Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are still in the majority's time period. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside and reserved and that I be allowed to address the Senate in morning business.

Mr. President, I am delighted to come to the floor today. I heard this morning the announcement by the Democratic leader, Mr. Reid, that we probably will not bring the remaining five appropriations bills to the floor of the Senate before the year is out. Quite frankly, when the Republicans or Democrats have been in charge lately, it seems we have gotten into this situation going well past the fiscal year without acting on all the appropriations acts.

It seems to me as if, my ninth year in the Congress and my third year in the

Senate, more often than not we end up with minibuses or omnibuses. We roll tremendous appropriations bills one into the other, pass them at the end of the night, and find out weeks later what is in them. That is not good regardless of your party, and it is certainly not good for the United States of America.

I come to the floor this morning to talk about some suggestions that have been made by some very distinguished and learned Members of this body on both sides of the aisle about opening our appropriations process, diagnosing the problems with it, and fixing it statutorily.

I particularly call the attention of the body to Senator Domenici from New Mexico, one of the longest serving Members of the Senate. He will be retiring at the end of next year. He has introduced consistently every year a biennial budget. The idea is that we appropriate in 2-year bites rather than a 1-year bite, and we do oversight in the second year.

Think about this for a second. What if the Congress did appropriations bills in odd-numbered years, meaning we spent the money in odd-numbered years and in even-numbered years, the same year we are up for reelection, we do oversight. So all of a sudden our debate and races are not about what we are going to spend but how our money is being spent. That is responsible, it is smart, and it makes sense.

Those who object will jump up and say: Oh, well, then we will just have a lot of emergency appropriations bills. Give me a break. Have you seen how many emergencies we have done in the last 2 years? We have emergencies come up all the time. Of course, you are going to have those. The emergency that exists is not the fear of having an emergency but the fact that once again this year we have gone past the end of the fiscal year, and we are operating under a continuing resolution. The United States has an untold number of issues that must be dealt with, and we are on cruise control in terms of the appropriations of our country. It is not right.

Now, I have voted for some appropriations bills, and I have voted against some appropriations bills. I am glad we have gotten seven done. But we have five out there that all of a sudden are probably going to get rolled in with about three or four others, get vetoed, and then get rolled into an omnibus. We will fly in here in the dead of night, have a document on our desk that is probably as thick as five or six concrete blocks stacked on top of one another, in very fine print, and we will be asked to cast a vote on how we are going to spend the money of the taxpayers of the United States. It is not right.

We need to look at new and creative ways to run the Government of the United States and its fiscal affairs. I commend Senator Domenici's appropriations recommendation and the idea of the biannual budget, and I encourage this body to start looking at a constructive solution like that. Senator Voinovich, who ran the State of Ohio--he has been a Governor--and is as sound a fiscal person as you want to find in this Senate, pointed out as well yesterday that the whole situation is just broken. We have entitlements on cruise control, discretionary spending in a continuing resolution, and we in the Congress fight over little tiny parts of the appropriations process when we ought to be considering it in its totality. We should take each of the 12 budget units, bring them to the floor, debate them, pass them, and send them to the President. Do them responsibly, as we are expected to do.

When the announcement was made that we are not going to get to five appropriations bills this year, there was also an announcement that we are going to have an Omnibus appropriations bill. We are going to roll all the bills into one, not debate them, not make decisions based on their soundness, and not even, for most of us, have a say in it; certainly not have a say during prime time or a say on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I come today to talk about responsibility on behalf of our body and responsibility on behalf of the people of the United States, and I urge the majority to join with us to seek out recommendations such as those of Senator Domenici, seek out the sound advice of Senator Voinovich, and let's get our fiscal affairs in order. If we don't, we are going to waste more and more tax dollars and we are going to have more and more programs that go without oversight and we are going to spend dollar after dollar after dollar on old problems while our new problems and new challenges go unmet. It is not right for me, it is not right for you, Mr. President, and, most importantly, it is not right for the people of the United States.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Health Information Technology Development program will see a substantial increase in this appropriations bill, and I applaud the chairman and ranking member's commitment to this program by recognizing the need to develop systems that will help disseminate vital information to help in the detection, prevention, and treatment of some of the most devastating diseases.

In particular, this program is important to improve access to quality care for Georgians living with cancer. Cancer unfortunately acutely affects Georgia, as it is the second leading cause of

death within the State, yet there is a shortage of options available for those afflicted with cancer. The Georgia Cancer Coalition, in partnership with and as the parent organization of the Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education, GA-CORE, is an independent, nonprofit organization working to improve cancer care and strengthen clinical research throughout Georgia by encouraging collaboration, sharing of information, and improving the clinical trials process. To that end, the Georgia Cancer Coalition has created a model that harnesses the combined talents of cancer researchers, physicians, and academia throughout the State to work to eradicate this destructive disease. The State of Georgia has already recognized the importance of this initiative by allocating funds from the State's budget.

As I mentioned before, the Health Information Technology Development program will see a substantial increase in Federal dollars in fiscal year 2008, and I really believe that some of it should go to Georgia.

Mr. President, before the distinguished ranking member leaves the floor, I wish to acknowledge a couple of things--one, my appreciation for his hard work on the SCHIP program and my understanding of his frustration with some of the misunderstandings that have taken place in the debate on all sides. For just a couple of minutes of the Senate's time, I wish to discuss how we got where we are and how we need to get to where we are going to be. But before he leaves, again, I commend the distinguished ranking member on his effort on behalf of children's health insurance and his effort to clear the record in hopes that, in the end, it will be a foundation for all of us to clear the record of misunderstandings. There is fault enough to go around, starting with the administration and then taking both sides of the issue. But I commend the chairman for his hard work.

Ten years ago, I chaired the State Board of Education of Georgia when the SCHIP program was first authorized. I took it upon myself, in that capacity--the one that met closest with the children in need in Georgia--to initiate a broad program of registering and getting the information out so that every poor child in Georgia who was eligible could be covered by SCHIP, which in Georgia is known as PeachCare.

On the floor of this Senate earlier this year, I fought, along with Members from 17 other States, to get additional funding necessary on an interim basis because of the shortfalls that took place in the SCHIP program. I commend this Senate now on working to reauthorize SCHIP.

We are in a dilemma. There are differences of opinion on the eligibility. There are differences of opinion on the amount of money. There are differences of opinion on how it should be raised. There have been statements that have been made that are correct and statements that have been made that are wrong. But if the House sustains the veto of the President, we find ourselves in a position I would like to address for a second, a position where there are enough agreements for us to make to come back to the floor and pass a SCHIP bill that can be reauthorized and pass this Senate almost without objection.

Everybody in the Senate agrees SCHIP should be reauthorized. On the vote to extend the current program through November 16, on the continuing resolution, there was only one dissenting vote, and it was not about SCHIP. The questions are who should be eligible, how far the program should go, whether it should run in one direction or another, and how it should be funded. Just in the remarks made by the distinguished ranking member, as well as previous remarks made by the minority whip prior to Senator Grassley's remarks--both sent the signal that there is room in the middle.

I hope the administration will understand that a lot of the frustration with the current state of SCHIP has been the waivers--13 of them--that have been granted by this administration to expand SCHIP during the last 10 years, beyond what the Congress and beyond what the Senate intended it to be.

There is common ground in front of us, and it is the poor children of America. There is a good solution in front of us, and that is to see to it that SCHIP is what it started out to be. As Senator Grassley has said, the bill that went to the President and was vetoed did correct some of those waivers. As others have said, there are serious questions on the financing mechanism. But there is no question that this Senate should be ready and prepared, immediately when the veto is sustained, to go forward and find a compromise that works for the poor children of America.

It is critical to me, as one who started in Georgia 10 years ago to register those eligible children, to see to it that they continue to get the promise that was granted by the Congress of the United States. It is equally important to me to see to it that we do not expand that program beyond what was intended and ultimately end up compromising the very poor children we started out to help.

I commend the Senator on his remarks. I urge the administration to immediately aggressively pursue avenues of agreement so we can come together as a Congress before November 16 and unanimously pass a SCHIP bill that works for the poor children of America and is fiscally accountable to the taxpayers of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was unable to be present for a series of votes yesterday in relation to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. I ask that the Record reflect that I would have voted in the following manner on each of these votes since my votes would not have affected the outcome of any of the votes:

On rollcall vote 366, the Ensign amendment No. 3294, I would have voted yea.

On rollcall vote 367, a motion to table the Ensign amendment No. 3295, I would have voted nay.

On rollcall vote 368, a motion to table the Thune amendment No. 3093, I would have voted nay.

On rollcall vote 369, a motion to table the Dole amendment No. 3313, I would have voted nay.

On rollcall vote 370, a motion to table the Vitter amendment No. 3277, I would have voted nay.

On rollcall vote 371, a motion to commit H.R. 3093 to the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, I would have voted yea.

On rollcall vote 372, on passage of H.R. 3093, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for morning business be extended by 5 minutes for each side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes, and that following my presentation, Senator Chambliss from Georgia have the remaining 5 minutes.

Mr. President, we pass lots of laws in the Congress of the United States, and from time to time there is a byproduct of the passage of some of those laws. It is called the law of unintended consequences. Such is the case with the Endangered Species Act.

In my State of Georgia, we are in a level 4, 100-year drought. As many as 7 million citizens in my State are looking at the possibility of there being no drinking water in less than 120 days. Our State has imposed restrictions of every kind. Landscapers are out of business, car washes are threatened, and there is no outdoor watering.

My home county of Cobb, in the last 14 days, has reduced, through conservation, water consumption by 20 percent.

I personally commend commission chairman Sam Owens and the entire North Georgia Water Planning District for everything they are doing. But in the absence of rain, there is nothing we can do.

Why does this affect the Endangered Species Act? Very simply because a court case was filed a few years ago under the Endangered Species Act asking for the management of the Chattahoochee River basin to be controlled so as to protect sturgeon. The judge in that case finally ruled as much and developed the judge's own interim operating plan for the Chattahoochee River. That plan means the Corps of Engineers makes releases to keep the flow in the Chattahoochee River where the sturgeon exist at a level sufficient to sustain the sturgeon. The problem is the level is insufficient to sustain human life in North Georgia if it continues.

This morning, just a few minutes ago, on behalf of myself and Senator Chambliss, I introduced an amendment to the Endangered Species Act to deal with this law of unintended consequences. It very simply says the following: The head of the Army Corps of Engineers or the Governor of a State, within which a region lies where there is a drought that threatens the health, safety, and welfare of the people in that region, may suspend the course and effect of the Endangered Species Act until that endangerment has passed.

It is a simple request. We are at a place in time in our country and in a region, my home region, the State I represent, where the health, safety, and welfare of my people are threatened. They are threatened by an act this Congress passed that had no intention to threaten them. If we have the power to do that, we also have the power to make the exception to see to it that their drinking water is safe and their livelihood is safe and at hand.

This is a critical, critical emergency. It is time sensitive. I urge each Member of the Senate to follow this simple amendment and this simple proposal and think about what they might do if it was their State, if it was their people. It is time we gave the Army Corps the latitude and the Governors of the States the authority to protect our people.

I stood in this Chamber 3 years ago and raised my right hand and agreed to defend the Constitution of the United States and protect the domestic tranquility from enemies foreign and domestic. Today I stand recognizing there is a domestic enemy, and that enemy is the Endangered Species Act which controls the Chattahoochee River and limits access to drinking water and safe water for the people of north Georgia. I urge Members of the Senate to join myself and Senator Chambliss in this critical and important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on October 25, 2007, the YWCA of Northwest Georgia will hold a vigil on Marietta Square in my hometown to commemorate Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I wish to express my gratitude for the work of the YWCA of Northwest Georgia and its executive director, Holly Comer, as they bring awareness to this important issue and its impact on our community.

The YWCA of Northwest Georgia opened the doors to the first domestic violence shelter in Cobb County in 1978 in an effort to end domestic violence in our State, our communities, and our homes. A home should be a place of stability, comfort, and love. Domestic violence shatters this important foundation. The terrible tragedies that result from domestic violence destroy lives and insult the dignity of women, men, and children. I believe I represent all Georgians when I say thank you to the YWCA of Northwest Georgia for its hard work to combat domestic violence and help those who have been victimized.

I am grateful for the social service providers, advocates, counselors, and many others who provide care for the victims. I am also grateful to the law enforcement personnel and others who work to bring offenders to justice. As we recognize Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we are reminded of the important service these individuals provide.

Domestic violence has no place in our society, and I am strongly committed to addressing domestic violence and helping those who have been victimized. By working together with the YWCA of Northwest Georgia and its dedicated staff, we can build a Georgia where every home honors the value and dignity of its loved ones.

Mr. President, today this body will pass comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to permanently ban the production, manufacture, and distribution of asbestos, a deadly carcinogen that is still legally used in the United States.

It was my honor and pleasure to work with Senator Murray on this legislation. I have nothing but the highest regard for the Senior Senator from Washington State. The Senator and her staff have worked tirelessly on this issue for several years, and I am eager to continue to work with her to assure passage of this important legislation.

We also received invaluable cooperation and assistance from the Chair and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Boxer and Inhofe.

When inhaled, asbestos is known to cause diseases including mesothelioma, a cancer that occurs when malignant cells develop in the protective lining around the lungs. Despite this hazard, the substance is not banned.

The EPA initially proposed a ban of most asbestos-containing materials in the late 1970s. The rule was not finalized until 1989. Only 2 years later, however, the Fifth Circuit struck down the rule, finding that the EPA had ``failed to muster substantial evidence'' in support of the ban.

Today, the U.S. consumes about 2,000 tons of asbestos yearly, down from almost 800,000 tons consumed in the mid-1970s. Our bill will establish a permanent ban of asbestos that will be enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The bill also mandates the most thorough Government study of asbestos to date. The study will ensure the best experts from the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA examine all aspects of asbestos, including its natural properties, its geographic distribution across the United States, and its effects on the human body.

The bill also calls for a national mesothelioma registry and a public information campaign about the hazards of asbestos-containing materials.

For the few areas where asbestos is still used in the United States, this bill provides narrow exemptions or reasonable transitions to other alternatives.

This bill is the culmination of months of bipartisan work to find common ground on this issue. With a sweeping bill such as this one, many issues were difficult to resolve.

One difficult issue to resolve involved the treatment of nonasbestiform minerals. These so-called ``cleavage fragments'' are minerals that appear naturally and more abundantly than asbestos, are in land and dirt and are mined all across Georgia and in significant areas of the Nation. They are similar to asbestos in chemical makeup but differ significantly in structure and many other respects. The Federal Government has in the past through two decisions--one by OSHA, 1992 rulemaking, and one by CPSC, 1988 decision--spoken to the lack of health risk from nonasbestiform minerals, and many published, peer- reviewed studies confirm those findings.

Our bill makes no presumption as to the health effects of nonasbestiform minerals but rather enlists the Nation's best scientists to study nonasbestiform minerals and elongated mineral particles, a term that includes, but is not limited to, asbestos and other biopersistent elongated mineral particles. It will be important in these studies to both differentiate these minerals according to the asbestos-related health risks, and distinguish between these minerals as they are identified in the natural, mixed dust environment.

Asbestos, the path of its deadly health effects, the identification and differentiation of asbestos from other minerals especially in the natural, mixed dust environment, are all complex areas of science and it is time for the Federal Government to pool its expertise scattered among a half-dozen agencies, to better understand the risks and how to properly identify the fibers of risk.

Senator Murray is to be complimented for her skill in crafting a bill that provides what we intend to be a level playing field that will produce a better understanding of the why's and how's of life- threatening exposure to asbestos, how to accurately identify and measure it in the natural and mixed dust environments, and how to separate it from common everyday dirt and rocks critical to farming, homebuilding, construction and our everyday society.

Our bill provides for research by Government agencies including the world-renowned National Academy of Sciences, calling on their input into their input into the Federal studies, to assure peer review and consideration of the best science and studies available. It is essential that we bring the best science possible to bear on this most important issue.

Another difficult issue involved asbestos-based filters used in the production of chlorine. Our bill includes a reasonable compromise that protects the safety of the workers at these facilities and empowers the EPA to review the installations to ensure that the filters pose no unreasonable risk to workers.

Lastly, I want to commend the hard work of our staff on this issue. Specifically, Bill Kamela with Senator Murray, Mary Anne Dunlap with Senator Inhofe, Grant Cope with Senator Boxer, Ed Egee from my staff, and Colin Campbell with the Office of Legislative Counsel.

Banning asbestos is simply the right thing to do. This bill provides the framework for how this country must go about achieving this goal. I plan to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see it to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for her kind remarks.

But I tell everyone in this Chamber and everyone who reads about this event, without her championing this issue over the last 7 years, it would not have happened. She has been a marvelous champion on behalf of those who have suffered from asbestos-related diseases, in particular mesothelioma.

I have watched her encounter countless hurdles on what is a very complex issue and a very complex piece of legislation. She has done a marvelous job. Her staff member Bill Kamela has been a tremendous help, as has my staff member Ed Egee. It would not have happened without the two of them.

As was mentioned by Senator Murray, Senator Boxer has been the real champion and given us the platform, the framework, and the latitude in the

committee to work this through this day.

When I entered the Congress in 1999, I had the privilege of meeting a gentleman by the name of Bruce Vento, a Congressman from the State of Minnesota. I only got to know Bruce for a short period of time, because a couple of years later his life was taken by mesothelioma. That was my first experience with it. His wife Sue has been an advocate, in countless appearances before the Congress, working toward a ban on asbestos. Today in Washington, Renee Hansen from my State of Georgia, Watkinsville, who suffers from mesothelioma, is here today by chance advocating on behalf of those who suffer from that dreaded disease, and seeking the Congress of the United States to take the action this Senate has just taken.

This country started 37 years ago by banning asbestos. But through court cases, through regulatory rulings, the ban never took place. Although the use of it has been restricted, as was stated by Senator Murray, it is used in countless products. This bill puts an end to asbestos. In those narrow exceptions of national defense, the space program, and a chlorine filter in a contained filter system, those are grandfathered, but with a system where they go out of business as replacements that can substitute for them come in.

Instead of taking legislative descriptions, we took scientific evidence and declared scientific studies in the future to make the determinations to see to it that Americans are no longer exposed to life-threatening fibers known as asbestos.

It has been a privilege for me to work on many things in my legislative career, both back in Georgia and in the Congress, but I do not know that I have ever had a more rewarding experience than looking in the eyes of those whose families and lives who have been touched by mesothelioma, and tell them the Congress today is going to do something about banning asbestos and take the step that is long overdue.

I am very proud to have walked in that march with Senator Murray and with Senator Boxer. I thank Senator Inhofe and his staff for their cooperation, who in the end made all of this possible.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I want to echo what the distinguished Senator from Arizona just said about the border in his State.

I want to talk about the importance of this from two perspectives. One is the reality of what is now beginning to work along our border because of the construction of walls. In the Yuma sector, at San Luis in Arizona, where I went earlier this year, watching the construction of the wall and watching the change of practice that is now taking place, you know, people rise and fall to expectations. If there is no expectation of consequence, then people are going to come across the border easily. Quite frankly, in Yuma and San Luis that is exactly what was going on a year ago.

But the interventions by the Border Patrol since the wall, the construction of the fence that has taken place, have dropped dramatically. Those interventions mean there are less people coming across illegally and more of those people coming across legally.

The wall is a deterrent but, most importantly, it funnels those who do want to cross our border in a legal and manageable way. I always point out San Diego, CA as the perfect example. We have an example right now of a wall and access to the United States that works and has worked for decades. There is a 16-lane highway in San Diego that comes into the United States and goes out. Through that passage, people and commerce pass every day. There is a bridge above the passage on the American border, and there are agents in each row of the cars as they come through. There are detectors for radiation, for illegal drugs, there are dogs, and arrests are made every day. The reason those cars flow and the reason it is respected is because on both sides of San Diego, there are two parallel walls with cameras, border security agents, and the only way to come into the United States is the lawful way. So if you picture for a second the high-density population areas of the southwestern United States with borders with Mexico, such as Yuma and San Luis, you can have the same type of thing there that happens in San Diego--a free passage that is legal, defensible, safe, and secure. Border Patrol agents can actually concentrate on the area of passage rather than trying to be every place at once on a border that is wide open and has no deterrent.

We have serious problems in enforcement. Our States are reacting to problems of illegal immigration. Our businesses are reacting to the problems of illegal immigration. Yet we have given them no relief. We can't validate our documents for businesses that hire people or tell them whether they are legal. We are within 18 months of finally digitizing all vital records of all States which will give us a way to end Social Security fraud. But we need to step on the accelerator. We need to see to it that respect for the laws of the United States is replete. We need to see to it that we have done the things as the Federal Government to allow our State governments to function and manage this country and manage employment and manage our aliens who come here legally.

I commend Senator Graham on his continuing hard work on the issue of border enforcement and enforcement of immigration laws. I urge each Member of the Senate to adopt the Graham amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Chambliss and Senator Martinez, for their work on this issue, as well as Chairman Inouye for his consideration and willingness to work with us to restore full funding for this critical program. This is an important program for the Navy and the Department of Defense. The proposed reduction of $9.6 million equates to a 30-percent reduction to the Navy's request. A funding reduction of this magnitude will result in a quantity reduction of seven of the 10 data link units intended to be procured in fiscal year 2008. A quantity reduction of this magnitude will significantly increase the average unit cost for these units and drive up costs to the total program. The initial operational capability for the program would also be delayed for at least 1 year, negatively impacting the integration of the MH-60R helicopter with the Carrier Strike Group. I appreciate the committee's consideration, and I, along with my colleagues, appreciate very much the chairman's willingness to work with us to restore funding for this essential program in conference.

I join my colleagues in expressing our sincere appreciation to Chairman Inouye for his willingness to address our concerns. We all appreciate his great service to our Nation--as a courageous soldier and a great Senator as well.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah and appreciate the time.

Mr. President, I would like to speak as in morning business for about 8 minutes.

Eight minutes, yes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today based on an occurrence that took place last evening that caused me to think a little bit about this body and our priorities right now at this time.

Two gentlemen from my home community of Cobb County, GA, invited me to go to dinner with them and about 25 other members of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce--Mr. Don Beavers, a distinguished retired marine who now works at the Chamber; and the chairman-elect, Sam Kelly. The invitation was to talk about their issues. But they did an amazing thing last night: They called Walter Reed, they called the Army, and they said they would like to entertain a couple of our wounded warriors who are being treated as outpatients at Walter Reed hospital.

So last night, I sat at a table at Old Ebbets Grill with citizens from my community and two distinguished wounded warriors from the 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. One had served in Iraq as a sniper and was injured when an IED exploded on his humvee as he was coming back from deployment near Baghdad. Since that hit, he has had 12 surgeries, with substantial reconstruction on the entire left side of his body, from his head to his toe. The other, a special operations soldier of the 82nd Airborne Division, lost his leg. Both--some time now, a year after their initial treatment--still take pain killers, still are in therapy, and still show the scars from their tragic injuries suffered at the hands of an IED in the case of one, and in the case of the other, an RPG, a rocket-propelled grenade.

As we sat at the table, I thanked them so much, as all of us do, for their service to our country and listened to their concerns and listened to their thoughts and listened to their prayers for the soldiers they left when they were injured in Iraq.

It occurred to me as we were talking that we are now in the third week in the Senate--over the third week--of debating the reauthorization of the Defense bill. Think about that. You sit at dinner one night with two soldiers who sacrificed limbs and pain and suffering for you and for me, and we continue to dawdle and get off track on authorizing or reauthorizing probably the single most important thing we ought to be doing. I am concerned that the leadership has decided to take ancillary issues unrelated to defense, unrelated to our men in the field, unrelated to what is going on in the world today, and protracting the debate on what is absolutely essential and needed.

As I sat there and listened to these two wounded warriors, both of whom suffered from explosive devices that hit their humvee or their armored personnel carrier, I realized we were still dawdling on the debate on the authorization of the MRAP; I realized we are dawdling on the debate in terms of the pay raise for our soldiers; I realized, as meritorious as some of the amendments we are discussing may well be, they all pale in comparison to the 170,000 men and women deployed right now in Iraq fighting on our behalf.

Now, there are differences of opinion on the war in the Senate, and I respect that. This is the body and this is the place where those differences should be debated and be debated thoroughly. But I want to jog everybody's memory for a second. It was May when we did the emergency supplemental that we spent not 1 week but 2 weeks on, not debating the supplemental but debating whether we should withdraw or set dates certain or leave Iraq. We had numerous votes--none of them successful--on setting a date certain. Finally, as Memorial Day approached, we decided to pass on the money so needed to support our troops. Then, 60 days later, in the middle of July, pressing before the August break, another bill came up, and once again we redebated all the same issues with regard to dates certain, with regard to withdrawal, even one with regard to defunding the military operations in the war on terror and the battle in Iraq.

Now here we are, 2 months later, in the third week of a Defense authorization bill, and we have already had these same debates once again, and the votes have not changed except they have lost by a little bit more than they lost in July. Yet, all over the country, and last night at Old Ebbets Grill, Americans are sitting down with their sons and daughters, who fought in harm's way and have come back, many of them wounded and harmed, and how do you explain to them it takes 3 weeks to debate the reauthorization of their pay or 3 weeks to debate the reauthorization of MRAP that just might have prevented the very injuries those two soldiers I sat with last night incurred?

So I think it is important that we set priorities. It is very important, I am sure, to the Senator from Massachusetts to discuss hate crimes legislation. I understand that. But in setting priorities, is it right to take something such as hate crimes--which already exists in 45 States, already exists in the Federal law in terms of race and religion--and get all off track on MRAP and reauthorizing the pay of our troops and an increase? Is that right? Is that setting the right priority? Is it important for us to do that?

Is it important for us to do some of the things that have happened over the last 3 weeks? In fact, to give a little report card, because I have been intimately involved in amendments on this bill, this Senate, in 3 weeks of debate, has passed en bloc 34 amendments to this bill-- all technical, none requiring debate, one of them mine. It would seem that instead of having all the debate about ancillary subjects or about recirculating amendments that twice before on the floor of the Senate, within 6 months, have failed, it is about time we got our priorities straight. It is about time we authorize the Department of Defense. It is about time we get to the pay raise for our soldiers. It is about time we get to the MRAP that Republicans and Democrats--the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, and all of us--have worked so hard on.

It is about time we set our priorities and get them straight. Whatever the merit of other issues may be, if they are unrelated to the Department of Defense reauthorization, they can wait until another day because every day our sons and our daughters are deployed for you and for me in harm's way. We can differ on the war, and I respect that, but there should not be a difference on the funding of our men and women deployed in the Middle East.

I, for one, call on the leadership for us to get back to the business we are called on to do. Let's complete the DOD authorization without any other dilatory tactics or any other ancillary amendments, other than those that relate to the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and Chairman Boxer and Subcommittee Chairman Baucus for their outstanding work on the WRDA bill. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and point out the critical need for the infrastructure we have in this country.

Historically, every 2 years we have passed the WRDA bill. Now we have gone 7 years without that. What happened in the last 7 years? We have had significant droughts, we have had Katrina, and we have had other great tragedies. It is about time that we came back to the floor and passed a comprehensive bill.

I know there has been criticism of the amount of the bill. I saw a CBO score of about $23 billion. I remind my colleagues that this is an authorization, No. 1. No. 2, it is 7 years in the making, not 2. No. 3, we have had significant tragedies and have significant threats in our own States that need to be addressed and need to be prioritized.

I will take my own State as an example. I represent a State with a major metropolitan area, Atlanta. That city has 5 million people whose water source is Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River. We don't have aquifers in the north to draw from, only the surface water that we retain. Through the leadership of a visionary Governor a few years ago, we passed the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District to take the consolidated area of north Georgia and put it into a singular planning district for water purposes, management of storm water, to see if we could maximize the return we get on the investment we make in the most precious thing we have, our water.

This legislation has money for conveyance systems. Local water authorities joined together with a regional plan to cooperate and build a solid water infrastructure.

Secondly, the Big Creek Water Management and Restoration Program is in here, which I started 9 years ago with the city of Roswell, which was developed to manage storm water, its runoff, and control water better in a major urban area. It was cited by the EPA as one of the most outstanding projects of its type in America.

Also in here is a very visionary agreement between the Governor of Georgia and the Governor of South Carolina, who signed a bistate water compact for the construction of a port to be operated jointly by the State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina in Jasper County, SC, on the Savannah River. The Ports of Charleston and Savannah are two of the major ports on the east coast of the United States. With this planned agreement and the funding that pays for the study put up by those States, and the study authorized in this legislation, these two States will set a historic precedent to reach out together and form partnerships so as to make the maximum use of the port capabilities and facilities of our States on the Atlantic Coast.

A lot of work has gone into this legislation. Senator Inhofe has worked tirelessly, as has Chairman Boxer, but I want to mention the ones who don't get much credit: Mike Quiello and Caroline McLean, on my own staff; Angie Giancarlo; Let Mon Lee; Jeff Rosato; Ken Kopocis; Tyler Rushforth; Paul Wilkins; and Jo-Ellen Darcy, all who spent countless hours to make this legislation come to pass.

I thank the ranking member for the time. I commit my vote to passage of the conference report and ask my colleagues to join me and show a significant vote for the WRDA conference committee report.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, today I congratulate in the Record the men and women who serve at the Marine Corps Logistics Command's Maintenance Center in Albany, GA, for being selected for the second time to receive the Robert T. Mason Depot Maintenance Excellence Award.

The Robert T. Mason Depot Maintenance Excellence Award is named for the former Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense of Maintenance Policy, Programs and Resources who was a champion of organic depot maintenance for three decades.

In 2005, the Marine Corps Logistics Command's Maintenance Center in Albany, GA, was the inaugural winner of this award for Depot Maintenance Excellence. That year's recipient was the Design and Manufacture Vehicle Armor Protective Kits Program of the Maintenance Center in Albany, Georgia, for its support of the Global War on Terror. This program provided protective armor kits for U.S. Marine Corps combat vehicles, allowing the Marines to be a more effective fight force and had a direct impact on their safety and morale.

This year, the award went to the Dedicated Design and Prototype Effort Team of the Maintenance Center in Albany, Georgia. They provide exceptional and responsive maintenance support by demonstrating the ability to be responsive, resourceful, agile and creative by designing and prototyping multiple systems in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I am pleased to acknowledge the great achievement of these men and women of the Marine Corps Logistics Command's Maintenance Center who provide support for our men and women fighting the global war on terror.

Mr. President, on October 1, 2007, the Cobb Chamber of Commerce will hold its Public Safety Recognition Awards breakfast, and I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for all public safety personnel in my home county of Cobb.

Our public safety officers and personnel make the difference in ensuring that we are able to go about our daily routines, get a good night's sleep, and enjoy the many freedoms we have in our country today because we don't have to constantly fear for our well-being. For this, I believe I am representing not only my Cobb County constituents, but all Georgians when I say thank you to all of our public safety personnel.

Whether they are the dispatcher answering the telephone, an officer on the street, an undercover agent living in dirty and dangerous conditions to obtain needed information or an assistant at a desk, they all work as a team to keep me safe, my family safe, and Cobb County safe.

In addition to the daily requirements of basic safety, they go above and beyond by helping to educate our citizens and young people through special programs in schools, such as Partners in Education, and throughout the community to help fight crime and keep folks off drugs.

As we recently observed the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our Nation, we are reminded of the great lengths our public safety personnel and first responders go to in order to keep us safe. Cobb County's public safety personnel--our police, firefighters and emergency medical professionals--have answered the extraordinary call to serve their county and risk their lives to keep our community safe. They are America's first line of defense, and they are our true American heroes.