John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been very vocal in my support of the U.S. auto industry and have gone on the record saying that we need to do whatever is necessary to help the auto industry become strong and economically viable. But we need to be realistic and fiscally responsible in our approach to the troubles facing this and other industries. I cannot support the proposal before us today. We simply cannot leave the American taxpayer with a tab of tens of billions of dollars without some serious concessions from the industry and some assurance of the domestic auto manufacturers' long-term viability, otherwise, we are just throwing good taxpayer money after bad business decisions. I have great faith in the skills, energy and ingenuity of the American auto worker. This crisis is not their fault. I am committed to making sure that U.S. auto workers are not left to fend for themselves. Ours is the finest workforce in the world, able to compete with anyone. I stand ready to ensure that Washington does its job so they can do theirs. But simply throwing money at the industry is not the way to ensure its long-term viability or to help stabilize our economy. As we all have learned in the past few weeks, the domestic auto manufacturers are in much worse shape than we could even imagine, with one company, GM, announcing they may not survive through this year without Federal help. But why is it that Toyota sells approximately the same number of cars that GM does and is profitable? Clearly, the automakers will need to change dramatically the way they do business if they hope to be on course for long-term profitability. Rather than seeking an unconditional handout from the taxpayer, industry leaders must first consider how they can restructure their business models in order to fix the problem themselves and build more competitive products--including changes in management, renegotiating labor agreements, and reorganizing under the bankruptcy process. And, they should have been doing so months, if not years, ago. And if the bankruptcy laws need to be changed, then the Congress should do that. The automakers need to prove to Congress and the American people that they are serious about making the changes necessary to ensure their long-term success before they seek further assistance from the taxpayer. As noted Harvard University economics professor Martin Feldstein wrote: ``the goal of restructuring should not just be to require the companies to make cars that are fuel-efficient and more environmentally sound . . . although that can be included in the government's list of requirements. The goal should be to put companies on a course that will allow them to survive for the long term, producing cars and creating jobs.'' I fully agree with Professor Feldstein. The auto industry executives, as well as many of my colleagues, have argued that bankruptcy is not an option. But given what we now know about their financial situation, why not? Shouldn't we be considering every option possible to allow these companies to restructure their operations so they can keep people employed? Chapter 11 bankruptcy was created precisely for the situation in which these automakers find themselves--where creditors' claims exceed a company's assets. It may be the best option. The executives leading these companies have an obligation to their shareholders and employees to weigh carefully that viable option. After all, filing for bankruptcy forces a company to make some very difficult choices and the automakers would be no exception. The automakers would be forced to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements to make themselves more competitive, to eliminate some dealership networks and car models that are underperforming, and to make other difficult cost cutting decisions regarding real estate, management compensation, personnel, and even office supplies. It seems these companies may only make these difficult decisions if they file for bankruptcy. Additionally, bankruptcy would allow the cost cutting process to proceed without any political interference from Congress or special interests. If Congress provides a bailout for these companies, there is no doubt that legislators will weigh in when the automakers attempt to renegotiate labor agreements, trim dealerships in a lawmaker's home State or eliminate a car model manufactured in a lawmaker's district. Bankruptcy will allow these decisions to be made purely based on financial considerations and under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge. Many corporations have filed for bankruptcy and emerged better equipped to serve consumers and face their competitors. Bankruptcy is not an option that should just be written off. Now, I would like to mention some of my specific concerns about the pending proposal, negotiated by the Democrats and the White House. My first concern I have already discussed, the fact that the taxpayers are asked to foot the bill upfront, almost as a first downpayment, without concessions or assurances of the industry's future viability. Another troubling aspect of this bill rests with the so-called ``Car Czar.'' Will this individual have the authority to invalidate contracts legally entered into by these companies? What in this legislation would prevent lawsuits from being filed due to nullified contracts? What is to prevent the next President, or the one after that, from firing this car czar if he or she disagrees with what the car czar seeks to impose? And what in the bill gives the American people any assurances that the companies or the car czar won't enter into other obligations that ultimately cost taxpayers even more money? I fully agree that if we are to going to provide a single taxpayer dollar to this industry there must be very strict oversight in order to protect the public's investment. Unfortunately, while this bill gives the President's designee some oversight authority, it has no real teeth. The person appointed by the President would have no real authority to insist on the fundamental changes necessary to promote the corporations' viability and protect the taxpayer's investment. If we are going to hand over billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, we should at least consider requiring Senate confirmation of an individual with proven business leadership skills who will serve for a defined period of time. This would remove the possibility of the designee falling victim to the political pressure often felt by those who serve at the pleasure of the President--allowing that person to make decisions based solely on the best interest of the taxpayer--not on political considerations. Another area of concern for me surrounds what seems to me a lack of reality on the part of the domestic auto manufacturers. More and more Americans want to purchase energy-saving vehicles. Yet the domestic auto industry seems to be fighting tooth and nail against that reality. And if it does not wake up immediately, nothing Congress can do will help the industry survive. It needs to be competitive. It needs customers to buy its vehicles. And it won't have many customers if it doesn't take action to build vehicles with higher fuel efficiency standards that help our Nation end our crippling dependence on foreign oil. Finally, the bill includes provisions wholly unrelated to the issue at hand, such as language authorizing a pay raise for U.S. judges. Why in the world is it necessary to address this issue in this bill? I am not questioning the merits of the provision--I am sure the overwhelming majority of our judges work very hard and deserve a raise--but such a provision has no business being addressed in this manner and at this time when so many are doing more with less. This authorization should be addressed in the proper way by the appropriate authorizing committee. If we allow this $14 billion to be doled out to the automakers with so few conditions and no concessions--who comes next? And how long before they return seeking billions more? A recent editorial in the Washington Post noted that: the impending collapse of General Motors presents Congress and the President with a choice between two domino effects, both potentially damaging to the U.S. economy if the federal government does not lend GM money and the company goes bankrupt, the repercussions will spread throughout the country by way of the network of suppliers, dealers and local businesses that depend on GM and the other car manufacturers for their livelihoods. This could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs when the economy can ill afford another shock. But if the federal government, frightened by these possibilities, gives GM just what it wants, it will be setting a precedent for even more multibillion-dollar bailouts--of automakers and of other troubled companies. The closure of DHL's operation in Wilmington, Ohio, is costing 9,000 people their jobs; Circuit City's bankruptcy means about 7,800 layoffs. If Detroit and its relatively well- compensated workforce qualify for Federal aid, why not these firms and workers, too? We need to be very careful here lest we slide down the slippery slope of a taxpayer funded bailout for every ailing business in America-- large or small. Let me be clear. I am very sympathetic to the plight of the auto industry. But the proposal before us seeks to hand over $14 billion to companies who have yet to tell the Congress and the American people--in any detail--how they plan to restructure their operations and become viable in the long-term. Their gross inaction to date causes me great pause. And that is why I cannot support the measure before us. I am pleased to see that many are working hard to find an acceptable compromise. I am hopeful that we can reach a suitable agreement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the parents of our good friend and former colleague from Ohio, Mike DeWine. Richard and Jean DeWine died just a few weeks ago, 4 days apart from each other. Dick was 85, and Jean was 83. They were together almost their entire lives, sharing a beautiful love story and 65 wonderful years of marriage. I had the honor of meeting Mike's parents in February when I was visiting Young's Jersey Dairy in their hometown of Yellow Springs, OH. It was a privilege to talk to them. They were so gracious and kind. I could see how proud they were of their son and how proud they were of our Nation. Mike spoke about his parents' lives and especially their love of family at their joint funeral service held on November 5, 2008. In tribute to Dick and Jean, I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of his remarks be printed in the Record at the conclusion of mine. There were no two finer Americans than Dick and Jean DeWine. May God bless them and their family.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer my sincere congratulations to Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, the members of our committee, and our House colleagues for their work on the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. With provisions that authorize a considerable pay raise for all military personnel, increase Army and Marine end-strength, improve the system that serves wounded veterans, and help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting and procurement, this bill contains many important provisions that will help support our national defense and, in particular, our servicemen and women. However, this bill also contains other provisions that are very problematic. Before explaining my concerns with this bill, let me take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to Senator Warner for his many years of service to this Nation, not the least of which are 30 well-spent years in the Senate where he has been a consistent and steadfast champion of our men and women in uniform. Senator Warner has been instrumental in providing needed oversight of the Department of Defense, and in ensuring that our soldiers are well trained, well equipped, and that they and their families are well provided for. I am particularly grateful for his contributions during this Congress when he so frequently stepped in on my behalf. Let me be clear that my concerns with this year's bill reflect in no way on Senator Warner outstanding efforts: He deserves much credit for the many exemplary provisions contained in this bill. Nonetheless, in this year's bill, and the accompanying report, there are $5 billion in earmarks. Of that total amount, $2.1 billion arises from a single provision that authorizes the procurement of six C-17 Globemaster aircraft that the Defense Department states we neither need nor can afford. In my view, the massive pork spending in this bill renders it a frontal assault on this body's purported commitment to ethics and earmark reform and, in my view, results in a failure in our obligation to the taxpayer. Among the most egregious items in this bill are: The Defense bill provides more than $2.1 billion for 6 C-17 cargo aircraft. The Secretary of Defense wants to end production of C-17 aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. These aircraft are neither requested nor required by the Department of Defense. In the fiscal year 2008 Defense supplemental appropriations, the Congress added another 15 C-17 aircraft that also were not requested nor required by DOD. Congress has earmarked 31 C-17s above the mount that is necessary in various Pentagon requirements studies over the last 2 years. C-17 aircraft cost more than $300 million per plane. With this bill, the total number of C-17s procured will rise to 211 total aircraft. This is a thinly veiled effort to keep the C-17 production line open using taxpayer's dollars to fund what is essentially a more than $2.1 billion corporate earmark for the Boeing Corporation. The Defense bill provides $140 million in advance procurement for additional F-22s. The Air Force and contractors say that prohibiting spending in this bill would cause second tier suppliers to shut down and make it more expensive to restart the line if the next administration wants to continue production, even though the Secretary of Defense's position is that 183 F-22s is the full military requirement. Advanced procurement funding for additional F-22 aircraft is neither requested nor required. This earmark is being pursued by Lockheed Martin and its supporters. The Defense bill includes funding of $88 million for a VIP aircraft to fly Air Force general officers. Scott AFB has served as headquarters for numerous Air Force commands. Today, two 4-star Air Force generals from the Air Mobility Command and the U.S. Transportation Command call Scott AFB, home. Just as senior leadership in-transit comfort capsules, SLICCs, created a stir several months ago when it was learned from Air Force documents that Air Force Generals were trying to use GWOT money to purchase ``first class'' seats and beds in ``flying pods'' so that generals could travel in luxury when they fly overseas, it is egregious to think that while the military--mostly privates, sergeants, and petty officers--is engaged in the global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be spending scarce defense dollars on VIP aircraft for generals. The Defense bill continues to fund the Presidential helicopter program for next year at $1.1 billion. The VH-71A program is intended to provide the replacement helicopter for the transportation of the President and Vice President. The current program which would build 23 aircraft has had excessive delays and cost overruns of more than 70 percent. This level is well in excess of the percentages--in fact five times as much--that would trigger a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy limits for major acquisition programs. Several program managers have been dismissed or reassigned in an effort to restructure this ailing program. This program should be cancelled. In the meantime the $1.1 billion to continue next year's development of the Presidential helicopter should be halted and the money withheld until the Navy and the contractor demonstrate more transparency and accountability on this failing program. The Defense bill includes a provision directing the Secretary of the Navy to sell the ``yard floating drydock'', AFDL-23, to Gulf Copper Ship Repair in Aransas Pass, TX. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to sell the drydock; however, the provision restricts the Secretary from recouping the full costs, approximately $120-$190 million, because the Secretary is directed to consider the amounts paid by, or due and owing from, the lessee--Gulf Copper Ship Repair. This would essentially allow the rent paid by Gulf Copper Ship Repair to be deducted from the total price of the drydock. The Navy does not support this provision. The Navy is in the process of determining whether the dock is excess to future Navy needs and, if so, whether it would be required by other U.S. Government agencies or activities when the current lease to Gulf Copper expires. Subsequent to a determination that there are no additional U.S. Government needs, the vessel would be struck from the Naval Vessel Register and designated for disposal. This provision is an end-run of the normal process for disposal or sale of government equipment and is not in the best interest of the taxpayer. The Defense bill includes a provision which is highly objectionable and is strongly opposed by the administration which purports to incorporate by reference into the bill most of the earmarks included in the accompanying report--totaling more than $5 billion. The provision is meant to thwart President Bush's Executive Order 13457 ``Protecting American Taxpayers from Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks.'' I had advocated a better approach of putting all the spending tables into the actual bill language. By hiding/shielding the tables in the report, the taxpayer does not have full transparency of Congress' actions in adding corporate and Member earmarks which are not requested or needed by the military services. Again, while there is much in this year's Defense authorization bill that is very worthwhile and helpful to providing for the national defense, the provisions contained within it that move in the wrong direction are too numerous, too large, and too costly for this Member to ignore.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before us today is a supplemental appropriations bill that would provide vital funding for the men and women fighting valiantly on our behalf abroad. Yet instead of acting on the needs of our military in an expeditious and efficient manner, we find ourselves considering a bloated bill, loaded down with extraneous provisions unrelated to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, this has become an unfortunate and reoccurring trend in recent years. Congress has an obligation to provide our servicemen and women with the resources they need to fulfill their mission. Yet we have, once again, chosen to abrogate our duties and use this bill as a vehicle to fund various domestic projects that were not requested by the President, nor are they authorized, and have not been handled through the appropriate legislative process. The President has already stated his intention to veto this measure if it arrives at his desk in its current form. Rather than demonstrating true bipartisanship and working together to produce a bill that meets the needs of our military and one that has the potential of becoming law, the Senate intends to pass a bill will be passed that is sure to be met swiftly by the President's veto pen, unnecessarily prolonging the delay in funding our troops. Let us not underestimate the necessity of providing this funding to our military promptly and the consequences of delaying such payment. In a recent letter to Congress, Under Secretary of Defense Gordon England stated in no uncertain terms that if this funding is not provided, ``the Army will run out of Military Personnel funds by mid-June and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds by early July.'' In order to deal with these depleted accounts, the Department of Defense--DoD--would be required to borrow funds from other service branch accounts, hampering ongoing DoD activities around the globe. Under Secretary England goes on to state in his letter that by late July, the entire Department will have ``exhausted all avenues of funding and will be unable to make payroll for both military and civilian personnel . . . including those engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' Let us understand what this means. If this appropriations measure is not enacted in a timely manner, thousands upon thousands of men and women in uniform will stop receiving a paycheck and our ability to conduct operations throughout the world will be severely restricted. When we should be working together to produce a clean bill that provides our servicemen and women with the vital resources they need to fulfill their duties, we have instead reverted to the same old Washington habit of loading spending bills with billions of dollars going to unrequested, non-emergency projects. Examples include: $75 million not requested by the administration for expenses related to economic impacts associated with commercial fishery failures, fishery resource disasters, and regulation on commercial fishing industries. This comes after Congress appropriated $128 million in 2005 for commercial fishery failures, $170 million in 2007 and included an additional $170 million in the Farm bill. Since 2005, Congress has provided almost $300 million for commercial fisheries disasters not including the $75 million in this supplemental and the proposed $170 million from the Farm bill. Additionally, questions remain by some commercial fishermen if this funding can be used to offset high gas prices which may be considered a disaster. The disaster here is that the American public isn't receiving any assistance on high gas prices. Other examples are: $10 million not requested by the administration for Educational and Cultural Exchange programs; $75 million not requested by the administration for rehabilitation and restoration of Federal lands; more than $451 million not requested by the administration for emergency highway projects for disasters that occurred as far back as Fiscal Year 2005; $210 million not requested by the administration for the decennial census and $3.6 billion for 15 Air Force C-17 cargo aircraft. We have looked to the administration to inform Congressional budgetary decisions and the Department of Defense has been quite clear regarding the purchase of more of these cargo aircraft--they do not want them, because there is no military ``requirement'' for them and buying more C-17s is contrary to the Pentagon's current budget plan. DOD Secretary Gates, the DOD Deputy Secretary, and the Department's top acquisition official have all stated that additional C-17s were not necessary. Yet the Air Force continues to appeal to the parochial interests of Members of Congress, and once again the taxpayers find themselves on the wrong end of a bad decision. I am troubled by the Air Force's apparent disregard for proper acquisition policy, practice and procedure and seeming eagerness to further contractors' interests. As evidence of this, the Department of Defense Inspector General has an open investigation regarding how senior Air Force officials may have inappropriately solicited new orders for C-17s contrary to the orders of the President and the Secretary of Defense. While I do not doubt the importance some may see in the various provisions included in the underlying bill, I strongly disagree with their inclusion in a war supplemental funding bill. Instead of attempting to hijack this vital legislation, the authors of these extraneous provisions should pursue their objectives through the normal legislative process and as part of appropriate authorizing and spending vehicles. I also want to express my concerns about the authorizing legislation included in this emergency supplemental regarding veterans' educations benefits, commonly referred to as the Webb bill. There have been a lot of misrepresentations made about my position on this issue--not only on the Senate floor by the majority leader, who has alleged that I think the Webb bill is ``too generous,'' which is absolutely false, but most recently in an ad by VoteVets.org, which offers a complete misrepresentation of the facts and is a disservice to our Nation's veterans. I will once again attempt to set the record straight. I believe America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to our veterans, active duty servicemembers, Guard and Reserves. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible and in a manner that not only promotes recruitment efforts, but also promotes retention of servicemembers. I would think we could have near unanimous support for such legislation and I am confident that we will reach that point in the days ahead. But adding a $52 billion mandatory spending program to this war funding bill without any opportunity for amendments to improve the measure is not the way to move legislation nor will it expedite reaching an agreement in an efficient manner. Our vets deserve better than this. On numerous occasions I have commended Senators Webb, Hagel and Warner for their work to bring this issue to the forefront of the Senate's attention. Their effort has been for a worthy cause, but that does not make it a perfect bill, nor should it be considered the only approach that best meets the education needs of veterans and servicemembers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that if their bill is passed, it will harm retention rates by nearly 20 percent. That is the last thing we need when our Nation is fighting the war on terror on two fronts. Senators Graham, Burr and I, along with 19 others, have a different approach, one that builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill to ensure rapid implementation of increased benefits. And, unlike S. 22, we think a revitalized program should focus on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals. We need to take action to encourage continued service in the military and we can do that by granting a higher education benefit for longer service. And, we need to provide a meaningful, unquestionable transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. S. 22, unfortunately, does not allow transferability. As a matter of fact, 2 days ago, Senators Webb and Warner agreed that transferability is a serious matter that merited change. What they proposed, however, does not go far enough and would only provide for a 2-year pilot program. Their efforts underscore the need for debate and further discussion on this important issue. But I applaud them for acknowledging the Congress needs to take a proactive stance and allow transferability of earned education benefits to a spouse or children. We cannot allow this important issue to be hijacked by the anti-war crusade funded by groups like MoveOn.org and VetsVote.org who are running ads saying that that I do not ``respect their service.'' The accusation is wrong, they know that it is, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing to all veterans and servicemembers. I respect every man and woman who have been or are currently in uniform. It is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign and as soon as possible. Such legislation should address the reality of the All Volunteer Force and ensure that we pass a bill that does not induce servicemen and women to leave the military; but instead bolsters retention so that the services may retain quality servicemen and women. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less. As we move forward with consideration of this supplemental appropriations legislation, we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance--the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fighting bravely on our behalf abroad. These brave Americans need this appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it to them months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. Unfortunately, it seems we have failed to live up to this obligation today, instead producing a bill fraught with wasteful spending more attuned to political interests instead of the interests of our military men and women.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite my great admiration for America's hardworking farmers and my support for additional food aid for our Nation's most vulnerable, I must oppose the conference agreement to H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act, also known as the farm bill. I recognize that in the days ahead, attempts will be made to use my opposition to this bill for another's political gain, but I have always worked to do my best for America and that is why I must oppose this conference report. And, the American people deserve to know the truth about this farm bill: It is a bloated piece of legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and consumers. In today's economy, when hardworking American families buy groceries they feel the sting of misguided Federal agriculture policies. Instead of fine tuning our farm programs to improve their efficiency, we have allowed them to swell into mammoth government bureaucracies that generally exist to serve special interests at the behest of congressional benefactors. Sixty-nine years after the Great Depression and the advent of the farm bill, well into the 21st century, commodity prices have reached record highs. I believe American agriculture has progressed to the point where we no longer need government grown farms. Don't misunderstand. I am not opposed to providing a reasonable level of assistance and risk management to farmers when they need America's help. Farmers never abandon America, and America mustn't abandon them. When a farmer suffers from a natural disaster such as droughts or floods, they rightly deserve assistance. But they need a hand up, not a hand out. The American taxpayer has been told before that farm bills and their thirst for subsidies were a necessary evil to provide our country and the world--with affordable, abundant food. Today, as food prices reach historic highs, they're being told the same thing. We must challenge that notion as grocery bills soar, food banks go bare, and food rationing occurs on a global scale. We must question policies that divert over 25 percent of corn out of the food supply and into subsidized ethanol production. Do Americans really want a support system that costs consumers $2 billion annually in higher sugar prices? Will we truly reduce our dependency on foreign oil by extending tariffs that make it too expensive to invest in sugar ethanol production? Can we honestly demand fair and free trade at Doha while domestic cotton growers dump subsidized cotton on the world market? The farm bill conference report is expected to cost taxpayers around $289 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will exceed the government's budget by $10 billion. But the administration points out that with clever accounting made famous by congressional budget dodgers, the real cost of the bill will exceed the government's budget by about $18 billion. And even though Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers have promised to rein in pork barrel spending, this bill betrays that promise. Buried within its hundreds of pages are special favors like: $170 million bailout for the west coast salmon industry included at the insistence of the Speaker of the House; $93 million in special tax treatment for race horses; $260 million in tax cuts for the timber industry; $15 million for asparagus growers. During debate on the Senate farm bill last year, my colleague Senator Gregg offered an amendment, which failed, to strike this provision. This is a crop that has never before received farm subsidies; $175 million would be transferred to Bureau of Reclamation for activities at three Nevada lakes; $500,000 to the Walker River Paiute Tribe for legal and professional services in support of settling tribal water claims. Other tribes have dealt with water rights without a half million dollar earmark; $5 million for joint planning and development activities for water, wastewater, and sewer facilities by the city of Fernley, Nevada, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. The bill authorizes a myriad of grant programs including grants for research into pig genetics, grants for the preservation of historic barns, and $300 million for the Sun Grant Program, which provides grants to 6 universities and science centers that conduct bioenergy research. Twenty million dollars goes to the collection and storage of seeds for research purposes; $75 million for a crop research facility in El Reno, OK; $35 million to promote the production of ``hard white wheat.'' A $4 billion disaster assistance package on top of an existing crop insurance program that's subsidized by the Federal Government. And these are only a few examples of the questionable provisions expected to hit the President's desk. As you may know, farm subsidies were originally designed to ensure farmers get a fair return on their labors, but the majority of subsidies go to large commercial farms that average $200,000 in annual income and $2 million in net worth. Indeed, these payments aren't going to the average hardworking American farmer working in the Heartland. This farm bill actually increases subsidy rates for some crops and a majority of those payments are funneled only to a few staple crops. During debate on the Senate farm bill last fall, I proudly cosponsored an amendment which would have capped subsidies for farmers whose income exceeds $250,000. That amendment, which was rejected, was written by Senators Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Chuck Grassley of Iowa--two distinguished colleagues who understand rural America better than most. Instead of fixing a system that provides farm payments to millionaire land owners, sometimes when they don't grow anything at all, Congress ignored the cries for reform from small farmers themselves. In fact, this farm bill contains a phony payment limit designed to allow farmers to earn up to $750,000 and $500,000 off the farm before hitting any subsidy ceiling. Astounding. This Congressional feeding frenzy is tragic because other areas of the bill have merit, like the increased funding and focus on food assistance and nutrition programs. In particular, the bill would index food stamps to reflect the current cost of living and fill shortfalls in the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good in this bill. More than hand-outs, more than ballooning disaster payments, the families and small businesses throughout the Heartland are demanding affordable quality health care, better education for their children, lower taxes, and relief from government regulation. Rural America has seen farm bill after farm bill passed without policies that adequately promote economic development or address population loss. We must improve rural life, provide high-tech connectivity essential for jobs and education, open trade markets, maintain our competitiveness, and reduce overregulation for farmers and ranchers. For now, we need to put an end to flawed government policies that distort the markets, artificially raise prices for consumers, and pit producers against consumers. We have once again failed farmers in that regard, which is why I oppose this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens, Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson. Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to accomplish. The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage continued service in the military by granting a higher education payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans' services organization is the need for such a transferability provision. As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program. While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22, I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that will be signed into law as soon as possible. Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22, our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals. The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow a servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500 annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are going to school. The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September 11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits to $1600 per month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who serve in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue serving in the Selected Reserve. Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post- secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves. Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and, again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members. Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill. Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens, Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson. Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to accomplish. The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage continued service in the military by granting a higher education payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans' services organization is the need for such a transferability provision. As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program. While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22, I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that will be signed into law as soon as possible. Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22, our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals. The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow a servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500 annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are going to school. The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September 11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits to $1600 per month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who serve in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue serving in the Selected Reserve. Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post- secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves. Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and, again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members. Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill. Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Kyl, Burr, Graham, Martinez, Warner, Chambliss, Lieberman, Wicker and Sununu in introducing legislation that would provide all Americans with a ``gas tax holiday'' this summer. This bill would suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon Federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Today, this legislation was put forward on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Highway Technical Corrections bill, but it was blocked from being considered. I now call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to support this proposal that would provide immediate relief to all Americans suffering from the high price of gas. Mr. President, hardworking American families are facing many difficult challenges due to the current economic realities facing our country. Now, more than ever, they find themselves having to choose between basic needs to provide for their families, and this is being greatly exacerbated by rising gasoline prices, which have risen by more than 58 percent in the last 14 months. That is why I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in offering a proposal to provide some needed relief for every person who will be filling their gas or diesel tanks this summer. In the past year, the price of unleaded regular gas has increased 53 cents per gallon. Diesel fuel prices nationwide are now over $1.30 more per gallon more than this time last year. With the growing financial strains placed on so many Americans--rising food prices and falling home prices--the additional hit of rising fuel prices is becoming the breaking point. In an effort to ease some of the hardship caused by the higher fuel prices, our bill would suspend the Federal tax on gas and the tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Last Memorial Day, alone, approximately 32 million Americans traveled by car 50 miles or more from home. Suspending the federal excise tax during the summer, when fuel prices have historically been at the highest annually, would allow Americans to keep a few more of their hard-earned dollars. Now, let me be clear: this bill would not harm the Highway Trust Fund. This bill would ensure that the Highway Trust Fund remains whole during this ``gas tax holiday'' by transferring monies from the General Treasury. We all agree that our roads and highways must be maintained and improved to ensure the safety of the road-traveling public, and this amendment would do nothing to impact highway construction. So, my colleagues have an opportunity to take meaningful action to ease some of the financial burdens that are impacting all hardworking Americans every time they fill up their gas or diesel tanks. Let's put some acton behind the usual rhetoric around here and vote to ease their tax burden this summer.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Kyl, Burr, Graham, Martinez, Warner, Chambliss, Lieberman, Wicker and Sununu in introducing legislation that would provide all Americans with a ``gas tax holiday'' this summer. This bill would suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon Federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Today, this legislation was put forward on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Highway Technical Corrections bill, but it was blocked from being considered. I now call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to support this proposal that would provide immediate relief to all Americans suffering from the high price of gas. Mr. President, hardworking American families are facing many difficult challenges due to the current economic realities facing our country. Now, more than ever, they find themselves having to choose between basic needs to provide for their families, and this is being greatly exacerbated by rising gasoline prices, which have risen by more than 58 percent in the last 14 months. That is why I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in offering a proposal to provide some needed relief for every person who will be filling their gas or diesel tanks this summer. In the past year, the price of unleaded regular gas has increased 53 cents per gallon. Diesel fuel prices nationwide are now over $1.30 more per gallon more than this time last year. With the growing financial strains placed on so many Americans--rising food prices and falling home prices--the additional hit of rising fuel prices is becoming the breaking point. In an effort to ease some of the hardship caused by the higher fuel prices, our bill would suspend the Federal tax on gas and the tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Last Memorial Day, alone, approximately 32 million Americans traveled by car 50 miles or more from home. Suspending the federal excise tax during the summer, when fuel prices have historically been at the highest annually, would allow Americans to keep a few more of their hard-earned dollars. Now, let me be clear: this bill would not harm the Highway Trust Fund. This bill would ensure that the Highway Trust Fund remains whole during this ``gas tax holiday'' by transferring monies from the General Treasury. We all agree that our roads and highways must be maintained and improved to ensure the safety of the road-traveling public, and this amendment would do nothing to impact highway construction. So, my colleagues have an opportunity to take meaningful action to ease some of the financial burdens that are impacting all hardworking Americans every time they fill up their gas or diesel tanks. Let's put some acton behind the usual rhetoric around here and vote to ease their tax burden this summer.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a justifiable feeling of anger and worry across America today regarding the ongoing housing crisis. Millions of Americans are currently bearing a heavy burden to keep their family homes and desperate for relief. The clamor for the Federal Government to act quickly has been heard by the Senate and we are now set to vote on a bipartisan package that will offer some assistance to suffering homeowners. Without action, the pain of the foreclosure crisis will not only be felt by the millions of American families who stand to lose their homes but by all Americans. Congress must confront this reality and pass legislation that has three key components: it is temporary in nature, has an immediate goal of helping cash-strapped but credit-worthy home owners stay in their homes, and prevents a mortgage crisis from happening again. The bill before the Senate is not perfect, but it does contain several provisions that I support and believe can help our housing market--for both mortgage borrowers and lenders--now and in the future. It is important to avoid situations in which homeowners owe more money than their home is worth. Unfortunately, that has become too common a scenario in part because many homeowners never had much equity in their home to begin with. This bill contains a provision that would ensure homeowners avoid this situation by requiring a modest increase in the downpayment necessary for Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages. This legislation can also offer some relief to borrowers by increasing the amount of FHA-insured loans, which typically carry lower interest rates. Additionally, it is also vital to have well-informed borrowers who understand the terms and obligations in a mortgage agreement and provide lenders with accurate and easily understood financial information. The bill expands the early disclosures requirements under the Truth In Lending Act and requires a new disclosure informing borrowers of the maximum monthly payments possible under their loans. While these provisions should help bring about some relief, I do not think we should kid ourselves into believing that this bill is the panacea for our housing crisis. I am supporting this bill and thank its bipartisan sponsors. However, I do want the record to be clear that I remain concerned over the inclusion of several provisions that do not adhere to my principles for mortgage relief and question the effectiveness of these provisions in delivering needed assistance to home owners. Mr. President, again, I thank those who have worked so hard on this measure on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to acting on this important subject.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act of 2007, which was included as part of the larger public lands package, S. 2739. The bill would authorize the National Park Service to study whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of the study is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate appropriate sites for national historic landmark status. Since the 107th Congress, I've worked to pass the Cesar Chavez study language. It has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders. It is important that we remember his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate landmarks that are significant to his life.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Graham. We should always strive keep taxes low, but the threat of higher taxes is especially damaging during this time of subpar economic growth. I thank him for his leadership on this important, fiscally responsible proposal, and am pleased to join as a cosponsor. I believe this amendment addresses the most important issue among any that will be discussed during this budget debate, and the one that most clearly defines the differing governing philosophies between the majority and minority parties: The Democrat-controlled Senate wants to raise taxes by $1.2 trillion and immediately spend those tax dollars, while the Republicans want to prevent tax increases and reduce wasteful spending. It really is that simple. All of us should be paying very close attention to the current economic realities facing our country. Almost daily, we are informed of worsening news on the market front, widening subprime mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures, declining housing values, and a broadening credit crunch affecting all sectors of the economy. But we also need to look beyond the economic news--we need to focus on the American families who are struggling as a consequence, some close to giving up hope, and we need to help them. Having spent the past weeks and months traveling across America, I have heard first hand of the difficulties facing so many hardworking families. I can assure you, not one of them has asked for higher taxes. Instead, we should he focused on sound, meaningful progrowth policies that will help create jobs. But the one thing that we should not do, under any circumstances given our present economy, is to raise taxes on American workers who are already struggling to put food on their tables and gas in their cars. I have long fought against tax increases, as have my other colleagues supporting this amendment. This Congress has the power to keep taxes low. Instead, the majority party is actively seeking damaging tax increases on a broad spectrum of Americans 116 million taxpayers-- $1,833 increase; 84 million women--$2,121 increase; 48 million married couples--$3,007 increase; 43 million families with children--$2,323 increase; 12 million single women with dependents--$1,091 increase; 18 million seniors--$2,181 increase; 27 million small business owners-- $4,066 increase. I oppose these efforts because millions of middle-class families will be hit with higher taxes, not just the rich. In fact, I believe the overwhelming tax increases that will occur under this budget will hit overwhelmingly the middle class. Let me offer just a few examples of how families will be impacted if we fail to provide tax relief that our amendment would allow for. A family of four with two children who earn $50,000 annual income today-- $53,400 in 2011--would see a $2,155 increase, from $1,128 to $3,283, or a 191-percent higher tax bill. A family of four with two children who earn $60,000 annual income today--$64,100 in 2011--would see a $1,901 increase, from $2,733 to $4,634, or a 70-percent higher tax bill. Instead of increasing taxes as the Democrats' budget resolution envisions, and in turn spending that money on more Federal programs, or worse, earmarks, we should be focusing on less government, not more. Americans want jobs, not new Federal programs. Yet this budget provides for the largest tax increase in history--$1.2 trillion. And, not surprising, it calls for the largest spending increase in history--$l trillion. And what does that get the average American family: a $2,300 tax increase. Thanks, but no thanks. Keep their taxes low and stop spending so much of their money--that is what most Americans will say-- and I know because I hear that every single day. What we should be doing within this budget resolution is considering the best long-term economic approach and acting accordingly. We need to adopt this amendment to avoid a crippling tax increase for millions of Americans. We need to adopt the DeMint earmark moratorium amendment, which I am pleased to also cosponsor, to rein in wasteful pork-barrel spending. We should eliminate the AMT, not just provide another 1-year patch as the Democrats are suggesting. These are steps we should take now to end the uncertainty facing American families and businesses--not raising taxes by $1.2 trillion. As I said, this is a defining moment. American families want us to fix our economy and help those along the way who struggling the most. We have much ahead of us to do, and, unfortunately, the tax-and-spend budget resolution before us does not get us to where we need to be. Even worse, it is taking the country in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 4195

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator DeMint to impose a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. I thank him for his leadership on this important, fiscally responsible proposal, and am pleased to join with Senators McCaskill, Coburn, Kyl, Corker, Burr, and Graham in cosponsoring the amendment. Additionally, Mr. President, I understand that my colleagues from Illinois and New York, Senators Obama and Clinton, have recently signed on as cosponsors of our effort. I welcome them to our cause. All of us in Congress should be paying very close attention to the current economic realities facing our country. Almost daily, we are informed of worsening news on the market front, widening subprime mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures, declining housing values, and a broadening credit crunch affecting all sectors of the economy. Less than a month ago we passed an economic stimulus package in an effort to help avert an even worse situation than exists now. While I have long railed against wasteful porkbarrel spending, now more than ever, we have got to establish some commonsense budgetary guidelines to live within our means, just like most American families are doing, tightening their belts and not wasting their money on ``wants'' to ensure they have the funds available to cover their ``needs.'' We need to follow their lead. The American public is counting on us to represent their interests, not the special interests, and to stop spending their hard-earned tax dollars on needless earmarks. Just over a year ago, in January 2007, 96 Members of the Senate voted to fundamentally reform ``business as usual'' in Washington when we voted to pass S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. I was very proud to support the passage of that bill because in addition to sound ethics and lobbying reforms, many which I had long championed, the bill also included the most far-reaching earmark reforms I had witnessed. Unfortunately, nearly all of the earmark reforms were gutted in the final version of the bill, causing a number of us to have to vote against its passage despite our support for some of the good reforms in the bill. We didn't just miss the opportunity to address a broken legislative system of earmarking. The opportunity was purposely and deliberately scuttled by those who didn't want real earmark reforms, and they are the ones who had the seat at the table when the final version was drafted. And as I recall, not one of those seats was filled by a member of the minority party. As a result, the earmarking practice continues, as proven by the more than 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending measure approved last December 18--3 months after S. 1 was enacted. Here is just a sampling of some of the earmarks that were included in the omnibus: $50,000 for the construction of a National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, CA; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, AL; $625,000 for the Historic Congressional Cemetery; $1.628 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY; $477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits in Beltsville, MD; $244,000 for Bee Research in Weslaco, TX $10 million for the design and construction of the Derby Dam fish screen in Nevada to allow passage of fish; $1.786 million to develop an exhibit for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Michigan; $846,000 to the Father's Day Rally Committee in Philadelphia, PA; $125,000 for International Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton,

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose, as I have before, the legislation offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. This bill would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops 120 days after enactment. The one exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. If this latest attempt sounds familiar, it should--the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve this misguided outcome. And, just like the 40 votes that preceded this one, the result of this effort will undoubtedly be the same. The reason is clear. To pass such legislation would be to court disaster, and to set a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the implications for our national security, would be tantamount to setting a date for surrender. Should we ignore the signs of real progress in Iraq and legislate a premature end to our efforts there, the Congress would be complicit in all the terrible and predictable consequences that would ensue. The Senate, in facing this choice time and again over the past year, has voted against legislated surrender in Iraq. Instead, we have decided to build on the clear successes of our new strategy and to give GEN David Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support they have requested to carry out their mission. The interests of America, the future of the Iraqi people, and the stability of the Middle East are the better for it. But the Senate has come to this conclusion only after repeated attempts to do what the proponents of this bill would have us do today--bring the war in Iraq to a premature and disastrous close through legislative fiat. If ever there was a case for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq--and I believe there never was--now is the last time anyone should consider such a step. If abandoning Iraq was a terrible idea when we were unsuccessful in our efforts there, it is a catastrophic proposal today, when we are winning. The supporters of withdrawal said in 2007 that the surge could never work, that extra American brigades could do nothing to bring greater security to Iraq, that no new counterinsurgency strategy could succeed in protecting the population. We were losing in Iraq, they said, and nothing could change that. Some even declared that the war was already lost. But they were wrong. As General Petraeus put it in his end of the year letter to the troops, ``A year ago, Iraq was racked by horrific violence and on the brink of civil war. Now, levels of violence and civilian and military casualties are significantly reduced and hope has been rekindled in many Iraqi communities.'' In fact, the surge has succeeded well beyond the projections of even most optimists. Let me cite a few examples. In Baghdad, ethno-sectarian violence has fallen over 90 percent in a year. IED attacks in Baghdad are down by 45 percent since February 2007. The specter of civil war in Iraq's capital, a real threat when the surge began, has retreated significantly. The capital's population has begun to retake its streets, its schools, and its markets. The remarkable progress is not confined only to Baghdad. Attacks have decreased in 17 of 18 provinces in Iraq since the surge began. In the country as a whole, attacks are down by some 60 percent and stand at the level experienced in early 2005 or even 2004. Car bombs across Iraq are down, the number of civilian deaths has fallen, and IED explosions are down, all by significant margins. Intelligence tips are up, discovery of weapons and explosive caches has increased, and al-Qaida is on the run, having been forced by U.S. and Iraqi troops out of the urban areas like Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Baquba and into isolated rural areas. U.S. casualties, too, have fallen significantly, even in the midst of ongoing operations. As GEN Barry McCaffrey put it in a recent report, Iraq is seeing ``dramatically reduced levels of civilian sectarian violence, political assassinations, abductions, and small arms/indirect fire and IED attacks on U.S. and Iraqi Police and Army Forces. This is the unmistakable new reality . . . The national security debate must move on to an analysis of why this new political and security situation exists--not whether it exists.'' In the face of such facts, it is beyond perplexing to see the proponents of this legislation seek not to consolidate our gains and ensure that they continue but, rather, to force a troop withdrawal that would reverse all of the achievements I just cited. Understanding what we now know--that our military is making remarkable progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is succeeding. This is not to say that all is rosy in Iraq. It is not, and neither I nor our military commanders make any such argument. The cumulative results of nearly 4 years of mismanaged war cannot be reversed overnight. Al-Qaida is on the run but has not disappeared, and we can expect them to fight back. Fighting among Shia factions in the south presents a significant challenge, and violence and crime remain at unacceptably high levels in a number of areas. The road in Iraq remains, as it always has been, long and hard. But this is an argument for continuing our successful strategy, not for abandoning it in favor of sure failure. At some point last year, a few of the proponents of withdrawal from Iraq began conceding that the surge was having tangible, positive effects. They went on to argue, however, that securing the population was irrelevant, as the point of the surge was to see political progress and there had been none. Yet even while this new debate began, political progress at the local level took off across Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis--most of them Sunnis who were, or would have been, part of the anticoalition insurgency--joined Concerned Local Citizens groups and aligned themselves with our efforts. Moqtada al-Sadr announced that the Mahdi army would observe a 6-month ceasefire, a pledge he renewed just last week for an additional 6 months. In Anbar and elsewhere, local populations turned to the coalition and against al-Qaida, turning that province from Iraq's most dangerous into one of its safest. In the face of these new facts, supporters of withdrawal changed their argument yet again. Maybe the surge had brought about greater security, they said, and perhaps this had helped generate political progress at the local level, as counterinsurgency doctrine would suggest. But this was irrelevant, they said, so long as national level political reconciliation is lacking--and since we can never expect that, the troops must leave. Yet they were wrong again. In January, the Iraqi Parliament passed the long-awaited debaathification law that restores the eligibility of thousands of former party members for government jobs lost because of their Baathist affiliation. Earlier this month, a provincial powers law passed that devolves a significant amount of power to the provinces and mandates new provincial elections by October 1 of this year. The Parliament passed a partial amnesty for detainees that can facilitate reconciliation among the sects, and it completed a landmark 2008 budget. Again, these significant achievements come coupled with remaining challenges. Parliament has yet to pass an oil law, though oil revenues are being shared in its absence; the Maliki government remains unwilling to function and provide services as it must, and other difficulties abound. Yet it is telling that in his latest report, military analyst Anthony Cordesman said, ``No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government--in security, governance, and development--there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.'' No one can guarantee success in Iraq or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the U.S. Congress succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more dangerous course-- should we do that, then we will fail for certain. Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American failure in Iraq. Should Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee in September, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense Intelligence Agency report that stated, ``. . . a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; al Qaeda--Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; and exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.'' Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If our notions of national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled by wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens. The supporters of this amendment claim that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence, between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the war's first 4 years. We should not, and must not, return to such a disastrous course. Americans were divided over this war from the beginning, and we remain so today. All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible. But how we leave--that is of the utmost importance. We must not leave, as the supporters of this amendment would have it, in a way that erodes all the security gains that our brave men and women have fought so hard to achieve and in a way that puts us on the road to surrender. The stakes are too high, we have come too far and sacrificed too much for that. Instead of surrendering, we should persevere with the pursuit of our strategic objectives: to defeat al-Qaida, not be defeated by it; to implant in Iraq the forces of stability and tolerance, not chaos and civil war; to demonstrate that America keeps its word with its friends and allies, rather than abandoning them to horrific consequences. The American soldiers we have sent to battle deserve to return to us with honor--the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice. Before I close, I would note that there will be another vote soon on the motion to proceed to legislation requiring the administration to develop a new al-Qaida strategy within 60 days, and to report it to Congress. I oppose putting such a mandate in law for several reasons. The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States. Title 10 requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to produce a national military strategy and to conduct a biennial review of that strategy, a review that was recently completed. The Chairman has indicated that a new national military strategy is under development and, of course, the next President will be required to issue a fresh national security strategy. In short there are, and will remain, a number of legislative requirements for security strategies that include a counterterrorism approach. Finally, this bill would attempt to limit the President's use of the military by imposing dwell times for our forces. While I fully support the goal of achieving sustainable dwell times for our Armed Forces, I do not believe that we should try to force such a restriction on the President irrespective of any contravening interests. Mr. President, as the debate over Iraq goes on, let us remember to whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That responsibility is our dearest privilege, and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage or office. I hope we might all have good reason to expect a kinder judgment of our flaws and follies because when it mattered most we chose to put the interests of our great and good Nation before our own and helped, in our own small way, preserve for all humanity the magnificent and inspiring example of an assured, successful and ever advancing America and the ideals that make us still the greatest Nation on Earth.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose passage of the intelligence authorization conference report in its current form. During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror. That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, DTA, which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act, MCA, preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as ``waterboarding'' constitutes nothing less than illegal torture. Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, ``Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA's interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.'' This remains my view today. When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the field manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The field manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I would emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques--indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA's detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3. The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned--laws that were extensively debated and considered--by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program. This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact. In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the administration has chosen to apply a ``shocks the conscience'' analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding ``shocks the conscience.'' It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict ``serious and non-transitory mental harm,'' which the MCA states ``need not be prolonged.'' Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding. It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to nonmilitary intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law--that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. Government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability. We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our Nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values but because we have held fast to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want the record to be clear that I fully support swift enactment of an economic stimulus measure. Having spent the past weeks and months traveling across America, I have heard first-hand of the difficulties facing so many hardworking families. I am pleased that the majority and the minority have finally reached an agreement to allow us to improve the underlying bill to address the needs of seniors and disabled veterans, and to close a loophole in the bill concerning the distribution of rebates. Now, we will be able to pass this measure today. The bill pending before the Senate--a compromise product between the House and the President--is not perfect. Certainly we can all agree on the important yet limited improvements I mentioned such as ensuring our senior citizens and disabled veterans are not left out of this stimulus package. While perhaps none of us will be fully satisfied with the final measure, we simply cannot afford to include every member's wish list in this package. I believe the measure we will send to the President is one that almost all of us can and will support. Beyond the short-term economic fix being debated, we must also consider the best long-term economic approach and to take action accordingly. In my judgement, there is no question that Congress must reign in wasteful porkbarrel spending. We need to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts at our soonest opportunity and avoid a crippling tax increase for millions of Americans. We should eliminate the AMT, the poster child for the notion of unintended consequences, which threatens to affect millions of middle class families. These are steps we should take now to end the uncertainty facing American families and businesses. America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Cutting corporate taxes will spur economic growth immediately and over the long run. We need to allow first year expensing of technology and equipment investment for businesses, which would further simplify our code and provide incentives for capital expenditure. We must also work to reform and make permanent the research and development tax credit so that our businesses can do what they do best--create jobs and expand innovation--without the continued uncertainty of the whims of Congress. These are important and necessary steps toward reforming our tax code to make it simpler, flatter, and fairer for all Americans. Clearly, we have much ahead of us to do and the American public is counting on us to fulfill the jobs that they sent us here to do. I, for one, have heard the voters. They want us to work together to stimulate and strengthen our economy and promote our Nation's long-term economic growth. Let's finally pass the economic stimulus plan and send it to the President. After all, time is of the essence if this effort is to be successful. The American public is waiting.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, Amendments of 2007. This bill would reauthorize the IHCIA, the statutory framework for the Indian health system, which covers just about every aspect of Native American health care. I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of Chairman Dorgan and my other colleagues on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for their efforts to bring this important legislation to the floor. Reauthorization of the IHCIA is critical to the lives of more than 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives and is long overdue. The IHCIA expired in 2000, and Indian tribes and health organizations have been working diligently to see it reauthorized. Seven years ago, a steering committee of tribal leaders, with extensive consultation by the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus in Indian Country about what needs to be done to improve and update health services for Indian people. During the 109th Congress, we made significant progress towards passing a reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to complete work on that bill before adjourning last Congress. I believe now as I did when I served as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during the last Congress that reauthorizing our Indian health care programs is a top priority for us, and I hope that the Senate will move a sound comprehensive bill through the legislative process as quickly as possible. However, there are some key and troubling differences between the bill pending before the Senate and the proposal I put forward at the end of the last Congress, S. 4122. In particular, the new version contains language that would essentially authorize the Indian Health Service to promote ``reproductive health and family planning'' services. As my colleagues know, I have had a longstanding policy against promoting abortion as an acceptable form of birth control, except in cases of rape and incest. I strongly believe that society and government have a legitimate interested in protecting life, born or unborn. Obviously, my thinking on this question applies to the unborn children of patients to the Indian Health Service. I cannot in good conscience support the promotion of abortions at Federally funded IHS facilities or any Federal facilities. I remain hopeful the bill will be modified to allow me to supports its swift passage. I am, however, supportive of the majority of this bill which builds upon the principles of Indian self-determination. Over the years, Indian health care delivery has greatly expanded and tribes are taking over more health care services on the local level. It is our responsibility to maintain support for these services and promote high standards of quality health care for IHS and its partner units. Among the items provided in this bill are provisions exploring options for long-term care, governing children and senior issues. It also would provide support for recruitment and retention purposes; access to health care, especially for Indian children and low-income Indians. Further, it would provide more flexibility in facility construction programs, consolidated behavioral health programs for more comprehensive care, and would establish a Commission to study and recommend the best means of providing Indian health care. We must remember that nearly 30 years ago, Congress first enacted the IHCIA to meet the fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Yet the health status of Indian people remains much worse than that of other Americans. They have a shorter average lifespan, higher infant mortality rate, and a much higher rate of diabetes than the national average. American Indians and Alaska Natives are 650 percent more likely to die of tuberculosis, 770 percent more likely to die of alcoholism, and 60 percent more likely to die of suicide. The suicide mortality rate among Indian youth is three times that of the general population. I have seen the hard reality of these statistics in the families of Arizona tribes as well as tribes across the Nation. Methamphetamine addiction, diabetes, alcoholism, and heart disease are epidemics devastating the Indian people. Our trust obligation dictates we address these health crises on reservations, and I strongly support actions to that effect. However, as I stated before, using taxpayer money to promote abortion services is something I find highly objectionable and will vehemently oppose. I strongly urge my colleagues to support efforts to strike these unacceptable provisions and enable this bill, which is of critical importance to Indian country, to be approved.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today in Washington, DC, thousands of people of all ages are taking part in the annual March for Life and staking a claim for the rights of the unborn. I commend them and am in awe of their great dedication to the cause of protecting life. I share their strong pro-life beliefs, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act that is being introduced today. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced during this Congress, and for good reason. While more than 20 States require a minor to receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance of adults--who are not their parents--are being transported across State lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We need to end this circumvention of State laws and, far more importantly, the consequences such actions have on life. This legislation would make it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for the purpose of an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or notification laws, unless it is needed to save the life of the minor. We have attempted to enact similar legislation in previous Congresses without success, and it is critical that we do not allow opponents to further stall its enactment. I am and always have been pro-life, and my record during my tenure in Congress reflects my strong belief that life is sacred. We must stand up for the rights of the unborn and do all that we can to enact this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today in Washington, DC, thousands of people of all ages are taking part in the annual March for Life and staking a claim for the rights of the unborn. I commend them and am in awe of their great dedication to the cause of protecting life. I share their strong pro-life beliefs, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act that is being introduced today. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced during this Congress, and for good reason. While more than 20 States require a minor to receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance of adults--who are not their parents--are being transported across State lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We need to end this circumvention of State laws and, far more importantly, the consequences such actions have on life. This legislation would make it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for the purpose of an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or notification laws, unless it is needed to save the life of the minor. We have attempted to enact similar legislation in previous Congresses without success, and it is critical that we do not allow opponents to further stall its enactment. I am and always have been pro-life, and my record during my tenure in Congress reflects my strong belief that life is sacred. We must stand up for the rights of the unborn and do all that we can to enact this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, my friend. I strongly support the amendment that will be offered by the Republican leader that would deliver vital funding for our troops in Iraq. The underlying House-passed bill is not only irresponsive to the facts on the ground in Iraq, it is simply irresponsible. It fails to provide any funding for our troops fighting in Iraq and actually contains an explicit prohibition against the use of funds for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The authors have compiled a bill of some 1,400 pages and an even larger joint explanatory statement chock-full of unnecessary spending, but they include not a dime for our troops in Iraq. They include not a dime for our troops in Iraq. I would like our friends and colleagues and others to consider that the bill on the floor today contains $1.6 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY, but not a penny for our soldiers in Iraq; $477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits but nothing for the troops in Iraq; $846,000 for the Father's Day Rally Committee of Philadelphia but not a dime for our sons and daughters who are fighting. We are willing to spend $244,000 for bee research in Weslaco, TX, but not a dollar for our fighting men and women in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Anbar. It is a sad day--it is a sad day, indeed--when in the middle of a war this country must win, the Congress provides more funds for bee research than for the brave Americans risking their lives on our behalf. For Congress to fail to provide the funds needed by our soldiers in the field is inexcusable under any circumstances, but it is especially disappointing right now at the very moment when General David Petraeus and his troops are achieving the kind of progress in Iraq that many dismissed as impossible a few months ago, including suspending disbelief in order to believe the surge was working. One has to suspend disbelief to believe it is not. The bill's proponents seek, I suppose, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or the views of our commanders in the field. If that sounds familiar, it should. It should sound familiar, my friends. The majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve this misguided outcome. The choice today is simple: Do we build upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to complete their mission or do we ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? In case my colleagues missed it, a couple nights ago, there was a piece on the evening news of one of the major networks that pointed out that for the first time in a long time there was 24 hours in Baghdad without a single incident of violence. How you can ignore these facts on the ground is something I do not--will not--comprehend. I had the privilege, along with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Graham of South Carolina, of spending Thanksgiving with our troops in Iraq. On that trip, I saw and heard firsthand about the remarkable transformation these brave men and women in uniform have brought about this year. After nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, has made significant gains under the new American counterinsurgency strategy, the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since the first year of the invasion. LTG Ray Odierno, the second in command in Iraq, said this week this improvement is due to the increase in American troops and better trained Iraqi forces--due to the increase in American troops and better trained Iraqi forces. Now, you can believe LTG Ray Odierno or you can believe those on the other side of the aisle who want to bring to a halt the success we have achieved. Improvised explosive device blasts, the foremost source of U.S. combat deaths, now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004. This week, MG Joseph Fil, the commander for Baghdad, stated that attacks in Baghdad have fallen nearly 80 percent since November 2006, murders in Baghdad Province are down by some 90 percent over the same period, and vehicle- borne bombs have dropped by 70 percent. So as Ronald Reagan used to say: Facts are stubborn things. Facts are stubborn things. These are the facts--not rhetoric but facts. Major General Fil added that, today, there is no longer any part of Baghdad under al-Qaida control, though the terrorist group is ``still lurking in the shadows.'' I agree. They are on the run, but they are not defeated. They are on the run, but they are not defeated. Last week, the violence in Anbar Province was the lowest ever recorded. The British handed control of southern Basra to the Iraqi Government. And in Diyala, one of most dangerous regions in Iraq, al- Qaida militants tried to retake several villages around the town of Khalis, only to see U.S.-backed local volunteers drive the terrorists away. That is the success of a classic counterinsurgency strategy. Tens of thousands of volunteers have joined ``awakening councils'' that aim to combat al-Qaida, and al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has begun warning of ``traitors'' among the insurgents in Iraq. As a result of the hard-won gains our troops have secured, General Petraeus has been able to initiate a drawdown of U.S. forces, a drawdown tied not to an artificial timetable but based on security gains in-country. This drawdown, beginning with the removal without replacement of some 5,000 American troops, has commenced following a dramatic drop in American casualty rates and enhanced security throughout the country. Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. Al-Qaida knows who is winning in Iraq. Our soldiers know they have seized the momentum in this fight. Does the majority party understand we are succeeding under the new strategy? The proponents of this bill cannot continue forever to deny or disparage the reality of progress in Iraq or reject its connection to our new counterinsurgency strategy. As General Odierno explained, with the new counterinsurgency operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add: ``We have experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security. . . . and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake. Of course, there is no question that Iraq's national leaders must do more to promote reconciliation and improve governance and that the reduction in violence has created a window for political and economic progress that Iraqi leaders must seize, but let's not close that window. The likelihood that they make this progress would be vastly decreased--not increased--by a precipitous U.S. withdrawal. Whatever the failings of the imperfect democracy in Baghdad, they do not justify--either in terms of national interests or simple morality--abandoning it to the al-Qaida terrorists and Iranian-backed militias trying to destroy it. None of this is to argue that Iraq has become completely safe or that violence has come down to an acceptable level or that victory lies just around the corner. On the contrary, the road ahead remains as it always has been: long and hard. Violence is still at an unacceptable level in some parts of the country. Unemployment remains high in many areas. The Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its progress or its prospects. We can, however, be certain about the prospects for defeat if we fail to fund our troops. Make no mistake; despite the progress I have outlined, there is no cause for complacency. Just as we have managed to turn failure into success in 2007, we can likewise turn success back into failure in 2008, if we are not careful. As Major General Fil recently put it, progress toward securing the city remains fragile and there is ``absolutely a risk of going too quickly'' in drawing down troops. ``An immediate pullout too quickly would be a real serious threat to the stability here in Baghdad,'' he said. Al-Qaida is off balance, but they will come back swinging at us if we give them the chance. Imagine for a moment if 1 of those 40 attempts to force a withdrawal from Iraq had been successful earlier this year. Rather than hearing from our commanders and troops in the field about the enormous progress, the decline in violence, the Iraqis seeking to return home, the decrease in al-Qaida influence, we would hear instead a very different story--a darker one--with terrible implications for the people of Iraq, the wider Middle East, and the security of the United States of America. Some of my colleagues would like to believe that should the bill we are currently considering become law, without funding our troops in Iraq, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back. If we leave, we will be back in Iraq and elsewhere in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve. That is why the Senate must adopt the McConnell amendment. The funding contained in this amendment is not as some have characterized it: ``The President's money.'' It is money for the troops. It is money for the brave Americans who are in harm's way as we speak. This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require to fulfill their mission; funding to protect our men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks; funding to enable them to bring this war to a successful and honorable end. If the funding is not included, the President will very rightly veto this omnibus measure. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I understand the frustration many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I share their frustration and sorrow. But we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance--not to short-term political gain but to the security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That responsibility is our dearest privilege, and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will in the end matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage, or office. Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our service men and women have made by engaging in a game of political brinkmanship. There is far, far too much at stake. I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment and to reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to fund our troops and to support them so that when they do return to us, they return with the honor and success their valiant efforts have earned. They and the American people whom they are entrusted to protect deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, fiscal year 2008 began 79 days ago. And yet here we are at the end of the calendar year--with Christmas one week away--and everyone scrambling to finally get our work done and get out of town. This process, and the monstrosity it has produced, is the height of irresponsibility. We owe the taxpayer more than this. In the past, I have stood here on the Senate floor to speak about how our economic situation and our vital national security concerns require us to take greater effort in prioritizing our Federal spending and that we could no longer afford, literally, ``business as usual.'' Actually, Mr. President, what we have before us is even worse than business as usual because the bill we received from the House provides not a single penny to fund our ongoing mission in Iraq. We are at war and our men and women serving in Iraq today continue to face a fierce and determined enemy--and this bill does not fund their mission. The omission of Iraq funding is no more than a political stunt--and we all know it. What kind of message does this send to those brave men and women in the field? Unfortunately, little has changed over the years. Here we are again, nearly 3 full months into fiscal year 2008, and we have before us another appropriations monster. Let me remind my colleagues that, because of our inability to get much done around here under the regular order, we have been forced to consider huge omnibus appropriations bills and one long-term continuing resolution in 5 of the last 6 fiscal years. The bill before us today is more than 1,400 pages long and is accompanied by a joint explanatory statement that was so big they couldn't even number the pages. This bill consolidates 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills with a price tag of nearly $475 billion. Amazingly, this bill contains 9,170 earmarks. Add those to the 2,161 earmarks that were contained in the Defense appropriations bill and the grand total for fiscal year 2008 earmarks stands at 11,331 unnecessary, wasteful, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects. And that is just for the House and Senate-passed bill. I can only imagine what this will look like when it comes out of conference. A New York Times/CBS News poll that was released today shows that the approval rating of Congress stands at 21 percent. Can we blame the American people for holding us in such low esteem? Let's look at how we are spending their hard earned tax dollars. Here is just a sampling of some of the earmarks contained in this bill: $150,000 for the STEEED, Soaring Toward Educational Enrichment via Equine Discovery, Youth Program in Washington, DC. Basically this is an earmark of $150,000 so that disadvantaged kids can ride horses; $50,000 for the construction of a National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, CA; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, AL; $625,000 for the Historic Congressional Cemetery right here on Capitol Hill; $1.95 million for the City College of NY for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service; $975,000 for the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR; $1.628 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY; $477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits in Beltsville, MD; $244,000 for Bee Research in Weslaco, TX; $10 million to Nevada for the design and construction of the Derby Dam fish screen to allow passage of fish; $1.6 million for sensitivity training for law enforcement in Los Angeles; $1.786 million to develop an exhibit for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Michigan; $846,000 to the Father's Day Rally Committee in Philadelphia, PA; $125,000 for International Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, WV; $470,000 for an Oyster Hatchery Economic Pilot Program, Morgan State University, MD; $446,500 for Horseshoe Crab Research, Virginia Tech, VA; $125,000 for the Polish American Cultural Center in Philadelphia, PA; $400,000 for the National Iron Worker's Training Program; $350,000 for leafy spurge control in North Dakota; $1.725 million for the Hudson Valley Welcome Center in Hyde Park, NY. This omnibus was made available just yesterday, yet approved by the House last night. Imagine that--a 1,445 page bill, with a joint explanatory statement that is nine inches tall and costs $475 billion was made available and voted on by both chambers in less than 48 hours. Simply remarkable. It is impossible for us to know exactly what is in this thing, and we are expected to simply take the appropriators word that it is all okay. Well, I have been around here long enough to know that a bill of this size, put together behind closed doors and rammed through at the last minute, cannot be all good. And I know it will be a long time before all of the hidden provisions in this legislation are exposed. I fully recognize that it isn't necessarily the fault of the appropriators that we are forced into this new pattern of adopting omnibus appropriations measures. Overly partisan politics has largely prevented us from following the regular legislative order, and that fact must change. But while it may not be the appropriators fault that we are forced to consider omnibus appropriations measures, it is their decision to continue to load them up with unauthorized earmarks and at a rate that seems only increases year after year. When we ram through a gigantic bill, spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer's dollars with little or no debate because we want to go home for Christmas, we send the message to the American people that we are not serious enough about our jobs. We essentially accomplish little almost all year long because everything requires 60 votes, and then, at the very last minute, we scramble around and throw together a mammoth bill like the one before us today. We are sending the signal that it is more important for us to be able to issue press releases, and I am sure hundreds of them will be going out today, about how much pork we have been able to get for our States and districts, than we are about good government and fiscal responsibility. How can we, in good conscience, defend this behavior to the American people? Among the most egregious aspects of this bill are the so-called ``economic development initiatives'' funded under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This account is nothing more than a slush fund for the appropriators--plain and simple. Contained within this section of the joint explanatory statement are 741 locality-specific earmarks costing nearly $180 million. These pork barrel projects are spread out over 42 pages and fund everything from construction of coastal trails, nature education centers, public parks and renovations for museums and theaters. On defense matters, the omnibus appropriations bill proposes funding $1.18 billion in military construction projects that were not requested by the President. Of that amount, $584 million was vetted by both the Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees to ensure that the services' critical unfunded priorities requirements were met. On the Senate floor, those projects were further reviewed, and approved in the Senate versions of the authorization and appropriations bills. However, this bloated omnibus appropriations bill also includes another $580 million--for 108 military ``airdropped'' construction projects, that is, funding for projects that were not included in any previous appropriations bill passed by the House or Senate. The House appropriators have once again waited until the last minute to present these new spending items to skirt responsibility for their pork spending. Mr. President, in the ethics reform law we passed with much fanfare earlier this year, we amended Senate rule 44 specifically to discourage such ``airdropping'' of projects in the dead of night. In an unprecedented and unfortunate act, the majority accepted $328 million of airdropped military construction authorizations into the recently passed national defense authorization bill. It was in part for this reason that I reluctantly decided not to sign the defense authorization conference report. I could not then, and cannot now, support the parachuting of new spending items into final reports that have not been transparently vetted on the floor of Congress. I am very disappointed that we in the Senate continue to condone this irresponsible practice in light of our efforts to prevent it with ethics reform. The omnibus appropriations bill also earmarks over $41 million for the planning and design of pork military construction projects requested by Members of Congress. Congress normally authorizes funding annually for each military service to plan and design their critical future military construction priorities. This bill disregards the military's priorities and earmarks funds towards specific projects-- without the Department being given the opportunity to determine whether or not those projects reflect actual military requirements. Even more egregious is that we are proposing to pay for this airdropped pork by cutting over $900 million from the amount of $8.1 billion requested by the President to carry out the critical military construction activities related to the 2005 defense base closure and realignment round. The Department of Defense and the local communities affected by BRAC need enough funding to meet the statutory deadline of September 2011. To underfund BRAC in order to pay for earmarks is a sad reflection on the priorities of this Congress, which has again unabashedly put parochial interests above the needs of the Defense Department, our local communities and the American taxpayer. We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer. In a report on our long-term budget outlook issued this month, the Congressional Budget Office states this: ``Significant uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, but under any plausible scenario, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path--that is, federal debt will grow much faster than the economy over the long run. In the absence of significant changes in policy, rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to grow rapidly.'' The report goes on to say that: ``If outlays increased as projected and revenues did not grow at a corresponding rate, deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly. Substantial budget deficits would reduce national saving, which would lead to an increase in borrowing from abroad and lower levels of domestic investment that in turn would constrain income growth in the United States. In the extreme, deficits could seriously harm the economy. Such economic damage could be averted by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course, which would require some combination of less spending and more revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner rather than later would lessen the risk that an unsustainable fiscal path poses to the economy.'' Again--this is not my dire prediction, it comes from our own CBO. To underscore the urgency of the problem, in a speech at The National Press Club just yesterday, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States announced that--for the eleventh straight year--the Federal Government failed its financial audit. Mr. Walker said that ``the federal government's total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future benefits payments promised under the current Social Security and Medicare programs are now estimated at $53 trillion, in current dollar terms, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into a defacto mortgage of about $455,000 for every American household and there's no house to back this mortgage. In other words, our government has made a whole lot of promises that, in the long run, it cannot possibly keep without huge tax increases.'' The Comptroller General also highlighted a specific program that serves as an example of the serious problems we face. He said: ``The prescription drug benefit alone represents about $8 trillion of Medicare's $34 trillion gap. Incredibly, this number was not disclosed or discussed until after the Congress had voted on the bill and the President had signed it into law. Generations of Americans will be paying the price--with compound interest--for this new entitlement benefit.'' He went on to note that: ``Unfortunately, once federal programs or agencies are created, the tendency is to fund them in perpetuity. Washington rarely seems to question the wisdom of its existing commitments. Instead, it simply adds new programs and initiatives on top of the old ones. This continual layering is a key reason our government has grown so large, so expensive, so inefficient, and in some cases, so ineffective.'' Mr. Walker ended his speech by saying ``If all of us do our part, and if we start making tough choices sooner rather than later, we can keep America great, ensure that our future is better than the past, and ensure that our great nation is the first republic to stand the test of time. To me, that is a cause worth fighting for.'' I agree wholeheartedly. And I say to my colleagues: Let's start making those tough choices today. We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't. They deserve better treatment from us. St. John's Bayou/New Madrid Floodway Mrs. BOXER, Mr. President, I wish to speak to the intent of section 123 of title I of division C of the bill, which addresses the Corps of Engineers project--Saint Johns Bayou/New Madrid Floodway. As the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works with jurisdiction over the Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, I offer my understanding of section 123. Section 123 does not interfere with or overturn any court decision concerning this project with regard to either or both of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The language provides that the project as described in the June 2002 Revised Supplemental Impact Statement, as supplemented by the March 2006 Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 2 is determined to be economically justified. The language does not affect the application of the Clean Water Act and NEPA to this project. Because of the specific reference to the project documents, the language in section 123 does not alter legal requirements regarding cost/benefit analysis for subsequent or revised project documents, including environmental impact statements, or any requirements with regard to NEPA and the Clean Water Act.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I sincerely congratulate Chairman Levin, the members of our committee, and our House colleagues for their work on the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. With provisions that authorize a considerable pay raise for all military personnel, increase Army and Marine end-strength, reform the system that serves wounded veterans, and help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting and procurement, this conference report undoubtably contains many important elements that will help support our national defense and, in particular, our servicemen and women. However, this conference report also contains other provisions that are very problematic. In fact, so flawed are those provisions that, despite all that is good in the conference report--and there is much--I must--cannot support this year's report. In this year's conference report, and the accompanying bill, there are $5.3 billion in earmarks. That does not even include about $330 million worth of military construction pork ``airdropped'' by the House Appropriators despite having enacted ethics reform legislation just 2 months ago. Of that $5.3 billion, $2.3 billion came from the Senate and $4.1 billion originated in the House. The disparity between the two bills is unprecedented. Almost half of the total amount of pork in this conference report, and the accompanying bill, arises from a single provision that authorizes the procurement of eight C-17 Globemaster aircraft that the Defense Department states we neither need nor can afford. I should also note that this conference report stripped out an important amendment that called for all congressionally directed spending on new programs and grants to be subject to full and open competition. In my view, the massive pork spending in this conference report renders it a frontal assault on this body's purported commitment to ethics and earmark reform and, in my view, results in a inexcusable failure in our obligation to the taxpayer. The conference report also contains troubling provisions that will likely fail to cure abuses in multiyear contracting, possibly weaken the ability of the Department of Defense to waive protectionist restrictions on the purchase of weapon systems containing specialty metals, and allow the Air Force to precipitously retire fully-capable aircraft just so it can buy new ones. Therefore, while many elements in this conference report are undoubtably helpful, I regrettably cannot sign it. Clearly, the most egregious single item in this report is a provision that authorizes the Air Force $2.28 billion to buy eight C-17 Globemaster aircraft. I note that the dollar amount associated with this one provision, which originated in the House, nearly equals the total amount of earmarks in this bill that arose from the entire Senate side. This provision is particularly problematic given that the Secretary of Defense has consistently maintained that the Defense Department met its strategic airlift requirements with the final purchase of C-17 aircraft authorized by the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and, therefore, simply does not need any more C-17 aircraft. In fact, during deliberations with the conferees, the Defense Department conveyed concern that continuing the C-17 production line would compete with the Department's number one priority for strategic airlift, the recapitalization of the aerial refueling tanker fleet. Reflecting that view, the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2008 included no funding for additional C-17 aircraft and, as it did last year, asked for money to begin shutting down the C-17 production line. In 2007, Congress allowed the Air Force to buy 10 C-17 aircraft above what it actually needed. This year, in their collective wisdom, the conferees have seen it fit to repeat that multibillion dollar mistake by providing for a follow-on purchase, in the face of the administration's admonitions. At the end of the day, this provision does little else than subsidize the continuation of the contractor's C- 17 production line, which is nearing its end--a corporate handout at its worst. I am particularly concerned about this provision given that I have uncovered compelling evidence of possible wrongdoing in the Air Force's interaction with the contractor on the C-17 matter. That evidence points to a disturbing level of effort--undertaken jointly by the Air Force and the contractor--to undermine the current program-of-record and support a procurement proposal for which there is no validated requirement and which is not reflected in either the President's Budget Request or even the Air Force's own Future Years Defense Program, FYDP. In its rank aggressiveness, the evidence I found, and referred to the appropriate authorities for further review, is not unlike some of what I observed in the Boeing tanker lease scandal. From those authorities, I understand that a review is pending. When faced with similar circumstances concerning the Boeing tanker matter, we suspended procurement activities until all related investigations were concluded. Prudence requires that, at a minimum, we do the same here. This conference report also includes authorization for 52 new military construction projects totaling $328 million requested by individual Members of the House that were not vetted or included in either the House- or the Senate-passed National Defense authorization bills for fiscal year 2008. On October 30, 2007, the House Appropriations Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Subcommittee slipped this bloated earmark list to the House Armed Services Committee with no public review or semblance of transparency. And, in order to maintain comity with the appropriators, the majority of defense bill conferees, over my objections, decided to insert the authorizations into our conference report. Not only is this is a classic example of ``parachuting'' or ``airdropping'' earmarks into a conference report in the dead of night, which we ostensibly sought to stop with the enactment of a new ethics law two months ago, it is also an abrogation of our role as authorizers to fully vet each new matter we consider-- rather than blindly accept what the appropriators tell us. Despite the rhetoric of a ``new day'' for accountability, allowing such practices reflects that there is no transparency in this process. Regrettably, the conferees appear content to hide behind parliamentary tricks and mental gymnastics while knowing full well the spirit and intent of the reform we sought to achieve earlier this year. Saying that over $300 million in pork construction projects can be added in conference means that there is essentially no limit on how much a program or a project can balloon during conference. This is a ``hog call'' if I've ever heard one. Senate amendment 828 to the Senate-passed Bill applied Federal competitive bidding laws and regulations to congressional earmarks. Rather modest in what it sought to do, that provision would not have prohibited Members of Congress from earmarking defense dollars. Instead, it simply would have ensured that taxpayers received the advantage of a competitive process. Under that provision, a Member of Congress in either body would have retained the prerogative to fund an activity that he deems worthy, but a full and open competitive process would be used to select the most qualified entity to undertake the project. If an activity is important enough to require earmarking of taxpayers dollars, that legislative proposal would simply have required transparency and full and open competition. Moreover, waiver authority was built into the provision to allow the Department reasonable flexibility in its implementation. In my view, that important provision should have been included in this conference report. The provision that I originally offered as an amendment to the Senate version of the bill clarified how much savings would be required to achieve under a multiyear contract before Congress could authorize that procurement mechanism to buy the largest and most expensive weapon systems. That clarification was important to help the Defense Department use multiyear contracts responsibly to capitalize on mature, well-run programs by buying at economically efficient rates--not to insulate poorly performing systems from effective congressional oversight. While the multiyear contracting provision in the conference report is helpful, it contains language that allows the Department to waive its stringent requirements in a way that eviscerates the provision's underlying intent. In other words, the waiver provision appears to create a loophole through which the Department can keep chronically poorly performing programs ``on rails'' and away from meaningful congressional oversight. For some time now, I have been concerned about how the Air Force, in particular, has been creating requirements for procuring new aircraft by precipitously retiring older but reliable, platforms to bulk up buys of new aircraft platforms. This has required this committee to legislatively prohibit, in previous authorization bills, the retirement of KC-135s, B-52s, C-5s, U-2s and C-130s. In this year's conference report, we have unwisely relieved at least a couple of those restrictions. The Air Force's number one acquisition priority is to replace its aged KC-135 fleet of tanker aircraft. The Air Force's original attempt to replace that fleet led to the now infamous Boeing tanker lease scandal, which resulted in jail-time for a top Air Force procurement official and Boeing's chief operating officer. This time, the Air Force intends to implement a ``comprehensive'' tanker replacement strategy, one component of which is the purchase of a new, commercial-derivative tanker. On that component, two contractor teams have submitted offers responding to a request for proposals, which the Air Force is now reviewing. A contract may be awarded as soon as late February 2008. Unfortunately, on the other two components of the strategy--implementing a complementary commercial fee-for-service program and re-engining some of its older KC-135s--the Air Force has made no serious headway. Against that backdrop, I remain concerned that the Air Force may simply maximize its desired purchase of new planes. Several studies conducted by both the Air Force and independent groups indicate that the current KC-135 fleet is viable for the intermediate term. Given that taxpayers have made a significant investment in the KC-135 fleet, the Air Force should not be permitted to precipitously retire them simply because it wants to buy as many new tanker aircraft as possible. The ``Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 Assessment Report'' cautioned that, before retiring KC-135s, the Air Force needs to conduct destructive testing so it can proceed on an informed basis. However, the Air Force has not complied with that recommendation. Nonetheless, section 135 of this conference report allows the Secretary of the Air Force to retire immediately 48 KC-135E tanker aircraft. It also allows the Air Force to start retiring the remaining 37 KC-135E during fiscal year 08 after contract award for the KC-X tanker replacement aircraft. Once again, without reasonably restricting the Air Force's retirement of KC-135s, we may have lost the ability to ensure that the Air Force does not replace its current fleet of tanker aircraft by simply maximizing its purchase of commercial-derivative aircraft a solution that simply disregards the interests of the taxpayer. A provision on the retirement of C-130 airlift aircraft is similarly improvident. That provision, section 133, would repeal the requirement in the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act that any C- 130E aircraft retired in fiscal year 2007 be maintained in a condition that would allow recall of the aircraft to active service. Another provision, section 134, would allow for the retirement of 29 more C- 130E aircraft in fiscal year 2008. Without the Department's requirements for tactical airlift capability well-defined, it would be premature to retire any C-130 aircraft, at least until: (1) an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has conducted an assessment of the C-130E/H fleet of aircraft; and (2) the results of the Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study, ITLCS, phases 1 and 2, identify the right mix and number of intra-theater airlift assets. Therefore, I believe that we should not retire any more C-130 aircraft until the Department determines what its intra-theater lift requirements are and that aircraft already should not be stripped for parts or destroyed until we have the results of the requirements analysis. This conference report also contains several policy provisions that weakens the broad waiver authority that the Department of Defense currently has with regard to weapon systems that contain specialty metals. For a long time, I have tried to lessen the impact of, if not entirely eliminate, ``buy America'' restrictions, including the Berry amendment, in Defense Department purchases. Legislation restricting the Department's purchases along those lines tend to direct spending for the benefit of a particular entity or congressional district. So, I am concerned that, with the specialty metals/``buy America'' policy provisions contained in this conference report, we may have further opened the door for more pork legislation in the future. Finally, as those policy provisions were not in either the Senate- or the House- passed defense bills, I question whether those provisions should have been added in conference. Another objectionable provision in the conference report would establish a policy that future major combatant ships be nuclear- powered, regardless of requirements, cost, or other considerations that go into selecting a new ship class propulsion system. The Secretary of Defense could only seek a waiver of this requirement if he determines that nuclear propulsion for a future ship is not in the national interest. If the next cruiser class, CG(X), is required to be nuclear- powered as a result of this policy, its cost will increase by greater than $1 billion and the ship will be delayed several years. The result would be significantly increased cost, fewer ships, and delays in fielding the next major surface combatant class of ships. At a time when the Secretary of the Navy is doing all he can to reform how the Navy goes about buying its biggest and most expensive weapon systems, this provision is a move in the wrong direction. The conference report also includes a provision that sets a very dangerous precedent by in effect forcing the Department to take action for the benefit of certain Members of Congress. Section 2846, entitled ``Transfer of jurisdiction, former Nike missile site, Grosse Ile, Michigan'', mandates that the Department of Defense spend funds from an account that has historically been guided by an objective assessment of the risk to human health. This provision requires the Corps of Engineers to clean up a site to a higher standard than the Army deems necessary in Gross Ile, Michigan, so the property can be used as a wildlife refuge. Let me be clear: I have nothing against refuges. But, the Department of Defense has over 9,900 properties evaluated as Formerly Used Defense Sites, FUDS, and must conduct cleanup projects at more than 3,000 of them. The FUDS program costs the Department over $250 million a year and is expected to cost the Department $18.7 billion when all said and done. We simply cannot afford allowing individual Members of Congress to move their pet projects to the top of the priority list, completely disregarding the risk to health and safety of other more vital projects. Clean-up should be based on the priority of risk, not political muscle. There was another conference decision which I believe may be very detrimental to our role as an authorizing committee. Senate-passed bill, Senate section 2811, ``General Military Construction Transfer Authority,'' was intended to extend to military construction accounts the current congressional review process for requests from the Department of Defense for the reprogramming of funds between accounts. Currently, for every funding account except military construction, the Secretary of Defense notifies all four defense committees of his intent to transfer funds from one account to another during the year to better manage obligations. However, for military construction accounts, the Secretary sends a notification only to the House and Senate subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The Senate provision sought to extend that oversight responsibility to our conferees on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. That was a good provision. It was included in our Senate markup without question and was agreed to by both the House and Senate staffs during conference. However, at the last moment during conference deliberations, members from the House Appropriations Committee persuaded my fellow conference leaders to drop the provision for no substantive reason, other than it would diminish the power of the appropriators. This capitulation is very troubling. The provision was written in response to recent actions by the Appropriations subcommittees that either held up military construction reprogramming requests based on parochial interests or approved reprogramming requests over the objections of this committee's staff. In particular, we were concerned by the proposal made by the Air Force to the Committees on Appropriations in January 2007 to use the existing reprogramming process to carry out a ``new start'' military construction project that had not been authorized by law--a clear challenge to the role of the authorizing committees over new start military construction. The committee was also concerned that the appropriators in both bodies approved a reprogramming in July 2007 for a military construction project for which no funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2007, as a favor to a particular Member--disregarding the policy implications of the action. Also, earlier this year, the Senate appropriators held up approval of two reprogramming requests for projects in Virginia in order to force the Department to act on other reprogramming requests. If this committee had equal authority, we would have the ability to prevent such shamelessly parochial and institutionally divisive behavior. Senate section 2811 would have put an end to such activity between the appropriators and authorizers by establishing equal footing with regard to reprogramming requests on military construction projects. I am at a complete loss why it was dropped from our conference agreement. Again, while there is much in this year's conference report that is very worthwhile and helpful to helping provide for the national defense, the elements contained within it that move in the wrong direction are too numerous, too large, and too costly for any Member to ignore. With those elements in this conference report, I simply cannot in good conscience tell the American people that this is our best--that this conference report represents our best vision for the country on matters that relate to, or affect, our servicemen and women and how we secure our national security interests abroad. By declining to sign this conference report today, I respectfully convey to the chairman and my fellow conferees my belief that we can, and for the sake of both the warfighter and taxpayer, we must do better.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, PTPA. The agreement before this Chamber today stands as another important milestone in the development of our relationship with Peru. The pending trade bill will help level the commercial playing field and solidify a genuine bilateral partnership based on free and fair trade that benefits not only Peruvians, but also U.S. workers and businesses. Ratification will also demonstrate to the people of Peru that we stand by them as an important democratic ally in a strategically vital region of the world. As it currently stands, 98 percent of goods imported from Peru already enter the United States duty-free. If this agreement is passed and fully implemented, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and over two-thirds of agricultural exports will gain duty-free access to the Peruvian market of some 29 million citizens. The agreement also contains provisions that address intellectual property rights, electronic commerce, customs and trade facilitation, and these provisions will reduce barriers on investment. The U.S. currently exports nearly $2 billion in goods to Peru, a figure certain to grow as a result of increased access to this vibrant South American market. While the economic benefits we will enjoy as a result of passing the PTPA are important, we must not ignore the political benefits as well. Peru stands as a shining example of the potential for democracy and open markets in South America. Following free and fair elections in 2006, Peru's economy continues to grow at an impressive rate of 8 percent annually, and its poverty rate has been on the decline since 2001. It is also important to recognize the assistance the Peruvian government has provided the United States in combating drug trafficking, countering regional security threats, and providing for our energy needs. Implementation of this agreement will lead to greater prosperity and development for the Peruvian people, helping to strengthen their nation and our relationship with them. I have long advocated for economic freedom and open markets. Free trade has long served to promote economic growth, generate jobs, raise wages and lower prices for American workers and consumers. I believe in the ingenuity and resilience of the American worker and am not afraid of their ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace. America is home to the best and the brightest, and should have the opportunity to play a significant role in an increasingly globalized marketplace. By passing this agreement, we will reaffirm our commitment to nations that share our interest in open markets, economic freedom, and democracy. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this important agreement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 4156, a bill that would link vital funding for our troops to a mandated timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is this bill irresponsive to the facts on the ground, it is irresponsible. Instead, we should approve S. 2340 and provide our military with the resources they require, free of conditions that would undermine their ability to conduct operations and build on their recent successes. Today the Senate considers yet another bill mandating the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground or the views of our commanders in the field. If this latest attempt sounds familiar, it should--the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to limit the ability of the President and his commanders to prosecute this war. And, just like the 40 votes that preceded this one, the result of this vote will undoubtedly be the same. The proponents of this legislation are well aware of this fact, and the fact that the President has pledged to veto legislation calling for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Rather than move beyond these differences and ensure that our troops in the field receive the vital funding they need, however, we will go through this exercise yet again. This legislation would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 30 days of enactment, leaving a smaller force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions, with the goal of ending our involvement, irrespective of the situation in Iraq, by December 15 of next year. Given that similar provisions have failed 40 times already, it is inconceivable that they would succeed now, when there is unambiguous progress in Iraq. The choice today is simple: do we build upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to complete their mission, or do we ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? The answer should be simple. As we proceed with consideration of this bill, it is important to spend a few moments reviewing the current state of affairs in Iraq. We see today that, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq shows tangible signs of progress. The forces needed to implement General Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 6 months and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, continues to make significant gains in a number of areas. The second in command in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, stated earlier this month that due to the recently implemented counterinsurgency operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add that ``we have experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security over the last four months, and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' According to a recent report issued by the Department of Defense, weekly IED attacks have decreased by 60 percent across Iraq since the beginning of Operation Phantom Thunder in mid-June. The Associated Press reports that Iraqi civilian deaths have dropped sharply as a result of the ``surge,'' from 1,791 in August to 750 in October. Mortar attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest on record since February of 2006, as were the number of ``indirect fire'' attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. The surge's success in establishing greater security has spurred a great increase in cooperation from Iraqi citizens, and MG Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of Baghdad, said he believes the decrease in rocket and mortar attacks will continue to hold because of a ``groundswell'' of support from regular Iraqis. ``If we didn't have so many people coming forward to help, I'd think [the decrease in attacks] is a flash in the pan. But that's just not the case,'' General Lynch said. We are all aware of the monumental strides our military has made in restoring order and reducing violence in Anbar Province. A province once declared ``lost'' to al-Qaida has begun a return to normalcy for many of its inhabitants. Locals, sickened by the brutality of insurgents and terrorists, have rejected violent extremism and have cooperated with U.S. and Iraqi forces to take the fight to the enemy. This partnership model combined with U.S. troops ``living forward'' is being replicated and producing real results all across the country. In Ghazaliya, for example, once known as a strategic gateway to Baghdad for insurgents and a place where coalition convoys were regularly ambushed, the creation of joint security stations has led to a significant reduction in sectarian violence and IED attacks. Amariyah, a neighborhood in western Baghdad that just 6 months ago was a central operational location for al-Qaida in Iraq and plagued by high levels of bombings and shootings, is beginning to see a drastic reduction in violence and many residents are beginning to experience some semblance of normal life. None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to an acceptable level, or that victory lies just around the corner. On the contrary, the road ahead remains, as it always has been, long and hard. Violence is still at unacceptable levels in some parts of the country, reconstruction of important infrastructure lags, and the Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects, but, by the same token, no one should dismiss the positive developments that have resulted from this new strategy in Iraq. Nor can we dismiss the enormous costs of American failure in Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the bill we are currently considering become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve. We must remain steadfast in our mission, for we do not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, we fight for ours as well. That means approving the support that our fighting men and women need. The funding contained in this supplemental is not, as some have characterized it, the ``President's money.'' This money is for the troops. This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require to fulfill their mission, funding to protect our men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks, funding to enable them to bring this war to a successful end. Holding our military's funding hostage to a repetitive and futile attempt to score political points is unconscionable. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England recently wrote to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee about the effects of this legislation. ``Without this critical funding,'' he wrote, ``the Department will have no choice but to deplete key appropriations accounts by early next year. In particular, the Army's Operation and Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-late January. This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base operations, and training activities.'' Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said just yesterday that, should the money contained in this bill be withheld, he will have to ``lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military bases.'' Army Secretary Pete Green went on to add that without these funds, the negative effects ``will fall most heavily on...home based troops and their families.'' I have seen a lot during my time in the Senate, but few events sink to the level of what we are witnessing today. I understand the frustration that many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I share their frustration and sadness. But we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance. Not to short-term political gain, but to the security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That responsibility is our dearest privilege and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage or office. Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our service men and women have made by engaging in a game of political brinksmanship. There is far too much at stake. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I think it is important to note the historic significance of what I think is about to happen here because only 106 times in the entire history of the United States of America has the Congress overridden a Presidential veto--only 106 times. The first time was in 1845 over the funding of military equipment. Then-President Tyler bypassed Congress and tried to buy some equipment that Congress had not approved of. Congress was able to stop that when his veto was overridden on the bill. The point is, there is, in our Constitution, a separation of powers and a balance of powers. I think when there is overwhelming support across party lines, overwhelming support from our communities from the bottom up, to pay attention to our infrastructure, to pay attention to the needs of our economy, to pay attention to the needs of the American people--when there is overwhelming bipartisan support, why would a President cast a veto? As I asked rhetorically before the President vetoed this WRDA bill, I said: Do we have to fight about everything? Aren't there some things on which we can agree? But it was not to be. I think if, in fact, we do override this veto--which I fully expect we will do, but I never count anything until it is done--I think what we are saying to the President is, he should respect us, he should respect the Senate, the House, and the American people. We were elected too. We are close to the people. We know what their needs are. If, in fact, we do override this ill-advised veto, the American people will win today. This water resources bill is 7 long years in the making. If we override this veto, Mr. President, we are fulfilling a promise to the people of Louisiana. We promised them, after Katrina, we would rebuild. The President went there and said: I will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities. I say to the President: When you vetoed this bill, you stood up before the people of Louisiana and said: Sorry. One flick of the veto pen, and the President turns his back on the people of the gulf coast. I think testimony to that fact was given by Senators Landrieu and Vitter. The fact is, Congress is stepping in to do the right thing today. We are a separate but equal body, and we are showing across party lines that no matter who the President is, there are some moments in time when he needs to come to the table and work with us. This was one of those times because the WRDA bill is going to help ensure America's water infrastructure and flood control needs are met. Again, it puts the gulf coast on the path to recovery. But it does other things. In my State, it is going to finally take care of our problems in Sacramento, where 300,000 people, potentially, could be harmed and hurt and damaged because we have not done what we had to do to protect them. We do it in this bill. Yesterday, we heard from Senator Bill Nelson about the major restoration of the Everglades that is in this bill--another promise made by Republicans and Democrats alike. The Everglades is a national treasure--actually, a worldwide treasure. Yet we go to communities all over this Nation, from sea to shining sea, and we look at the communities and say that we will work with them on flood control, on making sure goods can move through our ports, and on recreation. The Corps and the BLM run many recreation areas that see millions of visitors every single year. So it is about recreation, commerce, flood control, and it is about environmental restoration. It enacts the most sweeping reforms for the Corps in more than 20 years. I know Senator Feingold did not believe we did enough Corps reform. I respectfully say to Senator Feingold that we went very far. As a matter of fact, I believe we brought more independent review to this process because before--I agree with the Senator--the Corps was just going off on its own. So communities across our country have waited long enough for these vital projects. As Senator Inhofe said yesterday--and I see he is here now--this is an authorization bill. This doesn't spend a penny, but it is very important because it says we believe these projects are worthy of funding. Then those projects will go through a very tough appropriations process, and every one of these projects, as far as I know, draws on local funding, or State funding, and Federal funding. This WRDA bill comes from the people--from the people up. When I go to little communities back home--I went to one in Napa, where there is a flood control program; it is essential. It is a senior citizen retirement community, and our folks are frightened because they see what happens when California experiences these incredible shocks of nature, such as the fires, and now we are on the precipice of doing the right thing. I hope we override this veto. I look forward to the remarks of Senator Inhofe.