Floor Statements

Mr. President, our service men and women on the front lines in the war on terror have been waiting too long for the funding this bill provides. Our soldiers, airmen, and marines need this appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. As such, I will vote for its passage. But I do so with deep reservations. The legislation we are considering now is the wrong way to fund this war, and it fails the most basic tests imposed on us as stewards of taxpayer dollars.

This emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $120 billion in funding, approximately $17 billion above the President's request. It is filled with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with funding the troops. In a time of war, with large federal budget deficits, we should be constraining our Federal expenditures. Sadly, we have chosen, once again, to do the opposite, and loaded this bill with billions of dollars in spending we don't need, spending that was not requested, spending that will only add to the already excessive size of government.

The President submitted his supplemental funding request on February 5 nearly 4 months ago. The Senate finally passed a very flawed version of a bill on March 29 a bill that everyone knew was nothing more than a political stunt, one that was dead before arrival to the President. Instead of putting our country first and providing the troops with full funding as expeditiously as possible, we let partisan politics rule the day. While some may believe that they scored political points by forcing meaningless procedural votes, I would ask them to reflect for a moment. What gain inheres in playing partisan politics with the lives of our honorable warriors and their families? How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us--those who fight and risk all on our behalf--by playing politics with their service.

So now, nearly 4 months after the supplemental funding request was submitted, here we are, with money literally running out to fund this war. We are about to pass a bill that while better than the last version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do with the war on terror. We can do better than this. The American taxpayers deserve and expect more.

As my colleagues know, I have been meeting with citizens across the country, and let me assure you, they are not happy with the workings of Congress. There is a reason that the poll results on Congress's favorability rating are at such lows the latest at 31 percent. It is because of partisan politics having a greater priority in Washington than doing the people's business. It is because we are not making the tough choices to halt deficit spending and fix the out of control entitlement programs. It is because we seem to care more about our own reelections than about reforming government. This is not the way the American public wants their elected officials to behave. What will it take for that to sink in?

Let me mention some of the unrequested and unauthorized items contained in this bill: $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries industries; $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New Jersey; $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency's computer system; $13 million for the Save America's Treasures program; and, $3 billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22 million to support the Department of Agriculture in implementing programs to provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.

There are also several items in this bill that seek to legislate on an appropriations bill rather than allowing such items to move through the regular legislative process. Examples include language that: raises the minimum wage; restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement's, NAFTA, provisions expanding cross-border trade between Mexico and the

United States with the introduction of a pilot program that would allow a select group of Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries into our country beyond the 25 miles that current law permits; extends several tax credits, while setting forth new Internal Revenue Service definitions and exempting some programs from taxation; and, amends the Food Security Act to make adjustments to the Department of Agriculture's land and soil conservation program.

Another provision that seeks to legislate on this appropriations bill is a provision that would end-run the Defense Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process. The 2005 BRAC commission decided to close the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and the Department of Navy was in the process of closing the base in accordance with the law. This bill, however, would transfer the land and facilities to the Air Force even though the Secretary of the Air Force stated on April 12, 2007, that there is not a military need for the land it will be forced to receive. This provision was not requested by the administration, is not an emergency, and is not a responsible way to legislate. It was not reviewed or debated in any committee, and the committee of jurisdiction has had no say in the matter. Yet the American people will now be forced to continue to pay for the maintenance of this unwanted land when the Air Force receives it.

Despite these unacceptable earmarks and legislative language, I am pleased that this bill does not contain a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such a mandate would have had grave consequences for the future of Iraq and the security of Americans. The President was right to veto the first iteration of this legislation.

I do have concerns, however, with the way in which this measure conditions aid to the Iraqi Government by requiring the government to meet benchmarks. Although I support benchmarks for the Iraqi Government, and I believe that we should encourage the Iraqi government to move ahead as rapidly as possible on a number of fronts, some of the benchmarks contained in this bill are beyond the control of the Iraqi leadership. One of the benchmarks, for example, mandates that there will be no safe haven for ``any outlaws.'' This should of course be an aspiration, but if terrorists or insurgents hang on and hole up in Baghdad, should this constitute a reason why the United States withholds economic aid to the government? Similarly, another benchmark requires the Iraqi Government to reduce the level of sectarian violence. But if sectarian violence does not decline as rapidly as we would like, does this suggest that the answer is to cut off reconstruction aid? It's not at all clear to me that it does.

I believe that, instead of legislating a list of benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqis, and imposing statutory penalties for nonperformance, it would be preferable for the administration to reach agreement on a series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government, a timeline for implementation, and consequences attached to each. Such an approach would make clear to the Iraqis that they must make progress, but would do so in a way that is specific, flexible, and realistic.

If this bill is to have benchmarks at all, it should be a benchmark that Congress may not approve any earmark, no matter how valid the cause, without an authorization, an administration request or inclusion in the budget. The national debt grows $75 million an hour and $1.3 billion a day. Congress should benchmark its spending sprees on zero debt, but it won't. This body would rather set benchmarks for others around the world than take responsibility for its own actions. For these reasons, this bill is flawed and irresponsible, but I will vote for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I am introducing this omnibus defense acquisition reform bill today to highlight the scope and urgent need for comprehensive reform in how the Pentagon procures its biggest and most expensive weapons systems.

Defense acquisition policy has been a major issue ever since President Eisenhower first warned the Nation, in 1961, about the military-industrial complex. As Operation Ill Wind in the 1980s and the Boeing tanker lease scandal just a few years ago have taught us, Eisenhower's comments apply with equal force today.

Despite the lessons of the past, the acquisition process continues to be dysfunctional. In the 110th Congress, major acquisition policy issues have arisen in some of the biggest defense programs, including the Navy transformational program, Littoral Combat Systems, LCS and the Air Force's second largest acquisition program, Combat Search and Rescue Vehicle Replacement Program, CSAR-X.

We can not do much to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely in developing, testing and acquiring major defense systems. By increasing transparency and accountability and maximizing competition, comprehensive acquisition reform can provide the taxpayer with the best value; minimize waste, fraud and abuse; and, perhaps most importantly, help guarantee that the U.S. maintains the strongest, most capable fighting force in the world. That is what this legislative proposal is all about.

Our colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee have already taken considerable steps in this area, which I applaud. It is my intention to offer this acquisition package to the defense authorization bill this week. The defense bill which we will be considering this week in the Committee on Armed Services totals more than $650 billion. That's serious money.

As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in the field.

The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183. In addition, without fundamental reforms, such as I have proposed in this bill, we will continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective manner, which usually results in long delays and unexpected cost growth, as requirements, acquisition policy and resources never get in synch.

One aspect of how the Pentagon buys the biggest weapons systems that my proposal addresses head-on is the ``requirements process''; that is, the process by which the Pentagon defines the weapon system it wants to procure. All too often, costly requirements, many of which are unrelated to what the unified commands say they need, are piled on to these programs irresponsibly, without regard to the bottom-line. Just as egregious is the tendency to drop requirements that the warfighter has said they need, which sometimes justified the system in the first instance.

There is an emerging consensus that one way of addressing these, and related, problems is by integrating processes, that is, aligning the acquisition, resources, and requirements spheres of the procurement process in a way that provides the necessary accountability and agility for the Pentagon to make sound judgments on its defense investments. Historically, each sphere has been stove-piped and allowed to operate independently in a way that has produced poor cost, scheduling and performance outcomes, to the detriment of both the taxpayer and the warfighter.

Elements of this legislative proposal that provide for ``integrated processes'' include 1. having the Service Chiefs help oversee acquisition management decisions; 2. standing-up a ``tri-chair committee''--so-called because it will be that headed by the primary players in the acquisition, resources and requirements communities-- that can help make enterprise-wide investment decisions more powerfully and with greater agility than any other procurement-related organization currently within the Pentagon 3. increasing the membership of the Pentagon's main requirements-setting body to include leadership from all three spheres; and 4. setting out guidelines that, when coupled with certain provisions currently under law, can help the Pentagon better manage unexpected cost growth.

Other elements of this proposal address particular structural problems in major weapons procurement that Congress has observed over the last few years. One such provision restricts the services from entering into multiyear contracts irresponsibly when buying weapons. Buying weapons under a multiyear contract restricts Congress's ability to exercise appropriate oversight. If Congress bought these items under a series of annual contracts, there would be a meaningful opportunity for it to annually review the programs' progress. For this reason, using multiyear contracts should be limited to only the best performing and most stable programs. The approach provided for under this legislative proposal would help to ensure that.

Other elements of this proposal would help reign in abuses in how the Government pays award fees and require defense contractors to maintain a robust internal ethics compliance program that can help maintain effective oversight of defense programs.

In developing this reform package, I have pulled the ``best of the best,'' that is, the best, most powerful ideas which enjoy the broadest consensus among some of the most respected experts, whose ideas have been ventilated in public hearings and reps over the last 3 years, including the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Report, a.k.a. the DAPA or the Kadish Report; the Center for Strategic International Studies' CSIS, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Report; the section 804 report from the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; a number of reports and analyses from the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service; and others. Some of the elements of this package also institutionalize good ideas that the Pentagon has informally put in place recently.

Acquisition reform of a bureaucracy as large as the Pentagon does not happen overnight. That is why we need to act now. Our defense spending has doubled in the last decade, from $350 billion to $650 billion. Every American I talk to as I cross the country understands that we need to spend as much as necessary for national defense. However, how much is enough? Taxpayers also expect that we spend his or her hard- earned tax dollars in a sound and cost-effective manner. We have not been fulfilling that expectation. We need to. This proposed legislation sets us on that course.

Chairman Levin and I have discussed the need for greater oversight in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the common goal of producing concrete results on acquisition reform this year. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin to fully adopt this acquisition package this week and also working with his capable staff in taking comprehensive steps, similar to what our House colleagues have done, to assure that we buy weapon systems at the best price and field them as soon as practicable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing this omnibus defense acquisition reform bill today to highlight the scope and urgent need for comprehensive reform in how the Pentagon procures its biggest and most expensive weapons systems.

Defense acquisition policy has been a major issue ever since President Eisenhower first warned the Nation, in 1961, about the military-industrial complex. As Operation Ill Wind in the 1980s and the Boeing tanker lease scandal just a few years ago have taught us, Eisenhower's comments apply with equal force today.

Despite the lessons of the past, the acquisition process continues to be dysfunctional. In the 110th Congress, major acquisition policy issues have arisen in some of the biggest defense programs, including the Navy transformational program, Littoral Combat Systems, LCS and the Air Force's second largest acquisition program, Combat Search and Rescue Vehicle Replacement Program, CSAR-X.

We can not do much to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely in developing, testing and acquiring major defense systems. By increasing transparency and accountability and maximizing competition, comprehensive acquisition reform can provide the taxpayer with the best value; minimize waste, fraud and abuse; and, perhaps most importantly, help guarantee that the U.S. maintains the strongest, most capable fighting force in the world. That is what this legislative proposal is all about.

Our colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee have already taken considerable steps in this area, which I applaud. It is my intention to offer this acquisition package to the defense authorization bill this week. The defense bill which we will be considering this week in the Committee on Armed Services totals more than $650 billion. That's serious money.

As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in the field.

The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183. In addition, without fundamental reforms, such as I have proposed in this bill, we will continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective manner, which usually results in long delays and unexpected cost growth, as requirements, acquisition policy and resources never get in synch.

One aspect of how the Pentagon buys the biggest weapons systems that my proposal addresses head-on is the ``requirements process''; that is, the process by which the Pentagon defines the weapon system it wants to procure. All too often, costly requirements, many of which are unrelated to what the unified commands say they need, are piled on to these programs irresponsibly, without regard to the bottom-line. Just as egregious is the tendency to drop requirements that the warfighter has said they need, which sometimes justified the system in the first instance.

There is an emerging consensus that one way of addressing these, and related, problems is by integrating processes, that is, aligning the acquisition, resources, and requirements spheres of the procurement process in a way that provides the necessary accountability and agility for the Pentagon to make sound judgments on its defense investments. Historically, each sphere has been stove-piped and allowed to operate independently in a way that has produced poor cost, scheduling and performance outcomes, to the detriment of both the taxpayer and the warfighter.

Elements of this legislative proposal that provide for ``integrated processes'' include 1. having the Service Chiefs help oversee acquisition management decisions; 2. standing-up a ``tri-chair committee''--so-called because it will be that headed by the primary players in the acquisition, resources and requirements communities-- that can help make enterprise-wide investment decisions more powerfully and with greater agility than any other procurement-related organization currently within the Pentagon 3. increasing the membership of the Pentagon's main requirements-setting body to include leadership from all three spheres; and 4. setting out guidelines that, when coupled with certain provisions currently under law, can help the Pentagon better manage unexpected cost growth.

Other elements of this proposal address particular structural problems in major weapons procurement that Congress has observed over the last few years. One such provision restricts the services from entering into multiyear contracts irresponsibly when buying weapons. Buying weapons under a multiyear contract restricts Congress's ability to exercise appropriate oversight. If Congress bought these items under a series of annual contracts, there would be a meaningful opportunity for it to annually review the programs' progress. For this reason, using multiyear contracts should be limited to only the best performing and most stable programs. The approach provided for under this legislative proposal would help to ensure that.

Other elements of this proposal would help reign in abuses in how the Government pays award fees and require defense contractors to maintain a robust internal ethics compliance program that can help maintain effective oversight of defense programs.

In developing this reform package, I have pulled the ``best of the best,'' that is, the best, most powerful ideas which enjoy the broadest consensus among some of the most respected experts, whose ideas have been ventilated in public hearings and reps over the last 3 years, including the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Report, a.k.a. the DAPA or the Kadish Report; the Center for Strategic International Studies' CSIS, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Report; the section 804 report from the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; a number of reports and analyses from the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service; and others. Some of the elements of this package also institutionalize good ideas that the Pentagon has informally put in place recently.

Acquisition reform of a bureaucracy as large as the Pentagon does not happen overnight. That is why we need to act now. Our defense spending has doubled in the last decade, from $350 billion to $650 billion. Every American I talk to as I cross the country understands that we need to spend as much as necessary for national defense. However, how much is enough? Taxpayers also expect that we spend his or her hard- earned tax dollars in a sound and cost-effective manner. We have not been fulfilling that expectation. We need to. This proposed legislation sets us on that course.

Chairman Levin and I have discussed the need for greater oversight in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the common goal of producing concrete results on acquisition reform this year. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin to fully adopt this acquisition package this week and also working with his capable staff in taking comprehensive steps, similar to what our House colleagues have done, to assure that we buy weapon systems at the best price and field them as soon as practicable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feingold, along with Senators Coburn, Carper, Gregg, Sununu, and DeMint, in offering this important amendment. It is designed to help Congress make informed decisions on which Army Corps projects should be funded based on our national priorities.

In August 2005, our Nation witnessed a devastating natural disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit the shores of the gulf coast, it brought destruction and tragedy beyond compare; more so than we have seen in decades. Almost 2 years later, the gulf coast is still trying to rebuild and our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort. One of the many lessons we learned from Katrina is that we must ensure that our Army Corps resources are being used in the most productive and efficient manner possible. It is time that this Congress took a hard look at how we are spending our scarce Army Corps dollars and whether or not they are actually reaching our most critical projects.

Our current system for funding Corps projects is not working. Under today's practice, Members of Congress commonly submit requests for pet projects important to their constituency, and those requests are essentially horse-traded by committee and party leaders. Too often a Member's seniority and party position dictates which projects will be funded. Instead of relying on political muscle, we should fund projects based on national priority. But under the current regime, requests are made and filled without having a clear picture of how a project affects the overall infrastructure of our Nation's waterways or where it fits within our national waterway priorities. That shouldn't be acceptable to anyone in this Chamber, and it isn't acceptable to the American public.

Now, many of my colleagues are thinking, ``there he goes again, railing against earmarks.'' But earmarks aren't the full story here. There is a $58 billion backlog of Corp projects today, and the bill before us proposes to add another $15 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Unfortunately, the Corps receives $2 billion annually on average, so there is no way to fund most of these projects. What is more troubling is that there is no way to know which projects warrant these limited resources because the Corps refuses to tell Congress what it views as national priorities. In fact, every time Congress specifically requests a list of the Corps' top priorities, the Corps claims it's unable to provide an answer. This is clearly unacceptable and cannot result in the best interests of public safety.

The sponsors of this amendment are not the only ones who are concerned. Let me quote Representative Hobson, former chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, from his statement on the floor on May 24, 2006:

Last fall, we asked the Corps to provide Congress with a

``top 10'' list of the flood control and navigation

infrastructure needs in the country. The Corps was

surprisingly unable or not allowed to respond to this simple

request, and that tells me the Corps has lost sight of its

national mission and has no clear vision for projects it

ought to be doing in the future . . . frankly, what is still

lacking is a long-term vision of what the Nation's water

resources infrastructure should look like in the future.

``More of the same'' is not a thoughtful answer, nor is it a

responsible answer in times of constrained budgets.

In February of this year, the National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA, issued its report, ``Prioritizing America's Water Resources Investments, Budget Reform for Civil Works Construction Projects at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.'' The Report included the following findings:

The present project-by-project approach, with lagging

project completions, on-again-off-again construction

schedules, and disappointed cost-share sponsors that do not

know what they can count on, is not the best path to

continued national prosperity.

The prioritization process is not transparent. At several

points, within both the executive and legislative branches,

the decision process is not sufficiently open or documented

so that the public can readily understand the reasons for

funding or not funding projects.

Larger questions emerged that bear on the future

sustainability of the nation's water resources . . . The

answer to these questions should begin with a fundamental

reassessment of national water resources needs, goals, and

strategies. It should end with a substantially reshaped

planning and budgeting process . . .

Our amendment is designed to address these problems and shed light on the funding process. It would allow both Congress and the American people to have a clearer understanding of where our funding should be directed to meet the most pressing water infrastructure needs of the country.

Last year, we proposed a related amendment during debate on the Water Resources Development Act. While that amendment was intended to help Congress make clear and educated decisions on which Army Corps projects should be funded based on our nation's priorities, concerns were raised about specific provisions of the amendment and it eventually was rejected. Therefore, we have revised our amendment to address the concerns we heard on the floor last July.

For example, there was concern that our previous amendment gave too much power to the administration by placing the power of prioritization in the hands of a multi-agency committee. The amendment before us responds to those concerns by establishing an independent commission that would review Corps projects that are currently under construction or have been authorized during the last 10 years. These projects would be evaluated by several commonsense, transparent criteria. They would also be divided and judged within their own project category such as navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration. Each project category would be broken into broad, roughly equal-sized tiers with the highest tiers including the highest priority projects and on down the line. The commission would prepare an advisory report detailing its findings that would be sent to Congress and be made available to the public. Similar to our prior proposal, the prioritization report required under our amendment is an effort to inform Congress, but it does not dictate spending decisions.

To more fully understand the need for a prioritization system, let's consider funding for Louisiana in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The administration's budget request included 41 line items or projects solely for Louisiana that totaled $268 million. That works out to $6.5 million per project on average. The House Energy and Water Appropriations bill included for Louisiana 39 line items or projects totaling $254 million--again in the neighborhood of $6.5

million per project. The Senate bill included 71 line items or projects to the tune of $375 million--averaging out to $5.3 million per project. So, while even more money was proposed for Louisiana under the Senate version, individual projects would receive less money and, inevitably, this would result in delays in completing larger projects. This all comes down to the real-world consequences of earmarking. Communities actually lose under the earmarking practice.

Can we really afford long, drawn out delays on flood control projects that people's lives depend on simply because too many members are fighting to earmark projects important to them, but without the benefit of how such projects fit into the country's most pressing needs? We lack the information we need to offer us guidance in funding Corps projects. Without such guidance, we will only further the risks to public safety and continue to delay the timely completion of critical projects. Now, some may believe that under our amendment smaller projects will lose out. However, the size of the project has no impact on the prioritization system. In fact, this objective system will help find the hidden gems in the Corps project list and highlight their importance.

It is time that we end this process of blind spending, throwing money at projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for us to take a post-Katrina look at how we fund our water resources projects. Shouldn't we be doing all that we can to reform the Corps and ensure that most urgent projects are being funded and constructed? Or, are we going to be content with business as usual? As stated in a letter signed by the heads of Tax Payers for Common Sense Action, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste in support of our amendment:

Enough is enough . . . we need a systematic method for

ensuring the most vital projects move to the front of the

line so limited taxpayer funds are spent more prudently.

I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build on and improve upon the Corps reforms that we've worked to advance during the reauthorization debate. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator Feingold and I have shared for years, but never before has there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these overdue reforms.

This important prioritization amendment has been endorsed by many outside groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth.

The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be fixed. This amendment is a step toward a more informed public and a more informed Congress. We owe the American public accountability in how their tax dollars are spent. Literally, lives depend on it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail. A similar bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Giffords.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in 1 day.

For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated over 20 National trails. Before a trail receives a national designation, a Federal study is typically required to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1 percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all Arizona State maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed straight to National Scenic Trail designation.

The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest- growing States in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail. A similar bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Giffords.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in 1 day.

For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated over 20 National trails. Before a trail receives a national designation, a Federal study is typically required to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1 percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all Arizona State maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed straight to National Scenic Trail designation.

The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest- growing States in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I will vote in support of the two bills under consideration today, S. 5 and S. 30, which would provide a framework for Federal support of stem cell research under strict guidelines and ethical criteria. I supported similar legislative proposals during the last Congress.

Stem cell research has the potential to give us a better understanding of deadly diseases and spinal cord injuries affecting millions of Americans. One day, these efforts may lead to cures and treatments for these devastating diseases and conditions. At the same time, it is important and right to recognize the ethical and moral concerns that have been raised by individuals inside and outside of the medical research community regarding one particular type of stem cell research that involves embryonic stem cells. I believe that these two bills will provide an appropriate framework for moving stem cell research forward in a responsible way.

We must create a framework for Federal support of stem cell research now, since research involving embryonic stem cells is also proceeding outside the United States. While we have had a robust and needed debate on the ethical and moral concerns of embryonic stem cell research, as reflected by the President's Commission on Bioethics, the same cannot always be said of private industry and scientific research communities in other parts of the world. I am deeply concerned where unregulated research may lead us if researchers are left without ethical and moral guidance and stringent regulations and oversight.

It does not have to be that way. One bill before us today, S. 5, is similar to H.R. 810, a bill that I supported and that passed the Senate on July 18, 2006. S. 5 will provide the same strict ethical guidelines for stem cell research that the Senate supported last year. This bill would authorize Federal support for embryonic stem cell research, but limits appropriately that support to scientists who use embryos originally created for reproductive purposes, and now frozen or slated for destruction by in vitro fertilization clinics. Before there is even consideration of whether to donate unused embryos for research, the legislation would require that the patient who is the source of the embryos be consulted and a determination be made that these embryos would otherwise be discarded, and would never have been implanted in the patient or another woman.

S. 5 also provides support for alternative stem cell research methods by offering increased Federal funding and support for research that does not involve the use of human embryos. Such alternative research was unanimously supported in the Senate last July and deserves our full support again today. Researchers believe that this type of stem cell research holds tremendous potential and I strongly support their efforts. Millions of Americans affected by many diseases and conditions stand to benefit from the future cures provided by this type of research.

I am also supportive of the other measure that is before us today, S. 30. This bill will also offer increase Federal funding and support for adult stem cell research and other research that does not involve the use of human embryos. Additionally, S. 30 would allow research to be performed on embryonic stem cells taken from naturally dead embryos. This research shows some promise but only additional research will tell whether it can lead to cures and treatments, and we should embrace the opportunity that would be afforded under this legislation to determine the research potential that might exist.

The United States offers an ideal climate for scientific and medical research because of the quality of our educational institutions, the strength of our economy, and the scope of our comprehensive legal and regulatory system for protection of intellectual property rights. The guidelines and requirements contained in S. 5 do not exist currently, and this sort of embryonic stem cell research remains largely unregulated in the private sector and in many scientific communities overseas. Enacting S. 5 would provide the Federal oversight necessary to ensure that embryonic stem cell research does not expand into ethically objectionable ground in balancing the promise on the foreseeable horizon of stem cell research with the protection of human life.

It should be clearly recognized that embryonic stem cell research will occur with or without Federal approval and guidance. Keeping that in mind, I believe embryonic stem cell research is best carried out under strict Federal guidelines and oversight. With the limited Federal support and stringent guidelines afforded under this legislation, we can promote the benefits of stem cell research while maintaining clearly our ethical and moral values and obligations, which we must never sacrifice at any price.

Mr. President, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $121.7 billion in funding, approximately $19 billion above the President's request, and is replete with earmarks and other nonemergency spending. Additionally, this bill would establish a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such a mandate would have grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East and the security of Americans at home and abroad. For these reasons, I do not support this bill.

I support full funding for our troops in this time of war, and I believe that Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is obligated to give American troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. Unfortunately, the must-pass nature of this bill has proven all too tempting for Senators who could not restrain their profligate impulses to pile on spending unrelated to fighting the global war on terror.

This bill exhibits little evidence that Congress respects the solemn responsibility to be custodians of the taxpayers' dollars. In a time of war, with large Federal budget deficits, at a time when Americans deserve to keep more of their earnings at home, any rational observer would counsel restraint. Yet this emergency supplemental bill is stuffed with scarce dollars for the special interests, just as the measure approved by the House last week.

The Dallas Morning News editorial board wrote last week with respect to the House-passed bill that ``turning the President's $100 billion supplemental war spending request into a $124.6 billion, pork-laden mess'' is no way to show support for the troops, adding

that ``support for the troops takes the odd form of $25 million for spinach growers . . . $1.48 billion for livestock farmers . . . and $74 million `to ensure the proper storage of peanuts.' ''

Unfortunately, the Senate has chosen to follow the House's misguided lead by adding a host of nonemergency and unrequested provisions to the measure pending before us--a measure that is desperately needed to fund the ongoing military missions.

Let me mention some of the unrequested items contained in this bill:

There is $3 million for sugar cane growers, of which the entire amount will go to one Hawaiian cooperative. Just last year Congress provided up to $40 million for Florida sugar cane growers in an emergency supplemental bill. I suppose no ``emergency supplemental'' bill is complete without a sweetener for sugar cane growers.

There is $165.9 million for fisheries disasters. Just last year Congress provided $95 million in another emergency supplemental bill to assist fishermen in recovering from fisheries disasters and to aid oyster bed and shrimp ground rehabilitation. This year, Congress's generous aid moved from the eastern seaboard to the west coast with over $60 million alone to assist salmon fishermen in Oregon and California.

There is $3,500,000 for the Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office, to be available until September 2008. I was unaware that we had emergency tour guide needs in addition to our emergency troops' funding needs.

There is $13 million for research to develop mine safety technology. Congress provided $35 million in last year's emergency supplemental bill to hire an additional 217 mine safety inspectors, and $10 million for mine safety research, so I must question why this latest funding cannot wait for the regular appropriations process.

There is $22.76 million for geothermal energy research. While I support renewable energy research to reduce our dependency on oil, this funding was not part of the administration's budget request. Does geothermal energy research qualify as an emergency spending need? No, it does not.

There is $7 million for water quality research at pig farms in Missouri. Specifically, the bill directs the EPA to provide a $7 million grant to Water Environment Research Foundation in Alexandria, VA, to research water quality issues related to pig farms in Missouri. As many of us have stated, there is true ``pork'' in this bill as this earmark illustrates.

There is $2 million for the University of Vermont's Educational Excellence Program. This project is essentially identical to an earmark that was proposed last year. It was rejected in last year's final bill, and should not be included again this year.

There is $40 million for a ``Tree Assistance Program,'' to aid ``fruit and nut tree producers'' and other producers of a ``Christmas tree'' or ``potted shrub'' or ``ornamental tree.'' This bill is not only a big Christmas gift to special interests, but it also comes with a Christmas tree.

There is $95 million to dairy producers.

There is $20 million for reimbursements to Nevada, Idaho and Utah for ``insect damage'' from grasshoppers, crickets, and others. These pesky insects are now richer than most residents in those States.

There is $24 million to sugar beet producers as compensation for production losses. These producers should be ``beet red'' over this handout.

There is $13 million for the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program. Under this program, eligible livestock owners receive $18 for each qualifying ewe lamb. That means this provision would cover up to 722,222 sheep. Perhaps my colleagues think increasing our Nation's sheep stocks is somehow a viable alternative to the President's troop increase in Iraq? I doubt the troops appreciate the priority that we have placed on ewe lambs breeding in this bill. It is a ``baad'' earmark.

There is $6 million for crops damaged by floods in North Dakota. Yet another repeated attempt for funding that was rejected in last year's emergency supplemental.

There is $5 million for irrigation repairs in Montana. Of the $35 million provided to the USDA Emergency Conservation Programs, which was not requested by the administration, the bill earmarks $5 million for repairs to damaged irrigation ditches and pipelines in the State of Montana.

There is $30 million for the Farm Service Agency. On top of all the aforementioned programs, the bill provides $30 million for administration costs at the Farm Service Agency to ensure the Federal Government has enough employees to actually carry out all the new programs and new spending under this agriculture title. Here we see the underreported runaway effect of porkbarrel politics: more pork translates into bigger government, bigger government means larger administrative overhead, and large administrative overhead means greater costs to American taxpayers.

There is $388.9 million for funding a backlog of old Department of Transportation highway projects. The taxpayers just provided over $24 billion in unauthorized highway projects in 2005, but Congress in its infinite wisdom has seen fit to provide another $388 million in this bill.

This appropriations bill also includes numerous authorizing provisions, such as section 3001, which uses the emergency supplemental to authorize certain outdoor signs that were damaged, abandoned, or discontinued as a result of a hurricane in certain regions to be repaired, replaced, or reconstructed within 24 months of enactment. The bill also restricts authorization to the Department of Transportation to implement a provision authorized by Congress in the North American Free Trade Agreement that would allow Mexican and U.S. trucks to operate across the border, thereby facilitating free trade and benefiting the economy.

Once again, the appropriators have included a massive agriculture disaster assistance package in the emergency supplemental. The language before us today is strikingly similar to language that appeared in the 2006 emergency supplemental and to an amendment that was rejected just last December. As my colleagues surely remember, the 2006 Senate-passed emergency supplemental faced a veto threat because of the unrequested agricultural disaster package it contained. It faces the same threat today.

Most shockingly still, the bill actually underfunds the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts by nearly $1.4 billion, withholding funds from accounts directly related to fulfilling the wartime needs of the military. This is disgraceful.

This spending would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. We are at war--a war that has cost us a great deal in blood and treasure and which inevitably will cost us more still. Our troops, who fight so bravely on our behalf and who so love their country that they are willing to sacrifice everything--everything--in order to defend it, show incredible courage in carrying out their duties in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so it is only right that we, the elected leaders entrusted to preserve the common welfare, show just a modicum of the sacrifice, courage, and restraint that these warriors exhibit every day.

The Baltimore Sun editorialized last Sunday:

President Bush requested that Congress quickly fund the

troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and debate the war

strategy separately. Yet Congress chose to hold troop funding

hostage to pork-barrel spending and to provide terrorists

with a countdown clock to America's exit from Iraq. Lawmakers

must show that [past] promises of fiscal restraint were not

meaningless by providing a clean bill for President Bush to

sign. The troops deserve no less.

I agree it is time to exercise the fiscal discipline commensurate with the responsibilities entrusted to us by the American people and to provide our troops with the support necessary to win the war in Iraq. This bill, which provides insufficient funding for our Armed Forces and a damaging withdrawal deadline, sends the wrong message to our troops, our enemies, and the American taxpayer. The Dallas Morning News continued in its editorial:

[S]etting an arbitrary date for withdrawal only handcuffs

the troops trying to carry out their mission--and gives hope

to their ene-

mies . . . We hope--the supplemental war-spending bill does

not prove to be a reminder to Americans why the Constitution

invested commander-in-chief responsibilities in one

president, instead of 435 members of Congress.

This bill will be vetoed, and I will strongly support sustaining that veto. This bill is a perfect example of why I have long supported a President having line-item veto authority. There is some necessary funding in this bill that is urgently needed to support our troops in Iraq, but, unfortunately, the bill is saddled with too much wasteful spending and a regrettable war strategy to allow me to support it.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which we will be voting on at 5 p.m. that would, according to, I believe, the unanimous consent agreement, strike the language in this bill calling for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. These same provisions were rejected by the Senate 2 weeks ago by a 48-to-50 vote. Now here we are debating the same provisions that have the same serious problems. I hope they will be rejected again by the same, if not a larger, margin. Supporters of this provision say they want a date certain for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but what they have offered us is more accurately described as a date certain for surrender--a date certain for surrender--with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East, and the security of Americans at home and abroad. And they offer it just as the situation in Iraq, though still fraught with difficult challenges, is beginning to improve.

The new developments argue for more effort in Iraq rather than the withdrawal advocated by this bill's sponsors. As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the conduct of this war since 2003, and I very much regret that only now, 4 years into the conflict, are we beginning to implement the kind of strategy that was necessary from the start: a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protection of the population, economic development, and political progress, all with troop levels appropriate for the mission.

We are seeing today the emergence of precisely such a strategy. I would emphasize this point: This new plan is not ``stay the course.'' We are not staying the course in Iraq and I would not support the status quo any more than I have over the past 4 years. Nor have we

merely deployed a new commander, however capable, and additional forces. America is engaged today in a fundamentally new strategy, a new approach to the war, an approach that is already showing encouraging signs that it might succeed.

Until now, U.S. forces did not attempt to defeat the insurgency and the terrorists, protect the population, and end the violence so political and economic progress could occur. Most American troops spent their days on large forward-operating bases making forays out into hostile territory in which they were subject to ambush. Today, U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, are out of the FOBs and living in small outposts. Today, U.S. forces are operating throughout Baghdad, even in Shiite strongholds such as Sadr City, Sunni areas such as Mansoor, and mixed districts such as Rashid. As of March 15, 24 joint security stations were operational, with many more planned. American forces in these stations are visible every day, living among the population, building confidence that we--and not the terrorists--will prevail. Contrary to some predictions, this has not increased U.S. casualties. And, not surprisingly, our presence has resulted in a dramatic increase in actionable intelligence about terrorists.

You might not know it from reading newspapers or watching the evening news, but in Iraq today there are real signs the new strategy is working. I wish to spend a few moments outlining some of this progress, not to paint an overly rosy scenario but, rather, to correct what has become an almost single-minded focus in the Congress on the prospects of defeat. The debate in Congress has an ``Alice in Wonderland'' quality about it: We are debating efforts to micromanage a conflict based on what the conditions were 3 months ago, not on what the reality is today. Conditions have changed in Iraq. The Baghdad security plan-- the ``surge''--is working far better than even the most optimistic supporter had predicted. The progress is tangible in many key areas despite the fact only 40 percent of the planned forces are in Iraq.

Allow me to review some specifics.

In Baghdad, the military has reported an increase in real-time, actionable intelligence provided to U.S. and Iraqi forces by a newly confident population. Prime Minister Maliki, who prevented U.S. troops from conducting certain Baghdad operations last year, has given the green light to American incursions throughout the city, including Shiite strongholds. All of the Iraqi army battalions called for under the plan have arrived, many at or above 75 percent of their programmed manning levels. Bomb attacks and murders are down since the surge began. Civilians killed in Baghdad numbered 1,222 in December, 954 in January, and fell to 494 in February. There are reports of Sunni and Shia moving back into neighborhoods from which they had fled constant and horrific violence. Markets that have been subject to horrific car bombings have been turned into pedestrian malls that facilitate commerce and thwart terrorists.

Moqtada al-Sadr has fled, possibly to Iran, and has ordered his followers not to oppose the new Baghdad security plan. The Madhi army, purportedly dedicated to the expulsion of Americans from Iraq, does not today openly challenge either U.S. or Iraqi forces. American troops are engaged in reconstruction efforts in Saudi City, with the cooperation of the local mayor. In the western part of Baghdad, our troops are establishing new outposts in areas--these areas here--that have been conduits for al-Qaida in Iraq penetration into the capital city, and have begun to clear these areas of terrorists and insurgents. The net result of all of this is key Shiite leaders are now claiming the Baghdad security plan was their idea, and are taking credit for the increase in security--a development that would have been unthinkable 3 months ago.

There is progress outside Baghdad as well:

Throughout Anbar Province, Sunni sheikhs have banded together to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, and are pouring recruits into the police forces. Sixteen of twenty-six tribes in that western province are now working against al-Qaida. With numerous senior al-Qaida leaders killed or captured, the younger, less experienced leaders are making mistakes, such as targeting respected sheikhs and murdering children, that have alienated Sunnis and their leaders.

In the town of Ramadi, hundreds of Iraqi police last week conducted a major sweep. In the surrounding areas--all of these surrounding areas-- including Haditha and Hit, U.S. and Iraqis are conducting operations against al-Qaida and insurgents while protecting the population.

In Diyala Province U.S. forces expelled al-Qaida forces from one of their major bases in January, seized major weapons caches, disrupted fighter networks, and cleared cities and villages of al-Qaida fighters. A U.S. Stryker battalion has reinforced Diyala and is conducting major operations against AQI forces seeking to reconstitute. At the same time, other U.S. forces in Diyala are acting against rogue Mahdi Army leaders in the province and are holding the Diyala and Tigris Rivers to combat re-infiltration into Baghdad.

On the belt to the south of Baghdad, al-Qaida has come under heavy U.S. pressure in recent weeks, with American forces destroying car bomb factories and uncovering major weapons caches in areas such as Yusufiya, Latifiya, and Salman Pak.

In Mosul, U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed and captured numerous al- Qaida operatives since December.

In Samarra, American and Iraqi troops have captured al-Qaida facilitators and north of the city, Salahuddin Province, American troops have moved off of their forward operating base and into the town of Bayji, an important hub on the road network.

These developments, which have occurred just 1 month into the new strategy and with only a portion of the five additional U.S. brigades having yet deployed, suggest that, at long last, we have a strategy in Iraq that is succeeding. That is not to say that all is going well in Iraq; clearly, it is not. Violence continues, the Mahdi Army recently launched an attack in Basra, and one of Iraq's vice presidents was gravely wounded in a bomb attack. But we all know the negatives; we read about them every day and see them flash across our television screens hourly. The enemy knows how attention-getting car bombs are, and their strategy reflects this understanding.

We must try to stop such events, and push the Iraqi Government to move forward with its reconciliation efforts and meet the benchmarks laid out by the President. What we cannot do, and, for the sake of America's vital national security interests, we must not do, is give up just at the moment we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.

Yet in the face of this new reality, the proponents of the legislation offer one prescription for the future: withdrawal of U.S. forces. Despite the progress, despite the ongoing need for U.S. troops to stabilize Iraq and pave the way for a political solution, despite the moral burdens we have incurred as a result of our decision to topple Saddam Hussein, and, above all, despite the catastrophic consequences for vital U.S. interests that would follow a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the sponsors of this legislation would force precisely that.

To those who believe that the best course is to withdraw, I ask: Can you explain to the American people precisely what you believe to be the consequences of this action? If we follow the timetable included in this bill--to withdraw troops whether or not we are succeeding or failing; regardless of whether the country is secured; irrespective of whether the Iraqis can manage their own affairs alone, or whether the forces of terror and chaos will triumph--if we follow this timetable we risk a catastrophe for American national security interests.

Note that American national security interests are directly at stake. Not just Israeli interests, though Prime Minister Olmert has said that defeat in Iraq could be devastating for his country. Not just for our Arab friends and partners in the region, though they fear the consequences of massive humanitarian displacement, growing Iranian influence, and wider bloodshed. Not just for the Iraqis themselves, for whom genocide is a real prospect should sectarian violence spiral out of control. But for America. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists. But if we withdraw

from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.

Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state, in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks--including attacks against America--with impunity. If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al-Qaida will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did from Afghanistan. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice.

If Iraq descends into chaos, the power vacuum there will invite further Iranian interference, at a time when Tehran already feels emboldened. Iraq's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Turkey, would feel their own security eroding, and may intervene on the side of particular factions. This uncertain swirl of events could spark regional war severely damaging to America's fundamental security interests. And we would then face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, watch the terrorists establish new bases, with profound implications for the safety of Americans and their economic well-being, or send troops back into Iraq once again.

The proponents of withdrawal state that they envision no such catastrophe; they are not advocating a precipitous withdrawal but something more gradual, and they would leave American troops in place to focus on three limited objectives: protecting coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. But if these three missions sound familiar, that's because they formed the centerpiece of the strategy that was failing up until the beginning of this year. They would forbid counterinsurgency operations, protection of the population, and the other elements of our new strategy that are directly responsible for the successes we have seen this year. This legislation is a plan for failure. But neither failure nor success is the objective of its sponsors. They wish to get out of Iraq, whatever the consequences for America. They conceive no failure as worse than remaining in Iraq and no success worthy of additional sacrifice. They are wrong, terribly, terribly wrong.

These provisions draw a false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence. Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the Mahdi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a Shia village along the Diyala River, is that terrorism or sectarian violence? What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED in the road? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally misunderstand al- Qaida's strategy which is to incite sectarian violence. To say that targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality, and would make it impossible to fight this war against terrorism, let alone prevail in it.

Some Senators have taken a different tack, arguing that Iraq is still winnable but that, by withdrawing troops, we will actually maximize the chances of success. They concede that a withdrawal will encourage insurgents and terrorists to unleash greater violence on the Iraqi people, but believe that such violence might induce Iraqi politicians to make the political decisions necessary to end it. Could this possibly be true? Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce a political solution rather than make it less possible? Is success in Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?

GEN David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not. Of course the dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is undeniably true. But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply conjured. It is impossible for meaningful political and economic activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as Baghdad has been. Security is the precondition for political and economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political progress all of us agree is necessary. In this regard, there are positive indications. Prime Minister Maliki went to Ramadi to reach out to Sunnis, and the Iraqi Government is pushing through a new de- Baathification law. The oil revenue sharing law has been approved by the Council of Ministers and should be approved by parliament soon. Reports indicate that Iraqi officials are in discussions with a number of non-AQI Sunni insurgent groups, while fighting has broken out between AQI and Sunni insurgents.

Reconciliation is not the inevitable outcome of the new strategy. On the contrary, there is no guarantee of success. What the situation demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us the best possible chance for success. This, I believe, is what the new plan represents.

The provisions our amendment would strike would force redeployments of U.S. forces within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. This does not incentivize the Government of Iraq to make tough decisions on reconciliation; it sets the stage for the Government's collapse. This arbitrary deadline informs our enemies when they need no longer fear American military power. It signals to the population that their best bet for security really does rest in the hands of militias, rather than the Government. It demonstrates to the Government that they cannot rely on us--after all, we are pulling out regardless of the situation or the consequences. And it tells the terrorists that they--not we--will prevail.

All of us want to bring our troops home, and to do so as soon as possible. None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until recently is sustainable. But there is a new situation, a new reality in Iraq. This amendment ignores that reality and ignores the consequences that would flow from its adoption. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. When we voted to send them into battle we asked them to use every ounce of their courage and fortitude on behalf of us.

This body unanimously confirmed General Petraeus. Why would we now deprive him of the opportunity to pursue the strategy he helped design and believes can work? Why would we hand our enemies a victory when we have finally taken the initiative and they are on the defensive? Let us give him and the soldiers he has the honor to command, Americans who are risking everything so that this new plan can succeed, the time necessary to achieve its objectives.

And let us elected officials who have the honor of overseeing the conduct of our soldiers' mission in Iraq exercise a lesser magnitude of courage--our political courage on behalf of them and the country they serve. If any Senator believes that our troops' sacrifice is truly in vain, the dictates of conscience demand that he or she act to prevent it. Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree deeply with their position, and dread its consequences, have the courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it.

If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission, provides the best chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to this new strategy. It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our Nation and the values upon which they rest.

Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us. There

are no others. I wish there were. But here we are, confronting a political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the country's most vital security interests and the lives of the best Americans among us at stake. May God grant us the wisdom and humility to make this difficult judgment in our country's best interests only, and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences that will ensue.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would authorize the Native Nations Institute, NNI, for Leadership, Management and Policy. Congressman Grijalva introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives last week.

In 2000, Congress reauthorized the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent Federal agency established in 1992, to expand its organization by providing tribal governments with leadership and management training services. In response, the Morris K. Udall Foundation founded the NNI to serve as a self-determination, self- government and development resource to native nations. Over the past 5 years, the NNI has operated in partnership with the University of Arizona and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development to provide practical leadership and management training as well as policy analysis in a variety of fields for native people. Approximately 1,700 individuals representing 250 tribes have attended training sessions at the Institute to date.

The Native Nations Institute performs an important role in upholding the Nation's trust obligations to Native Americans by encouraging tribes to move towards self-governance and engaging them in nation building. Although authorization for the NNI expired last year, popular demand for its executive education services now exceeds the organization's resources. The bill I am introducing today would authorize funding for the institute's programs for a period of 5 years beginning in fiscal year 2008.

The Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy is an organization of great importance for Native Americans. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life and service of Ensign Jesse LeRoy Brown, U.S. Navy. Ensign Brown was born in Hattiesburg, MS, on October 13, 1926. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1946 and was appointed a midshipman, U.S. Navy, the following year. After attending Navy preflight indoctrination and flight training, he was designated a naval aviator in October 1948, the first African American to achieve this status. Midshipman Brown was then assigned to Fighter Squadron 32. He received his commission as an Ensign in April 1949.

During the Korean war, he operated from USS Leyte, flying F4U-4 Corsair fighter aircraft in support of United Nations forces. On December 4, 1950, while on a close air support mission near the Chosin Reservoir, Ensign Brown's plane was hit by enemy fire and crashed. Despite heroic efforts by other aviators, he could not be rescued and died in his aircraft. Ensign Jesse L. Brown was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his Korean war combat service.

In honor of his service, the Secretary of the Navy named the 38th ship in the Knox-class of frigates the USS Jesse L. Brown.

I know my colleagues will join me in honoring Jesse's memory and celebrating, along with his friends, family, and fellow naval aviators, the addition of a plaque in his memory to the Naval Aviation Monument Park in Virginia Beach to be presented May 5, 2007. Ensign Brown was both a pioneer and a model of service to country, who gave his life that we might enjoy our freedom. Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the first 15 minutes, followed, in the order in which people are recognized, by Senator Martinez for 5 minutes and Senator Alexander for 10 minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I amend my request. Delete Senator Martinez; just Senator Alexander for 10 minutes. I believe that would leave me or other speakers an additional 5 minutes, according to the division of time.

Mr. President, no matter we will debate this year is as important as the future of America's involvement in Iraq. The decisions we make will shape the future of the Middle East, the conduct of American foreign relations, the security of our Nation, and the lives of our countrymen.

Just as each of us will use our best judgment to find answers to the problems we face in this war, so too must we heed the moral implications of our judgments regardless of the political ramifications. Matters of war and peace impose responsibilities on us that mock our other less solemn obligations in which partisan or personal considerations may be expected to have a less injurious effect.

I must admit to some bewilderment at the way in which the proponents of the resolution authored by the majority leader have chosen to proceed. They do not support the President's plan to send additional troops to Iraq as one element of a broader effort to stabilize that violence-torn country. They believe the Senate should be on record as opposing the plan to augment our forces. Fair enough. Let's have this debate, and if any Senator believes our Nation is embarking on a misguided approach, he or she has not just the right but the obligation to oppose it vigorously. Such is our responsibility as elected officials in a Congress that possesses the constitutional power of the purse.

Yet we debate today not legislation that would defund the war but, rather, a new resolution authorizing again the use of military force in Iraq. Having authorized the President to use military force in Iraq in 2002, the sponsors of this new resolution would attempt to legislate our troops' mission in midstream. They would not declare war, nor end it, as the Constitution provides, but micromanage it. I ask my colleagues: Is such micromanagement of warfare the responsibility of this body? The Supreme Court has said in the past that the conduct of campaigns is the province of our Nation's executive branch, not a task for lawmakers. Yet S.J. Res. 9, by choosing particular

missions for U.S. forces in Iraq and forbidding others, would attempt to exercise the power properly reserved for the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. When we voted to send them into battle, we asked them to use every ounce of their courage and fortitude on behalf of us.

Now it is only right that we, the elected officials entrusted with overseeing the future of our soldiers' involvement, exercise a lesser magnitude of courage, our political courage, on behalf of them and the country they serve. If any Senator believes that our troops' sacrifice is truly in vain, the dictates of conscience demand that she or he act to prevent it. Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree deeply with their position and dread its consequences, have the courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it. If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission and coupled with critical political and economic benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi Government, provides a better--and perhaps the last--chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to this new strategy.

It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which they rest.

Mr. President, allow me to turn to the substance of this resolution. After stating, twice, that the conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution, it would legislate the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq. Let me ask the sponsors of this resolution precisely what assumption is behind this construction. Is it that all hope is lost in Iraq, that we have lost the war and thus must bring our troops home? Or is it the proponents' contention that by withdrawing troops we will actually maximize the chances of success?

Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce a political solution rather than make it less possible? Is success in Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?

General David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not. Of course the dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is undeniably true. But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply conjured. It is impossible for meaningful political and economic activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as Baghdad is today. Security is the precondition for political and economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political settlement all of us agree is necessary.

Until the government and its coalition allies can protect the population, the Iraqi people will increasingly turn to extra- governmental forces, especially Sunni and Shiite militias, for protection. Only when the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force will its authority have meaning, and only when its authority has meaning can political activity have the results we seek.

The presence of additional forces could allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own--impose its rule throughout the country. Toward that end we have begun executing a traditional counterinsurgency strategy aimed at protecting the population and controlling the violence. In bringing greater security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces can give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation.

This does not imply that reconciliation is the inevitable outcome of a troop surge. On the contrary, there is no guarantee of success. What the situation demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us the best possible chance for success. This, I believe, is what the new plan represents. It gives America and the Iraqis a better chance to avoid the catastrophic consequences of failure.

Catastrophic failure is, on the other hand, what many of us fear is on offer should the proponents of this resolution prevail. They would shift the focus of our commanders and troops from establishing security in Iraq to three limited objectives: protecting coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.

Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the Madhi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia? What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED in the road? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply intertwined, and that is one reason why progress has been so difficult. To say that targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality.

The three limited missions contained in this resolution would prohibit intervention to stop genocide, should that terrible consequence unfold as a result of our withdrawal. Can we really expect American soldiers and Marines to turn their backs while ethnic cleansing on a Rwanda-like level of violence occurs in Baghdad? I don't think it is realistic or right to expect Americans to observe another Srebrenica on a truly epic scale occur, and do nothing to stop it. And I don't think it is realistic to think that we can somehow ameliorate its catastrophic consequences for the rest of Iraq and the region by continuing to chase insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists on search and destroy missions or stretching our forces along its borders to prevent other nations from intervening more forcefully to support whichever side they find their interests aligned with.

I've heard some argue that Iraq is already a catastrophe, and we need to get our soldiers out of the way of its consequences. To my colleagues who believe this, I say, you have no idea how much worse things could get, indeed, are likely to get, if we simply accede to the sectarian violence in Baghdad. It is a city of six million people, two million of whom are Sunni. Without U.S. forces there to attempt to prevent it from descending further into the sectarian warfare, and all of its citizens turning to the militias and insurgents to protect them, the bloodshed and destruction we have witnessed to date will be but a suggestion of the humanitarian calamity to come.

The President, under this legislation, would have to begin redeployments within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. Why were these dates chosen? Why these and not others? Why dates for withdrawal, rather than conditions? Such mandates are a retreat, not a strategy, and we should be honest about the character of such a proposal.

Iraq is not Vietnam. We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people. If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back--possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region.

All of us want to bring out troops home, and to do so as soon as possible. None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until recently is sustainable. None of us can say we have proposed a course of action that will achieve certain success. The hour is late. The situation is, indeed, dire.

But all of us have a responsibility to withstand despair to make sound, informed judgments about how to proceed from here, and to defer our own interests and political considerations to considerations of what is in the best interests of our country. Presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't

lose wars. Nations lose wars and nations suffer the consequences. Those consequences are far graver than a lost election.

When a nation goes to war, a million tragedies ensue. None are more painful than the loss and injury of a country's finest patriots. It is a terrible thing, war, but not the worst thing. The men and women we have sent into harm's way understand that. They, not us, have endured the heartache and deprivations of war so that the worst thing would not befall us, so that America might be secure in her freedom, The war in which they fight has divided Congress and the American people. But it has divided no American in their admiration for them. We all honor them. We are all--those who supported the decision that placed them in harm's way and those who opposed it--we are all humbled by their example, and chastened in our prideful conviction that we, too, in our own way, have offered our country some good service. It may be true or it may not, but no matter how measurable our own contributions to this blessed and beautiful country, they are a poor imitation of theirs. I know we all know how little is asked of us compared to their service, and the solemn and terrible sacrifice made by those who will never return to the country they loved so well.

In the last few weeks some of those brave men and women have learned their tour in Iraq will last longer than they were initially told. Others have learned that they will soon return to combat sooner than they had been led to expect. It is a sad and hard thing to ask so much more of Americans who have already given more than their fair share to the defense of our country. Few of them and their families will have greeted the news without feeling greatly disappointed and worried, and without offering a few well deserved complaints in the direction of those of us who have imposed on them this additional hardship. Then they will shoulder a rifle and risk everything--evetything--to accomplish their mission, to protect another people's freedom and our own country from harm.

May God bless and protect them. And may we, their elected representatives, have the political courage to stand by our convictions, and offer something more than doubts, criticism, or no confidence votes to this debate. They deserve more than that.

I know that every Member of this body is united in our regard and concern for them. I know every Member of this body is struggling to understand the best way forward to avoid complete failure in Iraq. But whether this resolution carries or not, these soldiers and marines are going to deploy to Baghdad. If we are certain that despite their courage and devotion they cannot succeed, then take the action the Constitution affords us to prevent their needless sacrifice. If we are not prepared to take that action, then let us do everything in our power to help them succeed. Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us. There are no others. I wish there were. But here we are, confronting a political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the country's most vital security interests and the lives of the best Americans among us at stake. May God grant us the wisdom and humility to make this difficult judgment in our country's best interests only, and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences which will ensue.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the Subcommittee and their staff.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could complement current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options tor one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the Subcommittee and their staff.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could complement current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options tor one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Offered By: Mr. McCain

Amendment No. 6: Page 30, line 17, strike the closing

quotation marks and the second period.

Page 30, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:

``(4) Contents of report related to barriers to investment

into the united states.--In order to assist the Congress in

its oversight role of ensuring the national security of the

United States by ensuring a healthy investment climate, the

President, and such agencies as the President shall

designate, shall include in the annual report submitted under

paragraph (1) a detailed discussion of factors, including the

amount of burdensome regulation in the United States as

compared to other countries, that affect the number of

filings, changes in the types of business sectors involved in

filings, and changes in the number of investments originating

from specific countries.''.