Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified at 3\1/2\ minutes, and I will then leave the rest of our time for the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I am very troubled by this process. We are taking up a $463 billion appropriations bill. There is no amendment on the House side and no amendment on the Senate side being allowed. We are going to cloture with no capability of amendments. Yet the deadline for this bill is February 15. We have several days in which we could offer amendments, debate amendments, and go back to the House, if we set our minds to doing it. And if there was a true bipartisan spirit, we would be able to do that.

It has been said we didn't pass these appropriations bills last year, and that is correct. We didn't for a variety of reasons, some of which was obstruction from the other side and some of which was obstruction on this side. I understand that. But now we are where we are. We have been here before.

When the Republicans took control in 2003, after the Democrats had the majority, we didn't put a continuing resolution forward for the 11 appropriations bills that had not been passed. We put forward an Omnibus appropriations bill, a bill that was amendable. There were, in fact, 100 amendments offered. There were 6 days of debate, and the bill was passed with mostly Democratic amendments.

I do think, in a sense of fairness, that is what was expected when the majority switched, that we would have an Omnibus appropriations bill with some reasonable number of amendments. Our leadership certainly offered a limited number with a limited time for debate. We wouldn't have had to have a cloture vote if we had been able to have that open dialog, but we didn't. Now we have a $463 billion bill, in which $3 billion has been taken out of what this Congress passed last year for military construction to prepare for the base closing law we passed and to implement that on the deadline we made, which was 6 years. There was a request for $5.6 billion that was necessary for us to bring 12,000 troops home this year and to go forward with the rest of the appropriations for the troops coming home from overseas, and $3 billion was taken out of the bill that has passed and put into other priorities with no hearings and no amendments allowed on the floor.

I don't see that is in any way able to be described as fair, bipartisan. It is not the way we ought to do business in the Senate.

So here we are taking $3 billion from our military accounts and putting them into accounts throughout the Federal Government. I cannot think of anything more important than making sure our troops, when they come home from overseas, have living conditions and training facilities that we are trying to provide for them. The reason we are moving them home from overseas is to give them better training facilities. That is what the bulk of the $3 billion is going to do, and that is why we need to stop cloture on this bill, offer one or two amendments and send the bill to the House. We have plenty of time to work out something so simple.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues: Do not vote for cloture on this bill yet. We will have plenty of time to fund the other priorities in the bill, but we can also add amendments. This is the Senate. There are 100 Members, and we should have a say in a $463 billion omnibus appropriation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for beginning to talk about this Omnibus appropriations bill that is coming to the floor in the form of a continuing resolution.

At this point, we are told the amendment tree will be immediately filled and there will be no amendments allowed to this over $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill. It is not too late for the distinguished leader of the Democrats, the majority leader, to allow some amendments. He said on the floor yesterday he was open to discussions and thought that probably maybe some amendments on the Democratic side and the Republican side would be in order.

When you take something that is this big--$400 billion--this number of appropriations bills, and you see the incredible changes that have been made in these bills, without any hearings, without sufficient time to even digest everything that is in these bills, I think a few amendments are warranted.

I think Senator Coburn pointed out something that surely no one intended--surely no one intended--to stop babies from being able to have the HIV/AIDS test that would give them a chance at a quality of life which they will not be able to get if they do not have this test and catch potential AIDS in their bodies right at birth.

I am going to talk about one I know a lot about, and that is the military construction and BRAC. Military construction is completely dropped in this bill, completely dropped from last year's military construction bill. We passed this bill in the Senate. We tried to go to conference. The Senate sent it to conference. But we were not able to get the House to agree; therefore, the bill died last year.

I will say that it is not the Democrats' fault that bill died last year. But, nevertheless, the Democrats now are in charge, and I would ask the distinguished leader to acknowledge we have bills that have not been fully passed, conferenced, and sent to the President, but a continuing resolution that is unamendable is not the right approach, particularly if we take to heart what the distinguished leader said was going to be different about the Senate under his leadership.

In fact, there is precedent. In 2003, the Republicans took over the Senate after the Democrats had been in control. There were 11 appropriations bills undone. Those 11 bills were put together in an Omnibus appropriations by the Republicans. There were 6 days of debate. There were 100 amendments offered. The majority of the amendments that were added to the bill were Democratic amendments.

So I think that is the precedent we should follow in the Senate. This is a body that is supposed to allow for discussion, debate, transparency, and minority rights. We are in the minority. We know that. But we have never been denied on such a continuing basis the ability to even affect legislation or amend legislation. That seems to be a pattern in the first 5 weeks of this session. I do not think it is what was intended by the majority when they took control of the Senate, and I think there is a chance to come together and maybe go a different way; that is, to allow amendments on major bills.

We now have a bill that is called a continuing resolution, and it strips BRAC, it strips the base closing construction that will keep the Base Closing Commission results that were adopted by Congress that are the law of this country from going forward with the 6-year timetable that was set out by Congress.

We have 6 years to do the construction that will prepare bases that are going to receive troops and to close bases in an expeditious manner so the cities that have these large amounts of land will be able to take over those bases and do something productive for their respective cities with those bases.

What we have now is a delay that will last 1 year. It is going to cause a backup in the system of adhering to the congressional responsibility for BRAC. It is going to begin to handicap the ability to move troops from overseas that are scheduled as early as this year to move.

Mr. President, 12,000 troops will begin to move that are part of the rebasing operation from foreign bases to American bases. Twelve thousand will not be able to move with all of the amenities we require.

Let me read excerpts from a few of the military leaders of our country, letters that were sent on behalf of the military of our country, asking that Congress act on both the military construction bills that were passed by both Houses of Congress but not conferenced last year and the $3 billion that was taken out of the budget and spread throughout the other bills that are in this omnibus continuing resolution.

The Democrats have taken $3 billion out of military construction to effect our mandate of a 6-year period in which the military has to make the

transfers we adopted in BRAC. It takes $3 billion out of this year's budget and transfers it to other priorities that have never had 1 day of hearing and never had even a discussion in the committees.

This is a letter from Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense:

As you prepare to complete the Joint Continuing Resolution,

we urge you to include provisions to permit the execution of

the Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget request [as it

relates to the Department of Defense].

Funding programs at FY 2006 levels under a year-long

Continuing Resolution--

Which is what is in this bill--

would negatively impact critical priorities and missions

within the Department. If the [continuing resolution] levels

are set at [these] enacted levels, the Department will face

shortfalls of over $1 billion in the Defense Health Program--

Part of that is accommodated in this bill--

$0.5 billion in Basic Allowance for Housing, and $4 billion

in the Base Realignment and Closure programs.

Now, this was sent before this omnibus continuing resolution came over. Part of those are funded but not the Base Realignment and Closure programs. Mr. President, $3 billion of the $4 billion requested was taken out.

Secretary Gates goes on to say:

Delays in completing BRAC could result in postponing

scheduled redeployments from overseas stations to the United

States. Deferring BRAC implementation would also impede

community efforts to quickly transition the affected bases to

civilian use, so that the impact of BRAC on local economies

can be reduced. Furthermore, congressionally approved BRAC

recommendations were developed to provide cost savings

benefits; any delays will jeopardize those benefits.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I have just read, addressed to Senator Byrd, with a copy to Senator Cochran, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the $3 billion that has been cut out is going to affect many important bases in our country. One of the bases is in Texas. Fort Bliss is in great need of military construction because it is designated by the Department of Defense to receive 30,000 troops, and there is much that needs to be done to prepare the base for those overseas redeployments.

I happen to know that one the best, of course. But let's talk about Fort Riley, KS, where a good number of the redeployed troops are also going to be stationed. They are very concerned in Kansas. I know Senator Roberts and Senator Brownback plan to speak this afternoon. But I am speaking now because I am hoping the majority leader will decide that maybe we do need some amendments to this bill, that maybe we can work together in a bipartisan way and work these out.

These BRAC budget provisions have been adopted by the Senate. The military construction appropriations bill was a quite bipartisan bill that was adopted last year by the Senate as well.

When you look at Fort Riley in Kansas, which is one of the major-need areas for BRAC funding that we are going to talk about--I know Senators Roberts and Brownback will expand on it--you have a Battle Command Training Center. This is for troops coming from Europe to Fort Riley for training. The major part of the military construction for Fort Riley is a training center. You have runway improvements, a child development center for quality of life for our troops--all of this is at Fort Riley, KS--a soldier-family medical clinic at Fort Riley, a division headquarters. All of that is Fort Riley, KS, which is one of the major areas that would be hit by this delay in taking out the $3 billion from BRAC.

I have been talking to Senators Chambliss and Isakson of Georgia. They will have a huge hit as well in Fort Benning. Fort Benning is another of those that is in need of great enhancement.

I ask unanimous consent to extend my time for 5 minutes.

I did not realize that. I ask the Senator from Texas how much time he would like to have.

Mr. President, I will give him 5 minutes. Just let me have the rest of that time and notify me when there is 5 minutes remaining then I will yield to the Senator from Texas.

In Georgia, Fort Benning is going to be a major loser because of the delay. You have two major training barracks and training brigade complex units that will not be able to be started, a fire and movement range, a modified record fire range, brigade headquarters, training barracks complex No. 2, and the stationary gunnery range.

Again, we are trying to enhance training for our troops. Many of those being brought home, the 70,000 troops being brought home in the Department of Defense plan, are being brought home to increase their training capability.

I encourage and ask Senator Reid to reconsider. Let's have some agreement on equal numbers of Republican and Democratic amendments. Let's have some say in this Omnibus appropriations bill. I cannot imagine we would pass a bill such as this with no amendment whatsoever in either House of Congress. I don't think that is what the American people hoped for when they voted last November.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

I was just listening to his statement and agree that there is going to be a budget gimmick if this comes up in a supplemental. But is the Senator from Texas a part of an amendment we would like to proffer which would restore $39.1 billion but cut .73 percent across the board in all of the other accounts in this bill except for defense, veterans, and homeland security, so that we could pay for it, be fiscally responsible, and yet do what we need to do for the Active-Duty military, not to drain their operations to fund military construction projects that should be funded in this bill? Is the Senator aware of that?

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

Mr. President, let me just say that when the distinguished majority leader is prepared to go forward or the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is ready to proceed to H.J. Res. 20, I will stand down. But I wish to take this opportunity to also commend my colleague, Senator Cochran.

It is truly amazing when someone has been here long enough to cast 10,000 votes. It means they have represented their State well, and it means they are indeed diligent because they are here doing their duty.

I have loved working with Senator Cochran. He has been the kind of person who has helped every State when that State needed it. And I hope he has 10,000 more.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader if I could respond.

Mr. President, I so appreciate what you have just said. I do hope the door is still open. Originally, I had hoped we could do the military construction as well as the base-closing commission funding because the delays are going to have impacts throughout the military services. But the amendment I am hoping to offer, that I am told now you are considering--the Hutchison-Inhofe amendment--only does the BRAC funding. It only restores the funding for BRAC so that the 6-year time allotment this Congress itself has mandated for BRAC to be completed can, in fact, be done. If we delay the BRAC, it will have severe consequences on 12,000 troops coming home hopefully this year. And there are so many other things. I know some of the Members on your side of the aisle have talked to you about environmental remediation that will not be able to be done, and other things. So I so hope we can work this out so the House could approve it and we would not have to have a conference.

I hope the majority leader will also consider, when we do go into the supplemental, looking at some of the MILCON that must be done before the 2008 budget starts for that year of funding. There are some prerequisites that are necessary. But I have set that aside in deference to the wishes of the majority to try to move a bill forward. But I do think the BRAC has been the single area where we have not been able to accommodate what needs to be done to move forward. And delays are very costly.

I do thank you for making it a point to say that to me, and I think we certainly would have time. I would work with anyone on the Democratic side or House side to work out differences, if there are differences. All of these projects in the $3.1 billion we would like to put back in have been approved by Congress, approved by the Senate, and asked for by the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I have heard the remarks of the distinguished majority leader, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the distinguished ranking member. All I have now is hope because the distinguished majority leader has said he will still work to get the BRAC amendment, which I am going to offer, or attempt to offer, this afternoon. I know there will be an objection. But I want it to be on the record what we are trying to do, with the hope, as the leader said, that perhaps we can adopt this amendment and still make the deadline.

The deadline is actually over a week away, and I think if all of us want to fully fund our Base Closure Commission projects, we can do that.

I also will say I am very hopeful from the chairman's remarks that we will have bipartisan bills. As has been noted on this floor already today, I have been chairman and ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee for some 6 years. I have never noticed a difference when I was chairman and when I was ranking member because Senator Feinstein and I were working together, trying to accommodate the needs of every State in our country. We worked so well together that when she was chairman, it wasn't any different from when I was chairman.

I want that to be the case for our appropriations bills again. But I have to say, in all honesty, I don't feel I have had any input into this particular bill. I don't see the bipartisanship. I don't see the cooperation. We could have done what the Senate normally does, and that is allow some number of amendments--not a filibuster amendment tree, not an unreasonable number. But I think some of the issues that have been brought forward today and in recent days, since the H.J. Res. 20 was made known, are legitimate. I believe we would agree on a bipartisan basis, if we had the ability to offer amendments and debate them, that we should be funding the Base Closure Commission recommendations that were ours, with a deadline that is ours so that we can meet our own standard.

I believe we could work that out. We have already passed the exact same $3.1 billion--actually $5 billion--appropriation in this body, so I know we can do it. We have a week. I suggest it would be a wonderful gesture on the part of the majority to allow that to happen.

In addition, what Senator Coburn talked about earlier today, the HIV/ AIDS testing of babies, I know there is not one Member on that side who wouldn't make it a priority to give babies a test that would allow them to be inoculated immediately and give those children a chance to have a life. But the funding for the Ryan White Act was cut back, so that is not going to be allowed to go forward.

I don't think that is the intention. I ask, if that is not the intention, can we not sit down as responsible Members of the Senate and work out these few items, work with the House and do a preconference? Nobody wants to delay this legislation, but we would like to have a say.

Where I have talked bipartisanship, that is what we do in the Senate. That is the way we act, in a bipartisan way, which, in the past, the Appropriations Committee has certainly done.

I am disappointed in this resolution. I am disappointed especially in the process that does not allow for an amendment.

Mr. President, is it in order to call up amendment No. 242, the Hutchison-Inhofe amendment to H.J. Res. 20?

It is not in order then, Mr. President?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the Hutchison-Inhofe amendment is cosponsored by 27 Members of our Senate. The cosponsors, besides myself and Senator Inhofe, are Senators Allard, Baucus, Bennett, Brownback, Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint, Dole, Enzi, Graham, Kyl, Lott, Martinez, McCain, Roberts, Sessions, Stevens, Thomas, Vitter, Voinovich, and Warner. That is a good number. That is almost a third of the Senate, and there are many who said they would like to cosponsor the amendment, but they were concerned about stopping the bill or going against the leadership on the Democratic side.

It is clear we can work this out, that people want to have this amendment. The amendment is very simple. It restores $3.136 billion that was taken out of the Department of Defense base closure account, and it is paid for so that we keep the fiscal responsibility with a rescission of .73 percent--that is three-quarters of 1 percent--across the board of all of the accounts, except for defense, homeland security, and veterans.

With a .73-cut, which I think any agency or program could take without any disruption whatsoever, I believe we could fully fund our military and the important operations they are doing, and that is what I think is essential.

I have a much longer set of remarks, but at this point, I will yield for a question from the Senator from Alabama, who I know is on a timetable.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alabama is right. Actually, he may be a little under because the original need was $5.6 billion, and we are cutting it by $3.1 billion. We are cutting it by $3.1 billion. I think that it is a huge cut. It is going to affect the whole synchronization.

We gave the Defense Department 6 years in which to accomplish what the Base Closure Commission recommended, passed and then was adopted by Congress and signed by the President. We have given them a deadline, and yet as the Senator points out, of the $5.6 billion that was in the budget that has been approved by the Senate before, we only have $2.5 billion.

Yes, and I point out the cost savings projection is $20 billion over the period we would be closing and then gearing up the bases that are being consolidated.

In addition to that, it has been said the majority intends to bring this $3.1 billion back in the supplemental, but the supplemental is outside the budget process; therefore, it is going to be $3.1 billion added to the deficit, which will have to be subtracted from the $20 billion savings we were envisioning from the BRAC.

I have to say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, I didn't like some of the recommendations of BRAC, but we passed it, the President signed it, and Congress has mandated the Department of Defense to go through with it. We certainly cannot do it halfway if we are going to be responsible stewards of the security of our country, as well as its tax dollars.

I am very concerned about it. I think we are going to cut back on the savings. We are thwarting the mandate we set down by not going forward.

We should have governed last October 1. We should have gone forward in November and December, but for a variety of reasons, including some on our own side, we didn't do that. Now we have an opportunity to do it, and do it right. I am just hoping, and I haven't given up hope, that we will do this the right way; that we will pay for it so that we achieve the objective of staying within that budget because we can do that. It has been planned for, it has been in the budget, and we shouldn't have to add it to a supplemental and increase the deficit for these particular projects.

I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, I still control the floor. I am yielding for a question.

Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a response for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky asking the question, and I will read a letter signed by all four of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dated last November, where they are asking that we pass a short-term CR rather than a complete year's CR because they are so concerned about that very issue. They say in their letter:

As required by law, we are executing thousands of

interrelated moves to implement all the base realignment and

closure projects by September 2011 and to reposition our

forces under the Global Defense Posture review. Disruptions

in resources will cause delays and desynchronize these moves.

This, in turn, can disrupt our force generation and

deployment schedules, which ultimately degrades readiness

while increasing the burden on servicemembers and their

families.

So we know now from their own reports, I would say to the Senator from Kentucky, that 12,000 of those who are scheduled to be coming home just this year are going to be delayed, which is going to cause a domino effect all the way down the line. It is incomprehensible that we have this opportunity, but we are not able to go forward.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for asking the question.

Mr. President, I will yield up to 15 minutes to Senator Roberts, after which I will yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss.

I am going to send my remarks to the desk and ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record after Senator Chambliss has spoken. I will need to follow him in that order. I ask unanimous consent my remarks be printed in the Record after Senator Chambliss.

Senator Roberts and Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, Senator Inhofe has been here for several hours as well. He has been waiting patiently, as has Senator Shelby. I ask if it would be possible to allow the people who are on the floor to be put in an order. If Senator Kennedy would be able to then come after Senator Roberts, Senator Chambliss, Senator Shelby, and Senator Inhofe?

Mr. President, at this point I think I will keep the floor and yield to Senator Roberts for 15 minutes and let me talk to Senator Murray. I wish to try to accommodate Senator Murray, but I will not do that at this time.

I yield up to 15 minutes to Senator Roberts.

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Washington asked for me to yield to her for a question, and I will yield to her for a question.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Kansas for a question at this time. For a question only.

The distinguished Senator from Kansas is exactly right. You know, it was pointed out earlier that we had $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2006, with the implication that we were increasing from that amount in this budget because it has $2.5 billion. The problem is, in 2006, the money was planning money, now we are trying to actually build the project and we are missing $3.1 billion. Now we are in the building stage.

The Senator is correct. I have no memory of ever doing that. Of course, there are no earmarks in the BRAC funding. The funding, the $3.1 billion that was set out was all Department of Defense. They are doing the planning for BRAC, not Congress. There are no earmarks.

It would appear the Senator is correct.

Absolutely incredible. As a matter of fact, 30,000 troops are going to be moving into Fort Bliss. There have been many accommodations begun. But now it is going to stop in its tracks and we are going to have the same situation. We could be having either substandard barracks or worse, it could be tents or mobile homes.

Absolutely. Absolutely. We are talking about all the facilities that would accommodate the move of soldiers and their families. So you have childcare facilities--the Senator from Georgia is on the floor and he has essential not only childcare facilities and housing and barracks but training facilities. The reason we are bringing the troops home from Germany is for better training facilities, and at Fort Benning, part of this BRAC funding is for the training facilities that are the upgrades the Department of Defense is trying to give to our men and women for their readiness for their missions.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for pointing out some of the real problems delaying this BRAC funding are going to bring. I hope the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee will find a way we can move the BRAC military construction forward. It is essential that we do this, and we can do it. We have a week in which we can work out any details that need to be worked out. I think it is very important that we do what is right for our country. We have time to do it. There is no reason not to do it, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way.

What has been suggested by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is that we will handle this in a supplemental, that we will put $3 billion into the supplemental. But, of course, that means we will be spending $3 billion outside of the budget and added to the deficit, which is not necessary. We can fix this with a very small cut across the board of all of the projects in the bill, except for Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans. I think anyone can put together a program that has less than a 1-percent cut, and I think most people would say our priorities should be the active-duty military, that we should have the ability to put the housing and the childcare centers and the training facilities in place that would accommodate the needs of the military. My goodness, look what our military people are doing for us and for our country.

The idea that we wouldn't give them what they need to do the job, and when they come home, to have a place to stay and live and do their training so they can be the very best, would be unthinkable. It would be unthinkable. So I do hope we can go forward. I don't remember ever taking up an Omnibus appropriations bill with no amendments in order. I hope it will be possible that we will be able to take it up in the normal process--or maybe not even the normal process. We would settle for not normal, but for some number of amendments.

Mr. President, I would propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that during the period of morning business, Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the following Senators be recognized in this order: Senators Hutchison, Inhofe, Chambliss, Kennedy, and Leahy; and following that, Senator Shelby be recognized for up to 45 minutes; and that after this sequence, the sides alternate where appropriate.

Mr. President, my remarks will not last 10 minutes, and I hope the Senator from Georgia will be able to have his time in turn, because he has been waiting for quite a long time.

Mr. President, what we are asking with the amendment I have tried to put forward but which was ruled out of order is to simply restore the $3.1 billion that was cut from the Base Closing Commission military construction. We cut--not we, but the bill that is on the floor that we are not able to amend--$3.1 billion out of the Base Closing Commission military construction funding. Our amendment, the Hutchison-Inhofe amendment, has 27 cosponsors. That is almost one- third of the Senate, and there are many who said they would like to sponsor the amendment but in deference to their leadership did not feel they could, because so many States have major projects in this BRAC military construction funding.

These are not projects that any Member of Congress put in this bill or in the bill that passed the House and Senate. These are the Department of Defense projects, for them to be able to meet the congressionally mandated deadline of 2011 for finishing the BRAC process. So they are projects that were selected in order of priority by the Department of Defense. There is not one earmark, not one congressional add in the military construction budget that we are trying to restore. We are trying to restore the budget we have already passed so the Department of Defense can meet the deadline we have set.

I think this amendment should be in order. It is my great hope that the distinguished leader and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee will allow it to go forward with no further delay, because there is going to be a delay if we wait until the supplemental. Not only will the $3 billion be outside of the scope of the budget and add $3 billion more to the deficit, but it will, in fact, delay the building projects for yet another 2 months, which will be a whole half year that the Department of Defense will be strapped for the funds to do what it needs to do to have its synchronized movement of troops be able to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish.

I hope we will have a reconsideration. I hope the House will work with us. We have a whole week to do it. We have done things in 24 hours that were harder than this, and I believe that delaying the return of 12,000 troops to facilities they deserve to have is not a good bargain. So I am very hopeful we will eventually have true bipartisanship in the Senate, true bipartisanship in the Appropriations Committee, which has been the tradition in the Senate for all these years. I ask that the majority in leadership help work with us to accommodate the needs of the military.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, you have just heard an extraordinary speech, and I want to put it in perspective, if I may.

There was a Foreign Relations Committee meeting several weeks ago at which one of the Senators insinuated that the Secretary of State didn't understand this war because she didn't have enough of a personal interest. Well, we thought that was an unfair question because this is a woman who is spending 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, trying to do the right thing for our country, and that was considered a personal thing that was out of line.

We have just now heard a U.S. Senator make a speech that was a wonderful, principled speech on the merits of what he is going to support in this war effort, the resolution that will come before us, and he never mentioned that he had a personal interest. So I want to mention it. I want to mention Sam Bond.

Sam Bond is a Princeton graduate. He is the light of Senator Kit Bond's life. He is his only child, his only son. Sam Bond has been a star from the day he was born, and we have all heard about it. Sam Bond graduated from Princeton University, and he didn't get a job on Wall Street to then sign up to go to business school. No, Sam Bond signed up for the Marine Corps.

Sam Bond has spent 1 year in Iraq already, in Fallujah, and he is going back in 1 month. Sam Bond is going back to Iraq in 1 month, and we just heard the Senator from Missouri not even mention his only son because he is talking about what is right for our country. He believes that Sam Bond's future depends on our doing the right thing in Iraq. So I applaud Senator Bond, and I applaud Sam Bond.

I want to talk about the resolution that we are going to vote on at some point. First, I think Senator Bond is correct; that we ought to have the right to vote on at least two resolutions, not just one that is unamendable. This is, as we have been reminded time and time and time again, the most important issue raging in our country and maybe the world today. So I think having two resolutions, or one amendable resolution, is a legitimate request because there are legitimate differences of opinion. There are legitimate debatable issues that I think the Senate is capable of putting forth for our country, representing the division in our country on this important issue.

Some people say we should never have gone into Iraq. In hindsight, it is an easy thing to say. Let's remember what we were looking at as Senators, and let's look at what the President was looking at as the Commander in Chief of this Nation, whose responsibility it is to protect the people of this country. The buck stopped on the President's desk.

I don't agree with everything the President has done. Not one person on the Senate floor agrees with everything the President has done. But I will tell you this: no one--no one--can ever say this President isn't committed to one thing, paramount in all of his responsibilities, and that is to protect the people of the United States. He is doing what he thinks is best to protect our children and freedom for our way of life.

When he went into Iraq, many people questioned whether it was the appropriate thing to do. I did myself. But the President had just been through 9/11, where we saw airplanes used as weapons of mass destruction that killed thousands of Americans and people working in New York City. So he said, to look at it from his view: I can't afford to take a chance that a weapon of mass destruction would hit America again, only this time it would be a chemical or a biological weapon.

I believe that is what the President was thinking. He knew that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had used them on his own people and had kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1998. He had kicked the weapons inspectors out. Why would he have done that, was the thinking, if he didn't have something to hide?

Then there were the intelligence reports. There were the intelligence reports that we saw and there were the intelligence reports that the President

received which were at a much higher level than even we were able to get. All of that pointed to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver them. So it is a legitimate debate to ask why are we there, but it is not the debate we ought to be having today.

The debate we ought to be having today is what should we do to have success in Iraq because success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a part of the war on terror.

After 9/11, we didn't treat what happened as a criminal act. In 1993, after the first World Trade Center bombing, that is what America did. We treated it as a criminal act. America didn't know this was the beginning of a war on terror. Then there was Khobar Towers, attacked in Saudi Arabia, and 19 American soldiers killed. We treated it as a criminal act. There was the bombing of our embassies, and then there was the USS Cole. We treated those as criminal acts. But America woke up on 9/11/2001 and realized, finally, 10 years after the war had started, that America and our way of life was under attack. This was not a crime, it was the continuation of a war.

So we are there now. We are not succeeding. Success would be a stabilized Iraq, an Iraq where people can go to the market in security and buy food or necessities and visit and have coffee on the street. That is what success in Iraq will be. Success in Iraq will be when they have self-governance. Success in Iraq will be when there are not security forces that kill people of a different sect. Success in Iraq will be when they are a stable neighbor in the Middle East and terrorists will not be able to get a foothold.

We are not succeeding yet. How can we do better? We should be debating how we can do better to succeed. If victory is not the end result, we will have failed our children and grandchildren. So I ask, what could possibly be the purpose of passing a resolution in what has been considered the world's most deliberative body that would send General Petraeus to take charge of Baghdad and a new strategy and say, General Petraeus, we have faith in you but not the mission? That is not the right resolution to pass in this Senate.

I hope we can debate that resolution, and I hope we can debate against those who would send a signal to our troops that we don't have faith in the possibility of success in their mission. I want to debate a resolution that would say we are not going to send any more troops, and even if we need troop protection we are not going to send those troops because Congress is going to take the place of the Commander in Chief and the generals on the ground.

I want to debate a resolution that would cut off funding for our troops in the field. I would like to debate what would happen to our troops who are there now if a signal were sent that we were not going to give them the support they needed to do the job they have right now.

I very much hope that we will be able to take up the Levin-Warner resolution, and I hope we will be able to take up an alternative which will not have amendments because those are not in order. But we must have the ability to exercise a voice that would go in a different direction, that would set benchmarks for what the Iraqi Government must do if they want America to stay and help them become strong and stable and free.

I want to be able to debate also the McCain-Lieberman resolution because I think there will be a clear choice. And I hope that we have the opportunity to bring that out to the American people because there are consequences of setting a timetable and trying to have some kind of graceful exit strategy that basically says this is too tough for America, we just can't take it and, therefore, we are going to walk away.

How about keeping our commitments, so that our allies and our enemies will know, when they are partners with America or enemies of America, we will stick through thick and thin, arm in arm with our allies and be formidable against our enemies? How about having a strategy that says we have not succeeded in the way this has gone, so here is a different approach? We expect the Iraqis to stand up now. We are going to help you, but you must lead. You must meet certain benchmarks if you are going to keep us helping you help yourselves.

We want the Iraqi people to succeed because we don't want terrorists to takeover Iraq, get the oil revenue and come and deliver their weapons of mass destruction to America. That is what we are talking about. That is what is at stake in this war. How we execute our responsibilities as Senators who have the leadership mantle is going to determine how successful our troops can be.

I hope we can have that debate. I hope we can have the debate on the Levin-Warner resolution. I hope we can have a debate on the Gregg resolution. I hope we can have a debate on the McCain-Lieberman-Lindsey Graham resolution because I think it would be the right thing for the American people. But don't try to put one resolution on the floor with no amendments and call that an opportunity to have a voice. No one could keep a straight face and say that is a fair process.

There are 100 Members of the Senate. I do not question one Member's patriotism. I do not question the motives of one Member. Everyone has a view that we believe is the right way for our country. We ought to be able to support resolutions that put forward those views. This is too important to have a struggle over process keep us from having the ability to come together and try to reason and pass one good resolution or two that would allow us to have a voice in this debate. The world is going to listen to what we say. I hope we don't send the wrong signal to our allies or to our enemies that America cannot stand it when it gets tough. America is the beacon of freedom to the world. If we do not stand and fight for freedom, who will? America must never step back from that mantle and that responsibility. Freedom will die everywhere if we don't fight and keep it for America and our allies.

Let's have that debate. Let's have that debate on whatever differing resolutions come forward. I am not afraid to debate the Levin-Warner resolution, and I am certainly proud to support the Gregg and the McCain-Lieberman resolutions. I wish to talk more about it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the lifetime achievements of my dear friend Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant and world-renowned cardiologist, by re-introducing legislation to award him the Congressional Gold Medal.

Throughout his life, Dr. DeBakey has made numerous advances in the field of

medicine. When he was only 23 years of age and still attending medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed a roller pump for blood transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease. His service to our country did not stop there.

Dr. DeBakey put his practice on hold and volunteered for military service during World War II with the Surgeon General's staff. During this time, he received the rank of Colonel and Chief of Surgical Consultants Division.

As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 1945.

After WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing national and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were wounded or needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research Council.

In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of Medicine, where he started its first surgical residency program and was later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine.

Adding to his list of accomplishments, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful procedure to treat patients with aneurysms. In 1964, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance research and training.

Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients.

These accomplishments have led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President Ronald Reagan.

Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for some patients to receive heart transplants.

I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service, not only to the medical community, but to the world.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the lifetime achievements of my dear friend Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant and world-renowned cardiologist, by re-introducing legislation to award him the Congressional Gold Medal.

Throughout his life, Dr. DeBakey has made numerous advances in the field of

medicine. When he was only 23 years of age and still attending medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed a roller pump for blood transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease. His service to our country did not stop there.

Dr. DeBakey put his practice on hold and volunteered for military service during World War II with the Surgeon General's staff. During this time, he received the rank of Colonel and Chief of Surgical Consultants Division.

As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 1945.

After WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing national and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were wounded or needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research Council.

In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of Medicine, where he started its first surgical residency program and was later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine.

Adding to his list of accomplishments, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful procedure to treat patients with aneurysms. In 1964, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance research and training.

Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients.

These accomplishments have led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President Ronald Reagan.

Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for some patients to receive heart transplants.

I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service, not only to the medical community, but to the world.

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

Will the Senator yield?

I wanted to ask the Senator from South Carolina, what

is the difference in his amendment from the underlying bill, and how does it improve the transparency we are all seeking?

Would the Senator say that the earmarks that are covered in his amendment would include an earmark to a Federal agency as well as an earmark for a private university or some other private entity? Is that what he is saying, that he wanted to cover all the earmarks whether they are a specific earmark for a particular city and an agency such as the Corps of Engineers, a specific water project in a city? You just want that earmark to be known, who the sponsor is, just as if it were an earmark for funding for health research at a university; is that correct?

I thank the Senator for the explanation. I think it is an excellent amendment. I thank him for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Conrad, I be recognized to speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment, but I do think that some of the points that have been made are valid. I am supporting this amendment because I believe it is important that we do everything possible to put restraints on spending and go back to the balanced budget we had before terrorists struck our country in 2001. I think that is so important that passing an amendment to try for 4 years--and it does have a 4-year sunset provision--to see if we can give the President the authority to do some big overall cuts is a good idea, but I did do it with some reservation.

I supported the line-item veto that was passed by the Congress in 1996. I supported it because I thought it would provide fiscal restraint. I think it was misused, and I was very pleased when the Supreme Court overturned it. I said I would never vote for it again because I believe the Constitution is very clear that Congress has the purse strings. That is how James Madison phrased it in the Federalist Papers: the power of the purse is in Congress. That is where the budget is passed to go to the President, and I believe we should uphold our part of the Constitution.

Earmark reform is important, and the most important part that I hope we will pass is transparency. It is important that people be willing to stand up and say: Yes, I did this earmark.

Let me just tell my colleagues how I operate on the Appropriations Committee with regard to my State. Obviously, as chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee and now as its ranking member, I pass appropriations that come from the President and from the Pentagon for military installations. But I also take care of my State--that is what I was elected by my constituents to do--and I balance the needs of the cities in my State. So if the biggest need in Houston, TX, is the dredging of the port because it is such an economic engine for Houston, that is what my major priority for Houston is going to be. On the other hand, for Dallas, it is going to be the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority or the Trinity River flood control project, and that is my major priority for Dallas. And it goes on that way. I balance so that the major needs of my cities are met and their highest priorities are met. But it doesn't mean they get everything they ask for. The lower priorities will not be met.

If we turn this over to the executive branch, how is the employee sitting at the Department of Transportation going to know that the major need of Dallas is DART and the major need of Houston is over in the Interior Department or the Energy Department or the Corps of Engineers? How are those two people in Federal agencies who have never been to Dallas or Houston going to know that the first priority is something besides what they are giving them? That is my job. That is what I do. I am proud of it, and I want it to be transparent, and that is the reform which we should enact.

So I don't want to just continue to hear that earmark reform is pork barrel spending reform. Spending is spending. If it is done in the executive branch or if it is done by Congress, it is spending, and hopefully we have a system that funds the top priorities.

I believe there are projects that are not in the national interest that go into appropriations bills. That is why I think some reining in of the process through this amendment can be a good thing, and it is why I have supported it and am supporting it. It does have the capability to give the President the authority to go in and look at projects he believes don't meet the national need, and he is elected by the people of our country. I believe letting him have four different times to come to Congress and rescind may be too many. I hope that number could be brought to two. I would think the OMB and the President would be able to see, during two different budget or appropriations analyses, that a project wouldn't meet the President's standards, and then it could come back to Congress and Congress can say we disagree with the President or we agree with the President. It is the coming back to Congress that is the change from the original line-item veto that was passed in 1996 and which should allow the Supreme Court to affirm this rescission process.

I think it is worth a try. But I also would say for the record that we are going to have President Bush for 2 years and we are going to have a new President for 2 years, the duration of this amendment if it passes and goes into law. I think that will be a good test. Congress will then have the right to come back and say it has worked well, it has cut spending, it has prioritized better. Frankly, maybe some people won't put earmarks in bills if they are not proud that the earmarks serve a national interest, and maybe that in itself will bring down the number of earmarks and the spending.

But the bottom line is that we are on a trajectory to have a balanced budget because we are setting budget limits on what we appropriate. We always do that, and then we reconcile. And we have been able to keep the economy strong and bring down the unemployment rate by keeping the tax cuts we gave the American people in 2001 and 2003. Unemployment is at an all-time low. So I think we are exercising fiscal restraint, particularly in light of the fact that we have had some major hits on our country that have required us to spend money--hits such as 9/11, the war on terror, which is the most important security issue facing our country, and Hurricane Katrina and the rebuilding of New Orleans and Mississippi. We need to do those things and do them well. We know that. Despite all of those added expenditures, we have half the deficit that was built up after our country was hit by terrorists, and we are on the way to bringing it lower, and that is our goal. It must be our goal. I think this amendment can help us in furthering that goal.

So I am going to support it. It has changed since the first time the Senator from New Hampshire introduced it. I didn't support it in the beginning. He has made changes that make it more palatable to a Member of Congress who is trying to uphold the right of Congress under the Constitution, which I believe is my responsibility to do. I must uphold the rights of Congress in order to keep the three branches equal, as much as we can do that. That is the beauty of our constitutional framework, that balance of power.

I also have a responsibility to my constituents who elected me to make sure that my State is treated fairly. I am proud of what we have been able to do, and I want it in the open. I believe reform is necessary, and I am going to support the amendment. But if this amendment does go into effect, I would urge this President and the next President who will have this vast authority to use it wisely and judiciously because that is the only way it will have the effect we are all intending it to have.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 38th President of the United States.

Gerald Ford was an honest man, a modest man, and a patriotic man who cared deeply about this country. During World War II, he answered his Nation's call to duty, serving in the Navy aboard the USS Monterey in the Pacific Theatre. He later trained new naval officers for sea duty. Shortly after his discharge as a lieutenant commander in 1946, he began his storied political career.

During his 25 years of service in the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford earned the respect and admiration of nearly everyone in Washington. Gerald Ford's impeccable integrity made him the ideal choice to lead America at a time of considerable division.

When he was nominated by President Nixon to become Vice President, he was confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate and the House. The Senate vote was 92-3, and the House vote was 387-35.

Before President Nixon submitted his nomination for Vice President, he asked the leadership of both parties who they would choose were they in his shoes. The obvious response was Gerald Ford.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency following President Nixon's resignation, he moved quickly to bring our country together. He did this by always remaining true to his character. He also adhered to the common-sense principles that guided him throughout his career and his life. He never lost touch with his Midwestern values. And he never wavered from doing what he thought was in the best interests of the people of our country.

President Ford also attracted very talented employees. Among those who served in the Ford Administration were Alan Greenspan, Council of Economic Advisers; George H.W. Bush, CIA Director; James Baker, Undersecretary of Commerce; Dick Cheney, Chief of Staff; and Donald Rumsfeld, Chief of Staff and later Secretary of Defense.

I had the pleasure of working with President Ford when he appointed me

vice chair of the National Transportation Safety Board in 1976.

President Ford was a reliable friend and invaluable counselor. I will never forget his coming to Texas to campaign with me during my first race for the Senate. President Ford was always available to offer advice and remained in close touch with those of us who were his many appointees, staff, and colleagues over the years. This is the kind of person he was. It was an honor and a privilege to consider him a friend.

He cared deeply for his family, for his loving wife Betty, and for his four children: Michael, John, Steven, Susan.

He cared for everyone he came to know during his magnificent political career.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Betty and the entire Ford family as we honor a public servant who gave tirelessly to our country. He will be missed.