[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 173 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14139-S14147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the conference report on H.R. 3222, the Defense 
appropriations conference report. I would note that this matter will be 
managed by Senators Inouye and Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
report will be stated by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of today, November 8, 2007.)
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Inouye was called away for a meeting 
with another Senator. Therefore, it is my understanding the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama wishes to speak. Does he have any 
idea how long he is going to talk?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                               Farm Bill

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just have a comment to add to those of 
Senator Bond about the danger to farmers of making mistakes on energy 
policy. Energy prices are rising significantly. I saw some numbers 
recently that indicated for an average family, where one person 
commuted 29 miles to work every day, $3-a-gallon gasoline could mean 
$60 to $80 a month more than they would pay for gasoline alone. That is 
after-tax money out of their pockets. That is a real cost.
  We absolutely need to strengthen the energy portion of this bill. We 
need to do more to have a domestic supply of energy. But we also need 
to be sure we are not driving up the cost of energy so it falls hard on 
people such as farmers who utilize a lot of energy and a lot of 
gasoline and diesel fuel. It could be a real problem for them. I agree 
with Senator Bond that we need to be careful about this because we 
should not have as our goal driving up the cost of energy.
  A lot of the policies I am hearing about are going to have little 
impact on the environment but a lot of impact on our wallets. My 
thoughts about the Ag bill are that I hope we will be able to pass a 
bill we can be proud of. I hope to be able to support it. That is what 
I am looking to do. I will offer an amendment or file it a little 
later--I know we are not voting on them now--to deal with assisting 
farmers who suffer losses from disasters in their region. It can be 
painful for them. I would like to share some thoughts on this.
  Our current crop insurance, as valuable as it is, has not proven to 
provide a fully adequate financial safety net for our farmers. The 
current system can be too expensive and not flexible enough. Farmers 
come to me all the time and say: I would like to plow under this crop 
and replant now, but the insurance people think if I let it go to full 
maturity, I might make enough money off of it that I wouldn't have to 
claim any insurance. So you have to wait on the insurance people before 
making a decision. They come out there. They have to make judgments. 
This is a burden. It can eliminate quick decisionmaking and can be 
costly.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Government-
subsidized Crop Insurance Program has expanded significantly over the 
last 25 years, and that is what we wanted to happen. We wanted more 
farmers to take out crop insurance. But yet CRS has found that despite 
this expansion, the ``anticipated goal of crop insurance replacing 
disaster payments has not been achieved.'' Indeed, CRS reports that 
since 2000, ``the federal subsidy to the Crop Insurance Program has 
averaged about $3.25 billion per year, up from an annual average of 
$1.1 billion in the 1990s and about $500 million in the 1980s.
  During this same time, from 1999 to 2006, CRS reports that the 
average per year ad hoc periodic disaster payment to fund persons who 
need payments in addition to the crop insurance has totaled $1.3 
billion a year. Since 2002, CRS reports that the cost to the Federal 
Government of Crop Insurance Programs combined with ad hoc supplemental 
disaster payments has averaged $4.5 billion per year.
  According to the Risk Management Agency, a group that supervises crop 
insurance, the average subsidy rate for this year--that is the average 
subsidy rate, the amount of money the taxpayers provide to subsidize a 
farmer's crop insurance--amounted to 58 percent of a producer's total 
crop insurance premium. The average amount of the Government subsidy is 
$3,359. I am convinced for some farmers--I don't know how many--more 
flexibility could result in more benefits for those farmers. That is, 
of course, what we are about, trying to make sure we get the maximum 
possible disaster risk protection we can for our farmers.
  Farmers do have a real need for a viable risk management strategy. 
Certainly, farmers need some form of protection when disasters strike. 
But these numbers do demonstrate the traditional crop insurance 
coverage on a

[[Page S14140]]

commodity-by-commodity basis alone often does not provide the kind of 
adequate risk protection every farmer needs.
  In 1999, a committee formed by the Alabama Farmers Federation, our 
largest farm group affiliated with the Farm Bureau and tasked with 
developing ways to improve traditional crop insurance, proposed a 
solution to many of the problems farmers experienced with crop 
insurance. This is not an idea I came up with; it was an idea the 
farmers themselves came up with.
  Ricky Wiggins from South Alabama has farmed all his life and was one 
of the people who really captured this idea and has pushed it. So this 
committee recommended that the farmers be given a choice between 
traditional crop insurance and opening a new account in which they 
could deposit some of their own money and then receive a modest 
contribution from the Government. Money that would normally have gone 
to subsidize insurance would go into this farm security account.
  My amendment would simply direct that the Secretary of Agriculture 
implement a pilot program creating these accounts. My pilot program 
would be limited to 1 percent of eligible farmers or approximately 
20,000.
  These farm savings accounts would allow the farmers to create a 
whole-farm risk management plan based on the income of the entire farm. 
Because you have a lot of complications now. If one crop succeeds, and 
another one fails, or two of them are weak and two of them are the kind 
of crops for which there is no insurance available at all, then things 
do not work out fairly for the farmer. Farm savings accounts would 
serve as a possible alternative or supplement in these instances to 
traditional crop insurance.
  Under this proposal, participating producers would deposit money, 
previously utilized to buy crop insurance--money they would normally be 
paying to a crop insurance company--into a farm savings account, a tax-
deferred, interest-bearing account. The Department of Agriculture would 
then contribute to the account rather than subsidizing a portion of the 
producer's crop insurance premium, which is, on average, 58 percent. 
The producer would put the government contribution into the same 
account, subsidizing the account in that fashion. Then there would be 
no further liability on the Department of Agriculture after this point. 
The farmer, the producer would be self-insured and would not be calling 
on the Government for additional disaster relief.
  Under farm savings accounts, a minimum contribution by the producer 
of at least 2 percent of their 3-year average gross income would be 
required annually, up to a maximum amount of 150 percent. Interest and 
income to the account would not be taxed as earned income, but 
withdrawals would be treated as regular income. Account funds would be 
invested in low-risk guaranteed securities such as CDs or Government 
securities.
  Withdrawals from farm savings accounts would be allowed if gross 
income in any given year falls below 80 percent of the farmer's 3-year 
average gross income. The amount of the withdrawal would be restricted 
to the difference between 80 percent of the 3-year average and the 
actual gross income of that year.
  For example, if a producer, who typically earns $100,000 a year, 
makes $70,000, then they would be allowed to withdraw $10,000 from 
their farm savings account, their emergency insurance account, to bring 
their annual income up to $80,000. However, if the producer made 
$90,000 that year, a withdrawal would not be allowed at all.
  Catastrophic coverage would still be required to participate in this 
pilot program, because if you have a total loss, then an individual 
savings account would not be enough to cover it.
  The producer would be eligible to purchase any additional crop 
insurance, but it would be completely unsubsidized. In addition, farm 
savings accounts could be used as collateral in obtaining loans 
connected with the farming operation. These accounts would be closed if 
the producer ceased farming for nonfarm employment, retirement or 
bankruptcy. The remaining balance would be taxed as regular income.
  The USDA has reported that farm savings accounts may overcome some of 
the disadvantages of current crop insurance programs. These accounts 
would encourage farmers to manage risks unique to their operation by 
saving money in high-income years and using it during years in which 
income is low.
  While coverage would depend on the reserves in individual accounts, 
these accounts would be applied to a variety of farming situations. In 
addition, the USDA has found these accounts could encourage greater 
participation in the agriculture safety net by farmers than is 
currently experienced. Some producers are not even offered the 
opportunity to purchase insurance for their crops--because of the 
nature of their crops and the nature of crop insurance, they cannot get 
insurance--making them more dependent on the ad hoc disaster payments 
we wrestle with on the floor of the Senate.
  For example, CRS reports that specialty crop and livestock producers 
are not afforded the same level of protection for their commodities as 
the major commodities.
  Recently, my amendment has been mischaracterized as undermining the 
level of risk protection provided for farmers. Yet simply taking 
Government funding previously used as a subsidy for insurance premiums 
and, instead, using it as an incentive to encourage savings for 
disasters is not undermining the level of risk protection for the 
farmers. This is an important distinction. Giving farmers a choice 
between traditional crop insurance and a new program based on producers 
saving their own money in a tax-deferred, interest-bearing account 
actually increases, I submit, the level of risk protection for farmers, 
particularly since we would require catastrophic coverage to 
participate in the Farm Savings Account pilot program.
  Allowing for more approaches to risk management actually gives 
farmers the opportunity to choose the plan they consider to be better 
suited for their particular operation. By providing a choice between 
different risk management strategies, our Government can offer more 
protection to a greater number of farmers at less of a cost by 
decreasing the need for these ad hoc disaster payments we so often do.
  Purchasing crop insurance coverage commodity by commodity, as we do 
now, may make sense if you grow one or two crops on your farm, but 
traditional crop insurance may not be the best option if you grow four, 
five or six commodities in your area of the country.
  Instead of countless premium payments that are paid by producers each 
year but not necessarily used, the participating producer can save that 
hard-earned money himself and receive a modest Government contribution 
to assist in providing his own risk protection.
  Farm savings accounts can also provide producers much needed 
flexibility in managing their operation by overcoming some of the 
constraints of traditional crop insurance. Under the current system, 
producers who want to make decisions on how to manage their farm 
operation when a disaster strikes are often forced to jump through 
numerous bureaucratic hoops before they are allowed to execute their 
own decision on their own farm about how they want to manage the crops 
that are being damaged by a disaster--a drought or flood or freeze.

  For example, under the current system, producers who want to cut 
their corn for silage to feed their cattle in a drought year--because 
they realize the corn crop is not going to be sufficient to actually 
harvest in the fall--must first get permission from the crop insurance 
companies and the Federal Government. So you have to have people come 
out and inspect the farm and argue over whether you should be able to 
cut the corn prematurely or let it stay in the field in the hope that 
there will be more rain and maybe a worthwhile crop at the end.
  Why not give that decisionmaking authority to the farmer? It would 
save a lot of overhead, I submit. And there is, as we know, some 
sizable amount of fraud in the crop insurance program. Farm Savings 
Accounts would greatly eliminate the risk of fraudulent behavior by 
those participating in the pilot program.
  Farm Savings Accounts will allow the producers to make their own

[[Page S14141]]

choices on how to manage their farm operations. If their income drops, 
they will be able to draw into that account to bring it up to 80 
percent of their 3-year average income. I think it has great potential.
  Simply put, this plan would offer an alternative to some producers 
who might choose it, and it could encourage broader participation in 
risk management plans than we have today because a lot of farmers do 
not participate in any insurance or risk management plans. In 
combination with traditional crop insurance, farm savings accounts, I 
believe, will save the taxpayers money by reducing the need for 
continual bailouts in the form of ad hoc payments and will give farmers 
more flexibility. If things go well, the farmer may, indeed, create a 
savings account that can help take care of them in their retirement 
years.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this pilot project amendment. It in 
no way represents a major shift in what we are doing now. It represents 
a pilot project for 1 percent of farmers. The regulations would be set 
forth by the Department of Agriculture. At the conclusion of the 
program several years from now, perhaps we will see it was not a very 
good program. But perhaps we will find it has great potential--and the 
farmers who are using it like it--and perhaps more farmers might like 
to participate. We should consider that in the years to come.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                              Veterans Day

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday, November 11, will be Veterans 
Day. On this Sunday, our Nation will honor all veterans of all wars. It 
will be a day, this Sunday, to thank every man and every woman who 
wears or who has ever worn the uniform of one of the U.S. Armed Forces.
  It will be a day to remember and to honor the dedication, the 
professionalism, and the courage of every individual who has been 
prepared to defend our people, our Nation, and our Constitution by 
taking up arms against our enemies.
  On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 89 years ago, in 
the dark year of war that was 1918, the armistice began. Tired troops 
laid down their weapons against muddy trench walls, weary gunners 
lowered their sights, the thundering cannons fell silent, and the 
fragile calm of peace was broken only by the crisis of celebration and 
the prayers of Thanksgiving. The United States had taken part in the 
largest war that history had ever witnessed, and it was finally over.

  The carnage of World War I was of a scope and scale that shattered 
the soul. Battles took place across the globe and on the seas. It was 
the first war to take to the skies, the first war to see chemical 
weapons used on a large scale, the first war to see tanks and other 
heavy armored weapons employed. Pandemics of influenza had swept the 
globe on the winds of war, extending the suffering to new areas and 
into civilian arenas, taking my mother to her grave.
  World War I caused the disintegration of four vast empires: the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the 
Russian Empire. In just over 4 short years, more than 20 million people 
were killed and more than 20 million people were casualties of that 
war. It was truly the cataclysmic end of the existing world order. But 
November 11, then called Armistice Day, became forever a day to be 
grateful for peace, thankful for democracy, and thankful for the men 
and the women who had done so much to preserve both.
  People called World War I the Great War. They called it the War to 
End All Wars. Many people believed that no war could have been worse. 
But, alas, World War I was neither the greatest war in terms of size 
and complexity, nor was it the war to end all wars. Since World War I, 
the United States has taken part in World War II, the Korean war, the 
Vietnam conflict, the first Persian Gulf conflict, and now the second 
Persian Gulf conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. troops have also 
come under fire in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. Millions more American 
men and women in uniform have joined with their battle-hardened 
brethren from World War I to share in the honored title of ``veteran.'' 
In 1947, the November 11 Armistice Day celebrations were renamed 
``Veterans Day'' to honor all veterans of all wars.
  This Veterans Day, with the Nation's men and women in uniform again 
in harm's way, the Nation will again mark with a moment of silence the 
11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. In that silence, during 
that peaceful moment, we shall send our love, our prayers, and our 
thoughts to the men and the women who will know no peace in the dust 
and heat of battle. We will send wishes of strength, of courage, and of 
luck. We will send our love, we will send our prayers, and we will send 
our thoughts to their families as well, and we will wish for them the 
strength to endure the long separation and the strain of worrying about 
their soldier. In that peaceful moment, we shall give thanks to all who 
serve and all who have served.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as a veteran of World War II, I know I 
speak for other veterans in thanking my colleague, the senior Senator 
from West Virginia, for his most profound remarks, and I thank him for 
his words.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference 
report on H.R. 3222, an act making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for fiscal year 2008. The conference report approves funding of 
$459.3 billion in new discretionary budget authority which is equal to 
the subcommittee's 302b allocation. This amount is $3.5 billion less 
than the funding requested by the administration, not including 
supplemental spending for the cost of war. And, it is the same level as 
recommended by the House. The conference recommendations represent a 
good faith compromise between the House and the Senate.
  I say to my colleagues this is a good bill, one that is critical for 
our Nation's defense. The bill fully funds a 3.5 percent military pay 
raise, a half percent more than requested. It recommends adding $918 
million for the Defense Health Program to ensure that the health of our 
military families is protected. This includes $379 million more than 
requested to support our military hospitals which suffer from 
significant shortfalls and are stressed by our wounded heroes returning 
from war.
  The conference report includes $980 million to purchase equipment for 
our National Guard and Reserves recognizing the serious shortfalls that 
exist in our reserve components. It provides robust funding for the 
Army's highest priority, the Future Combat System. It supports the 
purchase of 20 F-22s and 12 joint strike fighters as requested.
  The bill includes $588 million to support a multiyear purchase of the 
Virginia Class submarine, and provides advance procurement for four 
more ships than requested by the administration.
  On the subject of earmarks, this measure includes nearly $3.4 billion 
less for earmarks than provided in fiscal year 2006. While many of the 
items that we call earmarks may not meet the strict definition under 
the new rules, we have included them in a list in the back of the 
Statement of the Managers along with the names of the Members of the 
Congress who requested them in the interest of providing greater 
transparency.
  Today is November 8. Our Defense Department is operating on scaled 
back funding under a short-term continuing resolution. Each day that 
the Defense Department operates under a CR adds to cost and 
inefficiency. It is critical that we expedite the consideration of this 
measure to allow for better financial management, and more importantly, 
to ensure that our men and women in uniform and their families have the 
funding they need for their pay, their hospitals, their housing, and 
their schools. We can best show our support to the military by 
completing action on this bill as quickly as possible and sending it to 
the President. Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.

[[Page S14142]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii has 
managed this bill for many years. He has done an outstanding job. It is 
an honor and a pleasure to work with the Senator from Hawaii. It 
doesn't hurt once in a while to remind each of us what a great man he 
is. I am sure I will embarrass him, and I do this rarely, but for those 
of us who have the opportunity to serve in the Senate, one of the 
highlights in all our lives is having the ability to tell our children 
and our families that we served with Dan Inouye. Here is a man who is a 
Medal of Honor winner for gallantry during World War II.
  This week, the President of France bestowed the highest civilian 
honor they can bestow on any non-Frenchman--and that is the Legion of 
Honor--to Senator Inouye. So not only is he a great manager of this 
piece of legislation before the Senate now, he is a great American. 
That is an understatement.
  I hope we can do this bill as quickly as possible, and 6 o'clock is 
coming soon. This piece of legislation has attached to it the 
continuing resolution, as was done last year when we were not in charge 
but the Republicans were in charge. That is not saying the Republicans 
did anything wrong. We have a situation where we have to fund the 
Government, and funding runs out next Friday, a week from tomorrow. So 
this would fund the Government until the middle of next month. Attached 
to the continuing resolution--we want all the transparency we can have 
and should have. A number of items are extremely important. FEMA has 
run out of money all over the country because all these emergencies 
have occurred. There is money for wildfires, and it is pretty clear 
what that is about. There is $1.9 billion in the bill for veterans. 
This is what the President requested. It is not as much as we wanted. 
He requested that. We put his money in the continuing resolution. There 
is $3 billion that was requested by the Senators from Louisiana, which 
is something that is an emergency. The people of Louisiana have 
suffered a great deal, as have other States in the gulf. This allows 
people to come back to their homes. If this money is not obtained by 
the first of the year, then all applications will have to be stopped. 
So it is important to do this. I hope we can complete this as quickly 
as possible.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak 
for 10 minutes as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he 
be allowed to do that and, when he completes his statement, that I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Coleman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
371 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one point I failed to mention in talking 
about this bill which has been brought to the floor in the form of a 
conference report is the House of Representatives acted on this 
conference earlier today. The vote in the House of Representatives was 
400 to 15--400 to 15--and here we are in the Senate playing around with 
this bill today, a bill that gives $470 billion to our fighting men and 
women around the country for the next year, and it funds our Government 
until the middle of December, and we are having some kind of a 
procedural meltdown in the Senate.
  Does this mean the House of Representatives, with their overwhelming 
vote of 400 to 15, didn't know what they were doing? The House is 
evenly divided, just as we are, with Democrats and Republicans. The 
difference is fairly minimal. But Democrats and Republicans, by an 
overwhelming margin, voted for this conference report. Why? Because it 
is the right thing to do.
  If we don't adopt this conference report today, here are the 
procedures, everybody. Listen to what we face. We don't have to take it 
up. We can just drop it. We don't have to have a vote on it today. The 
word is out that there are individuals who want to take the CR out of 
this conference report. So they do that, and we decide to move forward 
on the legislation. Then what would happen is we could pass the 
conference report, as amended, take the CR out of it. It will go back 
to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives could sit 
on it for the next 6 months or they could pass it during their session 
tomorrow.
  Why do we need to do that? We have to fund the Government. We are not 
going to shut down the Government. There may only be 51 one of us, but 
we will always vote to keep the Government open. The Republicans tried 
shutting down the Government 10, 12 years ago, and it didn't work. We 
are not going to do that. We just thought it was appropriate--and I 
don't know who could object. The Democrats didn't do it in the House of 
Representatives; the Democrats and Republicans in the House of 
Representatives decided FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
needed money. Why do they need money? There have been emergencies all 
over the country, and they don't have the money to take care of what is 
needed. They are out of money.
  Have we had wildfires? We have had wildfires. They swept the West. 
Maybe they were on television a lot, as they were when the wildfires 
swept southern California, but they have been burning for months, and 
we are out of money. The Federal Government has obligations. The 
President has declared a number of emergencies because of these fires. 
That takes taxpayers' money. So we put that in the bill.
  The House also decided in their wisdom, which I support, to take 
money from what the President asked for veterans--$1.9 billion--and put 
it on the CR so he could get that money as early as tomorrow. And we 
put, as I have already indicated, $3 billion in for Katrina, which is 
humanitarian money. It is absolutely necessary. It is for people's 
homes.
  The House passed this outrageous legislation--I guess that is what 
people think. We have had this bill since about 2:30 this afternoon. It 
is now approaching 6 o'clock, and people are trying to decide what they 
want to do with it when it passed the House of Representatives 400 to 
15. I am really at a loss as to what the problem is.
  We have done nothing on the farm bill, not because we don't want to 
do something on the farm bill but because we have treated the farm bill 
the way every farm bill has been treated for the last three decades.
  We say we want to vote on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. No, you 
can't do that. We are willing to set that aside and do the amendment we 
know has to be done; that is, the substitute by Senators Lautenberg and 
Lugar. No, you can't do that. We say: Why don't you give us a list of 
amendments you might be interested in doing? No, we can't do that.
  It appears to me the minority doesn't want a farm bill. Maybe they 
want to wait until the new year and extend the present farm bill. I 
personally think the farm bill is something we should do. It has a lot 
of very good provisions in it, not as far as some people wanted, not as 
far as I wanted, but it is a good bill, and we should pass it.
  I simply was told by my counterparts: We don't like the bill; you are 
wasting your time; forget about it. Now we hear all these words: We 
don't like the way you are handling the procedure. Why? Because it 
isn't right the way you do it, even though it has been done this way 
for many years.
  Mr. President, 400 to 15, and we are spending hours and hours trying 
to decide what to do. In the meantime, there is other work of the 
Senate not being done. I can sit in a quorum just as everyone else and 
waste everyone's time, but I think we should get about the business of 
this country. It shouldn't be that hard to decide what they want to do. 
Do they want to override what the House did by a vote of 400 to 15--
``they'' being the Republicans in the Senate. If they want to raise a 
point of order to take something out of the bill and sustained by the 
Parliamentarian, we can vote on that. We

[[Page S14143]]

can waive it with 60 votes. I just think we should have a decision made 
by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, every day that the Defense appropriations 
conference report is delayed, it delays a $40 billion increase for the 
Department of Defense, delays $11.6 billion for mine-resistant vehicles 
for our troops in Iraq and a $2.9 billion increase for our veterans.
  The Defense appropriations conference report passed the House of 
Representatives 400 to 15. I urge all Senators to support the 
conference report and send the measure to the President of the United 
States today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues take note of the 
fact that the Defense appropriations legislation which is before us is 
critically important for our Nation and for close to 200,000 American 
servicemembers fighting wars in two foreign countries.
  This bill includes salaries for our soldiers, a well-deserved pay 
raise for them. I am sure that is one of the reasons it received such 
an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, 
400 Members came forward to vote for this bill. It is an indication of 
bipartisan support for our soldiers, our men and women in uniform.
  It includes money for training, for aircraft, ships, ammunition, 
humvees, and, yes, for a new generation of vehicles that will save the 
lives of many of our soldiers. These so-called MRAPs are much more 
heavily armed and safer vehicles. There is no reason to delay. The 
Senator from West Virginia made the point that there is $11 billion in 
this bill to start sending those vehicles to our troops so they will be 
safe and come home safe.
  Our men and women in uniform across the world need this bill to pass. 
They do their duty without any hesitation. Can we do anything less?
  There is a fundamental disagreement in this country about the war in 
Iraq, whether our troops should continue there, as the President would 
have, or whether we should start bringing them home. We have had many 
debates on that issue in this Chamber during the last year; there will 
be many more. But today this bill should not be a casualty of that 
disagreement in the Senate. This bill is about providing the vital 
resources our military needs to keep our country strong and safe.
  Let me tell you, there is a part of this bill I had at least a small 
part in crafting, and I am very proud of it. It is called the Wounded 
Warriors Act. There were so many involved in it. I don't claim that it 
was my own exclusively, but each of us tried to put a provision in that 
would help our warriors coming home from battle be treated better and 
recover from their wounds more quickly.
  This bill includes $70 million to fund the Wounded Warrior initiative 
that was included in the Defense authorization bill. That is 
legislation on which I worked. Having visited veterans hospitals and 
talked with so many disabled vets, I realized that money was 
desperately needed to improve treatment for traumatic brain injury and 
post-traumatic stress disorder and actively support our troops in 
transition between Active Duty and Veterans' Administration care.
  This bill also has $980 million for equipment for the National Guard. 
In my hometown of Springfield, IL, is Camp Abraham Lincoln. If you go 
out to Camp Lincoln, there is a big parking lot. It is empty. It used 
to be filled with vehicles until 80 percent of the National Guard units 
in Illinois were deployed. They took that equipment overseas to fight 
the war. It was destroyed, run down, not worth returning. It has never 
been replaced. Our National Guard units in Illinois have about a third 
of the equipment they need. God forbid a crisis in our State or 
something that requires mobilization; they will be hard pressed because 
the equipment is not there.
  This bill has $980 million for equipment for the National Guard. Most 
of our Guard units are lucky to have half the equipment they once had. 
This is a burden on them when it comes to training and responding when 
needed.
  I have looked at our Guard and talked with our leaders there. They 
have only half the authorized rifles they need and less than half the 
authorized vehicles. Our States, every one of them, desperately need 
this equipment, and this bill provides almost $1 billion to meet that 
need. Why would we say no? Why would we wait?
  Also included in this bill is desperately needed funding for 
veterans, the victims of the catastrophic wildfire season, and people 
who lost their homes because of Katrina.
  This bill contains a continuing resolution which keeps the business 
of Government continuing as we work our way through this appropriations 
debate. Maybe there are some on the other side, people I have not met, 
who believe closing down our Government is a good thing. We certainly 
don't. The Democrats in the majority believe our Government should 
continue to function. Was it 12, 13 years ago when then-Speaker 
Gingrich decided he would just close down the Government to see if we 
would miss it? People such as Rush Limbaugh were crowing on the radio 
that if the Federal Government went away, nobody would notice. They 
noticed it in a hurry. There are vital functions that need to continue.
  This bill contains a continuing resolution that keeps the lights on, 
keeps people working, keeps valuable services there for people across 
America and around the world. We want to pass this along with this 
Defense appropriations bill. This would fund our Government until 
December 14, next month, which gives us time to work on agreements on 
the rest of the appropriations bills.
  We are operating under the spectre of a President who has threatened 
to veto 10 of the 12 appropriations bills, even though we put these 
bills together in a very bipartisan way, and they had overwhelming 
majority votes. Those appropriations bills aren't likely to become law 
in the near future, so the only responsible thing to do is to have this 
continuing resolution so Government funding will continue.
  The President has said he will veto these bills because they are--all 
the bills, the appropriations bills--roughly $20 billion over his 
budget. The President has threatened to delay health care, money for No 
Child Left Behind, training for workers, even the National Institutes 
of Health, and even transportation because Congress restored many cuts 
he has made over the years--$20 billion, $25 billion. Sure, it is a 
significant sum of money, but it represents about 2 percent to 2\1/2\ 
percent of the total Federal budget.
  A President who is arguing we can't afford $20 billion or $25 billion 
for America has asked us for $196 billion for Iraq--$196 billion for 
Iraq but we can't afford $20 billion for America? I don't follow it.
  A strong America begins at home, investing in our people, our 
children, our communities, our neighborhoods, our towns, and our 
States--our economy--so businesses can grow and good jobs can be there. 
Why this President opposes these measures I can't understand. But we 
shouldn't let the business of Government grind to a halt while we work 
out that obvious difference. That is why the continuing resolution is 
so important.
  I guess 2007 was a banner year at the White House. After 6 years of 
searching, after turning loose all of the agencies of the executive 
branch of Government, after bringing in the best investigators the 
President could find, after literally tearing the White House apart 
from one end to another, President George W. Bush, in the year 2007, 
discovered his veto pen. He had been looking for 6 years. He couldn't 
find it. He never used it. But then he found it in 2007, and I guess he 
decided this would be part of his relevancy campaign.
  You may recall, Mr. President, he gave a speech and said: I have to 
do some things around here to continue to be relevant. Reuters 
announced today that 24 percent of the American people approve of the 
President's job in office. Someone in the White House, I am not sure 
who, has said to him: If you just start using this veto pen again, I 
think your numbers will go up. I think you will be relevant.

[[Page S14144]]

  I think they are wrong because the President has used his veto pen 
for things that don't help our country. When we tried to change course 
in policy and direction in Iraq, the President used his veto pen and 
stopped us. When we tried to promote stem cell research to find cures 
for diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease and cancer, 
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, he found that veto pen and used it to stop 
the research. He has used that pen to stop Children's Health Insurance, 
and he used it to try to stop an investment in America called the Water 
Resources Development Act.
  Today, there was a historic vote on the Senate floor. I believe some 
79 Members, if I am not mistaken, voted to override the President's 
veto--many more than the 67 necessary. It was historic because that is 
only the 107th time in history this has occurred. The Senate, 
Republicans and Democrats, rejected the President's veto.
  So the President continues to take advice and threaten to use that 
veto pen again. It is a newfound power that he ignored for 6 years as 
President. Not once did he find a single bill generated by a Republican 
Congress that he would veto, not one time. Now he can't find a bill 
generated by a Democratic Congress he wants to sign.
  Well, the bills we pass in the Senate take bipartisan support. We 
don't have 60 votes on the Democratic side. We have 51. We need the 
help of our Republican friends to pass anything, and we have gotten 
that help. I hope the President will consider that when he threatens to 
veto appropriations bills with overwhelmingly positive, affirmative 
votes.
  The continuing resolution assumes an increase of $2.9 billion for 
Veterans Affairs. This would allow the VA to spend at a greater rate, 
and they need to. If you had asked the Department of Veterans Affairs 7 
or 8 years ago what they would be doing in the year 2007, I am sure 
they would have said: Well, we will continue to meet our legal 
obligation for a lot of aging veterans who have come to us with the 
problems of aging men and women. But that is not their challenge today 
exclusively. They have a new challenge, with thousands of returning 
soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen, who come back broken in body 
and spirit and need the help of the Veterans' Administration. We give 
them money for that. That is in this bill.
  Will Republicans stop this bill? Will they stop the $2.9 billion for 
the Veterans' Administration? How could they possibly justify that?
  It also has $500 million emergency funding for the Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management for wildfires. You don't have to tell our 
colleagues from California what that is about. It is about the biggest 
migration in our Nation since the Civil War--people forced out of their 
homes because of the fires, many of their homes destroyed in the 
process.
  The bill has $3 billion in emergency funding for the HUD Road Home 
Program for people whose homes were damaged and destroyed by Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita. The Governor of Louisiana, Governor Blanco, came to 
see me, along with the mayor of New Orleans, Mr. Nagin, and they told 
me about this program, one that the Federal Government agreed to fund. 
It has been a program that has been widely subscribed and needs 
additional money to be completed. It is just for the people who have 
legitimate claims, and it gives them a chance to come home. It is about 
time the people in New Orleans had a chance to come home.
  Mr. President, our country faces threats on many fronts. Our duty in 
Congress is to provide the authority and the funding for our military 
to be equipped and trained to meet those threats. I support this 
funding bill which gives our soldiers the tools they need to safeguard 
our Nation. To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, as they 
ponder whether to support this bill, I hope they will understand 
funding our military at this moment in our history is critical; 
providing continuing resources for our Government to stay in business 
is the right thing to do.
  Saying no to veterans at this moment is a bad decision. Saying no as 
well to the victims of fires is not defensible. And saying no to those 
people who have struggled and need a helping hand across America is not 
consistent with who we are and what we should be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state my support for the 
Department of Defense conference agreement that is before the Senate 
today. As we have done for so many years, my good friend from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye, and I have worked in a bipartisan manner with our 
counterparts in the House to draft an agreement that meets the needs of 
the military. This bill balances our priorities for funding, pay, and 
benefits to the military and civilian personnel, maintaining force 
readiness in the operating accounts, and providing significant 
investment for the modernization of weapons systems. I strongly support 
the defense side of this bill.
  I remain deeply disturbed by what is not included in the bill. What 
is missing from the conference agreement is what is known as the bridge 
fund or supplemental appropriations to support our troops in the field. 
For each of the last 3 years, and in the current CR, the bridge funding 
for the costs of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world 
have been included, until a full supplemental bill could be considered 
has passed the Congress in the Spring.
  This has been a difficult matter for us to deal with. I was 
unsuccessful in the defense conference in adding $70 billion as a 
bridge fund. As I understand it, the House has indicated they will 
bring forth a stand-alone bridge fund bill to be considered by the 
Congress as early as next week. As a matter of fact, it may be tomorrow 
that they take it up. I have not seen any action yet to assure that we 
will get a clean bridge fund bill that can be signed by the President. 
This bothers me considerably.
  The continuing resolution attached to this bill does not contain a 
bridge fund. As I said, every defense bill since fiscal year 2005 has 
included a bridge fund that funded contingency operations. 
Unfortunately, the absence of this bridge fund leaves the Department 
will be forced to divert money from their regular accounts to fund 
overseas operations. They will also be forced to reprogram money from 
the Defense bill itself in order to cover the problems of the men and 
women in the field.
  I have said I would offer a motion to invoke rule XXVIII against this 
bill, but upon reflection and after talking to the people in the 
administration, the intention is to allow that this Defense bill to be 
passed because there are overwhelming problems in the Defense 
Department itself.
  So contrary to my own deep thoughts about the lack of the bridge 
fund, I think, considering the matter of all of those people who serve 
us, it is essential we get the Defense bill itself passed. It will give 
us the basic funds to continue the ongoing operations for a limited 
period of time.
  It bothers me that without the bridge fund--the Congress has failed 
to recognize the overall process of supporting our deployed forces and 
replacing worn equipment. These effort are at risk for being delayed, 
when this bridge fund is not provided. The current CR, which contains 
funding for our deployed forces, runs out on the 16th of this month.
  I say to the Senate, it is a great risk we are taking, a great risk 
not to fund the people who are serving valiantly overseas. These people 
ought to be the first under consideration. Unfortunately, we are 
presented with a dichotomy of protecting the whole of the Department of 
Defense and getting the bill to the President to be signed, as opposed 
to having the additional moneys necessary to continue to support those 
overseas.
  In the past 3 years, as I said, we have included a bridge fund. 
Without this funding, the Department of Defense will now have to divert 
money, reprogram money from this bill we are going

[[Page S14145]]

to pass, to fund overseas operations. Those operations cost about 
approximately $13 billion a month. That is money that is necessary to 
keep the people who are in the field now, sustain the rotation of those 
forces, and ensure that they have the equipment that they need. A 
significant portion of that money is dedicated to the troops and their 
families as they come home. It costs much more to bring a soldier or 
Marine back and put that person back into their unit and take care of 
all the medical problems associated with returning personnel as it does 
to send someone over.
  The difficulty is without a bridge fund those people are going to be 
the first ones harmed. We still have time. This is the point just made 
to me--we still have time before November 16 to pass a clean bridge 
fund, one without bells and whistles, one without political concepts in 
it, one without telling the President to end a war he can't end.
  I do hope the Senate understands we should not have a political 
dispute bar us from supporting those people who have volunteered. This 
is a total volunteer military. They have depended upon us to support 
them. We have until November 16 to do what we should do, and that is 
pass a bridge bill.
  I do hope the House will keep its word to us and send us a bridge 
bill. No matter what happens between the White House and the Congress 
and the parties within the Congress, we should not lose sight of the 
fact that those people have volunteered to serve this country, they are 
there, some of them are coming back, and others are going over to take 
their place until this issue is settled. I, for one, hope it is settled 
as soon as possible, but I do not believe we can solve the problem by 
denying the Department the money it needs to support those in the 
field.
  We have men and women in uniform in 146 countries today. It is not 
just Iraq and Afghanistan. These servicemembers are still chasing 
terrorists around the world. I think we send the wrong message to the 
deployed troops who have volunteered for duty if we neglect them. This 
will be the first time we have done that.

  By not raising the point of order I am relying upon what I believe is 
a commitment of the House to send us a bridge bill, a bridge bill that 
can be passed and signed by the President by the 16th, by the time the 
current CR expires. I do not believe we can ignore our commitments to 
our forces overseas, and I do hope the Senate will join us in agreeing 
to pass a bridge bill that is not political.
  I know my friend, and I disagreed on the basic concept of entering 
this war. But after the troops were there, we have set aside any 
political differences and decided our job was to make sure the 
volunteers who commit themselves, commit their lives and put them at 
stake, are going to get what they need so long as the Commander in 
Chief orders them to do what he has the power to do under the 
Constitution, and that is to represent this country in events taking 
place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world.
  These are very complicated times. We are reading what is going on in 
Pakistan, which impacts our operations in Afghanistan. When we were 
there the last time I was there, the one thing they wanted was support 
for helicopters and equipment to assist in the war on terrorism.
  I remind my colleagues there is more than $11 billion in this package 
for mine resistance, ambush protected, or MRAP vehicles. Senator Inouye 
and I totally support that concept. But force protection for the troops 
goes far beyond the vehicles in which they ride. It includes everything 
from body armor to helmets, to ballistic eye protection, aircraft 
survivability equipment, to improved sensors, communications for better 
situational awareness--all of that should be in the bridge fund that is 
not here.
  I am disturbed with myself, as a matter of fact, to a certain extent, 
that I am not going to raise that point of order. But you have to weigh 
this, now, as to what is in the best interests of the people in 
uniform.
  We are not saying today there is not going to be a bridge fund. We 
are saying we will pass this bill now, but we are committing 
ourselves--I am committing myself to do everything possible to get a 
bridge fund passed by November 16.
  We do not want to send the wrong message to our people deployed. The 
interesting thing about it--I have spent the last few evenings, quite 
late into the morning, watching this marvelous public television series 
called ``The War.'' That was our war, Senator Inouye's war, and my war. 
As a matter of fact, Senator Inouye has a dramatic presentation in that 
series, and I applaud him for that. But the difference between that war 
and this war, these conflicts in which we are involved now, is 
overwhelming.
  I remember leaving Miami and calling my aunt and uncle, with whom I 
lived, then when I came back from China, calling them from Hawaii, 
almost 2 years later. There was no communication--no phones, no e-
mails, no messages. Once in a while, about twice a month maybe, a 
letter or a package.
  This is a different concept. These people overseas can hear us now. 
They are going to get e-mails today saying the Senate did not pass that 
bridge bill. They are watching us--and they should. They have every 
right to watch us, and their families do too.
  I think to do anything less than passing this bridge bill before we 
go home for Thanksgiving--to me, it would be irresponsible. We have to 
keep our commitment to these people. The $70 billion that is available 
to the Department of Defense under the current CR, it ought to remain 
available to them until we pass the main supplemental, which the 
Congress will take up sometime in March or April.
  I do hope the Senate will understand what we are doing. We have a 
bill today, which includes the Continuing Resolution, that has a great 
many provisions in it that we didn't have much to do with here in the 
Senate. The Senate is on warning that it could well become surplusage 
in the processes of the Congress if we let this happen again. These 
items were entered into the conference report entirely separate from 
the defense bill that is before us tonight. Rule XXVIII is supposed to 
bar that. The exigencies of the situation now are such that we must let 
the Defense bill go to the President in order to achieve our goal of 
supporting the activities of the Department of Defense.
  It is with reluctance I urge my colleagues to support this bill, send 
it to the President for his signature--which I am assured will happen. 
If we don't stand up as a Senate and support our troops, we will be 
neglecting our duty.
  We have duties here too. We support the Constitution, and the 
Constitution gives the President of the United States power to send 
troops overseas whether we like it or not. As a matter of fact, we 
passed the resolution to make sure the President had that power and 
then asked him to do it.
  So under these circumstances, we should not neglect those people who 
are overseas, who are wearing our uniform and putting their lives at 
risk on a daily basis. I do hope the Senate will take notice that we 
cannot let this become a common practice, we cannot neglect our job in 
terms of having the Congress consider the things we believe are 
absolutely necessary for our country.
  The only reason I do not do it now is this gap between now and a week 
from now on November 16. We have the time to pass a bridge bill. We 
have the time to authorize the money that is needed to support these 
people during our absence on what we call the Thanksgiving recess. I 
hope and I pray to God we will do it. We must do it. It is on that 
basis that I do not raise a point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, for the past 30 years, I have been 
privileged to serve on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee with my 
illustrious partner, the senior Senator from Alaska. We have always 
done this in a bipartisan fashion. It has been so bipartisan that, 
notwithstanding the controversies involved in the bill, as the Senate 
knows very well, we passed the bill in the subcommittee in less than 
half an hour and the full committee in less than an hour and a half.
  We should also keep in mind that 4 days from now, we will be saying 
thank you to the veterans of World War I, II, and the others.
  This is a must bill. I think we should take the words of the senior 
Senator

[[Page S14146]]

from Alaska, his words of wisdom, with seriousness because it deserves 
serious consideration.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are a country at war and yet it 
is business as usual in the Halls of the Congress. This conference 
report is chocked full of unrequested and unauthorized funding 
provisions while actually underfunding the budget requested by the 
President for the Department of Defense by $3.5 billion. That is 
correct, Mr. President. We are underfunding one of the most critical 
agencies to the safety and security of the American public in order to 
spend extraordinary amounts on unnecessary, wasteful earmarks and run 
of the mill porkbarrel projects. There are over 2,000 earmarks in this 
year's Defense Appropriations conference report and its accompanying 
Statement of Managers, with 24 earmarks added outside the scope of 
conference.
  Today, we are engaged in a struggle against Islamic fascism and yet 
it seems that many on both sides of the aisle are placing special 
interest and pet projects before the urgent funding needs of our troops 
and providing what they need to succeed in their mission. While this 
bill has $3 billion of Katrina relief for Louisiana homeowners, it does 
not have one dime allotted for bridge funds for the global war on 
terror. I support doing what we can do to aid in the Katrina recovery. 
But we must be equally committed to our brave men and women in uniform.
  Allow me to highlight some of the earmarks that are taking real money 
away from our fighting men and women: $25,000,000 for the Hawaii 
Federal Health Care Network; $23,000,000 for the National Drug 
Intelligence Center, NDIC; $20,000,000 for historically Black colleges 
and universities; $5,000,000 for the United States Olympic Committee, 
USOC Paralympic Military Program; $4,800,000 for the Jamaica Bay Unit 
of Gateway National Recreation Area; $3,000,000 for ``The First Tee,'' 
a golf foundation in St. Augustine, FL; $2,400,000 for the Vertical 
Lift Center of Excellence-Institute of Maintenance, Science and 
Technology; $2,000,000 for brown tree snake eradication; $1,600,000 for 
the New York Structural Biology Center; $1,200,000 for the National 
Bureau for Asian Research; $800,000 for extended shelf life produce for 
remotely deployed forces; and $500,000 for the Maine Institute for 
Human Genetics.
  I am not questioning the merits of some of these programs and 
initiatives but they do not belong on a Defense appropriations bill. It 
is our responsibility to be faithful stewards of the taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars. Whatever position you have on the war in Iraq, the 
global war on terror or this administration, as long as our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines are in harm's way, it is our responsibility 
to provide them with whatever is necessary for them to succeed in their 
missions around the world and come home safely. We can do better than 
this for our troops and for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose the 2008 Department of Defense 
appropriations conference report because it provides money to continue 
the misguided war in Iraq but fails to require the redeployment of U.S. 
troops. The war in Iraq is the wrong war. It is overstretching our 
military and undermining our national security. It is long past time 
for this war to end.
  Some may pretend that this conference report does not include any 
Iraq money. That claim is misleading, at best. This bill provides the 
regular DOD funding that keeps the war going. In fact, this bill will 
pay for a significant part of our operations in Iraq. Moreover, there 
is nothing in this bill to prevent the Defense Department from shifting 
regular funds to pay for the full costs of the war in Iraq in the event 
that the Congress does not enact supplemental appropriations for the 
war.
  I strongly support our brave men and women in uniform. We do not do 
them any favors by giving the President money to keep this open-ended 
war going with no strings attached. For their sake, and for the sake of 
our national security, we should use our power of the purse to force 
the President to bring this war to a close. This bill represents 
another missed opportunity, and another example of Congress failing to 
use its power to bring our troops out of Iraq.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
support the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2008 
Department of Defense appropriations bill. I would also like to thank 
all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work and 
dedication to ensure that our troops and their families have all the 
necessary equipment and support they need.
  As both a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am particularly pleased to 
support $70 million in funding for programs authorized under the 
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, designed to assist members 
of our Armed Forces and their families in the often difficult 
transition from battlefield to home. I am also glad to support the 
inclusion of $980 million in additional funds to ensure that National 
Guard and Reserve forces have the equipment they need to train for 
deployments abroad and to respond to natural disasters at home.
  In addition, I applaud the conferees' decision to retain a provision 
recognizing the dedication and sacrifices made by members of our Armed 
Forces and their civilian counterparts, by providing a 3.5-percent 
increase in basic pay for all service members and civilian personnel, 
0.5 percent above the President's request. Similarly, I am pleased to 
support the inclusion of $2.6 billion to be used for the immediate 
needs of our military families. These funds which will be used to hire 
counselors, teachers, and child care providers are critical for our 
military readiness and for sustaining our troops by ensuring the well-
being of their families.
  Once again, let me urge my colleagues to set aside differences and 
reach the compromises necessary to provide our brave men and women in 
the armed services with the resources they need.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I certify that the information required by 
Senate rule XLIV, related to congressionally directed spending, has 
been identified in the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, 
Department of Defense appropriations bill, 2008, House Report 110-434, 
filed on November 6, 2007, and that the required information has been 
available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site at least 48 
hours before a vote on the pending conference report.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
conference report to H.R. 3222, the Defense Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2008. This Defense bill, which I strongly support, 
unfortunately includes a so-called ``continuing resolution'' which is 
full of earmarks.
  I am extremely disappointed that our troops must continue to pay the 
price for political posturing and the inclusion of funding for pet 
programs in a must-pass military funding bill. Our troops are being 
used to carry pork projects and this is a text book example of 
irresponsible legislating.
  Let's be clear about what a continuing resolution is. This continuing 
resolution provides stopgap funding for existing Federal programs at 
current or reduced fiscal year levels because the majority couldn't get 
its appropriations bills completed by the beginning of a new fiscal 
year.
  What we should be considering is a straight CR: no earmarks, no plus 
ups, no new ``emergency'' spending. This bill has it all. It has a $3 
million earmark for a golf center--an expense clearly not linked to our 
national defense. There is even $800,000 to study the effects of sound 
on marine mammals.
  This is a dangerous way to operate.
  This Congress has already shown it has zero fiscal discipline. 
Business as usual is bad enough, but if we, the U.S. Senate, concede on 
the definition of a CR, this kind of unconscionable spending will be 
done forever. It will be standard operating procedure. That is not what 
the American people want.
  I want to make very clear my strong support for the members of our 
Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing around the world every 
day. I have the greatest admiration for all of them for their 
commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national 
security. They are all true heroes and they are the ones who are doing 
the heavy lifting and making

[[Page S14147]]

great sacrifices in our country's name so that we might continue to be 
the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  We are faced tonight with a vote on a bill that our troops need, but 
the troops are not the focus of this conference report. This political 
tactic does our troops and all Americans who want good government, a 
disservice.
  I want to provide our troops with the funding and the resources they 
need to be successful in all their objectives. I want the Senate to 
consider the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act on its merit. 
Legislating isn't a barter system, or at least it shouldn't be. The men 
and women of our armed services deserve better than having the funding 
they need to do their job being used in a horse-trading scheme so a 
Member of Congress can get funding for his or her own special cause. 
There is more than $50 million worth of projects being slipped in this 
so-called CR. We are moving quickly toward midnight. I guess that's a 
fitting time to vote on a bill laden with pork slipped in under the 
cover of darkness. The people of the United States deserve better.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, with great reluctance, I will vote 
today in opposition to passage of the 2008 Department of Defense 
appropriations conference bill. This legislation contains $459 billion 
in funding to provide the resources needed to run daily military 
operations.
  I supported this legislation when it first came to the Senate floor 
in October. However, I can not vote in support for the final House-
Senate conference report because it contained $59 million in earmarks 
that were added during the closed-door conference negotiations. One of 
those earmarks was for $3 million to fund a golf center that is in the 
name of the congressman who requested it. What is a golf center doing 
on a DOD appropriations bill?
  This was a difficult decision because I strongly support most of the 
provisions in this bill, and I have deep respect for Chairman Inouye 
and Ranking Member Stevens and their efforts to craft a good funding 
bill.
  However, I made a commitment during my campaign and when I took my 
oath of office in January to reform the secretive earmarking process. I 
thought we had made real progress with the passage and enactment of 
S.1, the ethics reform bill, that requires far more transparency and 
disclosure on earmarks than there has ever been. Unfortunately, I have 
since discovered there are still some gaps in the ethics bill that need 
to be filled.
  One of which has to do with the difficulty of raising a 60-vote point 
of order on earmarks added during appropriations conference 
negotiations. S.1 says that we can do that. But in reality, we really 
can't. Most of these added funding earmarks are contained in the Joint 
Explanatory Statement of Managers, which, technically, isn't part of 
the conference report bill text. What that means is we can't raise a 
point of order against those earmarks to strike them out of the bill.
  Let me give me you some perspective on what we are talking about. The 
Defense appropriations conference text was 133 pages long. The Joint 
Explanation of Managers--470 pages long. The JES as they call it, 
contains all of the earmarks, all kinds of substantive direction and is 
three times as long as the official conference report, and it is not 
subject to a point of order? This is wrong. It's not what I believe 
most of us thought would escape the oversight rules of S. 1 when we 
voted for it. At the very least, it seems disingenuous in how we sold 
this bill to the American public as a way to clean up our taxpayer-
funded shop and how we do business around here.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________