Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I wish to speak today as a member of the Senate Budget Committee. I had hoped the budget that was presented before the committee last week was going to be fiscally responsible and would help to address the mounting financial problems families face today, problems such as the rising cost of filling up a tank of gas, increased expenses for health care, and declining equity in the family home. Instead, this budget before us assumes Congress will allow the largest irresponsible tax increase in the history of the United States to go into effect. At $1.2 trillion, it would be the largest tax increase in history, and taxes would go up $2,300 on 43 million American families, $2,200 more on 18 million senior citizens, and $4,100 more on small businesses. Because of this, I was not able to support the budget resolution in committee, and I will be forced to vote against it here unless some drastic changes are made. This tax increase will hit family budgets hard. Let me tell my colleagues what $2,300 means to most American families. The family budget--and we are talking about groceries now--$2,300 is enough to buy 8 months of groceries. Next, we have the bills for gas and electric for heating; $2,300 a year is enough for 43 million American families to buy enough gas and electric for 1 year's heating. It is almost enough money for American families with two cars to buy gasoline at $3.20 a gallon for unleaded regular for almost an entire year. We should not, at this time, be placing more of a burden on the American people with a huge tax increase. Instead, we need to pass a budget that includes progrowth policies to help balance the family budget. This budget proposal increases spending by $210 billion in discretionary spending--an increase of over 9 percent of what we spent in fiscal year 2008. Under this budget, we will see a $2 trillion increase in the debt of the United States by 2013. That is more than $6,000 in extra debt for each and every American citizen. At $3.08 trillion, this budget resolution calls for $10,165 of spending for every man, woman, and child in America--all 300 million of us. But there are only about 130 million taxpayers who file an income tax return. Of those 130 million, only about 14 million had an average income liability of over $10,000 in 2005. Of these, about 11 million had gross incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. That leaves 3.5 million taxpayers--no more than 2 percent--with an income above $200,000. These wealthy few are paying an extraordinary 50.1 percent of all Federal tax revenues. But even if you taxed away half of their income, the additional revenue would not add up to enough to balance the budget and pay for programs in mandatory spending this budget resolution assumes over the long term. The idea that money can be found in a mythical source of funding called the tax gap is unlikely as well. The chairman of the Budget Committee repeatedly has noted that the IRS estimate of the gross tax gap is close to $345 billion per year. However, the idea that anywhere near this amount of money can be raised by closing the tax gap is simply an illusion. It is nothing more than a figleaf meant to conceal the intent of spending beyond the means of the Federal Government. The truth is, we are not really serious about this, and the proof is that we do not have a proposed penny more in this budget for the IRS than the President does in his budget. It would be difficult to drive the long-term history level of voluntary compliance from 85 percent, where it is now, to nearly 100 percent in order to tap into this mythical source of funding because that is what it would take to raise $345 billion per year. But it is hard to see how it can be done without a vast increase in the size of the IRS. We also need to pass a budget that includes the necessary funding to help us stop our addiction to foreign oil. In 2005, Congress enacted a comprehensive national energy plan--the first step toward energy independence. Nevertheless, this year has been a difficult year for Americans facing much higher energy costs. The policies we enacted in 2005 needed to be backed up with Federal funding in the budget, but this budget resolution fails to address important alternative-fuel technologies and other oil replacements. One of our top priorities should be on our most abundant domestic fossil fuel: coal. New technologies will make burning coal both cheaper and more efficient. We are even developing coal-to-liquid technology that can create a synthetic transportation fuel from coal. American coal reserves will be our best tool to overcome our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. I have three amendments I wish to propose to this budget resolution. First, I wish to offer an amendment that will repeal the unfair tax Congress enacted in 1993. I have brought this issue before the Chamber before, so it should be familiar to many of my colleagues. In fact, the Senate adopted a very similar amendment by unanimous consent last year, and it passed by a recorded vote 2 years earlier. When the Social Security Program was created, benefits were not taxed. In 1983, Congress decided that half the benefits of some seniors should be subject to taxation and in 1993 raised that amount to 85 percent of the Social Security benefits. Today, more than 15 million seniors are affected by that taxation of benefits. In 1993, the tax was intended to reach only wealthy seniors by the income levels which were set at $34,000 for a single and $44,000 per couple. This is hardly wealthy today. My amendment is fairly simple. It drops the tax back to the pre-1993 levels, and it is paid for by an offset of $89 billion over 5 years by an adjustment in function 920. Over $300 billion in potential savings on Government programs over the next 5 years has been identified by the inspectors general report and the CBO options report. And it is my hope that the committees of jurisdiction will review wasteful Government spending to offset the repeal of this tax increase on America's seniors. It was unfair then when it was enacted, and we need to repeal it now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The second amendment I plan to offer, together with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator DeMint, will make room in the budget to permanently extend the tax incentives for adoption that we enacted in 2001. This is a critical kitchen-table, family-budget issue for many middle-income families in Kentucky and across the country who are contemplating the adoption of a young child or facing costs of adoption. By helping to ease this financial burden, we can encourage the development of more stable families and provide a brighter future for thousands of children. This important goal prompted us to act in 2001 when we passed these important adoption incentives in the form of tax credits. In 2005 alone, 85,000 families, 77 percent with an adjusted gross income of under $100,000, claimed $319.5 million in adoption credits.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to pulling our troops out of Iraq based on political timetables conceived in the Senate. I have voted against similar measures in the past. I intend to vote against them again this week. These bills do nothing more than tie the hands of our commanders on the ground while pandering to special interests here in the United States--antiwar groups. These are the same commanders who are risking their lives daily that our mission in Iraq can continue to succeed. And our mission is succeeding. General Petraeus is succeeding. Violence in Iraq is at the lowest since the insurgency began. Suicide bombings are down 70 percent. IED attacks have been cut in half. The surge is working. Since it began less than a year ago, we have succeeded in putting al-Qaida on the run, while rooting out the terrorists neighborhood by neighborhood. In return, Iraqis have partnered with U.S. troops, forming their own security forces, and stabilizing their own neighborhoods. These efforts have served to unite torn communities, such as Anbar Province, and pave the way for political reconciliation. The other side has said for months the surge has failed because it has not created an environment for political progress in Iraq. Well, they are wrong. The correlation between the surge and security is obvious. In the past few weeks, as we continue to see increased stability throughout Iraq, the Iraqi Government has made great political strides. On February 13, the Iraqi Council of Representatives passed three key pieces of legislation: An amnesty law, the 2008 budget, and a provincial powers law. These political milestones are made possible by Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds reaching out to each other and working to find solutions that represent all Iraqis. This is General Petraeus's counterinsurgency at work. It worked when he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, and now it is working all across Iraq. So I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why, when you see our mission in Iraq is succeeding, and the Iraqi people are making real political progress, do you want to pull the rug out from underneath our commanders and our troops? Last July, the Senate overwhelmingly supported, by a vote of 94 to 3, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment stating that it is in our national security interests that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists. Well, wake up. Cutting and running from Iraq will only benefit the terrorists, while jeopardizing our national security and that of the Iraqi people. Make no mistake, Iraq is the central battleground in our fight in the global war on terror. This is not just my opinion. Osama bin Laden has called Iraq the ``central front'' in his war against America. He knows that the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will strengthen his terrorist organization, enabling him to set up training camps in that country. Although it has been over 6 years since we have experienced a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we must never forget that there are those out there who wish to do us harm on a daily basis. And those who wish to do us harm will benefit if we pull out of Iraq and leave a failed state behind. Al-Qaida and its allies flourish and multiply in the chaos of failed States with no rule of law or respect for human rights. Instead of debating a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq that has already failed on the floor of this Senate four times, we should be focusing on how to provide the defenders of our freedom--our commanders and our troops-- with the necessary tools to complete their mission. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with the new commanding general of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, KY. Located on the southern border between Kentucky and Tennessee, the Fort Campbell community has felt the effects of deployments and casualties. Right around 200 soldiers from Fort Campbell have given their lives for their country. Thousands of good men and women have spent tours of 15 months away from their families--some four, some three, others two, and some one: tours of 15 or 12 months from the 101st Airborne in Iraq. Speaking with the commanding general only reinforced my belief that we have some of the finest patriots serving in our Nation's military. The brave men and women who answer the call to defend our Nation, and the families and communities who support them, are our most valuable national asset. I do not want to see their unbelievable efforts in Iraq fail. We as a nation have invested too much to hand a big victory to al-Qaida in Iraq. This political show needs to end. In April, General Petraeus will report back to Congress on the state of our mission in Iraq. As Senators who voted in support of his confirmation, we owe him this opportunity to present his report to us, instead of cutting him off at the knees right before his report. We should show him the respect of listening to his report. We owe an honorable man, who has spent--I want you to remember this--who has spent most of the last 5 years away from his family in Iraq to see that freedom in America is preserved. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving General Petraeus this opportunity and opposing these bills. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I request that the time I use in morning business not be counted against any of the Democratic time that has been set aside.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend from Mississippi, Senator Trent Lott. Trent and I have been friends since my first year in the House in 1987. He was the minority whip in the House during my first year in Washington, DC. Now that we are in the Senate together 20 years later he is my minority whip again. Trent and I have enjoyed our time together on Wednesday afternoons in Chowder and Marching. My wife Mary and I have enjoyed spending time with Trent and his lovely wife Trish. Trent and Trish are college sweethearts and two of the great warming personalities in our Senate family. We are proud that members of the Lott family call Kentucky home. Trent and Trish often come to the Bluegrass State to see their son Chet and his family. He has served the people of Mississippi well for over 30 years. After the devastation of Katrina, the gulf coast region had no stronger advocate than Senator Lott. Trent has risen from humble roots in his beloved Pascagoula to one of the top leaders in Congress. I know his family and the people of Mississippi are proud to call him one of their own. Mr. President, I would like to thank Trent for his contributions to the Senate and wish him and his family well as they open a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the Fort Campbell Varsity football team from Fort Campbell, KY. On December 8, 2007, the Fort Campbell High School Varsity football team won the Class 2-A State Championship in Louisville, KY. For the young men on this team, this is not just a trophy; it is an affirmation that with hard work and determination, anything is possible. To accomplish this goal the members not only have to juggle long practices and games, but they continue to achieve academic excellence. Not only are these young men excellent athletes and students, but they pride themselves in giving back to their community for all the support they have received by doing community service, fundraising, and school public relations. Fort Campbell, KY, is proud to be home to the 101st Airborne Division and 160th Special Operations Airborne Division. Many of the players on the Fort Campbell Falcons have loved ones currently serving our Nation abroad. I am confident that these loved ones would be proud of what the Falcons have accomplished this season. The citizens of Fort Campbell, KY, are fortunate to have the 2007 Class 2-A State Champions and families living and learning in their community. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth. I am very proud of the accomplishments these young men have made. I would like to congratulate the members of the Fort Campbell High School Varsity football team for their success. But, also, I want to congratulate their peers, coaches, teachers, administrators, and dedicated parents for the support and sacrifices they have made to help the Fort Campbell High School football team make their dreams a reality.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is with great admiration and respect that I take this time to recognize a dear friend and one of Kentucky's most distinguished citizens, Judge Clyde Middleton, on his 80th birthday. Born January 30, 1928, Judge Middleton achieved a commendable record of public service to Kenton County and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a retired Navy captain, he later earned an MBA from my alma mater, Xavier University, and a juris doctor from Chase College of Law in northern Kentucky. Judge Middleton served with distinction as a Kentucky State senator and judge executive of Kenton County, and still today is very active in his community. He and his wonderful wife Mary are the proud grandparents of four grandchildren. Mr. President, I am honored to have had the opportunity to recognize the dedication of Clyde Middleton to his community, and ask you to join me in honoring him on his birthday.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Jerry Parks of Georgetown, KY, for being recognized on USA Today's 2007 All-USA Teacher Team. For 10 years USA Today has selected K-12 teachers nationwide for the All-USA Teacher Team. This year the nominees were judged on how well they recognize and respond to the needs of their students as well as the effectiveness of their teaching methods. Each team member demonstrates dedication and enthusiasm for educating the youth and future of this great country. Mr. Parks, a seventh-grade social studies teacher at Georgetown Middle School, was recognized in the top 8 of 20 teachers on this national team. His creative hands-on teaching techniques produce students who value education and are eager to learn more. Mr. Parks also holds a doctorate in theology and has had several teacher guides published. Because of his commitment to education, Mr. Parks established student scholarships with the profits from these publications. His passion for teaching serves as an inspiration to his peers and to teachers everywhere. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Parks for his remarkable achievement and his devotion to educating young minds. Our Nation can look forward to a brighter future because of individuals like Jerry Parks.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School of Villa Hills, KY. Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School is recognized as a 2007 No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program has been celebrating high achieving schools for 25 years. Established in 1982 by the U.S. Department of Education, the program has recognized more than 5,200 schools since its inception. This year 11 Kentucky schools join this distinguished list, and I am proud to say that this is the second time Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School has been a worthy recipient. By demanding excellence from each and every student, Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School truly celebrates the blue ribbon standard of excellence that the No Child Left Behind Program strives to achieve. Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School exemplifies what our Kentucky schools can achieve when we have enough faith in our students to challenge them to their full potential. I congratulate Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School on this achievement. The administrators, teachers, parents, and students of this school are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that Villa Madonna Academy Elementary and Junior High School accomplishes in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. In Kentucky, it is known as KCHIP. Several weeks ago, the Senate debated a bill that would reauthorize this program. Now we are debating a bill that looks very much like the last bill. I did not support the Senate-passed bill and, unfortunately, I cannot support this version presently on the floor. The tobacco tax funding mechanism is an irresponsible way to pay for children's health care. The increased tax is fundamentally unfair, particularly to my State and the States that surround Kentucky. It pays for a government program intended for low-income kids--one that I support and continue to support--by raising taxes. The bill expands its coverage to middle-income adults and some illegal immigrants in other States. It redistributes income from low-income smokers to States with the highest per capita incomes. It could be called Robin Hood in reverse. I have a chart that illustrates what this bill really does. It is compiled from data drawn from a CDC database on tobacco consumption and projections by Family USA concerning SCHIP spending. As we can see, the States in red will pay more in tobacco tax over the next 5 years than they will receive. In my State of Kentucky, we will pay $602 million more in tobacco taxes than we will receive in SCHIP money under the same 5 years. Virginians, our good friends from Virginia, will pay $576 million more, and the citizens of Florida, our good friends down in the panhandle, will pay $703 million more than they receive. California, our good friends out on the left coast, will receive a net benefit--in other words, more than they pay--of $2.5 billion. How fair is this? New taxes paid by low-income smokers in my State will go to pay for an extravagant expansion of SCHIP in California, New York, Texas, and all the States in light and dark green, and that includes New Jersey, New Mexico, Arizona, California, New York, and many others. Many people predict that the new Federal tobacco tax needed to pay for this expansion of SCHIP is likely to cause the States to increase their own tax cigarette taxes to avoid State revenue shortfalls. This will lead to artificially high-priced cigarettes that are irresistible targets for foreign cigarette counterfeiters and bootleggers in the United States. This is not just somebody's dream. There is new evidence of the absolute folly of this plan to increase tobacco taxes by over 150 percent. We will not see the revenue projected, but you can be sure organized crime will profit from this situation. In August of this year, the New York Police Department and Federal authorities found 600,000 cartons of counterfeit cigarettes made in China in a warehouse in Queens. In the same raid, the NYPD found 125,000 phony revenue stamps. The counterfeiters planned to use these phony stamps to evade taxes in Virginia, New York, and Kentucky, passing them off as real stamps so that cigarettes can be sold in ordinary stores. This was not an isolated incident. There are many other similar incidents of fake cigarettes in the United States from countries such as China and Russia. If you are concerned about lead in toys made in China, you should also be concerned about this SCHIP bill because it will almost certainly expose smokers, including some children, to the toxic substance in counterfeit Chinese and Russian cigarettes. According to an article last week in the New York Times, chemical studies of counterfeit cigarettes have shown that they contain high levels of lead. Unlike the lead paint on toys, this lead will certainly be consumed by smokers. It is much more dangerous. So much for improving health care. In addition to all the other problems, this new tax is a poor foundation for the proposed expansion of SCHIP. We are matching a declining source of revenue with a growing Federal program. It doesn't make any fiscal sense. If we were honest and truly wanted to fully fund SCHIP spending with a tobacco tax, the Federal Government would have to encourage people to smoke. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government would possibly need an additional 22.4 million smokers by the year 2017 to pay for this bill. Expanding SCHIP to cover adults, as well as kids, will lead to even more tax increases in future years because no one will pay these tobacco taxes if smuggled cigarettes and cigarettes from Internet Web sites are freely available. I also don't believe this bill focuses on those who need health care insurance the most. When richer families are made eligible for SCHIP, kids will move from private coverage to Government health care. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill will result in 2 million children moving off private coverage. It is absurd to me that children above the 300 percent poverty level will be added to this program. New York still has the possibility of covering families that will make over $82,000 a year. It is not a fact, it is a possibility. These are families paying AMT taxes, a tax which is supposedly only affecting the wealthy. This expansion of the bill is a push for Government-funded national health care which is not the original intent of SCHIP. The way the bill is funded also should raise great concerns to anyone if they care about fiscal responsibility. The budget gimmick used to fund it is irresponsible. It jeopardizes coverage under the program and basically guarantees another tax increase 5 years from today or when we pass this bill. Under the bill, SCHIP spending from 2008 to 2012 totals over $27 billion. However, for 2013, spending drops to $2.3 billion and falls to negative amounts in each year after that until 2017, representing projected cuts--I say that again, projected cuts--to the SCHIP program. So what we have here is a 10-year tax for a 5-year program. Does anybody really think we will kick millions of kids off this program in 2013 to accommodate this lowered spending? Of course we won't. However, we will have to find a new way to pay for it. If a private company ran its books like this, the CEO would be fired or end up in the big house, in jail. Another stunning example of how this bill undermines the original purpose of SCHIP is that it makes it easier for illegal aliens to get health care intended for poor children. This bill guts existing protections put in place to stop illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer-funded SCHIP and Medicaid benefits. Earlier this year, we spent nearly a month debating immigration reform. This bill is a step backwards, and it certainly sends the wrong message. It takes money that is supposed to go to our poor children and gives it to others who have come to this country illegally. Let me make it clear that I want to see the SCHIP program continued as it is, and I want to see it reauthorized. However, I want to see it done responsibly. This bill does not do that. So I must oppose it and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I object.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you very much.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to ask, you are going to ask unanimous consent on H.R. 1255 also?

Mr. BUNNING. I will wait then.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong objection to the Webb amendment. I voted against this amendment when it was offered 2 months ago, and I will vote against it again today. I will not support this slow-bleed strategy from Iraq. It ties the hands of our commanders. I cannot remember a time in history when the Congress of the United States has dictated to our commanders on the ground how to conduct their mission to this extent. This is an extremely dangerous amendment. The junior Senator from Virginia would like for you to believe it helps our troops and that a vote in support of his amendment is a vote to support our troops. Wrong. Nothing can be further from the truth. This amendment would be a nightmare to execute. It says a soldier must spend 1 day at home for every day the soldier is deployed. That may sound reasonable on its face, but anyone who knows how the military plans its missions knows it will be a logistical roadblock for our military planners. The problem is when a unit returns from a deployment, its personnel are often reassigned to other units and other assignments. Divisions, brigades, battalions, and units don't stay together forever. In a military of millions of people, there are a lot of people reassigned each day. This amendment would essentially require the Army and Marine Corps staff to keep track of how long each service man or woman has spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they have been at home, how long their unit was deployed, and how long it was home. This is absurd. This would mean pulling soldiers out of units scheduled to deploy if the servicemembers did not have enough dwell time. This breaks up leadership and soldier teams, the formations of which are the purpose of the Army and Marine training system. Requiring the President to issue a certification to Congress to waive this requirement for every individual servicemember who might be affected by this is even more absurd. This amendment takes tools and flexibility away from our commanders on the ground, such as General Petraeus. That is why it is being offered today. Commanders make estimates about the forces they need based on assumptions about current and future threats. If a commander in Iraq or Afghanistan concludes that some event might require the deployment of additional forces to his theater, this amendment would restrict the units and personnel that could be sent. The junior Senator from Virginia claims to be concerned for the welfare of our troops. Not one Member of this body is opposed to troops getting rest after a long deployment. But we need to be equally concerned about the dangers our soldiers face when they do not have the necessary resources and reinforcements available to do their mission. This is the true purpose of this amendment. It cripples the ability of Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, and our other commanders on the ground to accomplish their mission and forces a drawdown of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will not support this strategy out of Iraq. It puts troops in harm's way, restricting the resources and reserves they need to successfully accomplish their mission. This is not supporting our troops. It is wrong to cloak a troop pullout amendment in language that relates to troop rest, but that is exactly what this amendment does. This week I had the pleasure of visiting with two brave Kentuckians who recently served in Iraq. They came to me directly to ask me to vote against the Webb amendment. These Kentuckians know the sacrifices their fellow soldiers and families make. They know and understand the importance of rest back home. They know the strains of war. They have experienced the heat of Iraq and the tragedy of knowing that some of their fellow soldiers never made it home. But these two Kentuckians also know the intent of this amendment. They know why it was offered, and they do not want to tie the hands of the military so we are forced to leave Iraq and Afghanistan before the mission is completed. That is why they came from Lawrenceburg, KY, and Hebron, KY, to ask me to oppose the Webb amendment. It is not Congress's role to mandate individual soldiers and unit deployments. I know the Democrats like to try to micromanage the war, but I am not the Commander in Chief and neither are any of my colleagues across the aisle. I want to remind everyone in this body of this fact. If you want to truly support our troops, then vote against the Webb amendment. It was defeated 2 months ago on the Senate floor, and I can only hope it will be defeated again today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

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

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak, yes.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am dismayed at the lack of consideration given to Senator Cornyn's resolution on General Petraeus and the troops. I condemn the comments made by the Democrats concerning our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. The vendetta against our military must stop. It sickens me to hear the comments some Democrats are making against General Petraeus. By attacking his character and reputation, these Democrats are attacking all our men and women in the military. On behalf of all these proud men and women who sacrifice their lives every day for our Nation, I am here to say these actions and accusations have no place in public discourse. Americans do not attack the character of those who risk their lives to protect us. The lies, deceit, and disinformation the Democratic propaganda machines are feeding to the American people must stop. To suggest that our troops and General Petraeus are motivated by politics rather than patriotism and love of our country is wrong. It diminishes the sacrifice each of them makes and their families have made in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world. These attacks are made by some of the same people who voted on January 26--this year--to unanimously confirm General Petraeus. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record rollcall vote No. 33.

Mr. BUNNING. You will notice on this vote that not one Senator--not one--voted against General Petraeus. During the debate on his confirmation, no one questioned his integrity or ability to complete his mission--a mission the Senate gave him by confirming him. And now, nearly 9 months later, how do we greet him when he comes back to deliver a progress report on Iraq that we requested, the Democrats, also, in Congress requested? Instead of thanking him for his sacrifices and listening to him deliver his report, many Democrats who voted to confirm him are either attacking his personal character or not defending him from a personal smear attack by their allies at MoveOn.org. I cannot believe this slanderous campaign started before they even heard one word of General Petraeus's report. I read a quote from an anonymous Democratic Senator in the Politico newspaper this morning. I want to share it with this body today. This Democrat, who did not want to give his or her name, made the following statement: No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national [television]. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us. I do not even know where to begin to describe my disgust with that one. It shows that the attack on General Petraeus is a coordinated attack by MoveOn and its allies. Here is just some of what my Democratic colleagues have been saying: I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view. Here is another one: At the end of the day, these are not totally independent free agents. They are an appendage of the administration. And another: The fact that there are questions about General Petraeus' report is not surprising. . . . By the general's admission, the so-called surge has not achieved its goal. . . . Wrong. I cannot believe these false statements have been made on the floor of this Senate. It is outrageous to condemn a unanimously confirmed general and question his patriotism for this country simply for political sake. I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are good, decent people. But I have to say, I am amazed that more of them have not denounced this kind of smear campaign. The folks from MoveOn accuse General Petraeus of ``cooking the books.'' Is this because his counterinsurgency operation and the surge in Iraq are seemingly having positive results? Democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouths, and it is time for them to stop talking and start listening. Instead of taking political advice from leftwing activist groups, Democrats should actually take time to listen to General Petraeus's report. I cannot tell you how disgusted I was to see the full-page ad yesterday in the New York Times--which cost $167,000; that is what it cost--questioning the character of a four-star general who only 9 months ago had the support of this entire body. These tactics are insulting and should be condemned. In my book, the people who resort to this type of below-the-belt mudslinging are no patriots. I happen to know General Petraeus. He is a good friend of mine and a good friend of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from his days as the commanding officer of the 101st Airborne Division. He is a brave patriot of the highest moral character and has made immeasurable sacrifices for our country. He has spent the last 4 years deployed from his home, from his family and his loved ones, overseas serving this great Nation. Three of these years he has spent in Iraq, where he has worked tirelessly to build security and stability throughout the country. His efforts are seeing positive results. To suggest he is driven more by politics than by his love of our country may possibly be the lowest political attack I have ever seen in my time in the Congress. In the 4 years I have known him, not once did General Petraeus bring up politics--not once. I have no idea what he is--whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. In all of our discussions, including the hour I spent with him alone in my office before he left for Iraq to implement the surge, I do not believe the word ``Democrat'' or ``Republican'' was ever used. What I do know is he is a great patriot. He does not deserve to come home to be greeted by personal political attacks, especially by the very Democrats who asked him to come home and give us this report 9 months ago. Let me be clear to my Democratic colleagues: Using leftwing attack groups such as MoveOn to discredit General Petraeus--these are the worst of the worst. Any politician willing to sacrifice the long-term security of the United States in an attempt to salvage a short-term political career is beyond deplorable. I will not stand for it. Our military will not stand for it. And the American public will not stand for it. Just yesterday, a poll by the same New York Times reported that 68 percent of Americans trust the military commanders more than the Democratic Congress when it comes to Iraq policy. The American public supports our military. It is time for Congress to echo this support. Yesterday, in my office, I had the opportunity to sit down one on one with a young, brave Kentuckian who had just returned from a long deployment in one of Iraq's hotspots. At the end of our visit, he turned to me and made one request. He asked for Congress to support the troops. How can we expect General Petraeus and our troops to successfully complete their mission when we keep attacking them and threatening to cut off their funds? I promised this young man my support and will continue to do all I can to support our troops. As we find ourselves 6 years from this tragic event, this terrorist event that occurred on September 11, 2001, we must not forget there are those out there who still want to harm us. The freedoms we enjoy daily are protected by the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, including General Petraeus and the young man with whom I visited in my office yesterday. To all of those who suggest General Petraeus should be called ``General Betray Us,'' I have a message for you: You are the ones betraying our troops and the American people. You are giving aid and comfort to our enemies. We used to try people who did this as traitors. Just 5 months ago, the Senate Democratic majority leader was quoted as saying: No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats. Well, I say to my friend, the majority leader, stand by your words. Let's focus on succeeding in Iraq and for once show a united support for our troops. Every night, my wife Mary and I take about 10 minutes at 9 p.m. and say prayers for our troops and pray for the safety and security of our Nation. I suggest to all who are listening and who are in this body to do likewise. Maybe Democrats should take a moment of silence and stop criticizing our commanders and troops. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the two leaders today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the Cornyn resolution, the text of which is the exact language of the amendment which Senator Cornyn offered this morning. Further, I ask consent that if the resolution is agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to respond to my friend from Minnesota. First of all, it was only $25 million put in the New York security bill for the 2004 convention in New York, which I attended. My concern and my wonder is: Why did Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota, bid at all for the convention, or Denver, CO? Why did they bid? Did they bid to lose money? Did they bid to attract people into their States so they could make money on the conventions? I was on the Republican National Committee for 8 years and was involved in three national conventions. We went to Detroit, Dallas, and New Orleans. All of those cities were pre-9/11, but all of those cities were responsible for the security. Now, after 9/11, the people who are bidding--and there were more than just those two cities bidding. In fact, there were five that were narrowed down to three, and, finally, Minneapolis-St. Paul was chosen by the Republicans. The same thing occurred on the Democratic side, where there were five, and then down to three, and then down to one in Denver, CO. Now, they knew there was going to be a cost for security after 9/11. They had to build that security cost into their bid for the convention. If they did not do that, they were poor planners. The mandates that come from the Federal Government were known prior to the bids being made because we had already experienced a New York convention which was held in a much bigger city with many more ports and many more people and many more police than there are now in Minneapolis-St. Paul or Denver, CO. So it does not wash, the fact that this is an unfunded mandate from the Federal Government, because all of these cities that bid knew there were going to be additional costs for security if they were successful in hosting the convention. The way it is done with emergency spending is a farce. We do this when we cannot pay for it in the normal budgeted manner. It is a gimmick used in budgeting when you do not want to pay for something in the year that you spend the money. I am shocked this is going to pass by the margin it will pass. I sincerely believe we need our conventions and we need to nominate whomever we nominate for President and Vice President on both the Democratic and Republican side, but I almost am at a loss for words we would use emergency spending for the conventions and for something that should have been planned for by the cities and States that are going to host the current conventions in 2008. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is as though we didn't know 9/11 occurred, that the security risk for a convention in 2004 and 2008 would not be planned for in the bid by the hosting cities. Then for the Federal Government to step in and use emergency funding as a tool, a budget gimmick tool to fund this $50 million extra because Minneapolis- St. Paul and Denver didn't plan well for their conventions--I don't think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to budget this as an emergency spending bill, so I urge the defeat of the Coleman amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUNNING. Eighteen minutes. Mr. President, I will allow the Senator from Minnesota to use 5 of those minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Coleman amendment No. 2687. The amendment requires the use of emergency Federal funds paid by taxpayers from every State for security at the 2008 Presidential political party conventions in Minneapolis and Denver. If the amendment passes, both the Republican and Democratic political party conventions will each receive $50 million additional in Federal taxpayer dollars for State and local law enforcement costs associated with hosting the conventions. The $50 million for the Minneapolis convention is on top of the $12.5 million in Federal funds the State also will receive in the current version of the Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill. This is all on top of $70 million each party receives to host their conventions and run their political campaigns. Spending an additional $100 million in taxpayer funds for political conventions in Minneapolis and Denver is pretty outrageous to me. States that bid to host political conventions know that winning the bid also means a high cost for security comes with it. Sure, the cost of security after September 11 has gone up, but States and cities that bid on the 2008 conventions knew that burden at the get-go. Plus, the States will receive an enormous benefit from hosting the conventions. I have not heard one person say that the States or cities hosting the conventions will go bankrupt from holding them. One estimate shows that Minneapolis will receive more than $150 million in benefits from hosting the convention. Denver will likely receive a similar financial benefit. The millions of dollars in benefits is the main reason cities bid to host conventions in the first place. That is why every 4 years many cities bid to host each of the conventions. This windfall comes from thousands of people staying at the hotels, eating at the restaurants, and shopping in the stores in Denver and Minneapolis. That will result in a lot of sales tax revenue and hotel tax revenue that will stay in each of those cities and States. Paying for security definitely should not put States in the red. It is definitely not an unfunded mandate on the States or cities by the Federal Government. So if the States are receiving this huge benefit, why are taxpayers footing over $100 million additional in Federal funding for these political conventions? And how did we determine that figure of $50 million that was needed for each of these cities and States? Was this thoroughly researched? By whom? And what will the actual need be for Minneapolis? What will it be for Denver? Why has no Member of this body made this case? At the 2004 convention in New York City that I attended, they spent about $58 million in security. Will Minneapolis and Denver, which are not as big as New York and not a major port city, need the same amount of funding? It seems we are just throwing taxpayer money needlessly around without seriously looking at the situation. The legislation before us today provides over $109 billion for veterans and military construction projects all across the Nation. This legislation is supposed to help support our troops who are risking their lives overseas and to help the veteran men and women who so bravely fought for our country. With this in mind, I ask, why are we funding political conventions in this VA-Military Construction appropriations bill? What do political conventions have to do with the military? This is a combination of oil and water, and the Coleman amendment is trying to put them together. It doesn't mix. I also have extreme concerns with the use of emergency Federal spending to pay for political party conventions--emergency Federal spending. This is just a budget gimmick to get around the need to offset the funds. I keep saying this over and over, but emergency spending should only be for just that--emergencies. Usually emergency funding goes to things such as the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, or victims of Hurricane Katrina, and other major disasters that occur in the United States. It should not go toward nonemergency funding such as the conventions. Come on. Everybody knew, once the winning conventions city and State bids were announced, that security would have to be somehow funded. Holding conventions takes advance planning from States and cities and their political parties. All this does not add up to an emergency situation requiring emergency Federal funding. The fiscal year 2008 budget resolution allows for a point of order against amendments such as this that are not true emergency spending. It sets criteria for emergency spending which I do not think this amendment meets. Emergency spending must be only used for essential, sudden, and urgent matters that are unforeseen and not permanent. By my calculations, this amendment meets only one of those requirements, and none of the four other requirements. Because I think the overwhelming majority of the Senate will vote for this amendment, I will not raise the point of order against it. I have been to every Republican convention since 1980. I want to make it clear I think security is as important for the Republican and Democratic conventions, but my objections to this amendment concern who should foot the bill for the security. I believe those States and cities hosting the conventions should provide that funding. That means those planning the conventions and those benefiting from the conventions in Denver and Minneapolis should pick up the security tab, not Federal taxpayers across the country. For all these reasons, I oppose the Coleman amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. This amendment will pass, but we need to reevaluate how we finance political conventions in the future. When cities make bids to host these conventions, they should also make preparations to pay for security and include this information in their bids. This emergency funding method, using Federal taxpayers' dollars for political conventions, is not in the best interest or the best way to proceed, and that is why I oppose this amendment. If we think about this, this is the way the old Soviet Union used to fund their conventions, which were phony. But the state paid for the whole thing. I do not think we should have the same thing happening here in the United States of America. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Will the Chair state how much time I have left?