Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I share very much the sentiments of my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, but I would urge us to not support the amendment because the Senate has already ruled on this question.

When we debated whether to take up this bill, we voted on a cloture motion in order to bring up an appropriations bill. Normally, we would want to pass a budget resolution before bringing up an appropriations bill, and it has been, I think, over 800 days since the leadership of this institution has even written and presented a budget. But I would put forward that this bill is rather unique because it conforms to the House Paul Ryan budget that passed the House on April 15. The legislation before us has come before the Senate because Chairman Johnson and I have agreed to put forward a VA-MILCON bill that is $1.255 billion in discretionary budget authority below the President's request. We are coming in $620 million below the 2011 enacted level.

We all remember that the House of Representatives has already adopted the MILCON-VA appropriations bill under Chairman Culberson, and the Senate bill actually spends in budget authority on the discretionary side $2.5 million less than the House bill. Because we did that, 71 to 26 was the vote on cloture to bring up this bill, including the support of the Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, and our vice chairman on the Republican side of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran.

I do think for a bill that has been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other veterans service organizations, a bill that gets the Senate moving again for its regular duties as part of the appropriations process, and for a bill that actually cuts funding-- Chairman Johnson and I have reduced funding in 24 separate programs in this budget, including denying a brandnew courthouse for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and pressuring the Army, for example, when we found a proposal to spend $1.4 million on a general's garden in Germany. When all those 24 reductions were made--when we denied the new building, when we made the other reductions--we came in with a bill that is below the bill passed by the House of Representatives.

That is why this legislation has come up. That is why the Senate voted 71 to 26 for cloture to bring up the bill. I would just put forward that the fact is, this bill does actually comply with a budget. It complies with the budget of the House of Representatives, which is why it has such strong bipartisan support.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise briefly to commend the work of the Gang of 6 and what they have done for our country in what is a complicated proposal with details forthcoming but largely reflecting the actions of the bipartisan deficit commission and what could be between a $3.5 trillion and $4.5 trillion reduction in the borrowing needs of the United States.

Specifically, so often we do not thank our colleagues here, but I want to thank especially Senator Coburn, Senator Crapo, and Senator Chambliss on the Republican side, Senator Warner, Senator Conrad, and Senator Durbin on the Democratic side, because I think they are creating a vital center on what is the most important issue facing the country. I believe the outlines of the plan, as I understand it tonight, will dramatically reassure the American people, our markets, and especially our allies overseas that a free people and their elected representatives can kick their spending habit over time.

At the meeting this morning we had 43 Senators attending, 23 Republicans and 20 Democrats. In this age of very complicated and tight schedules, that is a mass meeting of the Senate.

I conclude by saying this may be the rise of the policy wonks as opposed to partisans of either side, to actually address the solid details of what is the most difficult financial problem facing the country. I commend the work of these three Republicans and these three Democrats in creating a space now where at least 43 Senators attended the meeting on the most creative and most detailed plan I have yet seen come forward to take on this problem.

We all know under our Constitution that the Senate may be the most difficult place to pass legislation. To see even this initiative coming out of the Senate gives me tremendous optimism that one of the most difficult problems in our country can be handled by some of the most capable policy wonk Members of the Senate.

With that, as we begin a discussion on the Gang of 6 proposal, I want to take a moment to personally thank these six Senators and what they have done in putting together what appears to be an initial outline of, not just a very good proposal but in several key areas as a fiscal conservative, an even better proposal than the bipartisan commission put forward.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Garrison of Senator Wyden's staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 2055.

Madam President, I first came to Capitol Hill in 1984 during Ronald Reagan's first term. I believe it was Chairman Hatfield running the committee on the Senate side and Jamie Whitten on the House side. I care very much about the appropriations process and the Appropriations Committee because I think we spend less with a higher degree of transparency when we consider appropriations bills in regular order, as this one now is.

This bill funds our veterans programs and our military construction needs mainly for the Active-Duty and Reserve Americans who wear the uniform--or wore the uniform--upon which all of our freedoms and the independence of our country depends. Today, there are over 20 million veterans, and this bill cares for them in a bipartisan way. We owe these veterans just about everything--for our independence and freedom--and this bill cares for them.

Now, why, in this difficult and partisan time, is this bill coming up in this way? Why is it that we have every Republican on the subcommittee and the full committee in favor of this legislation? It is because the chairman made the decision, that I strongly supported, to mark to the House level. When we marked to the House level, we opened the door for full bipartisan support for this needed bill.

We present to the Senate this bill for full consideration, taking into account all of the requests of Members in their budget submission. But let me emphasize that not only are we slightly below the House spending level in discretionary budget authority, there are no earmarks in this bill, reflecting the new wave of reform that has come to the Appropriations Committee--both the House and the Senate.

We have made a tough set of spending decisions in this bill. We have come in $1.2 billion below President Obama's spending request. We came in $620 million below last year's level. I was a bit surprised we were able to do this--and that we did--but we are even $2.6 million below the House Republican-approved level in the bill put together by Chairman Culberson.

This bill spends in discretionary budget authority less than the House of Representatives, and I will just point out that when the House took up this legislation, over 400 Members of the House of Representatives--Republicans and Democrats--supported this legislation, and only five Members of the House voted against this legislation. That is why this legislation enjoys such tremendous bipartisan support on our side.

This bill would not be possible without the outstanding work of Chairman Johnson and his staff, his military experience and, most importantly, his son's military experience. On behalf of the veterans of his State, he has done a very good job, with my full support. We take care of our veterans and their benefits, their health care, and the construction of medical facilities in this legislation.

Madam President, many veterans live in urban areas, but also a great many live in rural and even highly rural areas. This bill pays attention to their needs thanks to the chairman, and also I want to highlight the work of the Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, in the decisions we made in this bill to make sure veterans who live in the State of Alaska will not, in many cases now, need to leave the State for their veterans care.

We have also worked diligently with our veterans service organizations, and I would highlight this bill has now been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, by AMVETS, by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. I take the last endorsement very seriously, having, as a reservist, served in Afghanistan myself.

Chairman Johnson highlighted the funding levels in this bill, which I think are quite important, but I would also like to highlight several policy issues in this bill. No. 1, originally, the administration--our commander in South Korea--put forward an idea to bring almost 50,000 American dependents to South Korea to build homes and hospitals and schools. But the cost could be upwards of over $20 billion to transfer that many Americans to the Korean peninsula.

Given this time of deficits and debt, and given this enormous bill, I think DOD is rethinking this proposal, as they wisely should. I think this bill lays out a set of concerns over where we go with such a spending decision.

With regard to Guantanamo--very important to me--originally there was a proposal to transfer the al-Qaida core of terrorists to my State, to Thompson, IL. This bill wisely concludes the overwhelming bipartisan provision prohibiting the construction or renovation of any facility in the United States or its territories for individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay.

With regard to Guam, while the Navy is attempting to move more than 17,000 marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam, the plan that Chairman Johnson and I have seen has serious problems. Therefore, there are no projects in this bill associated with this very complicated move.

We did fund the Air Force request for projects related to the Strike capability for the bed down of Strike and intelligence capabilities, but the rest we are looking for further information.

Also, with regard to our military infrastructure in Germany, we believe there is a better need for accounting of funds that we provide for facilities, and, as a result, we cut about $37 million from the requested projects.

With regard to charter schools and improving education for our military families, we think the children of servicemembers have a unique situation and fewer choices when choosing schools. So we have asked the Department of Defense to conduct a study and tell this committee where charter schools could make a positive difference.

I will highlight here my work with my fellow Senator, Mr. Durbin, on potential charter school operations serving the men and women and the families of the Great Lakes community in northern Illinois.

I raise the one particular issue important to me, which is that over time we are planning on spending upwards of $20 billion, as we should, on the new facilities for Guam. But I think if we are going to make that kind of investment in Guam, we need to make sure those facilities are there when the United States needs them most in a military capacity, which is during combat. That is why it is so essential to provide also for the missile defense of Guam, and, I would say, for the missile defense of Guam on platforms that cannot be sunk. That is why we are calling on the Department of Defense not to ignore plans to provide for the missile defense of Guam, and, I would say to emphasize, a land-based solution that is more survivable.

We also highlighted more scrutiny on the budget request, especially with regard to funding for general officers quarters. I will say that in my review, along with the chairman, we saw a disciplined budget request largely by the Air Force and the Navy to house our Air Force generals and admirals; but I have been disappointed with the Army, which originally came forward with a request for $1.4 million to upgrade a general's garden in Germany. Luckily, the Army has pulled back that request, and we are looking for further scrutiny to make sure that general officer quarters budget requests are in line with the practice of the sister services of the Air Force and the Navy.

This bill also handles issues with regard to the VA, especially on information technology. This bill fully funds the account and encourages the Department to pursue open-source, off-the-shelf technology for electronic health records, and I think that is critical to maintaining cost containment as we go forward.

I will also say we have been urging the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs to come up with one common electronic medical record. The vision here is that when an American joins the U.S. military, that record then follows that servicemember through, at minimum, for example, a 3-year enlistment, and then a 60-year to 90-year time as a veteran. It should be a common record. I hope the two Secretaries, Panetta and Shinseki, move to finally make sure that becomes a reality.

With regard to the contingency fund in this bill, the Department of Veterans Affairs requested a contingency fund in the event they needed additional funds. We do not support establishing this fund but did allow the Department to keep $664 million it received last year in advance appropriations for the now-prohibited pay raises. This should be adequate to ensure our veterans are not only cared for but will give the VA some flexibility during the period of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This bill also emphasizes caregivers who give care to our wounded veterans, veterans who live in rural areas, and veterans who are sent to facilities a long distance from their home, as I mentioned, in the State of Alaska. We also highlighted the issue of claims processing so our veterans could finally receive the compensation they deserve in a reasonable amount of time.

I want to echo the chairman's thanks to the staff, especially led by Tina Evans on the Democratic side and Dennis Balkham on the Republican side.

In short, this is a very good bill. It represents the Senate moving forward under regular order. It represents greater transparency to the appropriations process.

I would highlight, we have cut or reduced funding in 24 separate major areas, and these were hard choices to make. We did them in line with the decisions made by the authorizing committee under Chairmen Levin and McCain's leadership. We also completely denied funding for a proposed brandnew building to house the Court of Veterans Appeals. In this time of deficit and debt, I think we should hold off.

In sum, this bill represents cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. This bill represents budget control and cooperation between House and Senate. This bill represents cooperation and coordination between the authorizing Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and this bill, underlined with the endorsement of major veterans service organizations, represents a commitment to our veterans.

I think we should move forward. I know later we will consider a point of order with regard to not taking up a bill prior to the adoption of a formal budget. I would hope that common sense would prevail here; that because this is one of those rare measures where we are marking up to the House level that only five Members of the House voted against at that level, that all of the Republicans and all of the Democrats on the subcommittee voted for this legislation, and yesterday 89 Members voted in overwhelming bipartisan fashion for cloture to bring this bill up so we can get the Senate moving again, that we can get the appropriations process moving again, that we can stand by our men and women in uniform who need these facilities, and our veterans, and that, yes, we can control spending in full agreement with the House of Representatives but still move the Senate forward.

Madam President, with that, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I thank our ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee because in normal circumstances I would be strongly supporting him and agree with him. The irony is, this legislation conforms to a budget, it conforms to the Paul Ryan House budget and fits under the 302(b) allocation; that is, the amount of money the House granted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee that wrote this bill. When this bill passed our very conservative House of Representatives, only five Members of the House voted against it. All the leading Members of the House voted for it.

We talk about needing to make tough decisions. I appreciate the Members and their praise for the underlying legislation because we made some tough decisions. We looked at the President's request and we made a number of cuts.

In Alaska, at Fort Wainwright, we cut $57 million from their aviation complex; in Germany, at Gemersheim Central Distribution Facility we cut $21 million; also, at that same facility, their infrastructure we cut by $16 million; at Fort Bliss, for the maintenance facility, we terminated funding for that, also for their infrastructure proposal; at Fort Belvoir, road and infrastructure projects, we terminated that project. In Honduras, at Soto Cano, we made a $5 million reduction; in California, the Coronado Fitness Center for North Island, we made a $14 million reduction; in California, at Bridgeport, for a multipurpose building, an addition, we made a $3 million reduction; in the Persian Gulf, in Bahrain, for the bachelors' enlisted quarters, we terminated funding for that for this fiscal year; also, in Bahrain, a waterfront development, also terminated that; in the Marianas, at the North Ramp utilities, we also terminated that. That was a $78 million reduction. In Marianas, at the north ramp facility, we also terminated with a $78 million reduction; also in the Finnegan Water Utilities, ended funding for that project. In Guam, at the Guam Strike Fuel Systems Maintenance Handler, we cut funding in half, saving $64 million. In Nebraska, at Offutt, we made a $30 million reduction for their replacement facility No. 1. In Al Udeid in Qatar, we terminated funding for the Blatchford-Preston Complex. In Utah, at Hill Air Force Base, we terminated funding for the F-35 ADAL Hangar. In Colorado, at Buckley, we made a $70 million reduction in their Mountainview Operations Facility. In Maryland, at their joint base Andrews, their ambulatory care center suffered a 150-percent reduction. In Maryland, at Fort Meade, the high-performance computing factory, we terminated funding for that facility. In Texas, joint base San Antonio, the ambulatory care center, we cut funding in half, saving $80 million. In Texas, at Fort Bliss, at the hospital replacement facility, we reduced funding by $27 million. In Utah, Camp Williams, the data center, we cut that funding in half, saving $123 million.

In total, we made the reductions in 24 separate programs including canceling the building I talked about, a whole new court for the Court of Veterans Appeals. That is why this legislation came in $2.6 million even below the House, why it is $1.2 billion in budget authority below the President and $620 million below last year's budget authority, reminding Members there are no earmarks in this legislation.

Eighty-nine Members voted for cloture on this legislation yesterday, which is why we brought it up. My hope is those 89 Members vote for cloture again on this underlying motion. I think most of our Members on my side, the Republican side, are going to vote for this budget point of order once we get to that, and I completely understand. I will probably be supporting him on other bills. The only commonsense point I will make here is that because we are at the House budget level and because the House has adopted them, this conforms to the Paul Ryan budget, I think we should move forward, especially as our ranking member wisely said, this is the first appropriations bill coming up separately since 2008, and I will say you make specific reductions to real spending when you actually bring up a bill, as Chairman Johnson has decided to do with my backing.

I yield to Chairman Johnson and thank him for the time.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, while we are waiting for authors of their amendments to come to the floor to speak on a point of personal business, I wanted to rise to eulogize one of my mentors in politics.

State Representative Betty Lou Reed died this week. She was somebody many of us in northern Illinois looked up to. Betty Lou Reed served from her home community of Deerfield, IL. She knew Senator Everett Dirksen well and helped in his campaigns for reelection. She was someone who practiced the art of politics from the fiscally conservative side but the ideological center. She was someone who was a role model for many of us at the township, the State, and especially at the Federal level.

I first met Betty Lou after she had retired from our State legislature in Springfield, IL, when she served as the district director for Congressman John Porter. I remember a long visit with her, as she was showing me the congressional district where I grew up, from a political point of view.

As we passed by the Zion nuclear reactor, she said: Whatever your feelings from college, buddy boy, here we are pro nuclear power. And she began to introduce me to the politics, especially of Lake County,

Mr. President, this is a joint amendment. I support it. It concerns a report on the operations of Arlington National Cemetery. It is very necessary. My understanding is that this then sets up the vote that the leaders have scheduled for Monday afternoon. And that is what we are doing right now to continue the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I urge Members of this body to support cloture on taking up the debate on the veterans and military affairs appropriations bill for next fiscal year. Chairman Johnson and I have put together a completely bipartisan bill which was unanimously supported by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate Appropriations Committee. This bill basically marked its spending level to the level approved by the House of Representatives, that passed the subcommittee, the full committee, and out on the House floor. The bottom line for its budget authority discretionary spending is the bill comes in $1.2 billion below the President's spending request, $620 million below last year's enacted level, and is even $2.6 million below the House. There are no earmarks in this bill.

A few details. The bill does provide $128 billion to support our over 22 million veterans. That is $182 million in budget authority discretionary below the administration's request.

The bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction. That is about $1 billion below the administration's request or $279 million below the House bill.

Our Senate bill cuts or eliminates 24 separate projects, and all of those cut decisions were made in coordination with Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain from the draft Senate Armed Services Committee bill so that appropriations and authorization are synched up. We also completely denied funding for the building of a new facility to house the current Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

The bill also lays the policy groundwork for making further spending reductions in outyears for Obama administration potential requests for funding in South Korea, Germany, and Bahrain.

In short, we believe that this bill should move forward, that the Appropriations Committee should begin its regular work, and because this is a unanimous, bipartisan product from the Senate appropriations bill and it marks to the House level, I urge Members to support cloture on a vote we expect tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have just learned that Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame was arrested by the U.S. military in April. This news has just come to us, learning that this man who fought for no country and wore no uniform and under an international law is considered an enemy combatant and therefore not a prisoner of war or an American civilian criminal, has been taken to a U.S. criminal court to be granted full U.S. constitutional rights in a prosecution in the civilian courts of the United States, located in the Southern District of New York.

This man was taken outside American territory for attacks outside U.S. jurisdiction for acts against non-U.S. citizens. Yet he has been charged with a U.S. civilian crime and has been given the full rights of an American citizen or a nationalized individual. I think we have made a grievous mistake.

We have made a significant change just this week. We have violated the principles set forth by President Lincoln and President Roosevelt, who well used military commissions to handle enemy combatants and not providing them full U.S. constitutional rights for actions taken outside the United States against non-U.S. citizens in the war on terror.

I am very worried this foreign terrorist, who was taken abroad for attacks committed abroad, is now going to have the full constitutional right to confront his accuser and have all information used in his trial exposed. This means that, under the new policy, the United States may be forced to reveal intelligence information critical in the war on terror, especially against al Qaida, al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and Al-Shabaab, when otherwise a military commission could have kept that information confidential, leading to further success by the United States.

We should ask at what cost this prosecution will come. The previous proposal by the President, which he backed away from, was to bring the author of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to central New York, at a cost of an estimated $75 million to protect the court, the judge, the prosecutor, the jury, and their families. The President backed away from that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed decision, but apparently he has now made that decision again with regard to Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame.

My question is this: What threat is now being posed to the people of New York? What threat is being posed to the Federal judge? What will the prosecutor fear for the rest of his or her life in participating in this unnecessary civilian prosecution--and especially for the jurors and their families who now will be subject to scrutiny throughout the jihadist world by al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Shabaab. Why is this unnecessary threat now going to be posed to these Americans?

That is why 39 Republicans and Democrats joined me in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, saying this decision was a mistake and should not be repeated; that we have now created undue attention to the people of New York by al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaida itself, and Al-Shabaab.

Remember, following our successful attack against bin Laden, we now estimate that al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Shabaab are the most dangerous and heavily armed subsidiaries of al Qaida. Al-Shabaab alone has over 8,000 men under training and, as one intelligence expert said, some of them at the level of training equivalent to the U.S. Army Rangers.

How are we going to protect the judge in this case for the rest of his or her life? How are we going to protect the prosecutor for the rest of his or her life? How are we going to protect the jury and their families for the rest of their lives because of this mistake made by the Attorney General of the United States?

At what cost will this prosecution come? Will it be paid by the city of New York, already heavily strained in finances, a New York State famously short of funds, or the Federal Government, which is also short of money?

What happens if Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is found innocent? We already know many released terrorists have already returned to jihad, as he proudly indicates he surely will.

In the wake of the debate on deficits and debt on a famous criminal trial in New York, we may have overlooked a fundamental decision, a mistake made by the Attorney General of the United States. The 9/11 Commission taught us a critical lesson, that terrorism is not a law enforcement problem; it is an intelligence and military problem. Well- established principles under Roosevelt, Lincoln, Bush, and, yes, President Obama, using military commissions, should be used instead of subjecting the American people to the increased threats, the increased costs, and the terrible precedent we have just set in giving an international terrorist, for acts committed overseas against foreigners, full constitutional rights. I think it is a decision we will regret. Many of us may quote the 9/11 Commission report in its clear findings in highlighting the error that was made.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I would like to agree with the Senator on the Libya resolution. But I understand from the majority leader that we are not going to take up the Libya resolution now. I would just urge them-- before we descend into any potential partisan warfare on any other issue, there is a bill that is ready for the Senate's consideration right now that was overwhelmingly, unanimously approved by Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, and it is ready for Senate consideration this week.

My hope is that we will now, or maybe tomorrow, take up the Military Construction and VA appropriations bill, which Senator Johnson and I have coauthored, and which Senator Inouye and the Senator Cochran have approved. It is $1.2 billion in discretionary spending below the President's request. It is $620 million below the enacted level. It is even $2.6 million in budget authority below the House mark. This is ready to go.

So absent debate on some other resolution which has little to no future in the House of Representatives, my hope is that we will follow the House that has already approved the VA-MILCON appropriations bill, and we will take up overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation that benefits our men and women in uniform and those veterans, and that we will not waste this week on legislation that has little to no future. Instead, we will achieve something this week by having taken up the MILCON-VA bill, which was so overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee just last week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, beyond the debt limit extension, which has rightly consumed the attention of this body, we face another challenge--the funding for our roads, airports, and railroads.

Our best estimate is that current needs would total $225 billion annually, but revenue from the main source of funding for these programs, the gasoline tax, only totaled $90 billion.

The law requires balance in the transportation trust fund. So how would we respond? There are basically three major options.

Option 1: Let funding fall. This would be a catastrophe, especially for the construction industry, where already in Illinois upwards of 30 percent of construction workers are without work.

Option 2: Increase the gas tax. But that is one of the most regressive taxes that hits the working poor harder than almost any other citizen in our country. The slowdown in our economy as a result of a gas tax increase would probably cause unemployment to go up and could jeopardize our extremely fragile recovery.

There is a third option, but before I describe that, let me ask a question. Arguably, what is the third biggest thing that the Lincoln administration was known for? First would be the emancipation proclamation. Second would be the victory in the Civil War. What is No. 3? I argue that it was the 1862 Transcontinental Railway Act--an act that, in 1862, when the Lincoln administration was borrowing as much money as it could from as many creditors as possible to fund the expansion of the Union Army, with credit already stretching to the limit--and does this sound familiar--the Lincoln administration launched the largest infrastructure development program in the history of the United States. We built a 2,000-mile railroad in only 6 years, and created 7,000 American towns. We did it with only $50 million in appropriations.

How did we fund the rest? The answer is that this was the ultimate public-private partnership. I am particularly worried that in this Congress--especially as it considers a transportation bill next year-- we have forgotten our own economic legacy, especially from the time that we built one of the largest infrastructure development projects in history.

To recall, the Federal Government granted 20 square miles in alternating sections on either side of the railroad for every mile of track they laid for those railroads. The railroads were also granted timber, stone, and mineral rights on this land. In addition, for every mile of track they laid, the railroads were authorized to issue a set amount of bonds--loans they received--which interest payments were backed by the Federal Government. This guarantee allowed 30-year bonds to be issued at a low rate of 6 percent. This was one of the largest development projects in the history of the United States. That is why it is an example for how we respond to our transportation needs today.

When we look at our own economic legacy and look at the funding shortfall for new roads, airports, and rail, I think we should recover that legacy to respond to the challenge for next year. That is why I have introduced the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act.

This legislation removes a number of Federal restrictions on public- private partnerships, providing States greater flexibility to generate transportation revenues and enhanced access to private capital for road, rail, aviation, transit, and port infrastructure. Under the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act, we could mobilize over $100 billion for new infrastructure investment.

Specifically, this legislation lifts caps on cost recovery programs for highways; it incentivizes partnerships in transit; it removes barriers to airport privatization; it increases resources for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, sometimes called TIFIA; and it makes improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, which are backed by the U.S. High Speed Rail Association and the American High Speed Rail Association.

The legislation also stands on the premise that the taxpayer should be protected in these types of arrangements. Indiana showed us what a properly structured deal should look like. Governor Mitch Daniels reaped a windfall from the 2006 lease of the Indiana toll road that netted his State $3.8 billion for new transportation upgrades. Most of the money has now been reinvested in highway projects throughout his State, but leaders shrewdly placed $500 million in an interest-bearing account to fund future road projects. This is one of the many reasons why the Indiana economy has grown at twice the rate of the Illinois economy.

We have seen public-private partnerships take off not only in our own country, where they were invented, but in other countries, especially British Columbia and Australia, where they have authorized $30 billion for transportation infrastructure--almost 20 percent of their total, using this innovative financing means.

In these times of deficit and debt, we could let America grind to a halt, we could raise taxes and sock it to the working poor, we could slow down our economy with a new government burden, or we could recall our own economic legacy, written by Abraham Lincoln's administration itself, to use public-private partnerships as a way of growing jobs and incomes in the United States, without increasing taxes.

I urge this body to review this legislation as we come up with a new transportation bill, and to see it as a way to improve jobs, income, and our infrastructure--which is so critical to the crossroads of the Nation, Illinois--and do it in a way that doesn't hurt our economy or the working poor.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a Freedom Fighter from Chicago, IL, an American Hero, SGT William Steele.

He is a man who proudly went off to war for his country. On June 25, 2009, William lost his leg and almost his life after an IED explosion in Maili, Afghanistan.

Sergeant Steele returned home an even stronger soldier, determined to continue to fulfill his dream with an Army career as a drill sergeant. And with the support of his mother, who at the age of 17 signed the papers so he could enlist in the Army, he will.

One of his favorite quotes from his mother that has inspired him is, ``There is no sense of looking down, hold your head up!'' Sergeant Steele has done just that, making us all proud of him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this poem penned in honor of him by Albert Caswell, be printed in the Record.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise with great concern regarding a program just revealed in the Sunday New York Times--outstanding work by Robert Pear--``U.S. Plans Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors.'' I am asking my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to Secretary Sebelius, sharing our concerns with the legality, standards, and repercussions of this program.

I have deep concerns regarding the Department's recent plans for this so-called stealth survey, its legality, the notification to Congress, the lack of standards for any misconduct or bad reporting by the staff hired to carry out this work in looking clandestinely at American doctors and their practice of medicine. The cost and proposed clandestine method of collecting information about physicians' offices is questionable. Therefore, I will be requesting details on how this survey will be conducted and how investigators will be punished for misconduct or extortion they may carry out in their duties and how patient and physician confidentiality will be maintained.

In our letter, we are outlining 12 key questions.

No. 1. Since there are already a number of surveys answering this question, does this expenditure of taxpayer money add anything? We are asking for the Department to provide detailed records of their literature review on the current research that has already been published on the subject before launching this taxpayer-funded expense. We are also asking for the total cost of this program to be revealed.

No. 2. We are asking for records on how the National Opinion Research Center of Chicago, IL, won a Federal competitive bid to carry out this work.

No. 3. In concluding the results of this survey, how will the NORC decide what qualifies as an acceptable response or best practices from physicians they have targeted?

No. 4. How will patient and doctor confidentiality be maintained? If researchers report bad information or use this survey for extortion, bribery or other acts, how will they be disciplined?

No. 5. Once concluded, who has access to this information--the Department, the White House, the Congress, the press?

No. 6. By what criteria will individual physicians be targeted for participation? Will age, average incomes, surrounding office locations or political affiliation be excluded from factors considered when targeting physicians?

No. 7. Will Federal employees carry out this work or will it be conducted by a contracted call center for data collection? Also, who is qualified to conduct this survey and how will they be chosen?

No. 8. If the staff improperly releases patient or physician data, how will they be disciplined?

No. 9. I would like their description of the fiscal year 2011 Appropriations Committee program or account under which this was funded.

No. 10. I am also requesting a description of the statutory authorization used to carry out this work and the congressional notifications informing the committees of jurisdiction of their intent to obligate funds for this purpose.

No. 11. I am also asking for specific sections identified in the President's budget under which the funding for this work was requested.

No. 12. If a physician wishes to correct data collected by the NORC, what legal redress does he or she have?

There have been a number of very reliable studies which confirm that many patients on Medicaid and Medicare cannot find a doctor to see them. Previous studies also confirm that we do not have enough doctors, particularly primary care doctors. We all know government programs often provide poor service and suffer from funding failures or corruption.

In this time of serious fiscal constraint, I urge us to focus our limited Federal resources on ways we can actually address these problems rather than launch another taxpayer-funded spending program to clandestinely review the work of our physicians.

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

On behalf of Senator McCain, I call up amendment No. 493.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, under General Petraeus, the deployment of a local army is critical to winning a war. In Iraq he used extra U.S. troops to sustain military momentum against an enemy until a well- trained local Army was trained and ready for action. Petraeus had the time he needed to stand up a 500,000-man local Army and then won the war. This has also been his model for Afghanistan. While Iraq and Afghanistan differ, the military challenge was the same: to train and deploy a local army that could sustain a fight until victory.

Starting with nothing, the United States and our NATO allies set a goal of building an Afghan Army and police force to eventually number 400,000. By reaching this goal, the combat mission of the U.S. and other NATO forces would disappear. We would remain helpful with supplies, repair and intelligence, but not frontline combat.

I agreed with President Obama's decision to surge to Afghanistan, and I was in the audience to show my support when he delivered a historic address at West Point. By following the recommendations of General Petraeus, Secretary Gates and others, President Obama gave the United States and our NATO allies the time needed to vastly expand the Afghan police and army.

Unfortunately, the President has changed course from establishing a sufficient Afghan security force before scaling down our military presence. To date, the Afghan police and army are short of their 400,000-man goal. As of April, there were 284,000 in both services, well over 100,000 people short.

Overall, the Afghan Army loses 32 percent of its personnel a year, while its police lose 23 percent. To expand the security forces, losses must be held to 24 percent annually. Therefore, according to our National Military Training Mission in Afghanistan, the commander of that training effort, General Caldwell, must train 23 Afghans for every 10 to be deployed. We find key shortfalls in the officer corps and among noncommissioned officers. To date, 82 percent of Afghan officer billets are not filled, along with 85 percent of noncommissioned sergeants and corporals. The Afghan Army is also short of recruits from the communities where the fighting is most difficult. Only 3 percent of the Afghan Army was born in the southern Pashtun regions where Afghan leaders traditionally originate.

The Afghan Army is also lacking in literacy. In 2008, only 14 percent of Afghan military personnel could read or write. Now, thanks to General Caldwell, that number has grown to 85 percent in both the police and Army. One of the critical factors in training an Afghan Army that can win this war is the number of NATO trainers. To date the training command lacks over 700 trainers due to personnel shortfalls among our NATO allies. Each of these facts paints a clear picture of a work in progress but one that is about to be strained by the President's decision to leave Afghanistan 2 years too early. Under the original Petraeus plan, the United States and NATO would have deployed an Afghan police and military

numbering 400,000 by 2014. Having trained together for 1 year or more, these Afghan units would likely endure the stress of combat and deliver victory in 2015 or 2016.

Unfortunately, the President has rejected his general's recommendations and decided to leave early--withdrawing one U.S. brigade combat team right away. Our NATO allies express quiet concern about this departure. U.S. and local commanders will have about 12 percent of their combat power taken off the battlefield right away. The President will then remove two more brigade combat teams by the election day in 2012, leaving U.S. and local commanders with only 66 percent of the current combat power.

These actions will severely strain the Afghan police and Army, just as Afghanistan prepares for a new Presidential election. It also provides some hope for the Taliban, whose strategy may be a 12-month rest and refit of their operations to then reenter the battlefield against a much weaker enemy in 2013.

We learned a painful lesson when we ignored Afghanistan in 1992. Without any domestic oil or a coastline, the United States paid no attention to the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaida, and we paid an awful price for that policy on September 11, 2001. In my view, the lesson of that day should move us to realize that the Petraeus plan should have been fully implemented and not ended early.

Separately, I would like to take a moment to applaud our Treasury Department and especially our Acting Under Secretary, David Cohen, for moving decisively today to designate Iran Air and a major Iranian port operator, Tidewater, responsible for facilitating Iran's transfer of weapons and other proliferation activities.

Both of these Treasury designations will significantly restrict shipping to and from Iran and will put even more pressure on the Iranian economy. Under Secretary Cohen has proven himself to be a worthy successor to former Under Secretary Levey, and he has my confidence.

In the weeks ahead, I urge the administration to move forward with our allies in Europe and Asia to implement a comprehensive strategy to collapse the Central Bank of Iran. The Central Bank of Iran facilitates the operations of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence Services and lies at the center of Iran's strategy to circumvent international sanctions. It is time for the United States and our allies to decapitate the Central Bank of Iran and to place unprecedented stress on the Iranian economy.

With that, I yield back.