Floor Statements

Mr. President, I oppose passage of the intelligence authorization conference report in its current form.

During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.

That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, DTA, which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act, MCA, preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as ``waterboarding'' constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.

Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, ``Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA's interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.'' This remains my view today.

When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the field manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The field manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I would emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques--indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA's detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.

The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned--laws that were extensively debated and considered--by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.

This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.

In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the administration has chosen to apply a ``shocks the conscience'' analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding ``shocks the conscience.''

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict ``serious and non-transitory mental harm,'' which the MCA states ``need not be prolonged.'' Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to nonmilitary intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law--that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. Government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our Nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values but because we have held fast to them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want the record to be clear that I fully support swift enactment of an economic stimulus measure. Having spent the past weeks and months traveling across America, I have heard first-hand of the difficulties facing so many hardworking families. I am pleased that the majority and the minority have finally reached an agreement to allow us to improve the underlying bill to address the needs of seniors and disabled veterans, and to close a loophole in the bill concerning the distribution of rebates. Now, we will be able to pass this measure today.

The bill pending before the Senate--a compromise product between the House and the President--is not perfect. Certainly we can all agree on the important yet limited improvements I mentioned such as ensuring our senior citizens and disabled veterans are not left out of this stimulus package. While perhaps none of us will be fully satisfied with the final measure, we simply cannot afford to include every member's wish list in this package. I believe the measure we will send to the President is one that almost all of us can and will support.

Beyond the short-term economic fix being debated, we must also consider the best long-term economic approach and to take action accordingly. In my judgement, there is no question that Congress must reign in wasteful porkbarrel spending. We need to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts at our soonest opportunity and avoid a crippling tax increase for millions of Americans. We should eliminate the AMT, the poster child for the notion of unintended consequences, which threatens to affect millions of middle class families. These are steps we should take now to end the uncertainty facing American families and businesses.

America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Cutting corporate taxes will spur economic growth immediately and over the long run. We need to allow first year expensing of technology and equipment investment for businesses, which would further simplify our code and provide incentives for capital expenditure. We must also work to reform and make permanent the research and development tax credit so that our businesses can do what they do best--create jobs and expand innovation--without the continued uncertainty of the whims of Congress. These are important and necessary steps toward reforming our tax code to make it simpler, flatter, and fairer for all Americans.

Clearly, we have much ahead of us to do and the American public is counting on us to fulfill the jobs that they sent us here to do. I, for one, have heard the voters. They want us to work together to stimulate and strengthen our economy and promote our Nation's long-term economic growth. Let's finally pass the economic stimulus plan and send it to the President. After all, time is of the essence if this effort is to be successful. The American public is waiting.

Mr. President, today in Washington, DC, thousands of people of all ages are taking part in the annual March for Life and staking a claim for the rights of the unborn. I commend them and am in awe of their great dedication to the cause of protecting life. I share their strong pro-life beliefs, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act that is being introduced today.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced during this Congress, and for good reason. While more than 20 States require a minor to receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance of adults--who are not their parents--are being transported across State lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We need to end this circumvention of State laws and, far more importantly, the consequences such actions have on life.

This legislation would make it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for the purpose of an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or notification laws, unless it is needed to save the life of the minor. We have attempted to enact similar legislation in previous Congresses without success, and it is critical that we do not allow opponents to further stall its enactment.

I am and always have been pro-life, and my record during my tenure in Congress reflects my strong belief that life is sacred. We must stand up for the rights of the unborn and do all that we can to enact this important legislation.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, Amendments of 2007. This bill would reauthorize the IHCIA, the statutory framework for the Indian health system, which covers just about every aspect of Native American health care.

I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of Chairman Dorgan and my other colleagues on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for their efforts to bring this important legislation to the floor. Reauthorization of the IHCIA is critical to the lives of more than 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives and is long overdue.

The IHCIA expired in 2000, and Indian tribes and health organizations have been working diligently to see it reauthorized. Seven years ago, a steering committee of tribal leaders, with extensive consultation by the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus in Indian Country about what needs to be done to improve and update health services for Indian people. During the 109th Congress, we made significant progress towards passing a reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to complete work on that bill before adjourning last Congress.

I believe now as I did when I served as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during the last Congress that reauthorizing our Indian health care programs is a top priority for us, and I hope that the Senate will move a sound comprehensive bill through the legislative process as quickly as possible. However, there are some key and troubling differences between the bill pending before the Senate and the proposal I put forward at the end of the last Congress, S. 4122. In particular, the new version contains language that would essentially authorize the Indian Health Service to promote ``reproductive health and family planning'' services. As my colleagues know, I have had a longstanding policy against promoting abortion as an acceptable form of birth control, except in cases of rape and incest. I strongly believe that society and government have a legitimate interested in protecting life, born or unborn. Obviously, my thinking on this question applies to the unborn children of patients to the Indian Health Service. I cannot in good conscience support the promotion of abortions at Federally funded IHS facilities or any Federal facilities. I remain hopeful the bill will be modified to allow me to supports its swift passage.

I am, however, supportive of the majority of this bill which builds upon the principles of Indian self-determination. Over the years, Indian health care delivery has greatly expanded and tribes are taking over more health care services on the local level. It is our responsibility to maintain support for these services and promote high standards of quality health care for IHS and its partner units. Among the items provided in this bill are provisions exploring options for long-term care, governing children and senior issues. It also would provide support for recruitment and retention purposes; access to health care, especially for Indian children and low-income Indians. Further, it would provide more flexibility in facility construction programs, consolidated behavioral health programs for more comprehensive care, and would establish a Commission to study and recommend the best means of providing Indian health care.

We must remember that nearly 30 years ago, Congress first enacted the IHCIA to meet the fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Yet the health status of Indian people remains much worse than that of other Americans. They have a shorter average lifespan, higher infant mortality rate, and a much higher rate of diabetes than the national average. American Indians and Alaska Natives are 650 percent more likely to die of tuberculosis, 770 percent more likely to die of alcoholism, and 60 percent more likely to die of suicide. The suicide mortality rate among Indian youth is three times that of the general population.

I have seen the hard reality of these statistics in the families of Arizona tribes as well as tribes across the Nation. Methamphetamine addiction, diabetes, alcoholism, and heart disease are epidemics devastating the Indian people. Our trust obligation dictates we address these health crises on reservations, and I strongly support actions to that effect. However, as I stated before,

using taxpayer money to promote abortion services is something I find highly objectionable and will vehemently oppose. I strongly urge my colleagues to support efforts to strike these unacceptable provisions and enable this bill, which is of critical importance to Indian country, to be approved.

Mr. President, today in Washington, DC, thousands of people of all ages are taking part in the annual March for Life and staking a claim for the rights of the unborn. I commend them and am in awe of their great dedication to the cause of protecting life. I share their strong pro-life beliefs, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act that is being introduced today.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced during this Congress, and for good reason. While more than 20 States require a minor to receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance of adults--who are not their parents--are being transported across State lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We need to end this circumvention of State laws and, far more importantly, the consequences such actions have on life.

This legislation would make it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for the purpose of an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or notification laws, unless it is needed to save the life of the minor. We have attempted to enact similar legislation in previous Congresses without success, and it is critical that we do not allow opponents to further stall its enactment.

I am and always have been pro-life, and my record during my tenure in Congress reflects my strong belief that life is sacred. We must stand up for the rights of the unborn and do all that we can to enact this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, my friend. I strongly support the amendment that will be offered by the Republican leader that would deliver vital funding for our troops in Iraq.

The underlying House-passed bill is not only irresponsive to the facts on the ground in Iraq, it is simply irresponsible. It fails to provide any funding for our troops fighting in Iraq and actually contains an explicit prohibition against the use of funds for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The authors have compiled a bill of some 1,400 pages and an even larger joint explanatory statement chock-full of unnecessary spending, but they include not a dime for our troops in Iraq. They include not a dime for our troops in Iraq.

I would like our friends and colleagues and others to consider that the bill on the floor today contains $1.6 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY, but not a penny for our soldiers in Iraq; $477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits but nothing for the troops in Iraq; $846,000 for the Father's Day Rally Committee of Philadelphia but not a dime for our sons and daughters who are fighting.

We are willing to spend $244,000 for bee research in Weslaco, TX, but not a dollar for our fighting men and women in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Anbar. It is a sad day--it is a sad day, indeed--when in the middle of a war this country must win, the Congress provides more funds for bee research than for the brave Americans risking their lives on our behalf.

For Congress to fail to provide the funds needed by our soldiers in the field is inexcusable under any circumstances, but it is especially disappointing right now at the very moment when General David Petraeus and his troops are achieving the kind of progress in Iraq that many dismissed as impossible a few months ago, including suspending disbelief in order to believe the surge was working. One has to suspend disbelief to believe it is not.

The bill's proponents seek, I suppose, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or the views of our commanders in the field. If that sounds familiar, it should. It should sound familiar, my friends. The majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve this misguided outcome.

The choice today is simple: Do we build upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to complete their mission or do we ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue?

In case my colleagues missed it, a couple nights ago, there was a piece on the evening news of one of the major networks that pointed out that for the first time in a long time there was 24 hours in Baghdad without a single incident of violence. How you can ignore these facts on the ground is something I do not--will not--comprehend.

I had the privilege, along with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Graham of South Carolina, of spending Thanksgiving with our troops in Iraq. On that trip, I saw and heard firsthand about the remarkable transformation these brave men and women in uniform have brought about this year. After nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, has made significant gains under the new American counterinsurgency strategy, the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since the first year of the invasion. LTG Ray Odierno, the second in command in Iraq, said this week this improvement is due to the increase in American troops and better trained Iraqi forces--due to the increase in American troops and better trained Iraqi forces.

Now, you can believe LTG Ray Odierno or you can believe those on the other side of the aisle who want to bring to a halt the success we have achieved.

Improvised explosive device blasts, the foremost source of U.S. combat deaths, now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004. This week, MG Joseph Fil, the commander for Baghdad, stated that attacks in Baghdad have fallen nearly 80 percent since November 2006, murders in Baghdad Province are down by some 90 percent over the same period, and vehicle-

borne bombs have dropped by 70 percent.

So as Ronald Reagan used to say: Facts are stubborn things. Facts are stubborn things. These are the facts--not rhetoric but facts.

Major General Fil added that, today, there is no longer any part of Baghdad under al-Qaida control, though the terrorist group is ``still lurking in the shadows.'' I agree. They are on the run, but they are not defeated. They are on the run, but they are not defeated.

Last week, the violence in Anbar Province was the lowest ever recorded. The British handed control of southern Basra to the Iraqi Government. And in Diyala, one of most dangerous regions in Iraq, al- Qaida militants tried to retake several villages around the town of Khalis, only to see U.S.-backed local volunteers drive the terrorists away. That is the success of a classic counterinsurgency strategy. Tens of thousands of volunteers have joined ``awakening councils'' that aim to combat al-Qaida, and al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has begun warning of ``traitors'' among the insurgents in Iraq.

As a result of the hard-won gains our troops have secured, General Petraeus has been able to initiate a drawdown of U.S. forces, a drawdown tied not to an artificial timetable but based on security gains in-country. This drawdown, beginning with the removal without replacement of some 5,000 American troops, has commenced following a dramatic drop in American casualty rates and enhanced security throughout the country.

Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. Al-Qaida knows who is winning in Iraq. Our soldiers know they have seized the momentum in this fight. Does the majority party understand we are succeeding under the new strategy? The proponents of this bill cannot continue forever to deny or disparage the reality of progress in Iraq or reject its connection to our new counterinsurgency strategy.

As General Odierno explained, with the new counterinsurgency operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add: ``We have experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security. . . . and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake. Of course, there is no question that Iraq's national leaders must do more to promote reconciliation and improve governance and that the reduction in violence has created a window for political and economic progress that Iraqi leaders must seize, but let's not close that window. The likelihood that they make this progress would be vastly decreased--not increased--by a precipitous U.S. withdrawal. Whatever the failings of the imperfect democracy in Baghdad, they do not justify--either in terms of national interests or simple morality--abandoning it to the al-Qaida terrorists and Iranian-backed militias trying to destroy it.

None of this is to argue that Iraq has become completely safe or that violence has come down to an acceptable level or that victory lies just around the corner. On the contrary, the road ahead remains as it always has been: long and hard. Violence is still at an unacceptable level in some parts of the country. Unemployment remains high in many areas. The Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its progress or its prospects. We can, however, be certain about the prospects for defeat if we fail to fund our troops.

Make no mistake; despite the progress I have outlined, there is no cause for complacency. Just as we have managed to turn failure into success in 2007, we can likewise turn success back into failure in 2008, if we are not careful. As Major General Fil recently put it, progress toward securing the city remains fragile and there is ``absolutely a risk of going too quickly'' in drawing down troops. ``An immediate pullout too quickly would be a real serious threat to the stability here in Baghdad,'' he said. Al-Qaida is off balance, but they will come back swinging at us if we give them the chance.

Imagine for a moment if 1 of those 40 attempts to force a withdrawal from Iraq had been successful earlier this year. Rather than hearing from our commanders and troops in the field about the enormous progress, the decline in violence, the Iraqis seeking to return home, the decrease in al-Qaida influence, we would hear instead a very different story--a darker one--with terrible implications for the people of Iraq, the wider Middle East, and the security of the United States of America.

Some of my colleagues would like to believe that should the bill we are currently considering become law, without funding our troops in Iraq, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the 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. 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. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve.

That is why the Senate must adopt the McConnell amendment. The funding contained in this amendment is not as some have characterized it: ``The President's money.'' It is money for the troops. It is money for the brave Americans who are in harm's way as we speak. This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require to fulfill their mission; funding to protect our men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks; funding to enable them to bring this war to a successful and honorable end. If the funding is not included, the President will very rightly veto this omnibus measure.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I understand the frustration many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I share their frustration and sorrow. But we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance--not to short-term political gain but to the security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, 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. Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our service men and women have made by engaging in a game of political brinkmanship. There is far, far too much at stake.

I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment and to reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to fund our troops and to support them so that when they do return to us, they return with the honor and success their valiant efforts have earned. They and the American people whom they are entrusted to protect deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, fiscal year 2008 began 79 days ago. And yet here we are at the end of the calendar year--with Christmas one week away--and everyone scrambling to finally get our work done and get out of town. This process, and the monstrosity it has produced, is the height of irresponsibility. We owe the taxpayer more than this.

In the past, I have stood here on the Senate floor to speak about how our economic situation and our vital national security concerns require us to take greater effort in prioritizing our Federal spending and that we could no longer afford, literally, ``business as usual.'' Actually, Mr. President, what we have before us is even worse than business as usual because the bill we received from the House provides not a single penny to fund our ongoing mission in Iraq. We are at war and our men and women serving in Iraq today continue to face a fierce and determined enemy--and this bill does not fund their mission. The omission of Iraq funding is no more than a political stunt--and we all know it. What kind of message does this send to those brave men and women in the field?

Unfortunately, little has changed over the years. Here we are again, nearly 3 full months into fiscal year 2008, and we have before us another appropriations monster. Let me remind my colleagues that, because of our inability to get much done around here under the regular order, we have been forced to consider huge omnibus appropriations bills and one long-term continuing resolution in 5 of the last 6 fiscal years.

The bill before us today is more than 1,400 pages long and is accompanied by a joint explanatory statement that was so big they couldn't even number the pages. This bill consolidates 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills with a price tag of nearly $475 billion. Amazingly, this bill contains 9,170 earmarks. Add those to the 2,161 earmarks that were contained in the Defense appropriations bill and the grand total for fiscal year 2008 earmarks stands at 11,331 unnecessary, wasteful, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects. And that is just for the House and Senate-passed bill. I can only imagine what this will look like when it comes out of conference.

A New York Times/CBS News poll that was released today shows that the approval rating of Congress stands at 21 percent. Can we blame the American people for holding us in such low esteem? Let's look at how we are spending their hard earned tax dollars.

Here is just a sampling of some of the earmarks contained in this bill: $150,000 for the STEEED, Soaring Toward Educational Enrichment via Equine Discovery, Youth Program in Washington, DC. Basically this is an earmark of $150,000 so that disadvantaged kids can ride horses; $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 right here on Capitol Hill; $1.95 million for the City College of NY for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service; $975,000 for the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR; $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 to Nevada for the design and construction of the Derby Dam fish screen to allow passage of fish; $1.6 million for sensitivity training for law enforcement in Los Angeles; $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, WV; $470,000 for an Oyster Hatchery Economic Pilot Program, Morgan State University, MD; $446,500 for Horseshoe Crab Research, Virginia Tech, VA; $125,000 for the Polish American Cultural Center in Philadelphia, PA; $400,000 for the National Iron Worker's Training Program; $350,000 for leafy spurge control in North Dakota; $1.725 million for the Hudson Valley Welcome Center in Hyde Park, NY.

This omnibus was made available just yesterday, yet approved by the House last night. Imagine that--a 1,445 page bill, with a joint explanatory statement that is nine inches tall and costs $475 billion was made available and voted on by both chambers in less than 48 hours. Simply remarkable. It is impossible for us to know exactly what is in this thing, and we are expected to simply take the appropriators word that it is all okay. Well, I have been around here long enough to know that a bill of this size, put together behind closed doors and rammed through at the last minute, cannot be all good. And I know it will be a long time before all of the hidden provisions in this legislation are exposed.

I fully recognize that it isn't necessarily the fault of the appropriators that we are forced into this new pattern of adopting omnibus appropriations measures. Overly partisan politics has largely prevented us from following the regular legislative order, and that fact must change. But while it may not be the appropriators fault that we are forced to consider omnibus appropriations measures, it is their decision to continue to load them up with unauthorized earmarks and at a rate that seems only increases year after year.

When we ram through a gigantic bill, spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer's dollars with little or no debate because we want to go home for Christmas, we send the message to the American people that we are not serious enough about our jobs. We essentially accomplish little almost all year long because everything requires 60 votes, and then, at the very last minute, we scramble around and throw together a mammoth bill like the one before us today. We are sending the signal that it is more important for us to be able to issue press releases, and I am sure hundreds of them will be going out today, about how much pork we have been able to get for our States and districts, than we are about good government and fiscal responsibility. How can we, in good conscience, defend this behavior to the American people?

Among the most egregious aspects of this bill are the so-called ``economic development initiatives'' funded under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This account is nothing more than a slush fund for the appropriators--plain and simple. Contained

within this section of the joint explanatory statement are 741 locality-specific earmarks costing nearly $180 million. These pork barrel projects are spread out over 42 pages and fund everything from construction of coastal trails, nature education centers, public parks and renovations for museums and theaters.

On defense matters, the omnibus appropriations bill proposes funding $1.18 billion in military construction projects that were not requested by the President. Of that amount, $584 million was vetted by both the Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees to ensure that the services' critical unfunded priorities requirements were met. On the Senate floor, those projects were further reviewed, and approved in the Senate versions of the authorization and appropriations bills.

However, this bloated omnibus appropriations bill also includes another $580 million--for 108 military ``airdropped'' construction projects, that is, funding for projects that were not included in any previous appropriations bill passed by the House or Senate. The House appropriators have once again waited until the last minute to present these new spending items to skirt responsibility for their pork spending. Mr. President, in the ethics reform law we passed with much fanfare earlier this year, we amended Senate rule 44 specifically to discourage such ``airdropping'' of projects in the dead of night. In an unprecedented and unfortunate act, the majority accepted $328 million of airdropped military construction authorizations into the recently passed national defense authorization bill. It was in part for this reason that I reluctantly decided not to sign the defense authorization conference report. I could not then, and cannot now, support the parachuting of new spending items into final reports that have not been transparently vetted on the floor of Congress. I am very disappointed that we in the Senate continue to condone this irresponsible practice in light of our efforts to prevent it with ethics reform.

The omnibus appropriations bill also earmarks over $41 million for the planning and design of pork military construction projects requested by Members of Congress. Congress normally authorizes funding annually for each military service to plan and design their critical future military construction priorities. This bill disregards the military's priorities and earmarks funds towards specific projects-- without the Department being given the opportunity to determine whether or not those projects reflect actual military requirements.

Even more egregious is that we are proposing to pay for this airdropped pork by cutting over $900 million from the amount of $8.1 billion requested by the President to carry out the critical military construction activities related to the 2005 defense base closure and realignment round. The Department of Defense and the local communities affected by BRAC need enough funding to meet the statutory deadline of September 2011. To underfund BRAC in order to pay for earmarks is a sad reflection on the priorities of this Congress, which has again unabashedly put parochial interests above the needs of the Defense Department, our local communities and the American taxpayer.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving 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 appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and 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.

In a report on our long-term budget outlook issued this month, the Congressional Budget Office states this: ``Significant uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, but under any plausible scenario, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path--that is, federal debt will grow much faster than the economy over the long run. In the absence of significant changes in policy, rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to grow rapidly.''

The report goes on to say that: ``If outlays increased as projected and revenues did not grow at a corresponding rate, deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly. Substantial budget deficits would reduce national saving, which would lead to an increase in borrowing from abroad and lower levels of domestic investment that in turn would constrain income growth in the United States. In the extreme, deficits could seriously harm the economy. Such economic damage could be averted by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course, which would require some combination of less spending and more revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner rather than later would lessen the risk that an unsustainable fiscal path poses to the economy.'' Again--this is not my dire prediction, it comes from our own CBO.

To underscore the urgency of the problem, in a speech at The National Press Club just yesterday, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States announced that--for the eleventh straight year--the Federal Government failed its financial audit. Mr. Walker said that ``the federal government's total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future benefits payments promised under the current Social Security and Medicare programs are now estimated at $53 trillion, in current dollar terms, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into a defacto mortgage of about $455,000 for every American household and there's no house to back this mortgage. In other words, our government has made a whole lot of promises that, in the long run, it cannot possibly keep without huge tax increases.''

The Comptroller General also highlighted a specific program that serves as an example of the serious problems we face. He said: ``The prescription drug benefit alone represents about $8 trillion of Medicare's $34 trillion gap. Incredibly, this number was not disclosed or discussed until after the Congress had voted on the bill and the President had signed it into law. Generations of Americans will be paying the price--with compound interest--for this new entitlement benefit.'' He went on to note that: ``Unfortunately, once federal programs or agencies are created, the tendency is to fund them in perpetuity. Washington rarely seems to question the wisdom of its existing commitments. Instead, it simply adds new programs and initiatives on top of the old ones. This continual layering is a key reason our government has grown so large, so expensive, so inefficient, and in some cases, so ineffective.''

Mr. Walker ended his speech by saying ``If all of us do our part, and if we start making tough choices sooner rather than later, we can keep America great, ensure that our future is better than the past, and ensure that our great nation is the first republic to stand the test of time. To me, that is a cause worth fighting for.'' I agree wholeheartedly. And I say to my colleagues: Let's start making those tough choices today. We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or 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.

St. John's Bayou/New Madrid Floodway

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. President, I wish to speak to the intent of section 123 of title I of division C of the bill, which addresses the Corps of Engineers project--Saint Johns Bayou/New Madrid Floodway. As the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works with jurisdiction over the Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act,

I offer my understanding of section 123. Section 123 does not interfere with or overturn any court decision concerning this project with regard to either or both of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The language provides that the project as described in the June 2002 Revised Supplemental Impact Statement, as supplemented by the March 2006 Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 2 is determined to be economically justified.

The language does not affect the application of the Clean Water Act and NEPA to this project. Because of the specific reference to the project documents, the language in section 123 does not alter legal requirements regarding cost/benefit analysis for subsequent or revised project documents, including environmental impact statements, or any requirements with regard to NEPA and the Clean Water Act.

Madam President, I sincerely congratulate Chairman Levin, the members of our committee, and our House colleagues for their work on the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. With provisions that authorize a considerable pay raise for all military personnel, increase Army and Marine end-strength, reform the system that serves wounded veterans, and help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting and procurement, this conference report undoubtably contains many important elements that will help support our national defense and, in particular, our servicemen and women. However, this conference report also contains other provisions that are very problematic. In fact, so flawed are those provisions that, despite all that is good in the conference report--and there is much--I must--cannot support this year's report.

In this year's conference report, and the accompanying bill, there are $5.3 billion in earmarks. That does not even include about $330 million worth of military construction pork ``airdropped'' by the House Appropriators despite having enacted ethics reform legislation just 2 months ago. Of that $5.3 billion, $2.3 billion came from the Senate and $4.1 billion originated in the House. The disparity between the two bills is unprecedented.

Almost half of the total amount of pork in this conference report, and the accompanying bill, arises from a single provision that authorizes the procurement of eight C-17 Globemaster aircraft that the Defense Department states we neither need nor can afford. I should also note that this conference report stripped out an important amendment that called for all congressionally directed spending on new programs and grants to be subject to full and open competition. In my view, the massive pork spending in this conference report renders it a frontal assault on this body's purported commitment to ethics and earmark reform and, in my view, results in a inexcusable failure in our obligation to the taxpayer.

The conference report also contains troubling provisions that will likely fail to cure abuses in multiyear contracting, possibly weaken the ability of the Department of Defense to waive protectionist restrictions on the purchase of weapon systems containing specialty metals, and allow the Air Force to precipitously retire fully-capable aircraft just so it can buy new ones. Therefore, while many elements in this conference report are undoubtably helpful, I regrettably cannot sign it.

Clearly, the most egregious single item in this report is a provision that authorizes the Air Force $2.28 billion to buy eight C-17 Globemaster aircraft. I note that the dollar amount associated with this one provision, which originated in the House, nearly equals the total amount of earmarks in this bill that arose from the entire Senate side.

This provision is particularly problematic given that the Secretary of Defense has consistently maintained that the Defense Department met its strategic airlift requirements with the final purchase of C-17 aircraft authorized by the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and, therefore, simply does not need any more C-17 aircraft. In fact, during deliberations with the conferees, the Defense Department conveyed concern that continuing the C-17 production line would compete with the Department's number one priority for strategic airlift, the recapitalization of the aerial refueling tanker fleet. Reflecting that view, the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2008 included no funding for additional C-17 aircraft and, as it did last year, asked for money to begin shutting down the C-17 production line.

In 2007, Congress allowed the Air Force to buy 10 C-17 aircraft above what it actually needed. This year, in their collective wisdom, the conferees have seen it fit to repeat that multibillion dollar mistake by providing for a follow-on purchase, in the face of the administration's admonitions. At the end of the day, this provision does little else than subsidize the continuation of the contractor's C- 17 production line, which is nearing its end--a corporate handout at its worst.

I am particularly concerned about this provision given that I have uncovered compelling evidence of possible wrongdoing in the Air Force's interaction with the contractor on the C-17 matter. That evidence points to a disturbing level of effort--undertaken jointly by the Air Force and the contractor--to undermine the current program-of-record and support a procurement proposal for which there is no validated requirement and which is not reflected in either the President's Budget Request or even the Air Force's own Future Years Defense Program, FYDP. In its rank aggressiveness, the evidence I found, and referred to the appropriate authorities for further review, is not unlike some of what I observed in the Boeing tanker lease scandal. From those authorities, I understand that a review is pending. When faced with similar circumstances concerning the Boeing tanker matter, we suspended procurement activities until all related investigations were concluded. Prudence requires that, at a minimum, we do the same here.

This conference report also includes authorization for 52 new military construction projects totaling $328 million requested by individual Members of the House that were not vetted or included in either the House- or the Senate-passed National Defense authorization bills for fiscal year 2008. On October 30, 2007, the House Appropriations Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Subcommittee slipped this bloated earmark list to the House Armed Services Committee with no public review or semblance of transparency. And, in order to maintain comity with the appropriators, the majority of defense bill conferees, over my objections, decided to insert the authorizations into our conference report. Not only is this is a classic example of ``parachuting'' or ``airdropping'' earmarks into a conference report in the dead of night, which we ostensibly sought to stop with the enactment of a new ethics law two months ago, it is also an abrogation of our role as authorizers to fully vet each new matter we consider-- rather than blindly accept what the appropriators tell us. Despite the rhetoric of a ``new day'' for accountability, allowing such practices reflects that there is no transparency in this process. Regrettably, the conferees appear content to hide behind parliamentary tricks and mental gymnastics while knowing full well the spirit and intent of the reform we sought to achieve earlier this year. Saying that over $300 million in pork construction projects can be added in conference means that there is essentially no limit on how much a program or a project can balloon during conference. This is a ``hog call'' if I've ever heard one.

Senate amendment 828 to the Senate-passed Bill applied Federal competitive bidding laws and regulations to congressional earmarks. Rather modest in what it sought to do, that provision would not have prohibited Members of Congress from earmarking defense dollars. Instead, it simply would have ensured that taxpayers received the advantage of a competitive process. Under that provision, a Member of Congress in either body would have retained the prerogative to fund an activity that he deems worthy, but a full and open competitive process would be used to select the most qualified entity to undertake the project. If an activity is important enough to require earmarking of taxpayers dollars, that legislative proposal would simply have required transparency and full and open

competition. Moreover, waiver authority was built into the provision to allow the Department reasonable flexibility in its implementation. In my view, that important provision should have been included in this conference report.

The provision that I originally offered as an amendment to the Senate version of the bill clarified how much savings would be required to achieve under a multiyear contract before Congress could authorize that procurement mechanism to buy the largest and most expensive weapon systems. That clarification was important to help the Defense Department use multiyear contracts responsibly to capitalize on mature, well-run programs by buying at economically efficient rates--not to insulate poorly performing systems from effective congressional oversight. While the multiyear contracting provision in the conference report is helpful, it contains language that allows the Department to waive its stringent requirements in a way that eviscerates the provision's underlying intent. In other words, the waiver provision appears to create a loophole through which the Department can keep chronically poorly performing programs ``on rails'' and away from meaningful congressional oversight.

For some time now, I have been concerned about how the Air Force, in particular, has been creating requirements for procuring new aircraft by precipitously retiring older but reliable, platforms to bulk up buys of new aircraft platforms. This has required this committee to legislatively prohibit, in previous authorization bills, the retirement of KC-135s, B-52s, C-5s, U-2s and C-130s. In this year's conference report, we have unwisely relieved at least a couple of those restrictions.

The Air Force's number one acquisition priority is to replace its aged KC-135 fleet of tanker aircraft. The Air Force's original attempt to replace that fleet led to the now infamous Boeing tanker lease scandal, which resulted in jail-time for a top Air Force procurement official and Boeing's chief operating officer.

This time, the Air Force intends to implement a ``comprehensive'' tanker replacement strategy, one component of which is the purchase of a new, commercial-derivative tanker. On that component, two contractor teams have submitted offers responding to a request for proposals, which the Air Force is now reviewing. A contract may be awarded as soon as late February 2008. Unfortunately, on the other two components of the strategy--implementing a complementary commercial fee-for-service program and re-engining some of its older KC-135s--the Air Force has made no serious headway. Against that backdrop, I remain concerned that the Air Force may simply maximize its desired purchase of new planes. Several studies conducted by both the Air Force and independent groups indicate that the current KC-135 fleet is viable for the intermediate term. Given that taxpayers have made a significant investment in the KC-135 fleet, the Air Force should not be permitted to precipitously retire them simply because it wants to buy as many new tanker aircraft as possible.

The ``Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 Assessment Report'' cautioned that, before retiring KC-135s, the Air Force needs to conduct destructive testing so it can proceed on an informed basis. However, the Air Force has not complied with that recommendation. Nonetheless, section 135 of this conference report allows the Secretary of the Air Force to retire immediately 48 KC-135E tanker aircraft. It also allows the Air Force to start retiring the remaining 37 KC-135E during fiscal year 08 after contract award for the KC-X tanker replacement aircraft. Once again, without reasonably restricting the Air Force's retirement of KC-135s, we may have lost the ability to ensure that the Air Force does not replace its current fleet of tanker aircraft by simply maximizing its purchase of commercial-derivative aircraft a solution that simply disregards the interests of the taxpayer.

A provision on the retirement of C-130 airlift aircraft is similarly improvident. That provision, section 133, would repeal the requirement in the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act that any C- 130E aircraft retired in fiscal year 2007 be maintained in a condition that would allow recall of the aircraft to active service. Another provision, section 134, would allow for the retirement of 29 more C- 130E aircraft in fiscal year 2008.

Without the Department's requirements for tactical airlift capability well-defined, it would be premature to retire any C-130 aircraft, at least until: (1) an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has conducted an assessment of the C-130E/H fleet of aircraft; and (2) the results of the Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study, ITLCS, phases 1 and 2, identify the right mix and number of intra-theater airlift assets. Therefore, I believe that we should not retire any more C-130 aircraft until the Department determines what its intra-theater lift requirements are and that aircraft already should not be stripped for parts or destroyed until we have the results of the requirements analysis.

This conference report also contains several policy provisions that weakens the broad waiver authority that the Department of Defense currently has with regard to weapon systems that contain specialty metals. For a long time, I have tried to lessen the impact of, if not entirely eliminate, ``buy America'' restrictions, including the Berry amendment, in Defense Department purchases. Legislation restricting the Department's purchases along those lines tend to direct spending for the benefit of a particular entity or congressional district. So, I am concerned that, with the specialty metals/``buy America'' policy provisions contained in this conference report, we may have further opened the door for more pork legislation in the future. Finally, as those policy provisions were not in either the Senate- or the House- passed defense bills, I question whether those provisions should have been added in conference.

Another objectionable provision in the conference report would establish a policy that future major combatant ships be nuclear- powered, regardless of requirements, cost, or other considerations that go into selecting a new ship class propulsion system. The Secretary of Defense could only seek a waiver of this requirement if he determines that nuclear propulsion for a future ship is not in the national interest. If the next cruiser class, CG(X), is required to be nuclear- powered as a result of this policy, its cost will increase by greater than $1 billion and the ship will be delayed several years. The result would be significantly increased cost, fewer ships, and delays in fielding the next major surface combatant class of ships. At a time when the Secretary of the Navy is doing all he can to reform how the Navy goes about buying its biggest and most expensive weapon systems, this provision is a move in the wrong direction.

The conference report also includes a provision that sets a very dangerous precedent by in effect forcing the Department to take action for the benefit of certain Members of Congress. Section 2846, entitled ``Transfer of jurisdiction, former Nike missile site, Grosse Ile, Michigan'', mandates that the Department of Defense spend funds from an account that has historically been guided by an objective assessment of the risk to human health. This provision requires the Corps of Engineers to clean up a site to a higher standard than the Army deems necessary in Gross Ile, Michigan, so the property can be used as a wildlife refuge. Let me be clear: I have nothing against refuges. But, the Department of Defense has over 9,900 properties evaluated as Formerly Used Defense Sites, FUDS, and must conduct cleanup projects at more than 3,000 of them. The FUDS program costs the Department over $250 million a year and is expected to cost the Department $18.7 billion when all said and done.

We simply cannot afford allowing individual Members of Congress to move their pet projects to the top of the priority list, completely disregarding the risk to health and safety of other more vital projects. Clean-up should be based on the priority of risk, not political muscle.

There was another conference decision which I believe may be very detrimental to our role as an authorizing committee. Senate-passed bill, Senate section 2811, ``General Military Construction Transfer Authority,'' was intended to extend to military construction accounts the current congressional review process for requests from

the Department of Defense for the reprogramming of funds between accounts. Currently, for every funding account except military construction, the Secretary of Defense notifies all four defense committees of his intent to transfer funds from one account to another during the year to better manage obligations. However, for military construction accounts, the Secretary sends a notification only to the House and Senate subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The Senate provision sought to extend that oversight responsibility to our conferees on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. That was a good provision. It was included in our Senate markup without question and was agreed to by both the House and Senate staffs during conference.

However, at the last moment during conference deliberations, members from the House Appropriations Committee persuaded my fellow conference leaders to drop the provision for no substantive reason, other than it would diminish the power of the appropriators. This capitulation is very troubling. The provision was written in response to recent actions by the Appropriations subcommittees that either held up military construction reprogramming requests based on parochial interests or approved reprogramming requests over the objections of this committee's staff. In particular, we were concerned by the proposal made by the Air Force to the Committees on Appropriations in January 2007 to use the existing reprogramming process to carry out a ``new start'' military construction project that had not been authorized by law--a clear challenge to the role of the authorizing committees over new start military construction.

The committee was also concerned that the appropriators in both bodies approved a reprogramming in July 2007 for a military construction project for which no funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2007, as a favor to a particular Member--disregarding the policy implications of the action. Also, earlier this year, the Senate appropriators held up approval of two reprogramming requests for projects in Virginia in order to force the Department to act on other reprogramming requests. If this committee had equal authority, we would have the ability to prevent such shamelessly parochial and institutionally divisive behavior. Senate section 2811 would have put an end to such activity between the appropriators and authorizers by establishing equal footing with regard to reprogramming requests on military construction projects. I am at a complete loss why it was dropped from our conference agreement.

Again, while there is much in this year's conference report that is very worthwhile and helpful to helping provide for the national defense, the elements contained within it that move in the wrong direction are too numerous, too large, and too costly for any Member to ignore. With those elements in this conference report, I simply cannot in good conscience tell the American people that this is our best--that this conference report represents our best vision for the country on matters that relate to, or affect, our servicemen and women and how we secure our national security interests abroad. By declining to sign this conference report today, I respectfully convey to the chairman and my fellow conferees my belief that we can, and for the sake of both the warfighter and taxpayer, we must do better.

Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, PTPA.

The agreement before this Chamber today stands as another important milestone in the development of our relationship with Peru. The pending trade bill will help level the commercial playing field and solidify a genuine bilateral partnership based on free and fair trade that benefits not only Peruvians, but also U.S. workers and businesses. Ratification will also demonstrate to the people of Peru that we stand by them as an important democratic ally in a strategically vital region of the world.

As it currently stands, 98 percent of goods imported from Peru already enter the United States duty-free. If this agreement is passed and fully implemented, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and over two-thirds of agricultural exports will gain duty-free access to the Peruvian market of some 29 million citizens. The agreement also contains provisions that address intellectual property rights, electronic commerce, customs and trade facilitation, and these provisions will reduce barriers on investment. The U.S. currently exports nearly $2 billion in goods to Peru, a figure certain to grow as a result of increased access to this vibrant South American market.

While the economic benefits we will enjoy as a result of passing the PTPA are important, we must not ignore the political benefits as well. Peru stands as a shining example of the potential for democracy and open markets in South America. Following free and fair elections in 2006, Peru's economy continues to grow at an impressive rate of 8 percent annually, and its poverty rate has been on the decline since 2001. It is also important to recognize the assistance the Peruvian government has provided the United States in combating drug trafficking, countering regional security threats, and providing for our energy needs. Implementation of this agreement will lead to greater prosperity and development for the Peruvian people, helping to strengthen their nation and our relationship with them.

I have long advocated for economic freedom and open markets. Free trade has long served to promote economic growth, generate jobs, raise wages and lower prices for American workers and consumers. I believe in the ingenuity and resilience of the American worker and am not afraid of their ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace. America is home to the best and the brightest, and should have the opportunity to play a significant role in an increasingly globalized marketplace. By passing this agreement, we will reaffirm our commitment to nations that share our interest in open markets, economic freedom, and democracy.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this important agreement.

Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 4156, a bill that would link vital funding for our troops to a mandated timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is this bill irresponsive to the facts on the ground, it is irresponsible. Instead, we should approve S. 2340 and provide our military with the resources they require, free of conditions that would undermine their ability to conduct operations and build on their recent successes.

Today the Senate considers yet another bill mandating the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground or the views of our commanders in the field. If this latest attempt sounds familiar, it

should--the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to limit the ability of the President and his commanders to prosecute this war. And, just like the 40 votes that preceded this one, the result of this vote will undoubtedly be the same. The proponents of this legislation are well aware of this fact, and the fact that the President has pledged to veto legislation calling for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Rather than move beyond these differences and ensure that our troops in the field receive the vital funding they need, however, we will go through this exercise yet again.

This legislation would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 30 days of enactment, leaving a smaller force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions, with the goal of ending our involvement, irrespective of the situation in Iraq, by December 15 of next year. Given that similar provisions have failed 40 times already, it is inconceivable that they would succeed now, when there is unambiguous progress in Iraq. The choice today is simple: do we build upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to complete their mission, or do we ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? The answer should be simple.

As we proceed with consideration of this bill, it is important to spend a few moments reviewing the current state of affairs in Iraq. We see today that, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq shows tangible signs of progress. The forces needed to implement General Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 6 months and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, continues to make significant gains in a number of areas.

The second in command in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, stated earlier this month that due to the recently implemented counterinsurgency operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add that ``we have experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security over the last four months, and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' According to a recent report issued by the Department of Defense, weekly IED attacks have decreased by 60 percent across Iraq since the beginning of Operation Phantom Thunder in mid-June.

The Associated Press reports that Iraqi civilian deaths have dropped sharply as a result of the ``surge,'' from 1,791 in August to 750 in October. Mortar attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest on record since February of 2006, as were the number of ``indirect fire'' attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. The surge's success in establishing greater security has spurred a great increase in cooperation from Iraqi citizens, and MG Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of Baghdad, said he believes the decrease in rocket and mortar attacks will continue to hold because of a ``groundswell'' of support from regular Iraqis. ``If we didn't have so many people coming forward to help, I'd think [the decrease in attacks] is a flash in the pan. But that's just not the case,'' General Lynch said.

We are all aware of the monumental strides our military has made in restoring order and reducing violence in Anbar Province. A province once declared ``lost'' to al-Qaida has begun a return to normalcy for many of its inhabitants. Locals, sickened by the brutality of insurgents and terrorists, have rejected violent extremism and have cooperated with U.S. and Iraqi forces to take the fight to the enemy. This partnership model combined with U.S. troops ``living forward'' is being replicated and producing real results all across the country.

In Ghazaliya, for example, once known as a strategic gateway to Baghdad for insurgents and a place where coalition convoys were regularly ambushed, the creation of joint security stations has led to a significant reduction in sectarian violence and IED attacks. Amariyah, a neighborhood in western Baghdad that just 6 months ago was a central operational location for al-Qaida in Iraq and plagued by high levels of bombings and shootings, is beginning to see a drastic reduction in violence and many residents are beginning to experience some semblance of normal life. None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to an acceptable level, or that victory lies just around the corner. On the contrary, the road ahead remains, as it always has been, long and hard. Violence is still at unacceptable levels in some parts of the country, reconstruction of important infrastructure lags, and the Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects, but, by the same token, no one should dismiss the positive developments that have resulted from this new strategy in Iraq.

Nor can we dismiss the enormous costs of American failure in Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the bill we are currently considering become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the 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. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve. We must remain steadfast in our mission, for we do not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, we fight for ours as well.

That means approving the support that our fighting men and women need. The funding contained in this supplemental is not, as some have characterized it, the ``President's money.'' This money is for the troops. This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require to fulfill their mission, funding to protect our men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks, funding to enable them to bring this war to a successful end. Holding our military's funding hostage to a repetitive and futile attempt to score political points is unconscionable.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England recently wrote to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee about the effects of this legislation. ``Without this critical funding,'' he wrote, ``the Department will have no choice but to deplete key appropriations accounts by early next year. In particular, the Army's Operation and Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-late January. This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base operations, and training activities.'' Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said just yesterday that, should the money contained in this bill be withheld, he will have to ``lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military bases.'' Army Secretary Pete Green went on to add that without these funds, the negative effects ``will fall most heavily on...home based troops and their families.''

I have seen a lot during my time in the Senate, but few events sink to the level of what we are witnessing today. I understand the frustration that many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I share their frustration and sadness. But we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance. Not to short-term political gain, but to the security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, 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. Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our service men and women have made by engaging in a game of political brinksmanship. There is far too much at stake.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the President's veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the attempt to override this veto. This legislation is fundamentally flawed, authorizing nearly 1,000 new projects without any method for prioritizing the needs of our national water infrastructure.

When the House and Senate went to Conference on WRDA, the Senate bill totaled $14 billion and the House bill $15 billion. Somehow this resulted in a final conference report totaling $23 billion and 900 new projects--300 more than either of the House- or Senate-passed bills had included. These items are just further additions to the growing backlog at the Corps of Engineers.

Buried among these projects are valid infrastructure needs including helping to protect the gulf coast against future hurricanes. However, as stated in the November 5, 2007, Washington Post editorial entitled ``Fiscal Plunge: A vetoed $23 billion water bill is not worth saving,'' ``The bill would indeed authorize about $1.9 billion for coastal ecosystem restoration and protection in Louisiana to help the state rebuild its defenses against hurricanes. The president supports that; he just thinks that Congress could have authorized it without also larding on billions of dollars' worth of economically and environmentally questionable projects.'' I will ask that the editorial be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

I know that many are arguing that we have to pass legislation in order to begin or complete important water infrastructure projects throughout the United States. However, I believe that we should be passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without sacrificing fiscal responsibility.

In August, the Senate passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 with the supposed intention of bringing integrity to the system of earmarking appropriation and authorizations bills. Unfortunately, within 10 days of its enactment, the Senate approved the conference report for WRDA that is just more of the same earmarks and then some. Prior to congressional consideration of the conference report, the Director of OMB and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works sent a letter to Congress stating that the excessive price and number of projects in this legislation would result in a Presidential veto. I am pleased that the President followed through on that statement and rightfully vetoed this water resources bill full of pork projects and unchecked Government spending.

When issuing his veto of the Water Resources Development Act on November 2, 2007, the President stated, ``This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility . . . This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs . . . while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.''

During Senate consideration of this bill, Senator Feingold offered an amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor that would have established a system to give clarity to the process used for funding Corps projects. Of course, that amendment was not adopted because this Congress values pet projects over national priorities. I believe that this Congress has a duty to protect taxpayers' dollars and ensure that they are used for the most cost effective and critically needed projects. This bill fails to provide for any clarity or prioritization in the funding process and would result in further confusion and irresponsibility in how Corps projects are funded.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the attempt to override the President's veto of the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I referred be printed in the Record.

I think it is important to note the historic significance of what I think is about to happen here because only 106 times in the entire history of the United States of America has the Congress overridden a Presidential veto--only 106 times. The first time was in 1845 over the funding of military equipment. Then-President Tyler bypassed Congress and tried to buy some equipment that Congress had not approved of. Congress was able to stop that when his veto was overridden on the bill.

The point is, there is, in our Constitution, a separation of powers and a balance of powers. I think when there is overwhelming support across party lines, overwhelming support from our communities from the bottom up, to pay attention to our infrastructure, to pay attention to the needs of our economy, to pay attention to the needs of the American people--when there is overwhelming bipartisan support, why would a President cast a veto?

As I asked rhetorically before the President vetoed this WRDA bill, I said: Do we have to fight about everything? Aren't there some things on which we can agree? But it was not to be. I think if, in fact, we do override this veto--which I fully expect we will do, but I never count anything until it is done--I think what we are saying to the President is, he should respect us, he should respect the Senate, the House, and the American people. We were elected too. We are close to the people. We know what their needs are.

If, in fact, we do override this ill-advised veto, the American people will win today.

This water resources bill is 7 long years in the making. If we override this veto, Mr. President, we are fulfilling a promise to the people of Louisiana. We promised them, after Katrina, we would rebuild. The President went there and said:

I will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild

their communities.

I say to the President: When you vetoed this bill, you stood up before the people of Louisiana and said: Sorry. One flick of the veto pen, and the President turns his back on the people of the gulf coast.

I think testimony to that fact was given by Senators Landrieu and Vitter. The fact is, Congress is stepping in to do the right thing today. We are a separate but equal body, and we are showing across party lines that no matter who the President is, there are some moments in time when he needs to come to the table and work with us. This was one of those times because the WRDA bill is going to help ensure America's water infrastructure and flood control needs are met.

Again, it puts the gulf coast on the path to recovery. But it does other things. In my State, it is going to finally take care of our problems in Sacramento, where 300,000 people, potentially, could be harmed and hurt and damaged because we have not done what we had to do to protect them. We do it in this bill.

Yesterday, we heard from Senator Bill Nelson about the major restoration of the Everglades that is in this bill--another promise made by Republicans and Democrats alike. The Everglades is a national treasure--actually, a worldwide treasure. Yet we go to communities all over this Nation, from sea to shining sea, and we look at the communities and say that we will work with them on flood control, on making sure goods can move through our ports, and on recreation.

The Corps and the BLM run many recreation areas that see millions of visitors every single year. So it is about recreation, commerce, flood control, and it is about environmental restoration.

It enacts the most sweeping reforms for the Corps in more than 20 years. I know Senator Feingold did not believe we did enough Corps reform. I respectfully say to Senator Feingold that we went very far. As a matter of fact, I believe we brought more independent review to this process because before--I agree with the Senator--the Corps was just going off on its own. So communities across our country have waited long enough for these vital projects.

As Senator Inhofe said yesterday--and I see he is here now--this is an authorization bill. This doesn't spend a penny, but it is very important because it says we believe these projects are worthy of funding. Then those projects will go through a very tough appropriations process, and every one of these projects, as far as I know, draws on local funding, or State funding, and Federal funding.

This WRDA bill comes from the people--from the people up. When I go to little communities back home--I went to one in Napa, where there is a flood control program; it is essential. It is a senior citizen retirement community, and our folks are frightened because they see what happens when California experiences these incredible shocks of nature, such as the fires, and now we are on the precipice of doing the right thing.

I hope we override this veto. I look forward to the remarks of Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I am pleased the full Senate today is considering the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General of the United States. I strongly support his confirmation.

As many of you know, the President nominated Judge Mukasey on September 17; however, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on his nomination until Tuesday. This ranks as one of the longest spans between a nomination and a confirmation vote for an Attorney General nominee. This is particularly unfair to the American people who deserve to have in place a chief enforcer of our Nation's laws.

I believe Judge Mukasey is the right nominee to enforce our laws, particularly during this time of war. As a Federal judge, he presided over one of the country's busiest trial courts and one that has overseen several terrorism-related cases. These included the trial of the terrorist known as ``the Blind Sheikh,'' a man who was convicted of conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center.

In comprehensive responses to questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Mukasey exhibited mainstream legal views on constitutional checks and balances. He stated that the President cannot waive congressionally mandated restrictions on interrogation techniques, including those included in the ``McCain amendment'' and the Military Commissions Act. This is a particularly important conclusion given that, under these laws, anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. Government agency, puts himself at risk of civil liability and criminal prosecution.

Judge Mukasey also, in a separate letter, acknowledged that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding is ``over the line'' and ``repugnant.'' These are important statements, and I expect that they will inform his views as Attorney General. I strongly urge that, in that role, Judge Mukasey will publicly make clear that waterboarding is illegal and can never be employed.

Waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law. In 2005, the President signed into law a prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as those terms are understood under the standards of the U.S. Constitution. There was at that time a debate over the way in which the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions. Along with Senators Warner and Graham, I stated then my strong belief that a fair reading of the ``McCain amendment'' outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding ``shocks the conscience.''

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, MCA, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. As one of the authors of that statute, I would note that the MCA specifically prohibits acts that inflict ``serious and nontransitory mental harm'' that ``need not be prolonged.'' Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. For this reason, during the negotiations that led to the MCA, my colleagues and I were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibits waterboarding. Many of us share Judge Mukasey's revulsion at the use of waterboarding, and I welcome his commitment to further review its legality once confirmed. I expect that he will reach the same conclusion.

I sincerely hope that the recent public debate over the use and legality of waterboarding is America's last. In discussing this practice, we are speaking of an interrogation technique that dates from the Spanish Inquisition, one that has been a prosecutable offense for over a century, one that was employed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and which is reportedly being used by the thugs in Burma today against the innocent monks protesting their repression. Waterboarding simply has no place in the America I know. Let us take it off the table, once and for all, and move beyond this debate.

There is evil in the world today, and it takes form in those who commit themselves to the destruction of America and the ideals we hold dear. Let us fight them, let us defend America, but let us in so doing never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. Make no mistake--we will prevail--but we must wage this war with fidelity to our laws and deepest values. These laws and values are the source of strength, not weakness, for though we are stronger than our enemies in men and arms, we are stronger still in ideals. We will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.

Based on the statements and responses that this nominee has provided over the past week, I believe that Judge Mukasey shares this view. He is a consensus nominee, one with a reputation as a rigorous, independent, and honest thinker. I am pleased to offer him our support and I hope that my colleagues will join us in voting for confirmation.

I yield the floor.

President, I wish to discuss the appropriations package before this Chamber today. We find ourselves, once again, dealing with the bulk of our Nation's spending bills at the end of the year, behind schedule, devoid of the careful consideration these important measures warrant. It is distressing that year after year, the Congress fails to produce legislation on time and free of unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful spending. It is unfortunate that this year is no different.

In hopes of avoiding a veto from the President on a bloated Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the majority has decided to lump the bill together with the popular Military Construction- Veterans Administration appropriations bill. Instead of allowing this body to consider each bill on its own merits through robust and transparent debate, the majority and its members of the appropriations committees have attempted to shield their wasteful ways with the treatment and well-being of our servicemen, women, and veterans covered under the MilCon-VA bill. Not only is this an unconscionable tactic, it also is a violation of Senate rules, specifically rule XXVIII and represents the continued devolution of our annual budgeting process. I am confident that there will be enough collective wisdom mustered today to uphold the Senate rules and send this conference report back to the House.

Let us address briefly the reasoning behind the President's threatened veto of the underlying bill. The Labor-HHS bill currently stands $9.8 billion above the President's request, and $841 million over the Senate-passed level. Not only is this an unacceptable inflation of the original funding request, but it also highlights the egregious practice of earmarking funds. During conference, behind closed doors, there were at least 117 earmarks added to the Labor-HHS portion of the bill, and an additional 109 earmarks inserted into the MilCon-VA portion. Overall, the package before us today contains an eye-popping total of nearly 2,200 earmarks. I am ashamed of this graphic

display of waste. It is disconcerting that in this time of necessity for our men and women returning from service overseas, lawmakers have attempted to hijack a bill vital to ensuring their proper care and treatment.

As usual, the majority of earmarked funds in this bill will go to the States represented by members who serve on the appropriations committee. I have long stressed the necessity of reforming the excessive and irresponsible ways of earmarking, and the state of the bill before us today only reinforces that need. And to think, less than months ago, most Members heralded the enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, believing it would change business as usual. Well, it hasn't.

Allow me to take a moment to highlight a few earmarks of particular note: $350,000 to study the relationship between residential floor coverings and distributive patterns of airborne particulates in Smyrna, GA; $320,000 for the American Jazz Museum, Kansas City, MO; $400,000 for a study of the feasibility of establishing a graduate school in the medical sciences at Radford University in Radford, VA; $130,000 for the First Ladies Museum in Canton, OH; $325,000 for the South Florida Science Museum, West Palm Beach, FL; $150,000 for the Italian-American Cultural Center of Iowa in Des Moines, IA; $150,000 for the American Ballet Theatre in New York, NY; $1.42 million for the virtual colonoscopy outreach program at Marshall University in West Virginia; $100,000 for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum; $250,000 for exhibit preparation at the James K. Polk Presidential Hall TN; $75,000 for the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California; $211,900 for exhibit preparation at Utah Art and History Museum.

While some in this body may feel that it is in our vital national interest to spend $350,000 of the American taxpayers' money to study the spread of dust on residential floor coverings, I simply disagree. The above,mentioned projects are only a small snapshot of the many, many other wasteful items tucked away in the 853 pages of this bill.

Our Nation remains at war, and as a result we continue to see our brave service men and women in uniform returning home in need of comprehensive and effective care from our VA system. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to address the needs of those who have born so valiantly the sacrifices of armed conflict by providing our VA system with the resources needed to accomplish its mission. The President has stated publicly his intention to sign a clean version of the MilCon-VA bill when it reaches his desk. However, rather than addressing the needs of our veterans in a timely fashion, the majority has chosen to unnecessarily delay passage of this vital bill. The American taxpayer expects more of us, as do our brave service men and women who are fighting abroad on our behalf. We must stop these Washington games and return to placing our Nation's interests before our own.

Mr. President, here we go again, pushing through a bloated appropriations bill chocked full of earmarks and far exceeding the President's budget request. This is the seventh annual appropriations measure that has been considered by the Senate and it is by far the biggest budget buster of those considered. The first six bills exceeded the President's request by over $8 billion, while this bill alone exceeds the President's budget request by almost $9 billion. At what point will Congress come to grips with the fact that we are mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures by approving bills like this?

The Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 provides over $605 billion, including $149.2 billion in total discretionary spending and, as I mentioned, exceeds the President's budget by $8.95 billion. The Statement of Administration Policy begins with the following;

The Administration strongly opposes S. 1710 because, in

combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it

includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and

includes other objectionable provisions. The statement goes

on to say, The Administration has asked that Congress

demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and

cover the excess spending in this bill

through reductions elsewhere, while ensuring the Department

of Defense has the resources necessary to accomplish its

mission. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a

path, if S. 1710 were presented to the President, he would

veto the bill.

Well, it looks like he will have the opportunity to do just that.

There are over 1,000 earmarks in this bill. Examples include: $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Liberty, NY, for the Woodstock Museum (which the Senate did strike by a vote 52:42); $500,000 for the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, for the virtual Herbarium; $200,000 for Dallas, TX, for the Women's Museum; $200,000 for the Italian American Cultural Center of Iowa in Des Moines; $250,000 for the James K. Polk Association in Columbia, TN, for exhibit preparation; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum; $500,000 for the Southwest Museum of the American Indian in Los Angeles, CA; $100,000 for the Warner Robbins Museum of Aviation in Georgia; $200,000 for the Texas Historical Commission; $600,000 for the Vermont Department of Labor for Job Training of Female Inmates in Vermont; $2.4 million for Maui Community College for the Remote Rural Hawaii Job Training Project; $1.8 million for Maui Community College for training and educational opportunities; $750,000 for Minot State University to provide training and masters degrees to job corp center senior management personnel; $250,000 for the United Auto Workers Region 9 Training Initiative in New York; $900,000 for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation in Austin, TX, for the Presidential Timeline Project; $1.1 million for the Billings Clinic, Billings, MT-- interestingly, the Billings clinic only has 272 beds in its hospital, and received recently an endowment of over $1 million for its cancer center; $5.9 million for Marshall University, WV, including $1,575,000 for the Virtual Colonoscopy Outreach Program; $3,600,000 for Mountain State University, Beckley, WV, for the construction of the Allied Health Technology Tower; $3,150,000 for West Virginia University, for the construction and equipping of medical simulation research and training centers; $4,050,000 for West Virginia University, for the construction of a Multiple Sclerosis Center; $1,000,000 for Wetzel County Hospital, WV, for the expansion and remolding of the Emergency Department; $2,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Public Health to continue the Harkin Wellness Grant program; and $100,000 for Iowa Games, Ames, IA, to continue the Lighten Up Iowa program.

I could go on and on calling out earmarks in this bill and its accompanying report. We are doing a disservice to the American taxpayers and ourselves by approving such wasteful spending. It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, for the past 2 fiscal years, the programs funded through the Labor-HHS bill were virtually pork-free. A fortunate disagreement resulted in almost no earmarks in the fiscal year 2006 bill, which had about 3,000 earmarks the prior year. And last year, we funded the programs with a continuing resolution that, for the taxpayers, turned out to have been about the most fiscally responsible route that we could have taken.

I urge my colleagues to reject the excessive spending in the bill.

(At the Request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that once again, the Senate is considering a bill that mortgages our children's future for our own political gain. To date, the Senate has passed five spending bills--the majoirty of which exceeded the President's budget request. Today, the Senate will seek to add a sixth appropriations bill to that list.

The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies appropriations bill, 2008, H.R. 3093, provides $54 billion in total discretionary spending and exceeds the President's budget by $3.2 billion. This has prompted the White House to call the bill ``irresponsible'' and threaten a veto. If this bill passes in its current form, the Senate will have approved six spending bills that combined exceed the President's budget by $8 billion. And, the Senate still has six more appropriations bills to consider this year

While the recently enacted ethics and lobbying reform measure requires the disclosure of the authorship of earmarks, it seems to have had little, if any, impact on curtailing earmarks. Indeed, 91 members secured earmarks in this appropriations bill alone. There are over 600 earmarks in this bill that total $486 million. For example, this bill contains: $1 million for the National Fatherhood Initiative; $500,000 for a Maritime Museum in Mobile, AL; $15 million for a Massachusetts groundfish disaster--I was unaware there was such a disaster--$215,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission; $360,000 for Hawaii Rain Gages; over $9 million for Human Intelligence Management; $500,000 for Girls, Inc. of New York, NY.

And if that wasn't enough, the bill also includes: $450,000 for an advanced undersea vehicle; $500,000 for horseshoe crab research; $2 million for permanent displays for the Thunder Bay Exhibit; $3 million for the Maryland Institute for Dextrous Robotics; $400,000 for wireless cameras in Elizabeth, NJ; $5 million for forensic lab equipment in West Virginia; $1.5 million for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation.

In addition, the bill provides funding to many programs that were proposed to be cut by the President. It also funds many other programs at levels beyond what was recommended by the President's budget. For example, $100 million is allocated for the Advanced Technology Program that the President has sought to eliminate for the past several years and $110 million is allocated for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program--$64 million above the President's budget request. The sole purpose of both programs is to subsidize private firms and industries, which, as I have argued previously, are nothing more than welfare programs for corporate special interests. I have fought against funding for both of these programs for many years to no avail, but will continue to speak out against hard-earned taxpayer dollars being provided to assist corporations that have billions of capital available to them on the private markets.

Since the bill has been brought to the floor, over $1 billion worth of spending has been added. Specifically, the Senate voted to add $1 billion on top of the $10 billion the bill already provided to NASA. I continue to support NASA and space research, but at what cost to our Nation's children who will inherit the largest national debt this country has seen? :

Again, I would like to express my disappointment that Senate leadership has brought to the floor a bill that is $3 billion over the President's request, containing more than 600 earmarks. In my recent travels around the Nation, I hear again and again from citizens who are fed up with porkbarrel spending, and yet Congress fails to listen. It is a shame and I can only hope that the American people will join me and the President in expressing their displeasure with this bill. I hope that the remaining six appropriations bills do not contain such rampant and reckless spending, and that Congress works to regain some fiscal discipline.

Mr. President, the world has reacted with horror and revulsion at the Burmese junta's recent brutal crackdown against peaceful demonstrators. In crushing the Saffron Revolution, killing hundreds and jailing thousands, including countless Buddhist monks, the junta has left no doubt about its blatant disregard for basic human decency. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; of peace, not violence; and of the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed.

Our response must go beyond statements of condemnation, and the time to act is now. That is why today I am introducing the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate. This legislation imposes meaningful and effective punitive action against the cruel, thuggish, and illegitimate Burmese government. We must not sit idly by while the junta continues to deprive the Burmese people of their fundamental human rights.

This legislation would impose targeted sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta. These individuals would be subject to a visa ban and a ban on business dealings with any United States entity or person. This legislation would also close a loophole that exists in current U.S. import policy that allows imports of Burmese gems and hardwoods, which together add tens of millions of dollars to the junta's coffers. It would eliminate the remaining U.S. energy investment in Burma's gas sector and significantly increase U.S. Government support for democracy in Burma.

Specifically, the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007: states that it is the policy of the United States to condemn the Burmese junta's continued repressions, support the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people, provide support to aid a democratic transition in Burma, and hold accountable those individuals responsible for the ongoing repression; imposes targeted financial sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta government; imposes a visa ban on these individuals; prohibits the importation of Burmese gems and hardwoods, including materials that are mined or harvested in Burma but shaped, cut, or assembled in other countries not subject to current U.S. sanctions; prohibits investment in Burma by U.S. companies, including investment agreements reached prior to the imposition of the May 20, 1997 sanctions; permits the President to terminate sanctions once the Government of Burma has: unconditionally released all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy; entered into a substantive dialogue with democratic forces on a transition to democratic government under the rule of law; allowed humanitarian access to populations affected by armed conflict in all regions of Burma; authorizes $20 million for FY 2008 and FY 2009 in aid to democracy activists in Burma, for the expansion of radio and television broadcasting into Burma, and for support to individuals and groups compiling evidence of the junta's crimes; expresses the sense of Congress that the Director of National Intelligence should target intelligence resources to identify those responsible for the crackdown and for other human rights abuses; authorizes the Secretary of State to fund the establishment of an independent, searchable, Internet database that would compile evidence of human rights abuses in Burma, permitting increased international research aimed at holding human rights abusers accountable; requires a report by the Secretary of State on international sources of military aid to the Burmese regime.

The next phase of political life in Burma has begun. The junta's thugs cannot forever postpone the blossoming of freedom and democracy within its nation's borders. By enacting the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007, the Congress can help ensure that they do not. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.