John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the full Senate today is considering the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General of the United States. I strongly support his confirmation. As many of you know, the President nominated Judge Mukasey on September 17; however, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on his nomination until Tuesday. This ranks as one of the longest spans between a nomination and a confirmation vote for an Attorney General nominee. This is particularly unfair to the American people who deserve to have in place a chief enforcer of our Nation's laws. I believe Judge Mukasey is the right nominee to enforce our laws, particularly during this time of war. As a Federal judge, he presided over one of the country's busiest trial courts and one that has overseen several terrorism-related cases. These included the trial of the terrorist known as ``the Blind Sheikh,'' a man who was convicted of conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center. In comprehensive responses to questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Mukasey exhibited mainstream legal views on constitutional checks and balances. He stated that the President cannot waive congressionally mandated restrictions on interrogation techniques, including those included in the ``McCain amendment'' and the Military Commissions Act. This is a particularly important conclusion given that, under these laws, anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. Government agency, puts himself at risk of civil liability and criminal prosecution. Judge Mukasey also, in a separate letter, acknowledged that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding is ``over the line'' and ``repugnant.'' These are important statements, and I expect that they will inform his views as Attorney General. I strongly urge that, in that role, Judge Mukasey will publicly make clear that waterboarding is illegal and can never be employed. Waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law. In 2005, the President signed into law a prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as those terms are understood under the standards of the U.S. Constitution. There was at that time a debate over the way in which the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions. Along with Senators Warner and Graham, I stated then my strong belief that a fair reading of the ``McCain amendment'' 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 2006 Military Commissions Act, MCA, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. As one of the authors of that statute, I would note that the MCA specifically prohibits acts that inflict ``serious and nontransitory mental harm'' that ``need not be prolonged.'' Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. For this reason, during the negotiations that led to the MCA, my colleagues and I were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibits waterboarding. Many of us share Judge Mukasey's revulsion at the use of waterboarding, and I welcome his commitment to further review its legality once confirmed. I expect that he will reach the same conclusion. I sincerely hope that the recent public debate over the use and legality of waterboarding is America's last. In discussing this practice, we are speaking of an interrogation technique that dates from the Spanish Inquisition, one that has been a prosecutable offense for over a century, one that was employed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and which is reportedly being used by the thugs in Burma today against the innocent monks protesting their repression. Waterboarding simply has no place in the America I know. Let us take it off the table, once and for all, and move beyond this debate. There is evil in the world today, and it takes form in those who commit themselves to the destruction of America and the ideals we hold dear. Let us fight them, let us defend America, but let us in so doing never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. Make no mistake--we will prevail--but we must wage this war with fidelity to our laws and deepest values. These laws and values are the source of strength, not weakness, for though we are stronger than our enemies in men and arms, we are stronger still in ideals. We will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them. Based on the statements and responses that this nominee has provided over the past week, I believe that Judge Mukasey shares this view. He is a consensus nominee, one with a reputation as a rigorous, independent, and honest thinker. I am pleased to offer him our support and I hope that my colleagues will join us in voting for confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the President's veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the attempt to override this veto. This legislation is fundamentally flawed, authorizing nearly 1,000 new projects without any method for prioritizing the needs of our national water infrastructure. When the House and Senate went to Conference on WRDA, the Senate bill totaled $14 billion and the House bill $15 billion. Somehow this resulted in a final conference report totaling $23 billion and 900 new projects--300 more than either of the House- or Senate-passed bills had included. These items are just further additions to the growing backlog at the Corps of Engineers. Buried among these projects are valid infrastructure needs including helping to protect the gulf coast against future hurricanes. However, as stated in the November 5, 2007, Washington Post editorial entitled ``Fiscal Plunge: A vetoed $23 billion water bill is not worth saving,'' ``The bill would indeed authorize about $1.9 billion for coastal ecosystem restoration and protection in Louisiana to help the state rebuild its defenses against hurricanes. The president supports that; he just thinks that Congress could have authorized it without also larding on billions of dollars' worth of economically and environmentally questionable projects.'' I will ask that the editorial be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. I know that many are arguing that we have to pass legislation in order to begin or complete important water infrastructure projects throughout the United States. However, I believe that we should be passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without sacrificing fiscal responsibility. In August, the Senate passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 with the supposed intention of bringing integrity to the system of earmarking appropriation and authorizations bills. Unfortunately, within 10 days of its enactment, the Senate approved the conference report for WRDA that is just more of the same earmarks and then some. Prior to congressional consideration of the conference report, the Director of OMB and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works sent a letter to Congress stating that the excessive price and number of projects in this legislation would result in a Presidential veto. I am pleased that the President followed through on that statement and rightfully vetoed this water resources bill full of pork projects and unchecked Government spending. When issuing his veto of the Water Resources Development Act on November 2, 2007, the President stated, ``This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility . . . This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs . . . while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.'' During Senate consideration of this bill, Senator Feingold offered an amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor that would have established a system to give clarity to the process used for funding Corps projects. Of course, that amendment was not adopted because this Congress values pet projects over national priorities. I believe that this Congress has a duty to protect taxpayers' dollars and ensure that they are used for the most cost effective and critically needed projects. This bill fails to provide for any clarity or prioritization in the funding process and would result in further confusion and irresponsibility in how Corps projects are funded. I urge my colleagues to oppose the attempt to override the President's veto of the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. President, I wish to discuss the appropriations package before this Chamber today. We find ourselves, once again, dealing with the bulk of our Nation's spending bills at the end of the year, behind schedule, devoid of the careful consideration these important measures warrant. It is distressing that year after year, the Congress fails to produce legislation on time and free of unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful spending. It is unfortunate that this year is no different. In hopes of avoiding a veto from the President on a bloated Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the majority has decided to lump the bill together with the popular Military Construction- Veterans Administration appropriations bill. Instead of allowing this body to consider each bill on its own merits through robust and transparent debate, the majority and its members of the appropriations committees have attempted to shield their wasteful ways with the treatment and well-being of our servicemen, women, and veterans covered under the MilCon-VA bill. Not only is this an unconscionable tactic, it also is a violation of Senate rules, specifically rule XXVIII and represents the continued devolution of our annual budgeting process. I am confident that there will be enough collective wisdom mustered today to uphold the Senate rules and send this conference report back to the House. Let us address briefly the reasoning behind the President's threatened veto of the underlying bill. The Labor-HHS bill currently stands $9.8 billion above the President's request, and $841 million over the Senate-passed level. Not only is this an unacceptable inflation of the original funding request, but it also highlights the egregious practice of earmarking funds. During conference, behind closed doors, there were at least 117 earmarks added to the Labor-HHS portion of the bill, and an additional 109 earmarks inserted into the MilCon-VA portion. Overall, the package before us today contains an eye-popping total of nearly 2,200 earmarks. I am ashamed of this graphic display of waste. It is disconcerting that in this time of necessity for our men and women returning from service overseas, lawmakers have attempted to hijack a bill vital to ensuring their proper care and treatment. As usual, the majority of earmarked funds in this bill will go to the States represented by members who serve on the appropriations committee. I have long stressed the necessity of reforming the excessive and irresponsible ways of earmarking, and the state of the bill before us today only reinforces that need. And to think, less than months ago, most Members heralded the enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, believing it would change business as usual. Well, it hasn't. Allow me to take a moment to highlight a few earmarks of particular note: $350,000 to study the relationship between residential floor coverings and distributive patterns of airborne particulates in Smyrna, GA; $320,000 for the American Jazz Museum, Kansas City, MO; $400,000 for a study of the feasibility of establishing a graduate school in the medical sciences at Radford University in Radford, VA; $130,000 for the First Ladies Museum in Canton, OH; $325,000 for the South Florida Science Museum, West Palm Beach, FL; $150,000 for the Italian-American Cultural Center of Iowa in Des Moines, IA; $150,000 for the American Ballet Theatre in New York, NY; $1.42 million for the virtual colonoscopy outreach program at Marshall University in West Virginia; $100,000 for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum; $250,000 for exhibit preparation at the James K. Polk Presidential Hall TN; $75,000 for the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California; $211,900 for exhibit preparation at Utah Art and History Museum. While some in this body may feel that it is in our vital national interest to spend $350,000 of the American taxpayers' money to study the spread of dust on residential floor coverings, I simply disagree. The above,mentioned projects are only a small snapshot of the many, many other wasteful items tucked away in the 853 pages of this bill. Our Nation remains at war, and as a result we continue to see our brave service men and women in uniform returning home in need of comprehensive and effective care from our VA system. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to address the needs of those who have born so valiantly the sacrifices of armed conflict by providing our VA system with the resources needed to accomplish its mission. The President has stated publicly his intention to sign a clean version of the MilCon-VA bill when it reaches his desk. However, rather than addressing the needs of our veterans in a timely fashion, the majority has chosen to unnecessarily delay passage of this vital bill. The American taxpayer expects more of us, as do our brave service men and women who are fighting abroad on our behalf. We must stop these Washington games and return to placing our Nation's interests before our own.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we go again, pushing through a bloated appropriations bill chocked full of earmarks and far exceeding the President's budget request. This is the seventh annual appropriations measure that has been considered by the Senate and it is by far the biggest budget buster of those considered. The first six bills exceeded the President's request by over $8 billion, while this bill alone exceeds the President's budget request by almost $9 billion. At what point will Congress come to grips with the fact that we are mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures by approving bills like this? The Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 provides over $605 billion, including $149.2 billion in total discretionary spending and, as I mentioned, exceeds the President's budget by $8.95 billion. The Statement of Administration Policy begins with the following; The Administration strongly opposes S. 1710 because, in combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and includes other objectionable provisions. The statement goes on to say, The Administration has asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere, while ensuring the Department of Defense has the resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if S. 1710 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill. Well, it looks like he will have the opportunity to do just that. There are over 1,000 earmarks in this bill. Examples include: $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Liberty, NY, for the Woodstock Museum (which the Senate did strike by a vote 52:42); $500,000 for the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, for the virtual Herbarium; $200,000 for Dallas, TX, for the Women's Museum; $200,000 for the Italian American Cultural Center of Iowa in Des Moines; $250,000 for the James K. Polk Association in Columbia, TN, for exhibit preparation; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum; $500,000 for the Southwest Museum of the American Indian in Los Angeles, CA; $100,000 for the Warner Robbins Museum of Aviation in Georgia; $200,000 for the Texas Historical Commission; $600,000 for the Vermont Department of Labor for Job Training of Female Inmates in Vermont; $2.4 million for Maui Community College for the Remote Rural Hawaii Job Training Project; $1.8 million for Maui Community College for training and educational opportunities; $750,000 for Minot State University to provide training and masters degrees to job corp center senior management personnel; $250,000 for the United Auto Workers Region 9 Training Initiative in New York; $900,000 for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation in Austin, TX, for the Presidential Timeline Project; $1.1 million for the Billings Clinic, Billings, MT-- interestingly, the Billings clinic only has 272 beds in its hospital, and received recently an endowment of over $1 million for its cancer center; $5.9 million for Marshall University, WV, including $1,575,000 for the Virtual Colonoscopy Outreach Program; $3,600,000 for Mountain State University, Beckley, WV, for the construction of the Allied Health Technology Tower; $3,150,000 for West Virginia University, for the construction and equipping of medical simulation research and training centers; $4,050,000 for West Virginia University, for the construction of a Multiple Sclerosis Center; $1,000,000 for Wetzel County Hospital, WV, for the expansion and remolding of the Emergency Department; $2,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Public Health to continue the Harkin Wellness Grant program; and $100,000 for Iowa Games, Ames, IA, to continue the Lighten Up Iowa program. I could go on and on calling out earmarks in this bill and its accompanying report. We are doing a disservice to the American taxpayers and ourselves by approving such wasteful spending. It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, for the past 2 fiscal years, the programs funded through the Labor-HHS bill were virtually pork-free. A fortunate disagreement resulted in almost no earmarks in the fiscal year 2006 bill, which had about 3,000 earmarks the prior year. And last year, we funded the programs with a continuing resolution that, for the taxpayers, turned out to have been about the most fiscally responsible route that we could have taken. I urge my colleagues to reject the excessive spending in the bill. (At the Request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the world has reacted with horror and revulsion at the Burmese junta's recent brutal crackdown against peaceful demonstrators. In crushing the Saffron Revolution, killing hundreds and jailing thousands, including countless Buddhist monks, the junta has left no doubt about its blatant disregard for basic human decency. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; of peace, not violence; and of the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed. Our response must go beyond statements of condemnation, and the time to act is now. That is why today I am introducing the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate. This legislation imposes meaningful and effective punitive action against the cruel, thuggish, and illegitimate Burmese government. We must not sit idly by while the junta continues to deprive the Burmese people of their fundamental human rights. This legislation would impose targeted sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta. These individuals would be subject to a visa ban and a ban on business dealings with any United States entity or person. This legislation would also close a loophole that exists in current U.S. import policy that allows imports of Burmese gems and hardwoods, which together add tens of millions of dollars to the junta's coffers. It would eliminate the remaining U.S. energy investment in Burma's gas sector and significantly increase U.S. Government support for democracy in Burma. Specifically, the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007: states that it is the policy of the United States to condemn the Burmese junta's continued repressions, support the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people, provide support to aid a democratic transition in Burma, and hold accountable those individuals responsible for the ongoing repression; imposes targeted financial sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta government; imposes a visa ban on these individuals; prohibits the importation of Burmese gems and hardwoods, including materials that are mined or harvested in Burma but shaped, cut, or assembled in other countries not subject to current U.S. sanctions; prohibits investment in Burma by U.S. companies, including investment agreements reached prior to the imposition of the May 20, 1997 sanctions; permits the President to terminate sanctions once the Government of Burma has: unconditionally released all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy; entered into a substantive dialogue with democratic forces on a transition to democratic government under the rule of law; allowed humanitarian access to populations affected by armed conflict in all regions of Burma; authorizes $20 million for FY 2008 and FY 2009 in aid to democracy activists in Burma, for the expansion of radio and television broadcasting into Burma, and for support to individuals and groups compiling evidence of the junta's crimes; expresses the sense of Congress that the Director of National Intelligence should target intelligence resources to identify those responsible for the crackdown and for other human rights abuses; authorizes the Secretary of State to fund the establishment of an independent, searchable, Internet database that would compile evidence of human rights abuses in Burma, permitting increased international research aimed at holding human rights abusers accountable; requires a report by the Secretary of State on international sources of military aid to the Burmese regime. The next phase of political life in Burma has begun. The junta's thugs cannot forever postpone the blossoming of freedom and democracy within its nation's borders. By enacting the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007, the Congress can help ensure that they do not. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that once again, the Senate is considering a bill that mortgages our children's future for our own political gain. To date, the Senate has passed five spending bills--the majoirty of which exceeded the President's budget request. Today, the Senate will seek to add a sixth appropriations bill to that list. The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies appropriations bill, 2008, H.R. 3093, provides $54 billion in total discretionary spending and exceeds the President's budget by $3.2 billion. This has prompted the White House to call the bill ``irresponsible'' and threaten a veto. If this bill passes in its current form, the Senate will have approved six spending bills that combined exceed the President's budget by $8 billion. And, the Senate still has six more appropriations bills to consider this year While the recently enacted ethics and lobbying reform measure requires the disclosure of the authorship of earmarks, it seems to have had little, if any, impact on curtailing earmarks. Indeed, 91 members secured earmarks in this appropriations bill alone. There are over 600 earmarks in this bill that total $486 million. For example, this bill contains: $1 million for the National Fatherhood Initiative; $500,000 for a Maritime Museum in Mobile, AL; $15 million for a Massachusetts groundfish disaster--I was unaware there was such a disaster--$215,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission; $360,000 for Hawaii Rain Gages; over $9 million for Human Intelligence Management; $500,000 for Girls, Inc. of New York, NY. And if that wasn't enough, the bill also includes: $450,000 for an advanced undersea vehicle; $500,000 for horseshoe crab research; $2 million for permanent displays for the Thunder Bay Exhibit; $3 million for the Maryland Institute for Dextrous Robotics; $400,000 for wireless cameras in Elizabeth, NJ; $5 million for forensic lab equipment in West Virginia; $1.5 million for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation. In addition, the bill provides funding to many programs that were proposed to be cut by the President. It also funds many other programs at levels beyond what was recommended by the President's budget. For example, $100 million is allocated for the Advanced Technology Program that the President has sought to eliminate for the past several years and $110 million is allocated for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program--$64 million above the President's budget request. The sole purpose of both programs is to subsidize private firms and industries, which, as I have argued previously, are nothing more than welfare programs for corporate special interests. I have fought against funding for both of these programs for many years to no avail, but will continue to speak out against hard-earned taxpayer dollars being provided to assist corporations that have billions of capital available to them on the private markets. Since the bill has been brought to the floor, over $1 billion worth of spending has been added. Specifically, the Senate voted to add $1 billion on top of the $10 billion the bill already provided to NASA. I continue to support NASA and space research, but at what cost to our Nation's children who will inherit the largest national debt this country has seen? : Again, I would like to express my disappointment that Senate leadership has brought to the floor a bill that is $3 billion over the President's request, containing more than 600 earmarks. In my recent travels around the Nation, I hear again and again from citizens who are fed up with porkbarrel spending, and yet Congress fails to listen. It is a shame and I can only hope that the American people will join me and the President in expressing their displeasure with this bill. I hope that the remaining six appropriations bills do not contain such rampant and reckless spending, and that Congress works to regain some fiscal discipline.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the world has reacted with horror and revulsion at the Burmese junta's recent brutal crackdown against peaceful demonstrators. In crushing the Saffron Revolution, killing hundreds and jailing thousands, including countless Buddhist monks, the junta has left no doubt about its blatant disregard for basic human decency. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; of peace, not violence; and of the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed. Our response must go beyond statements of condemnation, and the time to act is now. That is why today I am introducing the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate. This legislation imposes meaningful and effective punitive action against the cruel, thuggish, and illegitimate Burmese government. We must not sit idly by while the junta continues to deprive the Burmese people of their fundamental human rights. This legislation would impose targeted sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta. These individuals would be subject to a visa ban and a ban on business dealings with any United States entity or person. This legislation would also close a loophole that exists in current U.S. import policy that allows imports of Burmese gems and hardwoods, which together add tens of millions of dollars to the junta's coffers. It would eliminate the remaining U.S. energy investment in Burma's gas sector and significantly increase U.S. Government support for democracy in Burma. Specifically, the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007: states that it is the policy of the United States to condemn the Burmese junta's continued repressions, support the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people, provide support to aid a democratic transition in Burma, and hold accountable those individuals responsible for the ongoing repression; imposes targeted financial sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta government; imposes a visa ban on these individuals; prohibits the importation of Burmese gems and hardwoods, including materials that are mined or harvested in Burma but shaped, cut, or assembled in other countries not subject to current U.S. sanctions; prohibits investment in Burma by U.S. companies, including investment agreements reached prior to the imposition of the May 20, 1997 sanctions; permits the President to terminate sanctions once the Government of Burma has: unconditionally released all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy; entered into a substantive dialogue with democratic forces on a transition to democratic government under the rule of law; allowed humanitarian access to populations affected by armed conflict in all regions of Burma; authorizes $20 million for FY 2008 and FY 2009 in aid to democracy activists in Burma, for the expansion of radio and television broadcasting into Burma, and for support to individuals and groups compiling evidence of the junta's crimes; expresses the sense of Congress that the Director of National Intelligence should target intelligence resources to identify those responsible for the crackdown and for other human rights abuses; authorizes the Secretary of State to fund the establishment of an independent, searchable, Internet database that would compile evidence of human rights abuses in Burma, permitting increased international research aimed at holding human rights abusers accountable; requires a report by the Secretary of State on international sources of military aid to the Burmese regime. The next phase of political life in Burma has begun. The junta's thugs cannot forever postpone the blossoming of freedom and democracy within its nation's borders. By enacting the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007, the Congress can help ensure that they do not. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham, along with Senators Gregg, McConnell, Vitter, Corker, Kyl, Domenici, Chambliss, Cornyn, Sununu, Specter, Isakson and Tester, in sponsoring this important amendment. This amendment would set aside $3 billion in emergency funding to help better secure our nation's borders. We are facing a crisis on our southern border. Every day, hundreds of people sneak across our borders, many through the State of Arizona. While the majority of these individuals are coming here to look for work, some of these illegal border crossers are criminals and people intending to do our Nation harm. The current situation is a national security crisis and we must take action to address it. The amendment Senator Graham has offered would designate $3 billion in emergency funding to establish operational control of our international land borders. These funds would be used to hire more full-time border patrol agents as well as install double layer permanent fencing and vehicle barriers. The amendment also calls for the instillation of unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, and cameras. In order to deter further illegal immigration, the amendment directs funds to be used to continue the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, efforts to end ``catch-and release'' programs. If an immigrant knows he will face mandatory incarceration if caught crossing the border, that immigrant may not choose to take that risk. Also, through this amendment, funds would be made available to reimburse state and localities for costs related to cooperative agreements they have entered into with DHS that allows them to assist in the efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants. The funds made available by this amendment would provide on-the-ground, real time assets that will help DHS to secure our Nation's borders in a 21st century way. The final piece of the Graham amendment would address the need to improve the employment eligibility verification system by directing $60 million to be set aside to enhance the ability of employers to verify employment eligibility. Without an effective, accurate, and accessible employment verification system undocumented immigrants will continue to be hired because they will never truly have to prove that they are legally allowed to work. We need to do away with the archaic paper- based system and utilize technology in a way that allows employers to instantaneously know if the person standing before them is who they say they are and whether or not that person can be hired legally. We must improve this system to help the government to prosecute unscrupulous employers and ensure that they are hiring and employing legal workers. The measures outlined and funded in the Graham amendment are critical to our border security efforts and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 is one of the most important of the appropriations measures that we will consider this year. This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in our Armed Forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. Because we must continue to support them, I support the passage of this bill, but I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the committee report accompanying this bill. The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $448 billion. This is more than $3.5 billion below the President's request and, notably, does not include any additional funds for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As is the case with so many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains numerous earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized, to the tune of over $5 billion. During a time of war, we should be making every effort to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and then adding earmarks for favored projects. Every day, we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on behalf of our great Nation, and their families, to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the globe. We in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and sacrifice, as well. Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's accompanying report: $2 million for a project involving brown tree snakes; a total of $3 million for an electronic futures trading program; $2 million for research on high-pressure microwave processing for meals-ready-to-eat; $2 million for the Marines to buy boot socks cushioned with merino wool; $2 million to buy extended cold-weather gloves for the Army; $2 million for research on a technology that extracts pure water from the air; $2 million for research on a multispectral fingerprint device; $4 million to study the Northern Lights; $6.5 million for small instrument development for Magdalena Ridge Observatory; and $10 million for Eielson Utilidors. Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy causes, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include $150 million for a peer-reviewed breast cancer research program; $80 million for a similar prostate cancer research program; $10 million for ovarian cancer research; $27.5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network; $10 million to a program called Ceros, for river and oceanic research; $6.1 million for research on a new engine called homopolar hybrid drive; $2 million for research into putting humans into a state similar to hibernation so they can be kept alive long enough for doctors to administer treatments; and $3 million for research for a 2D-3D face-recognition system. As we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative that we get the most out of each and every defense dollar. The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many unrequested earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious resources and are not vital to our long-term national security. I strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not legislatively mandated or authorized but rather, are merely the wish lists of the committee. In the report accompanying the bill, there are several authorizing provisions, which by their nature have no place in an appropriations vehicle, including language directing the Air Force to provide funding to continue the operation of the 36th Rescue Flight assigned to Fairchild AFB in Washington State and a provision requiring funding for Naval archeology programs in the Lake Champlain Basin. Similarly, in the bill, a provision directs the Air Force to complete upgrades and additions to Alaskan range infrastructure and training areas, as well as at Hickman AFB in Hawaii. A similar provision calls for $3 million to be spent on upgrades and maintenance at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Another provision prohibits the disestablishment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in Mississippi. Some of these authorizing provisions are outside of the scope of defense policy, including language providing for the Navy to transfer up to $20 million to the Interior Department for any expenses associated with the construction of the USS Arizona Memorial Museum and Visitors Center. I would also like to discuss the ``Buy America'' restrictions that cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of ``Buy America'' restrictions. For example, the bill would prevent the Defense Department's purchase of particular welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain; carbon alloy or armor steel plate; ball and roller bearings, unless they are manufactured in the United States. It would put similar restrictions on the Department's buying public vessels, food, certain textile materials, particular Navy supply ships, as well as its purchase of coal as a fuel source for certain military installations in Germany. Another ``Buy America'' provision prohibits the Department's buying any supercomputer that is not manufactured in the United States. I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of policies as protectionist. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions, such as those contained in this bill, could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners. I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the authorizing committee. Mr. President, there can be no doubt that this legislation is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where some of their money is going and some of it is not going to projects that have anything to do with our defense.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong opposition to the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The legislation being considered today far exceeds the already outrageous spending that was approved in both the House- and Senate-passed bills and would drastically increase the backlog of Army Corps of Engineers construction projects while doing nothing to modernize the system for funding these projects. I wonder, did we learn nothing from Hurricane Katrina? In August of 2005, this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy beyond compare, more so than our Nation had seen in decades. Almost 2 years later, the gulf coast region is still trying to rebuild, and there is a long road ahead. I thought that we had learned a few lessons from this tragedy, but as our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we are now being asked to quickly approve a conference report that only perpetuates the problems with both the funding and management of the Corps of Engineers. During Senate consideration of this bill, Senator Feingold offered an amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor that would have established a system to give clarity to the process used for funding Corps projects. Of course, that amendment was not adopted. It is unacceptable to me that this Congress isn't interested in how best to allocate our limited Corps resources or how taxpayer dollars would be used most effectively. My question is, What is wrong with having some concept of what our Nation's priorities are for waterworks projects? Why are we rejecting policies to help us identify where the greatest infrastructure needs are? Are people worried that showing the American people how their money is really being spent may result in their pet project being moved down the list for funding? Today's practice, as illustrated again by this legislation, allows a Member of Congress to get a project authorized and funded without having any idea of how that project affects the overall infrastructure of our Nation's waterways--or whether it is even needed. There is already a $58 billion backlog in Corps projects, and the bill before us increases that backlog by an additional $23.2 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is a 40-percent increase in the size of the existing backlog. Yet consider how much funding the Corps receives annually on average--$2 billion. Anyone can do the math and realize that we are perpetuating a significant problem. But that won't stop so many of my colleagues from congratulating themselves on passage of this bill--a bill the White House intends to veto. I find it particularly ironic that just before the August recess this body claimed to be turning a new page and taking significant steps toward ending the process of secret earmarks and porkbarrel politics when it passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This bill is beyond more of the same with over 900 projects, up from 600 projects in both the Senate and the House passed bills. As stated in a recent letter from the Director of OMB and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, ``Because the conference version of H.R. 1495 significantly exceeds the cost of either the House or Senate bill and contains other unacceptable provisions discussed below, the President will veto the bill.'' I applaud the President's vow to veto this bill. While the bill before us today includes an ``independent'' review process in name, as Senator Feingold and I have pushed for during debate on the last two Senate-passed bills, the conference report provision does not promote true independent review at all. Senator Feingold and I championed language that would have established a process by which the planning and design of Corps projects could be reviewed by a panel of experts. As stated by an editorial in the Washington Post on August 6, 2007, entitled ``Watered Down,'' ``The Corps has a long history of overly rosy environmental and economic analysis of such projects, tailored to the political needs of its funders in Congress. Review of Corps projects by independent experts would deter such behavior, which threatens not only the federal budget but public safety. The Senate version of the legislation was very tough on this point.'' I will ask to have the editorial printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. The legislation before us drastically dilutes the Senate-passed provision and gives the Corps undue influence over this panel. The review process will actually be housed within the Corps rather than outside the agency as the Senate bill required, and the Corps' Chief of Engineers is also given significant authority to decide the timing of review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether to implement a review panel's recommendations. This new system will only compound the problems with an agency that has brought about countless mismanaged and incredibly expensive construction and maintenance projects. I believe this conference report is fundamentally flawed in many ways, not the least of which is its cost. As stated by the Tax Payers for Common Sense, ``In High School Civics students learn that conference committees are where lawmakers hash out the differences between House and Senate bills. But in the case of WRDA (H.R. 1495), the Corps of Engineers water projects bill, a $14 billion Senate bill met a $15 billion house and ballooned into a whopping $21 billion monster. . . . The ultimate price tag will be far higher because of numerous policy changes that are intended to shift costs from who benefits onto the federal taxpayer. For these reasons, the President did the right thing by promising to veto the bill if it gets to his desk. . . . Lawmakers should start over again and come back with a fiscally responsible bill that includes stronger policy reforms for independent peer review of costly, controversial, or critical projects, modernized economic guidance and creates a system to prioritize limited federal funding. All these proposals will save taxpayers in the long term.'' Mr. President, it is time that we end this process of blind spending, throwing money at projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for us to take a post-Katrina look at the world and learn from our experiences over the past years instead of being content with business as usual. Shouldn't we be doing all that we can to reform the Corps and ensure that the most urgent projects are being funded and constructed? Or are we more content with needless earmarks--too often at the expense of projects that are of most need? I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report. Mr. President, I ask to have the editorial to which I referred printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Washington Post, Aug. 6, 2007] Watered Down Another pork-laden bill for the Army Corps of Engineers contains modest checks on future projects When Last we checked, the Water Resources Development Act was a $14 billion bill larded with pork-barrel projects. Now it is a $21 billion bill, having taken on still more pork in a House-Senate conference committee, and it appears headed for passage. One small factor in the bill's growth was the addition, during the closed-door conference, of tens of millions of dollars' worth of pet projects not previously debated in either chamber. Interestingly enough, Congress has also just passed an ethics bill that was arguably designed, in part, to prevent this sort of thing. But that legislation has not yet taken effect. Of greater concern are the bill's provisions for independent review of proposed dams, levees and other projects to be built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has a long history of overly rosy environmental and economic analysis of such projects, tailored to the political needs of its funders in Congress. Review of Corps projects by independent experts would deter such behavior, which threatens not only the federal budget but public safety. The Senate version of the legislation was very tough on this point. It would have required peer review of projects costing $40 million or more and permitted state governors, federal agencies and the general public to initiate mandatory peer reviews of other projects. It would have created a separate federal office to oversee the reviews, and it stated explicitly that federal courts did not have to defer to the Corps' reasoning when the agency decided to reject the findings of an independent panel. But, after negotiations between the Senate and the House, which favored a nearly toothless process, the final bill leaves out much of the Senate language: It raises the minimum dollar amount slightly, to $45 million, and says that only governors, not federal agencies or public interest groups, can call for mandatory peer review. The Corps can waive review of smaller projects where it sees no environmental issues. Inexplicably, the peer review law expires in seven years. The good news is that the bill requires the Corps to assign the reviews to the respected National Academy of Sciences; it also wisely permits reviewers to consider a wide range of issues. President Bush has understandably threatened a veto because of the bill's cost, but there are more than enough votes to override. Imperfect as it is, this bill is likely to become law. Supporters of the compromise, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, say that their tough oversight will make it work, a promise that will itself be tested in the months ahead.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I say I thank Senator Levin, Senator Reid, and Senator Biden. Senator Lieberman and Senator Kyl will be discussing their amendment, which is a very important amendment concerning Iran so that everybody will have a good idea, and they will be discussing it again on Monday--or debating it. I would hope, as the distinguished chairman has said, that we could probably vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment very shortly after the vote on the Biden amendment, yet we are unable to put that in concrete. There may be a side by side, there may not be. I wish to remind my colleagues again, if I could, this is the 13th day of debate now, and we have had 79 hours of debate on this bill. The Wounded Warriors legislation is still waiting, the pay raise, so many other things that are vital to, I believe, the men and women who are serving and the security of this Nation. What I hope--and I know Senator Levin who is managing this bill would agree--is that once we finish the Iraq issue, we should be able to move through the other amendments rather quickly. We are obviously running out of time. The first of October is upon us. So I hope we can finish the Iraq amendments as quickly as possible and move on to the 100 or so amendments we have on the bill itself. I thank the chairman for all of the cooperation and hard work he has done on this bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with this vote, the Senate faces, once again, a simple choice: whether to build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission, or to ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby the terrible consequences that will ensue. Many Senators wished to postpone this choice, preferring to await the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Last week these two career officers reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. After nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq shows demonstrable signs of progress. Understanding what we now know--that our military is making 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 beginning to show real results. General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both Houses and in countless interviews. The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, said yesterday that the 7-month-old security operation has reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and that civilian casualties have dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments were echoed by LTG Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander, who said that before the surge began, one third of Baghdad's 507 districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said, ``only five to six districts can be called hot areas.'' Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar, or Diyala, or Baghdad, can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen and the bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit. None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence is still too high and there are many unsafe areas. Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention last week that American and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress under their new strategy. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the United States 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. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the amendment 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. We cannot set a date for withdrawal without setting a date for surrender. 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 any of my colleagues remain unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them to the recent remarks of the Iranian president, who said: ``The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly . . . Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.'' 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 hour is indeed late in Iraq. How we have arrived at this critical and desperate moment has been well chronicled, and history's judgment about the long catalogue of mistakes in the prosecution of this war will be stern and unforgiving. But history will revere the honor and the sacrifice of those Americans, who despite the mistakes and failures of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked everything--everything--so that the country they love so well might not suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat. That is what General Petraeus, and the Americans he has the honor to command, are trying to do--to fight smarter and better, in a way that addresses and doesn't strengthen the tactics of the enemy, and to give the Iraqis the security and opportunity to make the necessary political decisions to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war. 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, Mr. President, we fight for ours as well. In this moment of serious peril for America, we must all of us remember to who and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and to the ideals upon which we 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 this 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. President, I thank the chairman. I agree. I will make every effort to do that. I am confident that no one on this side would object. It has to be done. Everyplace I go, I hear concern and the continued outrage about the situation that existed at Walter Reed, and the American people are not confident that we have taken the necessary measures to provide for the care of our veterans. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. McCAIN. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin. I want to mention this: Is it the chairman's understanding that after that, we would probably go to the Levin-Reed amendment and have a time agreement following that? Is it also the chairman's understanding that any Iraq- related amendment would probably be a 60-vote requirement? Finally, is it also the understanding of the chairman that at 3 p.m. today we would expect all amendments to be filed on this bill?

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, one final comment. I am not sure I will need all the time on this side for this amendment. We have debated this amendment before, and I alert my colleagues that perhaps we can vote earlier than the 2-hour time that is involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the chairman and the Senator from Rhode Island that would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Again, we find ourselves on the floor of this Chamber debating an amendment that is nearly identical to one that failed 2 months ago. The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 90 days of enactment, leaving a smaller force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. And the Senate faces, once again-- faces again--a simple choice: whether to build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission or to ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue. Many Senators wished to postpone this choice, preferring to await the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Last week, these two career officers reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Knowing what we now know--that our military is making progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--a measure of courage is required, not the great courage exhibited by those brave men and women fighting on our behalf but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put America's interests before every personal or political consideration. It is important that as we proceed with consideration of this amendment, we 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 demonstrable signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 2 months, and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making significant gains in a number of areas. General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both Houses and in countless interviews. The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, LT GEN Ray Odierno, said today the 7-month-old security operation has reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, car bombings and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments are echoed by LT GEN Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander who said that before the surge began, one-third of Baghdad's 507 districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said: ``Only 5 to 6 districts can be called hot areas.'' Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar, Diyala or Baghdad can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen, and bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit. None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe or that violence has come down to acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence is still too high and there are many unsafe areas. Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention last week that American and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress under their new strategy. It is instructive to reflect on how far some areas have come. One year ago, in September of 2006--1 year ago, September 2006--The Washington Post ran a story titled: ``Situation Called Dire in West Iraq; Anbar is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says.'' After an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned al-Qaida fighters out of Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar, the province's tribal sheiks, disgusted by the brutality and blatant disregard for human life exhibited by their aggressors, broke formally with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. As a result, Anbar, which last year stood as Iraq's most dangerous province, is now one of its safest. By the way, many critics of the war say that change would have happened without the surge. That is patently false. The fact is, when the sheiks decided to come over to our side, a brave colonel named MacFarland immediately sent 4,000 marines to protect them, and General Petraeus has testified that if they hadn't had those troops, then we probably would not have seen Anbar in the condition that it is in today. I asked General Petraeus, and he said the following: The success in Anbar Province, correctly, is a political success-- By the way, something we all seek---- But it is a political success that has been enabled, very much, by our forces who have been enabled by having additional forces in Anbar Province. Ambassador Crocker added: Such scenes are also unfolding in parts of Diyala and Ninewa, where Iraqis have immobilized with the help of Coalition and Iraqi security forces. So as we all know, without military security, there is no political progress, and that political progress is only enabled by the substantial military presence that was provided by the surge. As in Anbar and elsewhere, where local populations have turned on al- Qaida's brutal methods, there are reports of Shia extremists encountering a similar reception. Recent attacks by the Mahdi Army on worshipers in the holy city of Karbala prompted a public backlash that led Muqtada al-Sadr to order a suspension of all military actions by his followers against Iraqi and coalition forces. In Baghdad, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to man joint security stations and deploy throughout the city in order to bring violence under control. These efforts have produced positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen since the beginning of the year. The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined, and the number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen. None of this is to suggest the road in Iraq remains anything but long and hard. Violence remains at unacceptable levels, the Maliki Government remains paralyzed and unwilling to function as it must, and other difficulties abound. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the 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's make no mistakes about the costs of such an American failure in Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that should the amendment 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. That is not just my view but that of General Jones and others, in many more desperate fights to protect our security and add an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, 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-Qaida-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver, a marked increase in violence, and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; an exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran. Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope 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. No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Earlier this month, GEN Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee on the effects of such a course. The supporters of this amendment respond 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 counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say this approach will not succeed and that moving in with search-and-destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed Rumsfeld strategy of the past nearly 4 years. We should not and must not return to such a disastrous course. It has become clear by now that we cannot set a date for withdrawal without setting a date for surrender. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safe havens, 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 any of my colleagues remain unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them to the recent remarks of the Iranian President who said: The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap. 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 a wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safe havens. The hour is indeed late in Iraq. How we have arrived at this critical and desperate moment has been well chronicled, and history's judgment about the long catalog of mistakes in the prosecution of this war will be stern and unforgiving. But history will revere the honor and sacrifice of those Americans who, despite the mistakes and failures of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked everything so the country they love so well might not suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat. That is what General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command are trying to do--to fight smarter and better in a way that addresses and doesn't strengthen the tactics of the enemy and to give the Iraqis the security and opportunity to make the necessary political decisions to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve. We must remain steadfast in this new mission, for we do not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, we fight for ours as well. In this moment of serious peril for America, we must all of us remember to whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. This is the same amendment that was rejected 2 months ago. In the intervening 2 months, our opposition to this amendment has been validated by the progress on the ground of the military strategy which General Petraeus designed and our brave young Americans who are serving have implemented. So we are here 2 months later with tangible success on the ground and addressing the same amendment. The effect of this amendment would return us to the failed strategy of nearly 4 years ago. If there was any doubt the last time in anybody's mind about whether we should go back to that failed strategy of the past or we should continue with this successful strategy, I think the events of the last 2 months, since we rejected this amendment the last time, should convince the objective observers. So I hope my colleagues will understand this debate and this amendment is very important, and it is very important to the security of the United States of America, the region. We must never forget that if we fail--if we fail--Americans will be called back sooner or later and called upon to make greater service and sacrifice. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are about to have a vote. I again thank my friend from Wisconsin for the level of this debate. My only comment and conclusion is that I urge my colleagues to reject an amendment that basically returns the failed strategy we had for nearly 4 years. I keep hearing, as I did from the majority leader, it is time to change course, time to change course. Well, we did change course, thank God; that new course has been succeeding. Do we have a long, hard struggle ahead? Of course we do. After a few months of the new strategy--and I recognize the other challenges, such as the political one and the Maliki Government and the police. But I am convinced the new strategy can succeed and the consequences of failure, as outlined by people who were opponents for the war in Iraq initially--this course of action, going back to the old failed strategy would lead to chaos, destruction, deterioration, and an eventual return on the part of American military people with further service and sacrifice. I again thank my friend from Wisconsin for his level of debate. I respect very much his commitment to the security of this Nation. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues--and I again thank the chairman, Senator Levin. I think we have had an excellent degree of accommodation, with occasional differences of opinion. But I appreciate his leadership. I remind my colleagues this is the 12th day of debate on this bill. The total time of debate has been 69 hours. We still have not gotten to the body of the legislation. That is 12 days, 69 hours. I know this is called a ``deliberative'' body, but we are now reaching the limits of that description. So I hope all of our colleagues will work with us to dispose--hopefully today--of the Iraq- related amendments, and then we can close out the filing of amendments on the bill itself and, hopefully, have some kind of agreement to dispose of this legislation. Again, as we have pointed out several times, on this legislation is the Wounded Warrior legislation, for our veterans, a pay raise, and so many other important aspects of the legislation. We don't want us, for the first time in more than 46 years, not to pass this important bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin. I would prefer to be discussing other reform issues with him than this one, but this is an important amendment. As usual, the Senator from Wisconsin makes a passionate and persuasive case. Unfortunately, the pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 90 days of enactment and cut off funds for our troops in Iraq after June 30, 2008. One exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission or do we ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? That is the choice we must make, and though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, we have a greater responsibility, in my view, a duty to make decisions with the security of this great and good Nation foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long-anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding what we know now--that our military is making 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 beginning to show real results. We see today that after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq is showing demonstrable signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 2 months, and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making significant gains in a number of areas. General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both Houses and in countless interviews. The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, GEN Ray Odierno, said today--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article today by AP concerning General Odierno's comments saying ``that a seven-month old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate.''

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will not object. I wish to make it clear, according to the discussions the chairman and I had, the next amendment that would be offered would be the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, and this--we are not exactly sure when that happens, because we are not sure at what point we return to the Biden amendment. It could be possible, if we are not prepared to resume debate on the Biden amendment, we could begin debate on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. But, in any case, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would be scheduled for consideration depending on how it fits in with the Biden amendment. I hope I was not confusing in that comment.