Floor Statements

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not the offeror of the amendment who places in order the amendments that are called up and lays the other amendments aside?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1015 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1019.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, we just heard a good observation about the increase in spending, but it is important for the American people to understand, we did ramp up homeland security. We did ramp up defense. Let me read the increases in spending that have occurred in other areas since 2001: legislative branch, 40 percent; judiciary, 40 percent; Agriculture, 25.7 percent; Defense, 55 percent; Education, 109 percent; Energy, 48 percent; Health and Human Services, 53.1 percent; Homeland Security, 153 percent; Housing and Urban Development, 38.2 percent; Justice, 22.7 percent; Labor, Health, and Human Services, 57 percent; Department of State, 74 percent; Transportation, 40 percent; Veterans Affairs, 44.5 percent; General Services Administration, 404 percent; National Science Foundation, 61 percent. The average has been almost 39 percent in the last 4 years. Outside of homeland security and defense, the increase in spending by the Congress has been almost 30 percent.

I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about the spending problems. I also want the American people to understand what is happening to us presently. This chart represents the on-budget Federal deficit. It is not the games that we play in Washington. This is the true amount of money we are going to spend that we don't have, that we are actually going to borrow money to pay for. As you can see, this year it is going to be $544 billion. That is $544 billion that we are going to ask our children and grandchildren to pay back. There is no question that we have some belt-tightening to do. There is no question that the authors of this appropriations bill have done some of that in the bill.

The amendment I wish to focus on presently is an amendment that reduces funding for land acquisition within the bill by $121.2 million, from $154 million, for a total of $32.8 million.

The reasoning behind this amendment is, there is $92 million in reserve accounts right now to buy land that had not been spent this year. The committee put forward another $154 million. Buying land to preserve our scenic heritage, natural wildlife areas, is a good goal. The problem is, do we need to do it now when we are in a time of war, when we are borrowing from our children's future to be able to accomplish that? Is now the time to spend money on it? If not, is there another need? Is there a priority on which we should be spending?

I would say that we need to have another priority. The current bill provides funding for land acquisition through four separate programs: $12.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management, $40.8 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $56 million for the National Park Service, and $44.9 million for the Forest Service. Within the amendment, land acquisition funding for both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is eliminated, while funding for both Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service is reduced by $32 million.

According to OMB and staff estimates, the estimated amount of unobligated balances for Federal land acquisition at the end of the current fiscal year will be $92 million. OMB estimates that BLM will have $28 million in unobligated balances. In contrast, the bill provides an additional $12.3 million for BLM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is set to receive almost $41 million, will have an estimated $32 million in unobligated balances at the end of this year, according to OMB.

Of the $121.2 million savings produced, $60 million in this amendment is transferred to a special diabetes program for Indians, and $61.2 million is transferred to the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Both programs are with the Indian Health Service. Why is that important? There are some important things about diabetes with Native Americans that need to be recognized.

The question is, Do we spend money on land or do we spend money to improve the people's lives that need us the most? We have a real crisis in health care in Indian Country.

The causes are many, but one controllable factor is the delivery of federally funded health care services. Quality of care is severely impacted by poor oversight, lack of competitive forces, and the serious lack of funding prioritization. My amendment addresses the latter. There are 107,000 Native Americans that suffer from diabetes.

We were in the midst of talking about whether we buy land or take care of diabetes with native Americans. That is what this amendment does. It is obvious we are not going to be able to trim the spending in this bill, but it certainly is not obvious that we cannot reprioritize.

Let me give some facts and figures on Native American diabetes compared with diabetes in every other group in this country. The national U.S. population rate for diabetes is 6.3 percent. For Native Americans between 45 and 74 years of age, it is 45 percent, 7 times the national average. The most extensively studied, the Pima Indians, an estimated 50 percent of that population suffers from type II diabetes.

Native Americans who have diabetes suffer from increased rates of kidney failure, amputations, blindness, heart disease, and stroke. End stage renal disease in Native Americans with diabetes is six times higher than any other group in this country. Diabetic retinopathy, i.e., blindness from diabetes, occurs in 24 percent of Native Americans who have diabetes. Only 2 to 4 percent of the diabetes in the Native Americans is type I; 98 percent of it is type II diabetes.

Alcohol and substance abuse is where the other half of this money goes. Nineteen percent of Native American youth age 12 to 17 are consuming alcohol at an alarming rate, headed for addiction; 12.8 percent of the young 12 to 17-year-olds engage in binge drinking. That is five or more drinks, weekly. HHS estimates that 7.6 percent of Native Americans over the age of 26 are classified as heavy alcohol users. American Indians are five times more likely to die of alcohol- related causes than other groups and they face significant increases in carcinoma of the liver and chronic diseases such as psoriasis.

Mortality rates from alcohol and substance abuse are seven times higher in Native American populations than in the general population.

This amendment does not cut funding. It simply moves money from land to people, moves money from the purposes of why we are here to care for those who cannot care for themselves. I would say in Oklahoma, it is very evident to see the underfunding for the Indian Health Service, the number of true full-blooded Native Americans who cannot receive care that was promised under treaty to get the care they need for their diabetes, for alcohol abuse, and other substance abuse.

This is a simple amendment. I understand a budget point of order is going to be raised against it because it spends money faster than the land acquisitions do. I plan on moving to waive that point of order, but I would say to my friends on the committee, and I would say to the people of America, should we be buying more land when we cannot afford it? And if we are going to spend the money anyway, should we not be spending that on something that is going to increase the quality of life and increase the health care of those who are least fortunate in our society?

I would also ask, having looked at this and then refer to the increased spending since 2001, how many Americans have received a 39- percent pay increase since 2001? That is how much Federal Government spending, discretionary spending--that is not Medicare, that is not Social Security, that is not Medicaid, but discretionary spending--has risen. It is time for us to tighten our belt. This is one way to move the priorities back to where they should be in terms of caring for real people, not land.

The other point that I would make is when we buy land it costs us twice. No. 1, it takes it off the tax rolls which decreases the amount of income coming to the States, local communities, and municipalities. But No. 2, it markedly increases costs to care for that land. With $92 million unspent from last year, we are going to spend another $40 million to $50 million to maintain that land and close the purchase.

With that, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee and thank him for the time to allow me to present my case.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

There is no question a significant amount of money is being spent on these two programs, but when you compare it to every other group in this country, what you see is about $1 compared to $3 for everybody else in terms of diabetes. You cannot very well square that when there is six times the rate of end-stage renal disease in Native Americans. That is an important point because if you can prevent end-stage renal disease, you save $50,000 per year per person in not having them on dialysis, as well as the fact it is a miserable life being on dialysis.

So the point is that there are increases. I will recognize that. I still say how in the world can we justify buying land when we are stealing $541 billion from our grandchildren? And No. 2 is why not people instead of land? That is a legitimate question, especially in an underserved segment of our population that needs the dollars that will make a tremendous difference. I would just ask the Senator, can't we come to an agreement that a portion of this money should be moved to solve this very tragic problem that affects and afflicts Native Americans at a higher rate than any other group in this country?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I plan, in a moment, to move to waive the point of order, but before I do that I think every American ought to be asking the question this is $544 billion which we are going into the market and borrowing on budget this year, $544 billion that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay back at a minimum of 6 percent interest every year. So we are going to pay back about $2 trillion on this $544 billion. That is going to be about $70,000 apiece that we are going to wrangle their future with. And the question is, Should we be buying more land if we are going to put our kids in debt?

Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order.

I do. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The question the American people have to ask themselves is, if we are going into hock and we are going to put this kind of lien on our kids, should we be taking money off tax rolls? Should we be spending more money to maintain the land? Or if, in fact, we are going to do this, should we not see an outcome that reduces our cost by reducing insulin dependence type 2, by reducing dialysis? I believe the choice is very clear, that we ought to be taking care of those who need us the most and not add land that is going to add cost. In fact we should, invest in those people where we are going to decrease the cost of the Indian Health Service. With that, I yield the floor.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I had to be absent from the

Senate today, and I missed votes beginning with the motion to

waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1019,

offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn. I had to

miss the votes in order to travel to Charlotte, NC, to

participate in a Base Realignment and Closing, BRAC,

Commission Regional Hearing at Central Piedmont Community

College. I am not absent from the Senate on days when we have

votes without good reason.

This afternoon there was nowhere more important for me to

be than at the BRAC Regional Hearing, which is part of the

process whereby the fate of the 130th Air National Guard

Wing, based in Charleston, WV, will be decided. I believe it

is a crucial part of my duty as a United States Senator from

West Virginia to protect the 130th. While I respect the

difficult work done by members of the BRAC Commission, and

understand that their preliminary recommendations were made

in a good faith effort to improve the efficiency and efficacy

of our armed services. However, I believe that gutting the

130th is wrong and I must make every effort to oppose it.

The 130th plays an important role in our national security,

as well as the security of

the greater Washington area. It has also provided hundreds of

National Guard personnel who responded to the call of duty in

Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In addition to 340 full-time

Guard members, the 130th employs 201 federal technicians, and

more than 80 active guards. The State of West Virginia also

employs more than 50 State employees whose jobs depend on the

continued presence of the 130th. At a time when enlistments

and retention for both our National Guard units and regular

Army are suffering, the 130th had 96 percent reenlistment,

fifth in the nation. Every single job in West Virginia is

sacred to me, and as these jobs also protect my home State

and are a vital part of our military family and national

security, I believe very strongly that they should not be

cut.

With regard to the amendment by Senator Coburn, I believe

he made very persuasive arguments about problems in Indian

Country of diabetes and drug and alcohol addiction. When you

consider that Native Americans from the ages of 45-74 have a

rate of diabetes roughly seven times the rate for all

Americans, and that drug and alcohol addiction is rampant, I

believe most of our colleagues would feel that all that can

be done to help the Indian Health Service--IHS--combat these

plagues should be done.

However, we are in a time of severe fiscal constraints, and

I commend the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for

successfully completing the difficult task of meeting so many

priorities as best they could. The underlying bill contains

about $100 million in appropriated funds for diabetes

programs under the IHS, and there are more than $150 million

available in mandatory spending in other programs targeted at

the same problem. Similarly, the bill funds alcohol and drug

abuse programs at $145.3 million. Senator Coburn would have

shifted additional funding to those important causes by

transferring funds to be appropriated for land acquisition.

The bill contains only about $154 million for Federal land

acquisition. While IHS diabetes and drug treatment programs

surely could have benefited from an extra infusion of cash,

it was also important to fund the land acquisition program at

a reasonable level.

I will support efforts to adequately fund all programs of

the Indian Health Service, and while I would have opposed the

Coburn amendment, I commend him for his obvious and careful

attention to this matter.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1003. I would like to be recognized to speak on that amendment.

I would like to call the attention of the Members to page 8 of the report language on the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2006. No. 7 is entitled, ``Report Language.'' I think it is important that we understand what this says. It says:

Any limitation, any directive or any earmarking contained

in either the House or Senate report which is not

contradicted by the other report, nor specifically denied in

the conference report, shall be considered as having been

approved by both Houses of Congress.

Mr. President, I do not have objection to that other than the fact that the American people, when the report comes out of conference, will have no way to measure the earmarks, the directives, and other things in that bill without that inclusion. This amendment requires that any limitation, directive, or earmarking be included in the conference report. This amendment is about sunshine so that if you get the conference report you can actually tell what is earmarked, what is directed, what is limited by the language that individual Senators have placed in the bill. I do not expect this amendment to pass. I understand that. But I think in one of the steps of us ever getting to the point where we do not leave this heritage of tremendous debt to our children, sunshine has to come in. And when we pass a bill out of conference, the conference report ought to say what is in there, just like it does when we have a conference bill on the Senate side or a conference bill on the House side.

The current report language actually abdicates our authority in looking at what the House earmarks or what the House limits as a body. We do not get a chance to look at that because it is not in the report language coming out of conference. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to vote on everything that is in that bill and have knowledge of everything that is in that bill. The only way a Senator will be able to know that is to take the House language in their report, filter through the Senate language, and figure out what is and what is not included.

This amendment requires that all provisions must be included in the conference report. It allows both the Senate and the House the opportunity to vote on all provisions, as opposed to only those which happen to pass through their respective Chambers.

I believe the American people expect us to do that. I believe this body was, in fact, intended to look at what the

House does. I believe the conference report ought to share what the House has limited, directed or earmarked for the benefit of individual Members or individual States, cities or otherwise.

So with that, I yield to the Senator from Montana and ask that he would support this amendment. It is a simple change. It is a change for open and more transparent Government. It is my belief that it is something we ought to consider.

Mr. President, I think we are in a time when we can take the time to make sure the American public knows what is in the bills. As a matter of fact, I think it is wrong if we do not take the time. I read almost every bill. I am one of the few Senators who do. I can tell you that I will struggle through a House bill and then have to subtract out the conference bill to find out what was deleted from the House bill to be able to know what is and what is not there.

That is not sunshine for the American people. It is barely any sunshine for a Senator. I restate, the fact is, we ought to make it easy for the American people to find out where we are spending the money. A conference report that does not make it easy, does not direct where the money is directed, where the earmarks are, where the limitations are, is less than what the American people deserve.

This is a simple request. It will not add that much time. It is all printed out. In the conference, you all know what you are going to agree to and what you are not going to agree to. It is taking one computer screen: You punch ``copy,'' and it goes into the report.

So I would beg to differ with the chairman. I love him dearly. I think he is a great man. But I think the American people deserve to know what is in every report that comes out of here in terms of spending so they can make an evaluation: Are we doing the right thing mortgaging the future of our kids? Is it legitimate?

But to pass a conference report that does not give that pathway to them, for them to see and make that judgment, I think is wrong.

I think it will help us as the Senate, as we look at what the other body does, to put that in that report. I believe anything less than that says we do have something to hide. We may not have anything to hide. But not being very transparent and very clear about what the limitations, earmarks, and directives are in a bill is something less than what the American people deserve.

I ask the chairman again to reconsider his opposition to this amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

But the point is, don't the American people need to see that 20 percent? Shouldn't they be able to see that 20 percent?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Do you believe the average American can get on a computer, after this bill comes through conference, and see where all the money is spent?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1002 of the Interior appropriations bill be withdrawn.

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

Mr. President, the point I wish to make is the American people deserve to have sunshine on everything we do. The conference report would not adequately reflect the earmarks in the House, the directives in the House, or the limitations in the House. We are going to be voting on the bill without the knowledge of what those limitations or earmarks are.

I would like to turn for a second to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, the Senate is embarking on the appropriations process for the year 2006. I think it is important that we start this process by looking at where we are. What concerns me greatly is the fact that we are less than honest with the American people about where we really are today. In fact, if you talk to the General Accounting Office, if you talk to economists worldwide, if you talk to economists here, we are on an unsustainable course in terms of our fiscal discipline.

This chart shows the real numbers for the next few years in terms of what the deficit is. Washington is notorious about fudging the numbers in terms of our obligations. The deficits that are listed coming forward through the next 5 years include the off-budget deficit but also the money we are stealing from Social Security, as well as the money we are stealing from other trust funds, which brings us to a true deficit this year that is going to be about $541 billion. If we divide that $541 billion in deficit by 300 million Americans, and we have less than that, it comes very close to $2,000 per man, woman, and child that we are spending for money we don't have.

The appropriation process, as well as the budget process, becomes important. In 2004, there were 131,000 taxpayers. Our population by next year is supposed to be somewhere around 300 million. The publicly held debt, not privately held, was almost $5 trillion. Based on individuals, the publicly held debt per man, woman, and child, is around $16,000. As we can see the course, by the year 2035, if we don't

massively change the way this country operates, the individual publicly held debt will be in excess of $220,000 per man, woman, and child. If you divide that by taxpayers, the people who are paying taxes, it comes up to $470,000 per taxpayer.

This year, as a percent of all the Government is going to spend, 7.5 percent is for interest alone on the national debt. If we look at that portion of the debt that we have some control over, outside of Medicare and Social Security, that percentage of spending is 18.5 percent. In other words, $1 out of every $5 that the Government spends today is to be spent on interest, paying for things that we have spent before that we didn't have the money to pay for. So we are digging a hole deeper than we can imagine.

The first principle has to be honesty about where we are. Honestly, this year we are at $2,000 per man, woman, and child in spending money that we don't have, which means we are going to borrow it, which means we are going to pay interest on that. Then, next year, we are going to have $500 billion and then, sooner, the trend line is down, but it is not down fast enough for us to get out of the hole.

The reason I bring this up is the appropriations process is where we have a chance to do a small amount of good to bring this down faster. This first bill on Interior is a good bill in terms of what it spends compared to last year. But it is important that we bring up some provisions that are in the bill that if, in fact, we are in debt, if you personally find yourself in this kind of debt, 25 percent of the money you are going to spend you don't have and you are going to borrow it, would you be spending money on buying more land, building new reception centers, adding things that are not necessary for us to function?

I praise the authors of the bill in terms of keeping within the budget caps. They have done a good job of that. But I have some questions. For example, we are going to spend $162 million that we don't have to buy land--that is for the cost of the land--another $25 or $30 million to get that done, then another $25 or $30 million on that land every year hence forward to take care of it, let alone the fact that we are taking that land off the public tax rolls. We are diminishing the taxes that will go to the States from that land, and we are absorbing them. If we personalized this, would we be doing these types of things in a budget and financial situation in which we find ourselves borrowing 25 percent of our budget?

More importantly, what is the consequence if we continue to do so? The consequence is that our children and grandchildren end up with a standard of living far below ours. The heritage of our great country has been sacrifice by the generations before to create opportunities and prosperity for the generations that are coming. We are about to become the first generation of Americans to not leave that promise for the next generation.

David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, has written a book everybody ought to read. It is called ``Saving our Nation's Future.'' He outlines the unsustainable course this Nation is on in terms of our spending. Quite frankly, we don't seem to have the discipline, No. 1, to recognize the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves, the fact that we are going to lay on our children a debt from which they cannot get out.

This is what we can control. This doesn't talk about the unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security, which are rising $700 billion a year, and yet we are not doing anything to fix; the unfunded liability of over $35 trillion with Medicare which we are doing nothing to fix, the $8 to $10 trillion cost of Medicare D, a brand new benefit that we don't have any resources to pay for except by stealing it from the future of our children. We fail to grasp the gravity of the situation and the long-term consequences of our inaction today.

I will be offering several amendments over the next 2 days that the Senate is in session, not from a critical point of view but from a commonsense point of view. We have $92 million sitting in accounts now to buy land. We are going to make a decision to add another $160 million, while we borrow $541 billion and charge to it our children? We are worse than any credit card addict ever was. There are no consequences for us. We pay no consequences. But the children and the grandchildren are going to pay a severe price for our lack of fiscal discipline, our lack of long-term vision about what our actions are today.

If we had to, there is no question, across every appropriations bill we have, we could find 10 or 12 or 15 percent that is not absolutely necessary to be spent. The contrast isn't about whether or not we spend the money. It is about where the money comes from and who is paying for it.

Of all the issues the Senate will discuss--we will talk about all sorts of social issues, and we will talk about the ethics of it and the morals of it--none of them compares to the immorality of putting our children and grandchildren in debtor's prison. That is what we are doing. We need to be talking individually about things that don't have to get done today, that can be deferred for the future, and saving that money today so that we don't compound the debt for our children.

I am happy to yield.

First of all, the $81-billion supplemental that this body passed, I had an amendment to cut $19 billion out of that because it is not going to be spent for the next 3 years. So there is no way you can call that an emergency. One amendment on limiting the expenditures on the embassy, we got 44 votes. Fifty-five people thought it was OK. The fact is, we are at war. We seem to forget that. In every war this country has ever had, the Congress trimmed discretionary spending massively to fund the war. We have decided we will not do that. We have decided we can continue. There is no question good work was done to cut a half-billion dollars out of this bill. The question the American people ought to be asking is, is everything that is in this bill necessary now in light of the fact that any money we spend we are going to charge to our grandchildren?

We are going to charge the unpaid interest over the next 30 years because we have no history of paying back our debts. So by the time you compound the interest costs of this $540 billion, now with some $40 billion on top of it $588 billion is the number it will become--what is the real cost?

The real cost is no college education for the generation 2 years from now, no homeownership 2 years from now, decreased investment in capital goods for productivity and scientific advancement, decreased investment in education and competition in the world. That is the cost. That is what will be the cost of our inaction to protect the future for our children by not trimming every absolute penny we need to spend from this bill.

The question should be: Can we cut more? Is it wrong for us not to cut more, in light of the fact that we are having to borrow? Whether we borrow it for this or for the war or we borrow it for interest, the fact is, we are borrowing it.

And 18 cents out of every dollar we are going to spend this year in discretionary is going to pay interest on our lack of fiscal discipline from the past. We ought to be about raising the level--we ought to be honest with the American people. They have no idea. They hear $350 billion, but it is not $350 billion; it is almost double that. Let's be honest about the real cost. Let's be honest about what the real problems are that will come, and they are going to come to our children and our grandchildren.

This body has a history, since it was first formed, of thinking in the long term, thinking about the next generation. Unfortunately, Congress as a whole has changed its direction of thinking too often to think about the next election, rather than the next generation. In every appropriations bill that comes before this body, I am going to be down here talking about the lack of our foresight in thinking about our children and our grandchildren.

Yes.

Mr. President, we did pay off some Treasury bills. But the way you know when we pay down our debt is to look at our total debt and whether it declined at the time we did that. It did not. The total debt of the country rose every year we were paying that off. We still had a deficit. We were stealing from trust funds such as the inland waterway trust funds--that is publicly held debt. We transferred that.

So the true debt of the country has not declined since 1972. Even though we were in a period of great times, we spent it all; we didn't pay it down. We actually spent it, and the actual debt of the country rose during the time when everybody in Washington said we were in surplus.

Yes.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time----

The important thing to remember--and there is some merit in the words of the Senator from North Dakota--is from 2000 to 2004, this body increased discretionary spending by 39 percent. We were not in a war as we did that. We increased discretionary spending across all accounts, in every appropriations bill in that period of time. We entered a recession. Did the spending decrease? No, it continued.

The tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy. The fact is, there is no discipline. There will not be any great argument on the tax side with me. But there is no discipline within the body of Congress to trim spending. What was the Interior Appropriations bill in the year 2000? It was 35 percent less than it is today. Yet, we are proud that we take 1.7 percent away? It is a good accomplishment. It is almost unheard of in the last 15 years in Congress. But the fact is, it already grew almost 40 percent. So what we are doing is taking away from a much larger pie.

My point is that we do a disservice to this country if we fail to recognize we have an obligation to think long term, and a half billion dollar cut is a great start, but it is not near enough, as the Senator said. We need to cut across the board. Do you think we cannot find 10- percent savings in the Pentagon? We are holding oversight hearings. They spent a billion dollars on a travel system that should have cost $20 million.

There is no oversight with which to go after the waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. We are more interested in passing the next bill than doing the hard work of oversight to see where the waste, fraud, and abuse is. We are going to do that. We have a Federal financial management committee. We have an ATP program. It is nothing but corporate welfare. We are going to spend $120 million on that and we are going to give $120 million to GE, IBM, and Chrysler to do research they are going to do otherwise. Yet we cannot get anybody to help us cut that out. The House cuts it out, but this body won't cut it out.

The point is, there is a large need for the constituencies in this country to start holding us accountable for the spending increases. If the American public would go through this report language, they would be appalled that in a time of war we think it is fine to build new visitor centers all across this country. Remember, we are going to ask our grandchildren to pay for it--about four times what it actually costs. There has to be the start of some fiscal discipline that says we cannot afford to do that now, period. It is a good idea, but we cannot steal from our children anymore. And throughout this bill are multiple instances like that, which we could wait on. But we don't wait because the next election is more important than the next generation.

With that, I say to the American public we are going to be offering several amendments. I doubt they will pass. But their intent is to start making a beginning in trimming and getting us into line, where we need to be--not for us, not for our political future, but for the future of our children and grandchildren.

I admit to my friend from North Dakota that part of that--the tax policy--is important. But you cannot just look at one side of it. The stimulative policy of tax cuts was important to get this country out of recession. But while we were doing that, this body and the other body increased the discretionary spending in this country by 40 percent. And we cannot afford that. We cannot be proud, even though it is a good start. We should not be proud we cut a half billion dollars from this, when this whole thing was less than $20 billion in 2000. We could go through, if we wanted to care about our children and grandchildren, and cut 10 percent out of every agency. We don't have anybody here with courage who is willing to make the hard decisions to do that, because in the short run it hurts; in the long run, it is healthy.

Mr. President, the question I have for the Senator is, does that request not come from the Appropriations Committee?

Therefore, it comes to the floor, does it not, with the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee? So we are equal partners in asking for that money. It is not just the administration.

Yes. If you took the whole cost of the war today, it is less than half of this. The whole cost of the war is less than half of this, thus far. The fact is, tax policy aside, we could even agree on it--there is no question that $1 out of every $3 is either wasted, inefficient, or defrauded in the Federal Government. That has been said by the Grace Commission and the Comptroller General of the country, in terms of us failing to do the oversight. So we can raise taxes, I believe, as a consequence of that. Would the Senator agree that if in fact we held the spending level--no increase in spending--and worked toward efficiency in the Federal agencies, could we not accomplish a great deal and still stimulate the economy?

Mr. President, I am trying to think of how to phrase this as a question. First, I think my statement was on discretionary spending, not mandatory spending in terms of my relationship to an increase in spending. I would think the Senator would agree that if, in fact, we froze discretionary spending, we would drive efficiency, innovation, and productivity among all those agencies. I hope that he would agree with that.

Mr. President, what is the matter pending before the Senate at this time?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about what we have heard on the Senate floor today. The Presiding Officer and I are new Members to the Senate. We were not here as this struggle began. I must say, I am pretty deeply saddened by the misstatements of fact, the innuendo, the half-truths we have heard on the Senate floor today. I also am somewhat saddened by the fact that the Constitution is spoken about in such light terms. Because what the Constitution says is that, in fact, the Senate sets its own rules and the Senate can change its own rules. The first 100 years in this body, there was not a filibuster, and that filibuster has gone through multiple changes during the course of Senate history.

I pride myself on not being partisan on either the Democratic or the Republican side. I am a partisan for ideas, for freedom, for liberty. I am also a partisan for truth. I believe, as we shave that truth, we do a disservice not only to this body, but we also do a disservice to the country.

Another principle I am trying to live by is the principle of reconciliation. As we go forward in this debate, it is important for the American people to truly understand what the history is in this debate. At the beginning of the Congress, the majority, whether it be Democrat or Republican in any Congress, whoever is in control, has a right to set up the rules.

Those rules were set up in this Congress with one provision--that an exception be made on the very issue we are talking about today. Why was that exception put there? That exception was put there in an attempt to work out the differences over the things that have happened in the past so we would not come to this point in time. I believe the majority leader, although maligned today on the floor, has made a great and honest effort to work a compromise in the matter before us.

I also believe what has happened in the past in terms of judges not coming out of committee probably has been inappropriate. That is not a partisan issue either. It has happened on both sides. As a matter of fact, there are appellate judges now being held up by Democratic Senators because they disagree on their nomination to come through the Judiciary Committee.

As a member of the committee and a nonlawyer on the Judiciary Committee, it is becoming plain to me to see the importance of the procedure within the committee.

Having said that, the Constitution gives the right to the President to appoint, under the advice and consent of the Senate. The debate is about whether we will take a vote.

President Bush's appellate court nominees have the lowest acceptance rate of any of the last four Presidents.

Is that because the nominees are extreme? Or is there some other reason why we are in this mess that we find ourselves in? I really believe it is about the question: where do Supreme Court judges come from? They come from the appellate courts most often. And whether or not we allow people--good, honest people--to put their names forward and come before this body and have true advice and consent is a question we are going to have to solve in the next couple of weeks.

There are lots of ways of solving it. One is doing what Senator Byrd did four times in his history as leader of this body--a change in the rules by majority vote because the majority has the majority. That is not a constitutional option; that is a Byrd option. That is an option vested in the power of the Senate under the Constitution to control the rules of the Senate.

Another little bit of history. Twenty-five years ago, the filibuster was eliminated on the Budget and Reconciliation Act. The Congress didn't fall apart. Under Senator Byrd's changes of the rules, the Senate did not fall apart. So the issue really is about whether or not the majority has the power to control the rules in the Senate. And the debate also is about whether or not we are going to have an up or down, a fair vote on judges--just like we should have a debate on whether we should have a process change in the Judiciary Committee for those judges who are appointed by any President to come through.

I said in my campaign for this office that conservative and liberal wasn't a test for me for judges. The foundation and principles of our country, and proof of excellence in the study of and acting on the law should be the requirements. We had the unfortunate example today--this week--of a Federal judge in Nebraska negating a marriage law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman--an appointed judge deciding for the rest of us--it could very well decide for all 50 States--whether or not we are going to recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. We have heard Priscilla Owen's name linked several times because of her decisions--there were 13 or 14 decisions that came before the Texas Supreme Court on judicial review of a minor's access to an abortion without parental notification--not consent, but notification.

In the one case that they bring up and misquote Attorney General Gonzales on, she in fact did what the law said to do. The federal appellate court is not entitled, nor is the Supreme Court of Texas, to review the findings of fact. The finder of fact is the original court. They cannot make decisions on that. So she dissented on that basis. Judge Gonzales' statement was about whether or not he could go along with that in terms of what would be applied to him in terms of judicial activism. He has since said under oath that in no way, or at any time, did he accuse Priscilla Owen of being a judicial activist.

Let's talk about activism. I want to relate a story that happened to me about 6 years ago. I was in Stigler, OK, having a townhall meeting. A father walked in, 35 years of age, with tears running down his cheek. In his hand, he had a brown paper sack, and he interrupted this meeting between me and about 60 people. His question to me was: ``Dr. Coburn, how is it that this sack could be given to my 12-year old daughter?'' Of course, I didn't know what was in the sack. What was in the sack was birth control pills, condoms, and spermicide. The very fact that his daughter could be treated in a clinic without his permission for contraceptives came about through judicial activism. The fact is that 80 to 85 percent of the people in this country find that wrong. Yet, it cannot be turned around. The fact is that 80 percent of the people in this country believe that marriage is defined as that union between a man and a woman, and a Federal judge--not looking at the Constitution-- not looking at precedent, actually makes that change.

So it is a battle about ideas. Priscilla Owen recognizes what the law is. She has stated uniformly that she will follow the precedents set before the court. But we have gotten to where we are in terms of the issues that inflame and insight so much polarization in this body and throughout the country because we have not had people following the law, but in fact we have had judicial activism.

I congratulate President Bush for sending these nominees to the Senate floor. I have interviewed Priscilla Owen. Her history, her recommendations, her ratings are far in excess of superior. So why would this wonderful woman, who has dedicated her life to the less fortunate, to families, to reinstituting and strengthening marriage, to making sure people who didn't

have legal aid had it, why is she being so lambasted, so maligned because of her beliefs? The beliefs she has are what 80 percent of the people in this country have, but she doesn't fit with the beliefs of the elite liberal sect in this country.

So it is a battle of ideas. It is a battle that will shape the future of our courts. How is it that a woman of such stature will have the strength to withstand for 4 years--she has put everything about her, every aspect of her personal life, her public life, her judicial career out front and has stood strong to continue to take the abuse and maligning language that comes her way. Why would somebody do that? It is because she believes in this country. She believes in the foundational principles that our colleague from New York held up in the Constitution. She has sworn and believes in that Constitution. She has the courage to know that the fight for our children, for our parents to control the future for our children, is worth the fight.

I would like to spend a minute going over some poll numbers with the American public on the very issue of whether or not a minor child ought to have parental involvement in a major procedure such as an abortion.

Having delivered over 4,000 babies, having handled every complication of pregnancy that is known, I am very familiar with these issues.

There are five polls I would like to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

One is a March 2-7, 2005, poll from Quinnipiac University:

Do you favor or oppose requiring parental notification

before a minor could get an abortion?

That is notification. Seventy-five percent of the people in this country agree with that. It is not an extreme position when 75 percent of our fellow Americans think that is right--think that in fact we don't give up rights to our children until they are emancipated and are adults.

Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following

proposals: A law requiring women under 18 to get parental

consent for any abortion?

That is not notification, that is consent. That is a CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll, January 10, 2003.

Seventy-three percent favor parents being involved in the health care of their children and major decisions that will affect their future.

Do you favor or oppose requiring that one parent of a girl

who is under 18 years of age be notified before an abortion

is performed on the girl?

Eighty-three percent favor the parent being notified. That is a Wirthlin Worldwide poll.

Should girls under the age of 18 be required to get the

consent of at least one parent before having an abortion?

That is a Los Angeles Times poll. Eighty-two percent believe that.

What is described as extreme is mainline to the American public. What we have is a battle for ideas, a battle under which the future of our country will follow.

The word ``activist'' in reference to judges is a word that is wildly used. It is almost amusing that we hear it from one side of the Senate to the other side of the Senate. What is activism on one side is not activism on the other. What is activism to the minority is not activism to the majority.

What is activism? Activism is reaching into the law and the precedents of law and creating something that was not there before. Activism is intentionally misinterpreting statutes to produce a political gain. I will go back to the child and the father, 35 years of age, screaming at the depths of his heartache as to how in our country we have gotten to the point where a judge can decide ahead of the Senate, ahead of the House, ahead of both bodies and the President, what will happen to our minor children. That is what this debate is about.

Priscilla Owen exemplifies the values that the American people hold, but she also exemplifies the values of the greatest jurists of our time: a strict adherence to the law, a love of the law, and a willingness to sacrifice her life and her career and her personal reputation to go through this process.

Senator Ensign, the Senator from Nevada, made a very good point a moment ago, and I think it bears repeating. How many people will not put their name up in the future who are eminently qualified, have great judicial history, will have great recommendations from the American Bar Association but do not want to have to go through the half-truths, the innuendos, and the slurring of character that occurs, to come before this body?

My hope is that before we come to the Byrd option or a change in the rules, that cooler heads will decide that we will not filibuster judges in the future, and we will not block nominations at the committee. That is reasonable. We do not have to do that. A President should have his nominees voted on. If they come to the committee and they do not have a recommendation, they should still come to the floor, or if they have a recommendation they not be approved, they should still come to the floor, or if they have a recommendation they be approved, they should still come to the floor. But it is fair for a President to have a vote on their nominations.

We have seen this President's numbers on appointments. That is right. Why has he had so many people appointed? Because he has nominated great jurists, and could they have filibustered others, they would have. The ironic part is that they say that Priscilla Owen is ``not qualified.'' However, in the negotiations leading up to the point we find ourselves, the offer has been made that we can pick two out of any four of the people who are on the queue to come before this body and let those two go through and two be thrown away. If that is the case, if any two will do, then they are obviously qualified. If they are acceptable under a deal, then they are obviously qualified.

The argument against qualification, the activist charges do not hold water. What does hold water is the fact that these individuals who stand in the mainstream of American thought, values, and ideals will be appellate judges and that someday maybe have an appointment or a nomination for a Supreme Court judgeship. That holds water. We have to decide in the Senate whether or not we are going to allow the process of filibustering judicial nominations to continue. If it continues, then lots of good people will never put their name in the hat. Lots of good people will never be on the court. What will be on the court are people who are not proven, people who do not have a record, people who are not the best. That is what will be on the court. The country deserves better, the Senate can do a better job than we are doing today, and it is my hope that we can resolve this conflict in a way that will create in the Senate a reputation that says reconciliation over the issues that divide us is a principle that we can all work on, that we can solve,

that we can do the work of the American people. But if that is not possible, then it is well within the constitutional powers of the leader of this body to change the rules so that we can carry out our constitutional responsibilities.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what we are doing and why we are doing it and the overall evaluation of this bill.

We are going to run at least a $600 billion deficit this year, a real deficit. What is said out there is that it is going to be $410 billion, but it is not. We are going to take $150 billion worth of Social Security money and spend that, and then we are going to have this supplemental, which is now at $81 billion. So we are going to be at about $630 billion, $640 billion in deficit.

What is that deficit? That deficit is money we don't have today, that we are going to go borrow, but we are going to ask our grandchildren to pay it back. I don't want anybody to have any misunderstanding. I believe we need to have an emergency supplemental appropriation right now. I believe it ought to be designed for emergencies--true emergencies. That is what it is here for. I believe we ought to do whatever is needed for our troops and our efforts in the war on terrorism. I also believe we need to meet the commitments in terms of catastrophic weather events and the tsunami.

I think we ought to pass out of this body what can truly be spent on that in the near term. What I don't think we should be doing--and I realize I am in a minority--is spending money and authorizing money to be spent from 2007 to 2012 that is surely and obviously not an emergency. I will have a hard time going home and looking at some of the poor children in Oklahoma when we spend this extra $21 billion out of this emergency. Each one of those poor children, when they grow up, is going to have to pay back about $5,000. That is what the difference is personally to them after 30 years of us borrowing. It is interesting to note that we have not truly paid off any of our bills, except for one short period of time, around 1999, 2000. So when we borrow the money, it continues to go up and it continues to compound and it continues to undercut the standard of living of future generations of this country.

If there is anything our heritage teaches us, it is that the prices that were paid for us to have the opportunity we have today is something that we ought to transmit to future generations.

I understand there are going to be objections to me bringing up my amendments; they aren't germane. I understand I need to have unanimous consent to be able to bring those up. I am not going to call for them at this time, but I will continue to talk about each one of those issues. I think it is important that the American public understand what is in this bill.

Yes.

That is correct.

I thank the Senator.

I will call them up and we will see what happens. I want to set the field a little bit more.

I think it is important that the American people understand what is in this bill, and there are legitimate things in this bill that we need to have to fund the war on terrorism. I don't want to debate this issue or delay it. I want us to pass it. I don't want us to have to vote on every amendment I put up.

I think it is incumbent upon us to be honest with the American people. When we call something an emergency, it ought to be an emergency. This bill has $21 billion in it that is going to eventually cost our children $100 billion in the next 30 years, and it is not an emergency. It should go through the regular appropriations process. It is important for the American people to also understand if it is regular stuff that is in the emergency, the budget rules don't count. So we are going to spend $20 billion that should be taken out of next year's budget requirement, and we are going to sneak it in now so we can spend $20 billion more next year. That is what it is about.

We need to be honest. We are never going to solve our budgetary problems or spending problems, or we are never going to have the process work in this country where the pressure comes on this body to not spend our children's

future, unless we are honest about what is in the budget and how the appropriations process works.

Let's take, for example, the embassy in Iraq. This is a $500 million embassy--$500 million, a half-billion dollars. It is not just an embassy. It is the whole thing there, to give credit. It is going to have greater requirements than any other embassy we have, but it is a half-billion dollars.

In this appropriation bill, only $106 million of it is going to be spent over the next 2 years; $385 million is going to be spent from 2007 to 2012. That is not an emergency. What you will hear from the Appropriations Committee is they have to let the contracts. It is only 3 months between now and the time we start the regular appropriations process. We can let a contract and the conditional authority for a $500 million embassy. We should not move that up now.

There are also some good questions about whether we ought to be spending $500 million on an embassy complex in Baghdad. That needs to be looked at. That needs to be talked about before we commit our children's future. That is one example of the areas in which we need to be making sure the American public knows what is going on.

The purpose of an emergency wartime supplemental is to immediately fund ongoing emergency needs for our troops or for disaster--emergency needs. My objection to this bill is it has $19 billion to $20 billion in it that is not emergency. It does not have anything to do with an emergency, but it has to do with outyear spending we can now put into this bill which has to pass to fund our troops.

Let me just give some history. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed four individual supplemental bills in ongoing efforts to fund the war against terror. In those bills was $56 billion that did not have anything to do with the war on terror or homeland security. Think about that, $56 billion. When we add this up, we are going to be at $72 billion over the last 4 years in money that is not emergency and money that is not about the war on terrorism and that is not money about homeland security.

Why is that? It is because our process is broken. The only way it changes is for the American public to become informed about how the process works. This is not to question the motives of any of our Members. They want us to control spending as well, but they also want to satisfy the demands that are placed on them, the office, for all the demands that come in from across this country.

The fact is, we are our own worst enemy because we have trouble saying no to those we care about, even though we do not have the money to do it or do not recognize we are really stealing a standard of living from our children and our grandchildren.

There is $10 million, as Senator McCain mentioned, for a library. There is no question that the University of Hawaii has an emergency. By their own quoted statements, the president of the University of Hawaii said the damage is about $50 million. With this $10 million and what the State legislature has done there, they are going to collect over $100 million for a $50 million damage, and with the requirements under FEMA for having a 75-percent/25-percent grant, even though it was required, we are now going to supply that.

It may not be a one on one, it may not be their intent, but the fact is $10 million is fungible, which is exactly their matching grant to get it repaired. Is it an emergency? Is it something that needs to be done or is it something that is going to be covered already? Is it something we, as Congress, should be supplying or is it something for which the people of Hawaii should be responsible? It is a legitimate question, and if it should be there, then it ought to go through the appropriations process where it can be looked at, not stuck in a bill that is a ``must pass'' bill. That is something about which we need to talk.

Mr. President, 6 years ago, the Capitol Police were told they needed to move out of their storage and receipt building in southeast Washington, DC. We now have $23 million in this bill to move the Capitol Police receiving station out of the area so we can build a baseball stadium. I have a whole lot of trouble thinking that comes anywhere close to the emergency requirements of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost laughable that we would put that in as an emergency.

I understand people have a very different opinion of that than I do, but I think a baseball stadium pales in comparison to what the need of an emergency appropriation is. I think it is wrong to have money in an emergency appropriation to do something such as that. It can come through the regular order, especially since they have had 6 years to have done it.

I must say the chairman of this committee has been very kind to me in answering questions and working with me. I think he has brought what he thought the body could pass and get back to the President. I do not want to cast any direction against any individual, but I believe we have to have a challenge, and one of the reasons I came to the Senate is so I can look at what we are doing so I can help educate the American people on what is really happening.

I call up my amendments Nos. 450, 467, 506, and 471, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to call up four amendments.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to call up three amendments.

Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 450, 467, and 471.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the first amendment deals with contracting in the Defense Department. There is no objection or intent to label anything other than the process under which we allow $40 million of expenditures to go out that does not go through a true competitive bidding process. There is no question it will benefit what we are doing. There is no question it is a need in terms of what we had. The question in bringing this amendment up is because of the process and the lack of open, competitive bidding associated with $40 million of the taxpayers' money.

I have no question that possibly the person who has this contract or will get this contract under the present bill may be the best, but the American people and future generations of this country need to make sure that is what happens and it happens every time so that we do not spend any money unwisely.

I believe it is tremendously prudent on our part, in reassessing where we are and the tremendous risks facing our economy from the valuation of the dollar, our deficit spending, and the difficulties we are going to be facing on Social Security and health care, that we pay attention to every detail. This was noted in the report language. There may be a much better explanation for it.

Without losing control of the floor, I yield to my chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I want to make certain everybody understands. This was appropriated. It was not directed clear enough for the Department of Defense to want to spend the money. What we are seeing is they want a clearer direction. I do not fault the Senator from Pennsylvania at all for trying to give them a clearer direction. I would like to do that for some companies in my area as well.

The fact is, it is not the way to run an airline, it is not the way to run a company. The omnibus appropriations process is not the way to run a country either, and it is my hope we don't get there this year either.

The reason it is there is because they wanted the direction on where to spend it. I understand the intention of the Senator from Philadelphia, his purpose. The reason I raise this question is I believe this is the wrong way we should be doing things. We need to stop. Our future depends on the integrity of a budgeting and appropriations process that is not based on politics but is based on having the future best will for our country.

I don't have anything further to say on this, other than the Senator has given a great explanation. I understand what it is. He is trying to do something. The problem is, the military doesn't necessarily want to do that.

I yield to my chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

I ask for a voice vote on the amendment, amendment No. 450.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss amendment No. 471.

I will.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

I ask for the regular order on amendment No. 450.

I would like to ask for a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I want to visit amendment No. 471, which reduces funding in the supplemental for the Iraqi Embassy. According to the report language on this bill, $592 million is to be appropriated over the next 7 years for an embassy in Iraq. I do not have any objection. I think there ought to be tremendous hearings on the amount of money expended on that, but $592 million? Mr. President, $106 million of that is all that will be expended over the next 2 years. So what is going to happen is we are going to have $486 million hanging out there that will be rescinded and spent on something else.

First of all, we had a vote in this body, of which 61 Members of this body voting on the Byrd amendment this week agreed that the President ought to put everything that he sought for the war in Iraq and for its needs in the regular budget and the regular appropriations request he sends to the Congress.

By far, 61 Members out of 100 of this body will agree with the principle that I am bringing forward. They voted for it. The idea with this amendment is to trim the appropriations from what is expected to be spent for the next 2 years. And it is even questionable whether that is an emergency.

I also note that the House, in passing the supplemental bill, eliminated the ability of this money to be spent for an embassy. I will state that the purpose of the emergency wartime supplemental ought to be to fund operations and projects that are emergencies. Money that is going to be needed for this embassy and complex in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 can be appropriated at that time. It can be authorized before then, but it can be appropriated at the proper time.

Again, quite simply, the emergency supplemental should only contain items we need right now in order to fight the war on terror.

I will have trouble finding somebody who will actually debate on why we need to spend $586 million on an embassy complex, and we need to do it now rather than run it through the regular appropriations process.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I agree with everything the chairman said except he didn't talk about the issue I am raising. The issue I am raising is spending $400 million in the years 2007 through 2012 should go through the regular appropriations process. I want us to have an embassy over there. I want us to do the very things the chairman outlined.

But, again, we are playing a game with the appropriations process. The administration is playing the same game by requesting it. We have $592 million, and only $106 million is going to be spent in the next 2 years to accomplish what the honorable chairman of the Appropriations Committee said. Why not run the rest through the regular order? Why put this to the bottom line and not make us do what we need to do in time of parity in how it is spent?

Again, I think this extra money, this $486 million, ought to go through the regular order. We are going to go out and borrow and ask our kids and our grandchildren to pay it back. When you ask them to pay it back, it is going to be at a rate of about seven or eight times what we borrow. We are not paying back money, we are paying interest, and then we are paying interest on the interest. That very well equates to us abandoning the vision that we want to give the future of this country; that is, opportunity and freedom, and we can't do that if we continue. All of this money in this bill goes straight to debt. None of it goes through the budget process. There is no limit. We are going to go out and borrow the money tomorrow. It is going straight to debt.

I don't disagree with the chairman at all. I appreciate his working with me on this committee in terms of learning, of teaching a new Senator the ropes. He has been wonderfully kind to me. But the fact is, only $106 million is going to be expended over the next 24 months after this is put out, and the rest of it ought to go through the regular order. That is all I am asking. I am saying it should come through the regular appropriations process. That is all I am asking. I am not saying don't do it. I am saying do it in a way in which we are held accountable, and we are going to hold our children accountable. It isn't just about numbers. It is about the future of our country and whether we are going to change the process in Washington that truly recognizes that we have to start being responsible.

The South Korean Government, about a month ago, made one little, small comment about changing their mix on foreign holdings. The dollar fell 1.8 percent that day. We will not be able to hold the value of the dollar in the international financial community unless we are seen as being competent and secure about solving our problems and not spending money we don't have. This is a good first place to start.

There is nothing wrong with sending it through the appropriations process on the regular order. It makes it a little harder for the appropriations team; I understand that. They have already done what they have been asked by the administration to do. But we need to send a signal to the administration to quit asking for money in outyears on the appropriations process so we don't look as bad when we count the so-called deficit. Remember, this is going against the deficit. It won't go against the published numbers. It is outside the rules of the game because we call it all an emergency. Money spent on an embassy in Iraq in 2011 is not an emergency to anybody in this country I

know of. I think we would have trouble finding it.

With that, I will cease discussion on that issue and discuss amendment No. 467.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Madam President, again, great words. True. We need to do it. But that doesn't address the issue of why that money should not go through the regular process on the outyears. I understand the tough job the chairman has to do.

Amendment No. 467, withdrawn

With that, I will move, if I may, to the next amendment, No. 467.

Madam President, this is an amendment that ought not have to be brought forward. There is no question that there was, in fact, significant damage and flooding at the University of Hawaii. There was, in fact, significant loss of records and volumes at the University of Hawaii. There was, in fact, over $30 million in FEMA money that was sent to the University of Hawaii. There was, in fact, a $10 million matching contribution from the State of Hawaii for that matching grant. There is at least $25 million in insurance proceeds to go with the State assembly that was also trying to actively increase that amount, and public statements were made by the president of the University of Hawaii outlining the damage assessment, with this $10 million that is not truly an emergency anymore in this bill.

This is not directed toward the Senator from Hawaii in any way. I wanted to talk about this, and then I am going to withdraw this amendment, if I have a unanimous consent to do it. But I want to use it as an example of what we shouldn't be doing.

The fact is, they haven't even spent all the money that has been sent out there for the repair of this facility right now. On an emergency basis, we are going to appropriate $10 million more. If you total up everything, if you take what the University of Hawaii said and others have said about the total cost of the flood, $50 million, there is going to be $100 million that goes toward the University of Hawaii for a $50 million flood. That is bad enough. But this is not the way we ought to be doing this process.

I am standing on the floor of the Senate today to offer amendments, not critical of any one individual but critical of the process because I believe if we don't have a functional, structural process change in how we appropriate taxpayer dollars in this country, we are going to undermine the standard of living for the next few generations. We very well could be the first generation of Americans to leave the next generation worse off.

I believe things that are in an emergency bill ought to be truly emergencies. No. 1, they ought to have to be spent out in a short period of time, and with that comes the authorization for further spending so the appropriations committees can have the direction, so they don't have to spend it all and then rescind it.

I believe we need to change things. We look around to our children. We see a future, we see hope, we see promise. But we see all of that in light of what we see today. We don't think down the road about what potentially can happen to our country--now $9 trillion in debt, with $600 billion worth of trade deficit every year with multiple poor countries in the world that export agricultural products holding large amounts of our dollars that are also dependent on our dollars staying at a certain value. We have to think long range about how we do this.

I am challenging how we think, not to make a mark or to direct anything

toward any individual person. We have to change. I will stand on every appropriations bill to come in the future and I will personally read the appropriations report language to find out what is there, and use the privilege granted to me as a Member of this body to raise these issues until we change how we do it.

It is my hope I don't have to do that. I don't want to have to do that. But it is very important we start down a new road. It is not a partisan issue. It does not have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans but it has to do with our children, the future of our country, the viability of defending ourselves.

Every dollar we waste or do not spend appropriately is $1 we cannot use to defend ourselves or create the technology to compete in this global economy. We have to do what is right for future generations.

I will withdraw this amendment, as well, but I want to put my fellow Members on notice that I will be bringing this up. It is time to change. I don't do that with any ill will. I don't do it saying I have all the knowledge. But what I do know is I want a future for our country and for the children. We cannot continue doing what we are doing in terms of spending. We cannot continue either the process or the procedure on how we are doing it.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment numbered 467.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on this issue because I think we find ourselves fixing the wrong problem

again. The real consequence of not having addressed the immigration problems in this country means we have problems with crops that are not going to be harvested because we don't have workers. But the time to do that is right after we finish this bill.

The American people as a whole do not want an amnesty program, but they will accept an amnesty program if we fix the border, and we have not secured the border. We have not done what we need to do in this body, in the House or through the administration, to enforce the laws of this country.

It is illegal to come here and we should not reward illegal behavior. But you can't even begin to address that until you say we are going to enforce closing this border for national security purposes but also for competitive purposes.

We need to have a national debate about how many people need to come in and supply an effort to our Nation as we grow. All of us in this country are immigrants except for the Native Americans. We would welcome others. But it has to be done legally. We have not done our job as bodies of the legislature, along with this administration, of first securing the border.

We have a national priority in terms of our own safety. Yet the politics of securing that border plays into every Presidential candidate who is running today. It becomes a political football. The fact is, for our children we need to secure that border to make sure we don't have terrorists coming across. ``60 Minutes'' 3 or 4 weeks ago showed a person from Croatia who came across the border illegally, became a legalized citizen after that, and ran guns and exported them throughout our country. He had access illegally to get here in the first place. That is not what we want.

We need to solve agricultural problems. I come from an agricultural State. But the American people are not going to accept an amnesty program, I don't care how you design it, based on any type of emergency, until we fix the obligation we have, which is to control that border. We have the capability to do it. We have the technology to do it. We have the money to do that and a lot less of other things if we would do it. If we will in fact control that border, then we can solve every other problem that comes about.

There are going to be consequences of not fixing the problems that were outlined by Senator Mikulski and Senator Craig, but rightly so, because we haven't done our job. There are consequences when we do not do our job. So I support Senator Cornyn's resolution fully. We need to come back and address this. We need to address every other area, but we have to first recognize that the American people are counting on us to do what is right in terms of securing the border. As long as we continue to ignore that because it is not politically acceptable in certain circles, then we are not going to fulfill our duty to protect this country. When we have troops fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan and around the rest of the world, and we will not even enforce the law when we have the capability to do it, we dishonor them.

So this is fixing the wrong problem. It is a problem, yes, but it is not the real problem. The problem is the border and controlling the border. I am convinced the American people are compassionate and will deal with any other issue of those who are here and those who want to come here in an orderly fashion, once they have the confidence that we have the border controlled. But we fail to do that at our peril, we fail to do that at the peril of the safety of this country, and we fail to do that at the peril of these areas that need specialized help in a short period of time. We are going to suffer the consequences of that and we should.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Enzi and all those who have worked hard on this bill. I have a few questions in terms of my concern about prenatal testing.

Do I understand from the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming that this legislation is directed against a wide range of cases with which individuals of families may be discriminated against in health insurance coverage based on the results of genetic tests conducted on any family member?

One example of such discrimination cited in the past is based on prenatal testing. A 1996 report by the National Academy of Sciences cited a case in which a California HMO threatened to deny health care coverage to a child because that child, before being born, antenatal, tested positive for a genetic defect associated with cystic fibrosis. Would this legislation protect against this type of discrimination?

I thank the Senator. Based on that interpretation and my understanding that the Senator will ensure the conference report includes language that makes clear that a dependent child will be protected from discrimination under this legislation regardless of when the genetic information was acquired, including any information gained from ante- and prenatal testing, I will support the bill. I congratulate Senator Enzi and thank him for his hard work and for the colloquy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am struck as a newly-elected Senator from the State of Oklahoma. I must say I am extremely disappointed that my first opportunity to speak on the floor of this body is on the basis to refute the claims that are being made against a gentleman that I believe has already served our country miraculously and has been an example in this country of what can happen from very humble beginnings if somebody applies hard work, great effort, and perseverance.

I am also struck by the claims that are made which don't have anything to do with history.

I was sitting here asking myself this question: Were President Kennedy, President Johnson, and President Nixon responsible for My Lai, Vietnam? Was it their policies that caused that to happen? The atrocities that occurred during the Korean conflict, was that the fault of President Truman? The atrocities that occurred during World War II, was that the fault of President Roosevelt? No.

And to make the reach and to make the claim that Alberto Gonzales, in his role as adviser to the President, as a legal counsel, to do what is expected of him in that position and to do that in a way that gives the President of the United States the advice, the knowledge, and the legal opinion of the Justice Department--not his opinion but the legal opinion of the Justice Department--that he somehow has disqualified himself from the position of Attorney General.

I come to the floor today to make a statement in support of Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be the Attorney General of the United States. I believe an injustice is being carried out against him, both personally and professionally. Instead of looking at his qualifications, many have used him as a lightning rod for their complaints about the administration's handling of the war on terror. Specifically, many blame him for the administration's policies on the treatment of detainees and for its inquiries about the definition of torture. I am reminded that the President stated in 2002 that we would offer humane treatment to all prisoners. I am also reminded of how important it was for him to have a definition of what that was according to the Geneva Convention, but also according to our own law.

What have the President and Judge Gonzales done to deserve the criticism they received? We saw Monday the results of Sunday's elections in Iraq.

The allegations against him are based on two sets of advice that were given to the administration by the Attorney General and Department of Justice.

First, the President made a decision based on the legal advice that he received from the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that certain detainees should not receive prisoner-of-war status while they were held in U.S. custody.

Second, Judge Gonzales asked the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel under its statutory authority

to render legal opinions to determine the precise meaning of the U.S. anti-torture statute. The Department of Justice responded to this request August 1, 2002, and December 30, 2004.

I must say that torture is not a pleasant subject for us to discuss, but one might ask why the President and his top lawyer needed a clarification on an issue as unsettling as torture. I believe it is good to repeat the words of Senator Cornyn in his discussion. Why would we not use every legal means which are appropriate to protect this country? Finding out the definition of appropriateness is well within the purview of what Alberto Gonzales did.

It is remarkable how quickly we forget. Just 3 years, 4 months, and 21 days ago, this Nation came under attack. We all watched helplessly as more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans were murdered, and nearly an equal number were severely injured in an assault that we had never seen before in this country.

As the horrors of September 11, 2001, unfolded before our eyes, we quickly realized that we were not under the attack of another country, we were not assaulted by a nation that respects and obeys the laws of war and international order. We were ripped from a world paradigm that we understood, one where states follow rules while fighting each other, and thrust into a new world where a nonstate enemy infiltrates society and targets our citizens. Our enemy does not acknowledge that while at war soldiers must wear uniforms, carry their weapons openly, obey a chain of command, and treat captives--especially civilian captives-- humanely. What they do is cut their heads off. They don't hide the fact.

The nightmare that began on September 11 has not ended. We watch daily as our enemy attacks our soldiers who are risking their lives and limbs to better the lives of the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan and drive out terrorist cells. Gone are days when our soldiers were able to face the enemy on the battlefields, eye-to-eye. Today, enemy combatants launch surprise attacks by hiding among civilians and behind the bodies of the wounded. Gone are the days when combatants understood how important it was to protect civilians from harm. Enemy combatants today brutally and repeatedly behead innocent civilians.

As our leaders first faced the aftermath of September 11, a dark reality set in: Our enemy would not play by the rules that civilized people and nations have developed over the course of history. Our leaders needed to understand exactly what our laws required and what we needed to do to survive in this new world we faced. They needed to make strong policy decisions based on our country's domestic laws and international obligations.

First, our leaders needed to understand who we were fighting. Under customary international law, civilians are not allowed to engage in combat. Because soldiers are not supposed to target civilians in battle, it is essential that civilians are distinguishable from combatants. If civilians wish to be protected from harm, they must look different than combatants; therefore, every person who wishes to engage in combat and if captured receive the protections accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Geneva Convention, they must fulfill four conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; that of carrying arms openly; and that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. We saw none of that.

If someone engaged in combat does not follow these rules, he or she is an illegal combatant. Illegal combatants have long been recognized by state practice in the law of war field. In Ex parte Quirin, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ``by universal agreement and practice the law draws a distinction between the Armed Forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.''

Furthermore, the state practice of the United States does not evidence any understanding of a customary international law norm extending the Geneva Convention and prisoner-of-war treatment to combatants who commit terrorist acts. Instead, international law regards such individuals as illegal combatants who cannot claim the protection of the laws of war that extend to legal combatants.

Only lawful combatants, members of fighting units who comply, again, with the four conditions--being commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; having a fixed distinctive sign, recognizable at a distance; carrying arms openly; and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war--are license to engage in military hostilities. Only those who comply with these four conditions are entitled to the protections afforded to captured prisoners of war under the laws and usages of war.

In fact, the denial of protected status under the laws of war has been recognized as an effective method of encouraging combatants to comply.

As we hear those opine about what has gone on, I ask the American people to think about it. Who are these people who are killing our soldiers? Who are these people who are blowing people up? Who are they? They meet none of the criterion for a legal combatant.

How has the President applied these principles to the War on Terror? In the February 7, 2002, Order on the Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees, President Bush stated unequivocally that all detainees are to be treated humanely, ``including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment.'' Therefore, even though many of the fighters our soldiers encounter are not entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment, they are still being treated humanely.

Furthermore, the President has unequivocally stated the Third Geneva Convention applies to detainees captured in Iraq. Even those Iraqi prisoners who do not meet the four requirements to receive POW status are subject to an appearance before a Third Geneva Convention Article 5 tribunal to determine their status. Prior to that, they must receive POW protection until their status is determined.

Second, while the President agrees with the Department of Justice that he has the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva, as between the United States and Afghanistan, he has declined to do so and has stated that the provisions of Geneva apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. However, common Article 3 of Geneva, and article 4, POW status, do not apply to the Taliban because they are unlawful combatants.

Finally, none of the provisions of Geneva apply to the conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Al-Qaida detainees are not prisoners of war but are unlawful combatants.

Next, the administration officials acknowledge that there could be circumstances where detainees hold information that could literally be a matter of life or death for thousands or even millions of American citizens. Judge Gonzales needed to understand what we are allowed to do under the laws of our Nation to save the lives of our people. Therefore, Judge Gonzales sought the legal expertise of the Department of Justice--not his opinion, but the Department of Justice's opinion-- to understand the definition and meaning of torture in the United States anti-torture statute.

This request by Judge Gonzales did not in any way indicate the desire of the administration to use torture. It is a far reach to claim it. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely untrue to claim it. In fact, the official position of the administration is that neither torture nor inhumane treatment are to be used against anyone by the United States regardless of whether they have prisoner-of-war status or not. Because the administration's position is so strong, it was critical that the President and his advisers fully understand what constitutes torture so that no lines would be crossed.

What does all this mean? Members of the Taliban and al-Qaida detainees do not receive the luxuries afforded prisoners of war because they are unlawful combatants. Iraqi fighters, even if they are terrorists, and most are, receive prisoner-of-war status until they receive a hearing before an article 5 tribunal to determine their status. None of these detainees are to be tortured or otherwise treated inconsistently with U.S. constitutional principles.

It would have been irresponsible for Judge Gonzales to have not sought to understand the legal rights of enemy combatants and the law. He had a duty

to the President and to the United States to understand these concepts and pass those on to the President in his private executive position as legal counsel to the President.

We all went to sleep in a different world on September 11, 2001, very different than the one we lived in the night before. Our leaders needed to understand our domestic and international obligations well to respond to the new needs of our country. Alberto Gonzales should not be faulted for doing his duty for his client, the President of the United States. He is well qualified to serve as a U.S. Attorney General, and he should be confirmed.

I also conclude by saying the following: In late November, I came to Washington to go through a process of orientation as a new Senator in this body. The message I heard from the other side of the aisle is, We want cooperation. We want bipartisanship. We do not want to politicize. The opposite of that is happening at this very moment in this body. Here is a good man who has demonstrated tremendous ability through his life. Everyone says he is well qualified. Everyone knows he will make a great Attorney General. The fact is, politics is getting in the way of his confirmation.

I urge my fellow Members in this body to support and confirm him as the next Attorney General of the United States.

I yield the floor.