Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the continuing saga of Boston's big dig, an issue I have been involved in now for many years. As usual, the news is not good.

As most of my colleagues know, the Central Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel Project in Boston, more commonly known as the big dig, apparently has sprung a leak or, more accurately, hundreds of leaks.

The two independent engineers brought in by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority are still assessing the extent of the problem. But so far, over 400 leaks have been identified that they say could take a decade--and millions of dollars--to fix. And on Wednesday, the Boston Globe reported that documents obtained by the newspaper indicate there are ``thousands of ceiling and wall fissures, water damage to steel supports and fireproofing systems, and overloaded drainage equipment''.

It comes as no surprise that all of the parties involved in this latest scandal are holding each other, but not themselves, accountable. Modern Continental Construction Company, which performed the work where the 8-inch ``blow out'' leak occurred in the northbound section of the I-93 tunnel in September, believes the project's engineer, and joint venture of Bechtel Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff, is responsible because of faulty design work. The Turnpike Authority insists that even though a senior agency official was notified of the leak problem in 2001, the contractors and the project engineer are the responsible parties. The Governor believes that Turnpike Authority bears responsibility and has asked for Chairman Amorello's resignation. With all the finger-pointing, I am concerned that the taxpayers could end up footing at least part of the bill for repairs.

I do not intend to allow this to happen. The newly-discovered leaks are just another in a long list of costly failures in the continuing saga of the bid dig.

The Central Artery Tunnel Project was conceived in 1981 and received initial approval in 1985. Construction began in 1991 with a target completion date of December 1998. I repeat, the target completion date of the Central Artery Tunnel Project, known as the big dig, was December 1998. As I calculate, it is now 6 years later. Over the intervening years, the completion date slipped nearly 7 years. The current forecast is for the project to be completed between May and November of 2005.

As delays for the project mounted over the years, the costs of the project spiraled out of control. According to this chart, it was estimated in 1985 that the big dig would cost $2.6 billion. When the project is finally completed next year, the total cost is projected to be $14.6 billion, roughly 5.5 times the original estimate. That does not count the newly discovered leaks and the repairs which, in the view of some, would take 10 years to fix.

We now know that billions of the cost overruns are attributable to mistakes and deliberate misstatements by the project managers. We have had over 20 reports from the Department of Transportation Inspector General which has tracked this very carefully. There have been deliberate misstatements by the project managers, made not only to the people of Massachusetts but also to the Congress of the United States. Several years of low-ball cost estimates finally caught up with the big dig in the year 2000.

In January of that year, the Turnpike Authority submitted its annual financial plan, estimating the cost of the big dig at $10.8 billion.

The following month, on the same day the Federal Railroad Administration accepted the plan as valid, the Turnpike Authority announced the project would cost $12.2 billion, or an estimated additional $1.4 billion.

Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff blamed the increase on unforeseen cost increases and shortening the construction schedule by 2 years. But a series of articles by the Boston Globe concluded that the majority of the $1.4 billion cost overrun was due to design errors by Bechtel/ Parsons Brinckerhoff. In one instance, the engineering firms failed to include the FleetCenter, the sports center home to the Boston Bruins and Boston Celtics, in the designs for the project. Months of construction took place before the design flaw was detected. This mistake alone cost taxpayers $991,000.

The Department of Transportation Inspector General and all members of the Commerce Committee are aware of the incredible work the Department of Transportation Inspector General has done, which issued 20 reports on the big dig, and was highly skeptical of the project managers' cost projections, and concluded in May 2000 that the project's managers were ``well aware that costs were increasing significantly'' and ``deliberately withheld'' information about cost increases in the 1998 and 1999 financial plans.

That statement by the Department of Transportation Inspector General bears repeating. It concludes that the project's managers were well aware that costs were increasing significantly and deliberately withheld information--that includes the Congress of the United States-- about cost increases in the 1998 and 1999 financial plans.

Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission determined the Turnpike Authority and its former

chairman, James Kerasiotes, had violated the securities laws by failing to disclose to investors during the 1999 bond offerings that they knew of the more than $1 billion in cost overruns related to the project. The Securities and Exchange Commission order noted:

Reasonable investors would have considered project cost

increases in excess of $1 billion to be an important factor

in the investment decisionmaking process . . . In addition to

being a substantial amount in absolute terms, the cost

increases equal to approximately 3% of the total revenues of

the Commonwealth estimated for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 . .

. and 9% of the total Commonwealth debt load as of January 1,

1991, and exceeded the amount of the Commonwealth's rainy day

fund.

After the revelations in 2000 about the rising cost of the project, I sought and achieved an overall Federal cap for the big dig of $8.549 billion in fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriations legislation. The cap was also incorporated in a project partnership agreement entered into June 22, 2000, by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Commonwealth to improve management and oversight of the big dig.

As a result of the cap, the Federal taxpayers should be protected from additional project costs. Without the cap, the Federal share of the big dig could have been as much as $12 to $13 billion.

Efforts are underway to recover project costs associated with change orders, led by retired probate judge Edward M. Ginsburg at the Turnpike Authority. The cost recovery team, as of March 2004, identified 634 potential cost recovery items valued at over $744 million, but today the team has only recovered $3.5 million from one design consultant and none has been refunded from Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, although the Turnpike Authority and the Commonwealth have filed suit against the joint venture, seeking $146 million in damages. Eventually, perhaps, the taxpayers will recoup some modest portion of the costly mistakes.

Since Federal oversight of the big dig by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Federal Railroad Administration was strengthened in 2000, the big dig has submitted realistic financial plans and construction has preceded relatively on schedule. Even as portions of the project were being completed, taxpayer dollars were being improperly spent. In 2002, the Turnpike Authority spent $373,000 to host walking tours of the bridge and the I- 93 tunnel. Later that year, the Turnpike Authority threw a $1 million party to celebrate the opening of the Leonard P. Zaim Bunker Hill Bridge. Nearly half the expenses, $450,000, were paid for with public funds.

In December 2003, Chairman Amorello's plans to celebrate the opening of the southbound I-93 tunnel with a concert by the Boston Pops for 2,000 invited guests caused an uproar. While the $250,000 cost of the concert could have been donated by Citizens Bank, Chairman Amorello reportedly planned to use up to $200,000 in public funds for security and site preparation. Ultimately, the event was cancelled, but only after Citizens Bank, a major sponsor of the event, complained about diverting highway beautification funds to help pay for the event.

It is also the matter of the big dig's headquarters building. In 1992, they purchased their headquarters building for $29 million, $26 million of which was financed with Federal highway funds. The Commonwealth now plans to sell the building and expects to see $97 million net of transaction costs. The Federal Railroad Administration has concluded that Massachusetts may treat the proceeds from the sale as State funds, even though the Federal Government funded 90 percent of the purchase. And the Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Federal share of the proceeds from the sale of the headquarters building does not count against the statutory Federal cap.

I remain firmly committed to protecting Federal taxpayers from incurring any additional expenditure for the big dig, including costs associated with the sale of property, fixing hundreds of leaks in the tunnels, or celebrating the completion of a project not well done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles from the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on November 17, there was an article in the Boston Globe: ``List Of Tunnel Troubles Grows Longer, More Leaks, Damage Found.'' I will quote parts of the article:

The problem stems in part from an apparent projectwide

failure in the original design of the waterproofing system. .

. .

Earlier this month, a team of independent engineers hired

to investigate a massive leak that erupted in September said

the project was riddled with more than 400 leaks throughout

the tunnel system.

However, the documents obtained by the Globe show nearly

700 leaks in just one 1,000-foot section of the Interstate 93

tunnels beneath South Station. . . .

In addition to the $10 million allocated so far, project

construction contractors who built the tunnels have on their

own spent at least $6 million plugging leaks, according to

construction industry officials who spoke on condition of

anonymity.

Some of the contractors are now pressing hard to be

compensated by the state for those expenses.

One firm, Modern Continental, has submitted a bill of

roughly $4 million for leak repair work, and is asserting

that the leakage problem is the result of a flawed design by

Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. . . .

George J. Tamaro, an independent engineer hired by the

Turnpike Authority to investigate the source of the massive

tunnel leak that erupted in September, said that the roof's

waterproofing membrane didn't work as intended and the

engineers have used concrete grout for several years to try

to plug the leaks. . . .

Tamaro and another engineer hired to investigate the

situation, Jack K. Lemley, said a permanent solution to

address the problem is needed, or workers will spend years,

perhaps even a decade, patching and repatching the leaks.

An article in the Associated Press:

The team of consulting engineers also said it found

documents showing that managers of Bechtel/Parsons

Brinckerhoff, the private consortium that oversaw the

project, were aware that the wall was faulty when it was

built in the late 1990s but did not tell the Turnpike

Authority about it.

Another article in the Associated Press:

Locating and fixing the hundreds of leaks could take up to

10 years, said Jack K. Lemley, a consultant hired by the

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. . . .

Lemley's team also found documents showing that managers of

Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the private consortium that

managed the project, were aware that the wall breached this

fall was faulty when it was built in the late 1990s, but did

not order it replaced and did not notify state officials.

Retired Judge Edward M. Ginsburg, leader of a state-

appointed team reviewing overcharges by Big Dig contractors,

said he has spoken to Attorney General Tom Reilly about

filing a lawsuit targeting Bechtel and Modern Continental,

the contractor that built the wall section that leaked in

September.

``I can honestly say we were shocked,'' Ginsburg told the

Globe. ``I can assure you we're going to make sure there is a

thorough investigation.''

Here is one in the Boston Herald:

They're going to make a movie about the Big Dig.

They'll call it ``The Poseidon Adventure.'' Or maybe ``15

Billion Dollars Under the Sea.'' Or ``Voyage to the Bottom of

the Tunnel.''

Another day, another flood. And Wednesday was a dry day,

too, as you well recall, if you were caught in the traffic

jam for two or three hours. It hadn't rained in a week, but

suddenly there was a flood. It was a small gusher, a Newton

Lower Falls type of cascade. But you have to wonder, how long

until we get a Niagara down there in the Liberty Tunnel?

. . . In case you've forgotten, the Big Dig cost $14.6

billion.

And it leaks. It has more holes in it than a ``60 Minutes''

investigation.

Riding into the tunnel is like going through a car wash,

only you can't get a wax job. The next time they have a grand

opening ribbon-cutting down there, they should forget the

elephants and invite SpongeBob SquarePants instead.

How many more times do we have to endure Fat Matt Amarillo,

the bloated hack who runs the Big Dig, at a press conference,

flopping like a fish, as SpongeBob would say? Talk about

nautical nonsense.

To quote Fat Matt: ``I'm not a happy customer.''

``I didn't know he was a customer,'' said Christy Mihos,

the former Pike board member. ``I thought he was the boss.''

Only when there's a ribbon to be cut.

I commend this article to all of my colleagues' reading. It is very entertaining. And since it is such a sad kind of a situation, maybe there is room--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3021, which was introduced earlier today by Senators Hatch and Leahy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 783, S. 2657.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4302, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, my only question to the Senator is, is he really surprised that something egregious should be in this long package that none of us have seen or read until a few hours ago? Does it really surprise the Senator when we find it packed full of goodies for special interest and policy changes and all kinds of things that are passed into law that otherwise would not bear scrutiny? Is he really surprised that all of a sudden now we just pass some other barrier?

Isn't it also the fact this is in a bill that none of us have seen or read? Should it surprise us that finally happened when we have a system that is broken? The system is broken. This is 9 of the 13 appropriations bills that have never seen a debate or discussion or amending. None, never. So now we find something that--thank God for somebody's staffer who found it buried on page--what did the Senator say, page 1,000-something?

If I can finally ask my colleague, doesn't it really argue again that we have to fix a system that is broken? Here we are, everybody trying to get home for the Thanksgiving recess, and we are going to debate and vote on this ``as quickly as we can'' and anybody who extends the debate is being terribly unfair to their colleagues. I have already had four colleagues who have airline reservations come up to me and say: Please don't talk too long this time; you're not going to hold up this bill, are you?

I am not the one who caused this bill to not appear before us when we have been here for the entire year without acting on nine of the appropriations bills. The system is broken, and sooner or later we better fix it.

I am going to identify billions of dollars of pork that are in this bill that have had no scrutiny, no competition, no nothing except a testimony of the influence of some member of the Appropriations Committee.

I ask my colleague if he is surprised this should happen.

I have a parliamentary inquiry. Where are we on the bill?

When do we expect to take up the legislation itself?

I thank the Chair.

Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?

Would this not be, the explanation just provided by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, incredibly disturbing, that we would have a bill before us, that we would have a few hours of debate, and if it had not been for the alert staff, one of the staffers over here, this would have been passed into law?

This would have been passed into law. Now we find out how it happened. One staffer had an agreement with another staffer, and it was placed into a multithousand-page document that none of us had ever seen or read.

Doesn't the Senator from Iowa find this incredibly disturbing, that there will be all kinds of pressure we vote as soon as possible on this bill because we all want to get out of here, that it is just discovered, but it was done by two staffers?

Has this system broken down completely here in the U.S. Senate?

I think I would be the first.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak for 10 minutes now and then when we go to the bill for an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. President, beginning this year, during consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill, I stood on the floor and spoke about how our economic situation, our vital national security concerns, required us to take greater effort in prioritizing our Federal spending and we could no longer afford business as usual. Little has changed since January. Here we are again, nearly 2 full months into fiscal year 2005 and we have before us another appropriations monstrosity. Let me remind my colleagues that because of our inability to get much done under the regular order, this is the third year in a row we have had to pass a mammoth consolidated appropriations bill. In fact, we have been forced to consider huge Omnibus appropriations bills for 6 of the last 8 fiscal years.

This is a remarkable package. This is a remarkable thing. I would argue that not one Member of the Senate or our loyal staffs is physically capable, even if they wanted to, to read this many-thousand- page document. This system cannot continue.

Another thing that is very dispiriting, it always is considered at the last minute before we go out or the last hour or the last 2 hours. Why? Because the members of the Appropriations Committee know it will not bear scrutiny.

We were able to uncover an egregious action on the part of the committee that has been fully ventilated, but if we were going to go out next Monday night, we would be debating this Omnibus bill next Monday night. If we were going out Christmas Eve, we would be debating Christmas Eve. It is in the appropriators' benefit for us to do it at the last minute.

This many-hundred-page document deserves a lot more than my half-hour and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee's 20 minutes. Why? Why are we going to talk so little about it? I would like to talk for hours about it, but I do not have the courage to hold up the travel plans of all of my colleagues. So I am only going to talk for half an hour about a $388 billion, 1,632-page document. That is disgraceful. We are not doing what we should do for our constituents. We have an obligation to oversee their tax dollars.

I am going to talk about a number of the provisions. Some are fairly entertaining: The Clemson University, South Carolina Call Me Mister Program. We are going to spend money on the curriculum development on the study of mariachi music. I am going to go over some of them. They are remarkable.

The good old Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is back. We are going to give them some money again. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is hurting badly.

It goes on and on and on: beautification projects, libraries. We are back to the old snake management in Guam. That is only $515,000; $175,000 for research into tree fruits quality. All of them, of course, have a specific location. We are going to spend $443,000 to research and develop baby food containing salmon; $3 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY; $2.3 million for an animal waste management research laboratory in Bowling Green, KY; $100,000 for the Puerto Rican Traveling Theater in the Bronx; $100,000 for the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation. By the way, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation proudly proclaims on their Web site that they receive no Government funding and will continue to operate as an independent organization.

Then there is $100,000 for the Belle Grove Plantation, an 18th- century grain and livestock farm. Here is a great one, $1 million for the Norwegian American Foundation to fulfill its charter. What is the charter of the Norwegian American Foundation that they need $1 million of my taxpayers' money?

It goes on and on. The energy and water, of course, is $1.796 billion for construction of inland waterway projects; $12.5 million for the Dallas floodway extension; $24 million for portions of the Big Sandy and Upper Cumberland River Project. A couple of these projects that caught my eye are because they direct the Corps to continue with the construction of harbor projects in accordance with ``the economic justification.'' In other words, no cost-benefit analysis but economic justification. Then there is $324.5 million for Cape Girardeau, MO; $12 million, if it is going to continue, another one of the worst projects ever conceived by Congress, the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant in Mississippi, in which the Clarion Ledger, a Mississippi newspaper, had to say in an editorial, ``Death of This Boondoggle Long Overdue":

So why does the Yazoo Pump Project survive-very few people

would benefit and the plan is so costly . . . running it

would be an ongoing destruction of wealth and wildlife. Yet

pump proponents were at it again trying to resurrect this

Frankenstein monster.

Core support for the International Fertilizer Development Center, $2.3 million. I had no idea we had an International Fertilizer Development Center, much less that it needed $2.3 million for core support of it.

I guess $500,000 for Idaho weed control; $2 million for Atlantic salmon grants; $790,000 for the Bering Sea Fisherman's Association. I guess the Bering Sea Fisherman's Association cannot raise their dues enough to sustain themselves. We have to give them $790,000. We go through this every year. Three million for Wheeling Jesuit University for the National Technology Transfer Center for a coal slurry impoundment pilot project; $20 million to Project GRAD-USA in Houston, TX, for continued support and expansion of the program focusing on school reform; $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum in Cleveland for music education programs. Being a fan of rock and roll myself, I guess that is well justified.

The fact is we are looking at a deficit of enormous proportions where Alan Greenspan as recently as the day before yesterday warned us about the impact on our economy. Some of these, such as what is being done on NASA funding, is harmful to the mission and capabilities of NASA itself. According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. In terms of dollars of earmarking, it has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion. That is in the space of 10 years.

If you extrapolate that, we are really on a remarkable path. I was shocked when I read a recent report ``Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready to Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark'' by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., published by the Heritage Foundation, which details a new scheme by lobbyists to sell earmarks.

I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

I quote:

That Congress once showed budgetary restraint and fiscal

continence suggests that the propensity to earmark is not

some inherent flaw in American democracy, but rather a

willful irresponsibility now embraced by too many members.

We now have a deficit of $413 billion.

A good place to find fiscal redemption is in the

appropriations bills that will soon come to the President's

desk. The first step in the process should be a sharply

worded veto threat. It will be a welcome change if that veto

threat included excess earmarks as one of the many items that

would merit a presidential rejection.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded Federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, total more than $40 trillion, or $140,000 per man, woman, and child.

To put this in perspective, the average mortgage which is often a family's largest liability is $124,000, and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children, too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger and more unstable, more complicated and much more expensive.

I point out that it is well known that the President very soon will come over and ask for an additional $70 billion to fight the war in Iraq. I believe--and I said this a long time ago, and it is true today and it will be true when I say it again a year or two from now--we are going to be in Iraq for a long time. I pray every day that we prevail. I pray every day for the young men and women who are serving and in harm's way. But there is no doubt in my mind that we will have many billions of dollars yet to spend on Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us are aware we now face a growing threat from North Korea and a recent very serious one from Iran.

There is no one I know who is an expert outside the administration who does not believe we are going to have to spend a lot more money on defense, one reason being that our military is too small. We need as many as 80,000 more men and women in the Army. We need 20,000 to 30,000 more men and women in the Marine Corps. It is all going to cost money. But, instead, we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars in wasteful and unnecessary spending and increase this debt on future generations of Americans.

We can't afford to do this. We cannot afford to continue a broken system such as this, where the night we are going out of session we have a 1,630-page bill that none of us have seen or read and in which a particularly onerous provision which, if it hadn't been for the Senator from North Dakota bringing to our attention, would have been an unprecedented invasion of the American family's privacy. But there are other provisions in this bill which no one has seen or read.

Mr. President, The Conference Report, once again, contains earmarks of $10 million for the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board--is there something wrong with these fish that warrants such an expensive program to convince us to eat them? And now it also has $1 million for the Wild American Shrimp Initiative. I am hoping

that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for this--are American shrimp unruly and lacking initiative? Why does the US taxpayer need to fund this ``no shrimp left behind'' act?

At the Department of Justice, Section 619: $100,000 for the Puerto Rican Traveling Theater in Bronx, NY for outreach and programs. This theater has produced 104 plays in both English and Spanish, and is not community based; $100,000 for The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation. It preserves lands where battles were fought, reenacts battles. It proclaims on their website that ``the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation receives no government funding and will continue to operate as an independent organization.''

Then $100,000 for the Shenandoah Valley Travel Association. This association presents a comprehensive tourism guide to attractions, lodging, restaurants, shopping and other services.

And $100,000 for the Belle Grove Plantation. Belle Grove is a preserved 18th-century grain and livestock farm.

And $1,100,000 for the MountainMade Foundation for outreach and promotion, the education of artists and craftspeople, and to promote small businesses, artisans and their products.

And $1,000,000 for the Norwegian American Foundation to fulfill its charter. This foundation promotes further cooperation among all Norwegian American organizations.

Mr. President, while I understand that the omnibus before us is a glaring and wasteful sign of the Senate's failure to consider and pass individual appropriation bills, I had hoped that the bill would succeed in hold the line against wasteful and unnecessary pork following a vote to raise the debt limit. My colleagues have become accustomed to my railing against pork-barrel spending, but if there was ever a time when we all needed to rally against it for the good of our country, our economy, and our current commitments and security priorities, it is now.

This bill in no way reflects the fiscal realities of our times. One can go directly to the energy and water appropriations section of this bill to take a quick read of the pork fantasies that federal taxpayers will be plagued by.

Senator Feingold and I sent a letter to leadership last week urging the exclusion of Water Resources Development Act provisions because of the costly and wasteful water projects included as well as the neglect of much-needed Army Corps reform. I am heartened to see that the bill with the full compliment of costly water projects was not included. However, there are billions of dollars earmarked for a host of water projects.

Let's start at the top of the big ticket list-$1.796 billion is provided construction of inland waterway projects. I was relieved to see that funds are provided for the rehabilitation of specific locks in the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway, but not for the incredibly wasteful $2.3 billion locks expansion project.

This project has received attention in papers throughout the country because it is such an extreme example of a very expensive and unnecessary water project that some members are determined to foist on American taxpayers. A New York Times editorial from November 18th discussing the possible riders to be attached to the omnibus bill stated, ``but the worst by far is a proposed $2 billion expansion of the lock system on the upper Mississippi River, a project that the National Academy of Sciences has twice reviewed and twice declared a waste of money.''

After a conscientious economist at the Corps blew the whistle on this project and heads rolled, the National Academy of Sciences undertook a study of the project and then a second oneI guess just in case Congress was ignoring the first one- and both conclude that this project cannot be justified by current or projected barge traffic and there are inexpensive and effective alternatives available.

And in spite of this irrefutable, objective information, there have been concerted efforts to get Congress to approve spending $1.8 billion dollars to satisfy special interests instead of the public interest. It's wrong and its shameful. Speaking of interests, the interests of your own state would also be affected by this project because it will suck up such a significant percentage of the Corps program funding there just won't be enough to go around in years to come.

Next to the mother of all wasteful Corps projects, other earmarks look downright insignificant: $12.5 million for the Dallas Floodway Extension, $24 million for portions of the Big Sandy and Upper Cumberland River Project, and a not too surprising number of Alaska projects. A couple of these caught my eye as they direct the Corps to continue with the construction of harbor projects in accordance with ``the economic justification'' contained in the Engineers report. I've not seen the cost-benefit analysis of these projects but this language ensures that there won't be any question regarding their justification.

The rest of this section of the bill is a litany of multi-million dollar projects earmarked for Missouri, California, Hawaii and other states and I hope that these are all worthy projects. There is $324.5 million provided for flood damage reduction in Cape Girardeau, Missouri and I don't know where all that money is going but $12 million of it is going to continue another one of the worst projects ever conceived by Congress. This is the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi which I've spoken against on the Senate floor before. Well, its back.

Again, this is another of those projects that newspapers like to write about in pointing out the folly of congressional spending. Here's what the Clarion Ledger, a Mississippi newspaper had to say in an editorial titled ``Death of this Boondoggle Long Overdue'', ``So why does the Yazoo Pump Project survive--very few people would benefit and the plan is so costly . . . running it would be an ongoing destruction of wealth and wildlife. Yet pump proponents were at it again trying to resurrect this Frankenstein monster''. The New York Times concurred, ``Yazoo Pump ranks among the most indefensible projects undertaken at Congressional behest. It would drain 200,000 acres of valuable wetlands . . . and would benefit nobody except a relatively small number of big growers, who already drink copiously from the public trough''.

I highlight this egregious project among others to make the point that this bill clearly reflects that we are not doing our essential job of expending public funds wisely and responsibly and if not now then when will we ever take this duty seriously?

The report language earmarks up to $2,000,000 for Water Missions International to develop clean water treatment projects in developing countries; At least $4,000,000 for the International Fertilizer Development Center; $1,000,000 directed for support of the United States Telecommunications Training Institute; $1,000,000 for the International Real Property Foundation; $3,000,000 for Internews, to promote freedom of the media in Indonesia; $3,000,000 for the Foundation for Security and Sustainability; and $2,000,000 for Zanmi Lasante.

Mr. President, the Interior bill language also includes individual location specific earmarks and provisions in this section of the legislation. Of note: a provision stating that, out of amounts for Resource Management maintenance is provided for the herd of long-horned cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge; a provision stating that, notwithstanding any provision of law including NEPA, nonrenewable grazing permits authorized by the Jarbidge Field Office, Bureau of Land Management within the past 8 years shall be renewed; $1.5 million is earmarked for wood products wastewater treatment plant repairs in Canton, NC; $5.0 million is earmarked, in addition to its normal allocation, to Alaska Region to establish a 3-year timber supply; $18 million is earmarked to continue a multi-year project coordinated with the private sector for FutureGen in Alaska; $50 million is made available for a request of proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative for competitively awarded research, development, and demonstration projects; $18 million is made available to carry out naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities; $500 million, which was not requested by the President, in included as additional funding for wildland fire suppression funds for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I did not have enough time to count every earmark in division E of the conference report, but it is safe to say that there are well over 1,000 individual location specific earmarks in this section of the legislation. Of note: $500,000 for Idaho weed control; $2 million for Atlantic salmon grants administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation; $500,000 for Lahonton cutthroat trout; $1.8 million for eider and sea otter recovery at the Alaska SeaLife Center; and $250,000 for concho water snake delisting efforts in Texas.

For the Bureau of Land Management there are 32 location specific earmarks for land acquisition, including $3.4 million for the Baca National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado and $2 million for the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge in Hawaii. These 32 earmarks amount to almost $23 million in spending.

The National Recreation and Preservation provisions include $2.5 million for the Chesapeake Bay Gateway and $750,000 for the Alaska National Parks. The Historic Preservation Fund is loaded with 84 location-specific earmarks totaling $15 million. There are 78 earmarks in the construction account totaling approximately $192 million. Some of the more egregious examples of these earmarks include: $8.7 million for the Crater Lake National Park in Oregon; $3.0 million for the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina; $7.4 million for Denali National Park in Alaska; $10.8 million for Gettysburg National Memorial Park in Pennsylvania; $10 million for the Lassen Volcanic National Park in California; $15.5 million for Olympic National Park in Washington; and over $15 million for Yellowstone National Park.

Mr. President, every year I marvel at how well the residents of Alaska make out in these appropriations bills. This year is no exception. Throughout the division E, earmarks for Alaska abound. Just a sampling of these projects include: $1.2 million for the Alaska mineral resource assessment program; $100,000 for the Alaska Geological Materials Center; $150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission; $900,000 for the Marine Mineral Technology Center; $98,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission; $790,000 for the Bering Sea Fisherman's Association; $346,000 for the Chugach Regional Resources Commission; $750,00 for the rural Alaska Fire Program; and $750,000 for the Alaska native aviation program.

Out of the Employment and Training Administration account the bill provides the following amounts for non-competitive grants: $2,200,000 for the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council, Incorporated; $1,500,000 for the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; $4,000,000 for the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity; $2,600,000 for the National Center on Education and the Economy.

Out of the Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses account the bill provides: $7,000,000 for Frances Perkins Building Security Enhancements.

Out of Department of Labor project pilots and demonstrations, the statement of managers suggests the following earmarks: $100,000 for 413 Hope Mission Ministries, Philadelphia, PA for employment skills training for disadvantaged adults and ex-offenders; $500,000 for Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Juneau, AK to fund training for gas pipeline workers; $200,000 for Central State University, Wilberforce, OH, to implement a world class modular automation training system; $225,000 for Cook Inlet Tribal Council for the Alaska's People Program in Anchorage, AK; $50,000 for Fashion Business, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for workforce development and training; $500,000 for Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, Robotics and Automated Systems for Nursery Industry.

Out of DoL Mine Safety and Health Administration, the statement of managers suggests the following earmarks: $750,000 for infrastructure improvements at the Mine Academy in Buckley, WV; $3,000,000 for Wheeling Jesuit University for the National Technology Transfer Center for a coal slurry impoundment pilot project.

This conference report includes funding for a number of important public health programs and research activities funded through the Department of Health and Human Services (HIS). However, the appropriators were once again unable to allow the Department to allocate funds through merit based grants and took it upon themselves to select projects which they believe to be worthy of funding. The HHS section of the Joint Explanatory Statement includes 53 pages full of more than 1,400 earmarks, totaling over $603 million.

Some particularly large examples include: $10 million for the Medical University of South Carolina Oncology Center in Charleston, South Carolina, for the construction of the Allied Health Technology Tower; $10 million for the Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for the construction of a nursing education facility; $10.25 million for the University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky, for the Baxter III Research Building; $10 million for the University of South Alabama in Mobile, Alabama; and $10 million for the West Virginia University for the construction of a Biomedical Science Research Center.

It shouldn't be surprising to any of my colleagues that the section of the Joint Explanatory Statement for the Department of Education is again loaded up with pork barrel projects designated to schools and organizations which the members of the Appropriations Committees, rather than the Department of Education, deemed worthy of federal dollars. In the 43 pages of the statement, devoted exclusively to pork, the appropriators included an estimated 1,147 earmarks, amounting to well over $392 million.

Among the more egregious examples is: $20 million to Project GRAD-USA Inc, in Houston, Texas, for continued support and expansion of the program focusing on school reform; $18 million to provide assistance to low-performing schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education; and $15 million for the Iowa Department of Education to continue the Harkin grant program.

$350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, Ohio for music education programs.

I am sure that many Americans would be surprised to learn that there are even state specific earmarks in the Legislative Branch Appropriations. The appropriations bill that is supposed to fund the work of Congress and its related offices is also being used to ``bring home the bacon.'' The bill specifically earmarks $300,000 in funding from the Library of Congress (LOC) for the University of South Carolina for the preservation of Movietone Newsreels. The Joint Explanatory Statement mandates that the LOC establish a program under its Adventure of the American Mind initiative in Georgia. Clearly both are worthwhile endeavors, but why are the University of South Carolina and the state of Georgia more deserving of these distinctions then any other university or state.

The conference report provides $1.1 billion more than requested by the President for the federal-highway program. All of the extra funding, plus another $100 million, is used to $1.2 billion for 795 earmarked projects. Among the projects deemed worthy of funding are: Access to the Ebenezer Swamp Wetlands Interpretative Center in Alabama ($225,000); The Girl Scouts Golden Valley Council bridge project in California ($150,000); Farm crossings in Ventura County, California ($500,000); and Streetlights and a salt dome for Markham, Illinois ($300,000).

The conference report prohibits the use of funding to implement or enforce any provision of the new hours of service regulations to operators of utility service vehicles, or to the transportation of property or passengers to or from a motion picture or television production site. I find this particularly ironic given the fact that Congress, as part of the 8-month extension of the highway program passed in September, mandated that the new hours of service regulations remain in place for the next year in spite of the decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the regulations as arbitrary and capricious.

The conference report provides $1.217 billion for Amtrak, $317 million above the amount supported by the President without significant reform and restructuring, continues strong oversight by the Department of Transportation, and requires Amtrak to begin paying back its $100 million loan from the Federal Railroad Administration. While I am

relieved that the appropriators continue to resist Amtrak's pleas for significantly higher funding, I am concerned about that Amtrak will use its appropriation to simply continue operating the same train network, and continue to rack up record operating losses.

I agree completely with the conclusions reached yesterday in a report by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General on Amtrak's 2003 and 2004 financial performance and requirements. The report states that ``The bottom line is that the existing system is not sustainable at current funding levels . . .'' and that ``Amtrak's management must find ways to reduce its need for operating subsidies and set better priorities for capital dollars.'' As I have said many times, it is time to restructure Amtrak. Amtrak should focus on short-distance corridors where rail service can compete with other modes of transportation, and the long distance trains should be restructured or eliminated. If Amtrak won't follow implement this strategy, then it is the responsibility of Amtrak's Board of Directors, the Secretary of Transportation, and Congress to make it happen.''

The conference report also contains a provision that would expand an existing waiver for the state of New Hampshire from the 80,000-pound truck weight limit on the Interstate System. Trucks would be allowed to operate at up to 99,000 pounds on Interstates 89 and 93 (in addition to I-95 which is current law). Bad, Very Bad.

The conferees state that returning the Shuttle fleet to flight should be NASA's highest priority because it's the first step in the Space Exploration Initiative. Just two weeks ago, NASA notified the Commerce Committee that the Shuttle return to flights costs for fiscal year 2005 alone would exceed $762 million. The Commerce Committee awaits NASA's plan for covering these costs. Whatever the plan, it is only further complicated by the fact that the conference report contains 16 pages of earmarks in the NASA budget, including such things as $1,000,000 to the Southern Methodist University to develop multifabrication manufacturing technology, $750,000 for the GeoTREE project at the University of Northern Iowa, and $3,000,000 for our familiar friend, the ultra-long balloon program at New Mexico State University.

The conferees go on to say that if NASA needs more money just send in a supplemental request. It would be given full and fair consideration by Congress. Maybe we should just send the blank check now and ask NASA to fill it out. This type of behavior represents no accountability and actually encourages NASA to spend without regard to budgetary reality.

The liberation of NASA continues by the conferees' granting NASA unrestrained transfer authority between the ``Exploration Capabilities'' account and the ``Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration'' account. This was requested by NASA and granted by the Appropriators under the disguise of the need for flexibility to transition to full cost accounting. These two accounts represent over $16 billion. In essence we're saying, ``NASA, do what you want with the money.'' The statement of managers goes on to say that the transfer authority can be used for purposes other than addressing full cost accounting, but that NASA should ``do so with restraint.'' I don't understand--the statement of managers earlier specifically said that would have ``unrestrained transfer authority.'' What's the ``do so with restraint'' all about?

Inserted in the last section of the omnibus, in a miscellaneous section, is a provision which would modify federal pension laws for multiemployer pension plans covering employees working in the State of Alaska.

Title 6 in CJS, Page 170--prevents FCC from implementing February 27, 2004 recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service that universal service fund (USF) support only be provided to primary lines in order to keep the USF solvent.

This section removes the ability of the FCC to act of the recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service advocating that universal service funds should be used only toward consumers' primary telephone line.

This is a significant limitation on potential action by the FCC. I object to this provision because it should have been considered, reviewed and acted upon by the members of the Committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, before being enacted into law. No member of the Committee approached me requesting to move legislation on such a limitation. I am unable to state whether this is a good policy decision because, similar to the FCC, the Committee of jurisdiction was not provided the courtesy to review and consider the proposed policy change.

In CJS, missing page 60--which covers funding for NTIA, which is under Commerce jurisdiction, so unknown funding levels.

As Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction over National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), I regret that I am unable to comment on the appropriations levels for this administration because the levels were not made available in the text of the bill. Although this may be merely a clerical error, it is unacceptable, nonetheless.

In CJS, section 112--Alaska Telecommunications provisions to resolve several pending FCC proceedings involving investigations into Alaska rate tariffs and reviews Alaska telecommunication rates.

This section, slipped into the omnibus under the cloak of darkness, removes the ability of the FCC to act on several pending proceedings affecting the rates of Alaskan telecommunications services.

I object to this provision because it should have been considered, reviewed and acted upon by the members of the Committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, before being enacted into law. Additionally, the FCC was nearing competition of the proceeding and the Committee could have acted in response to the FCC's actions if Congress found the outcome to be detrimental to Alaskan consumers. No member of the Committee approached me requesting to move legislation to end the tariff investigation and other proceedings involving Alaska telecommunications services. While I understand both parties to the tariff dispute support the provision included in the omnibus, I am unable to state whether I support it because the Committee of jurisdiction was not provided the courtesy to hold hearings and mark up legislation on the issue.

I object to the inclusion of this legislation in the omnibus. I actually support the content of this legislation, which is the product of lengthy negotiations among the Judiciary and Commerce Committees of both Houses. The bill ensures that rural consumers will continue to enjoy network programming, and for the first time, provides a means for these same consumers to enjoy high definition network programming via satellite. I nevertheless regret that this important policy was added to an appropriations vehicle.

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the effect of what was just agreed to?

I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry. I have an understanding from our capable staff.

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

Madam President, I intend to address the Senate for a period of time today. I believe I have as much as an hour under postcloture debate, but I will be discussing an issue I have been involved in for some 3 years now and have not reached a conclusion, although certainly enormous progress has been made in trying to address this issue.

But during these 3 years since the appropriators slipped a $30 billion rider in the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill, a lot of strange and unusual things have happened, I am sad to say, that are a very damming commentary about the way the Pentagon in general and the Air Force in particular conducts its business.

I am going to tell a story that has not, as I said, reached its end. But it has uncovered the very strong likelihood, because of the confession by Ms. Druyun in Federal court when she pled guilty, that there could be many billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money that were wasted, criminally treated, and misused because of the decisions made by Ms. Druyun. The question is, How could Ms. Druyun have done all this by herself? Did she have accomplices or was the system in the Pentagon so broken that one individual

could make contracting decisions which entailed tens of billions of dollars, and in this case may have cost the taxpayers of America millions and even billions of dollars as well?

Nearly 3 years ago, behind closed doors, the Appropriations Committee slipped a $30 billion rider in the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill. This rider authorized the Air Force to lease from Boeing up to 100 767s for use as aerial refueling tankers. Before the rider appeared in the bill, Air Force leadership never came to the authorizing committees about this issue. In fact, tankers have never come up in either the President's budget or the Defense Department's unfunded priority list. The Air Force's tanker lease program was born of a virgin birth.

The rider was, in fact, the result of an aggressive behind-the-scenes effort by the Boeing Corporation with considerable assistance from senior Air Force procurement official Darleen Druyun and others. After the President signed the bill into law, the Air Force embarked on negotiating with Boeing a lease that would have cost the taxpayers around $6 billion more than an outright purchase of these aircraft would have.

Soon after Air Force Secretary Jim Roche submitted to the four Defense committees a report on plans to lease these tankers from Boeing, three out of the four authorizing committees summarily approved the lease without even looking at the contract. Two did so without even holding a single hearing.

Much to his credit, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner held the line and refused to authorize the proposal, as did the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin. Through the hearings and investigations that followed, we unearthed a crushing body of evidence on how much a folly the proposal actually was.

Throughout 2002 and in the beginning of 2003, even agencies within the Defense Department and the Air Force, including Program, Analysis and Evaluation, the Office of Management and Budget, and even the Air Force's own General Counsel's Office raised salient concerns about aspects of the proposal. These concerns, however, would not get in the way of Air Force leadership.

Rather than resolve these concerns, Air Force proponents continued to aggressively push the deal in the press. A Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``John McCain's Flying Circus,'' published on the very same day as the tanker hearing we had in the Commerce Committee, is particularly notable. It was obviously drafted with considerable help from the Office of the Air Force Secretary. In it, tanker proponents accused me of ``trying to prevent approval by running up my own Jolly Roger'' and brazenly exaggerated the Air Force's need for tankers by describing how, during Secretary Roche's visit to Tinker Air Force Base, he ``peeled back the skin of a tanker being refurbished and found the metal underneath disintegrating before his very eyes.''

By this time, Air Force leadership's aggressive press campaign was well underway. On April 25, 2002, Secretary Roche's special assistant, William Bodie, told Secretary Roche that he:

saw Rudy deLeon [who heads Boeing's Washington office]--

And, by the way, he has rotated back and forth between the Congress and defense corporations and the Defense Department--he:

saw Rudy deLeon at the Kennedy Center and politely asked the

Great White Arab Tribe of the North [which is what these

folks called Boeing] to unleash their falcons on our behalf

for once. I talked to [defense analyst] Loren [Thompson], who

is standing by to comment to this reporter about the national

security imperatives of tanker modernization. [Editor of

Defense News and Air Force Times] Vago [Murandian] is also

standing by. I will get with [Assistant Air Force Secretary

for Acquisitions Marvin] Sambur first thing to rehearse

talking points.

Get that, ``to rehearse talking points'' with the editor of Defense News and Air Force Times and defense analyst Loren Thompson: We will get with you before we talk to the reporter.

Among the falcons that Boeing ``unleashed'' was an op-ed that subsequently appeared in Vago Muradian's Defense News. This piece, which strongly endorsed Boeing's tanker lease, was supposedly written by former Commander-in-Chief for U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral Archie Clemins. However, Admiral Clemins has admitted, and Boeing's e-mails reflect, that it was in fact ghost-written and placed by Boeing.

As this indicates, rather than address salient concerns regarding the tanker deal raised by their own staff, Air Force leadership focused on using the press, which Mr. Bodie described as ``3rd Party support at its best'' to perpetuate the fiction that ``the lease was the exact opposite of a Boeing `bailout.' '' Among the spin that lease advocates fed the press, were statements like, ``[I] will not succeed in blocking a 767 lease because tanker replacement is critical and [I] have offered no alternatives to leasing.''

While Air Force leadership was focused on pushing the deal in the press, analyses from several independent bodies, including the Defense Department's Office of the Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the National Defense University, the Center for Naval Analysis, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and others criticized almost every aspect of the program. Perhaps most notably, a Defense Science Board Task Force, vetted for conflicts with industry only after my insistence, concluded that the need to replace the current tanker fleet was not urgent. The Task Force's finding debunked the numerous representations Air Force leadership made to the contrary. Indeed, the Defense Science Board suggested that the Air Force's case on corrosion was virtually cut from whole cloth. Air Force leadership repeatedly cited this case as the biggest reason for having taxpayers pay Boeing billions more than necessary.

About 2 months ago, Ms. Druyun was sentenced to 9 months in prison on public corruption charges. Her crime: negotiating the $30 billion deal with Boeing while negotiating with Boeing for a job. Ms. Druyun's sentencing occurred months after Boeing's board of directors fired her and former Chief Financial Officer Michael Sears for misconduct arising from the tanker negotiations. Boeing's Chief Executive Officer Phil Condit soon left the company under a cloud of suspicion.

In court papers accompanying her sentencing, Ms. Druyun admitted to overpricing Boeing's 767s as a ``parting gift'' to Boeing. She admitted that she did this to ``ingratiate herself'' with her future employer and help secure employment for her daughter and future son-in-law at the company. Astonishingly, Ms. Druyun also admitted that she similarly harmed the United States on behalf of Boeing on several other major defense programs, including the NATO AWACS, C-130 AMP, and the C-17 programs. How much taxpayers were fleeced remains unclear. These contracts were in the billions. But this matter remains under investigation by the Justice Department and other authorities. The scope of these investigations seems to widen almost weekly. Ultimately, it is likely that Ms. Druyun's misconduct cost taxpayers an astronomical sum.

In yesterday's paper, Lockheed is bringing suit against Boeing for allegedly having involvement with bid rigging on other contracts as well.

Over the past few weeks, Air Force leadership has tried to delude the American people into believing that all of this happened because of one person, and that because no one else has been hired for her position, the problem has been solved. I don't buy it. I simply cannot believe that one person, acting alone, can rip off taxpayers out of possibly billions of dollars. This appears to be a case of either a systemic failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness, or rank corruption. Either way, full accountability among Air Force leadership is in order.

Just this week, Secretary Roche and Ms. Druyun's old boss, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions Marvin Sambur, announced their resignations. But, among Air Force leadership, nor one has assumed responsibility for this debacle. Ms. Druyun is, perhaps grudgingly, accepting responsibility for her role. To some extent, Boeing has accepted responsibility for its. The Justice Department and others are continuing to ferret out others who may be responsible. However, accountability among Air Force leadership has been almost nonexistent. It seems that it is business as usual. Air Force leadership remains content laying all the

blame at the feet of a single individual, Darleen Druyun. I'm not buying it.

Just on the Tanker Lease Proposal, the conduct of Air Force leadership has been unacceptable. First, Air Force leadership was never interested in doing a formal ``analysis of alternatives'' for the multibillion dollar tanker program. Such AOAs are typically always done for major defense programs.

Second, Air Force leadership misrepresented to Congress how bad corrosion afflicted the current tanker fleet. They did this to devise a reason why taxpayers needed to lease new tankers from Boeing, rather than simply buy them at a much lower cost.

Third, according to independent analyses, Air Force leadership overstated ``operation and supply'' cost-growth estimates for the current tanker fleet. This too was done to artificially bolster the case that the current fleet needed to be replaced immediately, at a dramatically higher cost.

Fourth, Air Force leadership repeatedly misrepresented that its proposal was merely an ``operating lease.'' Their plan was to slip the program in the budget at a relatively modest initial cost, only to have actual costs balloon in the intervening years. We now know that this was done to conceal the Tanker Lease Proposal's real budgetary impact.

By the way, they also had plans that the money to fund in the later years, known as outyears in Pentagonese, that would be taken from the other services' budget.

Fifth, according to the Defense Department's Inspector General, the commercial procurement strategy that Air Force leadership used in the tanker proposal (and, incidentally, the C-130J program) placed the Department at ``high risk for paying excessive prices,'' and precluded ``good fiduciary responsibility for DoD funds.''

Sixth, the Inspector General found that, when the specifications for the tanker were being developed, Air Force leadership let Boeing tailor those specifications to Boeing's proposed tanker. They were not tailored to the operational requirements of the warfighter. They should have been. Yet, Air Force leadership allowed an Air Force briefer to tell the Joint Staff that the tanker ``operational requirements document'' was not tailored to Boeing's aircraft. The Defense Department Inspector General, however, found that it was.

I could go on, but I'll stop here for now. As I've gone into many of these points in excruciating detail in my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld on July 28, 2004, I'll simply ask for unanimous consent to have my letter printed into the Record.

What I would like to do now is discuss documents, belatedly produced by the Defense Department, that underscore the need for accountability among Air Force leadership regarding the tanker lease proposal. While the total number of documents that the Defense Department has produced remains unsatisfactory, the few that have been produced are compelling.

On February 5, 2002, Air Force Secretary Roche personally assured me, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the tanker program, that he ``believed in competition,'' and ``would come back to Congress'' if another competitive proposal was particularly good.

Secretary Roche's e-mails, however, suggests that he is indeed a man who allows his personal animus to stifle competition. For example, on September 5, 2002, Darleen Druyun wrote to Secretary Roche, ``I read with disgust the article on Airbus tankers from the new EADS CEO of North America. What BS . . . should not have been surprised at the slime . . . his day of reckoning will come hopefully.''

Secretary Roche answered, ``Oy. I agree. I had hoped you would have stayed and tortured him slowly over the next few years until EADS got rid of him!''

This is from the guy who says he believes in competition. His personal contempt for one defense contractor, and particularly its CEO, is clearly reflected in his other e-mails.

For example, on August 7, 2002, when Secretary Roche learned that Ralph Crosby, with whom Secretary Roche once worked at Northrop Grumman, was appointed to the head EADS' North American operations, Secretary Roche wrote to his special assistant, William Bodie:

Well, well, we'll have fun with Airbus.

The day after, William Swanson at Raytheon asked Secretary Roche:

Did you see the notice on Ralph in EADS?

Secretary Roche responded:

Right. Privately between us: Go Boeing! The fools in Paris

and Berlin never did their homework. And, Ralphie is the CEO

and chairman of a marketing firm, for that's all there is to

EADS, North America. The [Air Force] has problems with EADS

on a number of levels. The widespread feelings about Crosby

and the Air Staff, Jumper especially, will only make their

life more difficult. Smiles.

On September 4, 2002, Mr. Bodie wrote Secretary Roche complaining about statements EADS issued about its tanker proposal:

We don't have to turn the other cheek, you know. I'm ready

to tell the truth about Airbus' boom, footprint, and

financial shortcomings. But maybe we should sleep on it.

In response, Secretary Roche wrote:

No, sir, save it and blow him away. He admits they were not

technically qualified! And, we keep their record of bribes as

our trump card!

This is the Secretary of the Air Force communicating with an assistant of his saying ``we keep their record of bribes as our trump card.'' Remarkable.

Taken together, these documents inject serious doubt into Secretary Roche's commitment to competition in contracting, about which he assured me in congressional testimony.

During hearings on the controversy in the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, I expressed concern about Secretary Roche asking Boeing to pressure dissenting elements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense into playing ball on tankers.

However, in congressional testimony, Secretary Roche categorically denied this. For example, at a September 3, 2003, Commerce Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Roche about a Boeing e-mail dated 23 June 2003, ``Subject: Roche Meeting 23 June 2003.'' In particular, I asked Secretary Roche:

Do you have any recollection whatsoever of telling . . .

anyone . . . from Boeing to put pressure on [Acting Assistant

Secretary for Acquisitions] Mike Wynne to convince [Program

Analysis, and Evaluation] to write a new letter essentially

undoing the first letter [which criticized the proposal]?

After significant waffling, Secretary Roche responded:

No, sir. I talked to [PA&E Director] Ken Krieg, and in

fact, I told him, ``Don't bother writing another letter.'' We

understood these were his arguments.

Again, on September 4, 2003, at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I asked the same question to Secretary Roche:

Do you have any recollection whatsoever of telling . . .

anyone . . . from Boeing to put pressure on Mike Wynne to

convince PA&E to write a new letter essentially undoing

the first letter?

I might say that the first letter from this part of the Pentagon was very critical of the tanker lease deal. This time Secretary Roche testified:

I did not ask them to put pressure [on Wynne].

Finally, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 2, 2004, Secretary Roche adamantly denied asking the Boeing company to put pressure on Mike Wynne. Secretary Roche said:

I've told you there was no pressure. . . .[I] certainly did

not tell them to pressure anybody.

Secretary Roche's e-mails, however, paint a very different picture.

From Boeing's e-mails, here is what we know. In a June 23, 2003, e- mail to Jim Albaugh, who is head of Boeing's defense subsidiary, Boeing executive Thomas Owens described a meeting during which Secretary Roche expressed serious concerns about this letter from Mr. Ken Krieg. Mr. Krieg is the Director of Program Analysis, and Evaluation at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. His letter was key. In that letter, Director Krieg concluded that the original Boeing proposal failed two key Government accounting rules and, therefore, violated the authorizing legislation.

According to Mr. Owens's e-mail, Secretary Roche ``ask[ed] [Boeing] to put pressure on [Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions] Mike Wynne to convince PA&E to write a new letter essentially undoing the first letter.''

Soon after, Dr. Sambur wrote Secretary Roche regarding the PA&E letter saying:

Boss, this is getting ridiculous.

Secretary Roche wrote to Acting Assistant Secretary Wynne as follows:

Ever since Pete--

They are talking about former Assistant Secretary Aldridge--

left, the bureaucrats who opposed the 767 lease have come out

of the woodwork to try to kill it--yet, once again, Mike, I

won't sign a letter that makes the case that we shouldn't

lease the planes. Ken Krieg's memo attached is a cheap shot,

and I'm sure has already been delivered to the enemies of the

lease on the Hill. It is a process foul. And Ken needs to be

made aware of that by you! I can't control the corporate

staff on acquisition issues. Mike, this is their way of

asserting dominance over you. I know this sounds wild, but

animals are animals. Pete had beaten them down. Now, they're

taking you on. I'm sorry. Expecting professional behavior

from them is something I gave up on a while back. Among other

things, they are about to embarrass SecDef--

That is Secretary of Defense--

who having approved the lease, will now have to explain why

his staff is destroying the case for it. I'll do whatever I

can to help you, Mike, but [it's] your job to get the

corporate staff under control. If not now, then they will

overrun you whenever you ``don't behave'' according to their

desires. This is a game they played for years. [They] and OMB

are trying to set the Air Force up to be destroyed by Sen

McCain with OSD--

Office of Secretary of Defense--

and OMB--

Office of Management and Budget--

arguments. As you might imagine, I won't give them the chance, but I

will make it clear who is responsible to Don [Rumsfeld]. I

refuse to wear my flack jacket backwards!

This is after testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Secretary Roche never put any pressure on anybody. This is remarkable.

Subsequently, Assistant Secretary Wynne reprimanded Director Krieg. In response to an e-mail from Director Krieg that attempted to clear the air, Secretary Roche rather disingenuously answered:

Kenny, I love you, and you know that. I think you have been

had by some members of the famous PA&E staff. You never

should have put what you put in writing. It will now be used

against me and Don Rumsfeld.

Other e-mails corroborate that Secretary Roche suggested to Boeing that it lobby the Office of the Secretary of Defense to undercut Program Analysis and Evaluation. For example, a December 17, 2002, e- mail from Boeing's top lobbyist Andy Ellis to Rudy deLeon, who heads Boeing's Washington office and served as a Deputy Defense Secretary in 2000 and 2001 described ``some quick notes from Jim [Albaugh]'s meeting today. It instructed, ``Please do not re-distribute this e-mail.'' The e-mail memorialized what was said during ``[a] meeting with Sec. Roche'' as follows:

PA&E now a problem on tankers--arguments include price, 767

footprint and prospects for ``used 767s.'' Boeing needs to do

more on behalf of tankers in the Office of Secretary of

Defense. PA&E working to convince Aldridge to delay--reengine

while doing an analysis of alternatives. We should vector

hill support for tankers at Aldridge. . . . said he is very

comfortable with the price air force has on tanker, and very

comfortable with overall deal. It is the right time to do

this deal. He is waiting until early January to push on the

Office of Management and Budget--wants to deal with the next

congress, not the current. . . . Boeing needed to work White

House and especially Office of Secretary of Defense.

That is from the Secretary of the Air Force.

Other e-mails recently produced by the Department of Defense corroborate the shocking dynamic whereby Secretary Roche apparently orchestrated efforts against tanker lease critics within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. For example, in a May 7, 2003, e-mail, Paul Weaver, a Boeing lobbyist and former Director of the Air National Guard, wrote Secretary Roche as follows:

Rudy [DeLeon] called me and said that Marv Sambur was

getting beat up by Mike Wynne again concerning the $125

million number per aircraft. Rudy would like to know if he

needs to do anything like calling in the big guns to help

out. I told him I would query you to get your advice.

In response, Secretary Roche wrote:

It's time for the big guns to quash Wynne! Boeing won't

accept such a dumb contract form and price, and Wynne needs

to ``pay'' the appropriate price!

Now, that is the Secretary of the Air Force talking about another member of the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis and Evaluation:

Wynne needs to ``pay'' the appropriate price.

I wonder what he was talking about.

These e-mails call into serious question whether Secretary Roche was truthful in testifying that he had not directed Boeing to pressure tanker lease critics within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to play ball.

During last year's hearings, we released e-mails indicating that Secretary Rumsfeld's policy analysts may have been improperly lobbying the Office of the Secretary of Defense in support of the tanker lease proposal. Another set of e-mails, only recently produced, give a fuller picture of this issue. For example, in an October 9, 2002, e-mail, Darleen Druyun wrote Secretary Roche and Dr. Sambur saying:

I would like to informally brief [Defense Science Board

Chairman] Bill Schneider on tanker leasing when he gets back

from Germany. I had briefed him during the transition about

the idea of leasing as a viable acquisition alternative. He

has apparently had a positive conversation with Wolfowitz on

leasing and is interested in quietly helping us.

This is the head of the Defense Science Board, who is supposed to be making decisions about weapons systems and other acquisitions, and he is ``interested in quietly helping us.''

If you give the nod we will use the same charts we used to

brief Gingrich which was very positively received by him.

Secretary Roche responded:

Please do. Thanks much.

This e-mail, and others I have released, raise serious questions about the undue influence that industry exerts on procurement decisions in the Pentagon. What is striking here is that in this case, Air Force leadership seems to have been deep in the middle of it.

To what I have described already, add the doctoring of documents produced to Congress. After SASC, Senate Armed Services Committee, staff returned from their visit from Tinker Air Force Base in October 2003, they asked for some placards that reflected unusually low failure rates associated with component parts of the KC-135s maintained there. That is the present Air Force fleet of tankers. Shockingly, what the Senate Armed Services Committee staff received were altered versions of what they asked for. I conveyed my concerns about these doctored documents directly to Secretary Roche. In Secretary Roche's February 27, 2004, response to me, he conceded that the information that the Senate Armed Services Committee requested was intentionally deleted. In particular, he explained:

As those placards featured ``Tinker-only'' information, and

because our installations and logistics professionals strive

to present a complete and timely picture of our fleet, they

amended the placard file by omitting the ``Tinker-only''

occurrence factors.

To add insult to injury, the explanation that the Air Force leadership provided to the press about what happened was different entirely. Furthermore, we have yet to learn who in Secretary Roche's office directed that the information that Congress asked for be doctored before it was delivered.

It seems that whatever documents Air Force leadership did not doctor, they improperly withheld.

For example, on Friday, September 10, 2004, the White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Management and Budget brought to my staff's attention a very troubling e-mail stream between Secretary Roche and senior OMB official, Robin Cleveland. After Darleen Druyun went to work for Boeing, Ms. Cleveland, the Associate Director for National Security Programs, represented the Government in negotiating with Boeing on the tanker lease proposal.

In this e-mail stream beginning on May 9, 2003, Ms. Cleveland asked Secretary Roche to help her brother get a job at Northrop Grumman. The e-mail said:

Jim, this is my brother's [Peter Cleveland's] stuff. I

would appreciate anything you can do to help with NG--

that means Northrop Grumman--

He is an incredibly hard working, disciplined guy--worked

full-time, with two little kids, putting himself through law

school at night. I would be grateful. Thanks very much. Robin

About half an hour later, Secretary Roche gave Mr. Cleveland's resume and cover letter, and, under color of his office and title, vouched for him to Steve Dyslas, a Northrop Grumman executive:

I know this guy. He is good. His sister (Robin) is in

charge of defense and intel at OMB. We used to work together

in senior staff. If Peter Cleveland looks good to you, pls

[sic] add my endorsement.

A few minutes later, Secretary Roche wrote Ms. Cleveland in an e- mail:

Be well. Smile. Give me tankers now. (Oops. Did I say that?

My new deal is terrific.)

Now, the person who is responsible for overseeing the national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget, the watchdog of all the budgetary issues in America, that one specifically charged with overseeing tankers, asked the Secretary of the Air Force to get her brother a job. He, under his title and name, contacts the defense corporation that does business with the U.S. Air Force and asks them to give Ms. Cleveland's brother a job, and then after sending it, sends an e-mail back to Ms. Cleveland:

Be well. Smile. Give me tankers now. (Oops. Did I say that?

My new deal is terrific.)

On May 15, 2003, Ms. Cleveland responded to her brother in an e-mail entitled: ``Interview at NG,'' saying, ``Great. Hope it works before the tanker leasing issue gets fouled up.''

Until these e-mails were brought to our attention by the White House, we never even knew about them. In a meeting with me on September 13, 2004, White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales told me that someone in Secretary Roche's office concluded that these e-mails were a joke and therefore they did not need to be produced.

That has to be taken in the context that they told me that they would give me these e-mails as part of our oversight responsibility. The Secretary of the Air Force decided the e-mails that I just cited were not relevant to the tanker deal. So if there is some level of mistrust that exists between me and my office and the Secretary, maybe that clears up that degree of mistrust a little bit.

Given all the scandal and controversy surrounding the tanker lease proposal, and especially given the keen interest that Chairman Warner and I have expressed regarding potential Air Force misconduct, the unilateral decision made by Air Force leadership to withhold this document is profoundly disturbing.

Keeping a defense contractor's ``record of bribes'' as a ``trump card''; ``torturing'' a defense contractor ``slowly''; pressuring dissenting elements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense whose job it was, particularly in the absence of a Defense Acquisition Board--in other words a formal analysis--to vet this procurement program; signing off on a plan to get the chairman of the Defense Science Board to ``quietly help'' on the tanker lease inside the OSD; doctoring and improperly withholding documents requested by Congress: this is the picture that we are getting on what happened with the tanker proposal, and we have received only a few documents from 6 out of 30 people we have asked for. This is the picture we are getting, but no one among Air Force leadership stands up to assume responsibility. Instead, what we get from Air Force leadership is deeply troubling statements in the press about how rosy things are. For example, in a recent op-ed appearing in Defense News, Dr. Sambur describes the current acquisition process as ``healthy'' and ``on track.''

Hoping that Air Force leadership will ``get it'' now may perhaps be too much, when they didn't ``get it'' then. In that context, I find particularly troubling an e-mail from Air Force Under Secretary Teets to Secretary Roche sent just 3 days after Boeing announced the firing of CFO Michael Sears and Vice President Darlene Druyun. In it, Under Secretary Teets writes:

Jim, I think it is important for you to know all I know

about the situation surrounding the tankers . . . Late

Tuesday afternoon I talked to Marv Sambur and got his

assurance that a thorough review of the Darlene situation had

been completed and there was no way Darlene had any influence

on our plan for tankers. Furthermore, Marv said that a letter

had been prepared for the DepSecDef to send over to the SASC

indicating same, and notifying them of our intent to proceed.

So two people are fired by Boeing because of information that has come to light about improper behavior and later the individual pleads guilty in court--in fact, both of them have now pled guilty in court. Ms. Druyun has confessed that she rigged the contracts as a ``parting gift to Boeing'' in behalf of her daughter and son-in-law's employment.

Meanwhile, the Under Secretary of the Air Force writes to the Secretary of the Air Force that he talked to Marv Sambur, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and got his assurance that ``a thorough review of the Darlene situation had been completed and there was no way Darlene had any influence on our plan for the tankers.''

I am amazed. I am amazed.

One thing is for sure: the final chapter on the tanker lease proposal cannot be closed until all the stewards of taxpayers funds who committed wrongdoing, are held accountable. In order to get a full accounting of what happened on the tanker lease proposal, I will continue to insist that all the documents that the Senate Armed Services Committee has asked for, be produced--no matter how long it takes

In closing, Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1 on Leadership and Force Development contains a section setting forth the Air Force's core values. There are three: integrity, service before self, and excellence in all they do. The first, integrity, includes the indispensable characteristics of accountability, responsibility, honesty, and honor. When it comes to Air Force leadership's conduct regarding the tanker lease proposal and related congressional probes, I must however ask: where is the accountability and the responsibility; where is the honesty and the honor; where have these core values been over the past 3 years, and where are they now? To eschew accountability here is to do a profound disservice to the good men and women who wear the uniform of the United States Air Force honorably, capably, and proudly.

For those in the public interested in what I have discussed today, I will be posting all of these documents on my website, www.mccain.senate.gov. In closing, the scandal continues to widen. Yesterday one of the competitors of Boeing alleged that information was leaked by Ms. Druyun, and the CEO of Boeing. I don't know if it is true. I doubt if it is true. I have no way of knowing. But the scandal continues to unfold. As I said, we have only received a small percentage of the documents and e-mails that we have asked for.

This is a very sad chapter. I was asked last week by a reporter for the Air Force Times if this was personal with me, this issue I have discussed on the Senate floor for the past half hour or so.

It is personal in this respect. It is personal that I had the privilege of serving in the U.S. military and wearing the uniform. I believe we always expect not only the same standard but a higher standard of conduct of the men and women who wear the uniform, and the vast majority, 99 and 44/100 percent of the men and women who wear the uniform conduct themselves with the highest degree of honor, courage, and integrity. But here we have individuals who have, obviously, behaved in a less than honorable fashion. That is why it is necessary we get to the bottom of this.

Next year, beginning January, we are going to have to look at the whole procurement process as it works today in the Department of Defense, because we have just found out that Ms. Druyun, in her guilty plea, said she was involved in rewarding Boeing on several other contracts, not just the Boeing tanker lease. We have no idea how much money that is. But it brings a profound question here: How could one person do this? How could one person alone in the whole Pentagon--I have forgotten how many thousands of people work there--have done this and they not know about it? If they didn't know about it, what kind of a system is it that allows such a thing to take place, over a period of years?

I deeply regret having been involved in this. But I also remind my colleagues that the way this thing started was the insertion in an appropriations bill that was one line that no member of the Senate Armed Services Committee had any knowledge of nor did the Senate Armed Services Committee have a single hearing on before this appeared as a line item in an appropriations bill. That is not the way to do business.

I would allege to you right now, if it had gone through the normal authorization process perhaps this whole scandal wouldn't have unfolded the way it did because we would have had a hearing. We would have scrutinized the proposal. We would have gone through the normal process. Instead, we spent 3 years fighting a rearguard action and through the sheerest kind of luck, in many respects, we are able to identify this wrongdoing.

I hope we can get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible and find lessons learned, find out how much money we can reclaim, if necessary, on behalf of the taxpayers, so that if, indeed, Ms. Druyun's statement is true--and I have no reason not to believe what she confessed to, that she issued a number of contracts that were detrimental to the cause of the American taxpayer--we can reform the system so this kind of thing can never happen again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I voted against cloture on this measure yesterday because it is loaded with corporate pork and special interest tax provisions. This conference report, at 633 pages and $148 billion, serves as a sad example of the way business is done around here. The special interests continue to rule at the expense of the hardworking American taxpayer.

The original intent of this legislation was laudable. Earlier this year, we missed a golden opportunity to pass a good, clean bill that would have brought us back into compliance with World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and stop the burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufacturers. Simply repealing the extraterritorial income, ETI, exemption tax benefit for exports would have saved $50 billion. Instead, because this was known to be a ``must pass'' piece of legislation, it was loaded up with billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks for big corporations and special interests of all types. I recognize the need to pass legislation to bring the United States back into compliance with the WTO, and I am more than willing to support a bill that accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately this legislation's worthy purpose has taken a back seat to a host of special interest tax provision add-ons and a big buyout for tobacco farmers.

In an editorial on the issue, The Washington Times, noted that ``the ideal solution would have been a quick, simple repeal of FSC-ETI, which is bad economic policy in any case. The $50 billion in savings could then have been used to streamline and simplify the corporate tax code.'' I couldn't agree more. The Tax Code is far too complex and is in dire need of reform. While campaigning in recent months, the President has stated, with tremendous approval from every audience, that reforming and simplifying the Tax Code would be one of the main objectives of his second term. I will support him in that effort, and I encourage him to take the first step in that reform by vetoing this bill.

We have a deficit that is quickly approaching $500 billion--that is half of a trillion dollars. The proponents of this bill say that it's ``revenue neutral.'' Well, I doubt that, and I am not alone in my skepticism. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has figured that the bill would actually cost $80 billion if the temporary tax cuts are extended for the full 10 years. Sadly, I have no doubt that those extensions will happen--because we simply don't say no to anyone anymore. We are told that this bill is offset by closing tax loopholes, and I will be the first person to say that I support closing those loopholes, but can anyone explain to me the rationale behind closing loopholes in order to raise revenues to open more loopholes? It is remarkable. It makes no sense.

As I have said many times in the past, we need to start making some very tough decisions around here about our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up bills with good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the General Accounting Office, the unfunded Federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is only $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. Instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive.

The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's

newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.''

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share of the nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive . . . effect on the economy.''

So what do we do when we are faced with these problems? We pass a tax bill that is loaded with corporate pork.

This conference report is called the JOBS Act, but I think we should call it what it truly is: ``the corporate tax haven act.'' I doubt it will create any new jobs but it will certainly allow a few lucky folks, who have extremely well paying jobs, to make even more at the expense of the taxpayers. I'm sure the energy corporations are pleased that they won't have to wait for the energy bill to add to their over- flowing coffers.

Yesterday we passed a bill to address the issue of FDA regulation of tobacco products. Essentially, the consideration of a free standing bill to address this issue at this stage means nothing. We're supposed to be appreciative that the FDA bill was taken up and passed quickly-- we all know that passing a controversial Senate bill on a Sunday at the end of the session is meaningless. The House will not move the bill, and, even if by some miracle they did, there certainly would be no conference held. This is a sham--plain and simple. The Senate had already addressed the issue of FDA regulation of tobacco. Sadly, the conferees on the FSC/ETI bill stripped that provision from this conference report.

What the conferees did was unconscionable. They turned their backs on the health of our nation's youth and opted to strike the DeWine-Kennedy amendment that would have granted authority to the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to regulate tobacco products. It is a very sad day for public health. They have used the FDA tobacco authority language as a linchpin to effectuate the passage of the underlying tax bill. It was nothing more than a sweetener to them and now that it is no longer of use, the conferees have discarded the language, and with it, who knows how many lives.

In striking this historically important provision, the conferees ignored the public and medical health community, child health advocates, and registered voters who in a recent poll overwhelmingly, 69 percent favor FDA authority over tobacco. Even in the six leading tobacco growing states, support for FDA authority is above 65 percent.

Without FDA authority over tobacco, there will be no regulation of tobacco marketing, no information disclosure such as nicotine and carcinogenic content, no requirement that can force the tobacco industry to remove harmful components from their products, and no pre- market approval of ``new products'' marketed as ``safer cigarettes.''

Tobacco-related illnesses and deaths in this country have reached epidemic proportions, but according to the Surgeon General, tobacco use is ``the single most preventable cause of death and disease in our society.'' The Surgeon General estimated 400,000 U.S. citizens lose their lives each year as a result of a smoking-related illness. This figure translates into approximately 1,200 smoking-related deaths per day. This loss of life has a significant economic impact accounting for an estimated $75 billion per year in health care expenses. Most tragically, however, the Surgeon General estimates that approximately 2,000 kids start smoking every single day, and that one third of them will die from a smoking-related illness.

I thank Senators DeWine and Kennedy for their commitment to our Nation's youth, and I am certain that they will continue to fight for FDA authority over tobacco because it is simply too important not to continue to fight. We must protect the public health and hold the tobacco industry accountable for the production and marketing of its products, particularly as their business practices affect children, but I fear we have lost yet another opportunity.

Not only have the conferees jeopardized the health of our Nation's youth by striking the FDA authority provisions of this bill, they left provisions that would eliminate the quota system and channel $10 billion--into the pockets of tobacco farmers--many of whom no longer even farm tobacco--and disguised the money as a buyout to encourage such ``farmers'' to shift their crops to something other than tobacco. According to the Wall Street Journal, among these ``tobacco farmers'' who would benefit from a tobacco buyout are Larry Flynt and his brother, who admittedly abandoned the ``blood, sweat, and tears'' of the tobacco business to pursue pornography.

I fear that the conferees have failed to realize that, by not setting domestic production restrictions, and not restricting new market entrants from farming tobacco, they may be creating new opportunities for more tobacco farming. In doing so, they create the possibility that a greater supply of tobacco will result in reduced prices thereby making tobacco products more accessible to kids. Studies have shown that increases in the cost of cigarettes directly correlate to reduced youth smoking rates. Greater youth accessibility to tobacco products coupled with a lack of FDA authority over the marketing and information disclosure of these cheaper products is the most invidious combination possible. By turning their backs on FDA tobacco authority while simultaneously making it easier to grow and sell tobacco, the conferees may be exposing kids--not to mention adults--to an even greater health risk than they are today.

As if the lack of FDA language wasn't bad enough, let me go through some of the other ridiculous items contained in this conference report.

Many provisions in this bill remind me of the golden oldies we saw in the energy bill. One of the more generous tax breaks in this bill is a creative provision that allows energy companies to reclassify energy production as a manufactured good in order to qualify for potentially tens of billions of dollars in new tax deductions. The manufacturing tax deduction is currently available only to traditional manufacturing industries as an incentive for job creation. While this change in the tax code may not create manufacturing jobs, it does create a tax balloon, which increases to a maximum of 9 percent of a company's production income after 2009. The total estimated cost of this golden parachute is $76.5 billion. Other industries that will now be considered to be ``manufacturers'' are movie studios, real estate development, and construction companies. But the greatest share of this tax break will go to the oil and gas industry and electric utility companies.

Fear not, not all of the largess goes to oil and gas companies. There are equal opportunities for other corporate and special interests to make profits at the expense of the taxpayers. An article in the Wall Street Journal on October 6, refers to the legislation as ``a trove of obscure breaks and perks'' and identifies four companies in Houston that were singled out for special treatment. These companies recently changed their addresses to the Cayman Islands and Bermuda when the Senate proposed a retroactive crackdown on businesses that incorporate offshore to shave their U.S. tax bills. Fortunately for them, the provision in this bill is no longer retroactive. Not only does the bill allow these companies to slip comfortably away, but others contemplating such actions will be heartened by the fact that the bill doesn't include a provision that would have supported Federal judges and the IRS in bringing companies that indulge in these improper tax shelters to justice.

This bill also contains a tax credit totaling more than $2 billion over 9 years for industries generating electricity from alternative fuel sources. Let me be clear that I support clean renewable energy technologies as a

means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy independence, but most of these subsidized technologies aren't clean. No matter how you look at it, chicken droppings simply are not a clean alternative fuel. Just how, exactly, does the public benefit from the subsidies provided for the burning of municipal trash and poultry waste, both which create significant air pollution?

The most outrageous provision in this section could be easily missed. It defines ``refined'' coal as a qualifying renewable resource. According to the Tax Code, refined coal is just another name for synthetic fuel. I would be greatly relieved if my colleagues could document that this is not the case, but it appears to me that the synthetic fuel credit has been snuck in here along with so-called renewable sources of electricity.

I have spoken before about the synthetic fuel tax credit scam that was revealed by Time reporters in October 2003. It is shameful for Congress to perpetuate this expensive hoax, which has cost taxpayers $4 billion since 1999. The IRS followed up the Time report with a November 2003 bulletin stating, ``The Service believes that the processes approved under its long standing ruling (that a synthetic fuel must differ significantly in chemical composition from the substance used to produce it) do not produce the level of chemical change required.'' Incredibly, it goes on to say, ``Nevertheless, the Service continues to recognize that many taxpayers and their investors have relied on its long-standing ruling to make investments.'' So, basically, we should just ignore the fact that chemical change isn't occurring. They should have just said that if Congress wants to continue this shameful scam, then the IRS will let it pass.

The original intent of the synthetic fuels tax credit was not sheer folly. It is just that, for a variety of reasons, a synthetic fuel industry never materialized in the United States. Canada invested heavily in synthetic fuel production over the past decades and sells millions of barrels of synthetic crude oil to the United States annually. The only evidence of a U.S. synthetic fuel industry is this gigantic tax shelter. One doesn't need to be in the oil or gas business to strike it rich with synthetic fuels either--one of the greatest beneficiaries of this tax shelter--and that is all that it is--a tax shelter, is a very profitable hotel chain, Marriott. This is an equal opportunity bill for wealthy corporate interests.

Wait, we can't forget ethanol! $77 million from this bill will go to ethanol manufacturers. No tax break bill would be complete without subsidies for this synthetic fuel, ethanol gasohol, created and perpetuated by Congress. And it all starts with corn. Ten percent of the corn grown in this country is used to produce ethanol. Of course, corn producers, like producers of other major crops, receive farm income and price supports. In the 107th Congress, this body passed the Farm bill which appropriated more than $26 billion in direct assistance to corn-growers over 6 years. That is an average of $4.3 billion in direct subsidies each year just to corn-growers!

In addition to the subsidies going primarily to agribusiness corporations, the public pays for ethanol in other ways as well. More energy is used in the production of ethanol than it provides to consumers, it increases the per gallon cost of gasoline, and it results in environmental degradation. Finally, to add to all these insults, ethanol subsidies increase the public's grocery costs. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk, and eggs. This happens because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the U.S. Increasing ethanol production further inflates corn prices and subsequently food prices.

So the American public provides billions to create this artificial market for ethanol, and then pays more for their groceries and what do they get in return? I will tell you what they get in return--absolutely nothing. No reduction in petroleum fuel use. No reduction in air pollution. There is one reduction, however, consumers are rewarded with--reduced fuel economy. More gasohol must be used to go the same distance as conventional fuel. So no one can honestly claim that subsidizing ethanol is in the public interest or an element of sound national energy policy.

Another objectionable provision is the ``green'' bond program. The original form of this provision prompted the ``hooters'' part of my ``hooters and polluters'' reference to the energy bill. Well, the hooters is gone, but this program is still top-heavy with tax breaks-- $231 million for the real estate corporations that are going to develop these projects. With or without a hooters, I don't see how it's in the public's interest to pay for enormous commercial facilities in three or four States. These projects all sound like enterprises that can stand or fall on their own--they don't need the taxpayers throughout the country giving them a big boost.

Let me give you a sense of the ``public works'' that benefit from this provision:

Destiny USA in Syracuse, NY is an entertainment and retail

development touted as an economic stimulus for upstate New

York. The primary developer has committed to 3.2 million

square feet of space with a price of close to $700 per square

foot. They estimated these green bonds would save them close

to $100 million.

Belmar in Lakewood, CO is a $500 million redevelopment of a

mall, which will include many restaurants, clothing stores,

shops, and office space.

Atlantic Station in Atlanta GA is a 138-acre redevelopment

of a former steel mill which will include 12 million square

feet of retail, office, hotel space, and parks.

Riverwalk Development in Shreveport, LA, minus the Hooters,

this $150 million project will feature stores, restaurants,

movie theaters, hotels, and entertainment spots.

These all sound like grand, money-making ventures to me--they don't need taxpayer support. Pork called ``green bonds'' is still pork.

Some of the other notable giveaways in this grab bag of corporate tax delights are:

The ``hummer in every home'' provision is still intact. It

is just not quite as expensive as it has been the past. This

provision extends the existing $100,000 tax deduction for the

purchase of vehicles weighing over 6,000 pounds. The original

intent of this deduction was to benefit farmers and other

business owners in need of heavy-duty vehicles.

Unfortunately, some individuals unscrupulously seized on this

loophole in order to purchase Hummers, Escalades and other

expensive, gas guzzling SUVs. Thankfully, due to the

insistence of Senator Nickles, those purchasing luxury sport

utility vehicles can no longer take advantage of the $100,000

deduction. However, they can still take a deduction of up to

$25,000. This could cost our Treasury $350 million for every

100,000 taxpayers who take advantage of this loophole. Again,

it is not as bad as it used to be, but it is still too

expensive and should be eliminated. The cost of foreign

oil is about $53 a barrel. Shouldn't we, as a practical

matter, be encouraging the use of smaller, more fuel

efficient vehicles?

There is a tax break for ``small refiners'' of oil to

improve clean air standards. Unfortunately, ``small'' is

defined as those with refining capacity below 205,000 barrels

per day, so some of the large oil companies can get in on

this one too.

Three of the world's richest energy companies--BP, Exxon

Mobil, and Conoco Phillips--stand to be the primary

recipients of two tax breaks, totaling $445 million, for

building an Alaskan natural gas pipeline and for processing

natural gas for the project. Considering that these three

companies have enjoyed after-tax profits of $95 billion since

2001, the wealthy shareholders of these companies--not

taxpayers--should foot this bill. In addition, these three

companies are allowed to depreciate their natural gas

pipeline over seven years, costing taxpayers another $150

million.

There is $27 million for dog and horse race tracks to help

lure more foreigners to gamble at U.S. horse and dog racing

facilities; $995 million for the treatment of aircraft

leasing and shipping income. This provision would provide a

tax exemption on income derived from an aircraft or vessel

leasing business.

There is $28 million for a cruise ship tax break. This

provision would allow the cruise industry to delay paying

taxes on airplane tickets, hotels, and other excursions it

sells in the United States. The delay would save the Carnival

Corp. $15 million, and Royal Carribean would save anywhere

from $8 million to $10 million.

There is $9 million for a tax break on archery products;

$11 million for a provision that would reduce the excise tax

on fishing tackle boxes; $44 million for the importers of

Chinese ceiling fans; $4 million to repeal the excise tax on

sonar devices that are used for finding fish; $247 million

for a provision that is designed to help the producers of

small jets and planes, 60% of which are built in Kansas. Lear

Jet and Cessna benefit greatly from this provision; $27

million for providing tax-free treatment if farmers replace

livestock because of weather related conditions; $101 million

for NASCAR track owners; $57 million for a tax break for

shipping companies; $501 million for a tax credit for the

maintenance of railway tracks; $336 million for a tax break

for Hollywood studios; $234 million for a tax break for the

producers and

marketers of alcoholic beverages; and $495 million for Naval

shipbuilders.

Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Mr. President, with reservations I support passage of the conference report to the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act. This bill provides $10 billion in funding for important military construction activities including base housing as well as the construction and maintenance of base infrastructure.

When we passed the Senate version of this legislation, I declared that this appropriations bill was a good example of how the legislative process is expected to work, wherein the work of the authorizers is fully taken into account by the appropriators. The legislation was relatively free of earmarks and riders that were not related to Military Construction. However, during the conference, a legislative rider that has no business in an appropriations bill found its way into the conference report.

I am referring to the section of the conference report that authorizes a $18 billion loan guarantee program for the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. This authorizing provision is found in neither the House nor the Senate version of this legislation, yet with characteristically little attention, it has found its way into the conference report. Once again, it pays to have powerful members of the Appropriations Committee representing your State or district.

Congress has a legislative process that has two separate tracks for authorization and appropriation. Merging

these tracks and eliminating the essential discourse and deliberation necessary to establish sound public policy is not in the Federal taxpayers interest. Nevertheless, here we are again, faced with the necessity of approving appropriations for military construction with an enormous pork program attached at the last minute. All the more problematic is that this same piece of legislative text was included in the failed energy bill. The Senate rejected this provision then, but we are unable to do it again, as it was snuck into a conference report on a totally unrelated bill. It is a clear violation of the legislative process, specifically Rule 28, and it's simply wrong.

My objections to the Alaska pipeline provision are not only procedural. Many of my colleagues may not be aware that what they are approving here is an economic cushion for three extremely wealthy corporations. Undoubtedly, these three corporations have the financial resources to proceed with this project without taxpayers' dollars, but once again, we will manage to provide generous financial incentives to corporate interests with public funds. These selective subsidies are clearly inequitable and contrary to the interests of the rest of American taxpayers.

The sponsor of this provision may maintain that the American public will benefit from the natural gas supply that may flow through this pipeline years from now. Undoubtedly, if the supply is there, the consumers will be, too. And that is my point. This is an economic venture that will yield significant profits for those companies involved. It is my understanding that as a result of the financial promise of this venture that there are other companies that would very much like to be involved. What this provision does is to codify the terms set by these three corporations to provide an even sweeter opportunity with $18 billion in federally backed loan guarantees.

These loan guarantees are the thick rich icing on the tax break cake included in the FSC-ETI conference report, which also passed today. Tax breaks totaling $445 million are provided for pipeline construction and gas processing, again directed to the same corporations, which together have shown after-tax profits of $95 billion since 2001. I am certain that American taxpayers do not appreciate paying twice for their expensive energy supplies. Once at the pump and for their home heating bills, and then again for tax subsidies to profitable energy subsidies.

Also contained in this legislation is funding for drought assistance. I sympathize with the proponents of this agricultural disaster assistance and I do not question that drought and abrupt changes in climate are having a severe impact on the crops grown in the states covered in this conference report. While I do agree that prolonged drought and other natural disasters are having devastating effects on many Americans and sectors of our economy, crop assistance does not belong on Military Construction funding legislation.

When the Senate considers legislation to address drought-induced and other climate damages, shouldn't all affected states receive assistance? How are we to say that one group of people or sector of our economy deserves financial assistance over another? According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress provided about $3 billion in assistance for crop and livestock losses in 2001 and 2002. Coupled with all the other billions in agricultural subsidies, American taxpayers could conclude that Congress has determined, without clear deliberation, that this is the priority need.

There are many States, including Arizona, that are facing terrible drought-induced problems and do not receive assistance in this conference report. Destructive wildfires have spread through the Western United States because of the dry conditions there, causing billions of dollars in property and resource damage. Drought-induced insect infestations have increased wildfire risks to our communities and natural resources. Water levels in reservoirs in our parched states have dropped dramatically, reducing water supplies, causing millions of dollars in losses to the recreation and tourism industries and reducing hydropower generation. In some areas, the lack of precipitation and water supply recharge, has resulted in wells running dry. I can't think of a more disastrous situation than that. However, the people who fall into these categories are not covered by the drought assistance provisions.

I have found this report contains 62 earmarks totaling $98.7 million. I am also troubled by a provision in the explanatory statement that accompanies this conference report. According to the explanatory statement, ``The language and allocations set forth in House Report 108-607 and Senate Report 108-309 should be complied with unless specifically addressed to the contrary in the conference report and statement of the managers.'' This has the composite effect of essentially doubling the number of earmarks in the Military Construction Appropriations Act. As legislators we are often forced to make difficult budgetary decisions. However, in the instance of this conference report, the most difficult decisions were avoided. With looming budget deficits, it is as important as ever to practice fiscal responsibility and avoid the practice of earmarks.

The above statement ensures all $44.7 million in earmarks added by the Senate as well as the $38.5 million in earmarks contained in the House version of this legislation. As I stated when we considered that legislation, nearly all of these earmarks are funded under the minor construction account. Normally, this account is intended to be used for urgent and unforeseen requirements and therefore neither the President's budget nor the authorizing committees identify specific projects to be funded. Once the Services decide to spend the money, the authorizing and appropriations committees must approve or disapprove of the minor construction project to which the Services plan to fund. By earmarking the funds in the minor construction account, the appropriators have usurped the authority of the authorizing committee to approve or reject these projects. I can only hope that next year, when the appropriators stray from this practice.

With the passage of the conference report to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, the legislative branch has once again affirmed its support for the important round of base closure and realignment that will occur next year. With this being an election year and Member's parochial concerns being as strong as ever, I am encouraged to see that my colleagues have resisted the temptation to add pork to bases in their states in what would be a misguided effort to save their bases from base closure. Such efforts would be a waste of taxpayer money, and would not prevent their base from being closed.

I commend the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, and the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their hard work on this bill and their continued support for our military. Their attention and commitment to only supporting high priority projects for the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force is once again exemplary and provide for a sound measure to fund military construction in the coming fiscal year. I only wish they were able to hold to the Senate version of this legislation and were able to keep extraneous non-military construction provisions out of this conference report.

Mr. President, I wish to briefly remark on H.R. 2391 and H.R. 4077, a package of bills referred to as the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004. I have objected to the further consideration or passage of these bills by unanimous consent.

From the text of the bills that have been available to date for Senators to review, I believe that one part of this broad legislation, the Family Movie Act, may actually harm consumers while appearing to help them. To be clear, I support the stated goal of the act's authors: immunizing from legal challenges a technology that enables parents to skip offensive material from prerecorded copies of films and television. While I applaud the merits of their stated intent, I fear that the very exemption designed to achieve this laudable goal simultaneously creates an implication that certain basic practices that consumers have enjoyed for years--like fast-forwarding through advertisements--would constitute criminal copyright infringement. I note that Consumers Union and Public Knowledge, as well as a host of others parties interested in protecting consumers, share my concerns.

Americans have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials for more than 30 years. Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?

I look forward to working with my colleagues in this Chamber to address not only these concerns, but also the uncertain liability created for manufacturers that bring other innovative and pro-family products to market in the face of continual threats of extinction from powerful interests who seek to thwart their entry.

For these reasons, I do not intend to remove my hold on these bills until I am satisfied that consumer interests have been protected in this legislation.

Mr. President, today I honor a true leader and exceptional American. After a long and distinguished career of service to our Nation, COL Frank Rohrbough is retiring from his position as Deputy Director for Government Relations of the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA. On this occasion, it is fitting to recognize his 30 years of commissioned service as an Air Force officer and 13 years as one of the foremost health benefit advocates for the uniformed services community. Colonel Rohrbough's career illustrates a lifelong commitment of service to the nation and to preserving the welfare of uniformed members and their families.

In 1961, Frank Rohrbough graduated from the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Texas A&M University, earning his commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. Appointed to the Medical Service Corps, he served with distinction at all levels in the Air Force, from small community military medical treatment facilities to large regional hospitals. His distinguished career culminated with his appointment to the Air Force's top Medical Service Corps position--Chief of the Air Force Medical Service Corps and Assistant Surgeon General for Healthcare Support.

After retiring from the Air Force in 1991, Colonel Rohrbough joined the MOAA staff and served as principal advisor on health issues. In this position, he worked with the Armed Services Committees of both the House and the Senate, the Department of Defense, and numerous organizations and agencies to protect health care benefits for uniformed services beneficiaries. His personal efforts contributed significantly towards important legislation including lifetime health care and pharmacy coverage for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries and extending eligibility for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program to the entire military community.

Our Nation is grateful to Colonel Rohrbough for supporting members of the Armed Forces and their families, the Military Coalition, and all veterans, while serving in uniform and in private life. We offer him a sharp salute and wish him continued success and happiness in retirement.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support a Senate resolution to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the first International Polar Year, IPY, of 1882-1883, the 75th anniversary of the second IPY of 1932-1933, and the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year, IGY, 1957-1958, in 2007-2008. The resolution would also support the continuation of such international science year traditions, particularly emphasizing activities dedicated to global environmental research, education, and protection.

Mr. President, IPY and IGY have left a legacy of scientific advancements, new discoveries, and international goodwill that continue to benefit societies today. They have made significant contributions to enhancing our

understanding of the processes of environmental change and variability. In order to accurately access and monitor changes in the Earth's climate, environments, and ecosystems, it is imperative that we give adequate attention and resources to understanding these processes. Examining environmental changes in the past will strengthen our abilities to make informed decisions for the future.

IPY, first launched over 125 years ago, set precedents for internationally coordinated scientific campaigns. Accomplishments from past IPY activities include advancements in meterology, atmospheric sciences, geomagnetism, and technology. IPY also fueled the establishment of the first year-round research station inland from the Antarctic coast by the United States. Planning for an IPY in 2007-2008 is currently underway under the United States leadership of the National Academy of Science, in conjunction with the International Council for Science and the World Meterological Organization.

Modeled after IPY, IGY was first launched in 1957-1958 and also has been a model for international science activities. Accomplishments from past IGY activities include the initiation of the global space age and exploration of the upper atmosphere through the launching of Sputnik and Vanguard, the world's first satellites. IGY led to the establishment of more research stations in the Antarctic, and to the ratification of the Antarctic Treaty in 1961, which promoted peaceful international collaboration and scientific exploration in the Antarctic. It is my hope that the same research activities will occur in the Arctic region.

This resolution celebrating the anniversaries of IPY and IGY in 2007- 2008 would endorse the concept of a worldwide campaign for scientific activity and expand the scope of past international science activities to promote interdisciplinary research that incorporates the physical and social sciences to enrich the understanding of diversity in life and environmental patterns on Earth. The resolution also would require the President of the United States to submit to Congress a report on steps taken by the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in association with the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations, to ensure a successful worldwide international science year in 2007-2008.

I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial effort to promote continued international scientific collaboration.

I object.

Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, I would like to review with my colleague Section 133 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, Congress has agreed to amend Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 by expressly prohibiting the Air Force from using previously granted authority to acquire, through a lease or purchase, Boeing 767 aircraft for use as aerial refueling tankers.

This provision succeeds in accomplishing Chairman Warner's primary objective, as he stated in this chamber on October 23, 2003, to put the tanker replacement program back into a traditional budget, procurement, and authorization track. In other words, the Air Force's program to modernize its tanker fleet must be subject to the aerial refueling analysis of alternatives, the aerial refueling portion of the Mobility Capabilities Study, a new aerial refueling validated capabilities document and operational requirements document in accordance with all applicable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instructions, and the express approval of a Defense Acquisition Board in full accordance with Department of Defense regulations.

I thank the Chairman for clarifying the intent of the legislation with respect to the prohibition on leasing tanker aircraft. Now, let's turn to what authority Section 133 grants with respect to purchase of tanker aircraft.

The Chairman is correct. This means that, under Section 133, the Air Force may not acquire, either by lease or purchase, Boeing 767s without full and open competition. In other words, any program to acquire tankers must start from the beginning, as the Senator properly stated last year, on a traditional budget, procurement, and authorization track.

One last question. Have we obtained an opinion from the Congressional Budget Office as to how it would score the acquisition of tankers under Section 133?

I thank the Senator. I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership in this 3-year odyssey. I remind my colleagues that three out of the four defense committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so without so much as reading the contract for that $30 billion procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. That having been said, the final chapter on the tanker lease program cannot be closed until those among Air Force leadership who engaged in misconduct are held accountable.

Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the conference report on HR 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This legislation funds over $420 billion for defense programs, which is a 3.4 percent increase or $20.9 billion above the amount authorized by Congress last year.

While I am pleased that we are able to act on this legislation prior to adjourning for the elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention that once again, the Defense Appropriations Act has been signed into law prior to final action on the Defense Authorization Act. The responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. In reality however, the Appropriators' function, has expanded dramatically, and the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the authorizing committees. I hope next year we will succeed in passing the authorization measure prior to the appropriations measure.

The men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the line every day to protect the very freedoms we Americans hold dear. It is our obligation to provide key quality of life benefits to the members of our military. Great strides will be made by this bill towards accomplishing that goal. For example, this Conference Report authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. It repeals the requirement for military members to pay subsistence charges while hospitalized, and adds $7.8 million for expanded care and services at the Walter Reed Amputee Patient Care Center. Also, included in the conference report is a permanent increase in the rate of family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month as well as a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month.

We continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, around 40 percent of all the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National Guard and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers and sailors leave behind friends, families, and careers to defend our nation. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure we look after the needs of these patriots. Included in the conference report is the authorization for full medical and dental examinations and requisite inoculations when reservists mobilize and demobilize as well as a new requirement for pre-separation physical examinations for members of the reserve component. This provision is critical to maintain and, in some circumstances, increase the readiness of the total force.

In the Senate version of this legislation, we passed an important amendment to authorize an increase in the size of our Army by 20,000 and size of our Marine Corps by 3,000. I am very pleased this provision was included in the conference report. This increase is absolutely vital in our Army's ability to carry out its mission in the global war on terror. There is no shortage of evidence supporting an increase in Army endstrength. Recently, the Army pulled 3,600 troops out of South Korea to fill critical needs in Iraq. The Department of Defense should be able to move troops around as needed to address critical needs. However, in this case, we are sacrificing our readiness on the Korean peninsula because we do not have enough solders serving in the Army.

After returning home for a short period of time, soldiers and Marines are

already making preparations for their second tour in Iraq or Afghanistan in as many years. This is not good for morale, this is not good for retention, this is not good for readiness, and this is not good for the soldier's families. Eventually, recruitment will be seriously affected by these trends.

Additionally, the Army recently announced a new stop-loss policy. While, I certainly recognize the Army's authority and necessity to issue stop loss orders, their issuance in this instance is yet another reason why we need to increase the size of the Army. For all the benefits in group cohesion that results from extended tours, the Army will be facing a serious crisis when it comes time for these soldiers to reenlist on their own accord. I am concerned about the effect that these stop-loss orders will have on the morale of our Army. While I still do not believe that we need a draft, we do need to increase the size of the Army to carry out important defense missions.

Once again, I am disappointed that the development of this legislation lent the opportunity for the annual buy America battle. In a similar fashion as last year, the Senate had to beat back a provision in the house version of the legislation that sought to protect parochial interests at the cost of our defense industry and American jobs. It seems as if every year, we fight the same fight in conference. I am pleased that once again, the Senate prevailed over the protectionist leanings in the House.

As I have stated countless times before, we need to provide American servicemen and women with the best equipment at the best price for the American taxpayer. By following this simple philosophy, we will protect both the men and women in uniform, as well as our domestic defense industry.

The international considerations of buy America provisions are immense. Isolationist, go-it-alone approaches have serious consequences on our relationship with our allies. Our country is threatened when we ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6-to-1 in its favor with respect to Europe, and about 12-to-1 with respect to the rest of the world. We don't need protectionist measures to insulate our defense or aerospace industries. If we enact laws that isolate our domestic defense industry, our allies will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship.

The Senate also successfully defeated an amendment during Senate consideration and again in conference aimed at crippling the upcoming BRAC round. BRAC has taken on a new significance in the war against terror. There has not been a time in recent memory when it has been more important not to waste money on non-essential expenditures. To continue to sustain an infrastructure that exceeds our strategic and tactical needs will make less funding available to the forces that we are relying on to destroy the international network of terrorism. I am once again pleased that the Senate put the good of the Department of Defense over parochial interests and protected the upcoming BRAC round.

The Department of Defense has come out with very fair and reasonable criteria used to select what bases are chosen for BRAC. I have every confidence the Secretary of Defense will carry out this round of BRAC in a just and consistent manner. Sooner or later surplus bases must be closed. Delaying or canceling BRAC would only make the process more difficult and painful than necessary. The sooner the issue is addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense modernization and better pay and benefits for our hard working service members.

I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the potential negative effects a base closure may have on their local economy. But let me point out that previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, LA, benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S., about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced. This is not to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive.

Another issue of considerable diverse views during conference deliberations concerned the aerial refueling tanker lease program. I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to praise the leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their steadfast vigilance during the three- year odyssey on the Air Force's failed Boeing 767 tanker program. I remind my colleagues, again, that three out of the four defense committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so without so much as reading the contract for the $30 billion procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee that put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. And lest one thought otherwise, the Boeing 767 tanker investigations in the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Senate are continuing and expanding.

Under Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the Air Force may not enter into a sole-source multiyear contract for the lease or purchase of Boeing 767s. Indeed, the Conference Report makes clear that, at the end of the day, the Air Force's plan to modernize or update its fleet must be subject to full and open competition and the traditional budget, procurement and authorization track. The conference report brings the Air Force's plan back to square one.

The bottom line here is this. The aerial refueling tanker provision in the defense authorization bill does much to inject much needed sunlight in a program that has largely been insulated from public scrutiny. In so doing, this provision, that was adopted, directs the Air Force to begin--anew from the beginning--in its program to modernize its tanker fleet. The Air Force will have to now fully consider the Congress's direction, prohibiting the retirement of KC- 135E tanker aircraft, as a worthwhile alternative to updating tankers through KC-135E to R conversions. The tanker legislation in this bill ensures that any effort by the Air Force to modernize and replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the Air Force. That having been said, the final chapter on the failed tanker lease program cannot be closed until those among Air Force leadership who engaged in misconduct, are held accountable.

I also would like to thank the chairman and ranking member, as well as Senators Dodd, DeWine, and Hollings for their assistance in reauthorizing the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program through Fiscal Year 2009. This program uses a competitive, merit-based review process to give grants directly to local fire departments for equipment, training, and fire prevention programs. Our nation's firefighters must be prepared to respond to a myriad of threats, and this legislation will help ensure that they are adequately trained and equipped to meet them.

Mr. President, Americans are blessed with nearly limitless freedoms and liberties. In exchange for all our country gives to us, it does not demand much in return. Yet throughout our history, millions of people have volunteered to give back to their nation through military service. The selfless acts of courage and sacrifice made by the men and women in our armed services have elevated our nation to the greatness we enjoy today.

America is defined not by its power but by its ideals. One of the great strengths of the American public is the desire to serve a cause greater than our own self interest. All too often, our younger generations are accused of selfishness and an unwillingness to sacrifice. I disagree. I see generations of people yearning to serve and help their fellow citizens. Each year, thousands of our young Americans decide to dedicate a few years or even a full career to

protecting the rights and liberties of others. They often do this with very real risks to their lives. They volunteer to do this not for profit, nor for self promotion, but out of a sense of duty, service, and patriotism.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.