Floor Statements

Madam President, first, I want to express my deepest appreciation for the compliments and recognition given to me for reaching the milestone of casting 10,000 votes in the Senate. I sincerely thank all of those who said such generous things about me and my service in this body.

It is with decidedly mixed feelings that I join my distinguished friend from West Virginia, the chairman of our Committee on Appropriations, in calling up and discussing H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution. This is the fourth continuing resolution we will have considered in this fiscal cycle, but without question it is the most critical. It is critical because it provides more than $463 billion to fund, for the remainder of this fiscal year, virtually all of the agencies and activities of the Federal Government outside the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, as well as certain critical problems within the Department of Defense itself. It is a very important piece of legislation.

Yet the way the legislation is constructed concerns me greatly. It is an odd hybrid between a continuing resolution and an Omnibus appropriations bill. Continuing resolutions are not a desirable means of funding the operations of Government over the long term or in the routine way of providing funding. They are useful in buying time until Congress can complete its work on individual appropriations bills, but they are blunt, formula-driven instruments.

Omnibus appropriations bills, though certainly not without precedent, are far from an ideal means of funding our Government. Omnibus bills combine funding for too many programs into a single bill, and they are not conducive to careful deliberation. Combining these two structures-- a continuing resolution and an omnibus bill--is not the way the American people deserve Members of Congress to fulfill our constitutional obligations.

We have a responsibility to fully debate and pass the individual spending bills, funding each department of Government as we have structured them, with close supervision of subcommittees who have become aware of individual needs and opportunities in each of these bills for the hearings process, and that is not the way this continuing resolution has been constructed. The Appropriations Committee has had hearings, we have had markups, we have listened to outside witnesses, and we have taken into consideration recommendations from the President and department officials about what should and should not be funded, and at what levels the funding should be. This is an open process--and this has been an open process--where anybody can observe and review any provision that is part of any bill. It is truly a public process.

The process has helped us make good decisions historically about programs that deserve funding--careful decisions, identifying programs that are of lower priorities within the constraints of the budget resolution, decisions about which programs should be terminated and have served their usefulness.

The Congress should consider these individual appropriations bills on their individual merits in both the House and the Senate and on the floor of each body. Then conferences occur and we iron out differences between the House and Senate-passed bills in the regular order. That gives all Members--not just those on the committee--the opportunity to offer amendments, to reduce or increase spending funded in the bills. Members have the opportunity to offer amendments to remove, or add, or revise language that shapes agency policies. We should not shy away from these debates and these amendments.

I am concerned that the continuing resolution before us is deficient because we did not follow that process. The continuing resolution required a great number of difficult decisions, including the elimination of some important projects and programs. Programs that provide flood control and natural resources conservation, grants to schools and health clinics and fire departments have been eliminated. The funding levels for various Federal scientific research institutions and programs are below levels proposed by the President. The funding levels for programs, such as defense base closure and realignment, which has been pointed out, may compel us to consider future supplemental funding requests. In some cases, reductions proposed by the President, or by the House or Senate, have not been adopted.

I understand the circumstances that led us to this point. The House of Representatives last year passed all but one of the appropriations bills before the end of June. In the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations completed action and reported all of the appropriations bills before the end of July. Those bills were available to be called up and considered by the Senate in the regular order at that time. It would have been the earliest that had occurred in a very long time. But after that, the process broke down. Most of the bills were not called up for consideration in the Senate. We did pass the bill for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and Military Construction and the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill was approved in November. But for reasons that have not been explained to this date, that bill did not proceed to conference with the House. Congress eventually adjourned and the new leadership in the 110th Congress was created with a range of unattractive options.

My preference would still have been to consider individual appropriations bills and send them to conference, but that was not my decision to make. I hope to work with the majority to make sure we don't face this situation again.

The chairman, Mr. Byrd, my dear friend, is correct when he says there were extensive bipartisan consultations in the drafting of this legislation. That was important. I appreciate his efforts to seek our input, all members of the committee; but no Senator--certainly not this Senator--can speak for the entire Senate. There is little doubt in my mind that if individual appropriations bills had been considered by the Senate and sent to conference in either this Congress or the last, many of the individual decisions would be different from those provided in this continuing resolution.

Having said that, this resolution does conform to the discretionary allocation of $873 billion approved by the previous Congress. It funds many important programs and department activities at the fiscal year 2006 levels, and it increases other priority programs beyond fiscal year 2006 funding levels. Judged by any reasonable standard, it is devoid of earmarks, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out.

I wish the Congress had completed floor action on the individual bills, but we did not. This continuing resolution appears to me to be the best option to meet our obligation to fund Government programs and services. It is a 137-page piece of legislation that Senators should be able to amend. This is not the same as a conference report. It is the first time these bills have come before the Senate. So I urge the Senate

to restore regular order to the fiscal year 2008 budget process so we can avoid this type of situation in the future. I know that is the goal of my friend from West Virginia, and I pledge to him my best effort to help accomplish this goal.

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

Madam President, when most Americans were celebrating annual religious holidays and the beginning of a new year, my family was mourning the loss of one of our favorite and most outstanding relatives, Louis H. White, Jr. Louis White was the husband of my father's sister, Dale White. Their children, Charlotte and Curtis, in addition to being my first cousins, were good friends as well.

Louis White was a member of the fabled ``greatest generation,'' made up of those who left homes and families and volunteered to serve in the armed services during World War II. He left college at Mississippi State University and became an officer in the Army Air Corps. He was qualified soon as a pilot of a B-17 and flying combat missions over Germany. He and his crew were shot down eventually, and he spent several months in a prisoner of war camp before being liberated by the Russians as they moved into Germany from the east.

After the war, after completing his engineering studies, graduating from college, he became an outstanding engineer, enjoying a career of great success as a paper company executive, where he designed and managed the operation of several large paper mills in Florida, Alabama, and Texas.

My parents, my brother, and I often enjoyed visits with him and his family during holidays, particularly when they were living on Santa Rosa Island, near Pensacola, FL.

When Louis retired, he was a senior staff project engineer with BE&K, an engineering firm in Birmingham, AL, where he was involved for 11\1/ 2\ years at high levels of management in the paper industry. At his retirement celebration, it was said he should qualify for the ``Guinness Book of World Records'' because of 52 years of never missing a day of work because of illness or the weather.

His first job, incidentally, was at age 14, when he was a dairy delivery boy. He always was dutiful and dependable. In the German prison camp, for instance, he developed an exercise routine that helped save his life and the lives of those who decided to exercise with him every day. He once told me about a Red Cross package that would come with an assortment of things that would help the prisoners survive, that they included things such as vitamin pills, cigarettes, and other things. He would trade the cigarettes for vitamin pills, for those who wanted to swap.

His example of generosity with his voluntary contributions in the communities where he lived to the schools his children and grandchildren would attend, helping install, personally, the infrastructure of cables and wiring necessary for all the classrooms to have computers, for example, were marks of his contribution to his community.

The quality of his life, the patriotism he displayed, his courage in battle, his survivability under the most difficult and challenging circumstances in the prisoner of war camps, his loyalty to his family and the level of excellence of his career as an engineer in business and industry are worthy of emulation and high praise.

I extend my heartfelt compassion and love to his wife and family members who miss him greatly. We wish them well and thank them for the support they gave him throughout his life and his career.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, there has been much debate and discussion about President Bush's plan for a new way forward in Iraq. In fact, there was much discussion between the President and his team of military and civilian advisers prior to his making the decision to change course and outline a new strategy to help bring stability to the country and to hasten the day when our troops could come home.

There is no easy answer and no easy solution to the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. The President's decision was informed by input from many sources, including his national security advisers, civilian and military, members of his Cabinet, his intelligence experts, as well as Members of Congress, foreign leaders, and others with foreign policy experience. In the end, it was the President who decided this new strategy and that this new strategy had the best chance of success.

He acknowledged, and we all know, there is no guarantee of success. But the dangers are too great to not try to create an opportunity to provide an increased level of stability in Iraq. A temporary deployment of additional U.S. troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi security forces will provide a new window of opportunity for Iraqi political and economic initiatives to take hold and reduce sectarian violence.

The President and his military and civilian advisers reviewed last year's

efforts and determined there were not enough troops to secure the cleared neighborhoods. They also determined that unnecessarily burdensome operational restrictions were placed on the military. The President and our military leaders have assured us that these mistakes will not be repeated.

Prime Minister Maliki has assured us that more Iraqi troops will be engaged in the fight and that political restrictions will be removed. In addition, the Prime Minister of Iraq has committed to take responsibility for security for all Iraq provinces by November, to work to pass legislation to share oil revenues equitably among Iraqi citizens, and to spend $10 billion of Iraqi reserve funds for reconstruction and initiatives that will create jobs. He will also work toward demobilizing militias, holding provincial elections, and reforming debaathification laws, which should help improve the civil structure so the Government can meet the needs of its people and help promote economic growth.

Last week the National Intelligence Estimate, entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead,'' was delivered to Congress. I will not speak to the 90-page classified report. But there were some unclassified judgments provided to us that I can mention. Within this National Intelligence Estimate, this information is provided to support these conclusions:

If strengthened Iraqi security forces, more loyal to the

government and supported by Coalition forces, are able to

reduce levels of violence and establish more effective

security for Iraq's population, Iraqi leaders could have an

opportunity to begin the process of political compromise

necessary for longer-term stability, political progress, and

economic recovery.

Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the

current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities

infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard

pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the

timeframe of this Estimate.

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources,

and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in

Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the

term of this Estimate, [that is 12 to 18 months] we judge

that this almost certainly would lead to a significant

increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in

Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government, and

have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge

that the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] would be unlikely to

survive as a nonsectarian national institution: neighboring

countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might

intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties

and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI

[al-Qaida in Iraq] would attempt to use parts of the

country--particularly al-Anbar province--to plan increased

attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and

political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to

control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey

to launch a military incursion.

Madam President, these statements remind me of prepared testimony presented by Dr. Henry Kissinger to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 31. He indicated that U.S. forces are indispensable and withdrawal would not only have dire consequences in Iraq but would also have a negative impact on the region. I will quote from Dr. Kissinger's testimony at that hearing in the Senate:

The disenchantment of the American public with the burdens

it has borne largely alone for nearly four years has

generated growing demands for some type of unilateral

withdrawal, usually expressed as benchmarks to be put to the

Baghdad government that, if not fulfilled in specific

timeframes, would trigger American disengagement.

But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option.

American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a

favor to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They

are there as an expression of the American national interest

to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and

fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the

energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend. An

abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to

stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments

from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into

preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict

in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled

U.S. intervention in the Balkans. Graduated withdrawal would

not ease these dangers until a different strategy was in

place and showed progress. For now, it would be treated

within Iraq and in the region as the forerunner of a total

withdrawal, and all parties would make their dispositions

on that basis.

President Bush's decision should, therefore, not be debated

in terms of the ``stay the course'' strategy he has

repeatedly disavowed in recent days. Rather, it should be

seen as the first step toward a new grand strategy relating

power to diplomacy for the entire region, ideally on a

nonpartisan basis.

The purpose of the new strategy should be to demonstrate

that the United States is determined to remain relevant to

the outcome in the region; to adjust American military

deployments and numbers to emerging realities; and to provide

the maneuvering room for a major diplomatic effort to

stabilize the Middle East. Of the current security threats in

Iraq--the intervention of outside countries, the presence of

al-Qaida fighters, an extraordinarily large criminal element,

the sectarian conflict--the United States has a national

interest in defeating the first two; it must not involve

itself in the sectarian conflict for any extended period,

much less let itself be used by one side for its sectarian

goals.

Madam President, it is clear to me from Dr. Kissinger's comments that it is truly in our national interest to support the President's new strategy to help provide a new opportunity for political and economic solutions in Iraq and for more effective diplomatic efforts in the Middle East region. Of course, we know there are no guarantees of success. But according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the perspective of one of our most experienced foreign policy experts, Dr. Kissinger, included maintaining the current course or withdrawal without additional stability in Iraq will be harmful to our national interests and to the entire region.

Over the last few weeks, there have been a number of hearings in which the situation in Iraq and the President's new plan have been debated. During the January 30, 2007, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination to be Deputy Secretary of State, Ambassador John Negroponte stated:

. . . I believed, and still believe, that it is possible

for Iraq to make a successful transition to democracy. What I

would like to say is that my belief that success in Iraq

remains possible is based on my experience in dealing with

Iraq as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and Ambassador to Iraq,

and as Director of National Intelligence.

We know there are challenges in Iraq and in the region. And the President has developed a new strategy for dealing with the problem, which I applaud. This includes involving the Government in Iraq and the military forces and the police in Iraq in a more aggressive way. Together they have worked with our military and diplomatic leadership to come up with a new plan that, if it is not undermined by the Congress, has a chance of succeeding.

During the January 23 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the nomination of General David Petraeus to be Commander of the Multinational Forces-Iraq, General Petraeus said:

I believe this plan can succeed if, in fact, all of those

enablers and all the rest of the assistance is, in fact,

provided.

He, also, indicated this:

It will not be easy, but if we could get them to where they

are shouting instead of shooting, that would be a very

substantial improvement.

Madam President, it is obvious to me we need to do what we can to help stabilize this situation and bring our troops home. As a beginning point for this strategy, for it to work, we should show a commitment by our country to success. I support this new initiative, and I think we should give it a chance to work.

This does not mean we should not monitor the situation or that the plan should not be adjusted as new developments occur. But we need to move forward in hopes of stabilizing Iraq, stabilizing the region, and in hopes of bringing our troops home at an early date. The President deserves our support in this effort, and I intend to support him.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate CAPT Brian Glackin upon the completion of his career of service in the U.S. Navy. Throughout his 23 year military career, Captain Glackin served with distinction and dedication.

A native of Lansdale, PA, Captain Glackin received a bachelor's degree in lectrical engineering from Villanova University prior to being commissioned as an Ensign in 1984.

During his career he accumulated over 4,000 hours of flight time, including over 400 hours of combat time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the former Republic of Yugoslavia. He has over 900 carrier arrested landings; and even more impressive over 300 of these took place at night. Captain Glackin completed seven deployments while serving on the aircraft carriers USS Ranger, USS Roosevelt, USS Independence, and USS Enterprise. He completed two overseas tours, including a tour forward deployed with the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Japan. He commanded a squadron of EA-6B Prowlers aboard USS Enterprise in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan following the horrific attacks of September 11.

Captain Glackin's family and shipmates can be proud of his distinguished service. His wife Maureen and their two children, Ann and Owen, also deserve praise for the sacrifices they made in support of Captain Glackin's naval career. As he departs the Pentagon to his second career, I call upon my colleagues to wish Brian and his family every success, and the traditional Navy ``fair winds and following seas.''

Madam President, this amendment essentially provides for an automatic continuing resolution in the event any annual appropriations bill is not enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.

In this fiscal cycle we have passed three continuing resolutions to fund the programs for which appropriations bills have not yet been enacted. Those continuing resolutions have been free of extraneous matter, and have been passed by the House and Senate without particular difficulty.

My desire to enact the regular appropriations bills on time does not stem from fear of our inability to enact a continuing resolution. I do not see that the need to pass continuing resolutions creates a ``crisis atmosphere'' as some have portrayed.

Rather, the pressure to pass the annual spending bills stems from a sincere desire--at least on this Senator's part--to fulfill Congress's constitutional obligation to exercise the power of the purse. It stems from our desire to make intelligent decisions about programs that deserve more funding than was provided in the prior year, and to reduce or cut off funding for other programs that aren't working, or which are a lower priority within the constraints of the budget resolution.

Mr. President, if Senators feel that biennial budgeting is wise, then let us enact a biennial budget. If Members feel that the amount of discretionary spending should be reduced for certain programs, then let us debate amendments to the appropriations bills or to the budget resolution. But let's not abdicate our responsibilities by putting the whole operation on autopilot.

Finally, I would observe that at the end of the last Congress it was not the continuing resolution that was laden with extraneous items. It was rather the tax bill that contained a host of disparate and costly items, many of which were new to members of the Senate. And what was one of the primary

drivers of that tax legislation? The need to extend expiring tax breaks. I wonder how Senators would feel about a formula-driven approach to automatically extend expiring tax provisions?

This isn't a position that I am advocating, but it illustrates the point that a continuing resolution is not a ploy by the Appropriations Committee to pressure Members into supporting appropriations bills.

We don't need an automatic formula of this sort. What we need to do is get to work, debate legislation, move it through in the regular order, and get it done. We should not abdicate our responsibilities and put government on autopilot.

Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate is formally expressing its respect and appreciation for the life and public service of President Gerald R. Ford.

No person in public service in my memory did more to restore confidence in our political institutions than President Ford.

He was a friend and mentor to me as a member of the body, giving me sound advice and serving as a wonderful role model during my career in Congress and in the Senate.

I admired him enormously. His seriousness of purpose and his common sense approach to solving our national problems were qualities that enabled him to give our nation a new sense of confidence and direction.

We are deeply grateful that he served so ably as our Republican Leader in the House, Vice President, and President of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 102, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I deeply regret that we will soon adjourn having adopted only 2 of the 12 fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills.

This year, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported all of the bills under its jurisdiction by July 20, the earliest that has been done in 18 years. These bills were all within the budget allocation, and the total funding appropriated was lower in real dollars than last year. I regret that the Senate was not allowed to consider these bills in time to complete action before the beginning of this fiscal year.

In this continuing resolution, which is now before the Senate, we have made sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs has sufficient resources to provide all the benefits veterans are entitled to receive under the law and that no veteran will be denied any benefit or receive anything less than the finest care available.

I urge the Senate to approve this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the Senate that my long-time staff member and current chief of staff, Mark Keenum, who has served my office and the Senate so well for the past 17 years in a manner which reflects great credit on the Senate, has been nominated by President Bush to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

His confirmation by the Senate will give him an opportunity for continued public service that will benefit all Americans. I do not know of another person who would bring any better qualifications to this job than Mark Keenum. He has an agriculture economics undergraduate degree from Mississippi State University and also received graduate degrees from that university, including a Ph.D. After completing his studies, Mark served on the faculty at Mississippi State as an instructor and was actively engaged in research in emerging agriculture and aquaculture areas of interest in our State.

In 1989 Mark joined my staff here in Washington as a specialist in agriculture and agriculture economics. He has been an outstanding member of my staff, both in helping to develop policy initiatives and in monitoring all the legislation affecting the Department of Agriculture. In my duties as a member and later Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he provided very

valuable advice and assistance in shaping policy there. He was actively engaged in the successful completion of several farm bills. Mark worked to craft the language, negotiate, and iron out differences in conference with the House. He has communicated closely with the administration over the years, all in a very professional and thoughtful way.

Mark and his wife Rhonda are close friends of mine. Mark's personal qualities are impeccable. He is courteous and intelligent; he works hard, has a strong sense of responsibility, and has good judgment. I appreciate the way he has helped manage the administrative and legislative functions of my office, as well as the counsel he has provided me for the past 17 years.

I am confident that Mark will do an excellent job in helping develop options for the next farm bill. He will be a great resource for the administration, as well as for the Congress.

We will miss him here in the Senate. I am pleased to congratulate him on his nomination and extend my thanks to him for the great job he has done in the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to advise the Senate that the Appropriations Committee has completed our work on the bill providing funds for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense for the next fiscal year which begins on October 1.

Yesterday, the other body approved the Defense appropriations conference report, which provides new spending authority for the Department of Defense. Included in this bill is $70 billion in additional appropriations to fund operations related to the global war on terror. I expect the majority leader will call up this conference report later today for approval by the Senate.

I commend the excellent leadership and hard work of the distinguished Senators from Alaska and Hawaii, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the ranking Democrat on that subcommittee, for putting together a bill that carefully considers the requests made by the administration for this massive undertaking of defending our country, identifying the challenges that we face, which threaten our security at home and abroad. It is a daunting task, but they have brought to this challenge a lot of experience, a lot of keen insight into the needs of our country, and the way the Department has to receive funding on a predictable and regular basis to achieve its goals and carry out its important mission.

It is also my hope that the Homeland Security conference report will soon be filed in the House. It includes $34.8 billion in discretionary spending. It also reflects hard work by the conferees on that subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who were the chairman and ranking minority member of that subcommittee. Our conferees completed work on this bill, and we expect that it will be filed in the House, as I have suggested, I hope, very soon.

The Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 appropriates $1.8 billion, designated as emergency funding for border security, to help make our borders more secure. I commend the President and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for their leadership and their efforts to help strengthen the capability of protecting our homeland. Four thousand new border agents have been added. Detention facilities have been constructed. Cargo inspection has been improved. Coast Guard equipment and capabilities have been upgraded and modernized. New vehicles for agents have been acquired. New technologies have been acquired, as well, to help control illegal immigration. The capacity to detect weapons of mass destruction have been improved.

The timely consideration of both of these appropriations conference reports is very important to our Nation's security. The bills provide the funding to protect our Nation from those who would threaten us.

I commend the conferees and the staff members who worked very hard to complete our work on these bills. I appreciate President Bush's leadership in sending the requests to Congress that were comprehensive, very carefully considered. I applaud the leadership of the administration for successfully protecting our homeland.

Protecting our homeland is a huge challenge. Every year there are over 500 million people who cross our borders. There are 118 million vehicles and 16 million cargo containers that enter the United States annually. We have 95,000 miles of coastlines, 2,000 miles of common border with Mexico, and 5,000 miles of common border with Canada. These are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard.

While efforts are being made at home to protect ourselves and our borders, demanding work is being done abroad by our military forces to defeat the terrorists. They have expressed their intention to kill Americans and anyone who stands in their way.

The Defense appropriations bill fully funds military pay for our troops and includes an across-the-board pay raise that was requested by the President, as well as procurement of necessary aircraft, ships, and ground equipment to ensure that our military forces are the best in the world.

The Defense appropriations bill contains $70 billion of supplemental funding to ensure that our troops have the resources needed to succeed in the global war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I commend the good work of our conferees, and I am hopeful that both conference reports will be passed by the Senate this week. It will permit the timely transition to the new fiscal year and prevent potential funding delays that could result in a disruption of programs that are very important to our national security.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Kentucky in commenting this morning during morning business on our efforts to protect against the continuing threats to our Nation, specifically protecting ourselves against the continuing threat from terrorists.

I am pleased to see President Bush in recent days presenting to the American people and the world what the facts are, what we have achieved in our efforts to defend our country against the terrorist acts and to protect against those who would harm American citizens around the world.

I am pleased to see that we have the strong leadership of the President on this issue and those who are working with him in the administration to carry out his policies and the policies we have identified here to support through votes in the Senate and the House.

Secretary Rumsfeld has come under a lot of criticism recently. Many people have been making speeches, calling for his resignation. I think he has done a good job. I think he has been a solid performer to carry out the mission that we have to perform to succeed in the war on terror.

The Congress has approved appropriations bills, authorizations for the work that is being done in this very difficult and challenging area. We now have before us in the Senate another appropriations bill providing funds for the Department of Defense. We have a bill that has been approved by our Appropriations Committee funding the Department of Homeland Security. In both of these measures, we have outlined an aggressive effort that should be carried out by our Government to protect our country, and the efforts that we have made and the administration has made are working. They are doing a great job.

Recent events in England have shown us how difficult the challenge is for other countries and how sometimes preemptive and decisive action is needed in order to protect the citizens of England and our country as well. We applaud the close working relationship we have with them. We benefit from their efforts, and we are grateful to them for the courage and the skill they have shown in this war on terror.

The Congress should continue to support the administration, not take advantage of opportunities for political bickering, partisan nitpicking--whatever one might want to call it. I think we need to take a higher ground in this debate and discussion of what our options are for protecting our country and our people. We don't need the constant drumbeat of partisan criticism against the President and the Secretary of Defense.

I think we should consider instead the impressive success of our soldiers, their courage, and the courage of their leaders and the skill of their leaders in mobilizing the resources of our country to guarantee success in the war on terror.

Just consider what is going on in Iraq right now. Madam President, under the leadership of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and GEN George Casey, our outstanding commander who is responsible for the multinational force that is in Iraq today, we are successfully helping Iraq organize, equip, and train their forces so they can take care of their own security interests.

Iraqi security forces are now in the lead and responsible for almost 75 percent of the military obligations and challenges that are faced today in Iraq.

There are currently 5 Iraqi divisions, 26 brigades, and 88 battalions that are in the lead in their areas of responsibility in Iraq.

More and more of the land area in Iraq is now under the control of Iraqi's own security forces, supported, of course, by coalition government troops who are there as well.

The other day, at a news conference in Baghdad, General Casey explained that he can see U.S. troop reductions in Iraq over the next 12 to 18 months because Iraqi security forces are progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities of the country.

We have seen a significant step being taken when the Iraqi Ministry of Defense announced it is assuming direct operational control over the country's Armed Forces. That announcement was made today. The Iraqi joint headquarters, under the direction of the Ministry of Defense, will be fully responsible now for the Iraqi Air Force, the Iraqi naval force, and the Iraqi ground forces command.

These are facts, Madam President, which we ought to consider and applaud, and our Government and our Department of Defense and our soldiers deserve credit for the successes they have achieved and the strong leadership that has been provided to them.

The United States and coalition forces have gradually turned over other security operations in Afghanistan, for example, to NATO forces. This has been a very impressive feat of leadership to bring together the forces of NATO originally responsible for European defense and now enlarged to include areas of concern to other NATO countries in what had been previously considered out-of-area interests.

NATO forces have taken control of the International Security Assistance Force in the north, west, most recently in the south, and now are making progress in the east to achieve control and success in defending the security of the people of Afghanistan.

There are 37 nation states involved in this effort. We ought to applaud the President, and we ought to applaud the Secretary of Defense for the successes they have achieved in moving us to this point in our dealings with Afghanistan. We have liberated Afghanistan. The Russians had experiences there. We recall their failures and the dangers that continued under the Taliban--the deprivation of rights, particularly of women and children. No schools were available. Now we have moved into a new area of freedom and hope because of the work that these 37 nations have achieved under U.S. leadership and with the U.S. military very actively involved.

So today I am pleased to say to the administration and the Secretary of Defense and the President specifically: We are proud of the work you are doing. We are going to continue to support you by providing the funding you need to carry out your missions and protect our country against terrorists and the other threats that we have looming on the horizon.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. The legislation will expedite oil and gas production in areas that are at least 100 miles from the coastlines of Gulf Coast States and will enable our Nation to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This will improve our national economy and help increase job opportunities for American citizens across the country. It also authorizes the sharing of 37.5 percent of the revenue from new production of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico with the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

Mr. President, 12.5 percent of the revenue from this production will be shared with all States through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The sharing of revenue with States is consistent with the way other areas of the country have benefited from oil and gas production, such as the western Rocky Mountain region, where 50 percent of oil and gas revenue goes to the producing States.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation will reduce Federal spending by $900 million over the 2008 through 2016 period. It increases domestic energy production and saves the Federal Government money.

The legislation will open 8.3 million acres to production on the Outer Continental Shelf, and it will do it responsibly. The offshore program will be conducted under Federal environmental mandates, including the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

As unrest in the Middle East continues, the development of an uninterrupted supply of domestic energy becomes more and more important to our national interests. Our economic security depends on it. At the present time, 37 percent of our petroleum comes from the Middle East or Africa. This legislation will reduce our dependence on these foreign sources of oil and gas.

American families and businesses feel the impact of increasing energy costs every day. As gasoline prices rise, the heating and cooling of homes becomes more and more costly. The new supply of natural gas which will be made available by the Gulf of Mexico Security Act is enough to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years.

Small businesses are strained by unexpected increases in the cost of energy. As the cost of raw materials and fuel rise due to supply not meeting demand, the cost of production and transport of goods is passed on to consumers. Disruptions in our supply mean higher prices, lower productivity, and ultimately the loss of jobs--especially in small and medium size businesses.

American manufacturers face intense competition from foreign companies who have an energy cost advantage. Increased domestic supplies of natural gas would assist our Nation's industries whose competitiveness relies on natural gas as a raw material. The U.S. agricultural industry, for instance, has been facing a natural gas crisis since 1999. Farmers across the country use natural gas for food processing, irrigation, and in the production of crop-protection chemicals and fertilizers. The U.S. fertilizer industry estimates that in the 1990s, 85 percent of its domestic needs were supplied through U.S.-based production. But today, this industry relies on imports for more than 50 percent of natural gas supplies. This adversely affects businesses such as Terra Industries in Yazoo City, MS, which produces nitrogen fertilizer and relies heavily on natural gas as a feedstock.

We must act now to take advantage, in an environmentally acceptable way, of our national resources in the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation will do just that. It is estimated that this legislation will provide us with 5.8 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. The process to begin extracting those resources could begin almost immediately upon the enactment of this legislation.

I compliment the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, the chairman of the Energy Committee, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act is a step in the right direction and will benefit our entire Nation. I encourage its adoption by the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recommend to the Senate the confirmation of David P. Jordan as U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Mississippi.

His education, experience, and good moral character equip him with the qualifications to serve with distinction on the Federal bench. I have known Dan Jordan's parents since we were classmates at the University of Mississippi, and I have had the opportunity to follow their son's development and achievements over the years. He had remarkable success as a student and was a gifted athlete at his high school in Richmond, VA, where his father was a professor of history and chief executive of the foundation that maintains Thomas Jefferson's famous house and serves as a center for research as well as programs relating to early American history and public service.

Dan Jordan has earned a reputation for integrity and excellence as a lawyer in my State. He is widely respected for his sense of fairness and his keen intelligence. He is highly regarded by the lawyers in our State and was elected chairman of the Young Lawyers' Section of the Mississippi State bar. He is a partner in one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in Mississippi.

I am confident he will serve with distinction and reflect great credit on the Federal judiciary. I urge the Senate to confirm him.