Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there is objection on behalf of members of the Republican side. As you know, the Republican leader objected to the same request yesterday. There is objection.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, founding Veterans Day in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower called upon Americans to ``solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom. . . .'' Today, we heed the advice of President Eisenhower and pay respect to all soldiers who have sacrificed to ensure America remains free, safe, and the symbol of democracy around the world. Throughout history, our soldiers have been asked to abandon their livelihoods to defend America's ideals and freedoms. Our soldiers have shouldered this great responsibility with courage, dedication, and honor. In return, this Nation cannot forget the countless sacrifices our soldiers have made for this country. We commemorate these valiant Americans who have protected the liberties and freedoms that all enjoy today. Congress must do its part to honor our Nation's soldiers. We are profoundly grateful for the many sacrifices that our soldiers have made in the current war against terrorists and in past conflicts. This includes ensuring all veterans receive proper health care, benefits, rehabilitation, and services. Congress will continue to support our veterans. We are all forever indebted to our veterans. I, therefore, personally thank all veterans and their families for the sacrifices you all have endured. I salute your valor and am immensely grateful for your service.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I had hoped to ask the majority leader a question here, but I think my question has already been answered, so I will simply make this point. There may be extraordinarily unique circumstances where once in a blue moon it is important to move a very focused piece of legislation in a very hurried period of time so that the majority is warranted in setting up a process such as that which has been established for this bill, where there are no amendments unless the majority leader says so. But that is not the situation with this bill. It never has been with the farm bill. This is the bill we are debating that we are taking up. And to suggest that the Senator's prerogative to offer any amendment--a lot of times they get voted down because they do not have the support-- but the Senator's prerogative to offer an amendment is going to be eliminated through the gatekeeper of the majority leader or any other member of the Senate who can object, is to derogate the basic rule of the Senate and eliminate a basic right of Senators. I recall not long after I got here, my colleague from Arizona objected to the then-majority on this side establishing a process that was not this drastic, but in some respects limited the right of amendments. He said: The Senate is the body in which any Member has a right to offer an amendment. It will be wrong for us to do that. Our leadership relented, and there were amendments allowed on the other side that got us over that impasse. That is what our minority leader was referring to a moment ago. You cannot impose a sort of dictatorial process where one person gets to decide whether you offer an amendment in the Senate. Sooner or later that process is going to break down. And on a bill as big as this bill, with as many diverse interests as the Senator from New Hampshire was talking about, it is not right that Senators not be allowed to offer amendments. Again, if they are not good amendments, they are going to be defeated, and they can always be tabled at any time, so they do not have to take up time. If I offered a silly, nongermane amendment, any of my colleagues could immediately move to table that amendment. Assuming it was simply nongermane, that motion to table would presumably pass. That whole thing would transpire in less than half an hour. So it is not about Republicans trying to take too long or offer silly amendments; it is about the regular process which ordinarily allowed us to offer amendments of our choice, not the choice of another Member of the body. I would hope the majority would reconsider, and that we could, after lunch, proceed with the process that is more amenable to all Senators being able to offer amendments they choose to offer.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to call the attention of the Senate to the most-underreported story of the year: the continuing success of our troops in Iraq. In particular, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an article by the American Enterprise Institute's Fred Kagan in this week's Weekly Standard, which articulately speaks to the magnitude of the change in direction that has taken place in Iraq. The article reports how our soldiers and marines turned an imminent victory for al-Qaida in Iraq into a humiliating defeat for them and thereby created an opportunity for further progress not only in Iraq but also in the global struggle against terror. In the past 5 months we have seen stunning results from the Petraeus strategy: terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent; car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent; casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent; and, violence during the just-completed season of Ramadan-- traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks was the lowest in 3 years. However, Mr. President, winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Our commanders and soldiers are continuing the fight to ensure that al-Qaida does not recover even as they turn their attention to the next battle: the fight against Shia militias sponsored by Iran. What's more, these victories are not irreversible. Al-Qaida is a resourceful organization. If we let up, they can still recover. That is why our strategy on the ground must be based on the advice and experience of our generals and not the political necessities of the majority party here in Washington. We must resist politically-motivated maneuvering, whether it be in the form of artificial timelines for withdrawal or efforts to have politicians in Congress change the mission that has been delivering results. I ask unanimous consent that the attached article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Might I just inquire now, would we be beginning the Republican time for morning business?

Mr. KYL. I understand we have permission to proceed, and I thank the majority for that and would note that when speakers come on their side, then they would be entitled to their time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to urge the swift confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. It has been 6 weeks now, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has not even taken up the nomination. It is past time to fill this vacancy. There is no question this nominee is qualified to serve. I don't need to recite his qualifications. They were mentioned by many Members at Judge Mukasey's nomination hearing. The distinguished majority leader said: Judge Mukasey has strong professional credentials and a reputation for independence. A man who spent 18 years on the Federal bench surely understands the importance of checks and balances and knows how to say no to the President when he oversteps the Constitution. There is no question, the Nation would be well served by Judge Mukasey's confirmation. Indeed, in recommending Judge Mukasey to serve on the Supreme Court, Senator Schumer noted that Judge Mukasey, and the others he recommended: . . . were legally excellent, ideologically moderate, within the mainstream, and have demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law. Surely, if a man is qualified and independent enough to be on the Supreme Court, we should have far fewer concerns when nominating him to serve the remaining time of about 1 year as Attorney General. It seems to me that what this debate boils down to is politics. Some Members want more information about his views. I would note that he testified for 2 full days and has answered nearly 500 written questions. The initial reaction from many of my Democratic colleagues was that he was extremely forthcoming and they were pleased with his candidness. But for some Senators, apparently this is not enough. It almost seems to me as if some of my colleagues are willing to hold this nomination hostage until he gives them exactly the answers they want, even when he is unable as a legal matter to do that. Let me explain why. Judge Mukasey has not been briefed on classified programs, and he will not be briefed on classified programs until he becomes the Attorney General, but some of my colleagues now seem to be saying he should have to make pronouncements about the legalities of those programs even when he doesn't know their details--can't know their details. How is this independent? I would suggest this: My colleagues don't want an Attorney General who is independent; they want an Attorney General who will kowtow to their views and make pronouncements over issues on which he is not legally allowed to opine. That is, of course, the opposite of independence. Since the beginning of this Congress, Democratic Senators have repeatedly called for new leadership at the Department of Justice. They have said the work of the Department is too important to delay confirmation of a new Attorney General. Well, now is the time for them to act. Before the nomination, Senator Schumer said: Let me say, if the President were to nominate somebody, albeit a conservative, but somebody who put the rule of law first, someone like a Mike Mukasey, my guess is that they would get through the Senate very, very quickly. Well, my colleague would have guessed wrong. It hasn't been quick. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not moved quickly, and this is all the worse because the average amount of time between nomination and confirmation of the last nine Attorneys General has been 21 days. Already Judge Mukasey has been pending for about twice that period of time--6 weeks--longer than any Attorney General nominee in 20 years. If these delays continue, obviously new records are sure to be broken. The bottom line here is that President Bush has nominated a distinguished and nonpolitical candidate to be the next Attorney General. The Senate should reciprocate by using the confirmation process not to settle old scores or to politicize the nomination. Independence has to mean something. We do not want an Attorney General who refuses to give his honest legal opinions to the President, and we don't want one who is forced to make commitments to the Senate that are not grounded in facts or law. The Department of Justice needs an Attorney General with the foresight and experience to resolve the issues the Nation's top law enforcement agency faces and to tackle the difficult challenges especially presented in a post- 9/11 world. The qualities and background of Judge Michael Mukasey, combined with his extensive experience in national security and terrorism cases, commend him to serve as Attorney General in these challenging times. It is important for the Senate to move on with this important business of the Nation so that Judge Mukasey can be voted on by the Senate.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the attention of the Senate to a provision of the fiscal year 08 Defense Authorization Act, now in conference. Section 3122 of the bill undermines the Senate's position on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, without the benefit of neither the historical treaty consideration process nor a senous policy debate. It has been 9 years since the CTBT was the subject of any deliberation by the Senate, which ultimately concluded that its ratification was not in the Nation's interests. There were numerous objections that proved determinative then and remain true today. First, the U.S. deterrent cannot be maintained without testing. U.S. nuclear weapons have the highest average age of any in the world. Some, like the W-76 warhead, the backbone of the submarine-based component of our nuclear triad, date back to 1966, making them more than four times as old as the average American car. Given the high average age, now at its highest point in the six decade history of nuclear weapons, they require substantial, ongoing modification if they are to be maintained as a viable deterrent. As the then-Director of Sandia National Laboratories, Dr. C. Paul Robinson, testified to the Senate, ``To forego validation through testing is, in short, to live with uncertainty.'' We cannot afford uncertainty when it comes to the reliability, safety, and credibility of our most important weaponry. Some believe that the reliable replacement warhead, RRW, can be developed and introduced without underground testing. Even if that judgment proves correct, it will be many years before we no longer need to rely on the older designs in the current arsenal for deterrence. As the administration noted in a recent statement by Secretaries Bodman, Gates, and Rice, ``delays on RRW also raise the prospect of having to return to underground nuclear testing to certify existing weapons.'' But, underground testing would be an option permanently denied to the United States through ratification of CTBT as section 3122 endorses. This permanent loss of the testing option would be even more problematic if we need to continue to rely on these aging designs for decades more as we would if current plans, including those passed by the House and proposed in the Senate, that eliminate RRW funding are not rejected. Further, the cuts proposed to RRW compound the impact of current plans to cut more than $500 million in funding for the nuclear weapons complex that supports, maintains, and refurbishes the weapons currently in the complex. These proposed cuts to RRW and the nuclear weapons complex have been rejected by individuals of great authority, including Secretaries Kissinger and Schultz, and Dr. Sidney Drell. The second reason the Senate rejected the treaty in 1999, and would do so again today, is that the treaty is not verifiable. Militarily significant covert nuclear testing can--and almost certainly will--be conducted at low yields or in other ways aimed at masking the force of an explosion. Assistant Secretary Paula DeSutter of the State Department's Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation recently made this point. She stated that the International Monitoring System set up to monitor compliance with CTBT is ``aimed to detect detonations over 1 kiloton; smaller or concealed detonations are less likely to be identified. Evasion techniques can easily reduce the signature of a nuclear explosion by factors of 50 or 100.'' Third, CTBT's unverifiability means a ban will not have uniform effects. Our inability under CTBT to monitor the state of foreign nuclear weapons programs effectively means that hostile or potentially hostile countries will be able to modernize their weapons even as the U.S. arsenal steadily degrades. As a result, the long-term effect of CTBT accession would translate into the inevitable, if gradual, unilateral disarmament of our Nation's deterrent. Fourth, CTBT would damage the struggle against proliferation. On the one hand, the inherent unverifiability of the CTBT can be expected to encourage rogue state regimes to believe they could pursue nuclear weapons programs with impunity. On the other, the attendant erosion of our deterrent would mean that allied countries--notably, Japan, Taiwan and perhaps South Korea--that currently rely on the U.S. deterrent ``umbrella'' would be more likely to develop their own nuclear weapons. As Dr. James Schlesinger remarked in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in 1999, ``the chief barrier to proliferation in these last 55 years since Hiroshima has been confidence in the protection offered by the American deterrent. It is the reason, quite simply, that nations like [South] Korea or Japan, or more complicated, in the case of Germany, have not sought nuclear weapons. Because of the NATO agreement, because of the Japan Treaty, because of our agreements with the Koreans, they have not felt the necessity of taking that final plunge. As confidence on their part in the U.S. deterrent wanes over a period of . . . years, what is the likelihood that those nations will refrain from seeking nuclear weapons? I think that it is very modest.'' Finally, the Senate rejected the CTBT in 1999 because it realized that the Stockpile Stewardship Program, SSP, is a ``crap-shoot,'' as Troy Wade, a retired Department of Energy nuclear scientist, referred to it in his testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1999. It remains doubtful whether the SSP, supported by CTBT advocates as a substitute for nuclear testing, can adequately meet the maintenance and refurbishment needs of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. As a result, it will become ever more likely that dangerous anomalies in our weapons will pass unnoticed. Despite these abiding concerns and the Senate vote in 1999, the 2008 Defense authorization bill would put the Senate on record in support of CTBT's ratification without hearings or debate. How can new Senators-- 37 since 1999--be expected to have reached such a conclusion? Preordaining the ratification of a treaty, as is done in section 3122 of this bill, does a disservice to the Senate's history of thoughtful consideration of treaties proposed for ratification, especially when the treaties were on issues with the gravity of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I would be remiss if I didn't reference the comments of Secretary of State Rice in a recent letter. She stated that the administration does not support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and ``does not intend to seek Senate advice and consent to its ratification.'' I also call the attention of the Senate to the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill which states strong opposition to section 3122 due to its dangerous implications for the reliability of our nuclear deterrent. Mr. President, I note that these are not simply the concerns of this Senator. The letter I will ask to have printed in the Congressional Record makes clear that 40 of my fellow Senators share many of these concerns about the CTBT and the unprecedented approach taken by this bill. My colleagues recognize as I do that since the reasons for the rejection of this treaty in 1999 have not changed, neither should the Senate's position. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I just referred printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3356.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, was designed to provide funds to low-income individuals who cannot cover rising home energy prices. The program does not discriminate between cold and hot weather States. However, upon implementation, cold weather States have unfairly received the majority of the LIHEAP funds. My amendment eliminates the discretionary nature in which the funds are disbursed and frees up money and allocates it on a nondiscretionary basis. Before I go into specifics of my amendment, I would first like to discuss how Arizona is affected by LIHEAP funds. This summer, record level temperatures have devastated the State. Phoenix set a record with 32 days of temperatures exceeding 110 degrees. In August alone, Phoenix experienced 9 days of temperatures of 110 degrees or above. The State of Arizona's average temperature for August 2007 was 105.8 degrees. It was the second hottest summer on record in Arizona and the Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service reached peak demand for energy service. Just imagine the cost to the people of Arizona to cool their homes during such extreme heat. Therefore, LIHEAP funds are crucial to many Arizonans who cannot meet their energy costs alone. Let me now turn to the way in which LIHEAP funds are distributed. Currently, LIHEAP funding is divided between two pots of money. The first pot is distributed based on a tiered funding formula, while the second pot of money is deemed a contingency fund distributed based on ``emergencies.'' Historically, the contingency fund is overwhelmingly distributed to cold weather States. My amendment would eliminate the bias inherent in the contingency fund distribution and allocate all LIHEAP money to the funding formula account that is more equitably distributed to all 50 States. I would implore my colleagues to think of all Americans when considering my amendment, and vote to provide a more equitable distribution of LIHEAP funds. Amendment No. 3356 withdrawn Madam President, having spoken to the manager of the bill, and appreciating the fact that the amendment was offered too late in the process, probably, to receive the consideration it deserves, we will work on this at a later date. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I can describe the amendment very briefly. Here is the context in which Senator Coburn and I offer this amendment. This Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides just under $150 billion in total discretionary spending. I believe it is $149.2 billion. This is about $8.95 billion over the President's recommendation. That is well over 6 percent in excess of what the President recommended. With this kind of excessive spending in the bill, it is important for Congress to address the use of taxpayer dollars within this bill to ensure that anything that is not a critical governmental function is prioritized, and for those things that are not critical, that we not spend money on them. Now, this bill contains a $1 million earmark for a museum located at the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY--the site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival. The museum, which is scheduled to open in 2008, apparently will house exhibits on the Woodstock Festival and the 1960s in which it occurred. According to the museum's Web site--I am quoting now-- Through dramatic imagery, audio-visual technology and immersive interactives, this exhibition tells the story of the 1969 [Woodstock] festival and its significance in a time of unrest and change, concluding with the myth, reality, and impact of the Woodstock Festival today. Our amendment is very simple. We simply strike that $1 million earmark. For those who thought the Woodstock Festival was a neat thing and something that needs to be commemorated in American history, it is happening. It does not need the Federal Government, the taxpayers in my State and others, to subsidize that museum. The Gerry Foundation, which is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization, oversees the Bethel Center, and it reported an adjusted net income of $7.7 million, investment income of more than $24 million, and total net assets of over $150 million at the end of 2004, the last year for which statistics are available. So why are we asking for $1 million to be earmarked out of this particular bill, the Labor-HHS bill, for the funding of this particular museum? As I said, our amendment would eliminate the earmark for this Woodstock museum, and it would transfer the funding to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program-- something that is relevant to the Labor-HHS bill. The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program provides funding to States to meet their most pressing maternal and child health needs, encouraging the development of community-based networks for both private and public health care services and programs designed to meet the health needs of pregnant women, mothers, infants, children, and adolescents. This is what this bill is supposed to be about. We have had a lot of debate recently about protecting children's health. It seems to me if that is something we are concerned about, we could use this $1 million for children's health rather than helping to pay the expenses of an already very well-funded museum to celebrate the festival at Woodstock. The amendment basically asks some questions about our priorities as Members of Congress, stewards of taxpayer dollars. Remember, the money has not grown on trees. It has been collected from hard-working families who expect us to put it to good use. They are frustrated about wasteful Washington spending. They criticize us every day for the priorities we set. It seems to me we do have to ask questions such as whether it is the will of this body to fund an earmark for a museum celebrating a weekend-long party that occurred 38 years ago or funding child health. The American people, as I said, are sick and tired of the kind of spending that this particular kind of earmark represents. They see us as a government that is not accountable to them, that is out of touch with their needs and realities in trying to provide for their own families, and they then send what the Government needs by way of taxes. They are not against paying taxes, but they do not want us to waste their money. It is beyond me how, with an entity as well funded as the Gerry Foundation, the Government would have to then take taxpayer money and fund this particular museum to the tune of $1 million. It is clearly not a high priority. It is clearly not needed. It is not critical to our future. It may be a nice thing for some people to visit to relive their memories of the good old days, but, frankly, it is a handout from taxpayers to a foundation that otherwise has plenty of money to commemorate this particular event. I close by noting that recently there was a festival at the Bethel site, the site of Woodstock, on August 11 of this year. They hosted an event called the ``HIPPIEFEST,'' with tickets priced up to $60 a person. Here is how it was advertised: Return to the flower-powered days of the 1960's with our oh-so-hippie line-up of truly talented artists. The center's advertisement for the concert further states: [G]ather your groovy beads and we'll see you on the lawn for a trip down memory lane. Well, the trip down memory lane may be fine for folks. I suggest if they want to participate in that, they can pay the admission price. If a rich entrepreneur in New York wishes to fund the creation of this museum, as he has done, he obviously has plenty of money to do it, as I indicated. It is not something American taxpayers should pay for. I will conclude by saying this: The reason why this Congress has a lower approval rating than the President of the United States--the lowest approval rating in its history, according to the public opinion surveys--is because they do not trust us to do the right thing. They believe we are wasteful stewards of their money. We have to start somewhere in convincing them that we are serious about the business they want us to conduct, that we can set priorities, and that we are not going to continue to waste their money. How can we, with a straight face, argue to them that we are not wasting their hard-earned, taxpayer money when we take $1 million of it to spend on a memorial or a museum for a party, as I said, that occurred 38 years ago, and which is already plenty adequately funded? It makes no sense at all. I urge my colleagues, when this comes up for a vote, let's at least demonstrate in a symbolic way, at a minimum, that we are serious about not wasting their money. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me return the compliment to our colleague from New York. Nobody is questioning anybody's beliefs. He certainly made that point, and we make the same point. In Senator Schumer, the citizens of New York have a very worthy and persuasive advocate. I say this with no disrespect. He could literally make the sow's ear into a silk purse, which I think is what is being done with respect to this particular program. He fights for his constituents' interests and beliefs. But I say thank you. If this is a jobs program, and that is the justification for it, I think we need to take a look at this again. I am informed that the unemployment rate in Sullivan County is 4.1 percent, contrasted with 4.6 percent nationwide. Our colleague talked about the counties in northwest Arizona. He mentioned the Grand Canyon. One of the counties next to the Grand Canyon incorporates the Navajo Indian Reservation. I think about Tuba City. The unemployment rate on the Navajo Indian Reservation is about 40 percent as opposed to a little over 4 percent in Sullivan County, NY. We could use a lot of jobs programs. We can use other programs more than that. I cannot get money for a roof on the Tuba City jail which leaks. There are parts of Arizona where it actually rains, and on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Tuba City, AZ, it rains. I went up there on a Saturday night about 6 months ago. Hope MacDonald said: You need to come up, we have to get a new jail; this thing is falling apart. I walked in and, yes, it is falling apart. It happened to be raining and, yes, the roof leaks. There are huge needs on these Indian reservations in poor counties of Arizona. There are a lot of events we can commemorate on the Navajo Reservation in terms of a museum that would be worthwhile for everybody in this country to visit. There is a rich, long, wonderful history there. But I don't think we should have an earmark in the Health and Human Services bill to create a museum as a jobs program. If we want to do that, let's focus on the real need. I don't know how many jobs this would create or what the cost-benefit ratio of the expenditure of this money is for job creation, but there surely has to be a better way to do it than creating a museum. If we are prioritizing, I can tell you areas in Arizona that are far greater in terms of unemployment and could use the money in much more direct ways to benefit the citizens of the State. The second point that our colleague from New York made--I will stand guilty with respect to Senator Schumer's charge, which is that I don't believe we should always raise taxes when we cut taxes. That is what this so-called pay-go rule is all about. It is supposed to work this way. You either cut spending or you raise taxes. We had a Finance Committee meeting, I believe it was yesterday, an informal meeting. I asked my colleagues, because it was all about raising taxes: Does anybody here have an idea about how we could cut spending in order to pay for this? Dead silence. Not a one. I know my colleague from Oklahoma has lots of good ideas about how to cut spending, but nobody in the Finance Committee was willing to put forth an idea of cutting spending. No, it had to be to raise taxes. What I am curious about is whoever decided that the amount of revenue the Federal Government collects today is exactly the amount of revenue it has to collect from now into the future so that if we are ever going to reduce taxes on hard-working Americans, we have to raise their taxes in some other area so the Government can still collect the same amount of money? It is interesting, we collect about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product in taxes today. We could prevent any of the existing tax rates from increasing--take the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--and eliminate AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we would still be collecting 18 percent of our gross domestic product in taxes. Isn't that enough? If we don't do these things, we will be over 20 percent. The historic 40-year average is 18.2 percent. Clearly, we don't have to keep raising taxes on Americans. That is why some of us believe, when we try to help people by cutting taxes, we ought to leave well enough alone and not raise taxes somewhere else so we can keep the Government whole. The object is not to make sure the Government always has the same amount of money. It is to try to help the people who pay the taxes. They are the ones who generate the jobs. If we are talking about unemployment, let's talk about who creates the jobs. It is mostly small businesses. So if we help small businesses by not raising their taxes, they can create the jobs and that creates wealth and, by the way, it produces more income tax revenue to the Federal Government. I conclude by saying I plead guilty to not wanting to raise taxes every time I am in favor of cutting taxes, but that debate is irrelevant to the question before us today, which is simply, as a symbolic measure, can we at least find $1 million in this multibillion- dollar bill that we can all agree could better be spent on something else? Can we set some priorities once and for all? This Woodstock museum, maybe it is a good idea--I am not so sold on it--but if it is a great job creator, and it is pretty clear the people in New York have concluded that, they have the money to fund a museum. They do not have to rely on the taxpayers in my State or other States to fund a museum. I hope my colleagues agree that in setting priorities, we can strike this one earmark from this bill.

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $1 million in the bill, an earmark that would create a Woodstock museum celebrating the Woodstock Festival in northern New York 38 years ago. Now, some of you may believe it would be neat to celebrate Woodstock again and to do so with a museum. To the extent you believe that, there is a private foundation as well as money available from the State of New York that provides the funding. To the extent one would argue it is only $1 million, and therefore symbolic, the answer to that is, yes, it is, but I think the American people want us to begin to make some votes that demonstrate we care about setting priorities. Funding a Woodstock museum in New York is not a priority above the funds that would help the children and the pregnant women to whom this $1 million would otherwise go. As to jobs, every one of us could spend $1 million in our States to help create jobs. But to justify this on the basis of it being a job- creation program goes too far. The unemployment rate in this county, I am told, is less than the average nationwide. So let's strike a blow for priorities. Let the American taxpayer know we are willing to at least start somewhere to save their money and not waste it on the Woodstock museum.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up an amendment which I will then later withdraw.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3321, which I believe is at the desk and was filed by Senator Coburn. He and I are cosponsors.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment provides $23 million in funding to the FBI for purposes of clearing its backlog of untested DNA evidence. This backlog consists of DNA evidence from untested rape kits, other untested crime-scene evidence, and samples collected from criminal offenders. The amounts provided by this amendment are the minimum amount that the FBI would need in order to be able to clear its current backlog of untested DNA evidence. Two recent articles in USA Today highlight the nature of this problem and why it matters. The first news story--published just last month-- indicates that FBI's backlog of untested DNA evidence has grown to over 200,000 samples. As USA Today notes, past experience testing DNA samples indicates that testing the current backlog would probably solve over 3,000 rapes, murders, and other serious crimes. Allow me to repeat that statistic: according to USA Today, testing the current backlog of DNA evidence is expected to solve over 3,000 cold cases--violent crimes and other serious offenses for which no perpetrator currently has been identified. Obviously, solving these crimes would bring relief to thousands of crime victims and their families. By identifying these criminal offenders and leading to their prosecution and incarceration, testing the DNA backlog would undoubtedly prevent many future offenses as well. But first we have to appropriate the funds to test that backlog. Another recent article in USA Today describes the costs imposed by not promptly testing DNA evidence. This article begins as follows: Under Maryland law, Raymont Hopewell should have had his DNA taken after he was sentenced for selling $20 worth of cocaine in April 2004. But the state police, who lacked sufficient technicians, never got around to it. So no one knew that Hopewell's DNA matched a pair of unsolved rape/murders on the national DNA database. He served a few months in a halfway house and went on to commit three more murders, one rape and four assaults before being caught in September 2005. Then, a DNA test was performed. Hopewell, now 36, pleaded guilty to all five murders, including three that a DNA match could have prevented. He was sentenced to four consecutive life terms last year. That is the cost of not promptly testing DNA evidence. The failure to test evidence in just this one case allowed the commission of three murders and one rape that clearly could have been prevented. The USA Today story goes on to note that: cases in which such missed DNA matches led to further crimes have begun to ``pop up increasingly'' as test backlogs grow, [according to Lisa Hurst, a DNA expert]. Cases similar to the Maryland case have been reported in California, Ohio, Illinois and elsewhere in the past four years. ``You have to believe there are a whole lot more than what gets reported,'' Hurst says. ``This is not something that people want to talk about. It's much worse than just an embarrassment.'' If we want the current Federal DNA backlog to be tested, we must provide FBI with this money. There are not a lot of things that the Federal Government can do that will directly prevent violent crimes, but this is one of them. I am pleased that the Senate will adopt my amendment and allow the FBI to promptly test its current evidence backlog, before another preventable rape or murder is committed. I ask unanimous consent to have the following articles appearing in USA Today printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on rollcall Vote No. 367 I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator, part of defending a satellite against an attack is being aware the attack is pending, is about to happen, or is happening. But if all you know is that I am being attacked and you are not capable of defending yourself, the knowledge you are being attacked is of little use. So this is not a matter of surveillance or situational awareness; it is a matter of developing defenses. I guess I would put this question to my colleague: As an abstract principle, would my colleague favor or oppose the concept of a space- based defense of satellites of the United States that have military uses, in other words, a defense that would be perhaps based on the satellite itself to jam signals as some weapon homes in or that would create some kind of effective shield of electromagnetic pulse or other kind of electronic defense or even a kinetic kind of defense for the satellite if it is under attack, perhaps some kind of shielding against a laser attack? In other words, all different kinds of attacks that might come. As a hypothetical matter, would my colleague not agree that it would be very useful and appropriate, even if those defensive capabilities are located in space, for us to be able to protect our satellites in that way or would my colleague consider those to be space-based weapons that are impermissible?

Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me say, first, I am aware of what is being done to protect our assets, and we don't, as has been said before on the floor of this Chamber, have defenses for our satellites in space today by an attack by another country. We have to work in this area. The space-based test bed is one of the places in which we could develop proof of concept that could be effective both for our satellites and, yes, also for an attack by a hostile missile because that is where this program started, it is in the missile defense budget. But that doesn't mean if I drop this amendment, for example, as the Senator is suggesting I do, that, therefore, we can forget about the need to protect our satellites because everything is taken care of. We have a need to develop concepts which include the ability to test, first, terrestrially and then in space, proof of concept that would provide for defenses, that would both protect satellites and protect against a hostile missile attack. For the life of me, I don't see why my colleague can so confidently predict that my amendment will not have the votes to be adopted simply because on down the road many years from now it is theoretically possible that a concept would be developed to protect against a hostile missile attack with some kind of a space-based program.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on Monday, GEN Peter Pace completed his term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A highly decorated officer, GEN Peter Pace was the first Marine officer to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in our Nation's history. General Pace graduated the U.S. Naval Academy in 1967. After completing the Basic School in 1968, he deployed to Vietnam as a marine rifle platoon commander. After Vietnam, General Pace served overseas in Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and Somalia. His style as a humble commander, selflessly dedicated to his obligations, brought accolades from both superior officers and enlisted soldiers. General Pace has held command at nearly every level, and excelled in all respects in the uniformed service of his country. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace served as an adviser to the President a role he conducted with unquestionable professionalism. As a confidential advisor and military man, General Pace did his utmost to steer clear of the public disputes and political battles that so often afflict Washington decisionmaking. General Pace's professional conduct, through a period of time marked by new and uniquely difficult tribulations, is a model for those to come. A strong voice for providing security to Iraq's population and holding areas cleared of terrorists, General Pace's counsel has played a role in building consensus for the military strategy that is producing successes on the ground in Iraq. It should be noted that General Pace assumed his duties in the face of a rising insurgency in Iraq. He leaves office with a successful strategy in place, an improving situation in Iraq, and troop draw downs taking place due to progress on the ground. In short, he has left his office in better condition than it was when he entered it. For his exemplary service he has earned the gratitude of a safer, more secure Nation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wished to, first of all, echo the comments of my colleague from Utah. Fred Kagan is an expert, and what he had to say in that report and in his subsequent summaries of it is something all our colleagues should be familiar with because he makes the very clear point that, as this mission is working, right now is not the time to change the mission and go back to what it was prior to General Petraeus's arrival on the scene. Yet we still have Members of this body and the other body trying to undercut the Petraeus plan in one way or another. The most recent effort to do this is one which is especially distressing. Let me give a little bit of background. First, I wish to note that our Democratic colleagues have not taken very long to reestablish their reputation--well deserved--as the tax- and-spend party, as my colleague from Texas pointed out earlier. Now that the Democratic Party is in control of the Congress, the agenda is very clear. But yesterday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee went a step too far because he proposed a new tax on every American. This one, ostensibly, to fund the war. Now, there are a lot of different excuses for raising taxes, as my colleague from Texas pointed out a while ago, but I don't think we need a new tax. If we did, our Democratic colleagues would not be proposing $23 billion in more spending than the President proposed in his budget. In other words, if a lack of revenue is the problem, then let us not keep spending more than has been proposed in the budget. The tax-and- spend priorities of the Democratic majority are very clear. No, the real reason for Chairman Obey's plan to raise more taxes is to change our strategy in Iraq, and that is very clear from his own comments. Along with the tax he proposed, in fact, he announced he would not allow his committee to move forward with the bill the President has requested to fund the troops in Iraq. This is not the Defense authorization or Defense appropriations bill, which funds the Pentagon and all the military activities over the course of next year. No, this is the money for the troops who are fighting right now in Iraq. As I said, the chairman made it very clear that was precisely what he intended. In fact, quoting from a Wall Street Journal article today, he said: Choosing not to move legislation is our strongest card at this point. Well, this is not a card game, and you shouldn't be playing with the lives of our troops by cutting off their funding while they are out in the field. If you wish to make a policy point that we should change our strategy in Iraq, change our mission, there are ways to do it without cutting off the funds while the troops are out there trying to perform the mission we have sent them to perform. I thought the comment of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, as reported in the Washington Times in a story this morning, was charitable and interesting. Senator Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican, said Mr. Obey's threat to block war funds was pretty gutsy. But I don't see how it would work. In the end, you have to feed the soldiers. That is the point. You can cut back Pentagon funding, you can try to pass resolutions that call for a change in strategy, but at the end of the day, you have to feed the soldiers. You can't refuse to send the money to Iraq while the troops are there or you are literally pulling out the rug from under the troops. My colleague, Senator Graham from South Carolina, put it this way: The plan to starve the troops of funds would be cheered by America's enemies. This would be a blessing to al-Qaida, which is getting its brains beat out in Iraq. I remember when Bob Dole ran for the Presidency, and he was trying to make some pretty important points and people didn't appear to be listening to him. At one point, he said: Where is the outrage? And that is the question I ask here. Where is the outrage of pulling the rug out from under our troops while they are in theater trying to do what we have sent them there to do? This is not just bad policy, it represents a failure to support the troops. Everybody around here says: Well, we all support the troops, we disagree with the policy of being in Iraq. Now we have come to the point where we are going to try to change that policy by not supporting the troops? I don't think this is good policy. I don't think it is fair to the troops whom we have sent into harm's way, and it is consistent, as I said before, with this whole tax-and-spend ideology. Try to change policy by withdrawing support for the troops but raise taxes on the American taxpayer? It makes no sense at all, unless you put it in the context with where the Democratic leadership has been going now for some time with respect to the Iraq war. Let me go back a little and quote from an article yesterday in the Associated Press. Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding. Well, it didn't take long for that to come true. The Associated Press noted: The difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat. I might say the Speaker of the House has already announced her opposition to this new tax plan. Democrats are indeed divided. But for those who are in authority to refuse to move the legislation forward, and who talk about it in terms of it is the best card I have to play, have the ability to stop the funding at the very time that the troops need the money in the field. Progress in Iraq, obviously, has been widely reported. An editorial today in Investors Business Daily says: The new strategy being implemented by General Petraeus seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida has been backpedaling furiously. So right at the time the strategy is working, we are going to pull the money out? It makes no sense. The Washington Post reports today: The numbers of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians reported killed across the country last month fell to their lowest levels in more than a year, a sharp decrease in violent deaths that American military officials attribute in part to the thousands of additional soldiers who have arrived here this year. And the New York Times today notes: The number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq dropped precipitously in September compared with the previous month. So at a time when the strategy of General Petraeus is working, our friends on the other side of the aisle are deciding to pull the funding so we can no longer continue the operation. That makes no sense at all. But it does fit in with this larger strategy, as I said, to find any way they can to change the course in the war. Let me conclude with this point. It is now October 3, past the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, and yet the Democratic majority has not passed one single appropriations bill to the President for his signature to fund the government next year. It appears to me there is a reason for this. The Associated Press noted the following in an article on September 30: The most basic job of Congress is to pass the bills that pay the costs of running the government. After criticizing the Republicans for falling down on the job last year, Democrats are now the ones stumbling. And Roll Call had an editorial 3 days before, and I quote from part of it: Senate Democrats complain that Republican obstructionism and President Bush's veto threats against nine House-passed bills caused this year's delay. But the arguments don't hold water. Instead, it appears likely that the Democrats' failure to pass these spending bills is part of the plan designed to create a giant Omnibus appropriations bill which will tie very directly into their tax-and-spend policies. According to an editorial today in Congressional Quarterly: Democrats may be planning to use a widely supported veterans' bill as the vehicle for their additional spending. Frustrated veterans' groups are trying to pressure Congress to quickly pass a veterans' and military construction bill and not use it as a vehicle for an omnibus measure. Now, this wouldn't be the first time this kind of game has been played, but especially if it is on the Veterans and Military Construction bill, or if it is the Defense authorization bill that was held up for so long, and now the measure to try to fund the troops in Iraq, there is a very disturbing pattern here. Playing games with money for veterans and the military in order to get more taxes and spending? That is wrong. It is wrong. The American people need to know that at the very time when General Petraeus's strategy is showing very positive results in Iraq, it is the Democratic plan, at least in the House of Representatives, to hold up that funding, not because there is a lack of money, not because we need a tax increase to fund it but in order to try to change the course of the President's strategy. That is playing games with the money the troops need in the field. Again, as Senator Domenici said, it is a pretty gutsy move, but in the end, it would not work because you have to feed the soldiers.