Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the ``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, Arizona. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian policy. By 1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.

The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human habitation by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have natural gas.

In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved an intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes in protected. As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.

The bill I am introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the Navajo and Hopi behind us.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of the state's largest electric utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six threatened and endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private

property owners. I fully expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation.

Mr. President, I have been very vocal in my support of the U.S. auto industry and have gone on the record saying that we need to do whatever is necessary to help the auto industry become strong and economically viable. But we need to be realistic and fiscally responsible in our approach to the troubles facing this and other industries. I cannot support the proposal before us today. We simply cannot leave the American taxpayer with a tab of tens of billions of dollars without some serious concessions from the industry and some assurance of the domestic auto manufacturers' long-term viability, otherwise, we are just

throwing good taxpayer money after bad business decisions.

I have great faith in the skills, energy and ingenuity of the American auto worker. This crisis is not their fault. I am committed to making sure that U.S. auto workers are not left to fend for themselves. Ours is the finest workforce in the world, able to compete with anyone. I stand ready to ensure that Washington does its job so they can do theirs.

But simply throwing money at the industry is not the way to ensure its long-term viability or to help stabilize our economy. As we all have learned in the past few weeks, the domestic auto manufacturers are in much worse shape than we could even imagine, with one company, GM, announcing they may not survive through this year without Federal help. But why is it that Toyota sells approximately the same number of cars that GM does and is profitable?

Clearly, the automakers will need to change dramatically the way they do business if they hope to be on course for long-term profitability. Rather than seeking an unconditional handout from the taxpayer, industry leaders must first consider how they can restructure their business models in order to fix the problem themselves and build more competitive products--including changes in management, renegotiating labor agreements, and reorganizing under the bankruptcy process. And, they should have been doing so months, if not years, ago. And if the bankruptcy laws need to be changed, then the Congress should do that.

The automakers need to prove to Congress and the American people that they are serious about making the changes necessary to ensure their long-term success before they seek further assistance from the taxpayer. As noted Harvard University economics professor Martin Feldstein wrote: ``the goal of restructuring should not just be to require the companies to make cars that are fuel-efficient and more environmentally sound . . . although that can be included in the government's list of requirements. The goal should be to put companies on a course that will allow them to survive for the long term, producing cars and creating jobs.'' I fully agree with Professor Feldstein.

The auto industry executives, as well as many of my colleagues, have argued that bankruptcy is not an option. But given what we now know about their financial situation, why not? Shouldn't we be considering every option possible to allow these companies to restructure their operations so they can keep people employed? Chapter 11 bankruptcy was created precisely for the situation in which these automakers find themselves--where creditors' claims exceed a company's assets. It may be the best option. The executives leading these companies have an obligation to their shareholders and employees to weigh carefully that viable option.

After all, filing for bankruptcy forces a company to make some very difficult choices and the automakers would be no exception. The automakers would be forced to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements to make themselves more competitive, to eliminate some dealership networks and car models that are underperforming, and to make other difficult cost cutting decisions regarding real estate, management compensation, personnel, and even office supplies. It seems these companies may only make these difficult decisions if they file for bankruptcy.

Additionally, bankruptcy would allow the cost cutting process to proceed without any political interference from Congress or special interests. If Congress provides a bailout for these companies, there is no doubt that legislators will weigh in when the automakers attempt to renegotiate labor agreements, trim dealerships in a lawmaker's home State or eliminate a car model manufactured in a lawmaker's district. Bankruptcy will allow these decisions to be made purely based on financial considerations and under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge. Many corporations have filed for bankruptcy and emerged better equipped to serve consumers and face their competitors. Bankruptcy is not an option that should just be written off.

Now, I would like to mention some of my specific concerns about the pending proposal, negotiated by the Democrats and the White House.

My first concern I have already discussed, the fact that the taxpayers are asked to foot the bill upfront, almost as a first downpayment, without concessions or assurances of the industry's future viability.

Another troubling aspect of this bill rests with the so-called ``Car Czar.'' Will this individual have the authority to invalidate contracts legally entered into by these companies? What in this legislation would prevent lawsuits from being filed due to nullified contracts? What is to prevent the next President, or the one after that, from firing this car czar if he or she disagrees with what the car czar seeks to impose? And what in the bill gives the American people any assurances that the companies or the car czar won't enter into other obligations that ultimately cost taxpayers even more money?

I fully agree that if we are to going to provide a single taxpayer dollar to this industry there must be very strict oversight in order to protect the public's investment. Unfortunately, while this bill gives the President's designee some oversight authority, it has no real teeth. The person appointed by the President would have no real authority to insist on the fundamental changes necessary to promote the corporations' viability and protect the taxpayer's investment. If we are going to hand over billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, we should at least consider requiring Senate confirmation of an individual with proven business leadership skills who will serve for a defined period of time. This would remove the possibility of the designee falling victim to the political pressure often felt by those who serve at the pleasure of the President--allowing that person to make decisions based solely on the best interest of the taxpayer--not on political considerations.

Another area of concern for me surrounds what seems to me a lack of reality on the part of the domestic auto manufacturers. More and more Americans want to purchase energy-saving vehicles. Yet the domestic auto industry seems to be fighting tooth and nail against that reality. And if it does not wake up immediately, nothing Congress can do will help the industry survive. It needs to be competitive. It needs customers to buy its vehicles. And it won't have many customers if it doesn't take action to build vehicles with higher fuel efficiency standards that help our Nation end our crippling dependence on foreign oil.

Finally, the bill includes provisions wholly unrelated to the issue at hand, such as language authorizing a pay raise for U.S. judges. Why in the world is it necessary to address this issue in this bill? I am not questioning the merits of the provision--I am sure the overwhelming majority of our judges work very hard and deserve a raise--but such a provision has no business being addressed in this manner and at this time when so many are doing more with less. This authorization should be addressed in the proper way by the appropriate authorizing committee.

If we allow this $14 billion to be doled out to the automakers with so few conditions and no concessions--who comes next? And how long before they return seeking billions more? A recent editorial in the Washington Post noted that:

the impending collapse of General Motors presents Congress

and the President with a choice between two domino effects,

both potentially damaging to the U.S. economy if the federal

government does not lend GM money and the company goes

bankrupt, the repercussions will spread throughout the

country by way of the network of suppliers, dealers and local

businesses that depend on GM and the other car manufacturers

for their livelihoods. This could destroy hundreds of

thousands of jobs when the economy can ill afford another

shock. But if the federal government, frightened by these

possibilities, gives GM just what it wants, it will be

setting a precedent for even more multibillion-dollar

bailouts--of automakers and of other troubled companies. The

closure of DHL's operation in Wilmington, Ohio, is costing

9,000 people their jobs; Circuit City's bankruptcy means

about 7,800 layoffs. If Detroit and its relatively well-

compensated workforce qualify for Federal aid, why not these

firms and workers, too?

We need to be very careful here lest we slide down the slippery slope of a taxpayer funded bailout for every ailing business in America-- large or small.

Let me be clear. I am very sympathetic to the plight of the auto industry. But the proposal before us seeks to hand over $14 billion to companies who have yet to tell the Congress and the American people--in any detail--how they plan to restructure their operations and become viable in the long-term. Their gross inaction to date causes me great pause. And that is why I cannot support the measure before us.

I am pleased to see that many are working hard to find an acceptable compromise. I am hopeful that we can reach a suitable agreement.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the parents of our good friend and former colleague from Ohio, Mike DeWine. Richard and Jean DeWine died just a few weeks ago, 4 days apart from each other. Dick was 85, and Jean was 83. They were together almost their entire lives, sharing a beautiful love story and 65 wonderful years of marriage.

I had the honor of meeting Mike's parents in February when I was visiting Young's Jersey Dairy in their hometown of Yellow Springs, OH. It was a privilege to talk to them. They were so gracious and kind. I could see how proud they were of their son and how proud they were of our Nation.

Mike spoke about his parents' lives and especially their love of family at their joint funeral service held on November 5, 2008. In tribute to Dick and Jean, I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of his remarks be printed in the Record at the conclusion of mine.

There were no two finer Americans than Dick and Jean DeWine. May God bless them and their family.

Mr. President, I rise to offer my sincere congratulations to Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, the members of our committee, and our House colleagues for their work on the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. With provisions that authorize a considerable pay raise for all military personnel, increase Army and Marine end-strength, improve the system that serves wounded veterans, and help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting and procurement, this bill contains many important provisions that will help support our national defense and, in particular, our servicemen and women. However, this bill also contains other provisions that are very problematic.

Before explaining my concerns with this bill, let me take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to Senator Warner for his many years of service to this Nation, not the least of which are 30 well-spent years in the Senate where he has been a consistent and steadfast champion of our men and women in uniform. Senator Warner has been instrumental in providing needed oversight of the Department of Defense, and in ensuring that our soldiers are well trained, well equipped, and that they and their families are well provided for. I am particularly grateful for his contributions during this Congress when he so frequently stepped in on my behalf. Let me be clear that my concerns with this year's bill reflect in no way on Senator Warner outstanding efforts: He deserves much credit for the many exemplary provisions contained in this bill.

Nonetheless, in this year's bill, and the accompanying report, there are $5 billion in earmarks. Of that total amount, $2.1 billion arises from a single provision that authorizes the procurement of six C-17 Globemaster aircraft that the Defense Department states we neither need nor can afford. In my view, the massive pork spending in this bill renders it a frontal assault on this body's purported commitment to ethics and earmark reform and, in my view, results in a failure in our obligation to the taxpayer.

Among the most egregious items in this bill are:

The Defense bill provides more than $2.1 billion for 6 C-17 cargo aircraft. The Secretary of Defense wants to end production of C-17 aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. These aircraft are neither requested nor required by the Department of Defense. In the fiscal year 2008 Defense supplemental appropriations, the Congress added another 15 C-17 aircraft that also were not requested nor required by DOD. Congress has earmarked 31 C-17s above the mount that is necessary in various Pentagon requirements studies over the last 2 years. C-17 aircraft cost more than $300 million per plane. With this bill, the total number of C-17s procured will rise to 211 total aircraft. This is a thinly veiled effort to keep the C-17 production line open using taxpayer's dollars to fund what is essentially a more than $2.1 billion corporate earmark for the Boeing Corporation.

The Defense bill provides $140 million in advance procurement for additional F-22s. The Air Force and contractors say that prohibiting spending in this bill would cause second tier suppliers to shut down and make it more expensive to restart the line if the next administration wants to continue production, even though the Secretary of Defense's position is that 183 F-22s is the full military requirement. Advanced procurement funding for additional F-22 aircraft is neither requested nor required. This earmark is being pursued by Lockheed Martin and its supporters.

The Defense bill includes funding of $88 million for a VIP aircraft to fly Air Force general officers. Scott AFB has served as headquarters for numerous Air Force commands. Today, two 4-star Air Force generals from the Air Mobility Command and the U.S. Transportation Command call Scott AFB, home. Just as senior leadership in-transit comfort capsules, SLICCs, created a stir several months ago when it was learned from Air Force documents that Air Force Generals were trying to use GWOT money to purchase ``first class'' seats and beds in ``flying pods'' so that generals could travel in luxury when they fly overseas, it is egregious to think that while the military--mostly privates, sergeants, and petty officers--is engaged in the global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be spending scarce defense dollars on VIP aircraft for generals.

The Defense bill continues to fund the Presidential helicopter program for

next year at $1.1 billion. The VH-71A program is intended to provide the replacement helicopter for the transportation of the President and Vice President. The current program which would build 23 aircraft has had excessive delays and cost overruns of more than 70 percent. This level is well in excess of the percentages--in fact five times as much--that would trigger a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy limits for major acquisition programs. Several program managers have been dismissed or reassigned in an effort to restructure this ailing program. This program should be cancelled. In the meantime the $1.1 billion to continue next year's development of the Presidential helicopter should be halted and the money withheld until the Navy and the contractor demonstrate more transparency and accountability on this failing program.

The Defense bill includes a provision directing the Secretary of the Navy to sell the ``yard floating drydock'', AFDL-23, to Gulf Copper Ship Repair in Aransas Pass, TX. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to sell the drydock; however, the provision restricts the Secretary from recouping the full costs, approximately $120-$190 million, because the Secretary is directed to consider the amounts paid by, or due and owing from, the lessee--Gulf Copper Ship Repair. This would essentially allow the rent paid by Gulf Copper Ship Repair to be deducted from the total price of the drydock.

The Navy does not support this provision. The Navy is in the process of determining whether the dock is excess to future Navy needs and, if so, whether it would be required by other U.S. Government agencies or activities when the current lease to Gulf Copper expires. Subsequent to a determination that there are no additional U.S. Government needs, the vessel would be struck from the Naval Vessel Register and designated for disposal. This provision is an end-run of the normal process for disposal or sale of government equipment and is not in the best interest of the taxpayer.

The Defense bill includes a provision which is highly objectionable and is strongly opposed by the administration which purports to incorporate by reference into the bill most of the earmarks included in the accompanying report--totaling more than $5 billion. The provision is meant to thwart President Bush's Executive Order 13457 ``Protecting American Taxpayers from Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks.''

I had advocated a better approach of putting all the spending tables into the actual bill language. By hiding/shielding the tables in the report, the taxpayer does not have full transparency of Congress' actions in adding corporate and Member earmarks which are not requested or needed by the military services.

Again, while there is much in this year's Defense authorization bill that is very worthwhile and helpful to providing for the national defense, the provisions contained within it that move in the wrong direction are too numerous, too large, and too costly for this Member to ignore.

Mr. President, before us today is a supplemental appropriations bill that would provide vital funding for the men and women fighting valiantly on our behalf abroad. Yet instead of acting on the needs of our military in an expeditious and efficient manner, we find ourselves considering a bloated bill, loaded down with extraneous provisions unrelated to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, this has become an unfortunate and reoccurring trend in recent years.

Congress has an obligation to provide our servicemen and women with the resources they need to fulfill their mission. Yet we have, once again, chosen to abrogate our duties and use this bill as a vehicle to fund various domestic projects that were not requested by the President, nor are they authorized, and have not been handled through the appropriate legislative process.

The President has already stated his intention to veto this measure if it arrives at his desk in its current form. Rather than demonstrating true bipartisanship and working together to produce a bill that meets the needs of our military and one that has the potential of becoming law, the Senate intends to pass a bill will be passed that is sure to be met swiftly by the President's veto pen, unnecessarily prolonging the delay in funding our troops.

Let us not underestimate the necessity of providing this funding to our military promptly and the consequences of delaying such payment. In a recent letter to Congress, Under Secretary of Defense Gordon England stated in no uncertain terms that if this funding is not provided, ``the Army will run out of Military Personnel funds by mid-June and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds by early July.'' In order to deal with these depleted accounts, the Department of Defense--DoD--would be required to borrow funds from other service branch accounts, hampering ongoing DoD activities around the globe. Under Secretary England goes on to state in his letter that by late July, the entire Department will have ``exhausted all avenues of funding and will be unable to make payroll for both military and civilian personnel . . . including those engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' Let us understand what this means. If this appropriations measure is not enacted in a timely manner, thousands upon thousands of men and women in uniform will stop receiving a paycheck and our ability to conduct operations throughout the world will be severely restricted.

When we should be working together to produce a clean bill that provides our servicemen and women with the vital resources they need to fulfill their duties, we have instead reverted to the same old Washington habit of loading spending bills with billions of dollars going to unrequested, non-emergency projects. Examples include: $75 million not requested by the administration for expenses related to economic impacts associated with commercial fishery failures, fishery resource disasters, and regulation on commercial fishing industries. This comes after Congress appropriated $128 million in 2005 for commercial fishery failures, $170 million in 2007 and included an additional $170 million in the Farm bill. Since 2005, Congress has provided almost $300 million for commercial fisheries disasters not including the $75 million in this supplemental and the proposed $170 million from the Farm bill. Additionally, questions remain by some commercial fishermen if this funding can be used to offset high gas prices which may be considered a disaster. The disaster here is that the American public isn't receiving any assistance on high gas prices.

Other examples are: $10 million not requested by the administration for Educational and Cultural Exchange programs; $75 million not requested by the administration for rehabilitation and restoration of Federal lands; more than $451 million not requested by the administration for emergency highway projects for disasters that occurred as far back as Fiscal Year 2005; $210 million not requested by the administration for the decennial census and $3.6 billion for 15 Air Force C-17 cargo aircraft. We have looked to the administration to inform Congressional budgetary decisions and the Department of Defense has been quite clear regarding the purchase of more of these cargo aircraft--they do not want them, because there is no military ``requirement'' for them and buying more C-17s is contrary to the Pentagon's current budget plan. DOD Secretary Gates, the DOD Deputy Secretary, and the Department's top acquisition official have all stated that additional C-17s were not necessary. Yet the Air Force continues to appeal to the parochial interests of Members of Congress, and once again the taxpayers find themselves on the wrong end of a bad decision. I am troubled by the Air Force's apparent disregard for proper acquisition policy, practice and procedure and seeming eagerness to further contractors' interests. As evidence of this, the Department of Defense Inspector General has an open investigation regarding how senior Air Force officials may have inappropriately solicited new orders for C-17s contrary to the orders of the President and the Secretary of Defense.

While I do not doubt the importance some may see in the various provisions included in the underlying bill, I strongly disagree with their inclusion in a war supplemental funding bill. Instead of attempting to hijack this vital legislation, the authors of these extraneous provisions should pursue their objectives through the normal legislative process and as part of appropriate authorizing and spending vehicles.

I also want to express my concerns about the authorizing legislation included in this emergency supplemental regarding veterans' educations benefits, commonly referred to as the Webb bill. There have been a lot of misrepresentations made about my position on this issue--not only on the Senate floor by the majority leader, who has alleged that I think the Webb bill is ``too generous,'' which is absolutely false, but most recently in an ad by VoteVets.org, which offers a complete misrepresentation of the facts and is a disservice to our Nation's veterans. I will once again attempt to set the record straight.

I believe America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to our veterans, active duty servicemembers, Guard and Reserves. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible and in a manner that not only promotes recruitment efforts, but also promotes retention of servicemembers. I would

think we could have near unanimous support for such legislation and I am confident that we will reach that point in the days ahead. But adding a $52 billion mandatory spending program to this war funding bill without any opportunity for amendments to improve the measure is not the way to move legislation nor will it expedite reaching an agreement in an efficient manner. Our vets deserve better than this.

On numerous occasions I have commended Senators Webb, Hagel and Warner for their work to bring this issue to the forefront of the Senate's attention. Their effort has been for a worthy cause, but that does not make it a perfect bill, nor should it be considered the only approach that best meets the education needs of veterans and servicemembers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that if their bill is passed, it will harm retention rates by nearly 20 percent. That is the last thing we need when our Nation is fighting the war on terror on two fronts.

Senators Graham, Burr and I, along with 19 others, have a different approach, one that builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill to ensure rapid implementation of increased benefits. And, unlike S. 22, we think a revitalized program should focus on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals.

We need to take action to encourage continued service in the military and we can do that by granting a higher education benefit for longer service. And, we need to provide a meaningful, unquestionable transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. S. 22, unfortunately, does not allow transferability. As a matter of fact, 2 days ago, Senators Webb and Warner agreed that transferability is a serious matter that merited change. What they proposed, however, does not go far enough and would only provide for a 2-year pilot program. Their efforts underscore the need for debate and further discussion on this important issue. But I applaud them for acknowledging the Congress needs to take a proactive stance and allow transferability of earned education benefits to a spouse or children.

We cannot allow this important issue to be hijacked by the anti-war crusade funded by groups like MoveOn.org and VetsVote.org who are running ads saying that that I do not ``respect their service.'' The accusation is wrong, they know that it is, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing to all veterans and servicemembers. I respect every man and woman who have been or are currently in uniform.

It is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign and as soon as possible. Such legislation should address the reality of the All Volunteer Force and ensure that we pass a bill that does not induce servicemen and women to leave the military; but instead bolsters retention so that the services may retain quality servicemen and women. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less.

As we move forward with consideration of this supplemental appropriations legislation, we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance--the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fighting bravely on our behalf abroad. These brave Americans need this appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it to them months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. Unfortunately, it seems we have failed to live up to this obligation today, instead producing a bill fraught with wasteful spending more attuned to political interests instead of the interests of our military men and women.

Mr. President, despite my great admiration for America's hardworking farmers and my support for additional food aid for our Nation's most vulnerable, I must oppose the conference agreement to H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act, also known as the farm bill. I recognize that in the days ahead, attempts will be made to use my opposition to this bill for another's political gain, but I have always worked to do my best for America and that is why I must oppose this conference report. And, the American people deserve to know the truth about this farm bill: It is a bloated piece of legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and consumers.

In today's economy, when hardworking American families buy groceries they feel the sting of misguided Federal agriculture policies. Instead of fine tuning our farm programs to improve their efficiency, we have allowed them to swell into mammoth government bureaucracies that generally exist to serve special interests at the behest of congressional benefactors. Sixty-nine years after the Great Depression and the advent of the farm bill, well into the 21st century, commodity prices have reached record highs. I believe American agriculture has progressed to the point where we no longer need government grown farms.

Don't misunderstand. I am not opposed to providing a reasonable level of assistance and risk management to farmers when they need America's help. Farmers never abandon America, and America mustn't abandon them. When a farmer suffers from a natural disaster such as droughts or floods, they rightly deserve assistance. But they need a hand up, not a hand out.

The American taxpayer has been told before that farm bills and their thirst for subsidies were a necessary evil to provide our country and the world--with affordable, abundant food. Today, as food prices reach historic highs, they're being told the same thing. We must challenge that notion as grocery bills soar, food banks go bare, and food rationing occurs on a global scale. We must question policies that divert over 25 percent of corn out of the food supply and into subsidized ethanol production. Do Americans really want a support system that costs consumers $2 billion annually in higher sugar prices? Will we truly reduce our dependency on foreign oil by extending tariffs that make it too expensive to invest in sugar ethanol production? Can we honestly demand fair and free trade at Doha while domestic cotton growers dump subsidized cotton on the world market?

The farm bill conference report is expected to cost taxpayers around $289 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will exceed the government's budget by $10 billion. But the administration points out that with clever accounting made famous by congressional budget dodgers, the real cost of the bill will exceed the government's budget by about $18 billion. And even though Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers have promised to rein in pork barrel spending, this bill betrays that promise. Buried within its hundreds of pages are special favors like: $170 million bailout for the west coast salmon industry included at the insistence of the Speaker of the House; $93 million in special tax treatment for race horses; $260 million in tax cuts for the timber industry; $15 million for asparagus growers. During debate on the Senate farm bill last year, my colleague Senator Gregg offered an amendment, which failed, to strike this provision. This is a crop that has never before received farm subsidies; $175 million would be transferred to Bureau of Reclamation for activities at three Nevada lakes; $500,000 to the Walker River Paiute Tribe for legal and professional services in support of settling tribal water claims. Other tribes have dealt with water rights without a half million dollar earmark; $5 million for joint planning and development activities for water, wastewater, and sewer facilities by the city of Fernley, Nevada, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe.

The bill authorizes a myriad of grant programs including grants for research into pig genetics, grants for the preservation of historic barns, and $300 million for the Sun Grant Program, which provides grants to 6 universities and science centers that conduct bioenergy research.

Twenty million dollars goes to the collection and storage of seeds for research purposes; $75 million for a crop research facility in El Reno, OK; $35 million to promote the production of ``hard white wheat.''

A $4 billion disaster assistance package on top of an existing crop insurance program that's subsidized by the Federal Government. And these are only a few examples of the questionable provisions expected to hit the President's desk.

As you may know, farm subsidies were originally designed to ensure farmers get a fair return on their labors, but the majority of subsidies go to large commercial farms that average $200,000 in annual income and $2 million in net worth. Indeed, these payments aren't going to the average hardworking American farmer working in the Heartland. This farm bill actually increases subsidy rates for some crops and a majority of those payments are funneled only to a few staple crops. During debate on the Senate farm bill last fall, I proudly cosponsored an amendment which would have capped subsidies for farmers whose income exceeds $250,000. That amendment, which was rejected, was written by Senators Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Chuck Grassley of Iowa--two distinguished colleagues who understand rural America better than most. Instead of fixing a system that provides farm payments to millionaire land owners, sometimes when they don't grow anything at all, Congress ignored the cries for reform from small farmers themselves. In fact, this farm bill contains a phony payment limit designed to allow farmers to earn up to $750,000 and $500,000 off the farm before hitting any subsidy ceiling. Astounding.

This Congressional feeding frenzy is tragic because other areas of the bill have merit, like the increased funding and focus on food assistance and nutrition programs. In particular, the bill would index food stamps to reflect the current cost of living and fill shortfalls in the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good in this bill.

More than hand-outs, more than ballooning disaster payments, the families and small businesses throughout the Heartland are demanding affordable quality health care, better education for their children, lower taxes, and relief from government regulation. Rural America has seen farm bill after farm bill passed without policies that adequately promote economic development or address population loss. We must improve rural life, provide high-tech connectivity essential for jobs and education, open trade markets, maintain our competitiveness, and reduce overregulation for farmers and ranchers.

For now, we need to put an end to flawed government policies that distort the markets, artificially raise prices for consumers, and pit producers against consumers. We have once again failed farmers in that regard, which is why I oppose this bill.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens, Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson.

Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to accomplish.

The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage continued service in the military by granting a higher education payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans' services organization is the need for such a transferability provision.

As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program. While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22, I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that will be signed into law as soon as possible.

Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22, our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals.

The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow a servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500 annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are going to school.

The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September

11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits to $1600 per month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who serve in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue serving in the Selected Reserve.

Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post- secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves.

Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and, again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members.

Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill.

Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens, Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson.

Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to accomplish.

The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage continued service in the military by granting a higher education payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans' services organization is the need for such a transferability provision.

As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program. While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22, I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that will be signed into law as soon as possible.

Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22, our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals.

The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow a servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500 annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are going to school.

The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September

11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits to $1600 per month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who serve in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue serving in the Selected Reserve.

Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post- secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves.

Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and, again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members.

Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill.

Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Kyl, Burr, Graham, Martinez, Warner, Chambliss, Lieberman, Wicker and Sununu in introducing legislation that would provide all Americans with a ``gas tax holiday'' this summer. This bill would suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon Federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Today, this legislation was put forward on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Highway Technical Corrections bill, but it was blocked from being considered. I now call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to support this proposal that would provide immediate relief to all Americans suffering from the high price of gas.

Mr. President, hardworking American families are facing many difficult challenges due to the current economic realities facing our country. Now, more than ever, they find themselves having to choose between basic needs to provide for their families, and this is being greatly exacerbated by rising gasoline prices, which have risen by more than 58 percent in the last 14 months. That is why I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in offering a proposal to provide some needed relief for every person who will be filling their gas or diesel tanks this summer.

In the past year, the price of unleaded regular gas has increased 53 cents per gallon. Diesel fuel prices nationwide are now over $1.30 more per gallon more than this time last year. With the growing financial strains placed on so many Americans--rising food prices and falling home prices--the additional hit of rising fuel prices is becoming the breaking point.

In an effort to ease some of the hardship caused by the higher fuel prices, our bill would suspend the Federal tax on gas and the tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Last Memorial Day, alone, approximately 32 million Americans traveled by car 50 miles or more from home. Suspending the federal excise tax during the summer, when fuel prices have historically been at the highest annually, would allow Americans to keep a few more of their hard-earned dollars.

Now, let me be clear: this bill would not harm the Highway Trust Fund. This bill would ensure that the Highway Trust Fund remains whole during this ``gas tax holiday'' by transferring monies from the General Treasury. We all agree that our roads and highways must be maintained and improved to ensure the safety of the road-traveling public, and this amendment would do nothing to impact highway construction.

So, my colleagues have an opportunity to take meaningful action to ease some of the financial burdens that are impacting all hardworking Americans every time they fill up their gas or diesel tanks. Let's put some acton behind the usual rhetoric around here and vote to ease their tax burden this summer.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Kyl, Burr, Graham, Martinez, Warner, Chambliss, Lieberman, Wicker and Sununu in introducing legislation that would provide all Americans with a ``gas tax holiday'' this summer. This bill would suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon Federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Today, this legislation was put forward on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Highway Technical Corrections bill, but it was blocked from being considered. I now call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to support this proposal that would provide immediate relief to all Americans suffering from the high price of gas.

Mr. President, hardworking American families are facing many difficult challenges due to the current economic realities facing our country. Now, more than ever, they find themselves having to choose between basic needs to provide for their families, and this is being greatly exacerbated by rising gasoline prices, which have risen by more than 58 percent in the last 14 months. That is why I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in offering a proposal to provide some needed relief for every person who will be filling their gas or diesel tanks this summer.

In the past year, the price of unleaded regular gas has increased 53 cents per gallon. Diesel fuel prices nationwide are now over $1.30 more per gallon more than this time last year. With the growing financial strains placed on so many Americans--rising food prices and falling home prices--the additional hit of rising fuel prices is becoming the breaking point.

In an effort to ease some of the hardship caused by the higher fuel prices, our bill would suspend the Federal tax on gas and the tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Last Memorial Day, alone, approximately 32 million Americans traveled by car 50 miles or more from home. Suspending the federal excise tax during the summer, when fuel prices have historically been at the highest annually, would allow Americans to keep a few more of their hard-earned dollars.

Now, let me be clear: this bill would not harm the Highway Trust Fund. This bill would ensure that the Highway Trust Fund remains whole during this ``gas tax holiday'' by transferring monies from the General Treasury. We all agree that our roads and highways must be maintained and improved to ensure the safety of the road-traveling public, and this amendment would do nothing to impact highway construction.

So, my colleagues have an opportunity to take meaningful action to ease some of the financial burdens that are impacting all hardworking Americans every time they fill up their gas or diesel tanks. Let's put some acton behind the usual rhetoric around here and vote to ease their tax burden this summer.

Mr. President, there is a justifiable feeling of anger and worry across America today regarding the ongoing housing crisis. Millions of Americans are currently bearing a heavy burden to keep their family homes and desperate for relief. The clamor for the Federal Government to act quickly has been heard by the Senate and we are now set to vote on a bipartisan package that will offer some assistance to suffering homeowners.

Without action, the pain of the foreclosure crisis will not only be felt by the millions of American families who stand to lose their homes but by all Americans. Congress must confront this reality and pass legislation that has three key components: it is temporary in nature, has an immediate goal of helping cash-strapped but credit-worthy home owners stay in their homes, and prevents a mortgage crisis from happening again.

The bill before the Senate is not perfect, but it does contain several provisions that I support and believe can help our housing market--for both mortgage borrowers and lenders--now and in the future. It is important to avoid situations in which homeowners owe more money than their home is worth. Unfortunately, that has become too common a scenario in part because many homeowners never had much equity in their home to begin with. This bill contains a provision that would ensure homeowners avoid this situation by requiring a modest increase in the downpayment necessary for Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages. This legislation can also offer some relief to borrowers by increasing the amount of FHA-insured loans, which typically carry lower interest rates. Additionally, it is also vital to have well-informed borrowers who understand the terms and obligations in a mortgage agreement and provide lenders with accurate and easily understood financial information. The bill expands the early disclosures requirements under the Truth In Lending Act and requires a new disclosure informing borrowers of the maximum monthly payments possible under their loans. While these provisions should help bring about some relief, I do not think we should kid ourselves into believing that this bill is the panacea for our housing crisis.

I am supporting this bill and thank its bipartisan sponsors. However, I do want the record to be clear that I remain concerned over the inclusion of several provisions that do not adhere to my principles for mortgage relief and question the effectiveness of these provisions in delivering needed assistance to home owners. Mr. President, again, I thank those who have worked so hard on this measure on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to acting on this important subject.

Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act of 2007, which was included as part of the larger public lands package, S. 2739. The bill would authorize the National Park Service to study whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of the study is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate appropriate sites for national historic landmark status.

Since the 107th Congress, I've worked to pass the Cesar Chavez study language. It has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders. It is important that we remember his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate landmarks that are significant to his life.

Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator DeMint to impose a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. I thank him for his leadership on this important, fiscally responsible proposal, and am pleased to join with Senators McCaskill, Coburn, Kyl, Corker, Burr, and Graham in cosponsoring the amendment. Additionally, Mr. President, I understand that my colleagues from Illinois and New York, Senators Obama and Clinton, have recently signed on as cosponsors of our effort. I welcome them to our cause.

All of us in Congress should be paying very close attention to the current economic realities facing our country. Almost daily, we are informed of worsening news on the market front, widening subprime mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures, declining housing values, and a broadening credit crunch affecting all sectors of the economy. Less than a month ago we passed an economic stimulus package in an effort to help avert an even worse situation than exists now. While I have long railed against wasteful porkbarrel spending, now more than ever, we have got to establish some commonsense budgetary guidelines to live within our means, just like most American families are doing, tightening their belts and not wasting their money on ``wants'' to ensure they have the funds available to cover their ``needs.'' We need to follow their lead. The American public is counting on us to represent their interests, not the special interests, and to stop spending their hard-earned tax dollars on needless earmarks.

Just over a year ago, in January 2007, 96 Members of the Senate voted to fundamentally reform ``business as usual'' in Washington when we voted to pass S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. I was very proud to support the passage of that bill because in addition to sound ethics and lobbying reforms, many which I had long championed, the bill also included the most far-reaching earmark reforms I had witnessed. Unfortunately, nearly all of the earmark reforms were gutted in the final version of the bill, causing a number of us to have to vote against its passage despite our support for some of the good reforms in the bill. We didn't just miss

the opportunity to address a broken legislative system of earmarking. The opportunity was purposely and deliberately scuttled by those who didn't want real earmark reforms, and they are the ones who had the seat at the table when the final version was drafted. And as I recall, not one of those seats was filled by a member of the minority party.

As a result, the earmarking practice continues, as proven by the more than 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending measure approved last December 18--3 months after S. 1 was enacted. Here is just a sampling of some of the earmarks that were included in the omnibus:

$50,000 for the construction of a National Mule and Packers

Museum in Bishop, CA;

$100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, AL;

$625,000 for the Historic Congressional Cemetery;

$1.628 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY;

$477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits in Beltsville, MD;

$244,000 for Bee Research in Weslaco, TX

$10 million for the design and construction of the Derby

Dam fish screen in Nevada to allow passage of fish;

$1.786 million to develop an exhibit for the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary in Michigan;

$846,000 to the Father's Day Rally Committee in

Philadelphia, PA;

$125,000 for International Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton,

Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Graham. We should always strive keep taxes low, but the threat of higher taxes is especially damaging during this time of subpar economic growth. I thank him for his leadership on this important, fiscally responsible proposal, and am pleased to join as a cosponsor. I believe this amendment addresses the most important issue among any that will be discussed during this budget debate, and the one that most clearly defines the differing governing philosophies between the majority and minority parties: The Democrat-controlled Senate wants to raise taxes by $1.2 trillion and immediately spend those tax dollars, while the Republicans want to prevent tax increases and reduce wasteful spending. It really is that simple.

All of us should be paying very close attention to the current economic realities facing our country. Almost daily, we are informed of worsening news on the market front, widening subprime mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures, declining housing values, and a broadening credit crunch affecting all sectors of the economy. But we also need to look beyond the economic news--we need to focus on the American families who are struggling as a consequence, some close to giving up hope, and we need to help them. Having spent the past weeks and months traveling across America, I have heard first hand of the difficulties facing so many hardworking families. I can assure you, not one of them has asked for higher taxes.

Instead, we should he focused on sound, meaningful progrowth policies that will help create jobs. But the one thing that we should not do, under any circumstances given our present economy, is to raise taxes on American workers who are already struggling to put food on their tables and gas in their cars.

I have long fought against tax increases, as have my other colleagues supporting this amendment. This Congress has the power to keep taxes low. Instead, the majority party is actively seeking damaging tax increases on a broad spectrum of Americans 116 million taxpayers-- $1,833 increase; 84 million women--$2,121 increase; 48 million married couples--$3,007 increase; 43 million families with children--$2,323 increase; 12 million single women with dependents--$1,091 increase; 18 million seniors--$2,181 increase; 27 million small business owners-- $4,066 increase.

I oppose these efforts because millions of middle-class families will be hit with higher taxes, not just the rich. In fact, I believe the overwhelming tax increases that will occur under this budget will hit overwhelmingly the middle class.

Let me offer just a few examples of how families will be impacted if we fail to provide tax relief that our amendment would allow for. A family of four with two children who earn $50,000 annual income today-- $53,400 in 2011--would see a $2,155 increase, from $1,128 to $3,283, or a 191-percent higher tax bill. A family of four with two children who earn $60,000 annual income today--$64,100 in 2011--would see a $1,901 increase, from $2,733 to $4,634, or a 70-percent higher tax bill.

Instead of increasing taxes as the Democrats' budget resolution envisions, and in turn spending that money on more Federal programs, or worse, earmarks, we should be focusing on less government, not more. Americans want jobs, not new Federal programs. Yet this budget provides for the largest tax increase in history--$1.2 trillion. And, not surprising, it calls for the largest spending increase in history--$l trillion. And what does that get the average American family: a $2,300 tax increase. Thanks, but no thanks. Keep their taxes low and stop spending so much of their money--that is what most Americans will say-- and I know because I hear that every single day.

What we should be doing within this budget resolution is considering the best long-term economic approach and acting accordingly. We need to adopt this amendment to avoid a crippling tax increase for millions of Americans. We need to adopt the DeMint earmark moratorium amendment, which I am pleased to also cosponsor, to rein in wasteful pork-barrel spending. We should eliminate the AMT, not just provide another 1-year patch as the Democrats are suggesting. These are steps we should take now to end the uncertainty facing American families and businesses--not raising taxes by $1.2 trillion.

As I said, this is a defining moment. American families want us to fix our economy and help those along the way who struggling the most. We have much ahead of us to do, and, unfortunately, the tax-and-spend budget resolution before us does not get us to where we need to be. Even worse, it is taking the country in the wrong direction.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 4195

Mr. President, I strongly oppose, as I have before, the legislation offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.

This bill would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops 120 days after enactment. The one exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. If this latest attempt sounds familiar, it should--the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve this misguided outcome. And, just like the 40 votes that preceded this one, the result of this effort will undoubtedly be the same.

The reason is clear. To pass such legislation would be to court disaster, and to set a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the implications for our national security, would be tantamount to setting a date for surrender. Should we ignore the signs of real progress in Iraq and legislate a premature end to our efforts there, the Congress would be complicit in all the terrible and predictable consequences that would ensue.

The Senate, in facing this choice time and again over the past year, has voted against legislated surrender in Iraq. Instead, we have decided to build on the clear successes of our new strategy and to give GEN David Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support they have requested to carry out their mission. The interests of America, the future of the Iraqi people, and the stability of the Middle East are the better for it.

But the Senate has come to this conclusion only after repeated attempts to do what the proponents of this bill would have us do today--bring the war in Iraq to a premature and disastrous

close through legislative fiat. If ever there was a case for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq--and I believe there never was--now is the last time anyone should consider such a step. If abandoning Iraq was a terrible idea when we were unsuccessful in our efforts there, it is a catastrophic proposal today, when we are winning.

The supporters of withdrawal said in 2007 that the surge could never work, that extra American brigades could do nothing to bring greater security to Iraq, that no new counterinsurgency strategy could succeed in protecting the population. We were losing in Iraq, they said, and nothing could change that. Some even declared that the war was already lost.

But they were wrong. As General Petraeus put it in his end of the year letter to the troops, ``A year ago, Iraq was racked by horrific violence and on the brink of civil war. Now, levels of violence and civilian and military casualties are significantly reduced and hope has been rekindled in many Iraqi communities.'' In fact, the surge has succeeded well beyond the projections of even most optimists. Let me cite a few examples.

In Baghdad, ethno-sectarian violence has fallen over 90 percent in a year. IED attacks in Baghdad are down by 45 percent since February 2007. The specter of civil war in Iraq's capital, a real threat when the surge began, has retreated significantly. The capital's population has begun to retake its streets, its schools, and its markets.

The remarkable progress is not confined only to Baghdad. Attacks have decreased in 17 of 18 provinces in Iraq since the surge began. In the country as a whole, attacks are down by some 60 percent and stand at the level experienced in early 2005 or even 2004. Car bombs across Iraq are down, the number of civilian deaths has fallen, and IED explosions are down, all by significant margins. Intelligence tips are up, discovery of weapons and explosive caches has increased, and al-Qaida is on the run, having been forced by U.S. and Iraqi troops out of the urban areas like Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Baquba and into isolated rural areas. U.S. casualties, too, have fallen significantly, even in the midst of ongoing operations.

As GEN Barry McCaffrey put it in a recent report, Iraq is seeing ``dramatically reduced levels of civilian sectarian violence, political assassinations, abductions, and small arms/indirect fire and IED attacks on U.S. and Iraqi Police and Army Forces. This is the unmistakable new reality . . . The national security debate must move on to an analysis of why this new political and security situation exists--not whether it exists.''

In the face of such facts, it is beyond perplexing to see the proponents of this legislation seek not to consolidate our gains and ensure that they continue but, rather, to force a troop withdrawal that would reverse all of the achievements I just cited. Understanding what we now know--that our military is making remarkable progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is succeeding.

This is not to say that all is rosy in Iraq. It is not, and neither I nor our military commanders make any such argument. The cumulative results of nearly 4 years of mismanaged war cannot be reversed overnight. Al-Qaida is on the run but has not disappeared, and we can expect them to fight back. Fighting among Shia factions in the south presents a significant challenge, and violence and crime remain at unacceptably high levels in a number of areas. The road in Iraq remains, as it always has been, long and hard. But this is an argument for continuing our successful strategy, not for abandoning it in favor of sure failure.

At some point last year, a few of the proponents of withdrawal from Iraq began conceding that the surge was having tangible, positive effects. They went on to argue, however, that securing the population was irrelevant, as the point of the surge was to see political progress and there had been none. Yet even while this new debate began, political progress at the local level took off across Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis--most of them Sunnis who were, or would have been, part of the anticoalition insurgency--joined Concerned Local Citizens groups and aligned themselves with our efforts. Moqtada al-Sadr announced that the Mahdi army would observe a 6-month ceasefire, a pledge he renewed just last week for an additional 6 months. In Anbar and elsewhere, local populations turned to the coalition and against al-Qaida, turning that province from Iraq's most dangerous into one of its safest.

In the face of these new facts, supporters of withdrawal changed their argument yet again. Maybe the surge had brought about greater security, they said, and perhaps this had helped generate political progress at the local level, as counterinsurgency doctrine would suggest. But this was irrelevant, they said, so long as national level political reconciliation is lacking--and since we can never expect that, the troops must leave.

Yet they were wrong again. In January, the Iraqi Parliament passed the long-awaited debaathification law that restores the eligibility of thousands of former party members for government jobs lost because of their Baathist affiliation. Earlier this month, a provincial powers law passed that devolves a significant amount of power to the provinces and mandates new provincial elections by October 1 of this year. The Parliament passed a partial amnesty for detainees that can facilitate reconciliation among the sects, and it completed a landmark 2008 budget.

Again, these significant achievements come coupled with remaining challenges. Parliament has yet to pass an oil law, though oil revenues are being shared in its absence; the Maliki government remains unwilling to function and provide services as it must, and other difficulties abound. Yet it is telling that in his latest report, military analyst Anthony Cordesman said, ``No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government--in security, governance, and development--there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.''

No one can guarantee success in Iraq or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the U.S. Congress succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more dangerous course-- should we do that, then we will fail for certain.

Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American failure in Iraq. Should Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure.

In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee in September, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense Intelligence Agency report that stated, ``. . . a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; al Qaeda--Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; and exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.''

Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If our notions of national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled

by wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens.

The supporters of this amendment claim that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence, between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the war's first 4 years. We should not, and must not, return to such a disastrous course.

Americans were divided over this war from the beginning, and we remain so today. All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible. But how we leave--that is of the utmost importance. We must not leave, as the supporters of this amendment would have it, in a way that erodes all the security gains that our brave men and women have fought so hard to achieve and in a way that puts us on the road to surrender. The stakes are too high, we have come too far and sacrificed too much for that. Instead of surrendering, we should persevere with the pursuit of our strategic objectives: to defeat al-Qaida, not be defeated by it; to implant in Iraq the forces of stability and tolerance, not chaos and civil war; to demonstrate that America keeps its word with its friends and allies, rather than abandoning them to horrific consequences. The American soldiers we have sent to battle deserve to return to us with honor--the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice.

Before I close, I would note that there will be another vote soon on the motion to proceed to legislation requiring the administration to develop a new al-Qaida strategy within 60 days, and to report it to Congress. I oppose putting such a mandate in law for several reasons. The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States. Title 10 requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to produce a national military strategy and to conduct a biennial review of that strategy, a review that was recently completed. The Chairman has indicated that a new national military strategy is under development and, of course, the next President will be required to issue a fresh national security strategy. In short there are, and will remain, a number of legislative requirements for security strategies that include a counterterrorism approach.

Finally, this bill would attempt to limit the President's use of the military by imposing dwell times for our forces. While I fully support the goal of achieving sustainable dwell times for our Armed Forces, I do not believe that we should try to force such a restriction on the President irrespective of any contravening interests.

Mr. President, as the debate over Iraq goes on, let us remember to whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That responsibility is our dearest privilege, and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage or office. I hope we might all have good reason to expect a kinder judgment of our flaws and follies because when it mattered most we chose to put the interests of our great and good Nation before our own and helped, in our own small way, preserve for all humanity the magnificent and inspiring example of an assured, successful and ever advancing America and the ideals that make us still the greatest Nation on Earth.