[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 194 (Tuesday, December 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15843-S15888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Idaho now be recognized for 5 minutes and that at 5:20, it be 
deemed that all time be yielded back by all sides relative to the 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I note for those people listening, under 
this agreement, there should be a vote beginning about 5:20 p.m.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington and all of us 
recognize that this may be the conclusion this evening of this session 
of Congress, and there may be a lot of issues out there that will be 
brought to a final vote. I think for all of us, as any session 
concludes, we have to look at the work product and say that is a job 
well done or a job not so well done. Frankly, for those of us on the 
Republican side who stayed together and fought the fight and exchanged 
our differences with those on the Democratic side, to bring a budget 
back into constraints that are at or near the President's proposal is 
without question a victory. Some of us will recognize that and honor 
that tonight as we conclude this first session of this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed until the vote occurs, which is 2 minutes from 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the funding for the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This program is absolutely vital 
to the people of my State. This winter we have seen record-high prices 
for home heating oil.
  I want to thank the appropriators for including additional funding 
for the LIHEAP program as part of the omnibus spending bill, but, Mr. 
President, I was hoping we would proceed to consideration of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, of which I am proud to 
be a cosponsor, which would have provided 800 million additional 
dollars for the LIHEAP program.
  Mr. President, this is a real crisis. I consider the amount of money 
in this bill to be a significant step forward, but it is not adequate 
to meet the overwhelming needs for the constituents that live in cold 
weather States and are struggling and literally choosing between paying 
their bills, buying food, purchasing prescription drugs, and staying 
warm. That is a choice that no family in this country should have to 
make.
  I am pleased with this downpayment on the LIHEAP program. It is a 
major step forward that is going to make a significant difference, but, 
frankly, it is simply not adequate to meet the overwhelming need.
  Nationwide, over the last 4 years, the number of households receiving 
LIHEAP assistance increased by 26 percent from 4.6 million to about 5.8 
million, but during this same period, Federal funding increased by only 
10 percent. The result is that the average grant declined from $349 to 
$305. In addition, since August, crude oil prices quickly rose from 
around $60 barrel to nearly $100 per barrel, so a grant buys less fuel 
today than it would have just 4 months ago. According to the Maine 
Office of Energy Independence and Security, the average price of 
heating oil

[[Page S15844]]

in our State is $3.26 a gallon. That is a record in our State.
  This large, rapid increase, combined with less LIHEAP funding 
available per family, imposes hardship on people who use home heating 
oil to heat their homes. Low-income families and senior citizen living 
on limited incomes in Maine and many other States face a crisis in 
staying warm this winter.
  The Sanders amendment would have provided an additional $800 million 
as emergency funding for LIHEAP. The term ``emergency,'' could not be 
more accurate. Our Nation is in a heating emergency this winter. 
Families are being forced to choose among paying for food, housing, 
prescription drugs and heat. No family should be forced to suffer 
through a severe winter without adequate heat.
  I understand we may consider this proposal again after the holidays. 
When we reconsider it, I urge all my colleagues to support the Sanders 
proposal to provide vital home energy assistance for the most 
vulnerable of our citizens.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the following cloture motion 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendments to H.R. 2764, State, Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations, 2008.
         Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara A. Mikulski, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Daniel K. Inouye, Patrick Leahy, Max Baucus, 
           Mark Pryor, Debbie Stabenow, Kent Conrad, Patty Murray, 
           Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Ken Salazar, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, Tom Carper, Herb Kohl, Ben Nelson, Dick 
           Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 436 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 44, the nays are 51. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3874

    (Purpose: To make emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
  Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House 
amendments with an amendment which I send to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senators Lieberman, Inouye, Stevens, Cochran, and Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. 
     Warner moves to concur in the House amendment No. 2 to the 
     Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, with an amendment numbered 
     3874.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, under the consent agreement, how much 
time do we have? I will use my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement contemplates a second-degree 
amendment, the Feingold amendment, where there will be 1 hour of debate 
equally divided on that amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will use leader time now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a lot has changed since last December. 
At this time last year, America and its allies were desperate for good 
news out of Iraq. The security situation was dire, and getting worse. 
An all-out civil war threatened to undermine the heroic work of U.S. 
forces and frustrate the hopes of millions of Iraqis.
  Then General Petraeus stepped forward with a bold new plan. We 
confirmed General Petraeus unanimously for what seemed like one last 
effort at salvaging the mission. And we sent him the troops and the 
funds he needed to carry out the job.
  Since the implementation of the Petraeus plan, the security situation 
in and around Baghdad has changed dramatically. Attacks on troops are 
down. Civilian casualties in Baghdad are down 75 percent. Iraqi 
refugees are streaming back over the borders. Outside the city, the 
local leaders are forging agreements among themselves and with U.S. 
forces to ensure even greater security.
  There is simply no question that on the military and tactical levels 
the Petraeus plan has been a tremendous success. So as we stand here 
today, we have new hope that U.S. service men and women are beginning 
to return home with a sense of achievement. A lot has changed in Iraq, 
and here in Washington, we should take notice.
  Before us is an amendment sent to us by the House of Representatives 
that underfunds our troops and only provides for those fighting in 
Afghanistan. It leaves the troops in Iraq to fend for themselves. That 
is unacceptable.
  What is the difference between funding the troops in Afghanistan and 
funding the troops in Iraq? They are both our troops. Even those of us 
who have disagreed on the war have always agreed on at least one thing, 
and that is the troops in the field will not be left without the 
resources they need.
  So the amendment I sent to the desk provides for our men and women in 
uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan because I believe it is our duty to 
protect all of those who are putting their lives on the line. It is 
also important to understand--I hope everybody in the Chamber and 
anybody listening gets this fundamental point: If this amendment does 
not pass, the McConnell-Lieberman amendment does not pass in its 
current form, the underlying bill will not become law. The passage of 
the McConnell-Lieberman proposal is essential to getting a Presidential 
signature on the Omnibus appropriations and Iraq funding.
  The Petraeus plan provides for a gradual reduction of our forces and 
a

[[Page S15845]]

transition of the mission. Iraqi security forces will eventually shift 
from partnering with coalition forces to leading forces on their own. 
We must not impose an arbitrary timeline for withdrawal or accelerate 
this timeline at an unrealistic pace.
  This is a moment of real hope for our Nation and for the people of 
Iraq. It is a moment of real urgency in the Senate. We need to pass the 
spending bill with troop funds without any strings and without further 
delay.
       At the risk of being redundant, the President has made it 
     absolutely clear that to get a Presidential signature, to 
     wrap up this session, having succeeded in passing all of our 
     appropriations bills, will require the passage of the 
     McConnell-Lieberman amendment.
  So when we get to that amendment--we will have a couple of votes 
before then, but when we get to that amendment, it is essential. We 
want to complete our work in a way that implements the appropriations 
process as all of us feel it should be implemented on a yearly basis. 
The success of the McConnell-Lieberman amendment is essential.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, not counting leader time, what is the 
provision of time once Senator Feingold has introduced his second-
degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 hour of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Wisconsin. I ask, of 
the half hour on this side, that 15 minutes be given to the 
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, 10 minutes to the senior Senator 
from West Virginia, 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, and that the Senator from Vermont who is a cosponsor be 
allowed to submit a statement as though read for the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3875 to Amendment No. 3874

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3875 to amendment No. 3874.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops 
                               from Iraq)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SAFE REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS FROM IRAQ.

       (a) Transition of Mission.--The President shall promptly 
     transition the mission of the United States Armed Forces in 
     Iraq to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq.--
     The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of 
     members of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq who are 
     not essential to the limited and temporary purposes set forth 
     in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and 
     security of United States troops.
       (c) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under any provision of law may be obligated or 
     expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the 
     United States Armed Forces after the date that is nine months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Except for Limited and Temporary Purposes.--The 
     prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the 
     obligation or expenditure of funds for the following limited 
     and temporary purposes:
       (1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and 
     scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated 
     international terrorist organizations.
       (2) To provide security for United States Government 
     personnel and infrastructure.
       (3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security 
     Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in 
     attacks upon the United States Armed Forces, provided that 
     such training does not involve members of the United States 
     Armed Forces taking part in combat operations or being 
     embedded with Iraqi forces.
       (4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to 
     members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, 
     maintain, or improve their safety and security.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment with the 
majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senators Leahy, Dodd, Boxer, 
Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Whitehouse, Wyden, Durbin, Schumer, Obama, 
Sanders, Menendez, Lautenberg, and Brown to H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 
2008 Omnibus appropriations bill.
  The amendment is one I have offered before. I will not hesitate, if I 
must, to offer it again and again and again.
  The 17 cosponsors is the greatest number we have ever had for this 
amendment.
  It requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops 
from Iraq within 90 days of enactment, and requires redeployment be 
completed within 9 months. At that point, with the bulk of our troops 
safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four 
narrow exceptions: providing security for U.S. Government personnel and 
infrastructure, training the Iraqi security forces, providing training 
and equipment to U.S. service men and women to ensure their safety and 
security, and conducting targeted operations limited in duration and 
scope against members of al-Qaida and others affiliated with 
international terrorist organizations.
  Some of my colleagues complain that we spent too much time debating 
Iraq this year. They would rather talk about other issues. Well, we 
have a lot of important priorities, but nothing is more important to me 
or my constituents than ending this disastrous war.
  As I do every year, I held a town hall meeting in every county in 
Wisconsin this year. That is 72 meetings for those of you who are not 
from the Badger State. I heard a lot from my constituents at the 
meetings about health care and education. But the No. 1 issue I heard 
about was foreign affairs, particularly the war in Iraq.
  But the No. 1 issue I heard about was foreign affairs, particularly 
the war in Iraq. Let me tell you--they weren't asking why Congress is 
spending so much time on this issue. They weren't asking us to give the 
President more time for his so-called surge. Like Americans all across 
the country, they want an end to this war, and they want to know what 
is stopping us.
  The Senate needs to address the concerns and demands of our 
constituents, who more than a year ago voted for a change in 
congressional leadership in large measure because of the debacle in 
Iraq. But we have yet to follow through and end this misguided war, 
before more Americans are injured and killed. And we are about to 
adjourn for the year and let the war drag on even longer.
  We hear a lot from supporters of the President that violence in Iraq 
is down right now, and therefore we are on the path to victory. That 
argument would be a lot more convincing if the administration had a 
viable strategy for success. The surge may buy time, but as long as 
there is no political solution to Iraq's problems, we are just 
postponing the inevitable resurgence in violence, and our brave troops 
will continue bearing the brunt of it.
  That is not a strategy for success. It is not even a strategy. It is 
a way of pushing this problem off to the next President and the next 
Congress, while our troops put their lives on the line, and our 
constituents foot the bill. Or, I should say, our constituents' 
children and grandchildren foot the bill, because we can't even be 
bothered to figure out a way to pay for the war. We are just handing 
the tab to future generations, sticking them with hundreds of billions 
of dollars of more deficit spending.
  I am certainly pleased that violence in Iraq has declined in the last 
few months. Once again, our troops have showed they excel in any 
challenge with which they are tasked. This doesn't change the fact, 
however, that this year was the bloodiest year for Americans since the 
war began, and there are still a few weeks to go in 2007.

  Indeed, let us remember that nearly 4,000 Americans have died, and 
almost 30,000 have been wounded in a war that has no clear strategy and 
no end in sight. While the President is bringing home a token number of 
troops, over 160,000 remain as the war drags on into its fifth year. 
What are we supposed to tell them, and their families, to wait another 
year until a new administration and new Congress finally listen to the 
American people and bring this tragedy to a close?

[[Page S15846]]

  Mr. President, Iraq appears to be no closer to legitimate political 
reconciliation at the national level than it was before the surge 
began. Equally worrisome is that, as part of the President's plan, we 
appear to be deepening our dependence upon former insurgents and 
militia-infiltrated security forces with questionable loyalties. 
Supporting the sheiks in al Anbar--and elsewhere--may help to reduce 
violence in the near term, but by supporting both sides of a civil war, 
we are risking greater violence down the road. Such tactics are likely 
to undermine the prospects for long-term stability, as they could lead 
to greater political fragmentation and ultimately jeopardize Iraq's 
territorial integrity. Again, without legitimate national 
reconciliation, violence may ebb and flow, but it won't end, and we 
will be no closer to a settlement, no matter how long we keep a 
significant military presence in Iraq. That is not the fault of our 
heroic men and women in uniform. It is the fault of the 
administration's disastrous policies.
  There is another dirty secret behind the temporary drop in violence, 
and it relates to the segregation of Baghdad and the neighborhoods on 
its outskirts. With so many Iraqis fleeing their homes in search of 
greater safety and security, large-scale displacement has resulted in 
very different demographics. Previously mixed neighborhoods have ceased 
to exist, thereby curtailing one of the chief sources of sectarian 
violence. This ethnic cleansing is hardly evidence of a successful 
surge. And it sure isn't a hopeful sign for future peace and stability.
  When it announced the surge, the administration said its goal was to 
keep a lid on violence to give time and space for reconciliation in 
Iraq. Now that we are no closer to reconciliation, the administration 
is trying, once again, to shift the goalposts. We don't hear as much 
about reconciliation now, and when we do, it sounds very different from 
the national reconciliation that was supposedly our goal--instead we 
hear about ``bottom-up'' reconciliation, whatever that means. All the 
administration can do is stall for time, just as it did in 2004, just 
as it did in 2005, and just as it did in 2006. The slogan may be 
different--``Mission Accomplished,'' ``Stay the Course,'' ``The New Way 
Forward'' and even ``Return on Success,'' but each time we are told we 
are on the right road, if we just keep walking a little longer. Until, 
that is, we reach another dead end, and a new slogan is invented to 
justify heading in a new, but equally futile direction.
  As the administration blunders from one mistake to another, brave 
American troops are being injured and killed in Iraq; our military is 
being overstretched; countless billions of dollars are being spent; the 
American people are growing more and more frustrated and outraged; and 
our national security is being undermined.
  Instead of focusing on Iraq, we should be focusing on our top 
national security priority--going after al-Qaida and its affiliates 
around the globe. This administration has sadly proven that we cannot 
do both.
  Al-Qaida is waging a global campaign, from North Africa--where the 
Algerian Government has blamed an al-Qaida affiliate for two major 
bombings last week--to the border region between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan were, while we have been distracted by Iraq, al-Qaida has 
reconstituted and strengthened itself. There is a price to pay for our 
neglect, and this administration has failed to acknowledge it.
  Because of its narrow focus on Iraq, the administration has been so 
distracted it has not adequately addressed the deteriorating security 
conditions in Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban--the same 
movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that 
attacked our country on 9/11--are gaining ground. Violence may be down 
in Iraq, but it is up significantly in Afghanistan. There were 77 
suicide attacks in Afghanistan in just the first 6 months of 2007, 
which is about twice the number for the same period in 2006 and 26 
times higher than from January to June 2005.
  This worrisome escalation of suicide bombings is one of many signs 
that Afghanistan's already tenuous stability is even shakier. And while 
earlier this week the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. military and its 
NATO partners are reviewing plans for Afghanistan, it is awfully late 
in the game to try to put that country on a solid path to stabilization 
and development. Nonetheless, we have to try because we still have an 
opportunity to finish the job we started 6 years ago in Afghanistan--
eliminating the Taliban and destroying a safe haven for terrorist 
networks that seek to harm us. This opportunity is critical because 
until bin Laden and his reconstituted al-Qaida leadership are killed or 
captured, Afghanistan's future cannot be separated from our own 
national security.

  Instead of seeing the big picture--instead of approaching Iraq in the 
context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless 
enemy--this administration persists with its tragic policy and its 
tragic mistakes. As the President digs in his heels, he is 
simultaneously deepening instability throughout the Middle East, 
undermining the international support and cooperation we need to defeat 
al-Qaida, providing al-Qaida and its allies with a rallying cry and 
recruiting tool, and increasing our vulnerability.

  The President's promise to redeploy a few battalions, while leaving 
160,000 troops in Iraq, is not nearly enough. That is why, once again, 
I am offering this amendment with Majority Leader Reid. It is up to us 
here in Congress to reverse what continues to be an intractable policy. 
It is our job to listen to the American people, to save American lives, 
and to protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from 
Iraq, because the President will not.

  I am not suggesting that we abandon the people of Iraq or that we 
ignore the political impasse there. We cannot ignore the ongoing 
humanitarian crisis that has unfolded within Iraq or the one that 
followed millions of Iraqis as they fled to Jordan and Syria. These 
issues require the attention and constructive engagement of U.S. 
policymakers, key regional players, and the international community. 
They require high-level, consistent, and multilateral engagement and 
cooperation. But Iraqi reconciliation cannot--and will not--be brought 
about by a massive American military engagement.

  By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally bring our troops out of 
Iraq and focus on what should be our top national security priority--
waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates.
  Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their 
right. But I hope none of them will suggest that Feingold-Reid would 
hurt the troops by denying them equipment or support. There is no truth 
to that argument--none. Passing this legislation would result in our 
troops being safely redeployed within 9 months. At that point, with the 
troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would end, with the 
narrow exceptions I mentioned earlier. That is what Congress did in 
1993, when it voted overwhelmingly to bring our military mission in 
Somalia to an end. That is what Congress must do again to terminate the 
President's unending mission in Iraq.
  This amendment is almost identical to the version I offered with 
Senator Reid and others to the Defense Department authorization bill. 
And once again, we have specified that nothing in this amendment will 
prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need 
``to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' I hope 
we won't be hearing any more spurious arguments about troops on the 
battlefield not getting the supplies they need.
  This war is exhausting our country, overstretching our military, and 
tarnishing our credibility. Even with the recent decline in violence, 
the American people know the war is wrong, and they continue to call 
for its end. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Feingold-Reid so we 
can finally heed their call to action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I intend to support the amendment being 
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. While I fully support the 
addition of the $31 billion in funding for the war in Afghanistan and 
for troop protection, I cannot support the President's demands that 
funding be given to him with no strings attached so that he may keep 
some 130,000 or more troops in Iraq for a sixth year. Risking the lives 
of more soldiers to try to win a

[[Page S15847]]

bad bet on Iraq represents a terrible injustice to our brave fighting 
men and women. Just a little more time, the President says, just a 
little more money, and the quagmire that is Iraq will be transformed.
  The President has made clear that if he has his way, U.S. troops 
would still be in Iraq decades hence. What a statement by a U.S. 
President. What a deadly bankrupt legacy to leave. 2007 has already 
been the most deadly year in Iraq in terms of U.S. deaths since the 
invasion began, and the year is not yet over. The number of U.S. deaths 
has reached 3,890, and the number of wounded has surpassed 28,000. The 
Iraqi Government has not passed any of the legislative benchmarks that 
would indicate progress toward national reconciliation.
  The economic rebuilding of Iraq continues to lag, financed by U.S. 
taxpayer dollars and marked by waste, fraud, and abuse. Oil production 
is sputtering and shortages of basics such as electricity and water 
continue unabated, despite the boondoggle that this war has been for 
private contractors. Evidence of ethnic cleansing is growing, as Sunnis 
are forced out of Shia areas and vice versa. The Iraqi Army and police 
forces remain riddled with sectarianism. U.S. forces continue to carry 
the bulk of the security burden, and while U.S. forces remain in Iraq, 
there is little incentive for the Iraqis to assume that duty.
  Some have pointed to recent tactical successes and the reduction of 
violence in certain areas of Iraq as justification for continuing the 
occupation of Iraq. But the prowess of our troops was never in 
question. They have been given a job to do, and they do it with bravery 
and skill. The important question--the only true measure of our efforts 
in Iraq--is whether those tactical successes somehow add up to progress 
toward a lasting political solution. That progress has failed to 
materialize.
  It is time for a change in Iraq. It is time to limit the U.S. 
military mission in Iraq and bring the bulk of our troops home. It is 
time to seriously engage our allies and the nations of the Middle East 
on Iraqi security issues. It is time to restore the reputation of the 
great United States of America by returning to the policies that made 
the United States an example to inspire the world, a beacon of economic 
prosperity, a showcase of humanitarian ideals, and benevolent 
assistance to people in their hour of need. It is time to shed our 
image as invaders and occupiers of other nations, using mercenary 
forces to expand our reach. It is time to unequivocally reject the 
notion that America condones torture. For most of my lifetime--and it 
has been a long one already--the world looked to the United States 
first when help was needed. Now, the world wonders which nation America 
will invade next. How far we have fallen.
  The administration has used emergency proclamations and stop-loss 
orders to effect a back-door draft that keeps soldiers in the military, 
even though their terms of service have been completed. Meanwhile, the 
needs of our own Nation go wanting, as important equipment that could 
be used for domestic disasters is shipped off to Iraq, and our National 
Guardsmen, the first responders in emergencies, sit in the sands--the 
hot sands--of the Middle East.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
this amendment and, thus, reaffirm our resolve to alter our disastrous 
course in Iraq. To vote for this amendment is to vote for our troops 
and to begin a reasonable new policy for Iraq. To vote for this 
amendment is to begin to reassert the constitutional role of the 
Congress as the people's check on the Executive, using the most 
powerful tool there ever was and ever will be in the congressional 
arsenal--the power of the purse. To vote for this amendment is to show 
the American people we are listening to them.
  Keeping our troops in harm's way in support of a misbegotten war and 
a failed strategy is not patriotism. We must not roll the dice again, 
recklessly risking American lives and American treasure. It is time--
time--time--for a change.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending amendment by 
the Senator from Wisconsin, my friend. I strongly support the amendment 
that will be offered by the Republican leader that would deliver vital 
funding for our troops in Iraq.
  The underlying House-passed bill is not only irresponsive to the 
facts on the ground in Iraq, it is simply irresponsible. It fails to 
provide any funding for our troops fighting in Iraq and actually 
contains an explicit prohibition against the use of funds for Operation 
Iraqi Freedom. The authors have compiled a bill of some 1,400 pages and 
an even larger joint explanatory statement chock-full of unnecessary 
spending, but they include not a dime for our troops in Iraq. They 
include not a dime for our troops in Iraq.
  I would like our friends and colleagues and others to consider that 
the bill on the floor today contains $1.6 million for animal vaccines 
in Greenport, NY, but not a penny for our soldiers in Iraq; $477,000 
for Barley Health Food Benefits but nothing for the troops in Iraq; 
$846,000 for the Father's Day Rally Committee of Philadelphia but not a 
dime for our sons and daughters who are fighting.
  We are willing to spend $244,000 for bee research in Weslaco, TX, but 
not a dollar for our fighting men and women in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and 
Anbar. It is a sad day--it is a sad day, indeed--when in the middle of 
a war this country must win, the Congress provides more funds for bee 
research than for the brave Americans risking their lives on our 
behalf.
  For Congress to fail to provide the funds needed by our soldiers in 
the field is inexcusable under any circumstances, but it is especially 
disappointing right now at the very moment when General David Petraeus 
and his troops are achieving the kind of progress in Iraq that many 
dismissed as impossible a few months ago, including suspending 
disbelief in order to believe the surge was working. One has to suspend 
disbelief to believe it is not.
  The bill's proponents seek, I suppose, a precipitous withdrawal of 
U.S. combat forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or 
the views of our commanders in the field. If that sounds familiar, it 
should. It should sound familiar, my friends. The majority has thus far 
engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve this 
misguided outcome.
  The choice today is simple: Do we build upon the clear successes of 
our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his 
command the support they require to complete their mission or do we 
ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in 
Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue?
  In case my colleagues missed it, a couple nights ago, there was a 
piece on the evening news of one of the major networks that pointed out 
that for the first time in a long time there was 24 hours in Baghdad 
without a single incident of violence. How you can ignore these facts 
on the ground is something I do not--will not--comprehend.
  I had the privilege, along with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman of 
Connecticut and Senator Graham of South Carolina, of spending 
Thanksgiving with our troops in Iraq. On that trip, I saw and heard 
firsthand about the remarkable transformation these brave men and women 
in uniform have brought about this year. After nearly 4 years of 
mismanaged war, our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security 
forces, has made significant gains under the new American 
counterinsurgency strategy, the so-called surge. Overall violence in 
Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since the first year of the 
invasion. LTG Ray Odierno, the second in command in Iraq, said this 
week this improvement is due to the increase in American troops and 
better trained Iraqi forces--due to the increase in American troops and 
better trained Iraqi forces.

  Now, you can believe LTG Ray Odierno or you can believe those on the 
other side of the aisle who want to bring to a halt the success we have 
achieved.
  Improvised explosive device blasts, the foremost source of U.S. 
combat deaths, now occur at a rate lower than at any point since 
September 2004. This week, MG Joseph Fil, the commander for Baghdad, 
stated that attacks in Baghdad have fallen nearly 80 percent since 
November 2006, murders in Baghdad Province are down by some 90 percent 
over the same period, and vehicle-

[[Page S15848]]

borne bombs have dropped by 70 percent.
  So as Ronald Reagan used to say: Facts are stubborn things. Facts are 
stubborn things. These are the facts--not rhetoric but facts.
  Major General Fil added that, today, there is no longer any part of 
Baghdad under al-Qaida control, though the terrorist group is ``still 
lurking in the shadows.'' I agree. They are on the run, but they are 
not defeated. They are on the run, but they are not defeated.
  Last week, the violence in Anbar Province was the lowest ever 
recorded. The British handed control of southern Basra to the Iraqi 
Government. And in Diyala, one of most dangerous regions in Iraq, al-
Qaida militants tried to retake several villages around the town of 
Khalis, only to see U.S.-backed local volunteers drive the terrorists 
away. That is the success of a classic counterinsurgency strategy. Tens 
of thousands of volunteers have joined ``awakening councils'' that aim 
to combat al-Qaida, and al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has begun 
warning of ``traitors'' among the insurgents in Iraq.
  As a result of the hard-won gains our troops have secured, General 
Petraeus has been able to initiate a drawdown of U.S. forces, a 
drawdown tied not to an artificial timetable but based on security 
gains in-country. This drawdown, beginning with the removal without 
replacement of some 5,000 American troops, has commenced following a 
dramatic drop in American casualty rates and enhanced security 
throughout the country.
  Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not 
be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. 
Al-Qaida knows who is winning in Iraq. Our soldiers know they have 
seized the momentum in this fight. Does the majority party understand 
we are succeeding under the new strategy? The proponents of this bill 
cannot continue forever to deny or disparage the reality of progress in 
Iraq or reject its connection to our new counterinsurgency strategy.
  As General Odierno explained, with the new counterinsurgency 
operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate 
portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct 
coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add: ``We have 
experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security. . . . 
and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and 
coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and 
continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' Given these realities, some 
proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their 
focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security 
gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the 
Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful 
strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake. Of 
course, there is no question that Iraq's national leaders must do more 
to promote reconciliation and improve governance and that the reduction 
in violence has created a window for political and economic progress 
that Iraqi leaders must seize, but let's not close that window. The 
likelihood that they make this progress would be vastly decreased--not 
increased--by a precipitous U.S. withdrawal. Whatever the failings of 
the imperfect democracy in Baghdad, they do not justify--either in 
terms of national interests or simple morality--abandoning it to the 
al-Qaida terrorists and Iranian-backed militias trying to destroy it.

  None of this is to argue that Iraq has become completely safe or that 
violence has come down to an acceptable level or that victory lies just 
around the corner. On the contrary, the road ahead remains as it always 
has been: long and hard. Violence is still at an unacceptable level in 
some parts of the country. Unemployment remains high in many areas. The 
Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can 
guarantee success or be certain about its progress or its prospects. We 
can, however, be certain about the prospects for defeat if we fail to 
fund our troops.
  Make no mistake; despite the progress I have outlined, there is no 
cause for complacency. Just as we have managed to turn failure into 
success in 2007, we can likewise turn success back into failure in 
2008, if we are not careful. As Major General Fil recently put it, 
progress toward securing the city remains fragile and there is 
``absolutely a risk of going too quickly'' in drawing down troops. ``An 
immediate pullout too quickly would be a real serious threat to the 
stability here in Baghdad,'' he said. Al-Qaida is off balance, but they 
will come back swinging at us if we give them the chance.
  Imagine for a moment if 1 of those 40 attempts to force a withdrawal 
from Iraq had been successful earlier this year. Rather than hearing 
from our commanders and troops in the field about the enormous 
progress, the decline in violence, the Iraqis seeking to return home, 
the decrease in al-Qaida influence, we would hear instead a very 
different story--a darker one--with terrible implications for the 
people of Iraq, the wider Middle East, and the security of the United 
States of America.
  Some of my colleagues would like to believe that should the bill we 
are currently considering become law, without funding our troops in 
Iraq, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should 
the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a 
new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the 
forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back. If 
we leave, we will be back in Iraq and elsewhere in many more desperate 
fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American 
lives and treasure. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve.
  That is why the Senate must adopt the McConnell amendment. The 
funding contained in this amendment is not as some have characterized 
it: ``The President's money.'' It is money for the troops. It is money 
for the brave Americans who are in harm's way as we speak. This funding 
is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require 
to fulfill their mission; funding to protect our men and women from 
roadside bombs and other attacks; funding to enable them to bring this 
war to a successful and honorable end. If the funding is not included, 
the President will very rightly veto this omnibus measure.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I understand 
the frustration many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I 
share their frustration and sorrow. But we must remember to whom we owe 
our allegiance--not to short-term political gain but to the security of 
America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, and to 
the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That responsibility is 
our dearest privilege, and to be judged by history to have discharged 
it honorably will in the end matter so much more to all of us than any 
fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage, or office. Let 
us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our service men and women have 
made by engaging in a game of political brinkmanship. There is far, far 
too much at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment and to reject 
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to fund our troops and to support 
them so that when they do return to us, they return with the honor and 
success their valiant efforts have earned. They and the American people 
whom they are entrusted to protect deserve nothing less.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes under the 
Republican time. I am going to share my concerns about a provision 
included in the Interior division of the Omnibus appropriations bill. 
This provision was added on the House Floor and was unfortunately 
retained by the conference committee. The language of this provision 
will prohibit BLM from preparing or publishing final regulations for 
oil shale commercial leasing on public lands. This provision is opposed 
by the Department of the Interior. I have a letter stating their 
concerns from Secretary Dirk Kempthorne which I ask unanimous consent 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S15849]]




                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2007.
     Hon. Wayne Allard,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and 
         Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Allard: As the House and Senate consider the 
     Fiscal Year 2008 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill, I would like to voice my concern 
     regarding efforts to prohibit our Department from issuing 
     regulations related to oil shale leasing.
       Section 606 of the House-passed Interior appropriations 
     bill would prohibit the use of funds to prepare or publish 
     final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for 
     oil shale resources on public lands. The Energy Policy Act of 
     2005 (EPAct) was enacted with broad bipartisan support. The 
     EPAct included substantive and significant authorities for 
     the development of alternative and emerging energy sources.
       Oil shale is one important potential energy source. The 
     United States holds significant oil shale resources, the 
     largest known concentration of oil shale in the world, and 
     the energy equivalent of 2.6 trillion barrels of oil. Even if 
     only a portion were recoverable, that source could be 
     important in the future as energy demands increase worldwide 
     and the competition for energy resources increases.
       The Energy Policy Act sets the timeframe for program 
     development, including the completion of final regulations. 
     The Department must be able to prepare final regulations in 
     FY 2008 in order to meet the statutorily-imposed schedule.
       The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in August 2007. The 
     final EIS is scheduled for release in May 2008 and the 
     effective date of the final rule is anticipated in November 
     2008. The final regulations will consider all pertinent 
     components of the final EIS. Throughout this process BLM will 
     seek public input and work closely with the States and other 
     stakeholders to ensure that concerns are adequately 
     addressed. The Department is willing to consider an extended 
     comment period after the publication of the draft regulations 
     in order to assure that all of the stakeholders have adequate 
     time and opportunity to review and comment before publication 
     of the final regulations.
       The successful development of economically viable and 
     environmentally responsible oil shale extraction technology 
     requires significant capital investments and substantial 
     commitments of time and expertise by those undertaking this 
     important research. Our Nation relies on private investment 
     to develop new energy technologies such as this one. Even 
     though commercial leasing is not anticipated until after 
     2010, it is vitally important that private investors know 
     what will be expected of them regarding the development of 
     this resource. The regulations that Section 606 would 
     disallow represent the critical ``rules of the road'' upon 
     which private investors will rely in determining whether to 
     make future financial commitments. Accordingly, any delay or 
     failure to publish these regulations in a timely manner is 
     likely to discourage continued private investment in these 
     vital research and development efforts.
       The Administration opposes the House provision that would 
     prohibit the Department from completing its oil shale 
     regulations. I would urge the Congress to let the 
     administrative process work. It is premature to impose 
     restrictions on the development of oil shale regulations 
     before the public has had an opportunity to provide input.
       Identical letters are being sent to Congressman Norm Dicks, 
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 
     Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
     Representatives; Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Subcommittee on 
     Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on 
     Appropriations, House of Representatives; and Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 
     and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United 
     States Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dirk Kempthorne.

  Mr. ALLARD. In 2005, I worked closely with my colleagues in the House 
and in the Senate on provisions which were included in section 369 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These will help lead to 
commercialization after the research and demonstration projects 
currently underway have proven themselves. As those of us who have to 
run a business know, it is a bad practice to pour millions of dollars 
into research and development projects with no hint of assurance that 
these projects will lead to commercialization. Understanding the 
regulatory framework within which development must take place is 
important to companies making investment decisions. I believe, as I did 
in 2005, that it is critical to give companies investing tens of 
millions of dollars into these research projects a proverbial ``light 
at the end of the tunnel.''
  The timeline included in this section of the Energy Policy Act for 
setting up a regulatory framework for oil shale development required 
the Department of the Interior to develop a programmatic environmental 
impact statement for oil shale by February of 2007 and to finalize oil 
shale regulations by August of 2007. Although these dates have slipped, 
many who are concerned with decreasing our country's dependence on 
foreign sources of oil remain interested in seeing this process move 
forward. A regulatory framework is needed in order to clarify the range 
of development options.
  During the last several years, a handful of companies have worked to 
develop technologies that will allow for economically and 
environmentally feasible development of this resource. While it may 
take many years of research to establish whether commercial leasing is 
viable, it is essential in guiding the scope of study and further 
analysis, including additional site-specific environmental impact 
statements that are likely to be needed prior to any commercial-scale 
development.
  Some have complained that it is too soon to begin drafting 
commercialization regulations or that the pace at which the development 
is moving is too quick. I am not advocating that we move forward 
inappropriately or in a way that is not sustainable.
  It should be noted that section 369 of the Energy Policy Act also 
requires the Department of Interior to host a commercial lease sale in 
February of 2008, but all who are involved in this process are aware 
that it is premature to take that step too soon. I have been supportive 
of moving back the date of the first commercial lease sale. However, 
this fact does not mean that we should not bring the rest of the 
process to a grinding halt.
  We are in the midst of a deliberate and thoughtful process for 
approaching the research and eventual commercial development of oil 
shale. The potential of this abundant domestic resource is too 
important to take lightly.
  It is estimated that there are potentially over 3 trillion barrels of 
recoverable oil available from shale. Let me repeat that. There is a 
potential of over 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil available from 
oil shale, at a time when this country is struggling to produce enough 
oil for this country's consumption. This could be the single largest 
contributor to weaning us off of imports from other countries, many of 
which are in political turmoil. Moreover, bringing online another large 
domestic supply of energy can lower prices for consumers, bring in 
royalties to States and the Federal Government, and enhance the 
stability of oil prices in the marketplace.
  With a cautious but deliberate approach that involves consultation 
with State and local governments, we have the best opportunity of 
determining if producing oil from shale is possible. We must give this 
process an opportunity to work before we cut it off at the knees. The 
language included in this bill does just that. It is not sound policy 
for our country. From a process standpoint, we should not be undoing 
carefully crafted policy choices that were negotiated for months by the 
authorizing committees of jurisdiction and passed by the Congress on a 
massive appropriations bill that is being pushed through this Chamber 
at the eleventh hour.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Colorado, 
before he yields, would engage in a brief dialog with the Senator from 
New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request to yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado. I 
understand he is the ranking member on that subcommittee.
  Mr. ALLARD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator tried his best to inform those working on 
this that this was not the way to handle one of America's most 
significant resources that might, indeed, sooner rather than later take 
the place of the crude oil we import from all over the world.
  Right now, some of the major companies in America are investing in 
technology which will completely change the way this asset oil shale 
will be developed; is that not right? It is going to be in situ instead 
of the old mining system that would have been so tough environmentally.

[[Page S15850]]

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this is a new process. I thank the Senator 
from New Mexico for his question. This process is becoming economically 
feasible and certainly protects the environment. I know the Senator has 
been working hard on this particular issue on the committees on which 
he is a leader, and I appreciate his recognizing the importance of us 
being less dependent on foreign oil and the importance of this huge 
reserve that exists in several States throughout the West. This is new 
technology. It is very promising. It is exciting. The byproduct from 
this particular process I have been told--and I have seen samples of 
it--is high-grade jet fuel that needs further refining because of the 
high sulfur nitrogen content. But it is a remarkable product, and it is 
done in an environmentally friendly way.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I want to say this is exactly what 
we should not be doing: putting on a moratorium that stops rulemaking 
and the ordinary professional evolution of standards by the appropriate 
Federal agencies to address the utilization of one of America's most 
profound solutions to our energy crisis. Because the price of oil has 
gotten so high, it is indeed feasible to develop shale oil in America 
and substitute it for diesel and crude oil products that are bought 
from overseas. I know that. I need not ask anybody any questions about 
that. That is why we put the language in the big energy package, and 
that is why a candidate running for Senate in the State of Colorado 
should not pander to those who just want to take out after this product 
that could indeed be one of America's salvations. The people in the 
State of Colorado and in America ought to know it. The person who did 
this, who put the moratorium on wants to be a Senator, I understand.
  The first thing we ought to find out is does he want America to have 
a chance to be independent of foreign oil. This is one that might do 
it. You can imagine that in 15 or 20 years, oil would be produced from 
this shale, and it can be taken right out of the ground and used, 
because they boil it in the ground. That is the new technology.
  I am not very impressed with somebody who comes along on a bill such 
as this and deals with this kind of resource in a willy-nilly manner, 
to respond or pander to those who don't want the United States on its 
own to do anything to develop energy. They might say we could not do it 
before. Of course not. You could not develop it at $25-a-barrel oil. 
But you certainly can at $50, and there is no question you can at $80 
or $90. That is what America's future is all about.
  I thank the Senator for his work. I am sorry it didn't work. At least 
those who put that in know somebody is looking out for them. It won't 
be there next year. This Senator will see to it that we have a debate 
and vote on that issue before that happens. I thank the Senator for 
yielding.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments on 
this very important issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 6 minutes 41 seconds. The 
opponents have 5 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the 6\1/2\ minutes. I ask 
if the Chair will let me know when 1 minute remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I commend 
my friend and colleague Senator Feingold. It is wrong, basically and 
fundamentally, to give another blank check to President Bush for his 
failed Iraq policy. I support our troops, but I oppose our war.
  We have heard here in the last few minutes and in the last few hours 
the rather rosy picture about what is happening over in Iraq. I think 
everybody in this Chamber salutes the brave men and women for their 
courage, bravery, and valor over the last 5 years. This war has been 
going on for 5 years. We do know there has been some progress made in 
recent times on the military aspect. But as every member of the Armed 
Services Committee understands, everyone who has had a responsibility 
in Iraq who appeared before the committee has said there are two 
dimensions for finally getting peace in Iraq: One is military, and one 
is political reconciliation. That has not taken place.
  Day after day after day after day, our men and women are on the 
streets of Baghdad and around Iraq, and more American servicemen have 
lost their lives this year than in any other year of the Iraq war, make 
no mistake about it. As we can see, these brave men and women in 
Baghdad, and all over, are still being targeted in Iraq. They are 
basically being held hostage by the Iraqi political establishment. 
American military personnel, American service men and women are being 
held hostage by Iraq's political leadership, which refuses to come 
together and reconcile their differences and form a government.
  Every day that goes on, the American taxpayers' money is being poured 
into the sands of Iraq, because Iraqi politicians refuse reconciliation 
and political judgments in Iraq. That is what is going on over there 
today. That was going on yesterday, and it has been going on for 5 
years.
  What the other side says is let's give this administration and this 
President a blank check to continue it. How long do they want it for? 
When is enough enough? That is what they are asking for. That is what 
they are asking for. For 5 long years, these brave men and women in the 
Armed Services have done what they have been asked to do, and the best 
way you can honor them is to get the policy right, get the policy 
correct.
  That is what the Feingold amendment does. How? Very simple. It says: 
OK, Mr. Iraqi politician, you have had your chance, your day; now you 
have to take responsibility for your own country. The way you are going 
to do that is that we are going to start bringing American service men 
and women home. They have been unwilling to take the political 
decisions up until now. The other side says pour more money in here and 
lose more American lives.
  The Feingold amendment is a changed policy. It says we believe that 
with the judgment and decision we are going to take to American 
servicemen, then they will make the judgment and decision that is in 
the interest of this country. Their way hasn't worked. This way will. 
Why not give it a try and a chance?
  What are some of the American military personnel saying over there? 
BG John Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division 
in Iraq, spoke bluntly about the faults of Iraq's political leaders. He 
said:

       The ministers, they don't get out . . . They don't know 
     what the hell is going on on the ground.

  This is the brigadier general, the deputy commander, talking about 
the Iraqi political leaders, and you want to give them a blank check? 
Well, those of us who support the Feingold amendment say no.
  Army LTC Mark Fetter put it this way:
  ``It is very painful, very painful'' to deal with the obstructionism 
of Iraqi officials.
  There it is. How much clearer does it have to get? How much more of a 
blank check do you need? How many more billions of dollars do you have 
to spend--let alone that we will never recover the 81 brave men and 
women from Massachusetts who lost their lives. That cannot be 
recovered.
  Think of this: For every month that goes on in that battle over in 
Iraq, we could have 250,000 more schoolteachers who are experts in math 
and science teaching our young people. For every month that goes on, 
just think that every child who needs after school help and assistance 
would be able to receive it in the United States of America. Just 
think, for every month this goes on, we could provide Head Start for 
every young person who needs it. Just think of this: If we could have 
the resources for 2 years, we could rebuild and repair every public 
school in this country that is in need. Doesn't that matter? Well, it 
matters to this Senator, and it matters to those who are supporting the 
Feingold amendment.
  It is wrong to neglect priorities such as these at home and pour 
hundreds of billions of dollars into the black hole that the Iraq war 
has become. It is wrong to give the President another huge blank check 
for the war in Iraq. Enough is enough.

[[Page S15851]]

  I urge my colleagues to take a strong stand and vote against this 
gigantic blank check for more war.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the Feingold-Reid-Leahy Amendment 
because it specifically requires the President to begin the 
redeployment of American forces in Iraq within 90 days. Within 9 months 
of enactment, the redeployment would be completed and funding 
terminated for Iraq operations with narrow exceptions for a limited 
number of counterterrorism, force protection, and troop training 
missions.
  The President's so-called ``surge'' is just another word for 
escalation. It has failed to set the lasting conditions for peace. 
Violence, though down, still continues at horrifying rates. The various 
Iraqi factions have made little progress towards political 
reconciliation. The deadly rifts in that war-torn country have only 
grown deeper. The Iraqi government has done little to support the few 
encouraging trends like the willingness of some Sunni groups to turn 
against the insurgency.
  The only thing that is going to force the Iraqis to come to terms--
the only way to get Iraq's neighbors involved in bringing about peace 
there--is to make clear that our country is not going to be there 
forever. We cannot afford to spend more of our precious resources and 
to spill more of the precious blood of our troops if the Iraqis will 
not take responsibility for their own future.
  There is a way to begin to right the wrongs of the President's failed 
policy on Iraq. That better path involves effective diplomacy and a 
strong signal about our finite military presence in Iraq, not this 
senseless waste of money and lives. The Feingold-Reid-Leahy Amendment 
offers the real promise of a long-term positive outcome for our 
security and the people of Iraq. I urge the amendment's adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 1 
minute evenly divided added to the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I came here at the time of the Vietnam war. 
I remember how people said maybe it should end and maybe we should do 
something; the Vietnam war has gone on too long. We finally stopped it. 
I am the only Vermonter ever to vote against the war in Vietnam. I 
voted against funding for it, and the funding failed in the Senate in 
April of 1975 by one vote. The war ended. Two years later, it was hard 
to find anybody who supported the war, even though we paid for it for a 
long time.
  We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. It is time 
to bring our brave men and women home. Let them be with their families 
and let the Iraqis take care of Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we know what the situation is, and we 
are a great nation. We are not at liberty to flip-flop around every 
time there is some change afoot in some polling data. We voted this 
summer 80 to 14 to give General Petraeus a chance. We funded the surge 
and we funded his new strategy. At the time we did that, things were 
not going well in Iraq. We had a tough year, there is no doubt about 
it. In the last few months and in the last few weeks, we have seen 
dramatic changes under the surge and under the classic 
counterinsurgency strategy this brilliant general is conducting. So I 
say let's allow him to conduct this war. Let's allow General Petraeus, 
a proven leader, to do so. Let's reject the tactical decisions of 
``General'' Feingold and ``General'' Kennedy. We have a professional 
there who is achieving things beyond what I would have thought possible 
a few months ago, actually. I hoped and believed we were going to see 
progress, but the extent of it is remarkable.
  The last thing we need to do is to take action to pull the rug out 
from under the fabulous men and women who are serving us at great risk 
this very moment, whose highest and deepest wish is to be successful, 
to execute the policy we gave them by a three-fourths-plus vote several 
years ago.
  I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Clinton be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Feingold amendment. Simply put, this amendment mandates withdrawal from 
Iraq within 90 days, notwithstanding the substantial progress that even 
the harshest critics acknowledge is occurring there. Further, it cuts 
off funds for those troops in 9 months. We have taken this vote three 
times already this year. That is three times we voted on this this 
year. It has failed on a bipartisan basis each time, and with good 
reason.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Feingold amendment one more time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in a short time we will move to vote on 
three amendments to the Omnibus appropriations bill.
  Each of them takes a different approach to funding the war in Iraq.
  I will vote for the Feingold/Reid amendment, which I have cosponsored 
and voted for several times this year.
  Feingold/Reid is the right approach to begin to responsibly end the 
war, and I will vote for it again today.
  The second amendment is Levin/Reed, which I will also vote for.
  Finally, we will vote on the McConnell amendment, which I will 
strongly vote against. This amendment simply does more of what 
congressional Republicans have done since the war began:
  It rubberstamps President Bush's reckless management of the war that 
has cost us so dearly in lives, limbs, and treasure.
  The debate over supplemental war funding is nothing new.
  Every year, President Bush comes to us demanding more and more funds 
for Iraq, with absolutely no accountability. This year, he requested a 
staggering $200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
  At a time when he and his allies in Congress are telling us we can't 
invest in medical research, education, infrastructure, or public 
safety, they want billions and billions more for Iraq.
  How will our country pay the bill for the Iraq war? A Cost that when 
all is done will likely exceed $2 trillion?
  The President has no idea. He has no plan or intention to pay the 
bill. He is simply sticking it in a drawer like an overdue credit card 
statement, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pay for 
generations to come.
  That is not just fiscal irresponsibility, it is fiscal madness. But 
it is par for the course for a President who inherited record budget 
surpluses from President Clinton and turned them into record deficits.
  Every year, this war gets more expensive, and the American people 
deserve to know why.
  The answer is waste. The answer is fraud. The answer is 
mismanagement. The answer is incompetence.
  On President Bush's watch, the companies he chooses to do business 
with--like Halliburton and Blackwater--have wasted billions and 
billions of our tax dollars.
  The President has allowed billions to be spent on buildings that were 
never built, projects that were never seen through, and contractor 
military operations that did far more harm than good.
  That is why he asks for more every year--because he has grossly 
misspent the funds he has received.

[[Page S15852]]

  This year, we have already passed a $460 billion Defense budget--and 
this bill includes another $31 billion for Afghanistan and troop 
protection.
  Democrats have fully funded the needs of our men and women in uniform 
and given the President more than enough to conduct the war and begin 
to bring our troops home.
  But one thing we can't control is his reckless financial 
mismanagement.
  We have held hearings and brought cases of waste and fraud to the 
light of day.
  But ultimately, the inability to conduct the war with the billions 
already allocated is no one's fault but his.
  The President and his allies here in Congress will doubtlessly push 
the panic button and say that if we don't approve the funds 
immediately, our troops will suffer.
  This argument is untruthful and beyond the pale.
  Our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates--a man for whom I have great 
respect--told Congress that the Army has enough money to get through 
the end of February and the Marines have enough funds to get through 
mid-March.
  If President Bush hadn't wasted untold billions, our troops would be 
funded for far longer than that.
  If the President had followed the wishes of the American people by 
spending the funds we gave him to wind down the war instead of ramp it 
up, the existing funds would be more than sufficient.
  But he didn't. He ignored the calls of the American people to 
responsibly end the war. And he should accept the consequences of his 
mistakes by finally changing course.
  But let me be clear: Democrats will never let our troops suffer for 
the President's misdeeds.
  Democrats always have and always will support our courageous men and 
women in uniform who have given so much and received so little in 
return.
  It is Democrats who insisted upon a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay 
increase for everyone in uniform, which the President opposed.
  It is Democrats who made right the awful conditions at Walter Reed 
and other veterans' health care facilities that took place on this 
President's watch.
  It is Democrats who provided a $3.5 billion increase for veterans' 
health care after Republicans underfunded it for years.
  It is Democrats who passed the Wounded Warriors Act to honor our 
servicemembers and their families.
  I think we have heard enough of the tired old Bush-Republican scare 
tactics that Democrats are putting our troops at risk.
  The facts speak for themselves.
  We have always stood with our men and women in uniform. We always 
will.
  But unlike Republicans, we believe that truly supporting our troops 
means beginning to bring them home to the hero's welcome they have so 
bravely earned.
  My fellow Democrats and I come to the Senate floor more times than I 
can count to discuss the horrible cost of the Iraq war on our troops, 
our national security, and our reputation in the world.
  We have lost nearly 4,000 young Americans. Tens of thousands more 
have been gravely wounded.
  As I have said already, hundreds of billions of dollars have been 
spent--tens of billions have been recklessly wasted--and the total 
price will climb into the trillions before all is said and done.
  Our military has been stretched paper thin. Colin Powell has said our 
Armed Forces are ``about broken.''
  Every single one of our available combat units is deployed to either 
Iraq or Afghanistan, leaving no strategic reserves for other conflicts.
  And as the situation in Iran, the faltering of democracy in Pakistan, 
and the escalating violence in Afghanistan show, the world can evolve 
literally overnight.
  We must have the flexibility to respond, but right now we do not.
  Our troops are being forced into repeated deployments, and the length 
of those deployments has gotten longer.
  Military families are deeply strained, military mental health is 
suffering, and the Armed Forces are reporting problems with both 
recruitment and retention.
  Just this week, General Casey acknowledged this problem, saying--``We 
are running the all-volunteer force at a pace that is not 
sustainable.''
  Our National Guard is hamstrung in its efforts to keep us safe at 
home, because much of their equipment has been shipped to Iraq. Every 
natural disaster, from fire to flood, reminds us of this growing 
crisis.
  Yet for all the cost and all the courage of our troops, this war has 
made us no safer.
  Let me remind my colleagues of the most recent National Intelligence 
Estimate, which found that al-Qaida has regrouped and is now directing 
operations from Pakistan, stronger than ever.
  Bin Laden remains free, taunting and threatening us with new videos.
  Afghanistan--once viewed as a great military success--has spiraled 
out of control.
  The opium trade there is at an all-time high, violence is at its 
highest level since American intervention, and recent reports indicate 
that the Taliban has vastly stepped up its efforts.
  It is no wonder that this week has brought new reports that a 
panicked Bush administration is conducting a top-to-bottom review to 
stave off all-out chaos in Afghanistan and the backslide of all past 
gains.
  I welcome this review. But as long as more than 160,000 troops remain 
caught in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war, our ability to address 
conditions in Afghanistan--and elsewhere--will be constrained.
  The American people are rightly frustrated that more has not been 
done to responsibly end the Iraqi war.
  I share that frustration.
  But within the confines of a stubborn, obstinate President and a 
Republican Congress that knows no other way but to carry his water, 
Democrats have made a difference--and a majority of Senators have 
consistently voted with us.
  Before Democrats controlled the Congress, the Bush White House 
conducted the war with total impunity.
  No dissent was tolerated. The patriotism of those who raised 
questions was openly attacked.
  This year, Democrats have brought the President's recklessness into 
the harsh light of day.
  We forced the President to set benchmarks for legislative and 
political progress and required regular reports on whether those 
benchmarks were being met.
  These reports have shown that the surge has failed to reach the 
objective set forth by the President of political reconciliation.
  We forced General Petraeus to testify--and he has said repeatedly 
that the war cannot be won militarily and must be won politically.
  We brought to light the Blackwater controversy and forced Eric Prince 
to testify.
  And we put an end to the duplicitous Republican practice of claiming 
to support the troops but failing to protect them in the field or 
provide for them back home.
  Do I feel that enough has been done? Of course not.
  Time after time, the Republican minority has had a choice: stand with 
the President or stand with the American people.
  Each and every time, they have chosen the President.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the McConnell amendment. The time for 
zero accountability is long past.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace the amendments offered by Senator 
Feingold and Senator Levin.
  Let's send our troops and all Americans a holiday gift: a message 
that the United States Congress is ready to bring this war, now nearly 
5 years long, to its responsible end.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

[[Page S15853]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 437 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Murray
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--71

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 24, the nays are 
71. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Michigan is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. And, Mr. President, is there a time allotted on the 
amendment of the Senator from Michigan?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour.
  Mr. LEAHY. Equally divided in the usual fashion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  the PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                Amendment No. 3876 to Amendment No. 3874

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Voinovich, Senator Hagel, Senator 
Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Smith, and Senator Salazar, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Reid of Nevada, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Reed 
     of Rhode Island, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Salazar, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3876 to amendment No. 3874.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the transition of the 
   missions of United States Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of 
     missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . It is the sense of Congress that the missions of 
     the United States Armed Forces in Iraq should be transitioned 
     to the more limited set of missions laid out by the President 
     in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation, that is, to 
     counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and 
     supporting Iraqi forces, in addition to the necessary mission 
     of force protection, with the goal of completing that 
     transition by the end of 2008.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our amendment expresses the sense of the 
Congress that we should have a goal for the removal of most of our 
forces in a reasonable time mainly as a way of telling the Iraqi 
leaders they must accept responsibility for their own future. Our 
amendment expresses the sense of the Congress. It is not legally 
binding, but it puts us on record, and it sends a message. It says it 
is the sense of the Congress that:

       The United States Armed Forces in Iraq should transition to 
     the more limited set of missions laid out by President Bush 
     in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation--
     counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and 
     supporting Iraqi forces--

  And we add--

     in addition to the necessary mission of force protection, 
     with the goal of completing that transition by the end of 
     2008.

  The primary aim of this amendment is to keep the pressure on the 
Iraqi politicians to do what only they can do: Work out compromises, as 
they promised to do long ago--to compromise the differences which 
divide them so as to ensure the currently relatively calm situation in 
many parts of Iraq, including Baghdad, remains calm. Our sense of 
Congress language is aimed at pressuring the Iraqi politicians to seize 
the window of opportunity, as General Odierno put it, to avoid a return 
to the violence that characterized the presurge period.
  The New York Times, in a story on December 5, quoted Iraqi Deputy 
Prime Minister Chalabi as saying about the present situation in Iraq: 
``It is more a cease-fire than a peace.'' Well, we need to make it 
clear to those Iraqi political leaders that a cease-fire is not good 
enough. They must take the steps to turn that cease-fire into a real 
peace.
  From all accounts, the surge has already produced some military 
progress. The problem is that while the surge has, up to this point, 
achieved some military progress, it has not accomplished its primary 
purpose, as announced by President Bush last January. President Bush 
said the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi Government ``the 
breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas'' and 
that ``reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation 
possible.''

  The President also said ``America will hold the Iraqi government to 
the benchmarks that it has announced.'' Well, the administration has 
not done what it said it would do--hold the Iraqi Government to the 
benchmarks that it, the Iraqi Government, has announced. Those 
legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a 
debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review 
committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 
1\1/2\ years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, 
have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the 
breathing space the surge has provided.

  Despite the breathing space the brave men and women wearing our 
uniform have provided the Iraqi leaders, despite the breathing room and 
the breathing space which young men and women putting their lives in 
harm's way on behalf of this Nation to give the Iraqis an opportunity 
to create a nation, they have not used that breathing space. And as a 
matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than 
they were at the start of the surge.
  The Iraqi political leadership's response to the breathing space 
provided by the surge has been stunning inaction. The Iraqi Parliament 
has suspended its session until the New Year, thus ensuring that not 
1--not 1--of the 18 legislative benchmarks that they committed to meet 
will be met this year. The President's statement that he will hold the 
Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced is hollow 
rhetoric. To date, there have been no consequences for Iraqis' failures 
to meet those benchmarks.

  Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this 
window of opportunity is, of course, their decision. The United States 
cannot make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country and 
have to decide what is best for themselves. But whether the United 
States keeps an open-ended commitment or establishes a goal for 
redeployment of most of our forces is our decision. That is not the 
Iraqis' decision. They can decide whether to live up to the commitments 
they made to themselves and to us--solemn commitments, as far as I am 
concerned, because it involves the lives of American troops. Those 
solemn commitments have not been kept. We cannot force them to keep 
them, but we can decide whether we are going to maintain an open-ended 
commitment of our troops.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have?

[[Page S15854]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Michigan has 24 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
  According to our own State Department, the key threat to our effort 
in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi political leaders to reach a 
political settlement. Listen to what the State Department said in its 
own weekly status report of November 21, 2007. This is our State 
Department:

       Senior military commanders [U.S. commanders] now portray 
     the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as 
     the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-
     Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed 
     militias.

  Let me read that once again. This is our State Department saying what 
is the key threat to our forces in Iraq. What they are saying is that 
it is not the Iranian-backed militias, it is not the Sunni insurgents, 
it is not the al-Qaida terrorists; the key threat facing the U.S. 
effort in Iraq, according to our State Department, is ``the 
intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government.''
  We have to break that intransigence. How can Congress do it? How do 
we put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? At a minimum, by at 
least expressing our view that U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to 
a more supporting and a less direct role, with a goal--a goal, just a 
goal--of completing that transition by the end of 2008. The message the 
Iraqi political leaders need to hear is that Congress has lost patience 
with them, as have the American people. By their own Prime Minister's 
acknowledgment, a political solution is the only way to end the 
conflict, and ending the conflict is in their own hands.
  I wish we could legislate a legally binding way forward for U.S. 
forces in Iraq. We have tried to do that. We have not been able to 
break the filibuster, to get to 60 votes. But at least expressing the 
sense of the Congress on this matter is better than silence because 
silence implies acquiescence in the open-endedness of our presence. It 
is that open-ended commitment which takes the pressure off the Iraqi 
political leaders, and Congress needs to act to correct that. Our 
amendment is a small but important step in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not support the Levin amendment. I 
rise in strong support of the amendment offered by our leader, Senator 
McConnell, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. That 
amendment will provide the Department of Defense and our deployed 
military personnel the resources they need to continue the mission they 
have been assigned. It will also eliminate the distinction proposed by 
the House to fund only those troops that are assigned to Afghanistan. 
In my view, it is unconscionable for Congress to send the message to 
our troops that they will only get what they need if they are lucky 
enough to be assigned to fight the war in Afghanistan. What if they 
were assigned to Iraq? Should they go without funds?
  I believe it is our duty as Senators to support the troops in the 
field and provide them all the resources they need to complete the 
mission they have been assigned. Unlike us, they do not get to choose 
which battle they fight. They go where duty calls, without hesitation.
  Senator Inouye and I were in Iraq during the Thanksgiving recess, and 
I can tell the Senate that the troops are watching what is going on 
right here. They will get the message over there, and if the House 
amendment is approved, it will be a real blow to the morale of our 
forces. This particularly concerns me, that some of my colleagues would 
consider cutting off funds in Iraq at a time when we are starting to 
see real progress and reconciliation.
  I listened to the comments made by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain. I am really pleased to see his strong approval of the funding 
of our troops that are deployed in harm's way.
  In March, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be testifying 
before Congress to give us their assessment of the situation in Iraq. 
We know General Petraeus's plans are working. To withhold funding now 
would only invite defeat and step back from the progress that has been 
hard fought and won over the last few months.
  I have urged Congress for quite some time to approve this funding and 
allow progress to continue until we hear from our leaders on the ground 
in Iraq. The funds that are sent--the President sent us the request for 
these funds 10 months ago. For the past 3 years, the Committee on 
Appropriations has included bridge funding as part of the annual 
appropriations bill to cover the cost of war, until a supplemental bill 
was passed in the following year. This amendment would continue what 
Congress has done in prior years by providing funds to cover the cost 
of continued operations, including special pay and subsistence to our 
troops, fuel, transportation, supplies, and equipment reset and 
procurement.
  The amendment is intended to cover half-year costs for keeping troops 
in the field. It also provides resources to provide critical force 
protection equipment, including body armor, helmets, armor plate for 
vehicles, and aircraft survivability equipment.
  There is also other equipment procurement funding to reset our forces 
returning from theater. This includes buying down shortfalls for the 
National Guard and Reserve units. Specifically, the McConnell-Lieberman 
amendment would provide $1.1 billion military pay and benefits to 
include support for our wounded warriors and death gratuities; $50.2 
billion for operation and maintenance activities to include fuel, spare 
parts, transportation, and equipment maintenance, including $500 
million for the commander's Emergency Response Program, $1.4 billion 
for body armor and personal protection equipment, and $9 billion for 
depot maintenance funding to reset equipment and maintain force 
readiness.

  This amendment also provides funds to continue our efforts to train 
and equip the Iraqi and Afghan security forces. That funding is 
critical so that the elected governments in those countries can 
effectively provide for their own security and our troops can come 
home.
  There is also $4.3 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Devise 
Defeat Fund which will help our troops detect and defeat the No. 1 
killer of our troops in Iraq--the IEDs, the improvised explosive 
devices we have heard so much about.
  Mr. President, $6.1 billion is included for the procurement of 
equipment, ammunition, vehicles, missiles and aircraft, including $946 
million for Army aircraft, $3.46 billion for Army vehicles and 
equipment, $703 million for Marine Corps vehicles and equipment, and 
$266 million for special operations forces equipment.
  The amendment also includes $1 billion for the Defense Working 
Capital Fund, which includes $587 million to reset prepositioned stocks 
stationed around the world, which greatly enhances our Nation's ability 
to respond to contingencies, and we have forces in 141 different--I ask 
for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. It also provides $141 million for increased fuel costs, 
$3.7 billion to continue to enhance our intelligence activities in the 
theater, $600 million for the Defense Health Program to provide for the 
care and recovery of our wounded servicemembers, and $193 million for 
counterdrug activities to curb production of opium in Afghanistan.
  Without these funds, the Department of Defense would be forced to pay 
for the cost of war out of the regular DOD moneys we have already 
appropriated. This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, 
with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month. Without 
relief, the Army will totally deplete their 2008 operations and 
maintenance funding by mid-February.
  I urge the Senate not to take the risk that our troops in the field 
will not have those resources they need in time to complete the mission 
they have been assigned. I urge the Senate to support the McConnell-
Lieberman amendment.
  I ask to have a chart showing the $70 billion bridge fund, as I tried 
to outline, printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S15855]]

                        $70 Billion Bridge Fund

       $1.1 billion for military pays and benefits to include 
     support to wounded warriors, and death gratuities.
       $50.2 billion for operation and maintenance activities to 
     include fuel, spare parts, transportation, and equipment 
     maintenance in the field and at our national depots.
       Provides $500 million for the Commander's Emergency 
     Response Program.
       Provides $1.4 billion for Body Armor and Personal 
     Protection Equipment.
       Provides $9.0 billion of Depot Maintenance funding to reset 
     equipment and maintain force readiness.
       Provides for the transfer of $110 million to the Coast 
     Guard for support to GWOT.
       Provides $300 million for Coalition Support.
       $2.9 billion to continue our efforts to train and equip the 
     Iraqi and Afghan security forces.
       $4.3 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 
     Defeat Fund to help our troops detect and defeat the number 
     one killer of our troops in Iraq.
       $6.1 billion for procurement of equipment, ammunition, 
     vehicles, missiles, and aircraft.
       Includes $946 million for Army Aircraft; and $3.46 billion 
     for Army vehicles and equipment.
       Includes $703 million for Marine Corps vehicles and 
     equipment.
       Provides $266 million for Special Operations Forces 
     equipment.
       $1.0 billion for the Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Includes $587 million to reset Prepositioned Stocks 
     stationed around the world and greatly enhances our nations 
     ability to response to contingencies.
       Provides $141 million for increased fuel costs.
       $3.7 billion to continue and enhance our Intelligence 
     activities in theater.
       $600 million for the Defense Health Program to provide for 
     the care and recovery of our wounded service members.
       $193 million for Counter-Drug activities.

  Mr. STEVENS. I also thank my colleagues for their continued support 
of the troops in the field.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The senior Senator from 
Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the 
distinguished chairman, might it be advisable that we rotate sides? I 
will be happy to follow a colleague on your side for purposes of this 
debate.
  Mr. LEVIN. Fine. That is fine with us. I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Ohio, and we will come back to you.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. The Senator from Ohio is in support of the 
amendment of the Senator from Michigan?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized following the 
Senator from Ohio for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Levin amendment on Iraq. As my colleagues know, I have long supported a 
greater level of oversight in the war in Iraq. Many of us feel we 
should have done a better job of force oversight at the beginning of 
the war. I was quite taken with a quote from Condoleezza Rice recently, 
who said, ``I wish we had known more about Iraq before we went in.''
  While in Iraq in August, I witnessed a great deal of progress on the 
ground. That gave me encouragement. However, I was also convinced that 
it would not be possible to sustain the current level of troops and 
funding for Iraq over the long term without damaging our national 
security and long-term fiscal health.
  As stated before, I believe we need to implement a plan to reduce our 
military presence in Iraq and focus the remaining military presence on 
a more limited role. This is clearly the plan General Petraeus is 
implementing now, and it is the stated goal of the President, as 
mentioned in the Levin amendment, supported by Secretary Gates and 
others who are concerned about our force level, and that we need more 
troops in Afghanistan. I have been working with Senator Levin for 
several months now to come up with a piece of legislation that could 
secure bipartisan support in the Senate and send a message to the 
President and the world that the Congress intends to exercise oversight 
to ensure we are making progress toward this goal. I have been careful 
to avoid supporting any measure that I thought would hurt our troops in 
any way, tie the hands of our brave commanders in the field, or prevent 
the President from responding to the situation on the ground.
  In September, I introduced a bill with Senators Alexander, Coleman, 
and Dole to strive for a goal to reduce our military presence. We had 
bipartisan support for that, but Senator Levin and I had a problem with 
the date. Unfortunately, it fell by the wayside.
  I support the Levin amendment, and I am a cosponsor to this 
legislation because I believe it is a very simple piece of legislation 
that accomplished the goals we all share. It sends the message that we 
support the President's declared goal of reducing our presence in Iraq 
over time so we can play a more supportive role, bring our forces home, 
and reduce the burden on our military. It is a sense of Congress and 
will not bind the President in any way or tie the commanders' hands in 
the field. It is supported by the President's own declared goals and 
that of his commander, General Petraeus--who is doing, by the way, an 
incredible job. It provides a goal for limiting our role in Iraq, and 
that goal is to end at the end of next year. But, unlike other past 
legislation, this date is not legally binding and would allow the 
President to respond according to the security conditions on the 
ground.
  I believe this amendment will not hurt our aspirations in Iraq in any 
way but will actually help our President and General Petraeus, who are 
striving now to hand over more responsibility to the Iraqis.
  This week, it was announced that the Iraq Government is ready to take 
over local security groups, with our support. This is an important 
step, and it is a step in the right direction. We need to continue in 
this direction. We need to make it our goal. We need to let the Iraqis 
know that they must take more responsibility for their own security.
  We must make it clear to them that we spent over $550 billion, that 
we have lost almost 3,900 individuals, 26,000 people have been wounded 
over there, and half of them are going to be disabled for the rest of 
their lives.
  We have paid a tremendous price. It is time for them to step up to 
the table and start doing more for themselves. I support this amendment 
so Congress can send that message that we are not simply funding a 
never-ending conflict in Iraq, we have a goal of reducing our presence 
there, and we are working toward it.
  I hope my colleagues realize the sensibility behind this very simple 
piece of legislation and join me in supporting it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it had originally been established that I 
would speak now, but I am going to yield the time I have to the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, thank 
you. I do hope you will take an opportunity to speak because your voice 
needs to be heard.
  I say to my good friend Senator Levin, we have had a number of 
chances to work together. I am afraid this is not one of those moments.
  What does all of this mean if this language passes? The bill will get 
vetoed. And when you read the language, what is so bad about it? I know 
the intent of the author is to try to make Iraq a better place, and he 
said for as long--I do not want to misquote him--as long as you have 
this many troops in Iraq, they are not going to do what they need to do 
politically. They use the troops as a crutch. I think that is the 
general theme, that we need to somehow let the Iraqi Government know we 
are not going to be there forever with this number of troops. You need 
to step up to the plate, generally speaking. I think that is your view 
of how to put pressure on the Maliki government to reconcile, but, 
again, I will let you speak for yourself.
  My view is that the lack of security has been the biggest impediment 
to reconciliation, and the security changes in Iraq give us the best 
hope we have had in 4 years of finding a way forward politically in 
Iraq. If we change by word or deed or perception our commitment to the 
military strategy that is currently working, we would be undercutting 
our best chance for reconciliation.

[[Page S15856]]

  This amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, does not do 
anything positive. It sends the signal I have been trying to avoid for 
well over a year now. For 3\1/2\ years we had the wrong strategy. 
Finally we have the right strategy, and in my opinion, the best, 
sensible thing the Senate could do is allow the surge to go forward 
without any interference, give General Petraeus and those under his 
command what they need to finish the job. They have done a wonderful 
job. We are going into the holiday season here and every American, 
every political leader, should celebrate what I think has been the most 
outstanding military operation in counterinsurgency history, and we 
should not have any more debates about that. It is a fact now. We 
should support it without reservation.
  This amendment, the sense of the Senate, will send a confusing signal 
about what we intend to do militarily. The Senate, in my opinion, 
should not try to change the mission. The mission is to win. Very 
simply put, what is my goal in Iraq? My goal is to win a war we cannot 
afford to lose, to have a military footprint in Iraq as long as it 
takes to keep al-Qaida on the run, and when we come home, which we 
surely will, to come home with victory in hand and let the military 
commanders who are not worried about the 2008 election decide when that 
transition should take place. Quite frankly, as much as I love my 
colleagues in this body, I do not trust anybody, including myself, to 
transition this mission other than General Petraeus.
  This statement will be seized upon by people who are following this 
bill very closely and will send all of the wrong signals, and that is 
why it will be vetoed. The most sensible thing the Senate could do, and 
we should have done this 4 or 5 months ago, is allow the surge to go 
forward without political interference. This is not the time to take 
command of the operation in Iraq from General Petraeus and his command 
team and give it to the Senate.
  I hope and pray we will allow the surge to be funded, to go forward, 
and to achieve the goal that is in the national interest of the United 
States, and that is victory, victory over extremism and support of 
moderation. So this attempt at making a political statement is ill-
advised, comes at the wrong time, sends the wrong signal. The most 
sensible thing the Senate could do is reject this and allow our 
military commanders to transition based on facts on the ground, not the 
next poll or the next election.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Reed.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Levin has very eloquently pointed 
out the premise of the President's surge strategy; that was to provide 
the political space so that the Iraqi Government could essentially 
begin a reconciliation among its own people, begin to function 
effectively. Little or none of that has happened.
  What has happened is that the violence has been reduced. That is 
commendable. It is attributable to several factors; first, the increase 
of American forces there and the way they have been deployed very 
adroitly by our military commanders; secondly, the fact that 
coincidentally but propitiously in Anbar Province, Sunni tribesmen have 
finally figured out that al-Qaida is as much a threat to them as to 
anyone else, particularly Americans. They have banded together with us 
to attack al-Qaida elements there. How long that relationship of 
convenience lasts is a question that has not been resolved.
  Within Baghdad, there has been significant ethnic cleansing. In fact, 
we recall just weeks ago, refugees started coming back. They were told 
by the Government in Baghdad: Do not come back. You are going to 
provoke another destabilizing situation. That ethnic cleansing is one 
other factor.
  Sadr, the leader of the Shia in the South, one of the purported 
leaders in the South, has basically told his Mahdi army to stand down 
for 6 months so he can reorganize, so he can regroup, so when he feels 
the moment is right he is in a much more powerful position to strike.
  Then the administration has finally embraced some diplomatic efforts; 
quietly, I think, with the Iranians, much more publicly with the 
Syrians and others. All of those factors together have contributed to 
this reduced violence.
  But here is one of the most significant and salient facts we have to 
recognize: The surge is over. Our force structure will not allow a 
continuation of 160,000 American forces in Iraq beyond the middle of 
this year, beyond this summer. That is not because some politician in 
Washington said so, that is because the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, because the Chief of Staff of the Army understand that the 
operational tempo will not allow that.
  The question before us is: Well, what is the strategy now? Is the 
strategy coming here and asking for billions of dollars every 3 or 4 
months? Asking for troops that cannot be actively or effectively 
provided, because our force structure is too small?
  The essence of this amendment, an amendment that Senator Levin and I 
and others have been pursuing for months now, is to focus on a strategy 
that can be sustained and supported so we can do what we must do. That 
strategy, in our view, boils down to three very specific missions: Go 
after the terrorists, the al-Qaida people, wherever they are; train 
Iraqi security forces to support their country, because ultimately the 
Iraqi people and their leaders will decide whether their country will 
survive and prosper, not American forces; and, finally, protect our 
forces on the ground.
  Those are three discrete missions that can be done, should be done. 
There is no attempt in this amendment to cut off funding. There is an 
attempt, though, to focus our policy on a strategy that will work over 
time. What we have here is no simple situation in which you have got an 
al-Qaida rogue group we are going after. This is a very complicated 
situation.
  Ultimately at the heart of this, it is a political struggle between 
Sunni, Shia, and Kurds; Sunnis, who feel a profound sense of 
entitlement which has been frustrated by our operations over there, and 
the departure of the Baathist regime; Shia, who feel profoundly 
paranoid because they suffered grievously under that regime; and Kurds, 
who want their autonomy.
  These political forces have to be settled. They will only be settled 
internally by the Iraqis standing up. This amendment will help direct 
that policy, force them to recognize we are not there indefinitely with 
a blank check. It will also guide our forces to missions that we can 
perform, that will be essential to our security and will allow us, I 
believe, to do what we can to help that country stabilize itself.
  This is a message. It is a message to the troops that we are going to 
adopt a wise, sustainable policy that is worthy of their sacrifice. It 
is a message, I hope, to the President that he cannot come back here 
every 6 months and ask for 5, 10, 50, 70, 80, $100 billion. It is a 
message to the Iraqi politicians that they must seize this moment.
  I urge passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Virginia.
  I rise to support the amendment I am privileged to cosponsor with the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, which would give our troops, 
General Petraeus in the field, the funding they need to carry on the 
fight they are carrying on so successfully.
  As a result, I rise to oppose the amendment introduced by my friend 
from Michigan and others. Nine months ago, when General Petraeus took 
command in Baghdad, people of good conscience could disagree about 
whether his new counterinsurgency strategy would succeed, unless you 
decided that everything was lost in Iraq or it did not matter if we 
lost in Iraq. I think most of us do not feel that way. We know it would 
matter, because we are engaged in a battle with al-Qaida, the same al-
Qaida that attacked us on 9/11, and Iran, the most significant state 
sponsor of terrorism, according to our own State Department, supporting 
militias and extremists in Iraq. So it matters.
  But 9 months ago, people who cared about whether we won or lost in 
Iraq could argue about whether the surge strategy would work. After so 
many

[[Page S15857]]

mistakes, frankly, in the conduct of the war in Iraq, many Americans, 
many Members of this Chamber, were understandably skeptical about the 
possibility of this new counterinsurgency strategy succeeding.
  Now, however, the evidence is unequivocal. I will say it is 
remarkable. In some cases it is downright miraculous. The surge is 
working. As a result, it is time to support General Petraeus, his plan, 
and his troops, not to second guess, not to editorialize about it, not 
to add conditions or goals to it.
  Let's do something that we in Congress do not do very well, which is 
to remain silent in the face of something that is working. With all 
respect, the Levin amendment is a classic case of snatching defeat from 
the jaws of victory, because we are on the road to victory in Iraq.
  The extra American troops have played a critical part, the broad-
scale counterinsurgency strategy. And what has happened? Violence is 
down. I think this number has been cited, but this week, MG Joseph Fil, 
who is the commander of our operations in Baghdad, said that attacks in 
the capital city have fallen nearly 80 percent since November of 2006; 
murders in Baghdad Province are down by 90 percent over the same 
period; and vehicle-borne bombs which have killed so many of our troops 
and the Iraqi people have dropped by 70 percent.
  There is a people's uprising occurring in Iraq today. It started with 
the awakening in Anbar. It has now gone on to Baghdad and other 
provinces throughout the country. I know those sponsors of this 
amendment have said they want to send it as a message to the Iraqi 
national political leadership to get with it, to reconcile. Of course, 
we are all frustrated by their lack of progress in doing that. A lot of 
us thought that the political changes in Iraq would come from the top 
down. But what has happened is something not to disparage, not to 
ignore. What has happened is classically democratic, in the best 
traditions of America. The political changes in Iraq are coming from 
the bottom up, from the grassroots up. Local councils are governing in 
area after area. The local people have taken charge of their destiny. 
They have kicked out al-Qaida. They have kicked out al-Qaida because 
they decided that al-Qaida was their enemy. And we, much to their 
surprise, turned out to be their friends, their supporter. They 
understand we do not want conquest in Iraq. We want to liberate them 
from the forces of extremism. The same is happening throughout the 
country.
  I urge my colleagues, let success alone. Let it work. Oppose the 
Levin-Reed amendment and support the McConnell-Lieberman amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think I can almost speak for our side 
with certainty. I have a few comments, followed by perhaps a minute and 
a half by the Republican leader, and then that way we can yield back 
time. I will proceed to give my comments.
  I say to my good friend from Michigan that I picked one word out of 
his very impressive opening comments. I agree with his opening comments 
about the tragic situation by which the leadership in Iraq, their 
legislative body, has failed to act.
  But one word you said impressed me, and that is ``military progress 
is being made.'' That is an exact quote you used. You felt if we didn't 
speak by adopting your amendment, there would be silence. I say to my 
good friend, the amendment by the distinguished Republican leader and 
the Senator from Connecticut, the McConnell-Lieberman amendment, will 
send a very strong message. Were we to adopt your amendment, it would 
be in conflict with that message. That is my concern. Therefore, I must 
say, I strongly support the McConnell-Lieberman amendment. I hope that 
will be voted on very shortly. I do believe, in all sincerity, your 
amendment would send a conflicting message. That message could be 
exceedingly troublesome. People don't understand the phraseology 
``sense of the Senate.'' Al-Qaida would simply clip that off and then 
announce that we are going to leave in December, irrespective of the 
facts on the ground. Furthermore, we have not been in this fight alone. 
We put together a coalition of forces, a coalition of nations, 
primarily Great Britain and others, Poland. So far as I know, there has 
been no consultation with respect to your amendment to announce a goal 
by December of next year with those other fighting forces that, while 
they are smaller in number, are no less important as a symbol of the 
united effort of many nations to achieve, first, sovereignty in Iraq, 
which has been a wonderful goal that has been achieved, and now to 
enable that country to take its place rightfully in that region and be 
a strong voice for freedom and to fight al-Qaida.
  I say to my friend, I will have to oppose his amendment because it 
would send a totally conflicting message with the underlying amendment, 
which is a very significant appropriation of funds to continue, as you 
say, in your very words, the ``progress'' of the military so far.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Before I yield to the Senator from California, let me 
respond briefly to my friend from Virginia. There is no inconsistency 
between voting to adopt a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing as 
a goal, nonbinding, that we complete a transition to a more limited 
mission, a mission which the President says he wants to transition to 
by the end of next year and at the same time voting for the McConnell 
amendment. There will be many Senators voting for the Levin-Reed 
amendment who are also going to vote for the McConnell amendment. There 
is no inconsistency whatsoever between sending our troops the funding 
which has been requested and having a goal for the transition of their 
mission to something which gets them out of the middle of a civil war. 
That is the one point I wish to make immediately to my good friend from 
Virginia.
  I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it seems to me if you want to liberate the 
Iraqi people, then you give them back the country and you let them know 
that is what this is all about. We have been there 1 year, 2 years, 3 
years, 4 years, 5 years. We have spent a half a trillion dollars; 3,893 
of our own killed, 28,711 wounded. Is this forever? I went through the 
period of time in the Vietnam war where the people of this country 
stood up and said: Enough is enough is enough. It seems to me what 
Senator Levin is doing--and I am so proud he has bipartisan support, 
Senators Hagel, Voinovich, Snowe, Smith--is good. This shows we are 
beginning to cross over party lines, which is so important, and say: It 
is time the mission changes.
  My dear friend from Virginia talks about the Brits. This is exactly 
what the Brits have already done. They are getting out. They have 
turned the keys of the city over to the Iraqis. They are ahead of us. 
In many ways, this resolution tracks what they have done. I read it. It 
is very simple. It is a sense of the Congress that the missions of the 
U.S. Armed Forces should be transitioned to a more limited set--
counterterrorism, training, equipping, supporting Iraqi forces, and 
force protection. Yes, we are sending a message to the Maliki 
Government, get your act together because we are not going to be here 
forever. The American people are generous and good people. But there is 
a limit to how much they can give in terms of blood and treasure.
  It is true that many people supporting this resolution are going to 
vote for the McConnell amendment. I will not be one of them. I wish to 
speak against it for my remaining time. I have a list of what we have 
already spent. A half a trillion dollars, that is what we have already 
spent, and we are about to go well over that mark, toward a trillion 
dollars. There comes a time when we have to ask ourselves: What are we 
doing in Iraq? If you listen to the President, it is to bring freedom. 
He said it was the weapons of mass destruction. Then he changed that. 
He said it was to get Saddam. We got Saddam. Then he changed it. He 
said we have to have free and fair elections. They had two. He said we 
have to reconstruct. We are spending money to reconstruct.
  It is now time to say enough is enough. I think the Levin resolution 
is not putting into place binding deadlines. It is merely saying to the 
Iraqi Government we want them to step up to the plate.

[[Page S15858]]

  If my colleagues want to be seen as occupiers, vote against this 
amendment because that is what is happening. We are seen as occupiers, 
when we want to be seen as liberators. If you want to be seen as 
liberators, you do what the Brits did. This is exactly what Senator 
Levin is doing. I am pleased to support this. I will be voting no on 
McConnell.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we are about ready to vote on 
this side. We are going to have our leader speak for a minute, and then 
we can proceed. I simply, once again, say to my distinguished colleague 
from Michigan, while we are waiting for the Republican leader, with due 
respect, this will send a very conflicting message. If the Senate acts 
upon this appropriations tonight favorably, as I anticipate it will, 
coupled with your message, it could be misconstrued. Therefore, I 
strongly urge that the Senate accept the McConnell-Lieberman amendment 
but reject the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. The message is not conflicting at all. There is no 
conflict between saying we are going to support our troops, we are not 
going to reduce funding for them, and at the same time have a goal a 
year hence for when they transition to the more limited mission. There 
is not the slightest inconsistency. It is not a conflicting message. If 
we are interested in success in Iraq, there is only one way to achieve 
it--for the Iraqi politicians to reach agreement on their differences 
which have continued the conflict. That is not just me saying it. That 
is our military leaders.
  I wish to read this quote because I am not sure people have focused 
on it. This is our State Department. I ask my colleagues to listen to 
this very brief quote from our State Department:

       Senior military commanders portray the intransigence of 
     Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing 
     the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-Qaida terrorists, 
     Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

  Is that a conflicting message from our State Department, when they 
identify the political leaders of Iraq as being the major threat to our 
success? They are the major threat to our success. We all know it. Our 
military leaders have said it is the failure of the political leaders 
of Iraq to work out their differences, which is the key problem that 
keeps the battle going on between Iraqis. That is our State Department. 
Is that a conflicting message? I don't think so.
  It is the truth. Most of us recognize it. We are all completely 
unhappy with the Iraqi political leaders. Most of us, when we go to 
Iraq, tell them that. The President of the United States has even said 
it is useful for that message to be delivered. Let us deliver it 
tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if we want a Presidential signature on 
the Omnibus appropriations, thereby finishing our work this year, we 
need to defeat the Levin amendment and approve the McConnell amendment, 
which will come shortly after the Levin amendment. The McConnell 
amendment provides $70 billion for our troops, whether they are in 
Afghanistan or Iraq, without any strings attached, without any 
stipulations. The key to finishing our work this year successfully lies 
in defeating the Levin amendment and approving the McConnell amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Explanatory Statement Submitted by Senator McConnell, Senator Stevens, 
   Senator Cochran, Senator Inouye, and Senator Lieberman Regarding 
       Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense

       The following tabular data delineates by appropriation the 
     funding provided by the McConnell amendment (related to 
     supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense) to 
     H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2008.
       In regard to classified activities funded in this 
     amendment, a separate letter from the Chairman and Ranking 
     Member of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on 
     Appropriations will delineate the programs and activities 
     funded by this amendment.

                         [Dollars in thousands]

                      Title I--Military Personnel

Military Personnel Army:
  Pay and Allowances.............................................13,700
  Wounded Warrior................................................68,800
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Military Personnel, Army...........................782,500
Military Personnel, Navy:
  Pay and Allowances.............................................95,624
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Military Personnel, Navy............................95,624
Military Personnel, Marine Corps:
  Pay and Allowances.............................................56,050
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Military Personnel, Marine Corps....................56,050
Military Personnel, Air Force:
  Pay and Allowances............................................138,037
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Military Personnel, Air Force......................138,037
                                                       ================

      Total , Military Personnel..............................1,072,211

                  Title II--Operation and Maintenance

Operation and Maintenance, Army:
  Operating Expenses.........................................25,158,543
  Wounded Warrior, Enhanced Soldier and Family Support..........853,800
  Body Armor and Personal Protection Items......................800,000
  Commander's Emergency Response Program........................500,000
  Depot Maintenance...........................................7,840,027
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Army.......................................35,152,370
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
  Operating Expenses..........................................2,971,658
  Body Armor and Personal Protection Items......................175,000
  Depot Maintenance.............................................407,342
  Coast Guard Support...........................................110,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Navy........................................3,664,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps:
  Operating Expenses..........................................3,000,000
  Wounded Warrior, Enhanced Soldier and Family Support..........100,000
  Body Armor and Personal Protection Items......................375,000
  Depot Maintenance.............................................490,638
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Marine Corps................................3,965,638
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
  Operating Expenses..........................................4,060,814
  Body Armor and Personal Protection Items......................400,000
  Depot Maintenance.............................................317,186
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Air Force...................................4,778,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
  Joint Staff....................................................32,140
  Special Operations Command..................................1,054,000
  Armed Forces Information Service................................9,300
  Defense Contract Audit Agency...................................7,100
  Defense Contract Management Agency..............................3,000
  Defense Human Resources Activity................................4,100
  Defense Information Systems Agency.............................44,510
  Defense Logistics Agency.......................................48,200
  Defense Legal Services Activity.................................9,900
  Department of Defense Education Activity......................155,000
  Defense Security Cooperation Agency--Coalition Support........300,000
  Lift and Sustain..............................................100,000
  Global Train and Equip........................................300,000
  Office of the Secretary of Defense.............................42,500
  Washington Headquarters Services................................7,200
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Defense-Wide................................2,116,950
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve:
  Operating Expenses.............................................68,036
  Wounded Warrior, Enhanced Soldier and Family Support............9,700
      Total, O&M, Army Reserve...................................77,736
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve:
  Operating Expenses.............................................41,657
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Navy Reserve...................................41,657
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve:
  Operating Expenses.............................................46,153
                                                       ________________
                                                       
  Total, O&M, Marine Corps Reserve...............................46,153
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve:
  Operating Expenses.............................................12,133
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Air Force Reserve..............................12,133

[[Page S15859]]

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
  Operating Expenses............................................288,900
  Wounded Warrior, Enhanced Soldier and Family Support...........38,100
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Army National Guard...........................327,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:
  Operating Expenses.............................................51,634
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, O&M, Air National Guard.............................51,634

Iraq Freedom Fund.............................................3,747,327
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund..............................1,350,000
Iraq Security Forces Fund.....................................1,500,000
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund:
  Attack the Network..........................................1,258,000
  Defeat the Device...........................................2,340,000
  Train the Force...............................................603,000
  Staff and Infrastructure.......................................68,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund....4,269,000
                                                       ================

        Total, Operation and Maintenance.....................61,099,598

                         Title III--Procurement

Aircraft Procurement, Army:
  Utility Fixed Wing Cargo Aircraft...............................5,000
  UH-60M Blackhawk--27 Aircraft.................................483,300
  AH-64 Apache--3 Aircraft......................................105,000
  CH-47 Chinook--11 Aircraft....................................334,100
  Common Ground Equipment........................................10,000
  Air Traffic Control.............................................6,200
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Aircraft Procurement, Army.........................943,600
Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army:
  Bradley Program...............................................700,100
  Stryker Vehicle................................................41,000
  Bradley Fire Support Vehicle (Mod).............................65,000
  Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (Mod).........................48,000
  Improved Recovery Vehicle (M88 Mod)...........................135,000
  M1 Abrams Tank (Mod)..........................................200,000
  Abrams Upgrade Program (M1A2 SEP).............................225,000
  M249 Squad Automatic Weapon Machine Gun Mods....................6,500
  M16 Rifle Modifications.........................................1,845
  Modifications Less Than $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV)--Improved Combat Optic7,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles,1,429,445
Procurement of Ammunition, Army:
  Cartridge, 25MM, All Types........................................300
  Cartridge, 30MM, All Types.....................................40,000
  Cartridge, 40MM, All Types.....................................65,700
  Cartridge, Artillery, 105MM, All Types.........................10,000
  Modular Artillery Charge System, All Types.....................18,000
  Rocket, Hydra 70, All Types....................................20,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Procurement of Ammunition, Army....................154,000
Other Procurement, Army:
  Tactical Trailer/Dolly Sets....................................29,000
  High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle....................455,000
  Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles............................146,000
  Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.............................427,000
  Armored Security Vehicles.......................................1,500
  Truck, Tractor, Line Haul, M915/M916............................4,600
  HMMWV Recapitalization Program................................140,000
  Modification of In-Service Equipment..........................184,800
  Items Less Than $5.0 Million (Tactical Vehicles)................8,000
  Defense Enterprise Wideband Satellite Communications Systems...19,000
  Satellite Terminal, Enhanced Manpack UHF Terminal (Space).......3,400
  Navstar Global Positioning System (Space).......................3,200
  Army Global Command and Control System..........................3,000
  Information System Security Program............................21,600
  Digital Topographic Support System (MIP).......................12,000
  Counterintelligence/Human Intelligence Information Management System 
    (MIP).........................................................2,400
  Night Vision Devices...........................................45,000
  Night Vision, Thermal Weapon Sight.............................11,000
  Fire Support Command and Control (C2) Family....................7,000
  Knight Family--Procure 29 M1200 Knight Vehicles................50,000
  Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Soldier Protect54,300
  Rapid Equipping Soldier Support Systems including Warlock.....400,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Other Procurement, Army..........................2,027,800
Aircraft Procurement, Navy:
  H-53 Series--Re-activate 1 CH-53 Helicopter.....................2,600
  EP-3 Series--Special Mission Avionics,..........................9,000
  P-3 Series--Special Missions Equipment..........................2,400
  Common ECM Equipment--Generation II Missile Warning Systems....34,500
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Aircraft Procurement, Navy..........................48,500
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps:
  Joint Direct Attack Munition....................................5,000
  Air Expendable Countermeasures..................................6,625
  Other Ship Gun Ammunition..........................................43
  Small Arms and Landing Party Ammunition........................32,929
  Pyrotechnic and Demolition.........................................64
  Small Arms Ammunition..........................................27,645
  Linear Charges, All Types.......................................3,875
  40MM, All Types................................................23,096
  60MM, All Types................................................30,252
  81 MM, All Types...............................................35,000
  120MM, All Types...............................................59,020
  Cartridge 25MM, All Types.........................................670
  Grenades, All Types.............................................9,385
  Rockets, All Types..............................................8,273
  Artillery, All Types...........................................51,033
  Demolition Munitions, All Types.................................3,539
  Fuze, All Types...................................................880
  Non Lethals.....................................................5,616
  Ammo Modernization..............................................2,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps.....304,945
Other Procurement, Navy:
  Air Station Support Equipment--Air Traffic Control Equipment....6,111
  Aviation Life Support--Body Armor and Survival Gear...............750
                                 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Equipment:
    Unmanned Aerial Systems......................................37,000
    Man Transportable Robotic System..............................1,400
    Mounted CREW Systems.........................................35,400
  Physical Security Vehicles--Light Armored Vehicles................900
  Medical Support Equipment.........................................820
                                           Physical Security Equipment:
    Body Armor....................................................3,100
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Detectors.........................6,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Other Procurement, Navy.............................91,481
Procurement, Marine Corps:
                                                Light Armored Vehicles:
    Light Armored Vehicles.......................................12,500
    Light Armored Vehicles Product Improvement Program...........23,000
    Light Armored Vehicles Restoration and Modernization.........33,600
  Modification Kits--Multipurpose Tank Blade......................2,200
  Modification Kits--Tactical Concealed Video System................400
  Marine Air Command Control System..............................29,000
  Intelligence Support Equipment--Angel Fire Sensor Package.......8,000
  Motor Transport Modifications--Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement 
    Armor........................................................60,000
  Power Equipment Assorted--Engineer Equipment...................15,000
  Explosive Ordnance Disposal Systems--CREW.....................172,800
  Physical Security Equipment--Ground-Based Operational Surveillance 
    System......................................................340,000
  Field Medical Equipment--Family of Field Medical Equipment......6,750

[[Page S15860]]

      Total, Procurement, Marine Corps..........................703,250
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:
  F-15--ARC-210 Beyond Line of Sight/Secure Line of Sight Radios 39,700
  C-5--Aircraft Defensive Systems (12 Kits for C-5A's) -.........11,700
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.....................51,400
Other Procurement, Air Force:
  Halvorsen Loader................................................7,500
  Items Less Than $5 Million (Vehicles)--Counter Sniper Protection1,625
  General Information Technology--Blue Force Trackers.............2,500
  Air Force Physical Security System--CROWS and BDOC-T............8,500
  Tactical C-E Equipment--ROVER...................................8,100
  Night Vision Goggles............................................2,500
      Total, Other Procurement, Air Force........................30,725
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
  Defense Information Systems Network.............................8,700
  MH-47 Service Life Extension Program...........................34,400
  C-130 Modifications............................................11,000
  SOF Ordnance Replenishment.....................................32,759
  SOF Ordnance Acquisition.......................................39,600
  SOF Intelligence Systems.......................................44,346
  Small Arms and Weapons.........................................29,587
  Tactical Vehicles..............................................16,458
  Unmanned Vehicles..............................................23,500
  SOF Operational Enhancements...................................34,393
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Procurement, Defense-Wide..........................274,743
      Total, Procurement......................................6,059,889

                Title IV--Revolving and Management Funds

Defense Working Capital Funds:
    Defense Working Capital Fund--Army:................................
    Army Preposition Stocks.....................................586,900
    Spares Augmentation--Combat Losses...........................63,000
                                   Spares Augmentation--Demand In70,000
    Defense Working Capital Fund--Defense-Wide:........................
    Fuel Transportation..........................................96,000
    Fuel Cost Increase..........................................140,700
    Combat Fuel Losses...........................................43,400
                                                       ================

      Total, Defense working Capital Funds....................1,000,000

             Title V--Other Department of Defense Programs

Defense Health Program:
  Operations....................................................461,101
  Wounded Warrior, Enhanced Soldier and Family Support..........114,600
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total, Defense Health Program.............................575,701

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities...................192,601
                                                       ================

        Total, Other Department of Defense Programs.............768,302

                      Title VI--General Provisions

Special Transfer Authority (Sec 603)........................[4,000,000]
                                                       ================

          Total, Department of Defense.......................70,000,000
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is there more time on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes 5 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 7 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I intend to yield back all that time but 30 seconds. I 
cannot believe the President of the United States is going to veto a 
bill providing this additional funding for the troops because the 
Senate, in a nonbinding resolution, expresses its belief that we ought 
to have a nonbinding timetable for the reduction of our troops by the 
end of the year. If the President has said that, I have not seen it. I 
can't believe he would so try to squelch the Senate from expressing a 
nonbinding opinion.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the President will veto the bill if the 
Levin amendment is approved. The McConnell amendment must be approved 
in order to get a Presidential signature.
  Is there time remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Levin 
amendment No. 3876.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 438 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes, 
the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient 
second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 70, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 439 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

[[Page S15861]]



                                NAYS--25

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of the motion, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have just a few matters left. We have a 
vote on AMT. This is a vote we have had before. Senator Baucus, the 
Finance chair, will talk about it when we get to it in a few minutes. 
It is an issue on which I agree with the House. I think we should have 
paid for it. We have had this vote several times before--at least once 
before. We have tried different ways of getting the matter before the 
Senate.
  We have an agreement in the order entered earlier today that we are 
going to vote on whether AMT should be paid for. Senator Baucus will 
speak on that.


                           Amendment No. 3877

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a motion to 
concur at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     House amendment No. 1 to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, 
     with an amendment numbered 3877.

  (The amendment is printed in Today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 hour of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a vote on this, and we have a vote 
on whether we will concur with the House on a matter that we have 
changed and sent back to them. Then I am going to speak with the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Under the order entered several 
days ago, we have a judge who is on the calendar. I will talk with the 
distinguished manager of this bill and the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee to find out if we are going to have a recorded vote.
  My point is that people should not run off after the second vote. 
There may be three votes tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the next vote is on AMT, paid for. We have 
had this vote several times. It requires 60 votes. I personally believe 
that the AMT relief we will be providing for here, so the taxpayers 
will not have to pay additional AMT for 2007, should be paid for. I 
don't think the votes are here. There are not 60 votes to pay for it. 
But once this goes down because it doesn't have 60 votes, it is then my 
expectation that the House will then vote for AMT not paid for so that 
we can get AMT passed this year. Americans will know they will not have 
to pay the additional AMT tax, done in a way that is satisfactory.
  There is an hour allocated on this amendment, a half hour each side. 
Mr. President, I don't plan to take many more minutes than I have 
already consumed. I expect the other side will not either.
  I will reserve the remainder of my time, with the expectation that I 
will yield back the remainder of my time. For now, I will reserve my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I haven't had a request on this side for many people to speak. 
I think I will speak for 9 or 10 minutes on my side. If people want 
time, I will be glad to yield time.
  When we were debating the Tax Relief Act of 2005, the other side 
forced a series of debates on the same subject matter. We had the same 
debate three times, and it culminated on Groundhog Day, February 2, 
2006. Despite numerous votes and debates in each round, we went through 
essentially the same debate and vote not once or twice but three times.
  I have two charts that will remind folks of that exercise.
  My first chart depicts a groundhog. For those of you who see the 
groundhog, you will recall that the centerpiece of that debate involved 
the alternative minimum tax patch. During the first groundhog debate, 
the bipartisan majority had to prove that we meant business on the 
cornerstone of that bill, which was the last AMT patch that was 
enacted. I am referring to the AMT patch that protected then about 15 
million families, and now we are talking about protecting about 23 
million families.
  The bipartisan majority, I am pleased to remind everybody, stuck to 
our guns in conference on that bill. We made sure the AMT patch was one 
of the cornerstones of the conference agreement. So despite the 
extended debate, what we said would happen did happen.
  Now, the next Groundhog Day is February 2, 2008. That is just 45 days 
from now. That may seem like a long time, but given recent history, I 
am worried. Here is why.
  About 47 days ago, the two tax-writing committee chairmen, 
Congressman Rangel and Senator Baucus, and the ranking members, 
Congressman McCrery, and this Senator, wrote Secretary Paulson and 
acting IRS Commissioner Stiff and pledged to get an AMT patch bill to 
the President before the end of the year. We wrote the letter for a 
couple of reasons. The first reason is to spare 23 million middle-
income families from an average tax increase of $2,000 per family. As 
everyone now agrees, this monster tax was not meant to hit 23 million 
middle-income families. The second reason was to assure the Secretary 
of the Treasury and the IRS Commissioner that we would do everything 
possible to minimize delays in refunds for another 27 million families 
and individuals, on top of the 23 million who would be hit for the 
first time.
  After pledging to get mutually agreeable AMT patch legislation to the 
President in a form he could sign--that is what the letter was about--
we are instead now engaged in this Groundhog Day type of exercise. We 
are essentially having the same debate, and we will go through the same 
votes the Senate went through just a couple of weeks ago. In other 
words, the floor debate tonight illustrates my worry that we are 
repeating the Groundhog Day exercise.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that 
letter by the two chairmen and ranking members.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, October 30, 2007.
     Ms. Linda E. Stiff,
     Acting Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Acting Commissioner Stiff: Under present law, more 
     than 23 million taxpayers will be subject to higher taxes in 
     2007 unless legislation is enacted to limit the reach of the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). We realize that this fact is 
     causing concern for many taxpayers and is creating 
     administrative difficulties for the IRS as the agency 
     prepares for the upcoming filing season.
       As the leaders of the Congressional tax-writing committees, 
     we want to assure you that legislative relief is forthcoming 
     so that no new taxpayers will be subject to the AMT for 
     taxable year 2007. To accomplish this, we are committed to 
     extending and indexing the 2006 AMT patch with the goal of 
     ensuring that not one additional taxpayer faces higher taxes 
     in 2007 due to the onerous AMT. In addition to allowing the 
     personal credits against the AMT, the exemption amount for 
     2007 will be set at $44,350 for individuals and $66,250 for 
     married taxpayers filing jointly.
       We plan to do everything possible to enact AMT relief 
     legislation in a form mutually agreeable to the Congress and 
     the President before the end of the year. We urge the 
     Internal Revenue Service to take all steps necessary to plan 
     for changes that would be made by the legislation.
       Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
           Sincerely yours,
     Max Baucus,
       Chairman, Committee on Finance.
     Charles E. Grassley,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Finance.
     Charles B. Rangel,
       Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.
     Jim McCrery,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. So we are not quite there yet, but the way we are 
going, we

[[Page S15862]]

might not get this year's AMT patch done until the next Groundhog Day.
  Let me bring up another chart to expand on this point. I have next to 
me the portrait of Punxsutawney Phil, that famous groundhog. In 
thinking of Phil and the weather report he will provide in 45 days, I 
also thought about the popular film entitled ``Groundhog Day.'' That 
movie stars Bill Murray, in which a man relives the same day--Groundhog 
Day--over and over and over. This film has taken on greater 
significance for me as I seem to be in a very similar situation. More 
than just a sense of the deja vu, I feel I am reliving a past 
experience.
  We are going through the same debate we had a couple of weeks ago. We 
are on a different bill and the amendment has different offsets. Yet I 
seem to remember already having this debate.
  So, Mr. President, instead of taking the next steps and focusing on 
what we said we would do in the letter and finding a mutually 
agreeable--those are words from the letter--resolution to the AMT 
patch, the House Democratic leadership is insisting that the Senate 
repeat the same debate and vote of just last week.
  At 5:01 p.m., on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, we took up H.R. 3996, 
with the title ``Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007.'' For several hours 
on Tuesday, Wednesday, and into Thursday, we debated the bill. The 
final vote on final passage came at 7:25 p.m., Thursday evening, 
December 6.
  According to the Secretary of the Senate, 93 of us were here for that 
vote. So I must not be the only one reliving this experience.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the results of 
that final vote.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 415 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Carper
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Ensign
     McCain
     Obama
     Voinovich

                        Majority \1/2\ Required

       Vote date: 12/06/2007, 6:23:00 p.m., Business Type: L.
       Result Code: 1 (Bill Passed).
       Vote title: H.R. 3996 as Amended.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we consider the Senate amendment to 
the omnibus bill, I have to ask: Why are we still here? I have to ask: 
Didn't we already go through this exercise? I have to ask: Aren't we 
finished with the Senate debate?
  In the face of the urgent need to enact an AMT patch, does the House 
Democratic leadership want the Senate to reenact recent debates and 
resuscitate old talking points? Our un-offset AMT patch already passed 
with the support of 88 Senators.
  While I believe this legislation is extremely important and we will 
debate it for as long as is necessary, I question the necessity of 
going through a process that resulted in overwhelming bipartisan 
passage of the same bill 2 weeks ago.
  That is my first point. This is, in fact, a curious exercise. It is 
an exercise with no apparent purpose other than delay. Is the delay on 
the part of the House Democratic leadership important? Why doesn't the 
House send the amended House bill which cleared this Chamber by a vote 
of 88 to 5 to the President of the United States for signature? Because 
President Bush will sign it. That bill does meet--again the words from 
the letter of the chairman of the committee--that bill does meet the 
mutually agreeable criteria of the tax writers' letter. The amendment 
before us, just as the prior House vote, does not meet the mutually 
agreeable criteria that was in that letter.
  Nearly all House and Senate Republicans have a problem with this 
amendment and its predecessor that failed in the Senate. The problem is 
not necessarily with the offsets themselves. Some of them might be 
acceptable tax policy to this Senator and others on our side. The 
debate and resistance on our side rests with a bigger principle. It is 
about accepting the notion that the unintended reach of the AMT should 
be permitted unless we find offsetting revenue from other taxpayers; in 
other words, other taxpayers being taxed to offset revenue from middle-
income taxpayers who were never supposed to pay this tax in the first 
place. It is the use of the AMT then as an open-ended revenue-
generating machine that creates problems on the Republican side of the 
aisle.
  I am going to point to another chart to illustrate this debate. This 
is a chart of a very fine horse, a horse named Trigger and his rider 
Roy Rogers. Trigger is a fine horse, but he is dead. He is very dead. 
Trigger is so dead that he is stuffed and resides in a museum. This 
debate is the practice of beating a dead horse. It would be like 
tourists taking swipes at Trigger as they go through the museum. 
Everyone knows beating a dead horse is a waste of time, but that is 
what we are doing. We need to stop beating a dead horse. We need to 
show our good friends in the House Democratic leadership that they need 
to stop reviving a dead horse of an offset AMT patch. It is a dead 
horse. Let's stop beating it. Vote against this amendment.
  After this exercise is done, then I urge my friends in the House 
leadership to pass the un-offset AMT patch bill we sent them several 
days ago, that very same bill that passed this body 88 to 5.
  Think, will you, on the other side of the Capitol, think of the 23 
million families that will face a tax increase of $2,000 per family if 
we don't get this bill to the President. Think of the 27 million 
families and individuals that will face even longer delays in getting 
their refunds next year if we don't get this bill passed, or even if we 
do get this bill passed, it is going to be delayed. Think of these 
hard-working taxpayers. Stop beating a dead horse and let's get the 
people's business done.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota has some 
comments about not beating a dead horse. I now yield 7 minutes to the 
Senator from North Dakota.
  I might say, we should not beat a dead horse, that is clear, but also 
we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. We have an opportunity to 
resolve this and get it done. I urge us to vote quickly so we can 
dispose of this matter so the American taxpayers get their AMT relief 
very quickly.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
  I say to the Senator from Iowa when he tells us that we should stop 
beating a dead horse, the picture he used shows that Trigger rides 
again. That wasn't a dead horse. That horse is alive, and as well it 
should be, because the underlying question is whether we pay for 
anything in this Chamber or do we borrow the money? When we borrow the 
money, do we borrow it from the Chinese and the Japanese, or do we 
start paying our bills right here at home? That is the issue before the 
Chamber. It is not a question of a dead horse or a live horse. It is a 
fundamental question of whether we pay our bills or put it on the 
charge card.
  The issue before us is very simple. If we do not offset the 
alternative minimum tax or alter it in some way, it will hit 23 million 
American families, up from some 4.2 million this last year.
  The bill before us says, yes, adjust the alternative minimum tax so 
more

[[Page S15863]]

people are not hit by it, but it also says something very important. It 
says pay for it; don't go out and borrow the money, don't go out and 
borrow billions more from China and Japan.
  The House has it right. We ought to pay for it. Certainly it makes no 
sense to let the alternative minimum tax sweep up millions more people, 
but it also makes no sense to fail to pay for it. That is not just my 
view; that is also the view of the former chairman of the Federal 
Reserve who said on ABC's weekend program in response to a question 
from George Stephanopoulos, the question was put to the chairman:

       So when the Congress this week . . . fixes this patch in 
     the alternative minimum tax . . . and doesn't pay for the 
     increase in the deficit, that is something you're against?

  Mr. Greenspan:

       Yes.

  No qualifications, a simple clear statement in support of paying for 
fixing the alternative minimum tax.

  Why is paying for it so important? Because if we fail to do so, we 
put it on the debt, and already the debt has skyrocketed under this 
administration, from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to, at the end of the fiscal 
year that just ended, a debt of $8.9 trillion.
  Future generations will look back on this one. Perhaps they will be 
amused by the debate tonight. They will not be amused by the debt we 
leave them. This generation will not be known as the greatest 
generation. This generation will be known as a greedy generation, a 
self-oriented generation, one that was not responsible with the 
people's money.
  Some of my colleagues claim we never intended to raise this money, 
that it was no part of any budget, that it was not part of any revenue 
projection. I beg to differ. As chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, I can tell you that these revenues have been in every budget 
written by this President, and written by the Congress, whether 
controlled by the Republicans or the Democrats. The only way any of 
these budgets have balanced was to assume this revenue which is the law 
of the land would either be collected or would be offset, would be paid 
for.
  This chart shows the revenue assumptions in the Bush budget. We find 
alternative minimum tax revenue assumed for each and every year of the 
5 years of this budget.
  I won't belabor the point. This is a question of whether we are going 
to be responsible. This is an opportunity to fix the alternative 
minimum tax, to prevent it from being spread to 23 million American 
families, but to do it in the responsible way: to offset it with other 
revenue so it does not get added to the deficit, so it does not get 
added to the debt, so we are not compelled to borrow even more billions 
from the Japanese and the Chinese and around the world.
  I hope my colleagues will vote ``aye'' and demonstrate their fiscal 
responsibility tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, yes, we have been here before. I hear the 
Senator from Iowa, whom I greatly respect, say we have been here before 
and have done this over and over. In the last 2 hours, we have made the 
same mistake, or about to make the same mistake, that we have made in 
the last 6 years. About 7 groundhog days ago, if you will, we went from 
a budget surplus to huge budget deficits, as Senator Conrad pointed 
out. Do you know why? Because we are in the middle of a war that 
Senator Byrd spoke so eloquently against time and again on this Senate 
floor, a war that has cost us $500 billion and counting, and we have 
done tax cuts over and over. Every groundhog day we do another tax cut.
  So tonight, in the space of 2 hours, we are going to encapsulate that 
in one evening. We did $70 billion for a war nobody is willing to pay 
for. Let our grandchildren pay for that one. And then we are doing more 
tax cuts, hundreds of billions of dollars we are not paying for, so let 
our grandchildren take care of it.
  We have been here before, and it is about time we vote ``yes'' on 
this and do the right thing, so instead of these going from a budget 
surplus 7 groundhog days to hundreds of billions of dollars in budget 
deficits, instead we have an opportunity, as Senator Conrad said, to do 
the right thing to begin to pay for things as we go so that our 
grandchildren will not continue to be burdened with our profligacy and 
our irresponsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if the other side is ready to yield back 
their time, I will yield back our time, but I want to find out if they 
are interested in doing that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back our time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 440 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this motion, the motion is withdrawn.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment.
  Mr. President, there is a proverb from the Book of Matthew that says: 
``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.''
  In the past few weeks, as we have put together the budget that is now 
before us, Democrats have sought to put our hearts and our treasure 
where the American people need them most.
  President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress have been 
determined from the start to stand in our way.
  The President picked a top line budget number out of thin air and 
said he would veto any bill that invested another dime above this total 
in the needs of the American people--no matter how many children, 
students, working families veterans or senior citizens would be harmed.
  This from the President who inherited record surpluses when he took 
office and turned them into record deficits.
  This from the President who has spent nearly $500 billion--all of it 
borrowed--to fight a war of choice in Iraq, while ignoring the 
desperate needs that we face here at home.
  And this from congressional Republicans who have rubber-stamped his 
every irresponsible, wasteful, reckless choice.
  But now, this year, this President and these Bush-Cheney Republicans

[[Page S15864]]

claim--after years leading our country down a path of fiscal ruin--they 
have been baptized into the church of fiscal responsibility.
  Under this false pretense, they went about to prevent us from 
presenting appropriations bills that help America's working families.
  With the power of the President's veto and a core group of 
congressional Republicans willing to back it up, this fight has not 
been easy. That is an understatement.
  Nevertheless, in the past few weeks, we have worked within the 
President's arbitrary top line to make it clear to the American people 
where our hearts and our fiscal priorities lie.
  Every victory in the appropriations bills now before us--every 
benefit to working families, every investment in our Nation's future--
we have had to fight for, tooth and nail.
  Bush-Cheney Republicans turned their backs on medical science in this 
budget.
  They tried to cut 800 grants for medical research at the National 
Institutes of Health--programs that would help find cures for dread 
diseases.
  Our Democratic priorities are different.
  We want to spread hope--real scientific hope--that those who suffer 
from Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's and diabetes and other maladies 
will see a brighter, healthier day.
  So we restored the Bush-Cheney Republican cuts to the NIH and 
invested more than $600 million in medical research.
  We refused to back down and we won that fight.
  The Bush-Cheney Republican budget would have slashed access to health 
care by $600 million--leaving many of the most vulnerable Americans 
with nowhere to turn.
  But our Democratic priorities are different.
  We believe in helping the little girl with asthma, for whom the 
emergency room is a revolving door because her parents can't afford a 
doctor; or the uninsured laborer who gets injured on the job; or the 
senior citizen who suffers from arthritis.
  We gave these Americans a better chance to live healthy lives--with 
$1 billion above the President's request for programs like community 
health centers, high risk insurance pools and rural hospitals--programs 
on which hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans rely.
  We refused to back down on America's health care needs, and we won 
that fight.
  If the Bush-Cheney Republicans got their way, this budget would have 
stripped $1.2 billion from education, eliminated major student aid 
programs and cut vocational education by 50 percent.
  But Democrats have different priorities here, too.
  We believe that education is the great equalizer in America, and that 
every American child deserves the right to a quality education and the 
keys to a better future.
  We backed that commitment with major investments in Title 1, special 
education, teacher quality grants, after school programs, Head Start, 
student aid grants and technical training--all above the Bush-Cheney 
Republican request.
  Democrats refused to back down and let Republicans rob children of 
the chance to succeed, and we won that fight.
  Bush-Cheney Republicans talk tough on law enforcement, but when it 
came time to actually give our State and local law enforcement the 
tools they need to keep us safe, Bush-Cheney Republicans said no.
  Their budget cut law enforcement funds by $1.4 billion at the 
Department of Justice.
  Once again, Democrats' priorities are different. We invested $1.2 
billion more than the President's request to help our police fight 
crime.
  We refused to back down from our commitment to safer neighborhoods, 
and we won that fight.
  Bush-Cheney Republicans try hard to scare us with the threat of 
terrorism. Did their budget match their rhetoric? No.
  They cut more than $1 billion in homeland security grants for police, 
firefighters and medical personnel.
  What are our priorities? Democrats increased our commitment to 
fighting terrorism by nearly $2 billion.
  We refused to believe that at a time we are spending $12 billion a 
month in Iraq and Afghanistan, we couldn't spend an additional $2 
billion per year to fight terrorism in America.
  We won that fight, too, and America will be safer because of it.
  The same year when the Minneapolis bridge collapse tragically 
reminded us that our roads, bridges and tunnels are crumbling, Bush-
Cheney Republicans tried to strip critical infrastructure projects from 
the budget.
  Democrats refused to stand by while the President spends billions to 
build roads in Iraq, but tells us we can't do anything about our roads 
in America.
  We can do something and we did. We refused to back down and we won 
the fight for American infrastructure.
  When it came time to choose between energy independence and big oil, 
between a clean environment and the special interests, the Bush-Cheney 
Republicans chose the special interests.
  Our priorities are consumers who are spending more than ever to pay 
for gas for their cars and heat for their homes.
  We take the side of cleaner air and renewable fuels by investing in 
solar energy, wind energy, biofuels and energy efficiency.
  We stood up to Bush-Cheney Republicans, who once again turned their 
backs on science and cozied up to the major polluters.
  We won that fight, and America will be safer and cleaner because we 
did.
  I am so grateful for my Democratic colleagues in the House and 
Senate.
  We have faced a level of arbitrary stubbornness from President Bush 
and his congressional allies that no Congress has ever faced before.
  We turned a horrible budget into a budget that does some good, 
important things.
  And we did it responsibly: without raising taxes or adding anything 
to President Bush's epic pile of debt.
  Our country owes enormous gratitude to the senior Senator from West 
Virginia, Chairman Robert Byrd, for his leadership on this budget.
  Chairman Obey also did a tremendous job on this legislation.
  I would also like to acknowledge the work of Senator Cochran, who 
worked with Senator Byrd and others to move this bill through committee 
and to the floor.
  This budget includes funds to help prevent Western wildfires and 
better fight the ones that do occur.
  It includes vital education funding for Nevada's universities.
  It invests in Nevada's renewable energy.
  It provides funds for vital Nevada water projects.
  And it honors our troops and veterans with more than $340 million for 
the southern Nevada veteran's hospital.
  But let me be clear: this compromise budget could have been much, 
much better if not for Bush-Cheney Republicans' double standard on 
fiscal responsibility.
  They chose to enforce an arbitrary topline on America's priorities--
even as they continue to borrow billions to fund the endless war in 
Iraq, to support corporate cronyism, and to look the other way on 
global warming and pollution.
  Because Republicans have made these choices, the American people will 
have to keep waiting for the kind of budget they deserve.
  But because Democrats refused to back down, this budget is a step 
forward.
  The American people deserve to know that Democrats will keep taking 
step after step after step to set the right priorities and make the 
progress that our country so desperately needs.
  Mr. President, as things now stand, we have about 20 minutes of 
talking on the Republican side and we have Senator Byrd, who has less 
than 10 minutes on our side. Those are the only speeches I know of.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to require 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. That is what I was starting to say. On our side, we have 
Senator Byrd plus the manager of the bill, Senator Leahy.
  Following that, there is going to be a vote on a judge. I don't know 
how much time Senator Leahy and Senator Specter want on the judge, but 
whatever time they want, they can have it. But we will have a vote on 
the judge.

[[Page S15865]]

  Tonight, when these speeches are finished, we will have one final 
vote, a vote on the judge. We are going to be in session tomorrow. 
There will be no rollcall votes after 9, unless something untoward 
happens that Senator McConnell and I do not expect. So we will be in 
session if somebody wants to come in and give some speeches. We have 
some nominations we are trying to clear, maybe some bills from the 
House. I do not expect any heavy lifting tomorrow, at least I hope not.
  I wish to express my appreciation to everyone for their cooperation 
in getting to the point where we are. As some have heard me say before, 
usually you recognize you have something that is OK when both 
negotiators are unhappy with what they have gotten. That is what we 
have. We are not happy with how we have been pushed into doing what we 
have done. The President is not happy, as his people say he has been 
pushed into doing things he didn't want to do. We are where we are. We 
are going to be able to finish our appropriations process, and we 
should all hold our heads high in that regard.
  Again, I wish everyone a very merry Christmas, a happy New Year, and 
look forward to a productive year next year, the last of the 110th 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has been a challenging year for the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. When the 110th Congress convened in 
January 2007, only two of the annual appropriations bills had been 
enacted. Working with the chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. David Obey, Senator Cochran, and Representative Lewis, 
we immediately began work on a joint funding resolution to fund the 
Federal Government.
  We focused on funding a short list of priorities, such as adding $3.6 
billion for VA medical care; $1.6 billion for State and local law 
enforcement; $620 million for the National Institutes of Health; and 
$1.4 billion to fight AIDS and malaria in the developing world. That 
joint funding resolution was passed by the House and the Senate and 
signed into law by the President on February 15, 2007.
  Almost immediately, the committee was called back into action to 
tackle a bill to make emergency appropriations for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The committee produced a prudent and responsible bill that 
required a new course for the war in Iraq. The bill set a goal for 
having most of our troops out of Iraq by January 1, 2008. Had the 
President signed that bill, most of our troops would already be home 
preparing to celebrate the new year.
  Unfortunately, the President found that the bill did not support his 
``stay the course'' policies and vetoed that bill on May 1, 2007. The 
Appropriations Committee produced another bill, totaling $120 billion, 
unfortunately this time stripped of the important guidance on the 
future of the war. That bill was again passed by the House and Senate, 
and this time the President signed it into law on May 25, 2007.
  The committee then began its annual work of producing the regular 
appropriations bills. I am proud to say that the committee reported 12 
individual appropriations bills, many of which were reported by 
unanimous, bipartisan votes. The bills that were considered on the 
floor of the Senate received broad, bipartisan support, and each 
received the affirmative vote of more than 75 Senators. And finally, 
the, committee--working on a bipartisan, bicameral basis--produced the 
complex legislation, which is now before the Senate.
  My reason for detailing the work of the Appropriations Committee this 
year is simple: I wish to convey my personal appreciation for all of 
the work and cooperation of the committee's ranking member, Senator 
Cochran, who has time and again used his skill and experience to bring 
credit upon himself, the committee, and the Senate as a whole.
  I also wish to commend the chairmen and ranking members of each of 
the 12 subcommittees. It is through their knowledge and leadership that 
the committee is able to craft the individual appropriations bills. It 
is to their great credit that the committee was able to rise to the 
many challenges presented this year.
  I wish to express my gratitude to the staff of the Appropriations 
Committee. They are dedicated public servants: professional, expert, 
and diligent. The committee is extremely fortunate to have their 
services, and I thank them for all the many hours they have devoted to 
performing their duties.
  And finally, I send to my colleague, Senator Cochran, each member of 
the Appropriations Committee, and all of the staff, my warmest wishes 
for a safe and joyous Christmas in the spirit of the old-Time 
Christmases and a very happy New Year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not know where the time is. I do 
not to want to interfere. I want 2 minutes before they are finished. 
Thank you.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation on 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 50 minutes remaining on the majority 
side and 1 hour on the minority side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Georgia rising. Do 
you wish to speak?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, I do have a statement I want to make, followed by 
Senator Isakson.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator is willing to wait for a few minutes?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Surely.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia. In a few weeks, I will have served with him for 33 
years. Now, in Robert C. Byrd time, 33 years is but a moment. In 
Patrick J. Leahy's time, it is a wee bit of time. But I remember coming 
here as a 34-year-old Senator--Senator Byrd was the majority whip at 
the time--and how much he taught me, and his colleague, the leader, 
Mike Mansfield, and then later when he was our leader, and, of course, 
sat on Appropriations. He has been my leader for all of those years. I 
appreciate his help.
  His late wife Erma was a very special friend of my wife's and mine, 
and I hope he does not mind me mentioning her at this time. I always 
thought when she and my wife Marcelle would meet at the grocery store 
that perhaps Bob and I were at a lower level. It went to a higher level 
when it was not Senator Byrd and Senator Leahy. But it was Marcelle and 
Erma talking about Bob and Patrick, and what should we do to take care 
of those folks. Well, Robert C. Byrd has taken care of all of us these 
years. It has been a privilege to serve on the Appropriations Committee 
with him. It is especially nice, because one of the closest friends I 
have in the Senate, Thad Cochran, has been both chairman and ranking 
member of that committee, and those of us who have been here for over a 
third of a century, as I have, know the majority and minority goes back 
and forth.
  The thing that does not go back and forth is the friendships we have 
across the aisles. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows that his 
father and I were very close friends and served together. His mother 
and my wife were close friends. Those kinds of friendships go on 
through the years and through the decades.
  We have spoken of the Senate as being a family. Indeed it is. It is 
probably a family that wants to go home and go to bed, so I will not 
push this much longer. But I think how important it is that we do have 
these chances to be together. So I applaud Senator Byrd, I applaud 
Senator Cochran, and their staffs.
  Because this is the Foreign Operations Bill we are on, I want to 
mention my own staff: Tim Rieser, Kate Eltrich, Nikole Manatt, who 
handle the Appropriations subcommittee for me, and the various other 
matters they are involved in here; J.P. Dowd, my legislative director; 
Ed Pagano, my chief of staff; Bruce Cohen, who is always listed as one 
of the 50 most important people here in the Senate--I get listed as an 
asterisk--because of what he does to make sure the Judiciary matters 
are kept here; Jessica Berry and so many others who keep this thing 
going.
  I said to Senator Reid, our distinguished leader, we Senators are but 
mere constitutional impediments to our staffs. We know they are the 
ones who run it. Roscoe Jones of my staff was here, probably never 
heard me say that. He is trying desperately to keep a straight face, 
but it is a fact.
  We have included within this money for DNA funding $4.8 million for 
the Kirk Bloodsworth post-conviction DNA testing grants, and $147 
million for the Debbie Smith DNA backlog grants.
  I am privileged to know both Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie Smith.

[[Page S15866]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that we included 
funding in the appropriations package for landmark programs created by 
the Justice For All Act of 2004. Specifically, we provide $2.5 million 
for Capital Litigation Improvement Grants to improve the quality of 
legal representation in State capital cases, and over $152 million to 
improve Federal and State DNA collection and analysis systems critical 
to the prosecution of the guilty and the protection of the innocent 
from wrongful prosecution.
  The Justice For All Act capped more than 4 years of effort by a 
bipartisan House and Senate coalition that included both supporters and 
opponents of the death penalty. It is the most significant step we have 
taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country 
and restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice 
system.
  That law increased Federal resources for combating crimes with DNA 
technology, established safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and 
executions, and enhanced protections for victims of Federal crimes.
  It authorized the Debbie Smith grant program to address the DNA 
backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs, and created new grant 
programs to reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal 
justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote 
the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. It also 
established enhanced and enforceable rights for crime victims in the 
Federal criminal justice system.
  The law also included legislation I authored called the Innocence 
Protection Act. That measure provides access to postconviction DNA 
testing in Federal cases, helps States improve the quality of legal 
representation in capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal 
cases of wrongful conviction. It established the Kirk Bloodsworth 
PostConviction DNA Testing Program to help States defray the costs of 
postconviction DNA testing.
  Getting the Justice For All Act fully-funded has proven to be tough, 
especially given the fiscal crunch that all criminal justice programs 
have faced in recent years. However, as a senior member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee that sets the Justice Department budget, I 
have worked closely with CJS Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member 
Shelby to include in the omnibus package roughly $155 million to 
advance the comprehensive and far-reaching reforms in the criminal 
justice system established under the Justice For All Act. I thank my 
colleagues for their leadership in this area.
  State and local authorities will be better able to implement and 
enforce crime victims' rights laws, including Federal victim and 
witness assistance programs. They can apply for grants to develop and 
implement victim notification systems so that they can share 
information on criminal proceedings in a timely and efficient manner.
  The intent of the Justice For All Act was to create a fairer and more 
accurate system of justice for all Americans. The spending priorities 
set forth in the Justice Department portion of the fiscal year 2008 
Omnibus appropriations package will help protect crime victims, 
maximize the use of forensic DNA evidence testing, and provide 
safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions.
  I note that this bill is the product of more than 9 months of work by 
the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. It meets the 
President's arbitrary budget ceiling, but because of the arbitrary 
ceiling, we have had to cut a number of things. Senator Gregg, 
Congresswoman Lowey, Congressman Wolf, and I worked on that to agree to 
the numbers so that the foreign ops part is not a Democratic bill or a 
Republican bill, it is a bipartisan bill that attempts to address a 
myriad of foreign policy, national security, and domestic needs of this 
country.
  Other subcommittees worked just as hard and in a similar bipartisan 
manner. None of us are completely happy with the outcome. We had to 
make exceedingly difficult cuts to get to the President's number. But 
that is the nature of this process.
  It is ironic that a President who said he would veto this bill unless 
it was within his self-proclaimed budget ceiling because he wants to 
keep a lid on spending, is asking Congress for another $70 billion in 
emergency funding to continue the war in Iraq.
  Those dollars do not score against the budget, so the White House can 
espouse the fiction that the President is being fiscally responsible at 
the same time that he piles on the debt for future generations.
  Of course, he never threatened to veto any of the appropriations 
conference reports during the past 6 years.
  It is a political ploy after inheriting a balanced budget and 
tripling the national debt, but it is going to be hard felt by the 
American people. Cuts in funding for education, health care, public 
infrastructure, homeland security, environmental protection, 
transportation--no part of the federal budget was exempted except 
defense.
  The State and Foreign Operations portion of the bill is $2 billion 
below the President's budget. A full $1.3 billion of that cut was the 
result of the President's veto threat.
  It means fewer children will receive vaccinations in the poorest 
countries, less money for international peacekeeping, less for HIV/AIDS 
prevention, care and treatment, less for non-proliferation and anti-
terrorism programs, less for disaster relief, less for education, 
environment, energy and agriculture programs.
  But, if the President gets his way, there will be tens of billions of 
dollars more to keep our troops bogged down in Iraq, while the Iraqi 
Sunnis and Shiites continue to fight among themselves.
  Despite that, this omnibus bill is a far, far better outcome than 
continued spending at the fiscal year 2007 levels, and the dire 
consequences that would bring.
  The State and Foreign Operations portion totals $35.1 billion in 
discretionary budget authority including $2.4 billion in emergency 
spending.
  Without emergency spending, the bill totals $32.8 billion, which is 
$2 billion below the President's regular fiscal year 2008 request and 
$1.52 billion above the fiscal year 2007 level.
  Here are some of the highlights:
  We provide $6.5 billion for global health programs, including $345 
million to combat malaria, $150 million for tuberculosis, and $5 
billion for HIV/AIDS.
  We provide $546 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis and Malaria. Added to funds in the Labor, Health and Human 
Services bill, this omnibus bill provides a total of $841 million for 
the Global Fund, an increase of $115 million above last year's level.
  It includes $446 million for child and maternal health, which is 
almost $100 million above last year's level.
  We provide $1.69 billion for United Nations peacekeeping, $550 of 
which will support the desperately needed UN-African Union force in 
Darfur.
  The bill provides $1 billion to assist the world's refugees, and $100 
million to help Jordan cope with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi 
refugees that have flooded that country, which is already home to tens 
of thousands of Palestinians.
  The bill provides the requested funds for Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, 
Afghanistan, the West Bank, Lebanon, and other needy countries.
  It provides $1.54 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 
which is $344 million above the Senate-passed level.
  It provides $501 million for Educational and Cultural Exchange 
Programs, an increase of $55 million above the fiscal year 2007 level.
  The bill does not include the so-called Mexico City language 
concerning international family planning which would have led to a 
Presidential veto. It is regrettable that the President would rather 
score political points than support private organizations that would 
use our funds for voluntary family planning services.
  The bill provides $968 million for embassy security, which is $190 
million above the fiscal year 2007 level.
  There are several other important provisions in the State and Foreign 
Operations portion of this omnibus bill.
  One would make long overdue reforms to current law by allowing 
thousands of persecuted refugees, barred because they were members of 
armed groups that were allied with the U.S., or who were forced to 
offer food, shelter or other services to terrorist groups, to seek 
asylum here.

[[Page S15867]]

  This change was worked out by myself and Senator Kyl, and would 
provide relief to such Vietnam-era allies as the Hmong tribesman of 
Laos and the Montagnards of Vietnam, and for child soldiers and others 
who were forced against their will to provide support to terrorist 
groups.
  These people were there for us when we needed them, and we should not 
turn our backs when they need the safety of our shores. It is an 
affront to our values and to our reputation as a safe haven for victims 
of persecution.
  The changes we are making will also provide relief for Iraqi 
refugees, some of whom have been barred for paying ransom to secure the 
release of a family member who was kidnapped by insurgents.
  This change will not raise the number of refugees admitted to the 
United States, but it will bring our laws back in line with our values.
  This bill contains other provisions, some proposed by Democrats, some 
by Republicans, which make important improvements in our foreign 
assistance programs.
  We provide $300 million for safe drinking water and sanitation 
programs, consistent with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor 
Act.
  There are funds set aside for reconciliation and people-to-people 
coexistence programs in the Middle East, as well as in other countries 
divided by ethnic, religious, or political conflict.
  There are new provisions which address the problem of corruption and 
governance in countries that receive U.S. assistance.
  There are new provisions to improve monitoring of U.S. military aid 
to countries that have human rights problems, and to address the 
problem of child soldiers.
  Mr. President, these are only a few of the items supported by both 
Democrats and Republicans in this omnibus bill, and they are only 
within the State and Foreign Operations portion.
  There are thousands of other important domestic programs funded by 
each of the other subcommittees whose bills make up this omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  Lastly, I wish the American public realized how much Senators on both 
sides of the aisle work together. I wish the American public realized 
the number of friendships there are on both sides of the aisle, both 
among the Senators and their families. Are we going to pass a perfect 
bill here? No. Am I opposed to the blank check for Iraq? Yes.
  We have been in Iraq longer than we were engaged in World War II. It 
is time to let our brave men and women come home to their families. I 
believe that from the bottom of my soul. The opposition I have to this 
bill is because of that.
  I know how proud I was when my youngest son, LCpl Mark Patrick Leahy 
of the Marine Corps, was one to answer the call in Desert Storm, as 
much as I feared for his safety, and how pleased I was that war ended 
so quickly, that he was not in harm's way.
  I also worry that that is not something parents can say when they see 
parents and wives and husbands, children and brothers and sisters when 
they see their family members in a war that has lasted longer than 
World War II. It is time to say: Come home, America. Come home, 
America, and face the problems in our country. Let the Iraqis now face 
their problems. Let them stand at the plate. Let us address the fact 
that we have so many unanswered problems in health and science, in 
addressing our myriad diseases, education, infrastructure, and 
everything else in this country.
  One thing I must say is that is in this bill, Senator Stevens and I 
changed the so-called WHTI provision in the omnibus. It shows some 
realities across the border into Canada and vice versa. There are those 
of us who think of Canada as that great country to the North. There are 
some of us who have family ties in Canada, some of us who feel that 
Canada is not a threat to the United States and we should not treat it 
as such.
  Mr. President, one important issue I wish to highlight today is an 
international border issue with our friendly neighbors in Canada, 
Mexico, and the Caribbean that could have severe implications for the 
social and economic ways of life for communities all across our 
country.
  In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress has 
enacted a number of new border security measures, all with the 
expressed goal of preventing another terrorist incident. In this bill, 
we have worked hard to provide the needed resources for these programs 
in a fair and balanced manner. Post 9/11, everyone recognizes that 
there are potential threats and security needs, but we must implement 
them sensibly and intelligently.
  Over the past few years, I have heard from many Vermonters about 
problems they have encountered at U.S. border crossings, from long 
traffic backups to invasive searches and questioning to inadequate 
communication from Federal authorities about new facilities and 
procedures. Such a top-down approach does not work well in interwoven 
communities along the border, where people cross daily from one side to 
the other for jobs, shopping, and cultural events. We have hardened 
security around this Capitol and the White House and built fences near 
San Diego. But those procedures do not work on Canusa Avenue in Beebe 
Plain, a two-lane road where one side of the street is Vermont and the 
other side is Quebec, or at the Haskell Free Library and Opera House, 
which straddles the international border in Derby Line, Vermont, and 
Stanstead, Quebec.
  That is why I am pleased that this bill includes a much-needed delay 
for full implementation of the so-called Western Hemisphere Travel 
Initiative, which will require individuals from the United States, 
Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean to present passports or other 
documents proving citizenship before entering the United States. I was 
pleased to join with Senator Stevens and many other colleagues from 
both bodies in pushing for inclusion of this important provision 
because it is clear that the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of State are not ready for a full rollout of the new 
passport checks next summer.
  Muddled thinking, poor planning, and administrative hubris have 
plagued implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The 
Department of Homeland Security has rushed to implement the new 
passport checks before the necessary technology, infrastructure and 
training are in place at our border stations. If these critical 
features of the deployment are not in place when the new program 
starts, we will see severe delays at our border and law-abiding 
citizens from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean will 
have great difficulty moving between our countries. Most importantly, a 
hasty implementation will undermine the intended goals of the program.
  The massive backlogs in processing passport applications we saw 
earlier this year when the Departments of Homeland Security and State 
started to require passports for air travel is just a taste of the 
chaos that is likely when they start enforcing citizenship checks at 
our Nation's land and sea borders in January. There is another train 
wreck on the horizon if these Federal agencies continue pushing forward 
with full implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 
before the necessary policies and procedures are in place to handle the 
surge in applications and the lengthy border crossing delays that are 
sure to come.
  I appreciate the recognition by this Congress that premature 
implementation will recklessly risk the travel plans of millions of 
Americans and the economies of scores of U.S. States and communities. 
The Departments of Homeland Security and State have shown that they 
need more time to establish a set of rules and procedures that will do 
more than just shut our borders down to legitimate travel and trade.
  Mr. President, there is one item that was in the Senate passed 
version of H.R. 2764, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations 
bill, that the conferees agreed to address in the explanatory statement 
accompanying the amended bill that is Division J of the omnibus bill, 
relating to Uganda.
  That language directs the Secretary of State to submit a report 
within 90 days detailing a strategy for substantially enhancing United 
States efforts to resolve the conflict between the Lord's Resistance 
Army and the Government of Uganda. The language specifies certain 
issues to be addressed in the strategy. It also indicates that

[[Page S15868]]

$5 million is provided to implement the strategy.
  Due to an oversight, the $5 million was omitted from the funding 
table in the explanatory statement under the Economic Support Fund 
heading. However, it is the intent of the conferees that this amount in 
unallocated Economic Support Fund assistance be made available for this 
purpose.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Georgia is 
about to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues have 
become involved in issues in their States stemming from a shortage of 
water over the years. Sometimes these issues are intrastate, sometimes 
they are interstate. Regardless of the size or scope, they always get 
very complicated quickly.
  The water wars between Georgia, Florida, and Alabama that have been 
going on for decades are no different in that regard. They too get very 
complicated very quickly. There are decades of negotiations, 
agreements, lawsuits and settlements, and the Governors of the three 
States are still attempting in good faith to come to a resolution. In 
fact, those three Governors met in Tallahassee, FL, yesterday, along 
with Secretary Kempthorne, to create a roadmap forward on this very 
complicated issue.
  There is language included in this Omnibus appropriations bill that 
does not resolve the very complex problems that the three States 
continue to deal with, the allocation of water among them. Rather, the 
language in this bill seeks to, one, insert Congress into the middle of 
an ongoing dispute and attempts to pick winners and losers in that 
dispute; two, it attempts to limit the ability of the Corps of 
Engineers to provide complete and accurate technical data to make 
recommendations to the States involved in the dispute; and, three, 
prohibits the Corps of Engineers from completing the process of 
updating water control manuals, which they have begun to do on one 
basin, and which they are required to do by statute and their own 
regulations.
  I object strongly to the language regarding this issue included in 
this bill. The Army Corps of Engineers operates a number of different 
reservoirs across river systems around the country. Normally they 
conduct their operations under a water control plan, which is a plan 
that identifies the objectives for managing the system; basically, the 
release and retention of water for different needs, such as navigation, 
water supply, hydropower production, recreation, as well as other 
needs.
  The water control plan is the manual by which the Corps of Engineers 
manages the river systems, and they do so within the confines of water 
allocations set for each State.
  Now water can be allocated among States in one of three ways: 
interstate water compacts, direct congressional appointments, or 
equitable apportionment by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Obviously, interstate water compacts are the preferred method for 
allocating water, because they allow the States, which are the most 
knowledgeable about their own water resources and needs for water, to 
do the apportioning. That is what the Governors of Georgia, Alabama, 
and Florida are currently trying to do.
  The State of Georgia shares the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint 
River Basin with Alabama and Florida. Georgia also shares the Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin with Alabama. After 17 years of 
litigation, the Governors of these three States are finally at the 
negotiating table finding a way forward on this very difficult issue.
  I commend them for doing so during these exacerbating drought 
conditions we are now experiencing. It is always harder to discuss 
sharing water when there is less of it to go around. So during this 
time of progress, it is mind boggling to see this language in the 
omnibus bill intended to block that progress. It is a blatant dilatory 
tactic. I am disappointed it is included in this bill. I am 
disappointed for several reasons.
  First, this is not an issue into which Congress should be inserting 
itself. The Corps of Engineers is required by Federal statute and their 
own regulations to operate the reservoirs with up-to-date water control 
manuals. However, for the ACF basin, the only approved water manual was 
prepared in 1958 and does not even include the Federal facilities at 
West Point, Walter F. George, or George W. Andrews.
  The process of updating the manuals has been on hold for almost 20 
years as litigation between the States has been ongoing. However, last 
year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that 
the Corps of Engineers proceed with its NEPA studies, which is the 
necessary first step in updating the water control manuals. The court 
ordered it be done as expeditiously as possible.
  Apart from the fact that Congress should not be inserting itself in 
this issue, apart from the fact that everyone knows updated water 
control manuals are required by law, have been ordered by a Federal 
court and are beneficial to all parties, I am also disappointed to see 
this language because of the process by which it got into this bill.
  This language was not in the House-passed version of the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill. And, in fact, the only instance in which the 
House has considered this issue was last year during the debate on the 
fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill. Similar language 
was removed from that legislation by a House vote of 216 to 201. So 
this language was not in the House-passed bill.
  The full Senate did not even debate the fiscal year 2008 Energy and 
Water appropriations bill. Only the Senate Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee approved this language. It has now been 
included in this omnibus bill. That simply is not right.
  Finally, let me say that I noted with interest the fact that last 
week, seven States in the western part of the United States signed a 
historic water-sharing agreement.
  I congratulate those from Utah, Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming who worked on this issue and were able 
to complete what I am sure was a very difficult process. It gives those 
of us in the Southeast hope for that light at the end of the tunnel, 
hope that we, too, can reach agreement one day. I ask my colleagues to 
consider for a moment that if during the midst of progress on that 
historic water agreement a Member of the Senate attempted to use the 
appropriations process to prevent the Corps of Engineers from 
implementing the most up-to-date information in the management of the 
water that crosses those States. I hope those colleagues would consider 
the negative impact that would have on the process in which their 
States were engaged.
  I read very carefully the language my colleague from Alabama inserted 
into this omnibus bill. I can only take solace in the fact that at 
least the language allows the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
process of updating the water control manuals, even though it seems to 
prevent them from actually implementing those manuals, whatever 
recommendations come out of those manuals. We all know updating water 
control manuals is a 2-year process. You can rest assured that we will 
revisit this issue and rest assured when the time comes, I will do 
everything in my power to make sure these critical updated manuals are 
actually implemented. I think at the end of the day my colleague from 
Alabama will discover that updated water control manuals will benefit 
all parties involved in the difficult negotiations of water allocation 
among the three States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I associate myself entirely with the 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Georgia. Secondly, I express 
my appreciation to Senator Reid for his attempt when this was 
discovered to allow us a chance to debate the merits of the proposal in 
division C of section 134 of the Omnibus appropriations act. 
Unfortunately, that could not be done. Senator Chambliss and I are left 
with expressing our deep disappointment on the floor of the Senate 
tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the complete article 
of a December 18, 2007, front-page article from the Marietta Daily 
Journal entitled ``Drought Talks to Speed Up.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S15869]]

                   [From the Marietta Daily Journal, 
                             Dec. 18, 2007]

                       Drought Talks To Speed Up

                            (By David Royse)

       Tallahassee, Fla.--The governors of three drought-stricken 
     Southeastern states agreed Monday to speed up talks on 
     sharing water during scarcities, hoping to end a nearly 18-
     year fight over the issue by March.
       The governors of Florida, Alabama and Georgia and federal 
     officials also agreed not to reduce for now the minimum 
     amount of water that will flow into the Apalachicola River, 
     which feeds a major oyster breeding ground in the Florida 
     Panhandle. That eases the minds of some fishermen and Florida 
     officials--they had feared the flow could be further reduced 
     to meet drinking water needs in Atlanta. Florida's Charlie 
     Crist, Georgia's Sonny Purdue and Alabama's Bob Riley said 
     they agreed that their staffs will continue to work together 
     to come up with a plan for dolling out the region's water by 
     March 15.
       That was hopeful news to fishermen along the Panhandle Gulf 
     Coast, who were looking at the prospect of water flows 
     remaining lower than they say they can tolerate until June 1, 
     when an interim agreement on flow levels originally had been 
     set to expire. Now, there's a possibility of agreeing on 
     raising the amount of water coming into Florida earlier.
       ``We're cautiously optimistic,'' said Kevin Begos, the 
     director of the Franklin County Oyster & Seafood Task Force.
       U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, who also 
     participated, said he was pleased the governors have agreed 
     to try to end the states' nearly two decades of disagreement 
     on the issue as early as this spring.
       ``This was real. It was meaningful,'' Kempthorne said. 
     ``The atmosphere today reinvigorates me that we can get this 
     done.''
       One of the worst droughts in years in the Southeast has 
     created a sense of urgency, all three governors acknowledged.
       ``We're talking about solving something we've been working 
     on for 18 years within the next two months,'' Riley said.
       The fast-growing Atlanta area gets most of its water from 
     Lake Lanier, at the head of the river basin shared by the 
     states. But drawing more water from the lake means less for 
     downstream uses in Alabama and Florida.
       Alabama is concerned about water for the Joseph M. Farley 
     Nuclear Plant, near Dothan.
       Florida is concerned about freshwater flowing into 
     Apalachicola Bay, a prime shellfish producing area, that 
     produces about 1 in 10 of the oysters eaten in the country.
       The amount of freshwater flowing through the Apalachicola-
     Chathoochee-Flint river system into the Gulf at the mouth of 
     the Apalachicola River has been reduced to near historic 
     lows, threatening the fishing industry there.
       The flow increased in recent days because of a downpour 
     over the weekend, but it had been reduced to a level that 
     fishermen had said wouldn't sustain their industry. Making 
     them more nervous, U.S. Corps of Engineers officials had said 
     they might reduce the flow further. And it wasn't likely to 
     be renegotiated until June 1.
       At a Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority meeting on 
     Monday, authority General Manager Glenn Page said that for 
     the first time since May, the level of Lake Allatoona 
     increased.
       At full pool, Lake Allatoona is 840 feet above sea level. 
     Page said the lake on Monday was at 819.15 feet, about 5.5 
     feet below average for this time of year. On Friday, the lake 
     level was 818.88 feet.
       But fishermen have said that to keep the low amount of 
     water going into the bay through the spring spawning season 
     would devastate the industry.
       Crist said he understands the needs of the bay's fishermen 
     and oystermen, who complained in a recent meeting that the 
     river mouth and bay are already so salty that oysters can't 
     survive. Speeding up the timeline could mean earlier relief.
       ``Florida's oyster industry faces an uncertain spring, due 
     to the current drought,'' Crist said. ``Spawning season is 
     critical to our northwest Florida economy.''
       Crist also hinted that Georgia might need to increase its 
     conservation--noting Florida has made moves to cut use since 
     the drought began.
       ``We all share the difficulties of the current drought--all 
     three of our states must provide for comprehensive water 
     conservation efforts,'' Crist said.
       None of the governors, however, would talk specifics about 
     where their chief remaining obstacles lie.
       Water flows into the bay are also a concern for 
     environmentalists, who worry about the effect of less water 
     on other species besides oysters.
       The endangered Gulf sturgeon, and two species of mussel, 
     the fat threeridge and the threatened purple bankclimber, are 
     also imperiled by lower flows.
       In early December, authorities said there was less than 
     four months of available water left in Lake Lanier. Perdue 
     said recent reductions in flow that Florida opposed have 
     aided in raising the lake's level.
       ``The flow reductions have helped, the ability to recover 
     some of the rainfall and store that has helped,'' Perdue 
     said. ``But we've got to have a protocol that determines how 
     we're going to share in times of scarcity, and that's what 
     we're all trying to figure out.''
       Just last week, Florida water managers approved 
     restrictions on water use in the southern part of the state. 
     Starting early next year, outside watering will only be 
     allowed once a week from Orlando south to the Keys.
       The meeting also follows a major agreement signed last week 
     that will allow seven western states to conserve and share 
     Colorado River water, ending a divisive battle among those 
     states.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I would like to read one sentence from that article: 
Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, and 
Alabama's Bob Riley said ``that their staffs will continue to work 
together to come up with a plan for doling out the region's water by 
March 15.''
  That common goal stated by those three Governors today in Florida 
puts us within less than 90 days' reach of what has been out of the 
grasp of the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for 18 years, 
since 1989. At the last minute, because of a broken process for an 
Omnibus appropriations bill to contain legislation that directs, 
potentially limits, or sets the parameters by which the Corps of 
Engineers might be able to implement control of the waterways is just 
not right. It is my sincere hope at some time in the future those who 
might have thought this was a good idea will recognize it is actually 
contrary to what we in the Senate from the three States have attempted 
to do when we had a summit in Washington less than 2 months ago with 
our three Governors and the Secretary of the Interior.
  There is no more precious gift than water, no better and more 
precious resource than water. There also is nothing better in the 
legislative process than a spirit of cooperation between each of us who 
shares borders in our States so as to find the right way to solve 
problems, not have dilatory tactics to postpone or delay problems.
  I conclude by expressing my deep disappointment that the Omnibus 
appropriations bill contains division C, section 134, which has those 
potentially limiting factors and urge my colleagues to look to the 
future to find solutions, rather than a way to protract and delay and 
find confusion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to say to the two Senators who 
have just spoken, this Senator from New Mexico is ranking member of 
that committee. I am not chairman any longer of the committee they have 
alluded to. I can assure them that it was not overt action on this 
Senator's part that put that provision in the bill. I think you know 
that. We would be talking; I am pretty accessible. You two have already 
been telling me. I am hopeful that my presence on that committee will 
be of help to you in resolving whatever problems might be caused by its 
being there. Having said that, I want to make a comment. If it takes me 
an extra minute, I ask for an extra minute at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I come to the floor as I embark upon my last year as a 
Senator after 35 years. Tonight, today, this week, this month reminds 
me of something. It reminds me that it is time for the Senate to have a 
serious debate on whether we should be doing appropriations every year 
and doing a budget resolution every year or whether it is time for the 
Senate to do that on a 2-year basis, as many States do, and as we 
certainly could do, taking the first year for appropriations and 
budgeting and the second year of the bi-cycle with no appropriations 
other than emergency supplementals or whatever we define. I believe it 
will work. I believe it will work because it is better than what we 
have. I also believe things are so bad in terms of not being able to 
get our work done and ending up with appropriations like this.
  As good as they are, as hard as people work, everybody knows it is 
not the way to do business. We have done it. Democrats have done it. I 
lay blame on no party. I merely say the Senate can't sleepwalk through 
this for much longer. This is a huge problem with a simple solution. 
The solution will be a little one that will address a huge problem. 
Plain and simple, the legislation is drawn, committees have had 
hearings, a 2-year cycle for the processes of budgeting and 
appropriations. I hope those who have come up to me in the

[[Page S15870]]

last week will follow through. I hope the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget, who has indicated he is going to look carefully and study 
thoroughly, will do that quickly.
  I would like to join with those early on next year in seeing what we 
can do to better a process that has served us well but, clearly, at 
this point in history, considering the size of government, how often 
government must produce budgets, how wasteful that is, all the other 
things that go with it, I would hope we might make some giant move in 
the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am advised that there are between both 
sides nearly an hour and a half left to debate. My colleagues have been 
asking when we might vote on this and on the judge who is also to be 
voted on. If my friends on the other side are willing to yield back all 
their time, I am willing to yield back all time on this side and go to 
a vote on this measure. I am not trying to cut off anybody from their 
long speeches. But if they are willing to do that, we could save an 
hour and a half, yield back time on both sides, and then yield back 
everything but 1 minute per side on the judicial nomination and go 
straight to a vote on that. Do I hear any takers?
  I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both the 
Republican and Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY. You want to stay here for the next hour and a half and 
vote and the next hour or so for the judge and vote.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield? I think there are a few of us who 
would like to make comments on the omnibus, but I don't think we are 
going to use all of our time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I recommend that the Senators, for those who wish to go 
home, may want to make speeches after the vote. If they would like to 
make them before, of course. If they would like to make them before, 
they have that absolute right, and we would not yield back any time.
  Mr. DeMINT. That is my preference, to make some comments.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I will not yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, hopefully, we can cut the time short. We 
insist on some comments about this bill because it is probably the 
largest bill that has ever passed in the Senate. It is sitting in front 
of me tonight. It amazes me we are willing to take this lightly. This 
is the bill we are getting ready to vote on, probably the biggest 
spending bill that has ever passed in the Senate. It was received 
yesterday. Normally it is a courtesy in the Senate that the bills we 
are debating are placed on every Senator's desk so that we can at least 
have the pretense that we have looked at them. But you will notice that 
this bill is not on any desk in the Chamber because there is not one 
single Senator here tonight who can say they have read this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DeMINT. No, sir, I am going to make my statement. I know we are 
all tired and ready to go home. I do appreciate the work of my 
colleagues. I wish them all a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful time 
with their families. But this is the last bill of the year. It is not 
just any bill. We began the year, all of us, very hopeful. Oftentimes a 
change is helpful as we rethink how we do things. In fact, I began this 
year introducing one of Speaker Pelosi's bills that provided more 
transparency to earmarks that I thought was better than ours. I 
introduced it on the Senate side. But, unfortunately, as we have gone 
through the year, we haven't been able to get our work done.
  We like to say we are the world's greatest deliberative body. I have 
to ask my colleagues tonight, on the largest bill we have ever 
considered, the most expensive bill we have ever considered, what 
deliberation?
  We don't even know what is in this bill. We haven't had any real 
debate. We are going to try to cut it off in an hour or so. This is a 
couple of times bigger than the Bible. It is bigger than Webster's 
Dictionary. It has some of the most important provisions to direct our 
country over the next year that we could possibly consider. We don't 
even have a desk copy.
  I would like to make a few things clear about this bill. This does 
not include the Iraq and Afghanistan money. We voted on that 
separately. It is done. It is going to go back to the House. A vote 
against this bill is not a vote against our troops, but it is a vote 
against how this has been done and the mismanagement that has occurred. 
To bring this much spending and this many provisions, 3,400 pages plus 
in 24 hours, and ask us to vote on it is irresponsible.
  There should be no confusion tonight. We are not going to vote on the 
Iraq funding, which we passed. I am here to encourage my colleagues to 
consider for many reasons voting against this omnibus spending bill. I 
am afraid it is indicative of the way we have run this year, as we look 
at this big bill sitting in front of us.
  I am afraid the new majority has attempted to cater to so many 
special interests with so many diverse interests that we have really 
become dysfunctional and have not been able to get our work done. They 
cannot really support the funding of the troops or they will irritate 
the antiwar left. They cannot vote for fiscal responsibility or they 
will irritate the special interest lobbyists who need a lot of the 
special projects and earmarks in this bill.
  So instead, we have come up with this arcane procedural process. This 
is not really a bill; it is some form of message. And we are going to 
pass it separately so that we can have it both ways and no one can be 
blamed for the mismanagement. But there should be no mistake. Nancy 
Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid is the Senate 
majority leader. The Democrats are in charge of Congress. This is their 
process. It is their bill. And I am afraid, my colleagues, it is a 
disgrace.
  This is the bill. As I have said, it might be the largest bill in the 
Nation's history. It is the most expensive bill in America's history--
3,400 pages-plus; 24 hours to consider its contents. It took over 6 
hours just to print this out. There is one copy in the cloakroom on 
both sides. We have not even read it. It contains over 9,000 earmarks. 
If we can see this chart over this large stack of legislation: 9,100 
earmarks, plus the 2,100 that have already been passed.
  If you remember, a lot of the culture of corruption we talked about 
at the beginning of this year was attributed to the earmarks--trading 
earmarks for bribes and earmarks for campaign contributions. The new 
majority promised the American people, with my support, that we would 
reduce the number of earmarks significantly.
  One of the last acts of the Republican majority was to stop the big 
omnibus last year and to force a continuing resolution where the result 
was only 2,600 earmarks.
  Those who say this large number of earmarks has always been a part of 
the Senate do not know our history. All you have to do is go back to 
1995: 1,400 earmarks. If you go back past then, there were fewer than 
that.
  This is not a constitutional function. It has not been part of the 
history of the Senate. This growth in earmarks is a perversion of the 
purpose of this Congress, where we have changed our focus from national 
interests, the future of this country, to parochial, special interests 
that we work on every year and hardly even talk about those issues that 
challenge our Nation--such as a Tax Code that is sending jobs overseas; 
entitlement programs, where we do not have a clue how we are going to 
pay for them; health care, when people cannot receive it in our 
country. We are fighting over bike paths and museums and little special 
projects all year long.
  This year, with the new majority, we are back up to the second 
highest level in history of the number of earmarks, special project 
earmarks, that we are supporting in this bill right here, and we do not 
even know everything that is in it as yet. It contains at least $20 
billion in budget gimmicks and so-called emergency spending. I could go 
down the list. It would put a lot of people to sleep. There are a 
number of ridiculous provisions that we are just finding.

[[Page S15871]]

  The serious debate over immigration came down to at least one 
starting solution: that we are going to secure our borders. We voted 
the money to build fence and barriers on our borders. But this bill 
changes what we have already passed. It allows for only a single-layer 
fence and takes out the requirement for the location of the fence in 
States, that the money cannot be released until 15 new requirements 
authored by the Appropriations Committee are satisfied. It is just 
designed to delay what the American people made clear to us earlier in 
the year. They want us to have a country with secure borders. This bill 
changes that. It also provides $10 million to pay for lawyers for 
illegal aliens.
  The English requirement. The Senate passed language earlier in the 
year to ensure that employers are not subjected to Government-funded 
lawsuits if they require English in the workplace. This bill takes that 
protection away from employers and exposes them to lawsuits because 
they need English spoken in the workplace.
  Sanctuary cities. The prohibition against sanctuary cities was taken 
out.
  There are special earmarks for the AFL-CIO, a number of others.
  We could go down the list. Again, we are just starting to find out 
what is in the bill. I know very few Senators here tonight know what is 
really in it.
  The organizations that are watching this Congress to try to identify 
waste are going to be key voting this tonight. I think my colleagues 
know they consider that a very serious issue. The Citizens Against 
Government Waste are saying vote no. The Club for Growth says vote no. 
The American Conservative Union says vote no. The Americans for 
Prosperity: No. Americans for Tax Reform: No. National Taxpayers Union. 
We can continue to go down the list. All the organizations that 
downloaded this off the Web last night and began looking through it 
within an hour or two found things that made it unacceptable.
  It is an unacceptable bill, and it should not be part of the world's 
greatest deliberative body tonight. But I think we agreed--I think the 
American people asked the new majority to end business as usual. I hope 
we can do that tonight. I hope we can give the American taxpayers a 
real Christmas present and stop wasting their money, stop breaking the 
promises. While we are making all the new promises in here, we are not 
making provisions to keep the promises we make.
  I know most of my colleagues believe this is not the way we should be 
running the Senate and that they would like for there to be a better 
way. We do not have to vote against the troops to vote against this 
bill. I would encourage my Democratic colleagues, many of them who have 
stood with us this year on earmark reform, that is one reason alone to 
vote against this bill: the policy changes, the moving more money to 
Planned Parenthood, the compromising of our border security. The list 
is getting longer and longer, and we are not even a quarter of the way 
down the bill yet.
  I encourage my colleagues to join the American people and help us 
stop wasteful spending. This is the last bill of the year. It is the 
last vote. It is going to say a lot about this Congress and what we 
have accomplished. This is our chance to at least say: No more business 
as usual. We are not going to do business this way, where we pile 
3,400-plus pages on a desk, in 24 hours, and ask the Senators of this 
country to vote for it without even knowing what is in it. It is not 
the way to run a Senate. It is not the way to run a country.
  I plead with my colleagues, let's leave this year on a positive note. 
Vote against this omnibus and give Americans a real Christmas present.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for 46 hours and 8 minutes--for 46 hours 
and 8 minutes--the Senator from South Carolina has had an opportunity 
to go to the Internet and see this bill in its entirety, with his 
staff, and to read every page--46 hours and 8 minutes. For this Senator 
to suggest on the floor that we are sneaking this bill in, that people 
have not had a chance to see it, I would just say to the Senator from 
South Carolina: Welcome to the world of the Internet. This bill has 
been posted since 12:15 a.m. Monday morning on the Internet for your 
perusal. That is early to get up, I understand. It is an early time to 
be reading the bill. But, please, do not come to the floor and suggest 
that this is a mystery bill which no one has seen. For 2 days, this has 
been posted on the Internet. You have had your chance. Every Senator 
has had a chance. And incidentally, this bill was passed pursuant to a 
budget resolution.
  Mr. DeMINT. Has the Senator read the bill? Have you read the bill?
  Mr. DURBIN. Regular order, Mr. President. The Senator from South 
Carolina would not yield for my questions, and ordinarily I do, but I 
am going to make this quick because it is late at night.
  I say to the Senator from South Carolina: Welcome to the Senate where 
we pass a budget resolution. We did that this year. It is new to the 
Senate. We did not do that last year. Welcome to the Senate where we 
are going to pass appropriations bills. It did not happen last year. 
The Senator may recall when he arrived that the Republican-controlled 
Senate failed to pass 11 appropriations bills, and we had to pass them 
when we arrived in the new Senate.
  So for him to suggest that what we are doing here does not give the 
American people a chance to see what has happened--this has been the 
most transparent approach to passing these bills. In fact, I might say 
to the Senator--he has probably followed this--the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has considered all of the bills that are 
contained therein. There have been changes, for sure, but those that 
came to the floor--about 7 of them--passed with over 75 votes apiece. 
So to suggest that this is a mystery document is to ignore the 
Internet, ignore the availability, and ignore the obvious. The last 
time, the Republican majority passed two appropriations bills. 
Congratulations. We want to pass them all. And this is your chance. You 
can vote no. That is your right as a Senator.
  Let me say a word about earmarks. About 4 inches of the document in 
front of you consists of complete disclosure on earmarks--the most 
detailed disclosure in the history of Congress. And your chart, 
unfortunately, tells the story from the wrong angle. The total dollar 
amount of the earmarks contained in those appropriations equals 43 
percent of the earmarks contained in the Republican appropriations 
bills of 2 years ago. A 43-percent reduction in the dollar value of 
earmarks, total transparency, total disclosure--I thought that is what 
you were asking for when you stood up during the ethics debate.
  Let me also say that the Senator is opposing the removal of 
authorization language from appropriations bills. That is a point under 
our rules that is debated all the time. It happens. It happened in my 
bill, in my appropriations bill. And most of the time it happens 
because the White House tells us they do not want the language.
  The last point I want to make to you is that to suggest that this 
bill is wasteful spending comes at just the right moment--just the 
right moment--after the Senator from South Carolina voted for $70 
billion on a war that is not paid for. And the Senator joined in 
opposing our efforts to pay for a reduction in taxes. Wasteful 
spending? What the Senator did in those two votes is to pass billions 
of dollars in debt on to future generations.
  I would urge the Senator, discover the Internet, discover the 
opportunity to read these bills. And when you do, you will see that 
this information has been available now for 46 hours and 13 minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in this discussion of earmarks, of course, 
the elephant in the room--and I do not necessarily mean that as a pun--
are the hundreds of billions of dollars of earmarks from the President 
of the United States: the blank check to the war in Iraq; the blank 
check to the people who are hired as contractors, various companies--
Halliburton is one that comes to mind, but many others, Blackwater and 
so on. These blank checks--nobody wants to talk about those.
  But every President--not just this President but every President--has

[[Page S15872]]

hundreds of billions of dollars in earmarks in the bill. This President 
has had trillions of dollars. That is why this President, who inherited 
the largest surplus in the Nation's history, has turned it into the 
largest deficit in the Nation's history. And it is why? Because with 
the combination of his deficits and his war in Iraq, he is just paying 
the interest on the Bush administration's debt and the war--just the 
interest and the cost of the war.
  Every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--366 in leap year--we spend 
$1 billion every single day--every single day--in interest and the war 
in Iraq. That is money that does not go to education, does not go to 
finding a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's or diabetes or AIDS. It is $1 
billion a day that does not go to educate our children and our 
grandchildren. It is $1 billion a day that does not go to find a way to 
make sure our schools can start competing again with schools around the 
world. It is $1 billion a day that does not go to paying down the 
national debt.
  So those are the earmarks we do not talk about.
  Mr. President, I yield to the senior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont. I will be very brief. I will vote for this bill. 
There are good things in the bill and there are bad things. One bad 
thing, as the Senator from Vermont was listing off a number of things 
that have not been adequately funded, is the fact that the widows and 
orphans of the people who have served our Nation in uniform are not 
being compensated a paltry $1,200 a month due to an offset between what 
they paid--what their spouse paid for in the spouses's benefit, and 
what, under the dependents indemnity compensation, they are entitled to 
by law.
  This bill, to its credit, tries to address that offset but addresses 
it with a paltry $50 per month for those widows and orphans. It was 
President Lincoln who said a Nation has an obligation for those who 
went to war to care for the widows and orphans. Widows and orphans are 
a cost of war, and we have denied that cost and we still do so again 
tonight. We have only been working on this for 7 straight years, and at 
least we got a paltry $50. But there is much more that needs to be done 
to right this wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Iowa, who obviously 
has the right to speak. Let me ask again how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 30 minutes and the 
minority controls 32 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope we can quickly reach a point where 
Senators on both sides are willing to finish speaking. Obviously, I am 
not going to ask to cut off anybody's time. As soon as there is no 
Senator seeking recognition, I will move again to yield back all time 
on this vote and all time on the judge's vote, so we can go to both 
those votes back to back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I do need to rise to speak in strong 
opposition to what folks in Wyoming have figured out is an ominous 
omnibus appropriations bill, and they think there are literally 
billions of reasons to vote against this bill, and that is what I 
intend to do when I vote on it.
  We are nearly a quarter of the way through fiscal year 2008 and only 
one of the 12 appropriations bills is law. The remaining 11 bills are 
stuck together in this bill. There is one-half trillion dollars of 
spending in the 3,000-page bill. Now, when I was going to school, we 
spent a lot of time figuring out what a million was, and I think I kind 
of figured that out after I got here. But we talk mostly about 
billions, and that is a little tougher to do. But I did run into one 
example that explains a billion a little bit, and that is if we are 
talking about a billion seconds ago, we are talking about 1959. If we 
are talking about a billion minutes ago, Christ was walking the Earth. 
If we were talking about a billion dollars of spending ago, we are 
talking about 8 hours and 20 minutes, the way we are spending it right 
now.
  There was some comment about not having access to the bill. Well, the 
Web site had the bill the way the House was to address it 2 days ago. I 
suspect you can get through the 3,400 pages if you stayed up the whole 
48 hours and read it, but we didn't know what that bill was going to be 
after their action until less than 12 hours ago--perhaps a few more 
than that, considering the time of night it is now. But this is a real 
unreal state of affairs and it has become the norm.
  It has been pointed out that this isn't the only year we have done an 
omnibus bill, but this is exhibit No. 1 on what is wrong with 
government in this country, and I don't want to condone it. Every year 
this happens, every year we drive an omnibus, we get closer to 
financial ruin when we do that. What have we been spending our time on 
this year? Political votes, not policy votes. And the American taxpayer 
is paying the price here in the eleventh hour to the tune of billions 
of dollars.
  In the 2006 mid-term elections, the American people called on us to 
stop business as usual. They called on us to stop overspending. They 
called on us to change. That is the message we gave them, that we were 
going to change. But instead of change, we have seen Washington run in 
a more partisan manner than ever before. This bill contains 3,400 
pages, and I can't imagine that many of my colleagues have read it, 
even those who knew it was on the Web site 48 hours ago.
  In the crazy world that is Washington, the bill complies with the 
spending level set forth by President Bush, but it does so in a way 
that uses budget gimmicks and hides billions of dollars in extra 
spending. As the only accountant in the Senate, I can tell you the 
Federal Government's budgeting is criminal. If a private company forgot 
to count $11 billion against their budget, the CEO would go to jail.
  I support some of the funding in this bill. I support full funding 
for our veterans. I support providing money for border security. Almost 
all of these provisions are worthy areas for Federal funding. But we 
cannot spend money on everything we want and call ourselves fiscally 
responsible. If the money is needed for these programs, maybe we should 
cut out the more than 9,000 earmarks that were in the bill to pay for 
them. At some point, someone will have to pay for our overspending, and 
I would ask: Where do my colleagues think that money comes from? This 
money is coming from mothers working at the mall or fathers who are 
building buildings or farmers plowing their fields. They do not work so 
hard so they can serve up a dish of pork to people thousands of miles 
away without their consent. But that is what the architects of this 
bill are doing.
  My concerns with this bill are more than just fiscal. We do have a 
process around here for considering legislation. I am talking about 
legislation versus appropriation. This bill ignores that process and 
the Senate rules that expressly prohibit legislating on appropriations 
bills. By making it an omnibus bill, it makes things that are important 
seem insignificant when compared to the one-half trillion dollars we 
are spending. So it seems petty if anybody suggests taking out some 
minor item of a few million, or even a few billion, considering the 
size of the bill.
  But I am talking about the legislation part. It ignores the process 
and the Senate rules that expressly prohibit legislating on 
appropriations bills. Again, because it is an omnibus bill, we don't 
have the same right to challenge parts that would be legislating. We do 
hold hearings in committee. We work within the committee to develop and 
pass legislation. Then we consider the bill on the Senate floor. We do 
this so that important issues get the input and attention the American 
people expect and deserve. It might take longer to go through these 
steps, but the product is better; not perfect, but certainly better 
than the product that is before us today.
  The amount of legislating in the Omnibus appropriations bill, 
particularly the Labor-HHS title, is criminal and outrageous. HIV/AIDS 
funding is a perfect example. A year ago, we passed a bill with a 
formula in it that made sure that money for HIV/AIDS followed the 
patients. How well did that do? It passed unanimously in the Senate and 
it passed unanimously in the House. You can't be more bipartisan than 
that. You can't be more agreeable than that. We said the formula was 
right and that the money should follow the

[[Page S15873]]

patients. Well, there is legislation in this bill that changes that 
formula, and it never received a hearing before a congressional 
committee, it has never been marked up, and it was inserted in the 
House bill without a full debate or even a vote.
  We struck that part over here. We struck that part by a very 
significant vote because it was mostly 7 cities stealing from 42 other 
cities. That is not the way to legislate. So striking that part did 
occur in the Senate by a significant vote. So much for transparency and 
sunshine in Washington.
  The Labor-HHS section of the bill is not the only section that 
includes problematic legislation. The bill includes provisions that 
allow a 2-percent deduction of State mineral royalty payments to help 
cover administrative costs at the Department of Interior. Let's see, 
what does the Department of Interior do? They get a check from Wyoming 
companies, collected by the State of Wyoming, audited by the State of 
Wyoming, and they take half of it and send us a check back for the 
other half. That check is going to cost us $20 million.
  Whoever heard of paying somebody $20 million to write you a check? 
Well, maybe there is some accounting they have to do to figure out 
whether the money sent was exactly right. You know, accountants are not 
allowed to take a percentage of the money. That is what lawyers do. 
Accountants are supposed to stay on flat fees, and I guarantee you 
nobody ever got $20 million for a few minutes work. That is another 
example of the Government taking money that is owed to States to pay 
for the unrelated Federal priorities because a majority in Congress 
doesn't control spending.
  The omnibus contains provisions to prohibit the Department of the 
Interior from issuing final regulations for oil shale development, even 
though the process for development was laid out through careful 
bipartisan negotiations that came through a committee and that were 
voted on by the people in the committee, that were voted on here on 
floor of the Senate, that were voted on the House floor, and that were 
combined into what we call the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We said: Get 
that process set up. We didn't say: Do the process. We said: Get the 
process set up.
  Well, there is language in this bill that says: You can't set it up. 
You can't do what we said in 2005 as a necessity for getting energy 
going in this country. Now, there are plenty of possibilities for 
stopping that process through things that are already in place, but, 
no, there is legislation in this bill that says: We don't want energy. 
We don't want you to even consider energy. We don't even want you to 
set up the regulations for how you might proceed in an orderly way so 
that we can object to that orderly way if we want to.
  It also includes the new $4,000 fee for each application for a permit 
to drill oil and gas wells, with no guarantees that the permits will 
move forward in an expeditious manner so they can produce more domestic 
energy. If we don't produce more energy, the price, I guarantee you, 
will go up. You cannot constrain the supply and get the price to go 
down.
  It is unfortunate that Congress waited until December 18 to advance 
these appropriations bills. Without the ``gotcha'' politics part, they 
could have been completed more than 2 months ago. They could have been 
completed in a very bipartisan way. We have to quit playing ``gotcha'' 
politics. Congress wasted countless weeks writing and debating bills 
that were never going to be signed. The President has been quite vocal 
about his objections. People on both sides of the aisle have expressed 
objections on a lot of the things we have voted on.
  So here we are today, a week before Christmas, cramming through in 1 
day a project larger than several Manhattan phone books, and that most 
of my colleagues have not had the time to read and review, and that is 
even if they divided it up among all their staff and had them look at 
all the parts they are familiar with. So I am telling you I am offended 
by the process. I am disappointed in the institution. I vote ``no'' on 
the bill. I want us to change it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed with the omnibus 
appropriations bill that is before us today. With the McConnell 
amendment, this omnibus bill will write yet another blank check--this 
one for a whopping $70 billion--for the President to spend on his wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, this bill will grossly 
underfund urgent priorities here at home--everything from cancer 
research to law enforcement to home heating assistance.
  And why is this happening? It is happening because President Bush has 
refused to compromise, refused to negotiate, refused to respect 
Congress as a coequal partner in the budgeting process.
  The President claims that he is standing on principle, the principle 
of budget restraint and fiscal conservatism. But this claim is 
laughable.
  Think about it: Mr. Bush provoked a bitter confrontation with 
Congress over the $22 billion that we proposed spending on urgent 
domestic priorities above his budget request. Democrats offered to 
split the difference, lowering that amount to $11 billion. But Mr. Bush 
still refused to negotiate or compromise.
  Meanwhile, he and his allies have insisted on vastly more than that--
a total of $144 billion--for the war in Iraq this year, all of which 
will simply be added to the deficit. At the same time, he demands a $50 
billion AMT fix--which we all favor--but he insists that we not pay for 
it. That's another $50 billion piled onto the deficit.
  So the President has forced Congress to cut $22 billion in domestic 
funding from the budget, and he turns right around and demands that 
Congress add more than 10 times that--more than $200 billion--for wars 
and tax cuts, all of it unpaid for, all of it added to the deficit. And 
this is what he calls budget restraint and fiscal conservatism? As I 
said, that claim is simply laughable.
  Actually, this is not so much laughable as it is shameful. Bear in 
mind that in October the Senate passed an appropriations bill for 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education by an overwhelming 75 
to 19 margin, including a strong majority of Republican Senators. That 
bipartisan support reflected the fact that the bill funded essential, 
life-supporting, and life-saving services for millions of people in 
this country. That bill reflected the values and priorities of the 
American people.
  But even before we brought the health and education appropriations 
bill to the floor, President Bush threatened to veto it. He dismissed 
the bill as ``social spending,'' as though it pays for Saturday night 
socials or something. Then, on November 13, in one fell swoop, Mr. Bush 
vetoed the bill, and insisted, again, that we bend to his budget 
demands.
  Let me remind our colleagues what Mr. Bush was demanding. The 
President demanded that we cut cancer research and other medical 
research at the National Institutes of Health.
  He demanded that we cut thousands of families from the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program.
  He demanded that we completely eliminate the safety net that includes 
job training, housing, and emergency food assistance for our most needy 
citizens, including seniors and people with disabilities.
  He demanded that we slash funding for Community Health Centers, 
preventing 225 new centers from opening.
  He demanded that we dramatically cut funding for law enforcement and 
the COPS program.
  He demanded that we cut funding for special education and Head Start.
  I am pleased to say that we did not allow these heartless, misguided 
priorities to prevail entirely. The President has refused to 
compromise, refused to negotiate--and, no question, this is going to 
hurt millions of Americans, including the most needy among us. 
Nonetheless, I am pleased with what we have been able to salvage in 
this bill.
  The omnibus bill before us today technically yields to the 
President's top-line number of $515.7 billion. But I am pleased to 
report that it shifts funding in order to address some of the bottom-
line priorities of the American people and of the Democratic majority 
in Congress.
  Even within the constraints of this bill, the final Labor-HHS-
Education section of the omnibus includes significant increases above 
the President's budget. For instance, it includes: an

[[Page S15874]]

additional $607 million for the National Institutes of Health, 
additional $788 million for LIHEAP, the home-heating assistance program 
for low-income families.
  It provides $77 million above the President's budget for community 
Health Centers, allowing more than 50 new centers to be opened.
  It provides an additional $955 million for Head Start, Title I, 
special education, and teacher quality.
  It also provides an additional $150 million for the Social Security 
Administration to help clear out the backlog of disability claims.
  However, because of the President's veto threat and refusal to 
compromise, law enforcement remains woefully underfunded, in particular 
support for local police departments. Fewer community health centers 
will be opened and fewer children will be vaccinated. More than 80,000 
fewer children will be served under Title I.
  Every dime of additional funding in this bill goes to meet basic, 
essential needs here at home--needs that have been sadly neglected in 
recent years, even as we have squandered hundreds of billions of 
dollars in Iraq.
  I voted against the McConnell amendment to provide another $70 
billion in funding, mostly for Iraq. The war in Iraq has not reduced 
the threat of another terrorist attack in America, it has increased 
that threat. It has not defeated Islamic terrorists, it has brought 
more recruits to the ranks of al Qaeda.
  Nor has the so-called ``surge'' in Iraq succeeded as advertised. The 
whole rationale for the surge was to create breathing space for new 
elections in Iraq and reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. These 
things have not happened.
  I joined with Senator Feingold to attempt to link any new funding for 
Iraq to a deadline for redeployment of our troops. Unfortunately, that 
amendment failed. This means that the next $70 billion appropriation 
for Iraq will not require any redeployments, nor will it include any 
benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet. It is simply a blank 
check, untied to any demands or expectations, and that is unacceptable.
  Indeed, I find it ironic that Mr. Bush has been more than happy to 
spend untold billions of dollars on schools, hospitals, job training, 
and law enforcement--in Iraq. But when we try to address those 
priorities here at home, Mr. Bush gets out his veto pen and hoists the 
flag of what he calls ``fiscal conservatism.''
  But, as I have said, Mr. Bush's pose as a fiscal conservative is 
absurd.
  During the six years that the Republicans largely controlled 
Congress, Mr. Bush did not veto a single appropriations bill, including 
many that exceeded his budget requests.
  He is demanding that we pass supplemental bills that bring war 
spending, this year alone, to more than $196 billion, mostly for Iraq. 
The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that Mr. Bush's war in 
Iraq will cost a staggering $1.9 trillion through the next decade. Yet, 
just last week, he pledged to veto the omnibus bill because of $11 
billion in funding for education, health, biomedical research and other 
domestic priorities.
  Think about it: The President is demanding that we continue to spend 
$12 billion a month on his war in Iraq, yet he objected to an 
additional $11 billion over a full year for domestic funding. This is 
simply not reasonable or rational.
  At the same time, the President is insisting that we send him an 
Alternative Minimum Tax fix costing $50 billion. Yes, we need to fix 
the AMT, and we need to do so in a responsible way. But, Mr. Bush has a 
different idea. He refuses to pay for the AMT fix. He insists that we 
simply pile it onto the deficit, dumping it on our children and 
grandchildren.
  Bear in mind, by the way, that this AMT problem is not a surprise to 
anyone. The 2001 tax cut bill deliberately refused to address the AMT 
issue in order to squeeze in hundreds of millions of dollars in 
additional tax cuts, overwhelmingly for the well-off. Mr. Bush used the 
AMT to mask the true cost of the tax cuts. But, in doing so, he left 
the AMT as a ticking time-bomb that would soon double the number of 
Americans subject to the tax.
  Today, that time-bomb is exploding, threatening to hurt millions of 
middle-class families. The House of Representatives, to its great 
credit, came up with a responsible way of paying for the AMT fix. The 
House proposed to eliminate the so-called ``carried interest'' tax 
break for hedge fund managers with multi-million-dollar incomes--a tax 
break that allows them to pay their taxes at lower marginal rates than 
middle-income Americans.
  Eliminating this egregious tax break is a matter of basic fairness. 
It also would help to pay for the AMT fix. But the President said no. 
He promised to veto it. All of which means that the $50 billion we 
spend on the AMT patch will not be paid for; it will be added to the 
deficit and the debt. That is not just a shame; it is shameful.
  So I regret that the President vetoed a good, bipartisan Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill that passed this body overwhelmingly. I 
regret that Mr. Bush has refused to negotiate or compromise. I regret 
that he demands that we spend endlessly on his war in Iraq, even as he 
demands that we slash essential services and programs here at home.
  But, despite all of these disappointments, we can take pride in the 
fact that this omnibus bill, in important ways, reflects the values and 
priorities of the American people. We have found additional funding for 
our priorities--priorities ranging from cancer research to education to 
law enforcement. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
bill.


                       PECUNIARY INTEREST LETTERS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an unintended 
oversight by my office in connection with the disclosure of a 
congressionally directed funding project in the House message to 
accompany H.R. 2764, the Omnibus appropriations bill. When I filed my 
original requests for funding for projects in May of this year, I did 
not realize the letter included a request to fund the Old Dome Meeting 
Hall Renovations project in Riverton, UT. Subsequently, with the 
enactment of Public Law 110-81 on September 14, 2007, along with other 
Members of the Senate, I was asked to sign, and did sign, various 
certification letters in connection with our requests for project 
funding.
  Upon a review of our files last night, with respect to the 
forthcoming House message to accompany H.R. 2764, the Omnibus 
appropriations bill, we determined that the certification letters sent 
to the committee may have been incorrect, as a member of my family may 
be deemed to have an indirect pecuniary interest in one of the items 
requested in my letter to the Appropriations Committee dated May 15, 
2007. Upon discovering this oversight, I forwarded a letter to the 
attention of Appropriations Committee chairman, Robert Byrd, and 
ranking Republican member, Thad Cochran, which I believe to be in 
accordance with the facts now known to me.
  I have chosen to address these issues openly on the floor of the 
Senate to clear up any facts regarding this completely unintended and 
unfortunate oversight. I want my colleagues to know that I always have 
and will continue to do everything possible to ensure I meet all ethics 
laws, rules, and requirements here in the U.S. Senate.
  For the reasons I have outlined and in an effort to meet the highest 
ethical standards, I will be voting present on the Omnibus 
appropriations bill when I otherwise would have supported the 
legislation.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate this colloquy and your intent to meet all 
the new, as well as old, ethics requirements regarding earmarks in 
appropriations bills. This is the first year for implementation of many 
of these new ethics rules and there has been some not unexpected 
confusion over how some of the new requirements must be implemented. I 
applaud your aggressiveness in making sure that you have done 
everything within your knowledge and power to ensure that you have 
complied with all the rules and requirements that are specified by the 
rules of the Senate with regard to the use of earmarks. Our discussion 
today provides the type of transparency intended by the ethics rules 
and should satisfy all requirements with regard to letters of pecuniary 
interest and earmarks as they relate to your situation.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to 
Chairman Byrd and Ranking Republican Member Cochran be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S15875]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 18, 2007
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Appropriations, 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran: I certify 
     that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary 
     interest in any congressionally directed spending that I 
     requested the Committee on Appropriations for Fiscal Year 
     2008, except that a member of my immediate family may have an 
     indirect pecuniary interest in the Old Dome Meeting Hall 
     Renovations; Riverton, Utah; Economic Development Initiative 
     project, requested in my letter dated May 15, 2007 to the 
     Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the 
     Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
     Agencies, Committee on Appropriations.
       I respectfully ask that my request to fund this project be 
     withdrawn.
       Once this has been effectuated, my request will be 
     consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 9 of rule XLIV 
     of thc Standing Rules of the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
                                                     U.S. Senator.


       Low-Volume Hospital Medicare Inpatient Payment Adjustment

  Mr HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the legislation 
pending before the Senate today, which will ensure that Iowa's seniors 
continue to have access to their physicians and will reauthorize the 
SCHIP program through March 31, 2009, with additional funds for the 
``shortfall States,'' like Iowa. I am however concerned about one 
provision that is not included in the legislation, a provision that is 
critically needed to help Iowa's midsized hospitals.
  Unfortunately, current Medicare payment rates for hospitals do not 
account for the fact that most rural facilities cannot achieve the same 
economies of scale as large hospitals. This leads to inadequate 
reimbursement, which threatens the very existence of some of these 
facilities. To help address this situation, the Medicare Payment 
Advisory Committee MedPAC has recommended implementing a payment 
adjustment for certain small rural hospitals that serve a lowvolume of 
patients. For example, Grinnell Regional Medical Center in Grinnell, 
IA, is having difficulty keeping their doors open simply because of its 
size and location. Due to Medicare policies, they are currently 
reimbursed at 60 percent of its costs. This cannot continue. These 
hospitals are essential to giving our seniors good access to 
healthcare.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to thank my distinguished colleague for raising 
this issue, which has also been a concern of mine. I agree with him 
that these rural hospitals--the so-called ``tweener'' hospitals--should 
be given some assistance. These hospitals play a critical role in the 
medical care of our seniors throughout Iowa, and I remain committed to 
working with Senator Baucus to include ``tweener'' hospital 
improvements in next year's Medicare legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Senator Harkin, I agree with you that this is an issue we 
need to address. As you know, I intend to work with Senator Grassley to 
move a Medicare reform package early in 2008. Given the importance of 
this issue, I am committed to working with you to find solutions that 
will assist these hospitals within the context of our Medicare efforts.
  Mr HARKIN. I appreciate that commitment. I look forward to working 
with both of you early next year to move legislation to assist these 
hospitals, in Iowa and throughout the country.


                  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEES

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Dorgan, to clarify for me the scope of the budget authority 
contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
the Department of Energy's guarantee loans for development of advanced 
energy technologies. My understanding is that there would be $10 
billion in budget authority for the Department to guarantee loans in 
the broad technology areas of renewable, energy efficiency, 
manufacturing, electricity transmission and distribution technologies.
  I believe there is tremendous potential for new technologies to 
produce ethanol from cellulosic materials through all phases of 
development, including pretreatment. An important step toward proving 
these technologies will be the development of pilot-scale facilities. 
Is it the chairman's understanding that a range of technologies and 
pilot-scale demonstration facilities would be eligible for a loan 
guarantee issued by the Department of Energy using the budget authority 
included in this Consolidated Appropriations Act?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, cellulosic ethanol projects are consistent with the 
intent of title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and would clearly 
be within the scope of technologies that would be eligible for a loan 
guarantee from the Department of Energy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am also very interested in ensuring that advanced 
batteries and battery systems are fully developed and believe that loan 
guarantees for projects and facilities to develop lithium ion batteries 
could provide a significant boost for U.S. competitiveness. In the case 
of battery technologies, we need to develop the manufacturing 
capability in this country to ensure that these batteries will be 
produced here. Is it the chairman's understanding that advanced battery 
technologies would be included in the scope of the budget authority in 
this bill and would be eligible for a loan guarantee from the 
Department of Energy?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, I believe that loan guarantees for development of 
advanced battery technologies would also fit into the scope of 
manufacturing technologies contemplated by the language in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 and should be consistent with 
the intent of title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on section 691 of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. This provision amends section 
212(d)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to allow 
the executive to make REAL ID immigration bars inapplicable to 
individuals or groups whose presence in this country would not pose a 
threat to the United States, while continuing to bar from the United 
States all persons who are tied to the worst terrorist organizations. 
The provision also gives automatic exemptions to the Hmong and 
Montagnard soldiers who fought alongside the United States during the 
Vietnam war, providing overdue relief to the members of these armies. 
And section 691 also designates the Taliban as a Tier I terrorist 
organization for immigration purposes, effectively eliminating 
exceptions to the applicability of REAL ID immigration bars for 
members, combatants, and others tied to the group that harbored Al 
Qaeda at the time when that organization was plotting the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001.
  Section 691 is the result of a negotiated compromise between Senator 
Leahy and me a compromise that was encouraged and assisted by Senator 
Coleman and other Members who have taken an interest in this issue. The 
final language allows the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to 
decide that the barriers to entry and stay in the United States in 
section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA do not apply to certain individuals or 
groups. The language also clarifies that such non-applicability 
determinations are not subject to judicial review.
  Under current law, the REAL ID immigration bars can only be deemed 
non-applicable to an alien if the alien is a representative of a 
political or social group that endorses terrorism, has himself endorsed 
terrorism, or has given material support to a terrorist group, and may 
only be extended to a group if that group is a Tier III group that only 
has a subgroup that engages in terrorism. The amendment expands the 
non-applicability determination authority to all terrorism-related 
bars, except that the bars cannot be deemed non-applicable if an alien 
is expected to engage in future terrorism, is a member or 
representative of a Tier I or II group, voluntarily and knowingly 
engaged in terrorist activity or endorsed terrorism on behalf of a Tier 
I or II group, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type 
training from a Tier I or II group. Also, no group nonapplicability 
determination may be applied to a group that attacks democratic 
countries or intentionally engages in a practice of attacking 
civilians.

[[Page S15876]]

  Section 691's expansion of section 212(d)(3)(B) nonapplicability 
authority generally draws a line between Tier I and II terrorist 
organizations, on the one hand--groups which have been designated as 
Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State Department or other agency 
of the Federal Government--and Tier III organizations, on the other 
hand, which are swept into the definition of ``terrorist organization'' 
as a result of their conduct. The State Department's FTO list includes 
some of the most bloodthirsty terrorist organizations on the planet. 
The list includes groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the 
Salafist Group for Call and Combat. By precluding non-applicability 
determinations with regard to persons tied to these groups, section 691 
not only helps to protect the U.S. homeland from terrorism--it also 
contributes to making these groups radioactive in the foreign countries 
where they are based. Joining or helping one of these groups or 
accepting military training from them will bar an individual from ever 
being allowed to enter or reside in the United States, in all cases and 
without exception. And making these groups radioactive makes it more 
difficult for them to recruit members or to carry out terrorist 
attacks.
  Information that has been developed in hearings before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee explains why it is imperative that the United 
States discourage individuals from providing any type of aid or 
material support to foreign terrorist organizations. In an April 20, 
2005, hearing before the Terrorism Subcommittee, for example, Barry 
Sabin, the Chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice 
Department's Criminal Division, explained how the provision of material 
aid to terrorist groups is critical to the functioning of these 
organizations. Mr. Sabin noted:

       We know from experience that terrorists need funding and 
     logistical support to operate. They need to raise funds, open 
     and use bank accounts to transfer money, and to communicate 
     by phone and the Internet. They need travel documents. They 
     need to train and recruit new operatives, and procure 
     equipment for their attacks.

  It is also important to emphasize that all provision of material 
support to terrorist organizations is bad. There is no such thing as 
``good'' aid to a terrorist organization, because all aid is fungible 
and can be converted to evil purposes, and because even humanitarian 
aid can be used by a terrorist organization to help it to recruit new 
members. These points were developed in detail in answers to written 
questions provided by Chris Wray, the Assistant Attorney General for 
the Criminal Division, following a May 5, 2004, hearing before the 
Judiciary Committee. Mr. Wray explained why there is no such thing as 
benign material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization:

       First, because material support of any kind is fungible and 
     frees up resources that may then be used to promote violence, 
     the provision of any material support facilitates and 
     furthers the organization's unlawful and violent activities 
     regardless of the benign intent of the donor. As the Ninth 
     Circuit recognized in rejecting the argument that 18 U.S.C. 
     section 2339B is unconstitutional because it proscribes the 
     giving of material support even if the donor does not have 
     the specific intent to aid in the organization's unlawful 
     purposes, ``Material support given to a terrorist 
     organization can be used to promote the organization's 
     unlawful activities, regardless of donor intent. Once the 
     support is given, the donor has no control over how it is 
     used. Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F. 3d 1130, 1134 
     (2000).
       Even support designed and intended to encourage a group to 
     pursue lawful, nonviolent means to achieve its ends may be 
     used to further the organization's violent aims.
       [S]ome terrorist organizations use their humanitarian 
     activities as an integral part of an overall program that 
     includes murdering innocent civilians and assassinating 
     government officials. For example, one expert on terrorist 
     organizations, Matthew Levitt, describes in ``Hamas from 
     Cradle to Grave,'' Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2004, at 3-
     15, that this foreign terrorist organization is one unified 
     body, and that its social welfare organizations, supported by 
     numerous charities, answer to the same leaders who set Hamas 
     political and terrorist policy. Levitt describes how Hamas 
     charity committees, mosque classes, student unions, and sport 
     clubs serve as places where Hamas activists recruit 
     Palestinian youth for terrorist training courses in Syria and 
     Iran, or for suicidal terrorist attacks. And, he discusses 
     how a single soccer team from the Jihad mosque in Hebron has 
     produced several Hamas terrorists responsible for five 
     suicide bombings in 2003.
       Even more frightening, Levitt explains how Hamas charities, 
     social service organizations, hospitals, schools, and mosques 
     openly laud suicide bombings. Hamas-run schools and summer 
     camps begin indoctrinating children as early as kindergarten 
     for later use as suicide bombers. As Levitt notes, 
     Palestinian children raised in this environment make willing 
     terrorist recruits. This program is accomplished in 
     significant part by the multi-faceted nature of Hamas, which 
     gains strength through its humanitarian and charitable 
     activities in the community.
       Thus, even if individuals are providing material support, 
     such as money, for groups like the Hamas, and are somehow 
     able to ensure that this money is spent by these FTOs only 
     for humanitarian activities, such as a school, the problem 
     remains that this money enables these groups to gain more 
     general support, loyalty, and popularity among the local 
     people and to earn a measure of legitimacy. This support and 
     legitimacy then allows groups such as Hamas to recruit 
     suicide bombers, as well as accomplices to provide critical 
     services such as transportation, lodging, and local 
     intelligence for terrorist operations. Accordingly, even 
     those who are providing material support with the sincere 
     hope and assurance that their money is not being used 
     directly for terrorism are nevertheless providing groups such 
     as Hamas with the type of overall support they need in order 
     to operate successfully as terrorists.

  Section 691 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act also bars the 
extension of a non-applicability determination to any alien who has 
voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a Tier I 
or II terrorist organization. Again in his April 20, 2005, testimony 
before the Terrorism Subcommittee, Counterterrorism Section Chief Barry 
Sabin explained why individuals who have received such training are 
dangerous to the United States and why an individual's participation in 
such training benefits the terrorist organization. Mr. Sabin explained:

       Various investigations have uncovered individuals who have 
     traveled overseas to training camps to receive military-style 
     training. These individuals, who in many cases have received 
     firearms and explosives training, appear to be preparing to 
     conduct terrorist activity or violence and pose a clear 
     threat here and abroad. Investigations have also disclosed 
     that attendees sometimes maintain longstanding relationships 
     with other training camp ``alumni,'' who may later seek to 
     recruit and utilize them in their plots. In an even more 
     basic way, a trainee's participation in a terrorist 
     organization's training camp, without more, benefits the 
     organization as a whole. By attending a camp, an individual 
     lends critical moral support to other trainees and the entire 
     organization, a support that is essential to the health and 
     vitality of the organization.

  Section 691 also clarifies that the decision to extend or to not 
extend a non-applicability determination to a particular group or 
individual is not subject to judicial review. A decision as to whether 
a particular individual or group that would otherwise be within the 
scope of a section 212(a)(3)(B) bar should instead be deemed outside 
the scope of that bar is a decision that is inherently executive in 
nature. Such a decision will often involve consideration of classified 
information that would be compromised if litigated in open court, and 
it will involve sensitive judgments about which terrorist groups are 
more dangerous than others.
  Vesting this discretion solely in the executive allows executive 
officers to consider the full range of information about a particular 
group that is available to the State Department, the Justice 
Department, Homeland Security, and to intelligence agencies. It allows 
the executive to decide that some groups are less dangerous and 
therefore the REAL ID bars may be deemed to not apply to activities 
tied to that group, and that other groups are extremely dangerous and 
that even tenuous connections to such a group should serve as grounds 
for exclusion, with no exceptions allowed.
  Were decisions about nonapplicability to be made in the courts, their 
precedent-based system of decisionmaking would require the courts to 
extend the same ``rights'' to members of one group as had extended to 
the last group whose case was reviewed. What is sufficient to justify a 
nonapplicability determination with regard to the FARC in Columbia, for 
example, would also be good for al-Qaida. By keeping these non-
applicability decisions out of the courts, section 691's amendments to 
INA section 212(d)(3)(B) allow the Government to take the common-sense 
approach of treating different groups differently based on how violent 
they are and how much of a threat they pose

[[Page S15877]]

to the United States. For that reason, section 691 does not allow 
judicial relief from an executive determination. Rather, it is the 
executive alone that will decide whether a bar should be inapplicable--
that it should not even apply to the alien in the first instance.
  Subsection (b) of section 691 statutorily exempts several groups from 
the definition of ``terrorist organization'' for purposes of INA 
section 212(a)(3)(B). These groups--which include Hmong and Montagnard 
groups that fought alongside the United States in the Vietnam War--have 
already been cleared by the administration and do not pose a threat to 
the United States. This subsection will immediately resolve any legal 
ambiguity as to these groups' status.
  Subsection (c) of section 691 corrects a technical error in the 
original REAL ID Act. With this change, the otherwise-automatically-
deportable spouse or child of a barred alien is not barred if the 
spouse or child did not know of the husband/father's terrorist activity 
or has renounced that activity.
  Subsection (d) designates the Taliban as a Tier I terrorist 
organization for immigration purposes. As a result of the distinctions 
drawn in subsection (a) of section 691, this designation will render 
individuals tied to the Taliban ineligible for most waiver authority.
  Subsection (e) requires a report by the Department of Homeland 
Security on the use of its authority to waive material-support bars on 
grounds of duress.
  Subsection (f) makes all of these changes apply retroactively.
  I think that section 691 reaches a reasonable compromise that allows 
removal of the applicability of the REAL ID immigration bars for groups 
and individuals to whom those bars should not apply, but allows REAL ID 
to continue to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign 
terrorist organizations. I would like to thank Tim Rieser of Senator 
Leahy's staff, and Jennifer Daskal, on detail to Senator Leahy, for 
working with my staff to draft this section. Whom to exclude from the 
United States for terrorism-related reasons is a difficult and very 
serious matter, and one that I am glad has been the subject of a 
carefully developed bipartisan compromise in this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, fiscal year 2008 began 79 days ago. And 
yet here we are at the end of the calendar year--with Christmas one 
week away--and everyone scrambling to finally get our work done and get 
out of town. This process, and the monstrosity it has produced, is the 
height of irresponsibility. We owe the taxpayer more than this.
  In the past, I have stood here on the Senate floor to speak about how 
our economic situation and our vital national security concerns require 
us to take greater effort in prioritizing our Federal spending and that 
we could no longer afford, literally, ``business as usual.'' Actually, 
Mr. President, what we have before us is even worse than business as 
usual because the bill we received from the House provides not a single 
penny to fund our ongoing mission in Iraq. We are at war and our men 
and women serving in Iraq today continue to face a fierce and 
determined enemy--and this bill does not fund their mission. The 
omission of Iraq funding is no more than a political stunt--and we all 
know it. What kind of message does this send to those brave men and 
women in the field?
  Unfortunately, little has changed over the years. Here we are again, 
nearly 3 full months into fiscal year 2008, and we have before us 
another appropriations monster. Let me remind my colleagues that, 
because of our inability to get much done around here under the regular 
order, we have been forced to consider huge omnibus appropriations 
bills and one long-term continuing resolution in 5 of the last 6 fiscal 
years.
  The bill before us today is more than 1,400 pages long and is 
accompanied by a joint explanatory statement that was so big they 
couldn't even number the pages. This bill consolidates 11 of the 12 
annual appropriations bills with a price tag of nearly $475 billion. 
Amazingly, this bill contains 9,170 earmarks. Add those to the 2,161 
earmarks that were contained in the Defense appropriations bill and the 
grand total for fiscal year 2008 earmarks stands at 11,331 unnecessary, 
wasteful, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects. And that is just for 
the House and Senate-passed bill. I can only imagine what this will 
look like when it comes out of conference.
  A New York Times/CBS News poll that was released today shows that the 
approval rating of Congress stands at 21 percent. Can we blame the 
American people for holding us in such low esteem? Let's look at how we 
are spending their hard earned tax dollars.
  Here is just a sampling of some of the earmarks contained in this 
bill: $150,000 for the STEEED, Soaring Toward Educational Enrichment 
via Equine Discovery, Youth Program in Washington, DC. Basically this 
is an earmark of $150,000 so that disadvantaged kids can ride horses; 
$50,000 for the construction of a National Mule and Packers Museum in 
Bishop, CA; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, AL; $625,000 
for the Historic Congressional Cemetery right here on Capitol Hill; 
$1.95 million for the City College of NY for the Charles B. Rangel 
Center for Public Service; $975,000 for the Clinton School of Public 
Service at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR; $1.628 million 
for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY; $477,000 for Barley Health Food 
Benefits in Beltsville, MD; $244,000 for Bee Research in Weslaco, TX; 
$10 million to Nevada for the design and construction of the Derby Dam 
fish screen to allow passage of fish; $1.6 million for sensitivity 
training for law enforcement in Los Angeles; $1.786 million to develop 
an exhibit for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Michigan; 
$846,000 to the Father's Day Rally Committee in Philadelphia, PA; 
$125,000 for International Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, WV; $470,000 
for an Oyster Hatchery Economic Pilot Program, Morgan State University, 
MD; $446,500 for Horseshoe Crab Research, Virginia Tech, VA; $125,000 
for the Polish American Cultural Center in Philadelphia, PA; $400,000 
for the National Iron Worker's Training Program; $350,000 for leafy 
spurge control in North Dakota; $1.725 million for the Hudson Valley 
Welcome Center in Hyde Park, NY.
  This omnibus was made available just yesterday, yet approved by the 
House last night. Imagine that--a 1,445 page bill, with a joint 
explanatory statement that is nine inches tall and costs $475 billion 
was made available and voted on by both chambers in less than 48 hours. 
Simply remarkable. It is impossible for us to know exactly what is in 
this thing, and we are expected to simply take the appropriators word 
that it is all okay. Well, I have been around here long enough to know 
that a bill of this size, put together behind closed doors and rammed 
through at the last minute, cannot be all good. And I know it will be a 
long time before all of the hidden provisions in this legislation are 
exposed.
  I fully recognize that it isn't necessarily the fault of the 
appropriators that we are forced into this new pattern of adopting 
omnibus appropriations measures. Overly partisan politics has largely 
prevented us from following the regular legislative order, and that 
fact must change. But while it may not be the appropriators fault that 
we are forced to consider omnibus appropriations measures, it is their 
decision to continue to load them up with unauthorized earmarks and at 
a rate that seems only increases year after year.
  When we ram through a gigantic bill, spending hundreds of billions of 
taxpayer's dollars with little or no debate because we want to go home 
for Christmas, we send the message to the American people that we are 
not serious enough about our jobs. We essentially accomplish little 
almost all year long because everything requires 60 votes, and then, at 
the very last minute, we scramble around and throw together a mammoth 
bill like the one before us today. We are sending the signal that it is 
more important for us to be able to issue press releases, and I am sure 
hundreds of them will be going out today, about how much pork we have 
been able to get for our States and districts, than we are about good 
government and fiscal responsibility. How can we, in good conscience, 
defend this behavior to the American people?
  Among the most egregious aspects of this bill are the so-called 
``economic development initiatives'' funded under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. This account is nothing more than a 
slush fund for the appropriators--plain and simple. Contained

[[Page S15878]]

within this section of the joint explanatory statement are 741 
locality-specific earmarks costing nearly $180 million. These pork 
barrel projects are spread out over 42 pages and fund everything from 
construction of coastal trails, nature education centers, public parks 
and renovations for museums and theaters.
  On defense matters, the omnibus appropriations bill proposes funding 
$1.18 billion in military construction projects that were not requested 
by the President. Of that amount, $584 million was vetted by both the 
Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees to ensure that the 
services' critical unfunded priorities requirements were met. On the 
Senate floor, those projects were further reviewed, and approved in the 
Senate versions of the authorization and appropriations bills.
  However, this bloated omnibus appropriations bill also includes 
another $580 million--for 108 military ``airdropped'' construction 
projects, that is, funding for projects that were not included in any 
previous appropriations bill passed by the House or Senate. The House 
appropriators have once again waited until the last minute to present 
these new spending items to skirt responsibility for their pork 
spending. Mr. President, in the ethics reform law we passed with much 
fanfare earlier this year, we amended Senate rule 44 specifically to 
discourage such ``airdropping'' of projects in the dead of night. In an 
unprecedented and unfortunate act, the majority accepted $328 million 
of airdropped military construction authorizations into the recently 
passed national defense authorization bill. It was in part for this 
reason that I reluctantly decided not to sign the defense authorization 
conference report. I could not then, and cannot now, support the 
parachuting of new spending items into final reports that have not been 
transparently vetted on the floor of Congress. I am very disappointed 
that we in the Senate continue to condone this irresponsible practice 
in light of our efforts to prevent it with ethics reform.
  The omnibus appropriations bill also earmarks over $41 million for 
the planning and design of pork military construction projects 
requested by Members of Congress. Congress normally authorizes funding 
annually for each military service to plan and design their critical 
future military construction priorities. This bill disregards the 
military's priorities and earmarks funds towards specific projects--
without the Department being given the opportunity to determine whether 
or not those projects reflect actual military requirements.
  Even more egregious is that we are proposing to pay for this 
airdropped pork by cutting over $900 million from the amount of $8.1 
billion requested by the President to carry out the critical military 
construction activities related to the 2005 defense base closure and 
realignment round. The Department of Defense and the local communities 
affected by BRAC need enough funding to meet the statutory deadline of 
September 2011. To underfund BRAC in order to pay for earmarks is a sad 
reflection on the priorities of this Congress, which has again 
unabashedly put parochial interests above the needs of the Defense 
Department, our local communities and the American taxpayer.
  We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if 
we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be 
thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are 
going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not 
fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills 
with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special 
interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to 
tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a 
pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.
  In a report on our long-term budget outlook issued this month, the 
Congressional Budget Office states this: ``Significant uncertainty 
surrounds long-term fiscal projections, but under any plausible 
scenario, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path--that is, 
federal debt will grow much faster than the economy over the long run. 
In the absence of significant changes in policy, rising costs for 
health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal 
spending to grow rapidly.''
  The report goes on to say that: ``If outlays increased as projected 
and revenues did not grow at a corresponding rate, deficits would climb 
and federal debt would grow significantly. Substantial budget deficits 
would reduce national saving, which would lead to an increase in 
borrowing from abroad and lower levels of domestic investment that in 
turn would constrain income growth in the United States. In the 
extreme, deficits could seriously harm the economy. Such economic 
damage could be averted by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal 
course, which would require some combination of less spending and more 
revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner 
rather than later would lessen the risk that an unsustainable fiscal 
path poses to the economy.'' Again--this is not my dire prediction, it 
comes from our own CBO.
  To underscore the urgency of the problem, in a speech at The National 
Press Club just yesterday, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the 
United States announced that--for the eleventh straight year--the 
Federal Government failed its financial audit. Mr. Walker said that 
``the federal government's total liabilities and unfunded commitments 
for future benefits payments promised under the current Social Security 
and Medicare programs are now estimated at $53 trillion, in current 
dollar terms, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into 
a defacto mortgage of about $455,000 for every American household and 
there's no house to back this mortgage. In other words, our government 
has made a whole lot of promises that, in the long run, it cannot 
possibly keep without huge tax increases.''
  The Comptroller General also highlighted a specific program that 
serves as an example of the serious problems we face. He said: ``The 
prescription drug benefit alone represents about $8 trillion of 
Medicare's $34 trillion gap. Incredibly, this number was not disclosed 
or discussed until after the Congress had voted on the bill and the 
President had signed it into law. Generations of Americans will be 
paying the price--with compound interest--for this new entitlement 
benefit.'' He went on to note that: ``Unfortunately, once federal 
programs or agencies are created, the tendency is to fund them in 
perpetuity. Washington rarely seems to question the wisdom of its 
existing commitments. Instead, it simply adds new programs and 
initiatives on top of the old ones. This continual layering is a key 
reason our government has grown so large, so expensive, so inefficient, 
and in some cases, so ineffective.''
  Mr. Walker ended his speech by saying ``If all of us do our part, and 
if we start making tough choices sooner rather than later, we can keep 
America great, ensure that our future is better than the past, and 
ensure that our great nation is the first republic to stand the test of 
time. To me, that is a cause worth fighting for.'' I agree 
wholeheartedly. And I say to my colleagues: Let's start making those 
tough choices today. We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we 
can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary 
pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests 
any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't. 
They deserve better treatment from us.


                  St. John's Bayou/New Madrid Floodway

  Mrs. BOXER, Mr. President, I wish to speak to the intent of section 
123 of title I of division C of the bill, which addresses the Corps of 
Engineers project--Saint Johns Bayou/New Madrid Floodway. As the 
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works with 
jurisdiction over the Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water Act and the 
National Environmental Policy Act,
  I offer my understanding of section 123. Section 123 does not 
interfere with or overturn any court decision concerning this project 
with regard to either or both of the Clean Water Act and the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The language provides that the project as 
described in the June 2002 Revised Supplemental Impact Statement, as 
supplemented by the March 2006 Revised Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement 2 is determined to be economically justified.

[[Page S15879]]

The language does not affect the application of the Clean Water Act and 
NEPA to this project. Because of the specific reference to the project 
documents, the language in section 123 does not alter legal 
requirements regarding cost/benefit analysis for subsequent or revised 
project documents, including environmental impact statements, or any 
requirements with regard to NEPA and the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, nearly a year ago, when President Bush 
announced his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, he 
predicted that increased U.S. troop levels would stabilize the country 
so that its national leaders could reach political agreement. More 
troops would enable us to accelerate training initiatives so that the 
Iraqi army and police force could assume control of all security in the 
country by November 2007. According to this plan, the Iraqi army and 
police force were to assume control of Iraq's security last month.
  Well, the information before us in December, like the reports before 
us in September and July, show us that President Bush's troop 
escalation hasn't delivered on the President's promises. It has failed 
to stem the civil war going on in Iraq, failed to allow Iraqi forces to 
take control over their own security, and failed to lead to political 
reconciliation. That failure was clear when I last came to the floor to 
discuss this issue in September, and it is clear today.
  With troop levels still 24,000 above where they were a year ago, and 
with no plans to lower them below pre-surge levels, not even President 
Bush's claims that substantial progress toward the ultimate goal of the 
escalation--political reconciliation--has occurred. There have been no 
agreements on de-Ba'athification reform, oil revenue sharing, 
provincial elections, or amnesty laws, nor has the Iraqi government or 
the Administration offered a clear plan for achieving a sustainable 
political reconciliation. Just 2 days ago, LTG Raymond Odierno, the No. 
2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, was quoted pleading with the Iraqi 
government to make progress on national reconciliation and improving 
basic services.
  Our country's resources remain locked in Iraq. Iran is emboldened. 
Insurgent violence is at its highest level in Afghanistan since U.S.-
led forces first ousted the Taliban and our military reports signs of 
al Qaeda is returning to Afghanistan from Iraq. Pakistan is facing 
political turmoil and Turkey has begun military incursions into Iraq's 
Kurdish regions.
  We have to change our mission in Iraq. The cost of further delay in 
lives, materiel, treasure, and our standing in the world is too great. 
The United States cannot impose the political reconciliation necessary 
to bring long-lasting security to that nation. It is time to direct our 
resources toward the rest of the region and to needs here at home.
  A new policy begins by removing our troops from the middle of a civil 
war and giving them a more realistic mission, one that is in the best 
interests of Iraq and the United States. Given the facts and the 
realities independent reports provide us, I continue to support an 
amendment, this time sponsored by Senators Feingold and Reid, to change 
our mission in Iraq from providing security and services to a focus on 
training, counter-terrorism and force protection.
  I voted against an amendment to add $40 billion to the omnibus 
spending package without any limits on the President's use of that 
money. The military has no immediate need for additional funds for 
Iraq. Congress just passed a $456 billion Defense Appropriations bill. 
The omnibus provides the Army and Marine Corps an additional $20 
billion. Given the Department of Defense's ability to shift funds, this 
money should pay for the war through March. We will have a chance to 
vote on additional funding next year when we will have more information 
about trends on the ground in Iraq.
  Further, while negotiating this year's spending levels this President 
has vetoed additional health and education funding and refused to 
negotiate over a modest increase in overall appropriations to fund 
critical needs here at home, and he continues to insist Congress fund a 
failed strategy in Iraq. The President's intransigence undermines our 
position in the world and has left this Congress fewer resources to 
direct toward priorities here at home. Those are the wrong priorities 
for our nation.
  The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq. It is time to 
take steps to protect our troops and our all volunteer force, change 
the mission, step up our diplomatic efforts, and internationalize the 
effort to bring stability to that country and to the Middle East.
  We don't need additional funds for Iraq, we need a new direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss one provision of the 
fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill which is of great 
importance to the security of our nation, and of particular importance 
to my State of New Jersey. That is Section 534, which will overturn the 
Department of Homeland Security's efforts to preempt the rights of 
State and local governments to adopt chemical security protections 
stronger than the standards adopted by the Federal Government.
  The effort by DHS to prevent States from going beyond the measures 
adopted by DHS to protect their residents from terrorist attacks on 
chemical facilities was never authorized by Congress, and the inclusion 
of my provision overturning the Department's effort represents a strong 
rejection by Congress of the Department's attempt to do so.
  Opposition to the Department's efforts has been widespread and 
bipartisan, including from the National Governor's Association, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures and the Chairmen of the 9/11 
Commission, Representative Lee Hamilton and former New Jersey Governor 
Tom Kean. Nevertheless, DHS continues to insist that its partnership 
with industry rather than a partnership with States--will be sufficient 
to protect the American public. By including this provision in the 
omnibus bill, Congress is making clear that the role of State and local 
governments is not to be undermined by the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  The provision included in the omnibus bill amends Section 550 of the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 to clarify 
that DHS does not have the authority to preempt State or local 
governments from adopting chemical security measures stronger than 
those adopted by DHS. The language in this bill will allow States to go 
beyond the Federal regulations as long as there is no actual conflict 
with the Federal regulations. This means that unless it is impossible 
to comply with both State and Federal law, the State law is not 
preempted. Determinations on whether it is impossible to comply with 
both State law and Federal law are properly decided by the Federal 
courts, and DHS should not be prejudging or interfering with this 
determination.
  While we all wish it were not so, the threat of terrorists using our 
chemical plants as a mechanism for killing hundreds or thousands of 
citizens is not far-fetched. It was reported as far back as December 
2001 that chemical trade publications had been found in a hideout in 
Afghanistan used by Osama bin Laden. Numerous Government agencies and 
independent bodies have identified the Nation's chemical facilities as 
an attractive target for terrorists. And New Jersey has good reason to 
be concerned about a terrorist attack on a facility storing large 
amounts of dangerous chemicals. The FBI has called the stretch between 
Port Newark and Liberty International Airport ``the most dangerous two 
miles in America.'' According to a 2005 CRS report, 7 of the 111 sites 
identified by EPA that could put more than 1 million people at risk in 
the event of an attack or serious accident are in New Jersey. According 
to the same report, up to 7 facilities in New Jersey put up to 1 
million people at risk, and up to 20 more facilities pose a risk to up 
to 100,000 people.
  I want to thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and my 
colleagues in the Senate and the House for their support for including 
this critically important national security provision in the Omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I worked very 
hard to assure that, given the veto threats of President Bush, the 
Omnibus appropriations bill was as strong as it could be. In that 
regard, we have made some real progress. Unfortunately,

[[Page S15880]]

however, this bill contains $40 billion for Iraq operations, with no 
strings attached the money to be used as the President wishes, with no 
accountability for when our involvement in Iraq will end. With 
expenditures of $12 billion a month, it is now estimated that the total 
cost of our Iraq involvement will end up being more than $1 trillion.
  I cannot support providing more money for continuing our ill-
conceived and tragic presence in Iraq, money provided with no 
requirement for plans as to when the redeployment will begin, when it 
will be concluded, and what our future course in Iraq will be. 
Consequently, I will vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill.
  My vote against this bill also reflects genuine concern regarding 
last-minute additions of loan guarantees for questionable energy 
sources, which move us in exactly the wrong direction. More 
specifically, the report language accompanying the Omnibus 
appropriations bill provides $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for 
nuclear powerplants, $2.0 billion in loan guarantees for uranium 
enrichment, $6.0 billion in loan guarantees for coal, which I have 
reason to believe includes coal to liquids, and $2.0 billion in loan 
guarantees for coal gasification, which I also fear could be used for 
coal to liquids. It is, quite frankly, beyond belief that we would be 
passing legislation to support these questionable energy sources. In my 
view, we should be doing everything we can to transform our energy 
system so as to move away from unsafe and polluting sources to energy 
efficiency and sustainable and renewable technologies. Congress can, 
and must, do better.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, now December 18 and we are all anxious to 
get home. Additionally tomorrow is my 48th wedding anniversary. That's 
why I want to get home. Standing in our way is final disposition of the 
2008 appropriation bills. The leadership has brought before us an 
omnibus bill that combines the remaining 11 regular appropriation bills 
not yet signed by the President. That in and of itself is a failure. 
Instead of working to pass the annual appropriations bills and ensure 
the continued operation of our Government, congressional Democrats have 
spent the majority of the 110th Congress playing political games with 
critical funding for our troops, attempting to pass surrender 
resolutions, and pushing a path to amnesty for the millions of illegal 
immigrants in our Nation. Two months past the end of the fiscal year, 
Congress only managed to pass one of the annual appropriations bills, 
instead choosing to roll billions of dollars in funding into an Omnibus 
appropriations bill hours before Congress is supposed to recess for the 
year. In fact, this year we observed the latest date in 20 years that 
Congress failed to send a single annual appropriations bill to the 
President's desk. This Democrat-controlled Congress should be labeled 
as nothing but irresponsible. Additionally, I am here to point out that 
this bill violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate because 
it is legislating on an appropriations bill.
  Title I of Division C, which appropriates money for the Civil Works 
program of the Army Corps of Engineers, the following projects have 
either not yet be authorized or the amounts appropriated for them under 
this bill exceed the authorized levels:
  Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration study; coastal 
Mississippi hurricane and storm damage reduction study; rural health 
care facility on the Fort Berthold Reservation of the three affiliated 
tribes; North Dakota environmental infrastructure project.
  During consideration of H.R. 1492, the Water Resources Development 
Act, Public Law 110-114, I elaborated for my colleagues in great detail 
the history and function of the authorization process and stated that I 
would oppose any appropriation bill that attempted to fund projects 
either not previously authorized, or above their authorized level. As I 
made clear in my statements on September 24 prior to passage of the 
conference report and again on November 8, prior to the Senate's veto 
override vote, the authorization process is the foremost mechanism we 
have to control spending. We are violating it in this bill.
  In addition to these increases in spending, the omnibus includes 
numerous provisions authorizing or modifying other projects and 
policies of the Corps in nonspending ways. These legislative 
provisions, too, should be decided within the authorization process, 
not in an omnibus appropriations bill.
  Just over a month ago, we authorized $23 billion in projects for the 
Corps of Engineers, and Chairwoman Boxer and I have already begun 
discussions on a new authorization bill for 2008. So, I have to ask why 
are we violating not only the Standing Rules of the Senate, but 
creating an opportunity for criticism on our ability to control 
spending. It makes no sense, it is not necessary and I believe goes to 
the heart of why the public has such a low opinion of Congress. They 
don't trust us. Why should they, we cannot seem to follow our own 
rules.
  Before I close, I would like to point out one more area of 
unnecessary and irresponsible legislating in this omnibus appropriation 
bill. There are several provisions to address climate change scattered 
throughout the bill. These provisions include creation of new 
requirements and a new mitigation incentives fund for the Economic 
Development Administration, in title I of Division B; a sense of 
Congress with a call for a mandatory program to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, in Division F; and the creation of a mandatory greenhouse 
gas registry, in title II of Division F, which appropriates money for 
the Environmental Protection Agency. We are in the middle of a regular 
order process for the consideration of climate change legislation. To 
include these provisions now, at the last minute on an omnibus, is a 
total affront to that process.
  The proposed registry language is a completely standardless grant to 
the EPA, possibly an unlawful delegation of Congress' power to 
legislate. The language directs EPA to develop a mandatory reporting 
program of greenhouse gas emissions ``above appropriate thresholds in 
all sectors of the economy of the United States.'' There are no other 
standards or directions to the Agency. There are no standards by which 
a reviewing court can judge EPA's actions.
  This registry language should be removed or, at a minimum, allowed to 
sunset at the end of fiscal year 2008 without implementation or effect.
  In another provision, the appropriators express concern about 
proposed new power plants in Texas. This provision, at the very least, 
should refer to all fossil fuel generation, not just single out coal-
fired generation.
  Colleagues, I have no illusions that my attempt here today to bring 
about discipline on the spending process will succeed, but I cannot 
allow the bill to go through without registering in the strongest 
possible terms my objections to what we are doing here today.
  I have no doubt that each of the Army Corps projects mentioned above 
have merit, and I would be happy to work with the sponsors, as would, I 
am sure, Chairwoman Boxer, during the authorization process, but doing 
it now is wrong. It violates our rules, it removes discipline from the 
process.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in 
support of the consolidated appropriations bill before the Senate and 
to discuss one small part of the bill that is an important component to 
our many efforts to advance the biofuels industry and to wean our 
nation off of its reliance on oil.
  In the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee provided $2 million to the Department of 
Energy for ``E-85 infrastructure deployment.''
  I want to highlight the importance of this funding and stress the 
need for DOE to utilize this money in the most cost efficient and 
effective manner possible.
  E85 is an alternative form of transportation fuel that consists of 85 
percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. It has been developed, in 
part, to address American's air quality issues and its dangerous 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Currently, there are over 6 million E85 capable vehicles on the 
Nation's highways, and the use of E85 in these vehicles has the 
potential to significantly reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign 
oil, add billions to total farm income, help improve rural and the 
American economies, and help reduce levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

[[Page S15881]]

  Recognizing the importance of E85, President Bush and Secretary of 
Transportation Mary Peters participated with the CEOs of General 
Motors, Ford, and Chrysler in an event on March of 2007, where they 
announced the growth in the production of flexible-fuel vehicles, FFVs, 
that can run on E85.
  The automakers pledged to double their existing production of 
flexible fuel vehicles by 2010. They also pledged that by 2012 fully 50 
percent of all vehicle production would be FFVs.
  This pledge, however, was predicated on the fact that adequate 
fueling infrastructure would be available by that time to fuel the 
millions of additional E85-compatible vehicles.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to provide adequate funding to 
help advance the deployment of E85 fueling infrastructure. I was 
encouraged then that the Senate elected to set aside $2 million for 
this purpose in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Once 
finalized, it will become the Department of Energy's responsibility to 
allocate this funding to the entity that can provide the most effective 
and cost-efficient service.
  As Governor of Nebraska I helped create the Governors' Ethanol 
Coalition. In 1997, this coalition, along with the National Corn 
Growers Association, domestic automakers, and others, established a 
group named the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, NEVC, to be the 
Nation's primary advocate for the use of E85 ethanol as an alternative 
to oil-based transportation fuel.
  Working with its many partners, NEVC maintains the primary national 
database on E85 fueling locations, E85 fuel providers, and 
comprehensive data on the technical requirements necessary to install 
E85 fueling systems. NEVC also provides the marketing and promotional 
materials used by all E85 fueling stations in the nation.
  NEVC accomplishes all of these actions in a cost effective, timely, 
and prudent manner. In addition to having assisted with the opening of 
1,413 existing stations, NEVC has provided assistance to station 
operators for securing reasonably priced supplies of ethanol. NEVC has 
also provided assistance regarding State and Federal tax credits and 
the materials needed for proper marketing and promotion by these 
stations.
  NEVC has an extensive background, high level of technical competence, 
and vast experience in establishing and maintaining E85 fueling 
facilities, and they have proven themselves capable of effectively 
delivering assistance in a cost-efficient manner.
  I note that there is broad consensus that additional alternative 
fueling infrastructure is needed in this country, and I stress the need 
for DOE to wisely use the limited funds we have made available.
  As such, Mr. President, I strongly urge the Department of Energy to 
work closely with NEVC and give them all due consideration when it is 
expending the funding Congress has provided to meet the needs and goals 
for E85 fueling stations.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is no secret that every Senator who 
comes to Washington, DC, comes with a few select issues in mind which 
he makes his own, and which he takes a particular interest in. For me, 
open and transparent government has been one of those issues.
  From my time as a Texas lawyer, supreme court justice, and attorney 
general I know firsthand the importance, but also the difficulty of 
creating and enforcing open government and the free flow of 
information. I have always taken to heart, however, the words of James 
Madison, who once declared: ``The advancement and diffusion of 
knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.''
  Of course, I have the advantage of coming from Texas, one of the 
strongest States in terms of free information and open government. In 
Texas, it is a matter of principle that everyone should be able to 
quickly and easily find out what their government is doing and how.
  That is why I was so pleased last week when the Senate passed the 
Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government, or OPEN 
Government Act of 2007. Now, the House has likewise passed this 
important bill, and I eagerly await the President signing it into law.
  I have to thank my colleagues, the chairman of the Judiciary 
committee, Senator Leahy, and Lydia Griggsby of his staff; Senator Kyl, 
and Joe Matal of his staff; and two of my former chief counsels, James 
Ho and Reed O'Connor. Without their hard work, we wouldn't be 
celebrating this legislative victory today.
  I have spoken on several occasions in this Chamber about the 
importance of reforming and updating the Freedom of Information Act, so 
that undue delays and onerous burdens which plague American citizens 
looking for information that they by right should have. After 40 years 
of FOIA there still remain pending requests for information more than a 
decade old. And many requests result in costly and drawn out lawsuits 
which effectively prevent the average citizen from receiving the 
information they deserve.
  This bill will restore this most fundamental principle of a free and 
informed citizenry. It reinforces Lincoln's notion of a government ``of 
the people, by the people, for the people,'' placing information back 
in the hands of Americans. It is nothing short of a victory for 
democracy.
  This bill restores meaningful deadlines with real consequences to the 
FOIA system, ensuring Government agencies will provide timely responses 
to requests. It creates a new system for tracking pending FOIA requests 
and an ombudsman to review agency compliance. At the same time it 
closes loopholes and strengthens FOIA law ensuring all journalists have 
equal access to information.
  These reforms are long overdue, and are but a part of creating a 
government focused on openness. Still, I look forward to the President 
signing this bill and pacing the way for a culture of transparency in 
America. In my home of Texas, we have worked hard to establish the 
ideals of openness and transparency, and I know that the Nation can 
follow suit. It is in everyone's best interest to throw a little more 
sunshine on Washington, DC.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to draw your attention to a 
critical amendment that I am offering to the Omnibus appropriation 
bill. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 
Fisheries, and the Coast Guard, I am working with my colleagues in the 
New England delegation to seek support for this amendment. Our 
amendment would allow fisheries disaster relief funds to be made 
available to hard-hit fishermen in all New England States, not just 
Massachusetts as is currently stipulated
  From the time the first Europeans arrived in the region that would 
become New England, fish--particularly groundfish such as cod and 
haddock--were the fundamental natural resource. It was said that fish 
were once so bountiful that one could walk across the Gulf of Maine on 
the backs of codfish. But today, our centuries-old tradition of 
groundfishing is at a critical juncture, and many of our fishermen are 
increasingly finding that they can no longer find enough fish to make a 
living in an industry that has sustained their families for 
generations. This is because ongoing requirements to rebuild New 
England's groundfishery have resulted in drastic cuts to the fishing 
industry and severe economic impacts to our fishing communities. Since 
1996, groundfishermen in the Northeast Multispecies Groundfish Fishery 
have seen their allotted days-at-sea slashed by over 75 percent, from 
an average of 116 to just 24 days a year. This effectively closes the 
fishery 93 percent of the time.
  I understand the need to reduce catch on a temporary basis in order 
to allow the stocks to rebound from decades of overfishing, but if we 
are going to have any fishermen left to harvest those rebuilt stocks, 
we must have Government assistance to sustain the fleet through this 
rebuilding period. The Maine groundfishing fleet already has been cut 
in half over the past 13 years, from more than 220 boats in 1994 to 
just 110 today. Groundfish landings in Maine are down 58 percent over 
that same time period. Shoreside support industries such as fish 
processors, and ice, bait and fuel suppliers have suffered similar 
losses--with jobs in fish processing and wholesaling dropping 40 
percent, from nearly 3,000 jobs to less than 1,800 today.

[[Page S15882]]

  Because of these severe economic impacts and their ramifications to 
shoreside infrastructure and the overall health of coastal communities, 
earlier this year the Governor of Maine appealed to the Secretary of 
Commerce, asking that he officially declare a ``fisheries failure'' in 
this region. Such a declaration under existing law would allow the 
release of vital disaster assistance to help minimize the devastating 
losses our fishing communities are experiencing.
  Unfortunately, the Secretary of Commerce failed our fishermen, when 
he failed to make this declaration. He misinterpreted Congress's intent 
when, in the most recent reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation Management Act, we authorized disaster relief 
funding for fisheries crippled by overly onerous regulations. And that 
mistake was fueled by his decision to cherry-pick numbers and 
timeframes that provided a rosier analysis of the true cumulative 
economic impact of the groundfish regulations. It was his contention 
that the fishery was ``rebuilding.'' While this may be true, the fact 
remains: today, our fishermen are only allowed to work 24 days a year. 
If these are the regulations we require, I think that is evidence 
enough that the fishery should be considered a failure.

  But given the Secretary's decision, and his rejection of numerous 
appeals to reconsider, it is now up to Congress to provide this vital 
economic relief, which will enable our fishing communities to survive 
while groundfish stocks rebuild over the next several years. But as it 
now stands in the omnibus, Congress is poised to repeat the mistakes 
made by the Secretary of Commerce by denying this relief where it is 
most needed.
  Currently, the language in the bill would only allow disaster relief 
funding to groundfishermen in the State of Massachusetts. This language 
marks a significant departure from the New England delegation's past 
efforts to address the impacts of groundfish regulations. For nearly a 
decade, until this language appeared, my staff and I have worked 
closely with Senators Kerry and Kennedy--as well our colleagues from 
other New England States--to develop and put forth a comprehensive, 
consistent, regional approach for achieving the goal of fairly and 
effectively helping our groundfishermen. The simple fact is that this 
is a regional fishery. Massachusetts fishermen are chasing the same 
fish as their Maine or Rhode Island or New Hampshire counterparts. And 
I am deeply troubled to see that this regional, cooperative approach 
has been abandoned by my colleagues from Massachusetts, and they now 
choose to ``go it alone'' without seeing that this is a regional 
crisis. After all, considering that devastating economic impacts have 
hit all New England States, especially Maine, it is simply unfair and 
unreasonable to keep this funding contained to one State.
  We first worked to remedy this situation and restore a strong 
regional solution last October. When the Senate passed our Commerce-
Justice-Science Bill, S. 3093, we included a Sununu amendment, which I 
cosponsored, that would have directed $15 million of the funds provided 
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to be available 
to carry out disaster relief activities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To 
my great dismay--and without consultation to the New England 
delegation--the omnibus before us no longer contains the Senate-passed 
language allowing this disaster relief for New England's 
groundfishermen. The Senate must now act to restore this funding.
  If we fail to do the right thing today, the result will be that 
disaster relief funding will go to only Massachusetts--arguably the 
State that needs it the least. For example, the port of New Bedford, MA 
consistently ranks first in the Nation in the value of fisheries 
landings. Fishermen brought $281.2 million worth of fish to New Bedford 
alone in 2006, continuing a 7-year trend of increasing value of 
landings. On top of that--Massachusetts fishermen are already set to 
receive approximately 6 million of additional fisheries mitigation 
funding from operators of a liquefied natural gas facility.

  If Congress does not act to remedy this situation, we could be 
sounding the death knell for groundfishermen in other New England 
States. The fishermen in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 
Connecticut would simply be unable to compete with their counterparts 
in Massachusetts, who will soon find themselves awash in an influx of 
cash, boosting their bottom lines and increasing their competitiveness. 
This would be a grievous injustice--one that we cannot countenance.
  For the sake of the hard-working groundfishermen throughout the other 
New England States, who have already endured years of costly 
regulations and are working hard to help stocks recover, I implore my 
colleagues to support this amendment. Congress must right the wrongs 
that continue to be carried out on our hardest hit fishermen and 
coastal communities.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the fiscal year 
2008 omnibus appropriations bill. I know it has been difficult to reach 
a compromise on this bill, and I realize that many funding levels for 
important programs were reduced so we could reach an agreement.
  Despite these cutbacks, I believe we can still be proud of this bill. 
It contains considerable funding for counterterrorism and crime 
prevention, scientific and medical research, Pell grants, title I 
schools, special education, small business programs, consumer product 
protection, Amtrak, State and local first responder grants, and low-
income energy assistance. To meet the President's top line budget 
number, my colleagues had to make hard choices. To their credit, the 
bill before us today prioritizes the most critical domestic programs in 
the Federal Government.
  The omnibus also contains an additional $3.7 billion in emergency 
funding for veterans, constituting the largest increase in veterans' 
spending in the history of our Nation. $1.9 billion of the increase is 
targeted for VA medical services. This much needed funding will improve 
treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress 
disorder, two of the most prevalent injuries from the global war on 
terrorism.
  I am also proud of what this bill will do for the people and 
communities of Connecticut. The money I requested will assist many 
worthy local efforts, such as hospital renovations, the construction of 
a small craft maintenance facility at Naval Submarine Base New London, 
a community college manufacturing technology program, and improvements 
to several intermodal transportation facilities.
  I would like to clarify conference language concerning two specific 
projects in the bill. Currently, the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies conference report lists a State and tribal assistance grant 
project as ``$300,000 for The City of Southington for wellhead 
cleanup.'' This language should be interpreted as if it stated 
``$300,000 for the Southington Water Department for wellhead cleanup.''
  The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 
conference report lists an Office of Museum and Library Services 
project as ``$97,000 for the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, 
CT for educational programs and interactive school programs at the Old 
State House.'' This language should be interpreted as if it stated 
``$97,000 for the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, CT for 
educational programs and interactive school programs at the Old State 
House and the Connecticut Historical Society Museum.''
  Once again, I commend the efforts of my colleagues on the 
consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. They deserve 
hearty congratulations for their demanding work and considerable 
willingness to compromise.
  Mr. COBURN. As we approach the end of the year, Congress once again 
finds itself on a last-minute spending spree, approving billions of 
dollars of new spending with few questions asked, no amendments 
allowed, and little debate, discussion, or inspection permitted.
  The U.S. national debt now exceeds $9.13 trillion. That means almost 
$30,000 in debt for each and every man, woman, and child in the United 
States. The U.S. debt is expanding by about $1.4 billion a day, or 
nearly $1 million a minute. The unfunded liability placed on a child 
born today is $400,000.
  The ``Financial Report of the United States Government'' released 
this week found that the Federal deficit would be

[[Page S15883]]

nearly 70 percent higher than the $162.8 billion reported 2 months ago 
if the Government used the same accounting practices as private firms. 
Accounting for such liabilities as pensions and health care costs when 
they are incurred rather than when they are paid would have boosted the 
deficit to $275.5 billion, the report noted.
  It is completely irresponsible for Congress to add to this debt that 
threatens the retirement security of our senior citizens and the 
economic prosperity of our children and grandchildren who will inherit 
the debt that results from the spending decisions Congress is making 
today.
  The Omnibus appropriations bill, which combines the 11 unfinished 
appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government's operations in 
fiscal year 2008, provides approximately $515.7 billion in 
discretionary spending. The bill also adds approximately $11 billion in 
emergency spending, of which $3.7 billion is contingent emergency 
spending for veterans programs.
  This bill was approved by the House of Representatives last night, 
and the Senate will vote on it today, even though it has only been 
available now for 36 hours. The bill is more than 3,400 pages, and I am 
fairly certain that not a single Member of either chamber of Congress, 
or anyone else, for that matter, has read it in its entirety. What is 
most shocking, however, is that the eagerness of Members of Congress to 
recess for the year and to satisfy the desire to secure pork projects 
has taken precedent over our responsibility to properly manage the 
Nation's finances and set national spending priorities.
  While this bill does not provide the funding that is needed for our 
brave men and women in uniform fighting on the front lines in Iraq, it 
does contains over 9,000 special interest pork projects, known as 
``earmarks.''
  ``An earmark Christmas, Lawmakers deck out omnibus with many a 
spending project,'' proclaims the front page of the Hill newspaper. 
``Earmark Extravaganza, Nearly 9,000 Requests in Omnibus,'' exclaims 
the front page of Roll Call.
  Nearly 300 of the earmarks in this bill costing over $800 million 
were air dropped into this bill during closed- door meetings not open 
to the public or most Members of Congress.
  Among the thousands of earmarked projects tucked into this bill are:
  $113,000 for rodent control in Alaska;
  $213,000 for olive fruit fly research in France;
  $1,645,000 for the City of Bastrop, LA. According to Bastrop Daily 
Enterprise, ``The money is officially earmarked for the purchase of 
bulletproof vests and body armor. Bulletproof vests only cost about 
$700-800, however, so $1.6 million would appear to be overkill.'' 
Police detective Curtis Stephenson agrees, conceding ``There's no way 
we'd need that kind of money just to put all our people in vests.'';
  $200,000 for a Hunting and Fishing Museum in Pennsylvania;
  $150,000 for a Louis Armstrong Museum in New York;
  $700,000 for a bike trail in Minnesota;
  $1,000,000 for river walk in Massachusetts;
  $200,000 for a post office museum in downtown Las Vegas;
  $1,000,000 for an earmark requested by a House Member who has been 
indicted on Federal charges of racketeering, money-laundering and 
soliciting bribes;
  $824,000 for alternative salmon products;
  $146,000 for an aquarium in South Carolina;
  $1,000,000 for managing weeds in Idaho; and
  $37,000 for the Lincoln Park Zoo in Illinois.
  It is hard to argue that any of these are national priorities or more 
important than funding the troops in Iraq or worth increasing the 
national debt. Members of Congress have, however, learned to 
rationalize the practice of earmarking, but the truth is every earmark 
diverts funds away from more important national priorities.
  I filed two amendments to this bill that would have demonstrated this 
point that I had hoped to offer but was blocked from doing so. These 
amendments would have given Congress the opportunity to choose between 
improving deficient roads and bridges and providing health care to 
women and children before steering funds toward special interest 
earmarks.
  The first amendment, 3860, would have allowed the Department of 
Transportation to redirect earmarked funds to improve unsafe roads and 
bridges.
  On August 1, 2007, the Interstate 35 West, I-35W bridge over the 
Mississippi River in Minneapolis, MN, collapsed during rush hour, 
killing 13 people and injuring another 123. This tragedy exposed both a 
nationwide problem of deficient bridges as well as misplaced priorities 
of Congress, which has focused more on funding earmarks than improving 
aging infrastructure.
  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, one out of every 
eight bridges in our Nation is structurally deficient. Of the 597,340 
bridges in the United States, 154,101 bridges are deficient. Yet, 
instead of addressing needed bridge maintenance, Congress has 
prioritized earmarks for politicians' pet projects, many which do not 
even involve roads or bridges.
  The $286 billion, 5-year Transportation authorization bill approved 
by Congress in 2005, for example, included 6,373 earmarks, totaling $24 
billion, including the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere'' in Alaska.
  An investigation by the inspector general of the Department of 
Transportation found that ``Many earmarked projects considered by the 
agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, non-
earmarked projects.'' The IG notes that ``Funding these new low 
priority projects added to the already substantial backlog of 
replacement projects and caused [Federal Aviation Administration] to 
delay the planning of its higher priority replacement projects by at 
least 3 years.''
  Earmarks have siphoned away tens of billions of dollars that could 
and should have been spent to upgrade deficient bridges or improve 
aging roads rather than being spent on politicians' pet projects.
  The Senate has already rejected a similar amendment in September, and 
this bill shows once again that Congress is more interested in securing 
earmarks than securing our Nation's roads and bridges.
  The second amendment, 3861, would have allowed the Department of 
Health and Human Services to redirect earmarked funds to the Maternal 
and Child Health Block Grant Program.
  Congress has spent much of this year posturing about who cares most 
about providing health care for children and the uninsured. Yet 
Congress has failed to enact any reforms to expand health care access. 
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in this country there were 
9.5 million children who lacked health insurance for at least part of 
last year, and over 17 million women are uninsured.
  This amendment ensures that many of these uninsured women and 
children would receive services from the Maternal and Child Health 
Block Grant, which provides funding for urgent health needs for 
pregnant women, mothers, infants, children, and adolescents. It is 
shameful that Congress has diverted tens of millions of dollars in the 
health title of this bill towards special interest pork projects when 
millions of children and women do not have access to critical health 
care.
  The Senate rejected a similar amendment in October, and this bill 
demonstrates once again that while Congress may talk about prioritizing 
children's health care, the real priority of Congress is its own 
special interest pork projects.
  There are plenty of other examples in this bill of Congress's 
misplaced priorities. The bill, for example, terminates the Baby AIDS 
Program that provides resources to prevent perinatal HIV transmission 
and care for mothers with HIV, while ensuring that San Francisco 
receives funding for deceased AIDS patients. The bill provides another 
$100 million for the 2008 political party conventions. It allows the 
Department of Justice to again provide Federal financial support for 
groups linked to terrorism by removing the prohibition passed by the 
Senate in October.
  Who know what other travesties are hidden within this 3,400 page 
omnibus spending bill that Congress is expected to pass without having 
time to read, review, or amend? Members of Congress may never know, and 
apparently few seem to care.

[[Page S15884]]

  It should come as no surprise to anyone that the approval ratings of 
Congress have reached alltime historical lows.
  Congress has ignored the needs of our troops in combat, the looming 
bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, and the nearly 
insurmountable national debt that threatens the future prosperity of 
our Nation while showing virtually no restraint on spending, especially 
for parochial pork projects.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my distinct dismay 
with the outcome of what has become omnibus funding legislation for 11 
of the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. H.R. 2764 is a sad 
testament to Congress's inability to draft and pass responsible Federal 
funding legislation. I am very disappointed that critical funding for 
drug abuse education efforts, crime victims and, more specifically, 
victims of domestic violence has been stripped from this bill. Idaho 
will lose more than 10 percent of Victims of Crime Act Funding, money, 
incidentally, which was never supposed to be subject to the 
appropriations process in the first place. Furthermore, funding for 
programs that help victims of sexual assault in 15 cities in Idaho and 
a program that has helped thousands of Idaho schoolchildren learn of 
the dangers of Internet predators have been eliminated during the 
conference process on this omnibus spending bill. Justice assistance 
grants have been significantly reduced. The Office of National Drug 
Control Policy Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was significantly cut, 
which jeopardizes important anti drug and, particularly anti meth media 
messaging for Idaho's youth. Although I have supported important 
funding along the way in these bills including veterans funding, border 
funds and other Idaho priorities, in my view, victims of crime and our 
youth are the clear losers in this legislation, and because of this and 
other substantial concerns I have with this, I have to vote against the 
bill.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for a 
provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. Specifically, I 
would like to take this opportunity to highlight and clarify language 
included in Division E, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act of 2008 regarding the secure handling of ammonium 
nitrate.
  This legislation reduces the risk of large quantities of ammonium 
nitrate falling into the wrong hands, while ensuring access for 
agriculture professionals and farmers who use this fertilizer for 
legitimate purposes. It requires that ammonium nitrate sellers and 
purchasers register and receive a registration number in order to 
distribute or buy the product. Doing so reduces the possibility that 
ammonium nitrate will be misused. First, it allows Department of 
Homeland Security and relevant law enforcement agencies to know who has 
access to ammonium nitrate. Second, it requires registration number 
applicants to be matched against the terrorism screening database 
before being authorized to buy or sell ammonium nitrate. Finally, by 
making the sale or purchase of ammonium nitrate more difficult, it 
deters acquisition of this explosive precursor by dangerous persons.
  Farmers who use ammonium nitrate in agriculture production normally 
obtain the ammonium nitrate from a retail fertilizer dealership. Any 
retail fertilizer dealership that stores and sells ammonium nitrate 
would have to register under this legislation. The intent of this 
legislation is ``track and trace''--to provide law enforcement 
officials with the ability to know where ammonium nitrate is being 
stored and the establishment of a prescreening process before a person 
can purchase and take away ammonium nitrate.
  Retail fertilizer dealerships provide many services for farmers and 
one of those services is custom application. Many farmers buy the 
fertilizer, but never physically take possession of the ammonium 
nitrate. Instead, farmers purchase the services of a dealer who spreads 
the ammonium nitrate on their fields. In the southeastern United 
States, nearly 90 percent of the 41,800 tons of ammonium nitrate 
purchased is directly applied to the field from the custody of the 
fertilizer dealer or applicator company. Only 10 percent of the 
ammonium nitrate purchased in the southeastern United States is ever 
under the direct control and possession of the farm customer.
  Businesses and employees who provide custom application services 
would be subject to the registration requirements of the legislation. 
It is not the intent of this legislation to require registration by 
individuals who use custom application services but never physically 
control any ammonium nitrate.
  I believe this bill will help keep ammonium nitrate out of would-be 
terrorists' hands while allowing farmers to use it for legitimate 
purposes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Omnibus 
appropriations bill that is before us today. Although I am supportive 
of a number of important items in the bill, I have serious concerns and 
reservations about how this voluminous package was put together and how 
it has reached this point. As we are all aware, none of the 11 bills in 
this package have ever been considered on the floor of this chamber. I 
believe this is a travesty and entirely contrary to our democratic 
process. I, for one, believe that next year we must make it a priority 
to consider all of the appropriations bills in regular order so that 
all Members can participate in the process. We are appropriating nearly 
$933 billion through this bill and only a select few Members in both 
Chambers have participated in the allocation of those dollars.
  Despite my deep concerns about the process of putting this bill 
together, I have chosen to support it because it is within the 
President's budget request, it provides bridge-funding to support our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it contains a number of other items 
that I support.
  I am pleased that the bill contains funds to continue Marriage 
Development Accounts in the District of Columbia. We began this program 
in fiscal year 2006 as a way to stem the erosion of marriage in DC. 
Sadly, marriage is all but disappearing in low-income communities in 
this city and across the country because couples lose important 
benefits such as food stamps, low-income housing credits, Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families, and Medicaid merely for taking a wedding 
vow. In addition, these couples often have to pay higher taxes when 
they choose to marry. For most low-income couples, the welfare system 
has made marriage a bad economic decision. MDAs are one way we are 
making marriage a good economic decision. With an MDA, a low-income 
couple can save for a house, for higher education, or to start a small 
business and we will match those funds 3-to-1 with two Federal dollars 
and one private matching dollar. In just its second year of operation, 
over 100 DC residents have opened MDAs and 7 have already bought houses 
with their matched savings.
  I am also pleased that we were able to include language in this bill 
requiring the U.S. Mint to return the words ``In God We Trust'' to the 
face of the $1 Presidential coins and the $1 Sacagawea coins. ``In God 
We Trust'' is our national motto and since the beginning of our Nation, 
America's citizens have acknowledged how God is very much a part of the 
founding principles and traditions of our democracy. I would like to 
note that in 1861, Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase ordered 
that coins bear a motto expressing the American people's trust in God. 
The first coins with the phrase ``In God We Trust'' were minted in 
1864. In 1955, the phrase was required for all new coins, and in 1956 
Congress officially endorsed ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto. 
Therefore, I was troubled to learn that the words ``In God We Trust'' 
do not appear on the face of the new Presidential coins. These words 
are barely visible and almost hidden on the edge of the new coins. To 
rectify this situation, we have included language in this bill that 
will require the U.S. Mint to return our national motto to the front of 
the coin.
  I would like to note that we have provided $80 million for the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, an increase of $17 million over the 
fiscal year 2007 level. I believe that this increase is important and 
necessary because it will allow the CPSC to hire additional inspectors 
to ensure that toys and other consumer products entering our country 
are safe. We have all been deeply concerned over the flood of shoddy 
and dangerous products entering our ports. Most troubling is that

[[Page S15885]]

many of these products are designed for our smallest and most 
vulnerable consumers: everything from baby cribs and strollers to 
children's toys and baby teethers have been recalled just this past 
year. I believe these additional funds will help CPSC address this 
growing problem.
  I am supportive of the $60 million available in this bill to support 
democracy in Iran. Although I am pleased that this money is in the 
bill, I would have hoped we could have come up with an additional 
amount for this important and essential work. I am also concerned about 
oversight of these funds. In my view, this money is a crucial part of 
our overall policy on Iran, and I will closely monitor how it is spent.
  Finally, I would not be able to vote for this bill if it did not 
contain the necessary funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The amendment that Senator McConnell has offered today contains those 
important and necessary funds. We are making progress in the war in 
Iraq and we must continue to provide our brave servicemen and 
servicewomen all the armor and ammunition and support they need to 
continue to secure a peace in that region of the world.
  I reiterate my deep concerns and consternation with how this omnibus 
bill was put together. To say that this behemoth bill was cobbled 
together in the dead of night among just a few Members is no 
exaggeration. Such an approach is undemocratic and dangerous. Although 
I will vote for the bill, I must insist that we abandon this 
undemocratic process and return to regular order when we take up next 
year's appropriations bills.
  Ms. MIKULKSI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Commerce, 
Justice, Science and Related Agencies, CJS, division of the Omnibus 
appropriations bill before the Senate. The CJS agreement in this bill 
is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise that is a product of hard work 
and tough choices. In order to meet a very stringent allocation 
mandated by the President, we had to cut $2.6 billion from the Senate 
CJS bill, which passed the Senate on October 16, 2007.
  Although we were forced to make substantial cuts, we protected the 
subcommittee's priorities. First, security--keeping Americans safe from 
threats at home and abroad. Second, promoting competitiveness--
developing new technologies that create jobs for the future. Finally, 
providing congressional oversight by demanding accountability from the 
agencies funded in this bill to ensure they act as good stewards of 
U.S. taxpayer dollars. Significant improvements to the President's 
budget were made in this bill to make America safer and stronger and 
ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.
  Despite the tough choices we had to make, there are accomplishments 
for which we can be proud. First, the CJS subcommittee's top priority 
is to protect America from terrorism and violent crime. The 
subcommittee provided the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), our 
domestic counterterrorism agency, $133 million above the President's 
request, for a total of $6.7 billion. The CJS agreement bolsters the 
FBI's efforts to fight emerging cyber security and terrorist threats 
and provide for 160 new FBI agents to track and dismantle terrorist 
cells in the United States For the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
DEA, we provide $53 million more than the President's request, for a 
total of $2.1 billion. These funds will lift the hiring freeze and give 
DEA the resources they need to hire 200 additional special agents. 
These agents will fight illegal drugs like heroin and methamphetamine 
that are destroying our communities and disrupt the poppy trade in 
Afghanistan, which funds terrorist activity.
  In addition, the President's budget gutted funds for State and local 
law enforcement by $1.5 billion from last year's level. The CJS 
agreement provides a total of $2.7 billion to help State and local law 
enforcement fight crime, drugs and gangs. The agreement includes $1.2 
billion more than the President's request. With the limited resources 
the subcommittee had, we were able to make modest increases to 
critically important State and local law enforcement programs. For 
example, we provided $20 million to put 260 new cops on the beat in our 
local communities; $400 million to keep women and children safe from 
domestic violence; $383 million to keep children safe from child 
predators, gangs and drugs; and $15 million to put cops in schools to 
fight the rising trend of violence on school grounds. These are 
critical programs and I wish we could have provided more funds to keep 
our children safe, protect our communities and provide those on the 
thin blue line the resources they deserve to protect us.
  The CJS agreement continues the subcommittee's commitment to the 
development of new technologies that create jobs for the future. The 
CJS agreement fully funds the President's request of $17.3 billion for 
NASA. NASA is our premier innovation agency that is creating new 
technologies and inspiring future scientists and engineers. The CJS 
agreement maintains our commitment to the space station and the aging 
space shuttle fleet and fully funds the new space transportation 
vehicle. The CJS agreement also keep our commitment to NASA's 
scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
  In addition, the CJS agreement rejects the President's cuts to 
Department of Commerce initiatives that create technologies and jobs. 
The agreement restores $80 million above the President's request for 
economic development grants to help our communities develop 
infrastructure to create new jobs. The agreement provides $90 million 
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, MEP, which help small 
U.S. manufacturers stay competitive. Also, the agreement provides $65 
million for the newly authorized Technology Innovation Partnership, 
TIP, program to encourage innovation.
  The CJS agreement emphasizes oversight and accountability to prevent 
mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Specifically, the agreement 
prohibits funds for lavish banquets and conferences and requires the 
Inspector General in each agency to stand sentry over grant spending to 
ensure taxpayer dollars are not squandered. The subcommittee agreement 
institutes an early warning system for cost overruns and schedule 
slippages on major satellite procurement programs so that costs to the 
taxpayers do not grow unchecked. The agreement also requires management 
reforms at the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, to reduce application 
backlogs and waiting times. Currently there is a 2 year backlog to 
process a patent application and this backlog could reach over 800,000 
applications this year.
  Unfortunately, the subcommittee also had to make some very difficult 
choices. There were reluctant cuts dictated by the President's budget 
that forced the Subcommitte to cut things that we wanted to fund. For 
example, Byrne formula grants to States are funded at only $170 
million. The President zeroed out Byrne formula grants, but our 
agreement is still $350 million below 2007. Byrne formula grants go to 
States to pay for police training and technology and crime prevention 
programs at the State and local level. This cut means there will be 
less direct Federal funding for State law enforcement budgets, 
straining State budgets that are already stressed.
  Regrettably, the CJS agreement is $424 million below the President's 
request for the American Competitiveness Initiative, ACI, at the 
National Science Foundation, NSF, and National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, NIST. Our Senate bill fully funded the President's 
request for ACI, which has bipartisan support, but our allocation 
required very difficult choices and this was one of them.
  Finally, I want to express about my disappointment that the House 
would not agree with two provisions that were included in the Senate 
CJS bill. First is emergency funding for NASA. Our Senate bill included 
$1 billion in emergency funding to reimburse NASA for the costs of 
returning the space shuttle to flight after the Columbia accident. This 
funding had bipartisan support in the Senate, but the House would not 
agree to it. The consequence will be a continued gap in time between 
shuttle retirement and development of our new vehicle.
  Second, I included a provision in our Senate bill to extend the H-2B 
returning worker exemption. This was a simple 1-year extension of 
current law. On a bipartisan basis, the Senate wanted to protect small 
and seasonal businesses from going bankrupt. I regret

[[Page S15886]]

that the House would not agree to the extension.
  Overall, the CJS agreement is a bipartisan effort, a product of hard 
work and tough choices in order to meet a very tight allocation. Even 
within the tight allocation, we provide funding to keep America safe, 
we secure America's competitiveness, and we provide strong oversight 
and accountability to ensure stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
  I want to thank my ranking member, Senator Shelby for his 
collegiality and cooperation. I also want to thank Chairman Byrd and 
Ranking Member Cochran for their hard work and advocacy. And I thank 
their staff, specifically, Art Cameron, Chuck Kieffer, and Bruce Evans. 
I encourage my colleagues to support of the CJS agreement.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold amendment 
because the strategy it mandates gives us the best chance to succeed in 
Iraq and strengthen America's security around the world. In fact, 
recent developments in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it clear that 
this amendment is as important now as it was when Senator Feingold and 
I first introduced a similar measure a year and half ago.
  I have heard the arguments that the escalation has worked, that we no 
longer need to change the mission, and that we are now on the path to 
victory in Iraq. Every one of us agrees that the troops in Iraq have 
done an extraordinary job under unbelievably difficult circumstances. 
The entire country owes them a profound debt of gratitude for their 
incredible sacrifices.
  But we must not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that the 
brave men and women of our armed forces no matter how heroically they 
perform cannot end an Iraqi civil war. Every one of our generals, the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State have all told us 
repeatedly that there is simply no military solution to this conflict. 
The President himself has acknowledged as much and that is why he made 
clear that the purpose of the escalation was to give the Iraqis one 
last opportunity to make the tough political compromises that are the 
only hope for bringing lasting stability to Iraq.
  But the bottom line is that we have not seen any political progress 
from the Maliki government since the escalation began nearly one year 
ago. Not one single additional political benchmark has been met and by 
some accounts they are even further away from compromising than they 
have ever been. So when we assess progress in Iraq over the past few 
months, let's be clear: by the measure that ultimately counts the most 
political reconciliation this strategy has not accomplished the goal 
that the President himself established.
  The reason is simple: the Iraqi government has proven time and again 
that without a deadline they will not make the tough compromises 
necessary to bring about a political solution that is the only 
solution. And as long as we continue to follow the same course of 
giving them an open-ended commitment, they will continue to pursue 
their narrow sectarian interests while our troops continue to pay the 
ultimate price.
  To succeed over the long term in Iraq, we must change course. We must 
insist on a strategy that honors what our troops have accomplished and 
force the Iraqis to finally take advantage of the opportunity they have 
before them. That's what the Feingold amendment does. It changes the 
mission to one that can be sustained even as we draw down troops to 
pre-surge levels which our overstretched military requires us to do: 
training Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorism 
missions, and protecting U.S. forces and facilities. And most 
importantly, it sets the deadline we need to create the leverage 
necessary to bring about real political reconciliation.
  In fact, if you look closely at what has occurred over the past few 
months in Iraq, it is clear that a significant amount of the progress 
we have seen in terms of reducing violence has been the result of 
political decisions. That's not to understate the key role our troops 
have played it's simply to recognize the realities of this type of 
counterinsurgency mission.
  We all know that the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province made a 
calculated decision, based on their own self-interest, to turn against 
al-Qaida in fact, many of us have argued for some time the Iraqis 
themselves would never tolerate foreign extremists in their midst.
  We also know that one of the key factors in reducing the violence has 
been the decision by Moktada al-Sadr to tell his Mahdi militia to stand 
down--at least temporarily. This was reportedly due, at least in part, 
to a request Prime Minister Maliki made of Iran in August to help rein 
in the Shia militias. In fact, according to the New York Times, 
spokesmen for our own military ``have gone out of their way to publicly 
acknowledge Iran's role in helping to slow the flow of weapons into the 
country.''
  And finally, we know that the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq from 
Syria has diminished considerably at a time when we have finally begun 
some level of diplomatic engagement with Syria.
  So we must learn the right lessons from the positive developments we 
have seen over the last few months and recognize that the way forward, 
the best chance for lasting progress, is through political and 
diplomatic efforts. We must act now to take advantage of the window our 
troops have provided. I applaud the summits that have been held on Iraq 
in Sharm el Sheikh and Istanbul, but we need to see much more 
sustained, hands-on engagement at the highest levels of the 
administration. And we need a deadline to fundamentally change the 
dynamic for Iraq's political leaders.
  The alternative is to continue giving the President a blank check 
which is exactly what the McConnell amendment does. There's no 
requirement to transition the mission, and no deadline to leverage 
political process. And there's no relief for a military stretched to 
the breaking point. That will not resolve the sectarian divisions that 
have fed this civil war, it will not bring longterm stability to Iraq, 
and it will not protect our national security interests around the 
world.
  Nowhere is that more important than in Afghanistan, where the same 
killers who attacked us on 9/11 are right where we left them, plotting 
more attacks on our homeland. The simple fact is that because of the 
attention, energy, and resources we have devoted to Iraq, we're now in 
danger of losing Afghanistan. The Taliban and al-Qaida have regrouped 
along the Afghan-Pakistan border, currently hold large swathes of 
territory, and are expanding their reach into regions that haven't seen 
the Taliban since 2001. Violence may be down in Iraq, but it's at its 
highest levels in Afghanistan since the invasion. Opium cultivation has 
soared to 93 percent of the world's market. Reconstruction efforts have 
stalled, and Oxfam International is reporting ``humanitarian conditions 
rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.''
  That is why Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen called for more 
troops, equipment, and a strategic plan to get it right in Afghanistan 
last week. But because we have expended valuable American blood and 
treasure in Iraq and allowed our focus to wander from our top national 
security priority, the resources just aren't there to fight Taliban and 
al-Qaida in Afghanistan. If we change the mission in Iraq and return 
our focus to Afghanistan, we still have time to achieve the stable 
democracy we promised.
  But we must act now. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, time is not on our 
side. We must seize this moment to put America on course to a safer and 
more secure future.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills 
do not adequately address all of the long-term needs of the American 
people. We have no one to blame but the President and his Republican 
allies who have chosen to stand by his side.
  The bills we drafted and passed out of the Appropriations Committees 
on a bipartisan basis went far beyond what we have here today, but the 
President has made it clear he would veto any bills that were above his 
grossly inadequate budget.
  These allies stood with the President and his budget, a budget that I 
cannot believe anyone would be proud to support. The President's budget 
contained cuts of 800 grants for medical research at NIH, cuts in 
programs that provide access to health care by $595 million, cuts in 
rural health initiatives by 50 percent, cuts for crucial Department of 
Education programs by $1.2 billion, and

[[Page S15887]]

cuts in Homeland Security Grants for police, firefighters, and medical 
personnel by $1.1 billion.
  This is what we were presented with take it or leave it. The 
President refused to compromise and instead made it very clear that in 
his eyes, cuts for health care, education, jobs, and homeland security 
are nonnegotiable. For the cost of what we spend in 2 months in Iraq, 
the President was more than willing to sacrifice a year's worth of 
badly needed investments into health research, our children's 
education, worker safety, and homeland security.
  The President has done all of this under the banner of fiscal 
responsibility. This is hard to believe from a President who increased 
spending 50 percent since he came to office, saddled our children and 
grandchildren with $3.3 trillion in new debt, doubled the size of 
foreign debt held by other countries, and asked for another $200 
billion for the war in Iraq without paying for it.
  This President also had no problem with a Defense spending bill that 
was 11 percent more than he asked for. He has no problem asking us for 
a blank check to fund war in Iraq. This is a President who says it is 
OK to increase spending for those in other countries, but not here at 
home. When it comes to raising money for our needs at home his answer 
comes with a stroke of his new-found veto pen.
  When the President drew his line in the sand, we reached out to our 
Republican counterparts in an effort to build a bipartisan coalition to 
overcome his veto, but Republicans gave us the cold shoulder and have 
decided to stand with the President. These are the same Republicans who 
last Congress failed to pass a budget or complete any of its work on 
domestic funding bills. They have criticized us for the size of this 
bill, but compared to nothing, I will take our work here.
  We realize we have an obligation to the American people to fund the 
important functions of our Government and to finish our work as a 
Congress. To complete these bills we had to make tough decisions in the 
face of the President's unreasonable demands and work toward 
prioritizing the needs of the country.
  Even within the unreasonable constraints of the President's budget 
numbers, we still put veterans first. This bill added $3.7 billion 
above the President's budget request for veterans and their health 
needs. This $3.7 billion in veterans spending is a proposal the 
President once threatened to veto. These funds will be used for medical 
and prosthetic research, health services for injured and ill veterans, 
and the construction of new medical facilities to help those returning 
home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The additional $3.7 billion for 
veterans is contingent on Presidential action. The President must make 
an emergency spending request by January 18, 2008.
  Within the President's overall budget numbers, we were still able to 
increase spending for health, education and workers by $3.9 billion. 
That is $3.9 billion for our needs here for Americans at home. Even 
with the President's hard-line position on his overall budget numbers, 
the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act better reflects 
American priorities.
  Democratic increases above the President's budget request include 
$3.7 billion for veterans healthcare, $613 million for medical 
research, $3 billion for education, $486 million for renewable energy 
sources, $788 million for heating assistance for low-income households, 
$1.6 billion for highways and bridges, $1.2 billion for State and local 
law enforcement, $1.8 billion for homeland security, and $17 million 
for consumer protection.
  I am also very pleased and proud of what we were able to do with very 
limited funding within the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Our bill provides $20.6 billion in funding for the Department of the 
Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the Executive Office of the 
President, the Federal judiciary, the District of Columbia, and an 
array of 20 independent agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, the General Services Administration, the Federal 
Communications Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal 
Trade Commission, the Postal Service, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and the Small Business Administration.
  Therefore, while I would like to highlight some of the features in 
the Financial Services title, I note that the circumstances that led to 
the final bill forced us to make regrettable cuts, because of the 
President's insistence on his overall bottom line on domestic spending.
  I am pleased this bill provides $80 million for the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, a 30-percent increase of $17.3 million above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $16.75 million above the budget 
request.
  This increase in funding will allow the agency to hire employees, 
find space for additional employees, and make critically needed IT 
improvements.
  In addition, the bill includes $115 million for election reform 
programs to be available for States for assistance in meeting the 
requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The amended bill 
also provides $10 million for an election data collection pilot 
program.
  Within the IRS, funding of $2.15 billion is provided for the Taxpayer 
Services account. This is $11.7 million above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level, $46.9 million above the President's request, and 
$800,000 above the Senate committee-reported level. The President's 
budget sought to cut Taxpayer Services by $35.1 million below the 
fiscal year 2007 level. The bill also establishes a new $8 million 
pilot grant program to improve the Community Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Program to serve underserved populations and hardest-to-
reach areas.
  The bill boosts funding for Treasury's Community Development 
Financial Institutions, CDFI, Fund to $94 million, reflecting an 
increase of $39.5 million over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, 
$65.4 million above the President's request, and $4 million above the 
Senate committee-reported level. The President's request would have 
decimated the fund, which promotes access to capital and local economic 
growth by directly investing in and supporting community development 
financial institutions and by expanding lending, investment, and 
services offered by banks and thrifts within underserved markets.
  The Federal judiciary receives a 4.3 percent increase over fiscal 
year 2007 in both mandatory and discretionary funding. Within the 
Judiciary title, the bill provides $410 million--an 8.3 percent 
increase over fiscal year 2007--for court security. The bill also 
authorizes a pilot program to permit the U.S. Marshals instead of the 
Federal Protective Service to provide security for seven Federal 
courthouses including the Dirksen Courthouse in Chicago.
  Finally, among an array of general provisions applicable government-
wide in Title VII of Division D, the bill provides for a 3.5 percent 
cost-of-living adjustment for civilian Federal employees as included in 
both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills.
  I am frustrated that we were not able to do more and that the process 
has been delayed, but the fiscal year 2008 funding levels we consider 
this evening reflect America's priorities and I am pleased to support 
the final package.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the Senate's passage of the Omnibus 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 and H.R. 6, the Energy 
Security and Independence Act of 2007, the Department of Energy must 
now finally understand that its irrational hostility toward geothermal 
energy research and development has come to an end, pursuant to these 
two acts of Congress.
  First, H.R. 6 will become law ahead of the omnibus and thereby 
controls the primary use and priorities for funds provided by Congress 
following its enactment. As Senators may know, the United States and 
particularly Nevada and the West have tens of thousands of megawatts of 
clean power generation potential from geothermal energy sources just 
waiting to be developed. In title VI, H.R. 6 contains very important 
research and development provisions collectively referred to as the 
Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 that 
will help realize that enormous potential and create significant 
sustainable economic growth in rural areas throughout America.
  The Department must, by law, comply with the program direction 
provided in H.R. 6. The Department staff

[[Page S15888]]

need not reinvent the wheel or plead that they cannot accept or 
acknowledge statutory direction from Congress at this point in the 
fiscal year, since they have not and will not have had any conflicting 
direction from Congress.
  Second, the Omnibus appropriations bill requires that the Department 
cease and desist its efforts to shut down the existing geothermal 
program. Instead, the bill provides approximately $20 million for 
geothermal energy technology research. This is an increase of $20 
million over the budget request for the deployment of large-scale 
enhanced geothermal systems, to include accelerating the development of 
subsurface technologies, including geological and geophysical data 
collection and synthesis. This direction to the Department is entirely 
consistent with that provided in H.R. 6.
  The Congress expects the Department to use that money wisely and in a 
balanced fashion that comports with the direction in the appropriations 
bill's statement of managers and the statutory direction provided in 
H.R. 6. Clearly, the funds should not and cannot be used to focus on 
one or even a narrow set of technologies to the exclusion of the 
continuum of geothermal energy technologies. I also expect that next 
year's budget request will reflect the direction given to the 
Department by Congress in H.R. 6.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 441 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     McCaskill
     Voinovich

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________