to the Risk Management Agency, a group that supervises crop insurance, the average subsidy rate for this year--that is the average subsidy rate, the amount of money the taxpayers provide to subsidize a farmer's crop insurance--amounted to 58 percent of a producer's total crop insurance premium. The average amount of the Government subsidy is $3,359. I am convinced for some farmers--I don't know how many--more flexibility could result in more benefits for those farmers. That is, of course, what we are about, trying to make sure we get the maximum possible disaster risk protection we can for our farmers.

Farmers do have a real need for a viable risk management strategy. Certainly, farmers need some form of protection when disasters strike. But these numbers do demonstrate the traditional crop insurance coverage on a

commodity-by-commodity basis alone often does not provide the kind of adequate risk protection every farmer needs.

In 1999, a committee formed by the Alabama Farmers Federation, our largest farm group affiliated with the Farm Bureau and tasked with developing ways to improve traditional crop insurance, proposed a solution to many of the problems farmers experienced with crop insurance. This is not an idea I came up with; it was an idea the farmers themselves came up with.

Ricky Wiggins from South Alabama has farmed all his life and was one of the people who really captured this idea and has pushed it. So this committee recommended that the farmers be given a choice between traditional crop insurance and opening a new account in which they could deposit some of their own money and then receive a modest contribution from the Government. Money that would normally have gone to subsidize insurance would go into this farm security account.

My amendment would simply direct that the Secretary of Agriculture implement a pilot program creating these accounts. My pilot program would be limited to 1 percent of eligible farmers or approximately 20,000.

These farm savings accounts would allow the farmers to create a whole-farm risk management plan based on the income of the entire farm. Because you have a lot of complications now. If one crop succeeds, and another one fails, or two of them are weak and two of them are the kind of crops for which there is no insurance available at all, then things do not work out fairly for the farmer. Farm savings accounts would serve as a possible alternative or supplement in these instances to traditional crop insurance.

Under this proposal, participating producers would deposit money, previously utilized to buy crop insurance--money they would normally be paying to a crop insurance company--into a farm savings account, a tax- deferred, interest-bearing account. The Department of Agriculture would then contribute to the account rather than subsidizing a portion of the producer's crop insurance premium, which is, on average, 58 percent. The producer would put the government contribution into the same account, subsidizing the account in that fashion. Then there would be no further liability on the Department of Agriculture after this point. The farmer, the producer would be self-insured and would not be calling on the Government for additional disaster relief.

Under farm savings accounts, a minimum contribution by the producer of at least 2 percent of their 3-year average gross income would be required annually, up to a maximum amount of 150 percent. Interest and income to the account would not be taxed as earned income, but withdrawals would be treated as regular income. Account funds would be invested in low-risk guaranteed securities such as CDs or Government securities.

Withdrawals from farm savings accounts would be allowed if gross income in any given year falls below 80 percent of the farmer's 3-year average gross income. The amount of the withdrawal would be restricted to the difference between 80 percent of the 3-year average and the actual gross income of that year.

For example, if a producer, who typically earns $100,000 a year, makes $70,000, then they would be allowed to withdraw $10,000 from their farm savings account, their emergency insurance account, to bring their annual income up to $80,000. However, if the producer made $90,000 that year, a withdrawal would not be allowed at all.

Catastrophic coverage would still be required to participate in this pilot program, because if you have a total loss, then an individual savings account would not be enough to cover it.

The producer would be eligible to purchase any additional crop insurance, but it would be completely unsubsidized. In addition, farm savings accounts could be used as collateral in obtaining loans connected with the farming operation. These accounts would be closed if the producer ceased farming for nonfarm employment, retirement or bankruptcy. The remaining balance would be taxed as regular income.

The USDA has reported that farm savings accounts may overcome some of the disadvantages of current crop insurance programs. These accounts would encourage farmers to manage risks unique to their operation by saving money in high-income years and using it during years in which income is low.

While coverage would depend on the reserves in individual accounts, these accounts would be applied to a variety of farming situations. In addition, the USDA has found these accounts could encourage greater participation in the agriculture safety net by farmers than is currently experienced. Some producers are not even offered the opportunity to purchase insurance for their crops--because of the nature of their crops and the nature of crop insurance, they cannot get insurance--making them more dependent on the ad hoc disaster payments we wrestle with on the floor of the Senate.

For example, CRS reports that specialty crop and livestock producers are not afforded the same level of protection for their commodities as the major commodities.

Recently, my amendment has been mischaracterized as undermining the level of risk protection provided for farmers. Yet simply taking Government funding previously used as a subsidy for insurance premiums and, instead, using it as an incentive to encourage savings for disasters is not undermining the level of risk protection for the farmers. This is an important distinction. Giving farmers a choice between traditional crop insurance and a new program based on producers saving their own money in a tax-deferred, interest-bearing account actually increases, I submit, the level of risk protection for farmers, particularly since we would require catastrophic coverage to participate in the Farm Savings Account pilot program.

Allowing for more approaches to risk management actually gives farmers the opportunity to choose the plan they consider to be better suited for their particular operation. By providing a choice between different risk management strategies, our Government can offer more protection to a greater number of farmers at less of a cost by decreasing the need for these ad hoc disaster payments we so often do.

Purchasing crop insurance coverage commodity by commodity, as we do now, may make sense if you grow one or two crops on your farm, but traditional crop insurance may not be the best option if you grow four, five or six commodities in your area of the country.

Instead of countless premium payments that are paid by producers each year but not necessarily used, the participating producer can save that hard-earned money himself and receive a modest Government contribution to assist in providing his own risk protection.

Farm savings accounts can also provide producers much needed flexibility in managing their operation by overcoming some of the constraints of traditional crop insurance. Under the current system, producers who want to make decisions on how to manage their farm operation when a disaster strikes are often forced to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops before they are allowed to execute their own decision on their own farm about how they want to manage the crops that are being damaged by a disaster--a drought or flood or freeze.

For example, under the current system, producers who want to cut their corn for silage to feed their cattle in a drought year--because they realize the corn crop is not going to be sufficient to actually harvest in the fall--must first get permission from the crop insurance companies and the Federal Government. So you have to have people come out and inspect the farm and argue over whether you should be able to cut the corn prematurely or let it stay in the field in the hope that there will be more rain and maybe a worthwhile crop at the end.

Why not give that decisionmaking authority to the farmer? It would save a lot of overhead, I submit. And there is, as we know, some sizable amount of fraud in the crop insurance program. Farm Savings Accounts would greatly eliminate the risk of fraudulent behavior by those participating in the pilot program.

Farm Savings Accounts will allow the producers to make their own

choices on how to manage their farm operations. If their income drops, they will be able to draw into that account to bring it up to 80 percent of their 3-year average income. I think it has great potential.

Simply put, this plan would offer an alternative to some producers who might choose it, and it could encourage broader participation in risk management plans than we have today because a lot of farmers do not participate in any insurance or risk management plans. In combination with traditional crop insurance, farm savings accounts, I believe, will save the taxpayers money by reducing the need for continual bailouts in the form of ad hoc payments and will give farmers more flexibility. If things go well, the farmer may, indeed, create a savings account that can help take care of them in their retirement years.

I ask my colleagues to consider this pilot project amendment. It in no way represents a major shift in what we are doing now. It represents a pilot project for 1 percent of farmers. The regulations would be set forth by the Department of Agriculture. At the conclusion of the program several years from now, perhaps we will see it was not a very good program. But perhaps we will find it has great potential--and the farmers who are using it like it--and perhaps more farmers might like to participate. We should consider that in the years to come.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believed we were moving toward a very harmonious vote on Judge Mukasey's confirmation. I have been disappointed that has not occurred.

Opponents have latched on to complaints about torture and a specific classified procedure that Judge Mukasey has never seen or studied in detail. Since he refused to express a legal opinion on that one specific technique, they have asserted that he supports torture, and many have decided to vote against him. I think that is unfair to the judge.

I will recall that Judge Mukasey was called to the attention of the President through Senator Schumer who has spoken highly of him and who voted for him in the committee, as did Senator Feinstein, two Democratic colleagues. Senator Schumer apparently has known him and his reputation in New York for some time. The President attempted to reach out and to pick a nominee who appeared to be above politics, apart from politics, a person who had a history of competence and integrity.

Being a Federal judge is about as removed from the normal give and take of politics and compromise and wheeling and dealing as you can get. And he served in that position for many years but also had experience as an assistant U.S. attorney involved in leading a public corruption section in New York which was pretty sizable and important and dealt with a lot of important cases.

He was on the Law Review at Yale and has all of the kind of academics credentials and practical experience you would look for and is the kind of U.S. Attorney General I, and I think people of both parties can feel comfortable with. I really do believe that.

I was hopeful we would see a nominee such as Larry Thompson, a longtime friend of mine. He served as former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, a former U.S. attorney; Ted Olson, who served as Solicitor General; or former Attorney General Bill Barr. These are a few individuals who would be considered normal Republican appointees for this position and whose views are well known to be in accord with those of the President on most issues. But, instead, the President reached out and appointed someone who appeared to have strong bipartisan support.

I am sorry we have had some of these complaints because I think they distort the record and what the judge actually said in his testimony and are inaccurate in a number of different ways.

The issue of torture has been discussed in great detail. But in many ways it has not been handled with accuracy, and the issues have not been squarely addressed. They have been sort of sloughed over, and he has been accused of things, and others, including the President and former Attorney Generals and the military and other people have been accused of things in an inaccurate fashion.

I think I would like to make a few comments about how I see the legal situation that we find ourselves in and how things have developed. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in 2006 in Hamdan, a legitimate position, clearly, for the United States was that our personnel, when they were dealing with unlawful combatants, were bound by the torture statute, title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2340. That is the controlling statutory authority. It defined torture. It was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1994.

It was passed by a vote of 92 to 8. Every current member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who was here in the Senate in 1994 voted for it. Senator Biden, Senator Feingold, Senator Feinstein, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter all voted for this act.

I asked Mr. Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice under President Bush who resigned because he was not happy with some of the things that were being done, about the legal landscape regarding torture prior to the Hamdan decision--and he wrote a book about it.

I asked Mr. Goldsmith about the landscape prior to Hamdan--which found that the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention applied to enemy unlawful combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay. But that decision did not occur until the summer of 2006, so prior to that, pretty clearly, the authority that controlled the U.S. military in dealing with unlawful combatants, which we, I think, had every right to conclude were not covered by the Geneva Conventions, was the torture statute Congress passed in 1994. That is the statute that our military was compelled to comply with.

And so the statute on torture is pretty clear. The people who drafted it wanted to make sure that whether in the United States or out of the United States that persons in our custody ought not to be tortured.

That certainly is an honorable and appropriate goal, and they did that. They passed this statute in which they defined torture:

As used in this chapter (1) ``torture'' means an act

committed by a person acting under the color of law

specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental

pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to

lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or

physical control;

(2) ``severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged

mental harm caused by or resulting from--

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of

severe physical pain or suffering.

And it goes on.

Playing music or segregating a prisoner or giving one prisoner less food or less quality food than you give another one, placing them in stressful conditions clearly does not qualify under this torture statute as inflicting severe physical or mental pain.

Our military had lawyers. As Mr. Goldsmith, who was a critic, really, of this administration's behavior, said in his testimony and in his book, they were awash with lawyers. They had lawyers all over the place. Everything was read by lawyers. He said the CIA had 100 lawyers. I don't know how many in the Department of Defense and others he made reference to were there trying to figure out how to conduct interrogations at a time when our

country had been attacked, 3,000 people had been killed, and we were trying to figure out if there were other cells in our country and other groups prepared to kill more Americans.

I remember when Senator John Ashcroft was nominated for Attorney General, and they were jumping on him about all of this and what should be done and what they had heard that somebody might have done. An exasperated then-Senator, Attorney General nominee Ashcroft responded to one question in frustration by saying: Well, the problem I have with you, Senator, is, it is not my definition of torture that counts, it is the one you enacted into law.

So that is what we enacted into law. If people are not happy with it--I think it is a legitimate statute, but if they are not happy with it, so be it. That is the one we passed into law. Our lawyers were telling our intelligence people and others who were apprehending terrorists who were committed to destroying America that they had to comply with this statute.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

One additional minute.

There is another matter of some importance. A number of Senators have demanded that Judge Mukasey make express statements of law regarding the separation of powers, and they have asked him these questions as a condition of his confirmation. Several Senators alluded to private conversations in which they say Judge Mukasey stated that a President cannot act outside the parameters set by the legislative branch, I guess on most any matter. Particularly, I guess it dealt with FISA. I believe this contradicts the fundamental separation of powers set forth in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. The oath the President takes is to faithfully execute the Office of the President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is written in the Constitution.

While the original FISA statute was being debated in 1978, then Carter administration Attorney General Judge Griffin Bell testified:

The current bill recognizes no inherent power of the

President to conduct electronic surveillance, and I want to

interpolate here to say that this does not take away the

power of the President under the Constitution.

I associate myself with the remarks of Griffin Bell and recognize that nothing we can do in this Congress can impede on the powers vested in the Executive by the Constitution. Congress cannot curtail the constitutional powers of the Executive by statutory law.

One additional minute.

The purported conversations that Senators indicate they have had apparently took place in private settings and not in a confirmation hearing held by the Judiciary Committee where these statements could be made a part of the record or cross-examined or where the words could be recorded with any accuracy. These types of promises, though touted as justification for a vote, perhaps, are not legislative history and have not been made a part of the record of this nomination. They cannot be a part of a legislative history of any kind.

Furthermore, I would suggest that if Judge Mukasey did, in fact, say that in a categorical manner, which I really doubt, he would be in error. Any President has certain constitutional powers that cannot be taken away by statute.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from the remarks by President George W. Bush at the Presidential Medal of Freedom presentation at the White House on November 5, 2007, honoring Harper Lee of Monroeville, AL.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Sheriff James Hayes, who passed away on a recent hunting trip. Sheriff Hayes's law enforcement career began at the Etowah County Sheriff's Office in 1972 as a deputy sheriff. In 1986, he was elected sheriff and was subsequently reelected to five more terms, distinguishing him as the longest-serving sheriff in Etowah County history. He was a graduate of the Hokes Bluff High School Class of 1965, and a member of the only undefeated football team in school history in 1964. Sheriff Hayes was a pillar of the law enforcement community, not only in Etowah County, but in the entire State of Alabama and the Nation. In 1994, he carried the distinguished title of president of the Alabama Sheriff's Association, serving both our State and sheriffs across the Nation with distinction. In the course of his career, Sheriff Hayes served on committees and boards throughout Etowah County and the State of Alabama. His unfailing leadership, and his unwavering love of public service, are examples for us all.

During the course of my Senate career, Sheriff Hayes worked closely with me and my staff to bring about positive change in Alabama. The accomplishment that I am perhaps most grateful to Sheriff Hayes for involves his vision for an immigration detention facility in the State of Alabama. In March of 1998, Sheriff Hayes started pursuing the expansion of the Etowah County Detention Facility. He had a vision for a long-term contract with the Federal Immigration Service, one that would increase the bed capacity in the State, and one that would serve to ensure that Federal immigration laws were

more effectively enforced within the borders of our State. It is common knowledge that without bed space, you cannot arrest and deport illegal aliens. With the help of our office, he secured a 15-year agreement with the Immigration Service and an $8.4 million expansion grant. This grant added over 300 detention beds, more than doubling the number in the existing facility.

When the Immigration Service turned over control of the facility to its New Orleans Field Office after September 11, 2001, Sheriff Hayes further demonstrated his commitment to a successful immigration enforcement system in Alabama by initiating a movement to return oversight for the Etowah County Federal Detention Facility to Immigration Services' Atlanta Field Office. He firmly believed that the beds would be used more effectively under the direction of the Atlanta Field Office, which was hundreds of miles closer and wanted to use the facility for short term, instead of long-term, immigration detainees. Just 2 weeks before his death, I received notification from the Immigration Service that his multiple year-long effort was not in vain. DHS had fully evaluated his position, and had decided to grant his request. My office was able to communicate the good news that his persistence had been met with success to Sheriff Hayes just before his passing.

I am confident that Sheriff Hayes' diligent efforts over the last several years have ensured a more effective Federal partnership with law enforcement in Alabama for years to come. As I read the recent newspaper articles and messages reacting to Sheriff Hayes's death, I was touched to realize that the appreciation of Etowah County's citizens for Sheriff Hayes's unrelenting public service is only surpassed by their love for him as a husband, father, grandfather, brother and friend who will be missed tremendously. Alabama was indeed lucky to claim him as one of her own.

So, in closing, I want to let Sheriff Hayes' family know how much I appreciate his service, his professionalism, and his dedication to the people of Etowah County and the State of Alabama. I know that words cannot adequately express the loss being felt right now in Etowah County, but we can all be assured that Etowah County and our State are better places because of Sheriff Hayes' leadership. Let his life be a example for those of us who continue to serve in public office.

Mr. President, today I commend Dr. George V. Irons, Jr., M.D., native Alabamian, for his outstanding achievements as one of our Nation's foremost cardiologists.

Dr. Irons has treated the hearts of Americans for over five decades. He graduated from the Medical College of Alabama, earning the highest grades ever recorded in the school's history, straight A-plus. Since that time, his professional accomplishments have been many.

While at the Medical College of Alabama, he was selected by the American Medical Association as one of the top two medical students in the nation. For his superior scholastic record, leadership and service, he won the Stuart Graves Award, as the Medical School's top student.

After military duty as a flight surgeon, Captain, U.S. Air Force, internship and residency, chief resident in cardiology, Dr. Irons joined the Duke University Medical School Faculty in 1964, where he was named fellow in cardiovascular diseases.

Dr. Irons' career has truly been notable. Since 1966, he has been in active practice in Charlotte, NC, as the first board certified cardiologist in western North Carolina. Dr. Irons was Founder and is president of Mid-Carolina Cardiology, a premiere coronary care provider.

As a high school junior, Irons won the prestigious Bausch & Lomb Award, as America's top science student--a nationwide science talent search based on competitive examinations sponsored by the University of Rochester, NY. As the winner, he was offered a substantial scholarship, which he declined, to attend Samford University.

He graduated from Woodlawn High School with a perfect academic record, first in his class, and served as president of the student body. At Howard College--now Samford University--he continued his course, finishing a rigorous 4 year pre-med curriculum in 35 months with a perfect 3.0--first in his class. For his excellence, he was awarded the John R. Mott Trophy and as the outstanding graduating senior, he won the Birmingham Exchange Club Trophy, Danforth Award, and the ODK National Leadership Award. He also found time to letter in varsity track and win the conference championship in his event.

As a distinguished cardiologist, he was inducted as fellow into the American College of Cardiology and received a special Award of Merit with Citation from the National Association of Cardiologists for his distinctive research contributions to the science of coronary disease. Only eight physicians have been so honored in the Association's history. Dr. Irons' research has been published worldwide in leading medical journals.

This year, Dr. Irons was named one of Samford University's Distinguished Alumnus. Samford University is one of America's finest liberal arts universities, founded and serving in the Christian tradition. To be selected Distinguished Alumnus, the nominee must be distinguished in their professional career, community and church involvement.

I would like to commend Dr. Irons, achievements, research, and devotion to superior patient care. He exhibits tremendous dedication to the science of coronary disease to provide a better life for our citizens through more improved medical technology and treatment.

I proudly salute Dr. Irons, one of Alabama's great native sons, for his extraordinary service to medicine and this latest honor as a Samford University Distinguished Alumnus.

Mr. President, I would be interested in speaking on behalf of the Sununu amendment. I don't know what the alternating agreement is.

Mr. President, I will be brief. Amtrak does go through my home State, and I have been interested in the impact of not having support for that periodic travel through our State that the system does and how much it costs and what the right public policy should be and how we should think about it. I would note Amtrak operates 44 routes over 220,000 miles of track, and 97 percent of those tracks are freight company tracks. But it runs a deficit each year, and we have to have Federal subsidies for it.

The crux of the public policy issue that all of us, I think, should think about for the overall public policy--not for one or two little-- not for a few people in a vision for what we ought to do for the future but what is the truthful situation we are in.

Kenneth Mead, the Department of Transportation inspector general, succinctly stated the situation this way:

The mismatch between the public resources made available to

fund inner city passenger rail service, the total cost to

maintain the system that Amtrak continues to operate, and the

proposals to restructure the system comprise dysfunction that

must be resolved in the reauthorization process of the

Nation's inner city rail system.

This proposed reauthorization would entail about a $2 billion-a-year subsidy for the next 6 years. Remember, the bill that was enacted in 1997 to reform and have accountability for Amtrak contemplated there would be no more subsidies in 2002.

Now, Senator Sununu has studied this issue, and I believe we can rely on the things he is saying, fundamentally. It is important, and I am glad somebody has committed the time and effort to point out some of the problems with going forward with business as usual.

I am going to take a couple of minutes and share some thoughts. The train that goes through Alabama, Mobile, AL, east and west, it comes up--I am not sure exactly what the situation is this year, but when I checked last year, the train went through 2 or 3 days a week going east at 2 a.m. in the morning, and when it goes west, 2 or 3 days a week, it was 3 a.m. in the morning. Now, that is not likely to attract a lot of customers.

Let me show this chart and go through it. I believe we will come to understand that what we are talking about, I say to Senator Sununu, is trying to do something that is basically impossible to do. It is not going to work. I wish we could. As we used to say in the country--I grew up on the railroad tracks. My daddy had a country store. There were three country stores and a railroad depot in our little community. The train went by, we had a passenger--I remember when we had a passenger train down there. There hasn't been a passenger train on that road in 40 years. There is only one store left and no railroad depot. Times change. Things happen.

Let's look at this chart on what it would take from Birmingham to Washington, DC. Well, what are your options? If you go on a commercial airline--the one we checked here was a direct flight from USAir last October--to Birmingham, there were seven direct flights to Washington, DC, from Birmingham, AL, a day. If you take your personal vehicle, you can leave anytime you want to leave. If you take the train, there is only one a day. That limits your options. People, when they are deciding how to make a trip, think about these things.

What about how long does it take? The air time is 3 hours 12 minutes, the personal vehicle is 11 hours, approximately, and the train time is 18 hours.

What about how many stops do you make? If you take an airline, it is one stop. It is a direct flight.

What about your personal vehicles? Let's assume you make four stops. But Amtrak is making 18 stops. It is not taking the shortest route.

What about our cost? I was surprised at this when we looked at the numbers. The primary cost for a round trip airline ticket, as I said, as of last October, was about $328. We now think it is $350 or $360, something around that price. That is what the commercial airline fare is. If you took your personal vehicle, the cost for gasoline is $87. Gas is about $2.97 a gallon today. The Amtrak ticket is $206 round trip.

I don't know that this is an accurate figure for the food and board, but in the air you have no cost of food and a room is not needed. In a personal vehicle, you can estimate one meal or two meals at $20. On Amtrak, the high cost of food and a sleeper car can put you well over $100--maybe even $200--as our figures show. On the commercial airline, the total cost for one way would be $160 to $175. A personal vehicle is less than that while the train is more than that. The train is going to be much more than that one way.

So this is why people are not traveling long distances on trains. It is not because they are not there. They are there. But you say: Well, what we need is Amtrak coming through Mobile at 5 a.m., 7 a.m, or 8 a.m. Well, you cannot make that happen. To do that, we would have to double the number of trains or triple or quadruple them, and they will lose even more money. I wish it weren't so. I wish we could make this system work, but certain long routes are not feasible. However, Congress, being what it is, mandates it. We say you have to run these routes, and Amtrak runs up billions of dollars in debt trying to comply. If I could see us moving to a time when we would come close to making this feasible, I would be supportive.

I am pleased to yield for that purpose.

Mr. President, while I am not opposed and don't think the proponents of the legislation have a bad intent, they have a vision for a national rail system, and they are willing to put billions of dollars into it. But I have never been able to lay my hand on a study that shows that a national rail system mandated by the government is feasible over long distances. Yet there was a study that showed, even in Europe, that train routes within certain ranges will work. I think the distance was approximately 200 to 300 miles. If it is much longer than that, people almost always choose to fly. If it is much shorter than that, they almost always choose to drive. Americans, more than anyone else in the world, have automobiles, and we choose to drive frequently. It allows you to arrive when you want, carry things you want to carry, drive straight to where you intend to go, and not have to wait in a station. And you don't have this on time problem. Commercial airlines are on time about 80 percent of the time. Amtrak was only on time 66 percent of the time. That is another factor you have to think about if you are going to regularly use a long-distance train.

In certain corridors, where the traffic is heavy, it works, and I am not disputing that. I am not for shutting down a profitable route or even routes that are close to profitable, which we can justify subsidizing. But I think, in all honesty, that Senator Sununu has raised a legitimate point. How much can we support these routes that are losing money, are unlikely to ever make money, and are driving up a heavy cost that the whole Amtrak system must carry in its effort to comply with congressional mandates?

So if you could reduce some of these losses that are draining Amtrak's ability to be effective and gave them some freedom to make business decisions rather than having their operations determined by political decisions made by Congress, I think we would be better off. So after much thought and review,

I have concluded that this is a rational amendment. It is hard for me to see how it can be opposed. Therefore, I will support it. I thank the Senator for offering it.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I have no objection to that. I assume it is a colloquy--but I would not want to concede that rather small amount of time remaining on this side.

Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to Senator Specter, please.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I yield Senator DeMint the remaining time.

The Executive Office of the President of the United States, OMB, has issued a veto threat on this bill and said they will veto it because they believe it is not part of comprehensive reform, as Senator Specter said. They also go forward to note a number of specific problems with it.

They note that we:

[M]ust be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence

of the illegal conduct that has brought the Nation to this

point. By creating a special path to citizenship that is

unavailable to other prospective immigrants--including young

people whose parents respected our Nation's laws--S. 2205

falls short.

They go on to note:

This path to citizenship is unavailable to any other alien,

no matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter how

much he or she may contribute to American society.

They note that it would:

[A]llow illegal aliens to obtain a green card before many

individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in line.

They note that they can:

[P]etition almost instantly to bring family members into

the country.

By the way, it would be 1.3 million people admitted under this program, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a fair and objective--certainly not a conservative group, I will say it that way.

They go on to note that the persons would be ``eligible for welfare benefits within 5 years.'' The bill would be indiscriminate in who it would make eligible for the program through certain loopholes:

Certain aliens convicted of multiple misdemeanors and even

felonies.

They note that it would be vetoed. So that is President Bush who has been strongly favoring immigration reform. I have disagreed with him consistently on many of his ideas.

Let me make mention of a couple of things that are fundamentally important. Most importantly, individuals are not going to take the military route. I would estimate at least 90 percent would take the option of just 2 years of college without any requirement to have to attain a degree.

I submit this will strike a dagger, most importantly, in the heart of the decided will of the American people which is to create a lawful system of immigration. It would put illegals ahead of legals. It will make clear that even after our national debate and vote a few weeks ago, the Congress still does not get it; that the Congress is still determined to stiff the will of the decent majority of American citizens; that the Senate will move forward with an amnesty bill that puts 1.3 million people on a swift and guaranteed path to citizenship, ahead of millions who applied and are waiting in line lawfully, to give them every right of citizenship this country has to offer.

That is what I think amnesty is, giving every single right that we have to offer to someone as a result of illegal conduct. So before--and this is important--before we make any real progress toward a lawful system of immigration, we have less than 100 miles of the 700 miles of fencing this Congress called for. There is no workplace enforcement. A modest attempt to do something like that has been blocked by the courts, and nothing has been followed up. There has been little or no--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds?

I will just conclude by saying, this would be the wrong direction. This would be to signal that, once again, we are focused on rewarding illegality rather than taking the steps necessary to create a lawful system, and at that point we can more fairly go to the American people and ask them to consider what to do in a compassionate way for those here illegally.

I yield the remainder of the time to Senator DeMint.

Mr. President, I need to correct one statement I made previously. I said the President had issued a veto threat. He does not normally do that on a motion for cloture situation. It was a statement of objection for the bill without an explicit threat of veto.

Is there any pending business?

Mr. President, I wish to speak in morning business. Before I do, I just want to express my concern and sympathy to Senator Feinstein and the people of California. It has been horrendous. I caught some of it last night, and my wife has been watching it off and on all day. It is a horrifying spectacle to see the power of that fire and the helplessness you face when the winds are right. I think it does, I say to the Senator, indicate, as she has suggested, whether we are talking about hurricanes or earthquakes or fires or floods, we can probably do a better job with policy and reaction to that. I look forward to working with the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts on the vote we cast on the DREAM Act. I really believe it was an important issue. It went beyond what some might think in that it dealt with some issues that are important to America, what we are thinking of as a country, and why we need to get the immigration issue correct. We can do it. It is something that is important. But once again, we sort of fell into the trap of focusing on helping to meet what the needs or desires are of people who are here illegally and not focusing on restoring the rule of law to immigration enforcement. So I think the Senate leadership's commitment to moving this legislation would have been a step in exactly the wrong direction. I believe the strong bipartisan vote against it indicates that there remains grave concern about this kind of amnesty proposal, particularly in light of the fact that we have not achieved any significant progress toward enforcement of our laws at the border, at the workplace, and in other areas.

I would just say as a person who has worked on this with some determination in the last several years that I have absolutely come to believe that if we do a series of things, we can create a lawful system of immigration in America. That is important because I think a lot of people think it is just not possible, that nothing we do will work. But that is not true. If we have a good legal system, if we have a good enforcement system at the border, if we make it difficult for people to work, eliminate the job magnet and create a work card, an identification card that is biometric and can't be easily counterfeited, we could see a dramatic return to lawfulness in immigration. That would be so good for America. It would so reduce the frustration and anger that is out there.

As I have said before, I don't think people are angry at immigrants, although some of the people who support these legislative acts that I think have been bad have tried to suggest that the anger which is out there among the American people is directed at immigrants. It is really directed at us. The American people have been requesting for 30, 40 years that we create a lawful system of immigration, and Congress has continued to stiff them--just refused to do it--and talks about it and promises and passes this bill or that bill or this provision or that provision, all the time suggesting that these are going to make a difference. Then, either we don't fund them adequately, so they never really take place, or the bill is a discrete piece of legislation that never has much impact on the overall situation we have confronted and does not do any significant--does not take us in any significant way toward a lawful system.

I hope this strong vote sends a message that this Senate, prior to creating a lawful system of immigration both at our border and in the workplace, is not prepared to undertake the huge AgJOBS legislation. Senator Reid has said he would bring that up again, but maybe this vote will encourage him not to do so.

The DREAM Act, which we just rejected, would have given, in short order, every benefit of citizenship--including citizenship--to 1.3 million persons. The AgJOBS bill that we keep hearing will be brought up will be an additional 3.3 million. So that is a third of the amount of people who would be provided the benefits of amnesty, a third of the number that was in the bill this summer that the American people rejected. The DREAM Act, as I said, would have provided amnesty for over 1.3 million, according to the Migration Policy Institute--not a conservative group. It would give current illegal aliens a financial bonus. They would be eligible for instate tuition, subsidized student loans, and Federal work study.

So if you have a problem with illegality--and I just want to share this with my colleagues; these are not insignificant points I am making--if you are going to create a lawful system of immigration into America, you are going to have to have some sanctions and punishments and prosecutions.

More than that, you absolutely can't give benefits to people who have violated our laws, who have gotten past our borders, and then we start rewarding them with benefits. So a number of years ago, in 1996, we said that if you are a person coming to our country illegally and you were illegally here, you at least shouldn't get instate tuition when you go to college. You ought to not be in a better position than a lawful American who might live a few miles across the State line. That was the deciding vote here. This would have reversed that--not only that; as I said, it would give them subsidized student loans, Stafford loans and other loans, as well as work study benefits. So, as they say, if you are in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. If you would like to end and reduce illegal immigration, stop rewarding it, please. That is what we are talking about.

So this bill I think went too far in a number of ways. I was actually pleased that President Bush's administration analyzed it and strongly opposed it and sent us a letter to that effect. So even President Bush, who strongly supports immigration into America and has supported a lot of the legislation here, opposed this bill. I think they were right in doing so.

I would note that under the DREAM Act, individuals, once they have been here 5 years and did 2 years of college without a degree being required--they got 2 years of college--they would then be able to bring their family members.

Some say: Well, they were brought here as a young child and through no fault of their own, and so they ought to be given the benefits of this amnesty. Well, that is not a uniform picture. It does tug at our heart strings, and we do care about that. It is something we are going to have to deal with sooner or later: how we are going to deal with people who came here a long time ago?

But many people came here at age 15. You only have to be here prior to age 15. Maybe they came and lived with their brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, and then they are immediately put on a path to citizenship. They are then able, after that, to become a citizen and to bring their parents or maybe the parents are here. They would also be able to bring in their wife and children, plus bringing brothers and sisters. That is the way the system would work. I think it is not a good process. I am pleased the Senate agreed with that.

I will conclude by making some points about policy and the question of the rule of law in our country. If we are serious about securing our borders, the first thing you do is stop providing benefits to those who come illegally. That is the first and most obvious step we can take. The principle is clear: If there are benefits to breaking the law, people will continue to do it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you subsidize people who are here illegally by giving them student loans and in-State tuition, you will encourage that. You will also send a message that is even more important--that if you can get into America illegally and hold on a few years, you will be rewarded in advance of those who are here legally and are waiting in line.

This is an untenable position for our Nation. A nation that wants itself to be considered seriously, a nation that respects its laws and cares about that must follow through. We cannot abandon our commitment to the rule of law. You have to be consistent. That is what sends the message that builds respect for the law, and not just in the United States, I submit; it would be sending that message and broadcasting that message to the world. If we don't do it, the message we are broadcasting to the world is that if you can bring, send or assist a teenager to come into the United States, the United States will educate them all the way through college--and we do that. We don't require you to be a legal American citizen to go to schools in Alabama or anyplace in America, nor to college. But you are not supposed to get in-State tuition if you are here illegally.

Not only would you be able to carry through with that, but you would be able to, in 5 years, get a permanent resident status, a citizenship, and then you would be able to bring your family in. That is not the right direction, I submit, we should be going in. We don't want to send the wrong message.

The question sort of comes down to, do we have the will to enforce our immigration law? Do we have the will to do it? Will we stand on principle and law and sound public policy? Or will we allow emotion and politics to further erode an already weak immigration

system and further erode the perception that we are serious about creating a lawful system. Passing the DREAM Act today would, in the wake of failed comprehensive reform that we had this summer--if we had done that before we have been able to secure our borders and before we have been able to create a lawful system of immigration, that is not the right way for us to go. It is not. It cannot be gotten around. It sends the wrong message. It will say we have immigration laws but no intent to enforce them. It will send a message that if you break our laws, not only will that be forgiven, but you will be put at the head of the line and you will be financially rewarded for it.

That is not what we have to do to create a lawful system. The rule of law in this country is important. I was a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years. I was attorney general of Alabama. I have worked with law enforcement all my professional life. I remember distinctly talking with law enforcement officers about the sale of marijuana in neighborhoods. Sometimes local police would say: You know, these are small amounts of marijuana and we cannot focus on the small cases. We only focus on the dealers. That was a mindset a lot of police departments had. They discouraged that. I would tell them that, in effect, if you take that policy, you have legalized the sale of marijuana in that neighborhood. Not only that, you have created an unlawful system in that neighborhood and you will have created violence and instability that adversely impacts the good and decent people who live in that neighborhood. You cannot do that.

You see, there are moral and legal and practical consequences of having a legal system that is not enforced. It adds up. That is what we have done in immigration. We have looked the other way and denied it is happening, and we have let people with special interests dominate the debate and we have talked about making the system lawful, but we have never done it. That is why the American people are not happy with us. We have not been trustworthy. We have not been reliable. We have not. If we would get this system right, we could do a lot better job about making it work in an effective way. The American people want us to do that.

I have to tell you, why do people want to come to America? They think they can make a better life here. If there has been crime and instability and theft and abuse and unfairness in the system that was in the place they came from, they feel like if they come to America and they have a problem here, they can go to court and they will be protected and they can make money and build assets and people will not come and steal it from them. They can leave something for their children and they can work hard and send their children to college and they will be able to do even better. That is why they want to come here. It is all founded on the rule of law. The reason we are a unique nation--and you know that great hymn that says our liberty is in law-- is that our legal system has made us great, prosperous, and free.

I don't think it is a good policy that we allow millions of people to come to our country in violation of our law. I think that sends a wrong message to them and undermines the very legal system that makes the country so attractive. I remember in the debate, Senator Grassley, who is a direct speaker, a farmer from Iowa and now the ranking member on the Finance Committee, made a speech. He said he was here in 1986 as a Member of this body. He remembered the debate. During those debates, it was said that in 1986 this would be amnesty, but it is the last time, we would never do it again. He said: Let me ask you why nobody this time, in this debate, a few months ago this summer, is saying we will not have anymore amnesty again. Why are people not saying that? He said the answer is obvious. If we had amnesty in 1986, and 20 years later we have it again, nobody with a straight face can stand up before the world or the American people and say that we would not have amnesty after this one, that this is going to be the last one. How silly is that? We said that a few years ago.

So this is not a small matter. What principle can you utilize to say to a young person, or any other person who came into our country illegally today, 10, 15 years from now--what principle can you articulate as to why they should not be given amnesty when we gave it to people today? You see, this is a matter of seriousness. It cannot be ignored. I feel strongly about that. I want my colleagues to know our country needs to create a lawful system of immigration. Once that is accomplished and the American people feel comfortable about that, we can think about a way, I believe, that would be effective and compassionate for those who are here today and that is rational and that we can defend. I don't believe we can defend that today, when our system is not working.

I see my time has expired. I will wrap up and say I think we did the right thing in this vote today. Hopefully, we will continue to work toward a lawful system of immigration and, if we do that, a lot of things will become possible in the future that are not possible and appropriate and should not be done today.

I ask unanimous consent that a Statement of Administration Policy that opposes the DREAM Act, which we rejected a short while ago, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the U.S. Naval Academy's class of 1957. On Saturday evening, October 27, 2007, the class of 1957 will celebrate its 50th class reunion in Annapolis, MD.

On June 29, 1953, 1,135 young men each received a one-page form entitled ``Interpretation of Oath'' addressed: ``To a Candidate about to take the Oath as a Midshipman.'' It interpreted the practical aspects of the oath: trustworthiness, perseverance, language, cleanliness, and loyalty. It warned of many inoculations that soon would be given and then finished with:

Men cannot be trained for a profession of arms by

surrounding them with luxuries and babying them. Young men

who are worthwhile do not wish to be coddled. The first few

days, when the drills are over and the night has come, you

will find that you are tired and perhaps a little homesick.

In a few days you will find that you are feeling better, you

have a better appetite and sleep better than you ever did

before. If you do your part you will find that the academy

will do its part by you.

Truer words have never been written.

Later that afternoon these young men stood in Tecumseh Court in The Yard at Annapolis, MD, took the oath,

and became midshipmen in the U.S. Navy, class of 1957.

Almost 4 years later on June 7, 1957, 848 of them graduated with a bachelor of science in engineering, took another oath, and were commissioned into the Armed Forces. Of the Navy Blue majority, 568 were commissioned into the Navy: 160 went to Pensacola to become naval aviators; 203 went into destroyers; 42 to auxiliary ships; 94 to capital ships including aircraft carriers; and 104 of the class went into submarines a year or so later. Sixty-four went into the United States Marine Corps and 206 were commissioned into the then academy- less Air Force.

During the ensuing 50 years, the class of 1957 distinguished itself in service to the Republic. Of the original graduating class, 534 served for 20 years or more. Thirty-eight of them gave their lives in the execution of their oaths. Charles Duke walked on the Moon. Leo Hyatt endured 2,050 days of captivity in North Vietnam. Bradley Parkinson developed the global positioning system. Altogether, the class of 1957 produced 21 admirals and generals. Class members served an average of 1.3 times as commanding officers. The class served with distinction throughout the cold war, including the very hot Vietnam war, and emerged victorious.

Following their retirement or resignation from their respective services, members of the class continued in a variety of careers and professions: 169 of them became presidents or vice presidents of companies or corporations; 33 served as chief executive officers.

Mr. President, I salute the U.S. Naval Academy's class of 1957. Most importantly, I wish to extend warm and hearty congratulations to them for a job well done, or as the Navy would say it, ``Bravo Zulu, '57!'' I extend my best wishes for their continued success during the years to come.