[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3793-S3822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 
                            2007--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk an updated version of an 
amendment I filed earlier today to H.R. 1591.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to cooperate with my friend and 
colleague. If the Senator would give us a few moments to go over that 
for the leadership to work that out. I do not do it as a matter of 
personal privilege but as speaking for our leader on this side. So if 
the Senator would withhold for a half an hour or so.
  I would have to object to it. I do not personally object to it. I 
object for the leadership until it has an opportunity to examine the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I raise a question. Will the 
distinguished Senator be able to respond that I have submitted the 
amendment, in other words, that I would not have to reappear to 
resubmit the amendment at that time or is the Senator in a position to 
give us that assurance?
  Mr. President, I have already submitted the amendment, and I am 
submitting an updated version of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is the Senator trying to perfect his own 
amendment?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, and I am attempting to file the amendment. It was 
requested I appear in person to do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator is requesting to alter his 
amendment, I have no objection to him doing so.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 680

 (Purpose: To provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, amendment No. 680 is at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside and the clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Enzi, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 680.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Members, as they 
remember, we passed the substance of this legislation, I believe, 97 to 
3. That is what is effectively the substance of this legislation. The 
House of Representatives has passed its own minimum wage. Because of 
the parliamentary complexities, we were unable to get this issue 
resolved. The House has included a minimum wage provision in their 
proposal.
  We offer this proposal, which is an expression of the Senate. It has 
broad bipartisan support--Republican and Democrat. This will mean both 
pieces of legislation--the supplemental--will have the minimum wage, 
and then the conferees will be able to make their judgment. But out of 
it will come an increase in the minimum wage. So it is in that spirit. 
I am delighted to debate the minimum wage, but I think we had a good 
debate. We had, I think, close to 7 days' debate on it in the last few 
weeks, so I do not think that is necessary.
  That is the current situation. That is the reason that legislation is 
pending at this time. I very much appreciate the cooperation of the 
floor managers in letting us get this at least up before the Senate at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment--is the distinguished Senator from North Carolina 
intending to manage this legislation?
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is not 
intending to manage this side. Our manager is not here right now. I 
would ask the Senator from Oregon if he would withhold setting the 
current amendment aside. If he wishes to talk on an amendment, feel 
free to, but at this time I would have to object to setting aside the 
pending amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would be happy to do that.


                           Amendment No. 709

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bipartisan 
amendment I will be offering as soon as we have a manager on the other 
side to conduct business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer a bipartisan 
amendment to address the great needs of rural communities across this 
country. It is an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, the 
distinguished Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee; my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith; Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator 
Domenici, and a large additional group of Senators of both political 
parties who wish to see reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act which is also known as the County 
Payments Program.

  Mr. President and colleagues, without this amendment, there is a very 
real prospect small counties in the rural West are going to fall into 
the Pacific Ocean. These small counties are now standing on the abyss 
because without county payments funding, they simply are not going to 
be able to pay for critical services such as law enforcement and rural 
education.
  In Oregon, the sheriff of Grants Pass told me without county payments 
funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public 
safety. The county commissioners of Curry County report that without 
county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their 
county altogether. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect 
of losing county payments funds, have already released prisoners from 
their jails. Local communities in many other States face similar 
hardships.
  Some Senators may not yet be fully aware of what the county payments 
law is about, so I am going to give a brief explanation of how the 
program has come to be.
  County payments are not welfare, but they are a more than 100-year-
old Federal obligation that goes back to the creation of the Federal 
forest system. The deal was if Federal policy prevented local 
communities from maximizing their revenues from their forests, the 
Federal Government would provide a partial payment to these local 
communities so they could pay for essential services such as law 
enforcement and schools.
  As environmental values changed in the 1990s, and these payments grew 
even smaller, Senator Craig of Idaho and I wrote the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That law compensated 
these rural communities for part of what they needed to pay for 
essential services. The act has worked extraordinarily well and expired 
at the end of last year.
  In this amendment, our large bipartisan coalition--and I read only a 
number of the Senators from both political parties who are sponsoring 
this amendment--our large group seeks to put in place a new updated 
lifeline to small rural counties. County payments would be extended for 
5 years and a new formula put in place to provide greater funding to 
more than 80 percent of the counties in our country. The formula is 
based on the current funding formula for county payments and the 
acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management 
lands, along with a mechanism to focus support on those communities 
where there is greatest economic need.
  In addition to the County Payments Program, this amendment also 
assists States with a similar program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
Program. This is a program which compensates States for the loss of tax 
revenue from

[[Page S3794]]

Federal lands in their State. For the first time in modern history, 
this program will receive full funding, and it will result in 
additional support for each county with Federal land.
  I note at this time, particularly, the exceptional work done by the 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, with 
Senator Bingaman and so many of our colleagues of both political 
parties, has been involved in these efforts. As a result of those 
combined efforts, this amendment is paid for with all funding beyond 
2007 paid for by closing tax loopholes that have been identified by 
Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
  This bipartisan amendment is supported by a diverse coalition, 
including the National Association of Counties, many labor 
organizations, and education advocates across the country. I urge the 
Senate this afternoon to recognize the exceptional urgency of this 
situation and to support the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the 
County Payments Program and to strengthen the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
Program.
  Rural communities across this country have been hit with a wrecking 
ball. With the change in environmental values, we have seen many of 
them, as they look to diversify their economies, reach out and find new 
industries, yet they have still had great difficulty in paying for 
essential services.
  As they try to meet these challenges--and I am committed, as chairman 
of the Forestry Subcommittee, to work on finding new economic 
opportunities for these rural communities--the country should not turn 
its back on rural America as it looks to come up with vibrant, new 
economic prospects for the future.
  These laws--the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 
Act and the law that puts in place the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
Program--provide essential funding and will be a lifeline as these 
communities work to transition into additional areas that make sense 
for resource-based economies.
  Today, these small communities are asking the Senate to help them 
from falling into the abyss. The blow to rural communities, if they 
lose county payments, will be a crippling blow that, in my view, some 
rural counties simply will not be able to recover from.
  Mr. President and colleagues, let us remember rural America as we 
consider this legislation. I hope Senators of both political parties 
will join the very large block of Democratic and Republican Senators 
who offer this amendment today.
  Mr. President, we are waiting for a manager on the other side. A 
number of colleagues, particularly the Senator from Illinois, has been 
very gracious and very patient. I think what I wish to do is yield at 
this time. When a manager comes, we will resume deliberations.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois for his patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at this point 
we cannot set aside the pending amendment because we are waiting for a 
floor manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from 
Illinois, unanimous consent needs to be sought and granted in order to 
proceed while the Cochran amendment is pending.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, why don't I wait to find out whether it is 
possible for the Senator from Oregon to potentially call up his 
amendment. If not, then what I would like to do is speak on my 
amendment and find out when I can call up my amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has indicated he 
would speak very briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Illinois could speak for his 5 minutes, and with the floor manager 
coming on to the floor, that we could then turn to the county payments 
legislation after the Senator from Illinois has spoken for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak, 
if the Senator from Oregon is able to call up his amendment, I be able 
to call up my amendment as well thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 664

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, toward the end of World War II, Norman 
Rockwell created a cover for the Saturday Evening Post titled 
``Homecoming GI.'' It is a picture of a soldier returning from war. He 
has a duffle bag clutched in his left hand. He is looking up at the 
back of a brick building with laundry hanging from the back porch. A 
woman in an apron sees him with outstretched arms, and a young child 
races down the stairs. Everyone sees that soldier--the neighbors' kids, 
the man fixing the roof, faces from another window--and everyone 
welcomes that soldier who has come home from war.
  That is what our Nation did for the millions of servicemembers who 
returned from the Atlantic and the Pacific. We watched them come home 
in waves. Some were just as strong as their first day in battle; others 
limped. We saw them crowd Times Square. We saw them walk down Main 
Street and sit on stoops. My grandfather, who fought in Patton's army, 
would often speak about this time as America at its finest. That 
homecoming didn't just happen; we were ready for it.
  Long before the beaches of Normandy were stormed and the last battle 
was fought, in 1943 President Roosevelt said:

       Among many other things, we are, today, laying plans for 
     the return to civilian life of our gallant men and women in 
     the armed services. They must not be demobilized into an 
     environment of inflation and unemployment, to a place on a 
     bread line, or on a corner selling apples. We must, this 
     time, have plans ready instead of waiting to do a hasty, 
     inefficient, and ill-considered job at the last moment.

  These are the words of wisdom that we ignore at our peril.
  Today we have more than 631,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan 
and other parts of the global war on terror. According to a recent VA 
health care report, one-third--more than 205,000--have sought treatment 
at VA health facilities.
  Even if the war in Iraq comes to an end soon--and I hope the Senate 
takes action this week to accomplish that goal--the war will live on 
with our servicemembers and their families for the rest of our lives.
  Unfortunately, over the past month, we have all seen the disturbing 
pictures of neglect at Walter Reed. We have read about bats and 
bureaucratic redtape at the VA. We have seen too many stories about our 
veterans who have been forgotten--not greeted by the Nation that asked 
them to serve. The time has come for us to see this generation of 
veterans in all their valor and pain. We should provide them with a 
plan that is worthy of their courage and will help build back the 
military they love.
  That is what Senator McCaskill and I are trying to do with the 
amendment we offer today.
  First, we provide an additional $41 million to hire more caseworkers 
to assist servicemembers navigating the military's bureaucracy. The 
last thing a wounded servicemember should have to face when they return 
home is a front line of paperwork and delay. Right now, the caseworker-
to-service-member ratio at Walter Reed is 1 to 50. Caseworkers help 
recovering soldiers schedule appointments, take care of their everyday 
needs, and fill out paperwork. Military caseworkers are overwhelmed. I 
understand the Army is reducing the caseworker-to-service-member ratio 
to 1 to 17, and I applaud this move. Our amendment would help the 
military achieve this goal at all military hospitals.
  Our amendment also provides $30 million for the Armed Forces to 
create an Internet-based system for servicemembers to submit their 
paperwork electronically. No longer will amputees and servicemembers in 
wheelchairs have to go to countless offices to fill out duplicative 
forms only to learn that the forms have been lost in Government 
bureaucracy.
  We also need to do more to increase the number of mental health 
crisis counselors available to assist recovering servicemembers and 
their families. Too many servicemembers are returning home with unmet 
mental health needs--stresses that are often experienced by their 
family members.

[[Page S3795]]

That is why our amendment provides $17 million for more mental health 
crisis counselors.
  While we all praise how our country treated the servicemembers 
returning from World War II, we must remember the lessons after 
Vietnam. The landmark National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study was 
congressionally mandated in 1983, 15 years after the height of that 
war. The completed report showed the vast majority of Vietnam veterans 
had successfully acclimated to postwar life.
  We can't wait 15 years to plan and prepare for the readjustment needs 
of the servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The average 
age of a servicemember deployed since September 11 is 27. The average 
age of our Guard and Reserves is 33. Sixty percent of those deployed 
have family responsibilities, and 47 percent of those who have died 
have left families. Mr. President, 160,000 women have been deployed, 
and 10 percent of those women are single mothers. These men and women 
are going to face real challenges in readjusting to normal life.

  Our amendment would provide for a study by the National Academy of 
Sciences of the mental health and readjustment needs of returning 
servicemembers. This study will assist the Department of Defense, the 
Veterans' Administration, and Congress in planning for the long-term 
needs of our veterans.
  Last week I met a woman at Walter Reed. She is one of the 160,000 
women who have been deployed, and she suffers from post-traumatic 
stress disorder. Most of us associate PTSD with men in combat, but many 
of the women in theater face firsthand dangers in their combat support 
roles. Driving a truck in Baghdad is one of the most dangerous missions 
around, and it is considered a support role. Women are witnessing the 
horrors of improvised explosive devices and the horrors of losing 
fellow servicemembers, and too many are experiencing the trauma of 
sexual harassment or abuse.
  This young woman was very scared, and she trembled as we spoke. I 
asked her what we could do to help. She said that she could not handle 
group therapy sessions; she could only tolerate one-on-one sessions 
with counselors. Her experience is shared by many women. Treatment for 
women with PTSD, especially sexual abuse victims, is very different 
from treatment for men.
  That is why as part of our amendment we want to provide $15 million 
to address the unique mental health needs of women. This funding will 
ensure the development and implementation of a women's treatment 
program for mental health conditions, including PTSD. It will also 
include the hiring and training of sexual abuse counselors so that the 
servicemembers who suffer from this trauma do not have to suffer in 
silence. We can do this for the woman I met at Walter Reed and the 
thousands who suffer like her.
  The total cost of our amendment is $103 million--less than one-tenth 
of 1 percent of the total cost of this bill. This is the least we can 
do for our servicemembers recovering at Walter Reed and other military 
hospitals.
  I am proud that Veterans For America has endorsed our amendment, and 
I ask unanimous consent that their letter of endorsement be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Veterans For America,

                                                   March 27, 2007.
       Dear Senator Obama: Veterans for America commends you for 
     fighting to ensure that the service-related needs are met of 
     the one and a half million men and women who have been 
     deployed in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We commend you 
     for fighting to enact an amendment--based primarily on the 
     provisions of the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act (S. 713)--
     to the current emergency supplemental appropriations bill (S. 
     965).
       This is the most important piece of legislation offered 
     since the start of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       Today's military is drastically different from any other we 
     have ever sent to war. Too many of our troops are returning 
     to a system that completely ignores their most urgent 
     service-related health and readjustment needs.
       One fact is quite striking: of the tens of billions of 
     dollars spent to meet the needs of America's veterans, less 
     than one percent is spent on this generation.
       We waited almost 15 years after the end of the Vietnam War 
     to examine the specific needs of my generation through the 
     National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study. We fought hard 
     for this study, and while we waited for its completion, tens 
     of thousands of lives were shattered.
       We cannot wait that long this time. The study included in 
     your amendment will prevent us from failing thousands upon 
     thousands of our service members and veterans. We must stop 
     throwing money at a broken system that does not address the 
     most urgent unmet needs of today's service members and 
     veterans.
       I also want to commend your efforts to recognize the 
     challenges faced by women service members and veterans. The 
     needs of women troops are being effectively ignored. This is 
     a national disgrace.
       Again, you have my sincere thanks and the thanks of 
     millions of others who have proudly served our country.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Bobby Muller,

                                                        President.

  Mr. OBAMA. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
amendment. At this point I turn the floor back to the Senator from 
Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and I ask, if the floor managers are prepared, that 
I be able to call up this amendment after the Senator from Oregon does 
so with his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to 
the Obama amendment and then go back to regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I apologize. I should have allowed----
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just clarify for all of us, 
could you tell us what the current unanimous consent agreement has in 
it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment before the Senate is the 
Cochran amendment. The Senator from Illinois had asked unanimous 
consent to address the Senate for 5 minutes, and then when he 
completed, to yield back to Senator Wyden to continue to discuss his 
amendment. There was no objection. Further, after the Wyden amendment 
was brought up, the next amendment to be offered would be that of the 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. There was no objection.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Missouri 
is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 664

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment that will be offered by Senator Obama. Our amendment takes 
part of the legislation we have introduced, the Dignity for the Wounded 
Warriors Act, and moves it to the front of the line.
  The question which has to be asked is, Why? Why is it important that 
this go into this bill at this time? There is a lot of talk about what 
should and shouldn't go into the supplemental. I think it is important 
we realize if we don't act immediately to begin to take the kind of 
care of our wounded they need to have, that they should have, that we 
are morally bound to give them, then we shouldn't be passing any more 
supplemental funding for any more activities in this war.
  It is of primary importance to us that we take care of the men and 
women who have been wounded, who have given more than most Americans 
will ever give as it relates to this conflict in the Middle East.
  I have to say, if you step back and look at this problem, it is not 
just the active military hospitals that this amendment deals with, but 
it is the entire system of medical care for our wounded and for our 
veterans.
  I was struck last week when a report came out on all the veterans 
facilities around the country. This was an internal report done by the 
Veterans' Administration but contained in that report was a startling 
revelation. In that report they found there was a bat infestation in a 
veterans hospital in the State of the Senator from Oregon.
  Now, one would think that if you found a bat infestation in a 
hospital alarms would go off, lights would signal, and the head of that 
hospital would step up and say: I failed. Oh, no. The head of that 
hospital said the bats had been helpful to the insect population. 
Understand that with this particular species of bat, there is more 
bacteria contained in an ounce of the droppings from this animal than 
any other species of bat. Microbiologists

[[Page S3796]]

yearn to study these droppings because of all of the bacteria that is 
contained in them.
  Something is terribly wrong when we have a veterans hospital in this 
country that is putting up with an infestation of bats, and if we don't 
have it in us to fix this medical facility and all others like it in 
this country, then shame on us. Shame on our Nation that we can't do 
what we must do to take care of those who have taken care of us.
  All the rhetoric about ``support the troops''--forget about it if we 
can't do basic medical care for those who are coming home who are 
wounded. We specifically deal with that in our amendment, with the 
additional funds in this supplemental that we have added to the 
President's budget to care for our veterans and veterans facilities.
  There is no job we have here that is more important. I hope my 
colleagues will support this amendment and the addition of about $1.7 
billion in funding to the supplemental for veterans care. They are both 
important. They are both moral imperatives. It is time we make that 
phrase--``support our troops''--more than a political phrase.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon, or to go back to 
regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I call up my bipartisan amendment on county 
payments and the payment in lieu of taxes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
intend to object but for the purpose of asking if there would be any 
objection to my offering an amendment on behalf of the Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and then yielding to the Senator. We wouldn't have 
any debate, but we would just offer this amendment so it would be 
pending in the regular order.
  Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to proceed, but I recognize the manager 
on our side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just clarify, is it amendment 
No. 690?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is amendment No. 690.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Then we would not object.


                           Amendment No. 690

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Lugar, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 690.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 690

(Purpose: To provide that, of the funds appropriated by this Act under 
   the headings ``diplomatic and consular programs'' and ``Economic 
    Support Fund'' (except for the Community Action Program), up to 
 $50,000,000 may be made available to support and maintain a civilian 
                             reserve corps)

       On page 56, after line 18, insert the following:


                         CIVILIAN RESERVE CORPS

       Sec. 1713. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     headings ``diplomatic and consular programs'' and ``Economic 
     Support Fund'' (except for the Community Action Program), up 
     to $50,000,000 may be made available to support and maintain 
     a civilian reserve corps. Funds made available under this 
     section shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 709

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and to call up our bipartisan amendment on County 
Payments and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Mr. Reid, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Smith, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
     Tester, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bennett, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 709.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a great many Senators of both political 
parties have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation: the 
distinguished Senate majority leader; the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus; chairman of the Energy Committee, 
Senator Bingaman; Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Stevens, Bennett, 
Cantwell, Boxer, Murray, Crapo, Tester, and Murkowski. A great many 
Senators have agreed to be cosponsors.
  My understanding is that, perhaps, in a few minutes the Senate is 
going to be given a choice of two approaches on how to deal with this 
issue: the approach that I and a large bipartisan group of Senators are 
offering this afternoon or an approach that will be offered by the 
distinguished Senator from North Carolina, our colleague, Senator Burr, 
which, in my view, is very restrictive and, unfortunately, it is not in 
line with what Senator Craig and I sought to do on a bipartisan basis 
back in 2000.
  Our law that was enacted at that time was called the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, as I 
understand it, the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from 
North Carolina would, for example, make it very difficult for local law 
enforcement to get some of these essential dollars that have been 
absolutely critical to public safety for all these years.
  My view is that, under our bipartisan proposal, local law enforcement 
would have at least a fair measure of the resources they need to fight 
methamphetamine in local communities across the country. Our colleague 
from North Carolina, in his approach, would not make that possible.
  So I hope that, as colleagues consider this debate, they will vote in 
favor of the amendment I offer this afternoon, on behalf of the large 
group of Senators of both political parties who have been intimately 
involved in this program for many years.
  Our amendment is fully paid for through the good work of the chairman 
of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope our colleagues will vote 
for our amendment and will reject the amendment of the Senator from 
North Carolina, which is much more restrictive and, unfortunately, 
forgets the second part of the legislation that is so vital to rural 
communities and that is law enforcement and roads and other essential 
services.
  I had a chance to speak on this earlier, so I will be brief. Other 
colleagues would like to speak as well. The reality in rural America 
and the rural West is that communities are about to fall off a 
financial cliff.
  They are going to lose these essential funds that have been part of a 
Federal obligation for more than a hundred years. It is not a welfare 
program. It is not some kind of a handout that goes to rural 
communities in the West. These are communities where the Federal 
Government owns most of the land. The local community is not allowed to 
maximize its revenues on those lands because the Federal Government has 
essentially said we are not going to treat them as private property, 
where you generate a sale and revenue and you pay for essential 
services.
  So the Federal Government entered into an agreement more than a 
hundred years ago to provide compensation to those local communities 
where the Federal Government owned most of the land. What our 
bipartisan group wants to do is update and modernize that obligation 
that was incurred more than a hundred years ago when the Federal forest 
system was established.
  Our amendment would resolve the budget crisis that is confronting 
rural communities by fully funding the County Payments Program for 
2007, and then we set in place a formula that was negotiated for many 
months through a large group of Senators.
  I have the chart indicating the new formula that has been put into 
place. It makes it very clear that Senators understand this program, 
because of the

[[Page S3797]]

will of this body, ought to be modernized. That is what we have done. 
But in addition to that effort, we have made sure the Payment in Lieu 
of Taxes Program, which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue 
from Federal lands in that State, would receive support as well. And 
every county in our country with Federal land would benefit from this 
particular program. The emergency funding is what gets us over the 
first year of the program; it is a 5-year program. Senator Baucus has 
been willing because he feels strongly about making sure when the 
Federal Government steps in and goes to bat for rural communities, that 
it will be fully paid for. On the Senate Finance Committee, because of 
Chairman Baucus's leadership, we are going to raise those funds by 
closing tax loopholes.
  I know my friend from North Carolina is going so speak in a moment. I 
wish to note, again, a number of colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who are supporting this: Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Crapo, 
Stevens, Bennett, and Murkowski. They have all said that this amendment 
is the way to go if you want to stand up for rural communities. But if 
you want to make a break with 100 years' worth of history and not even 
give rural communities the opportunity to get support, as they 
historically have, for local law enforcement, then Senators can vote 
for the amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator 
Burr. I hope my colleagues will not do that.

  We are going to have two votes. One will be on the amendment I 
offered with that large bipartisan group of Senators I listed. I hope 
Senators will vote in favor of that amendment.
  There will be another amendment offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina. For the reasons I have described this afternoon, I hope 
Senators will vote against that. Keep in mind that under the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Carolina, if you have people who are 
concerned about local law enforcement they are not, under the amendment 
of the Senator from North Carolina, going to be able to get support as 
it relates to law enforcement--the needed support to fight meth and to 
be able to protect public safety in their communities. That is why the 
large coalition I have described this afternoon is in favor of what I 
am proposing.
  The Senator from North Carolina has come to the floor. I have 
enormous respect for him. He is going to be the ranking member on the 
subcommittee. We don't happen to see eye to eye on this issue. I point 
out that the predecessor of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator 
Craig, is a cosponsor of this amendment. He remembers the history from 
back in 2000, when we came together. It is my intent to allow the 
Senator from North Carolina time to offer his amendment as well, and 
then at that time I would like to respond to what the distinguished 
Senator from North Carolina said about his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, is it possible for the Senator from Oregon 
to yield to me briefly so I could call up an amendment? I will call it 
up, would not discuss it and it can then be set aside and we can 
immediately go to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 664

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 664.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama], for himself, Mrs. 
     McCaskill, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Cantwell, 
     Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
     Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 664.

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

 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $58,000,000 for Defense Health 
    program for additional mental health and related personnel, an 
 additional $10,000,000 for operation and maintenance for each of the 
 military departments for improved physical disability evaluations of 
members of the Armed Forces, and an additional $15,000,000 for Defense 
           Health Program for women's mental health services)

       At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 1316. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FOR 
                   ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED PERSONNEL.

       The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     chapter under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' is 
     hereby increased by $58,000,000, with the amount of the 
     increase to be available for additional caseworkers at 
     military medical treatment facilities and other military 
     facilities housing patients to participate in, enhance, and 
     assist the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) 
     process, and for additional mental health and mental crisis 
     counselors at military medical treatment facilities and other 
     military facilities housing patients for services for members 
     of the Armed Forces and their families.

     SEC. 1317. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 
                   FOR THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS FOR IMPROVED 
                   PHYSICAL DISABILITY EVALUATIONS OF MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Additional Amount for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army.--The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this chapter under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'' is hereby increased by $10,000,000, with the amount of 
     the increase to be available in accordance with subsection 
     (d).
       (b) Additional Amounts for Operation and Maintenance for 
     Department of the Navy.--The aggregate amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this chapter under the headings 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' and ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Marine Corps'' is hereby increased by 
     $10,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available 
     in accordance with subsection (d).
       (c) Additional Amount for Operation and Maintenance, Air 
     Force.--The amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this _chapter under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' is hereby increased by $10,000,000, 
     with the amount of the increase to be available in accordance 
     with subsection (d).
       (d) Internet Access to Physical Disability Evaluations of 
     Members of the Armed Forces.--
       (1) In general.--Each Secretary of a military department 
     shall, utilizing amounts appropriated by the applicable 
     subsection of this section, develop and implement an Internet 
     website to permit members of the Armed Forces who are subject 
     to the Physical Disability Evaluation system of such military 
     department to participate in such system through the 
     Internet.
       (2) Elements.--Each Internet website under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) The availability of any forms required for the 
     utilization of the physical disability evaluation system 
     concerned by members of the Armed Forces who are subject to 
     such system.
       (B) Secure mechanisms for the submission of forms described 
     in subparagraph (A) by members of the Armed Forces described 
     in that subparagraph, and for the tracking by such members of 
     the acceptance and review of any forms so submitted.
       (C) Secure mechanisms for advising members of the Armed 
     Forces described in subparagraph (A) of any additional 
     information, forms, or other items that are required for the 
     acceptance and review of any forms so submitted.
       (D) The continuous availability of assistance for members 
     of the Armed Forces described in subparagraph (A), including 
     assistance through the caseworkers assigned to such members, 
     in submitting and tracking forms, including assistance in 
     obtaining information, forms, or other items described by 
     subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 1318. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FOR 
                   WOMEN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

       The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     chapter under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' is 
     hereby increased by $15,000,000, with the amount of the 
     increase to be available for the development and 
     implementation of a women's mental health treatment program 
     for women members of the Armed Forces to help screen and 
     treat women members of the Armed Forces, including services 
     and treatment for women who have experienced post-traumatic 
     stress disorder and services and treatment for women who have 
     experienced sexual assault or abuse, which services shall 
     include the hiring and training of sexual abuse crisis 
     counselors for members of the Armed Forces who have 
     experienced sexual abuse or assault.

     SEC. 1319. STUDY ON MENTAL HEALTH AND READJUSTMENT NEEDS OF 
                   MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   WHO DEPLOYED IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND 
                   OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

       (a) In General.--Using amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this chapter under the heading ``Defense 
     Health Program'', the Secretary of Defense shall, in

[[Page S3798]]

     consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, enter 
     into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for a 
     study on the mental health and readjustment needs of members 
     and former members of the Armed Forces who deployed in 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and 
     their families as a result of such deployment.
       (b) Phases.--The study required under subsection (a) shall 
     consist of two phases:
       (1) A preliminary phase, to be completed not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to 
     determine the parameters of the final phase of the study 
     under paragraph (2).
       (2) A second phase, to be completed not later than two 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, to carry 
     out a comprehensive assessment, in accordance with the 
     parameters identified under paragraph (1), of the mental 
     health and readjustment needs of members and former members 
     of the Armed Forces who deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
     or Operation Enduring Freedom and their families as a result 
     of such deployment.
       (c) Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress, and make available to the public, a comprehensive 
     report on each phase of the study required under subsection 
     (a) not later than 30 days after the date of the completion 
     of such phase of the study.

  Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Casey, Baucus, and 
Durbin be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending 
amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 709

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to resume 
consideration of the Wyden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I have deep respect for my colleague, 
Senator Wyden. We worked together in the House. We will work together 
in the Senate. As he said, this is a small disagreement we have because 
I believe when you have a bill that says this money is going to be used 
for schools and communities, we should make a commitment that this 
money in fact does go to our Nation's schools. Today, through my 
amendment, we have an opportunity to make an obligation to education.
  Seventy percent of our children in high school today graduate on 
time. In North Carolina it is 68 percent. That is 32 percent of 
students who don't graduate on time. We hear on the floor of this 
institution state all the time that there's a need to make a commitment 
to education. And I believe we need to make a commitment to it.
  I believe we need to make a commitment on this bill. This program was 
set to sunset this year. That means the Congress, in the past, set this 
program to expire, to go away; that the Federal Government had met its 
obligation. I don't disagree with the Senators from Oregon, Senator 
Wyden and Senator Smith, who have both been instrumental on this. North 
Carolina is a beneficiary. We have a tremendous amount of public land. 
I think it should continue. But at a time that we are required to 
prioritize where we make our investment, I believe we would help every 
community by saying 80 percent of the new money--not the money we were 
using up until this point but the almost $500 million of additional 
money per year we are going to pump into this program, all new money, 
that 80 percent of it ought to be used for our schools. It ought to be 
used for public education and ought to be there to support school 
construction, K through 12, No Child Left Behind. It ought to focus on 
high school graduation.
  We should take America's high school children from 70 percent 
graduation and drive it to 100 percent graduation. I heard the argument 
this was about economic development, about communities, about law 
enforcement. If you solve education, you lessen the need for law 
enforcement. The reason we need so many cops on the beat today, that we 
need more schools, is because our children don't have the skills to 
compete in the job market. So, yes, we can add policemen and make all 
Federal dollars open for every community to decide how they use them, 
but let me assure you, if we don't educate our children, no matter how 
much money is pumped into those communities, they will have cancer in 
them.
  What am I doing? It is very simple. I am going to offer an amendment 
that requires 80 to 85 percent of the new dollars to be devoted solely 
to education. That way every community that is the beneficiary of this 
money--Oregon, with millions of dollars, and North Carolina, with the 
several million dollars it gets. It is not enough to solve the 
education problem, but it shows a commitment on our part to make sure 
we are willing to contribute the Federal dollars that are available to 
begin to address this cancer our kids have succumbed to.


                 Amendment No. 716 to Amendment No. 709

  At this time, Madam President, I send to the desk a second-degree 
amendment to the Wyden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes 
     amendment numbered 716 to amendment No. 709.

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

  (Purpose: To require that payments to eligible States and eligible 
               counties only be used for public schools)

       Beginning on page 13, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 17, line 18, and insert the following:
       ``(2) Expenditure purposes.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     payments received by a State under subsection (a) and 
     distributed to eligible counties shall be expended only for 
     public schools of the eligible county.
       ``(d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
       ``(1) Allocations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3)(B), 
     if an eligible county elects to receive its share of the 
     State payment or the county payment, not less than 80 
     percent, but not more than 85 percent, of the funds shall be 
     expended only for public schools of the eligible county.
       ``(B) Election as to use of balance.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), an eligible county shall elect to do 1 or 
     more of the following with the balance of any funds not 
     expended pursuant to subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) Reserve any portion of the balance for projects in 
     accordance with title II.
       ``(ii) Reserve not more than 7 percent of the total share 
     for the eligible county of the State payment or the county 
     payment for projects in accordance with title III.
       ``(iii) Return the portion of the balance not reserved 
     under clauses (i) and (ii) to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       ``(C) Counties with modest distributions.--In the case of 
     each eligible county to which more than $100,000, but less 
     than $350,000, is distributed for any fiscal year pursuant to 
     either or both of paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection 
     (a), the eligible county, with respect to the balance of any 
     funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) for that 
     fiscal year, shall--
       ``(i) reserve any portion of the balance for--

       ``(I) carrying out projects under title II;
       ``(II) carrying out projects under title III; or
       ``(III) a combination of the purposes described in 
     subclauses (I) and (II); or

       ``(ii) return the portion of the balance not reserved under 
     clause (i) to the Treasury of the United States.
       ``(2) Distribution of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Funds reserved by an eligible county 
     under subparagraph (B)(i) or (C)(i)(I) of paragraph (1) shall 
     be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the 
     United States.
       ``(B) Availability.--Amounts deposited under subparagraph 
     (A) shall--
       ``(i) be available for expenditure by the Secretary 
     concerned, without further appropriation; and
       ``(ii) remain available until expended in accordance with 
     title II.
       ``(3) Election.--
       ``(A) Notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--An eligible county shall notify the 
     Secretary concerned of an election by the eligible county 
     under this subsection not later than September 30 of each 
     fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Failure to elect.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), if the eligible county fails to make an 
     election by the date specified in clause (i), the eligible 
     county shall--

       ``(I) be considered to have elected to expend 85 percent of 
     the funds in accordance with paragraph (1)(A); and
       ``(II) return the balance to the Treasury of the United 
     States.

       ``(B) Counties with minor distributions.--In the case of 
     each eligible county to which less than $100,000 is 
     distributed for any fiscal

[[Page S3799]]

     year pursuant to either or both of paragraphs (1)(B) and 
     (2)(B) of subsection (a), the eligible county may elect to 
     expend all the funds for public schools in the eligible 
     county.

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, it is very simple. The question before us, 
whether it is a side-by-side we decide on or a second-degree amendment, 
is: Are we going to commit to using part of these Federal dollars that 
States deserve--because it is in many cases in lieu of Federal payments 
for a tax--are we going to commit those to local school systems to 
educate our children? That is the decision we will have.
  At the end of the day, I am going to support Wyden-Reid-Baucus-
Bingaman, and however many more people go on the chart before we 
actually have a vote, but before that vote we will have a decision as 
to whether we are going to make a commitment to education in this 
country, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona is here, but I wish to briefly respond to the comments of 
Senator Burr.
  When we do vote, again I would highlight that I hope Senators, on a 
bipartisan basis, for the amendment I am offering on behalf of the 
large group that includes Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator 
Craig, Senator Murkowski, and a great many Senators on the other side, 
virtually every Democrat, will reject the Burr amendment. Here is the 
difference, and it is striking.
  The Burr amendment, offered by our distinguished colleague from North 
Carolina, sets in place a Federal mandate. It is a one-size-fits-all 
approach that somehow we ought to decide here in Washington, DC what 
happens in these local communities. What I have decided, with our 
bipartisan coalition, is we ought to have an approach that gives local 
communities a lot of flexibility and a lot of freedom to design 
approaches that are tailor made to their area.
  I have mentioned law enforcement, for example, as one critical area a 
local community might want to support under the approach I offer with 
our bipartisan group but which cannot be offered under the approach of 
the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and there would be other 
examples as well.
  For example, if a community was concerned about its roads and was 
troubled about the prospect that their roads were dangerous, so that, 
for example, in the snowy seasons it would be treacherous for kids to 
get to school, under our amendment local communities would have the 
flexibility to support some of that upkeep for local roads. I have been 
told in communities such as Fossil, in my home State, they don't think 
they even have a roads program without the county payments legislation. 
So there are stark differences between the approach offered by the 
Senator from North Carolina and the bipartisan approach I am offering 
today with many of our colleagues.
  At the end of the day, the difference is the Senator from North 
Carolina is offering a Federal mandate which ties the hands of local 
communities and local school districts, and I gather is one of the 
reasons some educational advocates have already come out against the 
amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
  I hope our colleagues will support the approach we are advocating 
today which gives local communities real flexibility, ensures that the 
Federal Government is keeping its obligation--its more than 100-year 
obligation--to these rural communities, but updates it, as we have 
sought to do with this payment in lieu of taxes provision in our 
amendment and with the new formula--a formula, as the distinguished 
Senator from Washington, the manager of the legislation, mentioned was 
arrived at only through some very difficult negotiations with many 
Senators involved.
  So when Senators vote in a few minutes, I hope they will support the 
amendment I am offering today, with the large group of bipartisan 
sponsors, and reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina which, in my view, is a Federal mandate that greatly limits 
the ability to make the best use of these county payments dollars.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Wyden's amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
that would provide critical funding for a multiyear extension of the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and fully 
fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program.
  This amendment provides nearly $5 billion for rural schools, counties 
and communities through 2012--crucial to California's rural counties, 
which face a devastating loss in Federal funding.
  Last Thursday, March 22, my colleagues and I on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee approved the inclusion of $425 million in 
emergency appropriations to fund the Secure Rural Schools program for 1 
year in the emergency supplemental--helping to immediately address the 
pending budget crisis confronting over 700 counties in 39 States, 
including my State of California.
  This emergency funding adds $425 million to the $100 million 
available from the 25 percent of receipts that compensate counties for 
reductions in timber harvest on public lands.
  However, our counties should not have to rely on emergency funding 
year after year and be faced with such uncertainty.
  We must provide our rural counties with a stable funding stream so 
that they are not in the same dire situation next year and can plan for 
the future.
  This amendment, supported by the National Association of County 
Officials, the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, and the 
National Education Association, would maintain a safety net for 
counties while gliding down funding in a predictable manner so counties 
can fiscally prepare for the future.
  Specifically, this amendment would provide $2.8 billion in funding 
over 5 years for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools 
Program. It would also provide $1.9 billion to fund the Payment in Lieu 
of Taxes, PILT, Program for 5 years, from 2008 through 2012. This 
program compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal 
lands in the State. It would also provide funding beyond fiscal year 
2007 to be fully paid for by a combination of tax offsets.
  In addition, it would provide California, Oregon, and Washington with 
additional transition funding in the early years to minimize the 
effects of the overall decline of the total authorization level to $379 
million in 2011 under the Secure Rural Schools Program. The additional 
transition funding for these States--California, Oregon, and 
Washington--would also help counties with adjusting to the new funding 
formula under the Secure Rural Schools Program.
  The new funding formula would be based on the current formula of 
historical payments and the current acreage of U.S. Forest Service and 
eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with mechanism to focus 
support on those communities in greatest economic need.
  Under this amendment, California's counties would receive $283 
million in funding from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 from the 
Secure Rural Schools Program. Without this funding, mostly rural 
California counties would face sudden, catastrophic cuts. Counties in 
California would lose $57 million this year alone if the Secure Rural 
Schools Program is not extended.
  Last year, California's counties received $69 million to fund their 
schools and road and forest improvement projects from this program. The 
loss of these Federal funds would have a devastating impact on 
California's rural counties, resulting in school closures, teacher 
layoffs, and some schools could even face bankruptcy or State takeover. 
Furthermore, essential road and forest improvement projects would be 
jeopardized.
  For example, Trinity County received almost $8 million in funding, 
and all school districts in the county could be faced with bankruptcy 
and would have to eliminate the school curriculum, cut one full-time 
school nurse--leaving one nurse to cover the entire 4,000-square-mile 
county--and cut music and arts programs.
  Plumas County, which received $7.5 million, would have to lay off 
teachers--resulting in increased class sizes in grades K through 12--
eliminate all school librarians, and close school cafeterias.

[[Page S3800]]

  Lassen County received $4 million, and over half of the 10 school 
districts in the county would be faced with budget insolvency--
resulting in school libraries being closed, teacher layoffs, the 
elimination of school-based health services, and the reduction of 
teacher training and student textbooks.
  We simply cannot allow this to happen.
  It is critical that we provide immediate and long-term funding to our 
rural counties that depend on the Secure Rural Schools Program for 
their livelihood.
  This amendment would also fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, 
Program, providing $1.9 billion over 5 years.
  This means California would receive an estimated $11 million or more 
in additional dollars annually on top of the $21 million the State 
currently receives from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.
  In recognition of the reality that Federal lands pay no local 
property taxes, PILT compensates counties for the Federal lands within 
their borders. PILT compensation is especially important for rural 
counties with heavy concentrations of Federal lands that reduce their 
available tax base.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can ensure that 
our Nation's rural counties continue to receive much needed resources 
to serve their schools and communities.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the funding 
provided in the supplemental appropriations legislation for 
continuation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, and the 5-year reauthorization of the program 
through the Wyden amendment. Counties and school districts across this 
country are poised to cut much needed jobs and services without this 
continuation. Many of us have heard the urgent calls from constituents. 
The message has been clear--``Please help us.'' And, I'm proud to 
answer that call by supporting this reauthorization.
  For example, Idaho's Fremont County is one of the counties across the 
State and Nation that have been faced with a dire situation. Fremont 
County is looking at not only eliminating road and bridge services but 
also students would be impacted by a loss of nursing services for 
students, playground and safety equipment at elementary schools, 
library books, and continuing education instructions. Counties across 
Idaho face similar difficult emergency situations.
  Ideally, management of our forested land would generate the revenue 
necessary to assist with services in cash-strapped communities with 
large amounts of federally owned land. Unfortunately, that just hasn't 
been the case for some time. We must continue to work to remove 
impediments to forest health and productivity. However, in the 
meantime, Congress must commit the resources necessary to ensure that 
rural communities across this country do not have to forgo road 
maintenance, close libraries, and make cuts to children's education. 
Anything less is unacceptable.
  The legislation before us today would respond by fully funding PILT 
through 2012 reauthorizing Secure Rural Schools through 2011, 
reauthorizing the valuable Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, and 
phasing down the payments over time. I urge other Senators to join me 
in supporting this amendment that fulfills the responsibility to these 
communities that shoulder the local cost of the public lands we all 
enjoy.
  Thank you for the opportunity to share a few words.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for 
offering this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be 
allowed to speak for 3 minutes on the pending amendment, and that 
Senator McCain, who has been waiting, follow Senator Salazar with his 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my good friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I thank Senator Murray and 
Senator Wyden as well.
  I wish to make two quick points in support of the amendment Senator 
Wyden and our colleagues have brought to the Senate floor today.
  The reality of the West in America is so much of our lands are owned 
by the Federal Government. We have about a third of the entire State of 
Colorado--and it is a big State, but it is about a third of that 
State--that is owned by the Federal Government. In some of those 
counties in my State, 95 to 98 percent of the lands is owned by the 
Federal Government as well. So they have been dependent on payments in 
lieu of taxes in order for them to be able to pay the expenses of their 
government.
  Unfortunately, what has happened over many years in the past is there 
has not been the full funding of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. 
The consequence of that is some of these small rural counties in my 
State of Colorado have not had the financial wherewithal to be able to 
move forward with the functioning of their government. I am hopeful the 
bipartisan coalition Senator Wyden has put together will help us move 
forward in the full funding of the bill.
  Secondly, I wish to make a quick comment about the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I fully support 
that part of this legislation. I know the importance of funding for 
those rural school districts. The rural school district I grew up in 
would receive about one-half of the funding that is being spent in 
other school districts in the metropolitan areas. What this funding 
will do is help equalize the amount of funding we are putting into 
equal education opportunity for all people, so it doesn't matter 
whether you come from a wealthy urban area or you come from one of the 
poorest, most rural, remote areas, there will be that funding 
assistance so everyone in America has an equal educational opportunity.
  Madam President, I yield the floor again, thanking my colleagues and 
Senator McCain for yielding to me first.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which 
we will be voting on at 5 p.m. that would, according to, I believe, the 
unanimous consent agreement, strike the language in this bill calling 
for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. These same provisions 
were rejected by the Senate 2 weeks ago by a 48-to-50 vote. Now here we 
are debating the same provisions that have the same serious problems. I 
hope they will be rejected again by the same, if not a larger, margin. 
Supporters of this provision say they want a date certain for a U.S. 
withdrawal from Iraq, but what they have offered us is more accurately 
described as a date certain for surrender--a date certain for 
surrender--with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the 
stability of the Middle East, and the security of Americans at home and 
abroad. And they offer it just as the situation in Iraq, though still 
fraught with difficult challenges, is beginning to improve.
  The new developments argue for more effort in Iraq rather than the 
withdrawal advocated by this bill's sponsors. As my colleagues know, I 
have been critical of the conduct of this war since 2003, and I very 
much regret that only now, 4 years into the conflict, are we beginning 
to implement the kind of strategy that was necessary from the start: a 
traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protection of 
the population, economic development, and political progress, all with 
troop levels appropriate for the mission.
  We are seeing today the emergence of precisely such a strategy. I 
would emphasize this point: This new plan is not ``stay the course.'' 
We are not staying the course in Iraq and I would not support the 
status quo any more than I have over the past 4 years. Nor have we

[[Page S3801]]

merely deployed a new commander, however capable, and additional 
forces. America is engaged today in a fundamentally new strategy, a new 
approach to the war, an approach that is already showing encouraging 
signs that it might succeed.
  Until now, U.S. forces did not attempt to defeat the insurgency and 
the terrorists, protect the population, and end the violence so 
political and economic progress could occur. Most American troops spent 
their days on large forward-operating bases making forays out into 
hostile territory in which they were subject to ambush. Today, U.S. 
troops, along with Iraqi forces, are out of the FOBs and living in 
small outposts. Today, U.S. forces are operating throughout Baghdad, 
even in Shiite strongholds such as Sadr City, Sunni areas such as 
Mansoor, and mixed districts such as Rashid. As of March 15, 24 joint 
security stations were operational, with many more planned. American 
forces in these stations are visible every day, living among the 
population, building confidence that we--and not the terrorists--will 
prevail. Contrary to some predictions, this has not increased U.S. 
casualties. And, not surprisingly, our presence has resulted in a 
dramatic increase in actionable intelligence about terrorists.
  You might not know it from reading newspapers or watching the evening 
news, but in Iraq today there are real signs the new strategy is 
working. I wish to spend a few moments outlining some of this progress, 
not to paint an overly rosy scenario but, rather, to correct what has 
become an almost single-minded focus in the Congress on the prospects 
of defeat. The debate in Congress has an ``Alice in Wonderland'' 
quality about it: We are debating efforts to micromanage a conflict 
based on what the conditions were 3 months ago, not on what the reality 
is today. Conditions have changed in Iraq. The Baghdad security plan--
the ``surge''--is working far better than even the most optimistic 
supporter had predicted. The progress is tangible in many key areas 
despite the fact only 40 percent of the planned forces are in Iraq.
  Allow me to review some specifics.
  In Baghdad, the military has reported an increase in real-time, 
actionable intelligence provided to U.S. and Iraqi forces by a newly 
confident population. Prime Minister Maliki, who prevented U.S. troops 
from conducting certain Baghdad operations last year, has given the 
green light to American incursions throughout the city, including 
Shiite strongholds. All of the Iraqi army battalions called for under 
the plan have arrived, many at or above 75 percent of their programmed 
manning levels. Bomb attacks and murders are down since the surge 
began. Civilians killed in Baghdad numbered 1,222 in December, 954 in 
January, and fell to 494 in February. There are reports of Sunni and 
Shia moving back into neighborhoods from which they had fled constant 
and horrific violence. Markets that have been subject to horrific car 
bombings have been turned into pedestrian malls that facilitate 
commerce and thwart terrorists.
  Moqtada al-Sadr has fled, possibly to Iran, and has ordered his 
followers not to oppose the new Baghdad security plan. The Madhi army, 
purportedly dedicated to the expulsion of Americans from Iraq, does not 
today openly challenge either U.S. or Iraqi forces. American troops are 
engaged in reconstruction efforts in Saudi City, with the cooperation 
of the local mayor. In the western part of Baghdad, our troops are 
establishing new outposts in areas--these areas here--that have been 
conduits for al-Qaida in Iraq penetration into the capital city, and 
have begun to clear these areas of terrorists and insurgents. The net 
result of all of this is key Shiite leaders are now claiming the 
Baghdad security plan was their idea, and are taking credit for the 
increase in security--a development that would have been unthinkable 3 
months ago.
  There is progress outside Baghdad as well:
  Throughout Anbar Province, Sunni sheikhs have banded together to 
fight al-Qaida in Iraq, and are pouring recruits into the police 
forces. Sixteen of twenty-six tribes in that western province are now 
working against al-Qaida. With numerous senior al-Qaida leaders killed 
or captured, the younger, less experienced leaders are making mistakes, 
such as targeting respected sheikhs and murdering children, that have 
alienated Sunnis and their leaders.
  In the town of Ramadi, hundreds of Iraqi police last week conducted a 
major sweep. In the surrounding areas--all of these surrounding areas--
including Haditha and Hit, U.S. and Iraqis are conducting operations 
against al-Qaida and insurgents while protecting the population.
  In Diyala Province U.S. forces expelled al-Qaida forces from one of 
their major bases in January, seized major weapons caches, disrupted 
fighter networks, and cleared cities and villages of al-Qaida fighters. 
A U.S. Stryker battalion has reinforced Diyala and is conducting major 
operations against AQI forces seeking to reconstitute. At the same 
time, other U.S. forces in Diyala are acting against rogue Mahdi Army 
leaders in the province and are holding the Diyala and Tigris Rivers to 
combat re-infiltration into Baghdad.
  On the belt to the south of Baghdad, al-Qaida has come under heavy 
U.S. pressure in recent weeks, with American forces destroying car bomb 
factories and uncovering major weapons caches in areas such as 
Yusufiya, Latifiya, and Salman Pak.
  In Mosul, U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed and captured numerous al-
Qaida operatives since December.
  In Samarra, American and Iraqi troops have captured al-Qaida 
facilitators and north of the city, Salahuddin Province, American 
troops have moved off of their forward operating base and into the town 
of Bayji, an important hub on the road network.
  These developments, which have occurred just 1 month into the new 
strategy and with only a portion of the five additional U.S. brigades 
having yet deployed, suggest that, at long last, we have a strategy in 
Iraq that is succeeding. That is not to say that all is going well in 
Iraq; clearly, it is not. Violence continues, the Mahdi Army recently 
launched an attack in Basra, and one of Iraq's vice presidents was 
gravely wounded in a bomb attack. But we all know the negatives; we 
read about them every day and see them flash across our television 
screens hourly. The enemy knows how attention-getting car bombs are, 
and their strategy reflects this understanding.
  We must try to stop such events, and push the Iraqi Government to 
move forward with its reconciliation efforts and meet the benchmarks 
laid out by the President. What we cannot do, and, for the sake of 
America's vital national security interests, we must not do, is give up 
just at the moment we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.
  Yet in the face of this new reality, the proponents of the 
legislation offer one prescription for the future: withdrawal of U.S. 
forces. Despite the progress, despite the ongoing need for U.S. troops 
to stabilize Iraq and pave the way for a political solution, despite 
the moral burdens we have incurred as a result of our decision to 
topple Saddam Hussein, and, above all, despite the catastrophic 
consequences for vital U.S. interests that would follow a premature 
withdrawal from Iraq, the sponsors of this legislation would force 
precisely that.
  To those who believe that the best course is to withdraw, I ask: Can 
you explain to the American people precisely what you believe to be the 
consequences of this action? If we follow the timetable included in 
this bill--to withdraw troops whether or not we are succeeding or 
failing; regardless of whether the country is secured; irrespective of 
whether the Iraqis can manage their own affairs alone, or whether the 
forces of terror and chaos will triumph--if we follow this timetable we 
risk a catastrophe for American national security interests.
  Note that American national security interests are directly at stake. 
Not just Israeli interests, though Prime Minister Olmert has said that 
defeat in Iraq could be devastating for his country. Not just for our 
Arab friends and partners in the region, though they fear the 
consequences of massive humanitarian displacement, growing Iranian 
influence, and wider bloodshed. Not just for the Iraqis themselves, for 
whom genocide is a real prospect should sectarian violence spiral out 
of control. But for America. Success or failure in Iraq is the 
transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. 
People say they want to defeat the terrorists. But if we withdraw

[[Page S3802]]

from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.
  Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority 
would turn Iraq into a failed state, in the heart of the Middle East. 
We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once 
before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists 
found sanctuary to train and plan attacks--including attacks against 
America--with impunity. If we leave Iraq based on an artificial 
timetable, al-Qaida will be free to plan, train for and conduct 
operations from Iraq just as they did from Afghanistan. We cannot make 
this fatal mistake twice.
  If Iraq descends into chaos, the power vacuum there will invite 
further Iranian interference, at a time when Tehran already feels 
emboldened. Iraq's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Turkey, 
would feel their own security eroding, and may intervene on the side of 
particular factions. This uncertain swirl of events could spark 
regional war severely damaging to America's fundamental security 
interests. And we would then face a terrible choice: watch the region 
burn, watch the terrorists establish new bases, with profound 
implications for the safety of Americans and their economic well-being, 
or send troops back into Iraq once again.
  The proponents of withdrawal state that they envision no such 
catastrophe; they are not advocating a precipitous withdrawal but 
something more gradual, and they would leave American troops in place 
to focus on three limited objectives: protecting coalition personnel 
and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting 
targeted counter-terrorism operations. But if these three missions 
sound familiar, that's because they formed the centerpiece of the 
strategy that was failing up until the beginning of this year. They 
would forbid counterinsurgency operations, protection of the 
population, and the other elements of our new strategy that are 
directly responsible for the successes we have seen this year. This 
legislation is a plan for failure. But neither failure nor success is 
the objective of its sponsors. They wish to get out of Iraq, whatever 
the consequences for America. They conceive no failure as worse than 
remaining in Iraq and no success worthy of additional sacrifice. They 
are wrong, terribly, terribly wrong.
  These provisions draw a false distinction between terrorism and 
sectarian violence. Let us think about the implications of ordering 
American soldiers to target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment 
sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a 
terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the 
Mahdi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as 
terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a Shia village along the 
Diyala River, is that terrorism or sectarian violence? What about when 
an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED 
in the road? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute 
terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply 
intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction between 
terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally misunderstand al-
Qaida's strategy which is to incite sectarian violence. To say that 
targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian 
violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality, and would make 
it impossible to fight this war against terrorism, let alone prevail in 
it.
  Some Senators have taken a different tack, arguing that Iraq is still 
winnable but that, by withdrawing troops, we will actually maximize the 
chances of success. They concede that a withdrawal will encourage 
insurgents and terrorists to unleash greater violence on the Iraqi 
people, but believe that such violence might induce Iraqi politicians 
to make the political decisions necessary to end it. Could this 
possibly be true? Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually 
increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce 
a political solution rather than make it less possible? Is success in 
Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by 
stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?

  GEN David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not. Of course the 
dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is undeniably 
true. But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply 
conjured. It is impossible for meaningful political and economic 
activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as 
Baghdad has been. Security is the precondition for political and 
economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political 
progress all of us agree is necessary. In this regard, there are 
positive indications. Prime Minister Maliki went to Ramadi to reach out 
to Sunnis, and the Iraqi Government is pushing through a new de-
Baathification law. The oil revenue sharing law has been approved by 
the Council of Ministers and should be approved by parliament soon. 
Reports indicate that Iraqi officials are in discussions with a number 
of non-AQI Sunni insurgent groups, while fighting has broken out 
between AQI and Sunni insurgents.
  Reconciliation is not the inevitable outcome of the new strategy. On 
the contrary, there is no guarantee of success. What the situation 
demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us 
the best possible chance for success. This, I believe, is what the new 
plan represents.
  The provisions our amendment would strike would force redeployments 
of U.S. forces within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to 
leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. This does not incentivize the Government 
of Iraq to make tough decisions on reconciliation; it sets the stage 
for the Government's collapse. This arbitrary deadline informs our 
enemies when they need no longer fear American military power. It 
signals to the population that their best bet for security really does 
rest in the hands of militias, rather than the Government. It 
demonstrates to the Government that they cannot rely on us--after all, 
we are pulling out regardless of the situation or the consequences. And 
it tells the terrorists that they--not we--will prevail.
  All of us want to bring our troops home, and to do so as soon as 
possible. None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution 
authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until 
recently is sustainable. But there is a new situation, a new reality in 
Iraq. This amendment ignores that reality and ignores the consequences 
that would flow from its adoption. When Congress authorized this war, 
we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a 
country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans 
who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives 
to accomplish that mission. When we authorized this war, we accepted 
the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. When we voted to 
send them into battle we asked them to use every ounce of their courage 
and fortitude on behalf of us.

  This body unanimously confirmed General Petraeus. Why would we now 
deprive him of the opportunity to pursue the strategy he helped design 
and believes can work? Why would we hand our enemies a victory when we 
have finally taken the initiative and they are on the defensive? Let us 
give him and the soldiers he has the honor to command, Americans who 
are risking everything so that this new plan can succeed, the time 
necessary to achieve its objectives.
  And let us elected officials who have the honor of overseeing the 
conduct of our soldiers' mission in Iraq exercise a lesser magnitude of 
courage--our political courage on behalf of them and the country they 
serve. If any Senator believes that our troops' sacrifice is truly in 
vain, the dictates of conscience demand that he or she act to prevent 
it. Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree 
deeply with their position, and dread its consequences, have the 
courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it.
  If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S. 
troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission, provides the 
best chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to 
this new strategy. It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but 
we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the 
day in the interest of our Nation and the values upon which they rest.
  Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us. 
There

[[Page S3803]]

are no others. I wish there were. But here we are, confronting a 
political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the 
country's most vital security interests and the lives of the best 
Americans among us at stake. May God grant us the wisdom and humility 
to make this difficult judgment in our country's best interests only, 
and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences that 
will ensue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, under the previous unanimous consent 
agreement, at 3:45 we will return to the Cochran amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, proceed for 
up to 8 minutes and that the time remaining until 3:45 be allocated to 
the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 692

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 692.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Webb] proposed an amendment 
     numbered 692.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS 
                   IN IRAN.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act may be obligated or expended for military operations 
     or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or 
     within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a 
     specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute 
     enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall 
     not apply with respect to military operations or activities 
     as follows:
       (1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an 
     attack launched from within the territory of Iran.
       (2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an 
     imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of 
     Iran.
       (3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of 
     forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter 
     enter into Iran.
       (4) Intelligence collection activities of which Congress 
     has been appropriately notified under applicable law.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 24 hours after determining to 
     utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a 
     military operation described in subsection (b), the President 
     shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report on the determination, including a justification for 
     the determination.

  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I have been on the Senate floor on a 
number of occasions to discuss the amendment which I am introducing 
today. I introduced it on March 5 as S. 759, which is a bill to 
prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the 
consent of the Congress. I am offering this legislation today as an 
amendment to the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill, with the support of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  This bill has received a good bit of discussion and also a good bit 
of correspondence from various citizens groups that have gone to 
Members' offices. I will not take a great deal of time in terms of 
going through a lot of the debate about it. I would like to say at the 
outset that I have taken great care in the preparation of this 
amendment to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military 
forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such 
as Iraq and in other areas that are on the coastlines and border lines 
of Iran. But I would like to emphasis that, in my view, this amendment 
is essential to revitalizing the constitutional health of our 
governmental process.
  The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance 
between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the 
commencement of war. Any general attack on Iran would be, beyond cavil, 
a commencement of a new war in a region that is already enduring two 
costly and debilitating wars. If this action is to be taken, it should 
be done only with the full and considered consent of the Congress.
  At the same time, the legislation allows American forces to directly 
respond to attacks or possible attacks which might be initiated from 
Iran, as well as those which might be begun elsewhere and then carry 
over into Iranian territory.
  Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek 
congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military 
action in Iran, and it allows the following exceptions: first, military 
operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched 
from within the territory of Iran; second, those activities that would 
directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran; 
third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit 
of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would 
enter Iran; and finally, those intelligence-collection activities that 
have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress.
  The major function of the amendment again is to restore the 
constitutional balance. No administration should have the power to 
commence unproved military activities against Iran or any other nation 
without the approval of the Congress, but the issue of the day is Iran.
  I am offering this amendment partly due to my concern over President 
Bush's signing statement which accompanied the 2002 congressional 
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. That amendment, if you 
read it carefully, indicates that this administration believes it 
possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action 
without the consent of the Congress. It should not be left unanswered 
by this body.
  This amendment will not take any military operations off the table, 
any options off the table. It will not tie the hands of this 
administration if our military forces are actually attacked from 
Iranian soil or territorial waters or by forces that retreat into 
Iranian territory.
  This is responsible legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I understand I have 7 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has until 3:45--9 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I was going to yield to Senator Coburn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendments and set them aside. That way, they can be considered as 
called up. Senator Graham has graciously allowed me some of his time to 
do that. The amendment Nos. are 648, 649, 656, 657, 715, 717, and 718.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator would hold and let us take a quick look 
at that. Perhaps Senator Graham could go ahead and use his time. We 
will talk, and then when Senator Graham is done, before we begin the 
debate on the Cochran amendment, we can work with the Senator on an 
agreement on those amendments.
  I object at this time, and I will work with the Senator to work out 
those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to associate myself with 
the comments of Senator McCain about what is going on on the ground in 
Iraq. I thought he did an excellent job of explaining that this new 
strategy is just what it is described as being--new. We are not sending 
more people to do the same old thing. It is a fundamentally different 
approach to how we handle the situation in Iraq.
  The situation in Iraq is the result of not having enough forces on 
the ground in the early parts of the war. The security environment in 
Iraq got out of control. The terrorists seized an opportunity to divide 
the Iraqis by bombing the Samarra mosque, the third most holy site in 
the Shia region in Samarra. Ever since then, we have been in a conflict 
between Shias and Sunnis in Baghdad.
  Anbar has always been about Sunni insurgents trying to topple this 
infant

[[Page S3804]]

democracy, and it has been the place where al-Qaida has been hiding.
  The progress is that the Sunni insurgency--the tribal chiefs are 
beginning to understand that their lives are better with the unified 
Iraq; that if they can share in the oil revenues of the country, future 
Sunni generations will be benefited. I think Shias are beginning to 
understand that to reject Al-Sadr--his view of Iraq becoming a Shia 
theocracy is not going to be accepted by people in the neighborhood and 
other folks living in Iraq. So I think every group is beginning to 
understand that through political reconciliation, they have a better, 
brighter future. The way to get political reconciliation is to control 
the violence. That is why we need more troops, more troops to hold 
areas previously cleared, to buy time for political reconciliation and 
economic progress, and the early indications are that it is working.
  Now, what is not working. The Congress is not working. I think the 
Congress is about to make history in all of the wrong ways. Do we 
really want to be the first Congress--maybe ever in the history of the 
country, that I am aware of--that would, by congressional enactment, 
set a hard date to withdraw from a war in Iraq with which our vital 
national security interests as Americans are intertwined? What are the 
consequences of leaving in March or any other date in 2008? What 
happens when we leave? No one who is offering these amendments has 
really thought that through.
  I do believe that a failed State in Iraq jeopardizes our national 
security interests for decades, is a loss in the war on terror, is an 
empowering event for extremists, a death blow to moderation, and that 
we need to see this through by changing course, and this is exactly 
what we are doing.
  Setting a timeline for withdrawal is saying you have no confidence in 
General Petraeus to execute the plan we sent him to execute. It is 
saying we have no confidence in our military to deliver, because the 
day you set that date, you are going to freeze political 
reconciliation. People are not going to do deals the same way when they 
know America is going to leave at a certain date because what happens 
when America leaves will be thought of in terms of the consequences of 
a particular deal.
  If we leave and Iraq is in chaos, the police and the army are unable 
to deal with the wolves of terrorism, then they are overwhelmed, the 
country breaks apart, and the regional consequences and the 
consequences to the world are monumental, in my opinion.
  The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. It should be the first 
rule of politics. And we have done harm with our Iraqi strategy. We 
have assumed the best and never planned for the worst.
  Whatever mistakes the Bush team has made, and there are many, the 
Congress is about to make the greatest mistake of all; that is, to tell 
the enemy what they have to do to get us out of Iraq on their terms, 
not ours. It is a death blow to moderation. Who in the Mideast will try 
to come together knowing that the United States cannot be counted on? 
What effect would it have on the worldwide terrorist networks if they 
believe, through their acts of violence and barbaric behavior, that 
America will leave?
  We cannot let suicide bombers determine the fate of the 21st century. 
We cannot let people who will blow up children in a car determine the 
fate of Iraq. We cannot let that happen. We are bigger than that. We 
are better than that. I believe passionately, after five visits, with 
one more to come, that the people in Iraq want more. They are dying for 
their own freedom. I would leave tomorrow if I thought the Iraqi people 
were incapable of solving their problems. I do believe the majority of 
Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds want the same thing that every Member of this 
body wants for their family--a better life. They have looked into the 
abyss, and they are making the changes they need to make.
  If we restrict funding, if we restrict our military commanders' 
ability to go after the enemy in all of its forms, we are doing them a 
disservice. If you set a hard deadline for withdrawal, you have doomed 
us as a nation to lose in Iraq. What good would it be for one person to 
be maimed or to die waiting on that day to come? If you pick March 
2008, what do you tell a family member of the U.S. military why their 
loved one died or was harmed, knowing that the date killed our efforts 
to be successful? This is irresponsible. This does everything wrong 
that the Congress could do at a time when things could get better.
  I cannot promise you success. But I know our last best chance lies 
with General Petraeus. Our last best chance lies with a reinforcement 
of a country and a military that needs it. The military needs this 
money. They deserve this money without strings attached. They deserve a 
chance to turn Iraq around to make us free.
  The House may be satisfied with this vote on the supplemental, and 
they may think this is a victory for the Democratic leadership in the 
House. I think this is a shameful chapter in the history of the House. 
These votes to pass this bill were literally bought. There is money in 
this bill, the supplemental bill, that has nothing to do with the 
military, nothing to do with Iraq, and there was money being spent to 
buy votes to make sure we drive ourselves out of Iraq without 
consequence and the thought of what happens.
  If we do not pass a supplemental soon, Secretary Gates has laid out 
what happens in April, May, and June to our military. Because of time 
limitations, I will not go into detail on what happens to the military, 
but I can tell you with certainty that the military needs this money 
for ongoing operations, and every month and week that goes by without 
this money going into the Department of Defense, major decisions have 
to be made that compromise troop safety, that hurt the quality of life 
of families, and keep this surge from being successful.
  If your goal is to end this war because you think we have lost, 
choose an honorable path. The honorable path would be to come to this 
floor, offer an amendment to stop funding now and get out of Iraq as 
soon as possible. A date certain a year from now, a year and a half 
from now, whatever date you pick, it ensures we lose, and it ensures 
that the people who are left there to fight until that day comes get 
injured and die in vain.
  This is the wrong way to run a war. This is the wrong way to fight 
terrorism.
  Three weeks ago, I was at Guantanamo Bay listening to Shaikh 
Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, explaining why he was at war with us. 
He will be at war with us until his last breath. There are people like 
him in Iraq measuring us as a nation. Please do not send them the wrong 
signal. Fund our troops without condition. Stand behind General 
Petraeus because he deserves our support.
  We sent him off to do a mission. Give him the resources to do it, and 
in time we will figure this out. This is not an open-ended commitment. 
I know as well as everybody else that we are not going to be in Iraq 
forever. But we need to be in Iraq on terms that will empower moderates 
and deflate extremists. I believe the Iraqi political leadership, given 
the breathing space, will have the ability, with our support, to 
reconcile their country because it is in their best interests. 
Literally thousands of Iraqis have died for their own freedom. What 
more can we ask of someone. Political reconciliation is hard. It took 
us 13 years to write our Constitution. We were at civil war among 
ourselves. Democracy is hard, but it is worth fighting for.


                           Amendment No. 643

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, under the previous consent agreement, for 
the information of all Senators, we are now going to the debate on the 
Cochran amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5 
p.m. is for debate with respect to amendment number 643, with the time 
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia, 
Mr. Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Washington.
  While I oppose the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi, I thank 
him for his courtesy in bringing this bill to

[[Page S3805]]

the floor. In order to facilitate Senate action on this critical 
supplemental bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill 
by voice vote on Thursday, March 22. Again, I thank the able Senator 
from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, for his support.
  In this 2007 supplemental, the Congress is providing nearly $100 
billion to support our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. This brings total appropriations for the wars to nearly 
$170 billion for this year alone. When Congress approves this 
supplemental, it will have appropriated $448 billion for the war in 
Iraq.
  As the conflict in Iraq enters its fifth year, more than 3,220 
members of the uniformed services have sacrificed their lives, with 
over 24,000 more wounded, many grievously wounded. The Iraq conflict 
most certainly has become a civil war. The American people need to know 
what we are accomplishing by remaining in Iraq. How much longer will 
Congress continue to blindly write checks for this failed strategy in 
Iraq? Supporting the troops means doing all we can to remove them from 
this violent internal sectarian conflict in Iraq.
  The American people have made it very clear where they stand on this 
matter. A large majority of Americans, according to any number of 
polls, wants the troops home, and the sooner the better. I, for one, am 
not so stubborn that I will keep marching on toward some intangible 
success in Iraq, no matter how many may die, no matter how many may be 
wounded, and no matter how many families are torn apart by grief. A 
continued U.S. presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq and in the 
region. It is time to remove that spark from this volatile situation 
and pursue a diplomatic track which may lead to a national 
reconciliation for the people of Iraq.
  The language in this bill encourages a decrease in Iraqi reliance on 
U.S. troops to keep the peace in Iraq and pave the way for the Iraqi 
people to take steps toward national reconciliation. The language in 
the bill is not Draconian, nor is it precipitous. It is simply a 
recognition of the reality of the situation in Iraq. It calls for a 
gradual redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with concerted 
efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces while building 
regional and international support for the Iraqi Government. The 
language permits continued counterterrorism operations by U.S. forces 
and allows a limited number of U.S. forces to remain in order to 
protect U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure. That is not a 
precipitous withdrawal. It is not cutting and running. Rather, it is a 
commonsense compromise between those who want all the troops home now 
and those who advocate a continued massive American presence in Iraq.
  It is time--yes, time--to change course in Iraq before 3,000 more 
Americans and thousands more Iraqis are killed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike section 
1315(a) and (b) of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the distinguished Senator from Louisiana 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to encourage all of my colleagues, 
Democrat and Republican, to support the Cochran amendment as a 
responsible action. The situation in Iraq is deeply controversial and 
divisive. As we debate it, everyone here and in the country say they 
are clearly for supporting our troops in the field and giving them what 
they need once they are put there to do their mission. That is why just 
a week or two ago huge numbers of Members of the Senate supported the 
Gregg resolution, 82 Senators saying clearly: We are going to support 
the men and women in uniform in the field; likewise, they supported in 
huge numbers the Murray resolution, 96 Senators, to support the men and 
women in uniform in the field.
  I am afraid the path some are urging us to go down today belies that 
statement, contradicts that statement, and does not support those men 
and women in uniform in the field.
  We all know the consequences of the Reid language. That language 
insists that the President pull our troops out of Iraq on a date 
certain with no regard at all for the conditions on the ground or the 
progress being made by our troops or the Iraqi Government. It 
micromanages the war, taking what is in the purview of the Commander in 
Chief and bringing it to Congress. The Reid language will absolutely 
draw a veto from the President. What would that do? It would delay for 
a significant amount of time getting aid, money, help, and equipment to 
our troops in the field.
  We should not go down this path. This language will earn a veto from 
the President. Indeed, it would earn a veto from any President because 
it micromanages his responsibilities as Commander in Chief, and that 
will delay getting resources to folks in the field.
  Our military leadership has said in no uncertain terms that they must 
get this supplemental funding to support the troops in the field by 
mid-April. This language will push all of that well beyond that 
deadline, will delay it by 5, 6 weeks or more, and endanger our troops 
in the field by not getting them the resources and equipment they need. 
That is not right. That is exactly contrary to what almost all Members 
of this body have spoken for: supporting our troops in the field.
  This supplemental appropriations bill also has important help for the 
victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the gulf coast, emergency 
measures that are supported by the President and the Congress but have 
not yet been fully funded. Just as we are playing politics potentially 
with our troops in the field with this veto scenario, we would be 
playing politics with this language, drawing a veto from the President, 
with the victims of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. That is 
not right. It is politics over people. Worse than that, it is politics 
over our people in uniform. It is politics over our people who suffered 
the worst natural disaster in history. We should not go down this path. 
We should not be so cynical and callous. We should put our people in 
uniform first and get them the funds and support they need in the field 
as we promise to do speech after speech after speech.
  Words are cheap. Actions, votes lead to consequences. That is what 
this debate and what these votes are all about--supporting our troops 
in the field, supporting the victims of the worst natural disaster in 
U.S. history.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, there will be no victory or defeat for the 
United States in Iraq. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. 
Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It does not 
belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.
  We can help the people of Iraq, as we have been helping them over the 
last 4 years, with a tremendous amount of our American blood and 
treasure. We have much invested in Iraq. America has strategic 
interests in the Middle East. And we will continue to help the people 
of Iraq, as we will continue to protect our interests and those of our 
allies in the Middle East.
  But the future of Iraq, however, will be determined by the Iraqi 
people. The future of Iraq will be determined by a political 
accommodation by the people in Iraq, which will result in a political 
resolution that will be supported by the Iraqi people, its regional 
neighbors, and other powers, including the United States.
  After 4 years in Iraq, America's policy there should be designed to 
gradually pull the United States further away from the day-to-day 
responsibilities, those day-to-day responsibilities of defending Iraq 
and de facto governance of Iraq, and turning over those 
responsibilities to the Iraqis, not escalating--not escalating--our 
military involvement in Iraq.
  Today, we are headed in the opposite direction. I will not support 
sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq.
  We are now in our fifth year in an active war in Iraq. Iraq is more 
dangerous today than at any time in the last 4 years. And--puzzling--
the administration says, we are making real progress in Iraq. So if we 
are making

[[Page S3806]]

real progress in Iraq, then why are we putting more and more American 
combat troops into Iraq at the same time our allies are leaving or have 
already left?
  The President's strategy is taking America deeper and deeper into 
this quagmire, with no exit strategy.
  In January, we were told that 21,500 more U.S. troops would be sent 
to Iraq. This month, we learned that as many as 7,000 more U.S. troops, 
in addition to the 21,500, would be sent to Iraq. The Congressional 
Budget Office has estimated that the President's recent decision to 
escalate our military involvement could require as many as 48,000 
additional U.S. troops in Iraq.
  In January, the administration said progress on the Iraq war would be 
measurable by this summer. We have heard that at 6-month intervals for 
the last 2 years in oversight committee hearings. But now we are being 
told that additional troops could be required in Iraq well into next 
year.
  This strategy to deepen America's military involvement in Iraq will 
not bring a resolution in Iraq. It will only continue to undermine 
America's standing in Iraq and the Middle East, complicating and 
limiting our diplomatic options, and doing further damage to our 
military. And we continue to finance and build the most powerful and 
unaccountable mercenary armies in history, like Blackwater.
  We cannot continue down a path that is destroying our military and 
continuing to place our men and women in uniform in Iraq in the middle 
of a civil war.
  In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter 
Pace, reported to Congress that there is now--his word--a 
``significant'' risk that our military will not be able to respond to 
an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Why did he say that? 
It is because we are overburdened, overstretched. We are breaking our 
force structure--third and fourth tours.
  Recently, the inspector general of the Defense Department issued a 
report on our National Guard. Our National Guard--our Army National 
Guard in America is broken. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General 
Schoomaker, has made similar, recent comments in open testimony before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  It is now time for the Congress to step forward and establish 
responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military 
involvement in Iraq. That is our responsibility. Need I remind our 
colleagues in this body, the Congress of the United States is a coequal 
branch of Government with the President of the United States? We not 
only have moral obligations but we have constitutional 
responsibilities.
  To hear some of my colleagues say we should dispense with this 
``frivolous'' debate because the President has threatened a veto--what 
a waste of our time--if you logically follow that through, why do we 
need a Congress? Why don't we let the President make all the choices, 
make all the decisions? There are some, I suspect, in this 
administration who would like that, some in this country would like 
that. But we tried a monarchy once. It is not suited to America. There 
are separations of power. Of course there are. But there are three 
coequal branches of Government.
  It is now time for the Congress to step forward, after a disastrous 4 
years in Iraq. The language in the Senate supplemental bill does this 
in a responsible way. The Senate language does not cut off funds. It 
does not impose a precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This 
language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq: 
counterterrorism, training Iraqi forces, and protecting U.S. personnel. 
That is not new. We have heard that from this administration over the 
last 4 years. This was not dreamed up. This idea that somehow you do 
not support the troops if you do not continue, in a lemming-like way, 
to accept whatever this administration's policy is wrong. That is what 
is wrong, and that is dangerous.
  This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq 
that focuses on the things we should be doing, we can be doing. This 
new and responsible mission would pull our troops out of the middle of 
Iraq's civil war. Is that wrong? Is there something wrong with that--
asking these young men and women to put their lives on the line in the 
middle of a civil war in Baghdad, kicking down doors, with a bull's eye 
on their back--to pull them out of that? Is that wrong? Does that 
somehow display a cavalier attitude toward the support of our troops? I 
think not. I think just the opposite.
  There is a timeline in the Senate language. But it does not establish 
a binding date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Let's get that clear. It 
would establish the goal--those are the terms, goal--a goal that U.S. 
forces not involved in this more limited military mission be redeployed 
by March 2008. Is there something wrong with that? That means March of 
2008 is 5 years we will have been there--5 years. We will have done 
significant damage to our Marines and our Army and our National Guard 
by then.

  We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned, and mismanaged our 
honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent 
of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies or plans or 
responsible. It may take many years before there is a cohesive 
political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always 
been limited.
  I support the President's decision to initiate a new diplomatic 
strategy and support a regional diplomatic process on the future of 
Iraq that began on March 10 at the regional security conference in 
Baghdad. But the President must devote his attention to foster those 
efforts. As the Baker-Hamilton report made clear, we must develop a 
regional diplomatic strategy to achieve stability in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask for 60 seconds to conclude my 
remarks.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position 
in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. This 
debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world 
seeks a new center of gravity for this new century. The United States 
must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost 
of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars, and world 
standing has been devastating for our country.
  The American people are demanding that we develop a bipartisan 
consensus for an honorable and responsible exit strategy from Iraq. If 
we fail to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America 
will pay a high price for this blunder--one we will have difficulty 
recovering from in the years ahead.
  Our actions today in the Congress begin this effort.
  Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of his amendment and also note that Friday of last 
week, March 23, was, in my view, a sad day because it was on that day 
the House of Representatives voted to usurp the responsibilities of the 
President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed 
Forces. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the Senate, rather 
than reject this ill-conceived and dangerous line of thinking, has 
chosen to endorse it.
  I believe the phased redeployment language in the supplemental is 
wrong. Today, I ask my colleagues to stop and think about the long-term 
effects the redeployment language is going to have. This language will 
do more than redeploy troops. It will set a precedent that Congress may 
interject itself into the military chain of command. This is not a 
slippery slope, it is a straight drop to the bottom.
  War requires one Commander in Chief. Every civilization, from Greece 
to the British Empire, has understood this basic premise, as did our 
Founders.
  Wars are unpredictable, and they are fluid. Success in any military 
conflict requires energy, speed, flexibility, and

[[Page S3807]]

adaptability. I thought the Senate understood this, particularly when 
we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to be the commander of forces 
in Iraq.
  What are our commanders in the field supposed to think? What orders 
are they to comply with? Are they going to conduct the surge or are 
they going to reorganize their forces to comply with redeploying the 
troops? Should we expect our commanders to read their operations orders 
or congressional conference reports to determine their priorities?
  This effort, led by the Democratic majority, is simply a bad idea, 
and I hope my colleagues can see that the short-term gain they seek on 
this bill will lead to long-term consequences for the military.
  The other reason I oppose the redeployment language is it confuses 
strategic policy with foreign policy. Both have the same goal: victory 
in Iraq and to bring our troops home. However, that goal is arrived at 
by very different means.
  Our strategic policy is set by the President and by our military 
commanders. Conversely, our foreign policy is set by their diplomatic 
counterparts at the State Department. That is why interagency 
cooperation is important now more than ever. In order for the U.S. 
Government to effectively employ the elements of the national power, 
Congress must resist the temptation to intervene and ultimately make 
matters worse.
  Redeploying our troops from Iraq on a published timeline is not going 
to end the war on terrorism. To me, the redeployment language in this 
bill is the strategic equivalent of the Maginot line. In World War II, 
the French built a wall and the Germans went around it. If we publish 
our deployment timeline, then Shia and Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida in 
Iraq, and Iranian instigators will all simply wait for us to leave and 
then begin their efforts to undo all we have worked for over the past 4 
to 5 years.

  The conflict we are fighting today is unlike any other we have 
fought. That is why I find the Democratic talking points about how the 
war in Iraq has lasted longer than this conflict or that conflict to be 
so disingenuous. They are right on one point: This is not World War II. 
It is not Vietnam. It is Iraq. It is the war on terror, and our efforts 
in Iraq cannot be looked at in a vacuum.
  Iraq is a front in the war on terror, but it is not the front in the 
war on terror, because this war has no front. If you want to know where 
the front is in the war on terror, then get in your car and drive 10 
minutes over to the Pentagon. That is a front. Go to New York and look 
at the gaping holes in the ground. That is a front. Or visit the field 
in Pennsylvania where a group of brave passengers forced a plane to the 
ground at the expense of their own lives. That is a front. If any of my 
colleagues are still wondering where the front is on the war on terror, 
you are standing on it.
  In order to deal with this phenomenon, in almost every sector of U.S. 
security policy we are trying to push America's enemies further away. 
Port security is a perfect example. We are putting inspectors in 
foreign ports to inspect cargo before it comes to the United States, 
and we are allowing the Coast Guard to inspect ships further out at 
sea, all for the purpose of putting the enemy farther away from us. Yet 
in this instance, this bill seems to invite our enemies into the very 
heart of our country. To me, it simply does not make sense.
  Our colleagues on the other side also like to note there were no 
Iraqis on the planes that attacked us on September 11. Well, there 
weren't any Afghanis either. In fact, if we follow this line of 
thinking to its logical conclusion about who was on those planes, then 
perhaps this Congress should change the 2002 authorization for the use 
of force and allow the President to attack Saudi Arabia, because the 
majority of the hijackers were Saudis.
  Of course, such a line of thinking is ridiculous because this 
conflict is not about national identity, it is about ideology. It is 
about good versus evil, right versus wrong, freedom versus tyranny, and 
hope versus cynicism.
  I will concede this administration has not handled Iraq as well as it 
could have, but I also believe this debate is more about our national 
identity or resolve than our involvement in Iraq.
  I still believe that America, for all its faults, is a shining city 
on a hill, that our greatest export should be freedom and our greatest 
asset being people and ideas; that we are a beacon of hope to those who 
toil in the darkness of tyranny and oppression. I also believe if we 
pass this legislation, we are saying to the world the United States is 
committed to defending freedom only when it is convenient or popular. 
That is not the America I know. It is not the America my father, a 
World War II fighter pilot, taught me about or the country we should 
hope to become.
  It is my sincere hope my colleagues will vote to support Senator 
Cochran's amendment to remove the troop withdrawal language from this 
bill. If we do not, I believe we will be doing more harm than good, 
despite the intentions to the contrary.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we gather on another occasion to bring the 
Iraq war to its fateful end. While this effort may fall short again, we 
will continue to try to do what is in the national security of our 
country.
  The Iraq war should never have been authorized. I was proud to say so 
in 2002, but I am even more proud of the plan I have offered that calls 
for combat to begin redeploying on May 1 with the goal of all combat 
troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
  We also must make sure that we are not as careless getting out of 
this war as we were getting in, and that is why this withdrawal should 
be gradual, and keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider 
war in the region and go after al-Qaida and other terrorists.
  Those who would have us continue this war in perpetuity like to say 
that this is a matter of resolve on behalf of the American people. But 
the American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen 
their sons and daughters killed or wounded on the streets of Fallujah. 
They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money 
that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and 
our competitive standing as a nation.
  No, it has not been a failure of resolve that has led us to this 
chaos, but a failure of strategy--a strategy that has only strengthened 
Iran's strategic position; increased threats posed by terrorist 
organizations; reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world; 
and placed Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in 
the region in greater peril.
  Iraq has been a failure of strategy and that strategy must change. It 
is time to bring a responsible end to this conflict because there is no 
military solution to this war.
  Before we send our best off to battle in the future, we must remember 
what led us to this day and learn from the principles that follow.
  We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not 
embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful 
thinking that have little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our 
efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those 
threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political 
reasons again.
  We must remember that the cost of going it alone is immense. It is a 
choice we sometimes have to make, but one that must be made rarely and 
always reluctantly.
  We must remember that planning for peace is just as critical as 
planning for war. Iraq was not just a failure of conception, but a 
failure of execution. So when a conflict does arise that requires our 
involvement, we must try to understand that country's history, its 
politics, its ethnic and religious divisions before our troops ever set 
foot on its soil.
  We must understand that setting up ballot boxes does not 
automatically create a democracy. Real freedom and real stability come 
from doing the hard work of helping to build a strong police force, and 
a legitimate government, and ensuring that people have food, and water, 
and electricity, and basic services. And we must be honest about

[[Page S3808]]

how much of that we can do ourselves and how much must come from the 
people themselves.
  And finally, we must remember that when we send our service men and 
women to war, we make sure we have given them the training they need, 
and the equipment that will keep them safe, and a mission they can 
accomplish. And when our troops come home, it is our most solemn 
responsibility to make sure they come home to the services, and the 
benefits, and the care they deserve.
  The cause to defend our country and our interests around the world 
will never end. It will be one of our country's constant threads 
through the ages. It is our sacred trust to ensure that those moments, 
those times of great struggle, are the right ones. And when they are 
not, we must continue to try and end those conflicts for the sake of 
our country, our service men and women, and the ideals we hold dear.
  For these reasons, I strongly support the provision in the 
supplemental bill that calls for the withdrawal of American combat 
troops by March 31, 2008, and I will oppose any efforts to strip that 
provision from the bill.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have arrived at a key moment for 
U.S. policy in Iraq. History recalls Operations Desert Shield and Storm 
in 1990 and 1991. It recalls the no-fly zones we maintained in the 
1990s. It recalls the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It recalls our 
sanctions against Saddam Hussein. And when history records Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, it will remember whether Congress provided the direction 
necessary to complete the mission or chose to cut it off prematurely. 
History win judge today's vote.
  The American people await this vote. The Iraqi people await this 
vote. Al-Qaida awaits this vote. The surge is now underway. I did not 
support the surge, but I hope it works. The first reports have been 
encouraging, but the fog of war remains thick. Over the next few 
months, we will be able to assess whether the surge is working or not. 
Now is hardly the time to set a date for retreat.
  I am not saying we should have an open-ended commitment, but I am 
saying that our mission over there--and not politics over here--should 
drive our policy. I know many of my colleagues believe we have nothing 
to gain by staying. But I believe there is a way forward.
  Everyone agrees that a political solution is crucial to success. And 
it turns out that the political solution Iraqis ought to pursue is the 
most American of all: Federalism.
  Thankfully, in the early days in America, we did not have the kind of 
factional violence and terrorism we have seen in Iraq. But it certainly 
included rivalries between the colonies and different visions of the 
future.
  The great solution chosen by the founding fathers was federalism--
something embodied by the Senate itself. An Iraq with several federal 
regions, with Baghdad as a federal capital represents the best chance 
for Iraq to achieve stability.
  If the surge works, federalism can provide the framework necessary to 
stabilize Iraq over the long term. If the surge fails, and Iraq's 
sectarian violence deepens, a federal Iraq will be the only choice 
available to separate the warring factions while keeping Iraq from 
breaking apart--something that we cannot allow to occur in such a vital 
region.
  I believe that instead of giving the terrorists a reason to be 
hopeful and sending mixed signals to our forces in the field, we should 
be talking about the possibility of a federal Iraq. The Iraqi 
Constitution calls for it. The Iraqi Parliament passed a law supporting 
it. The Kurdish region proves that it can be successful. Yes, a federal 
Iraq may require the presence of U.S. forces for some period of time. 
But as we have seen in Bosnia, our deployments in support of a 
political solution endorsed by all sides can bring lasting peace and a 
chance for a brighter future.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Cochran 
amendment. We need to stop talking about how to retreat and start 
talking about winning in Iraq. A conversation about a federal Iraq is 
the best way for the Senate to contribute to success in Iraq.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican effort to strike 
the critical section of this bill requiring our troops in Iraq to begin 
to come home in 120 days and that we finish the job in 2008.
  This is a defining moment for our country. The American people are 
watching, and the world is watching. The issue is clear. Will we stand 
with our soldiers by ending their misguided mission and beginning to 
bring them home? Or will we stand with the President and keep our 
soldiers trapped in Iraq's civil war?
  History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's 
perilous path or insist on a new direction. If we don't change course, 
we know what lies ahead--more American casualties, more deaths, more 
destruction, greater loss of respect for America in the wider world, 
and greater danger to our national security. A new strategy that makes 
Iraqis less reliant on our military is the best way forward.
  More of the same misguided policy will result in more of the same 
tragedy for our military. We need a realistic strategy, and we need it 
now. Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. Our national security 
itself is at stake.
  In this debate, we hear echoes of the past: We are accused of cutting 
and running. We are accused of giving comfort to the enemy. We are told 
we need to be patient and to accept the importance of staying the 
course. We are told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to 
succeed.
  Listen to this comment from a high-ranking American official:

       It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the 
     course, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse 
     and independent Asia . . . If we faltered, the forces of 
     chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and 
     aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was 
     clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the 
     course.

  That is not President Bush speaking. It is President Lyndon Johnson 
40 years ago, ordering a 100,000 more American soldiers to Vietnam.
  Here is another quotation:

       The big problem is to get territory and to keep it. You can 
     get it today and it will be gone next week. That is the 
     problem. You have to have enough people to clear it . . . and 
     enough people to preserve what you have done.

  That is not President Bush on the need for more forces in Iraq. It is 
President Johnson in 1966 as he doubled our military presence in 
Vietnam.
  Here is yet another familiar argument.

       We are not going to tuck our tail and run . . .

  Those are not President Bush's words. Those are the words of 
President Johnson in 1966.
  Here is another familiar argument:

       We are being steadfast in Vietnam because we don't want the 
     next generation of Americans to have to fight another war.

  That is not President Bush, but it sure sounds like him. It is Vice 
President Agnew in December 1969.
  Here is another familiar argument being used in the Iraq debate by 
the stay-the-course Republicans that we've heard before:

       We think we can bring peace. We will bring peace. The peace 
     that we will be able to achieve will be due to the fact that 
     Americans, when it really counted, did not buckle, did not 
     run away, but stood fast . . .

  That is not President Bush. It is President Nixon in September 1969.
  And here is another:

       If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful 
     nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, 
     helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy 
     will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout 
     the world.

  That's not President Bush. Those are the words of President Nixon in 
April of 1970.
  These words from the past resonate painfully in today's debate on 
Iraq. In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with 
victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any 
rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each 
new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. We were told to be 
steadfast, to stay the course, and not to retreat. There was no 
military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. 
In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.
  Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George 
Bush's Vietnam.
  But we have heard all that in the current debate about Iraq as well. 
We

[[Page S3809]]

have heard for years that the administration has a plan for success, 
that progress is just around the corner. But the plans for success keep 
getting tossed aside for new plans. The administration has benchmarks 
to measure success, but there are no consequences when the benchmarks 
are not met. The timelines for progress keep getting extended. We have 
turned so many corners that we have ended up back where we started--
trying to control Baghdad.
  It is time to change direction. Mr. President, 3,200 members of our 
forces have been killed, and more than 24,000 have been wounded. The 
casualties keep mounting. The violence continues to spiral upward. Our 
troops are in the impossible position of trying to stabilize a country 
at war with itself.
  The recent National Intelligence Estimate confirms the nightmare 
scenario unfolding for our troops. Iraq is sliding deeper into the 
abyss of civil war, and our brave men and women are caught in the 
middle of it. Prospects for halting the sectarian violence are bleak.
  Greater chaos and anarchy are looming ahead. Needless additional U.S. 
causalities are inevitable.
  The facts speak for themselves. According to the United Nations, 
nearly 35,000 civilians were violently killed in Iraq last year. Most 
were killed in Baghdad, where ``unidentified bodies killed execution-
style are found in large numbers daily.''
  More than 2 million refugees have fled the violence in Iraq, and 
another 1.8 million have been displaced internally.
  Our military should not be caught in the middle of this quagmire. 
Only a political solution can solve Iraq's problems.
  General Casey, in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee in June 2005, called for a political solution. He said:

       If you look back historically at how insurgencies have been 
     defeated, they have been defeated when the insurgents saw 
     their options as better protected in the political process 
     and their prospects for economic advancement can be better 
     protected by the political process than fighting for them. 
     And that's the essential element here.

  Last August, General Abizaid spoke about the need for a political 
solution. He said:

       Our troops are the best equipped, the best trained, the 
     best led in the world. And I am enormously proud of them, and 
     I have the utmost confidence in their ability to handle any 
     mission. Yet, sectarian violence is worse than ever in 
     Baghdad in particular. And I wonder about the validity of a 
     strategy that says that less capable troops that are not as 
     well equipped, trained and led as the best troops in the 
     world can handle the security of this country if the upswing 
     in violence has occurred despite the presence of the best 
     troops in the world. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence 
     in our underlying strategy. And it suggests to me that what 
     we need is a political rather than a military solution.

  General Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, recently 
emphasized as well that there is ``no military solution'' in Iraq. But 
no one in the administration has been able to clearly articulate a 
political solution or how it can take hold in the midst of this chaos.
  Instead of giving the Iraqis a necessary incentive to get their 
political house in order by beginning an orderly redeployment of our 
troops out of Iraq, the President stubbornly insists on sending more 
and more American troops into Iraq's civil war. Escalation didn't work 
in Vietnam and it won't work in Iraq either.
  Even worse, the administration has not been honest about the number 
of troops the President plans to send to Iraq for the surge.
  On January 10, he announced that he had committed ``more than 
20,000'' additional troops to Iraq. Within a few days, we were told the 
number was 21,500.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would be far higher 
as much as 35,000 to 48,000 troops when support troops are included.
  On February 6, I asked General Pace and Secretary Gates for the best 
military estimate as to the actual size of the escalation. Their answer 
was an additional 10 to 15 percent. General Pace said, ``you're going 
to need no more than another 2,000, 2,500 troops on the ground.''
  Nine days later, the number more than doubled. General Schoomaker 
told the Armed Services Committee his estimate was somewhere between 
5,000 and 6,000 troops when he included imbedded trainers. Then, on 
March 6 Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told a House 
committee ``about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000.''
  On March 7, at the request of General Petraeus, Secretary Gates 
authorized an additional 2,200 military police troops.
  We still don't have an accurate total for the size of this 
escalation. The administration refuses to speak with clarity and 
candor.
  Since the current surge began, Shiite militias in Baghdad may be 
lying low, but violence has increased elsewhere in Iraq.
  In Diyala province, in just 3 months, American casualties have 
exceeded the number for the entire year of 2006.
  In January this year, 83 American soldiers were killed, compared to 
62 in the same month a year ago.
  Eighty more American soldiers were killed in February this year. In 
the same month last year, we lost 55 soldiers.
  In March, we have already lost 76 soldiers, compared to 31 in March 
2006.
  Continuing our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq will not bring 
victory. It will not stop the violence, and it will not protect our 
national security.
  The administration has outlined military, economic, and political 
benchmarks to measure success. But it has not given any timeline to 
achieve them, and it has not specified any consequences if the 
benchmarks are not met.
  This same administration supported timelines for every Iraqi election 
and for drafting the constitution. Yet it remains emphatically opposed 
to any timeline for the redeployment of our military.
  The American people have been patient. But America has now been in 
Iraq longer than it took us to win World War II. Instead of progress, 
we continue to see unacceptably high levels of violence, death, and 
destruction.
  We are putting too much strain on our Army, especially the Army 
National Guard. Our forces are overextended. Many soldiers are now on 
their third rotation. In the long run, we can't protect our Army if we 
don't end the war.
  Our troops have done their part. They have served with great courage. 
We are proud of their service, and we are ready to welcome them home.
  It is time to change course. It is time to insist that Iraqis step up 
to the plate and take responsibility for their own future. It is time 
to begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It is time to put the 
Iraqis on notice that our military will no longer be a permanent crutch 
for them to lean on and avoid their responsibility to achieve a 
political solution. As General Abizaid told the Armed Services 
Committee last November:

       I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future.

  The only practical way to accomplish the change that is long overdue 
is for American combat troops to begin to come home.
  Those of us who opposed the war are used to the administration's 
attacks when we disagree with their wrongheaded policy. We have come to 
expect that.
  They have questioned our patriotism and called us defeatists.
  When we challenged the President's misguided policy, they accused us 
of having political motives and being partisan. But all of their 
criticisms have a hollow ring, because the administration has been so 
consistently wrong about the war in Iraq.
  They were wrong about the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
  They were wrong about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass 
destruction. They were wrong about America being greeted as liberators. 
They were wrong about the insurgency being in its last throes. And they 
are wrong to deny that Iraq is in a civil war. The American people are 
far ahead of the administration. For all of us who oppose this 
misguided war, our goals have always been clear: to protect the lives 
of our soldiers and to protect our national security.
  We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to our 
President when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq.
  This legislation will do that. It will change the mission of our 
military away from combat and require the

[[Page S3810]]

President to begin to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq in 4 
months. The target date for the completion of the redeployment is March 
2008, 1 year from now. A limited number of troops would remain in Iraq 
after that, to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, to conduct 
counter-terrorism operations, and to guarantee the safety of our 
soldiers.
  Legislation is clearly necessary to give the Iraqi Government enough 
incentive to step up to the plate, work out its political differences, 
and take responsibility for Iraq's future.
  Our proposal is consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's 
findings. It is also consistent with the wishes of the American people, 
who want most of our troops home within a year. How much clearer does 
it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally 
respond to the voices of the American people? We are meeting our 
responsibilities by changing the mission of our military. We are not 
micromanaging the war.
  Many of us oppose the war, but all of us support our troops. We don't 
want to keep sending more and more of them into the middle of a civil 
war. Under no circumstances do we want them to go to war without proper 
armor and equipment. Our troops deserve better. Their families and 
loved ones deserve better.
  For the sake of our men and women in uniform in Iraq and the American 
people, it is time for us to take a stand. We need to adopt a new 
strategy. We need to make clear to the Iraqi Government that the 
mission of our troops must change and that we have a clear timeframe 
for their departure from Iraq.
  The Senate will fail our troops unless we vote to change course and 
begin to bring our soldiers home.
  At the end of this debate, the American people will know where each 
of us stands. On our side of the aisle, we stand with the American 
people. The voters told us in November to change course and begin to 
bring our troops home, and that is what we want to do.
  We stand with our troops. We and we alone are the ones insisting on a 
policy worthy of their courage and sacrifice.
  We stand for protecting America's national security. The war in Iraq 
has been a disaster from the start. It has made America more hated in 
the world. It has made it harder to win the war against terrorism. It 
has made it harder to work with other nations on every issue.
  Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by Iraqis and their 
neighbors.
  We must no longer send our brave soldiers to an uncertain fate on the 
streets of Baghdad.
  We must begin to bring them home, to the hero's welcome they have 
surely earned.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Cochran amendment, 
which would strike language in the bill that takes a significant step 
toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq.
  The language I am referring to won the support of 48 Senators just a 
few weeks ago. I voted for it then and will vote to retain it today. 
While it does not go as far or as fast as I would like, it would 
effectively end the President's misguided policies in Iraq by 
terminating, within 120 days, the current open-ended military mission 
in Iraq. At that point, U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for three 
specified, narrow purposes. The remainder of our troops would be 
redeployed. This provision is binding and it would bring to an end our 
current involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in 
our country's history.
  Some of my colleagues continue to argue that Congress should defer to 
the Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, that we should give him 
the opportunity to change course in Iraq, or that we should allow his 
escalation plan the chance to succeed. Those arguments ignore our 
congressional responsibilities. Congress authorized this war and it is 
in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just 
the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital 
national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be 
achieved militarily. The political problems that are driving much of 
the insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq are tragic and important. 
They require the attention of U.S. policymakers. They do not require in 
fact, they cannot be solved by a massive and indefinite U.S. military 
presence in Iraq. Our troops continue to perform heroically in Iraq but 
there is no military solution to Iraq's problems.
  Some of my colleagues raise the specter of dire consequences if we 
redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. That is precisely why we need a 
strategic approach to redeployment, one that addresses ongoing 
instability and other threats with our intelligence, diplomatic, 
economic and, in a limited manner, military capabilities. Not only is 
the continuation of this war not going to end sectarian and insurgent 
violence, it puts off the day when we develop a comprehensive strategy 
for Iraq that is sustainable and fits squarely within the larger 
struggle of fighting al-Qaida.
  As long as the President's policies continue, our troops will 
continue to put their lives on the line, our constituents will continue 
putting billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness 
will continue to erode, our Guard and Reserve members will continue to 
face heavy burdens, and our ability to respond to an array of national 
security challenges will continue to suffer. From Somalia to 
Afghanistan to the ongoing fight against al-Qaida, we face threats and 
challenges that require serious attention and resources. Right now, far 
too much of both are being spent on a single country. It is this 
single-minded and self-defeating policy that needs to end, and it is up 
to Congress to do so.
  Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing not the 
wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign 
policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties will 
dissuade him from pursuing policies in Iraq that are not working. Faced 
with a clear mandate from the voters last November, he stalled for 
time, before announcing not just a continuation but an escalation of 
his policies. Congress cannot wait for the President to change course 
we need to change the course ourselves.
  The provision that Senator Cochran seeks to strike represents a 
change of course. It requires redeployment of our troops while 
recognizing that the U.S. has an ongoing role to play in addressing the 
terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorism 
before the President led us to war in that country, al-Qaida and its 
allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that 
war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to 
be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state 
and breeding ground for terrorism. And we must be prepared to pursue 
targeted missions to take out terrorists. But maintaining 140,000 U.S. 
troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida. And military 
operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with 
other measures including diplomatic, economic and intelligence measures 
as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who 
threaten our country. Al-Qaida is not a one-country franchise it is a 
global threat that requires a global response.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address the 
amendment offered by Senator Cochran. The Senate finds itself in the 
same position it was in just 2 weeks ago, when it considered an 
amendment offered by the majority leader, Senator Reid. Senate 
amendment No. 643, offered by the Senior Senator from Mississippi, who 
is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, would strike the 
language that is essentially that of S. J. Res. 9, which the Senate 
rejected on March 15, 2007. I draw to the attention of my colleagues my 
statement in the Record of March 15, 2007, at page 53166.
  As I stated 2 weeks ago, I would be prepared to cross party lines, as 
I have done in the past when I thought it warranted, if I agreed with 
the thrust of the resolution. Seven Senators of the minority joined 
with the majority in voting for cloture several weeks ago to move ahead 
with the debate and try to come to a resolution on the Iraqi issue. I 
was one of the seven. I would not hesitate to do so again if I agreed, 
but I cannot agree with the language requiring that not later than 120 
days after enactment to have phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with 
the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces in 
Iraq.

[[Page S3811]]

  The thrust of the language in the bill, however, is to leave Iraq in 
a year, something that will ensure defeat--as setting a timetable 
simply enables our opponents to wait us out.
  I think beyond that, the idea of having the Congress of the United 
States micromanage the war is simply not realistic, and perhaps it may 
even be unlawful. I note in the case of Fleming v. Page, in 1850, the 
Supreme Court said:

       As Commander in Chief, he is authorized to direct the 
     movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at 
     his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem 
     most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.

  That is a fairly forceful statement that it is not up to the Congress 
to micromanage a war but that it is up to the Commander in Chief, the 
President of the United States. That is not to say that the Congress 
does not have authority in the premises. I continue to seek hearings by 
the Judiciary Committee on the relative powers, authority of the 
Congress under the Constitution, with our power of the purse and our 
power to maintain and direct armies, contrasted with the President's 
power as Commander in Chief.
  I believe, however, it is impractical and of questionable legal 
authority for us to seek to micromanage the war if the consequences of 
giving an order to the President would just enable the enemy to wait us 
out. That is not to say that at sometime in the future it may be 
necessary, and there may be a considered joint judgment by the 
Congress, to use the extraordinary power of the purse to implement our 
constitutional authority to maintain armies to effectuate a withdrawal.
  I had one additional thought to the substance of my floor statement 
of March 15. We may find victory, unexpectedly, as Winston Churchill 
said in a June 18, 1940 speech, when he was commenting on World War I:

       During the first four years of the last war the Allies 
     experienced nothing but disaster and disappointment. That was 
     our constant fear: one blow after another, terrible losses, 
     frightful dangers. Everything miscarried. And yet at the end 
     of those four years the morale of the Allies was higher than 
     that of the Germans, who had moved from one aggressive 
     triumph to another, and who stood everywhere triumphant 
     invaders of the lands into which they had broken. During that 
     war we repeatedly asked ourselves the question: How are we 
     going to win? And no one was able ever to answer it with much 
     precision, until at the end, quite suddenly, quite 
     unexpectedly, our terrible foe collapsed before us, and we 
     were so glutted with victory that in our folly we threw it 
     away.

  Churchill's words suggest that if we maintain our determination we 
can win although the path to victory, at the moment, is very uncertain.
  Furthermore, the President has issued a veto threat should 
legislation contain the provision Senator Cochran's amendment would 
strike. Such an action would deprive funds vital to U.S. troops and the 
operations of the Department of Defense.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her 
leadership and floor management.
  The Cochran amendment would strike the heart of the provision 
relating to Iraq from this supplemental appropriations bill. The main 
point of our provision is a requirement that the President commence a 
reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after 
enactment. Not included in the reduction would be those forces that are 
essential for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi forces, 
and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.
  This language is essential because nothing else has been successful 
in convincing the Iraqis that they have to take responsibility for 
their own country and that they must make the political compromises 
that are necessary to end the sectarian violence and defeat the 
insurgency in Iraq. Only when the Iraqis realize the mission of U.S. 
forces is going to change and that we are going to reduce the number of 
U.S. forces in Iraq will they realize we cannot save them from 
themselves, and that they need to act to meet the commitments they made 
to themselves and to us.
  Commitments are only words unless they are fulfilled. Last month, 
during our debate on Iraq, I put in the Record Secretary Rice's letter 
to me of January 2007 which had an enclosure of the listing of the 
political commitments and the timelines the Iraqis themselves had 
established. Virtually none of those commitments has been met, despite 
the fact most of them were to have been fulfilled last year, and all 
but one were to have been accomplished prior to this month. They 
committed themselves to approve a provincial elections law and they set 
a date for a provincial elections law by October of 2006. They set a 
date to approve militias and other armed formations by December 2006. 
They set a date for the constitutional review committee to complete its 
work by January 2007. They made a commitment to conduct a referendum on 
constitutional amendments which was to have been accomplished by this 
month. They violated every single one of those commitments.
  We need to retain this language. We need to retain the language that 
we begin to reduce the number of American forces in Iraq beginning in 4 
months because that reduction is the action-forcing mechanism--the sign 
to the Iraqi leaders we cannot save them from themselves, and their 
future is in their hands, not our hands.
  The most graphic demonstration of the importance of our provision is 
the fact that even our senior leaders in this administration, while 
opposing our position, have used the growing support for our position 
to try to impress upon the Iraqi leaders they have to move promptly to 
settle their differences and to meet their commitments.
  Last month while in Baghdad, Secretary Rice used the restiveness in 
Washington to emphasize to the Iraqi leaders the growth of American 
frustration with the absence of a political settlement in Iraq. She 
said she had ``made clear that some of the debate in Washington is 
indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the 
prospects for success'' if Iraq's leaders do not quickly take the steps 
needed to ensure longer-term stability.
  Ambassador Khalilzad, in a television interview on March 9, said the 
debate in Congress:

       Sends a message to the Iraqis that the patience of the 
     American people is running out. And--

  He said, Ambassador Khalilzad said--

     that is helpful to my diplomacy.

  The Iraqi Study Group said:

       The open-ended commitment of American forces does not 
     provide the Iraqi government with the incentive that it needs 
     to take political actions that give Iraq the best chance of 
     quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an 
     incentive--

  The Iraq Study Group said--

     in the absence of ending the open-ended commitment that has 
     been made to Iraq, the Iraqi government might continue to 
     delay taking those difficult actions.

  I think perhaps General Casey said it best:

       The longer U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of 
     Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of 
     Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation in 
     dealing with the militias.

  General Casey had it right. Let us not sustain the Cochran amendment. 
Let's keep this critically important action-forcing mechanism in the 
bill where it will do some good to force those Iraqi leaders to finally 
recognize their future is in their hands, not ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today the Senate approaches a decisive 
turning point in the history of our engagement in Iraq, a moment that 
will have repercussions not only for the future of that country but for 
the security of our country as well.
  The immediate question before us is direct. Should Congress impose a 
deadline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq? To that question I 
answer: No, no, no.
  We all know the circumstances under which this vote is taking place. 
The administration is politically weak. The war is politically 
unpopular. It has never been easier to advocate a withdrawal. But I 
cannot support it because I believe deeply that it would be wrong. Our 
cause in Iraq remains just and necessary, and we continue to have the 
prospect of achieving success there.
  If passed, this legislation would order a withdrawal of American 
troops from Iraq to begin in 120 days, regardless of conditions on the 
ground, regardless of whether we are succeeding or failing, regardless 
of the consequences for

[[Page S3812]]

America's security, regardless of the consequences for our allies in 
the region, and regardless of the recommendations of the man we 
unanimously put in charge of our troops there--GEN David Petraeus. In 
short, this withdrawal would be ordered by this legislation regardless 
of reality.
  This congressionally ordered withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would 
essentially be giving up on our cause in Iraq just when our prospects 
are picking up there. It would snatch defeat from the jaws of progress 
in Iraq today--progress that is critically important to our success in 
the larger war against terrorism.
  What then are the arguments given to justify such an arbitrary order 
to our troops from this Congress so far away?
  First, proponents of withdrawal keep returning to the proposition 
that American soldiers shouldn't be policing a civil war. Surely my 
colleagues don't mean to say the U.S. military has never or should 
never police a civil war. That would certainly come as a surprise to 
our soldiers who have been keeping the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo over 
the past decade, dispatched there wisely and strongly under a 
Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress. 
Clearly, our military has policed civil wars in the past and will do so 
and must do so in the future. So why do proponents of withdrawal from 
Iraq keep insisting it shouldn't happen now? The answer has to do with 
the way some people choose to characterize what is happening in Iraq.
  When they suggest our soldiers are stuck in a civil war there, it 
suggests the conflict has become hopeless, a pit of violence where 
there are no heroes, only villains, and where our military cannot 
possibly do any good. Is this the case? I think the facts suggest not. 
There are more heroes by far than villains in Iraq today and, most of 
all, there is the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people who are the 
innocent victims of violence and want nothing more than to live secure 
and free lives.
  Iraq has a government--a government freely elected by the people; a 
government where every day Iraqis of every ethnicity and sectarian 
identity come together. That is not a civil war. The Iraqi Government 
has faults and weaknesses, to be sure, and we should be using every 
instrument at our disposal to pressure its leaders to make better 
choices. But there is a world of difference between the moderates who 
compose the Iraqi Government and the extremists who seek to murder 
them.
  The image of Iraq as a country in which everyone is complicit in the 
violence also overlooks something else. It overlooks the innocent 
victims of that violence who are the majority. The truth is we are 
confronted in Iraq today with a deliberated, calculated campaign of 
murder of civilians, often on the basis of religious identity alone, by 
insurgents and terrorists.
  All of us should be able to unite around the proposition, therefore, 
that we as Americans have a moral responsibility not to pick up and 
walk away and turn our backs on the slaughter. Like the Serb death 
squads that tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo or Hutu extremists in 
Rwanda, or the jingaweit today in Darfur, the sectarian violence we are 
witnessing in Iraq is directed at the extermination of human beings on 
the basis of nothing more than who they are.
  It is an awful irony of this debate that many of the same people who 
consistently and correctly call on the United States to do more to stop 
the genocide in Darfur now demand we abandon the Iraqis and invite a 
genocide there.
  I know some believe the violence in Iraq is inevitable, the outgrowth 
of ancient hatreds that exist outside the bounds of normal politics. We 
heard those arguments before also. We heard them in the 1990s about 
Yugoslavia and about Rwanda. Surely, from those conflicts, we should 
know better than that now.
  The wanton slaughter of innocent people that our soldiers are trying 
to stop in Baghdad, and now with some success, is not the inevitable 
product of ancient hatreds but the consequence of a deliberate, 
calculated strategy by an identifiable group of perpetrators, first and 
foremost al-Qaida. We know this because al-Qaida itself has said so. 
Its leaders have stated openly that they have worked to foment hatred, 
fear, and violence between Sunnis and Shiites, precisely because al-
Qaida knows it represents their best opportunity to overthrow the 
elected Iraqi Government, to sow the seeds of chaos, to stamp out any 
hope of Middle Eastern democracy, and, sadly, as this debate shows 
today, to push the United States of America--the world's superpower, 
the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of so many for freedom--to the 
point of retreat from Iraq.
  This is also why the notion expressed in the supplemental that we can 
separate the fight against terrorism from the fight against sectarian 
violence in Iraq simply defies reality. The fact is, the worst 
sectarian violence in Iraq is being committed by al-Qaida and other 
Islamist terrorists.
  The biggest cause of the violence in Iraq is not the split between 
the Sunnis and Shiites but a specific ideology--the ideology of Islamic 
extremism--that is trying to exploit that divide for its own evil ends.
  The success of that ideology is not inevitable. Thanks to General 
Petraeus, his troops, and the new strategy, sectarian violence is down. 
Maqtada al-Sadr has disappeared. The Mahdi army is splintering. 
Displaced Iraqi families are returning to their homes.
  Of course, we will not know for some time to what extent the new 
strategy will succeed, but it is clear that, for the first time in a 
long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq. Why would 
we, at this moment, order a withdrawal of the very troops that are 
bringing greater security and a cause for optimism?
  Mr. President, the record of the past 2 months shows Prime Minister 
Maliki has allowed and encouraged U.S. forces to sweep into Sadr City. 
He has worked with General Petraeus to ensure that all of the Iraqi 
Army units required by the new strategy are available. He has flown to 
the heart of Al Anbar Province to meet with Sunni leaders. These 
breakthroughs have happened not in spite of but because of the American 
commitment to Iraq and because of the presence of General Petraeus and 
his troops.
  I ask my colleagues to consider what it will mean if Congress now 
orders our troops to pull back from this battle, just at the moment 
that they are beginning to succeed. Consider the consequences if we 
knowingly and willingly withdraw our forces and abandon one of the few 
states in the Middle East to have had free, competitive elections as an 
alternative to extremism and violence.
  I understand the frustration and anger and sheer sense of exhaustion 
so many feel about Iraq. I am acutely aware of the enormous toll this 
war has taken. But I ask those determined to order a withdrawal to 
think carefully about the consequences, and not just geopolitical but 
moral, for the United States. We cannot redeploy from our moral 
responsibility in Iraq or in our foreign policy, more generally. It is 
contrary to our traditions. It is contrary to our values. It is 
contrary to our interests. Yet that is precisely what this Congress 
will be calling for if we order our troops to withdraw now. That is 
precisely what the Congress will be calling for if we order our troops 
to withdraw from Iraq now, regardless of what is happening on the 
ground.
  I appeal to my colleagues, don't do this. Give General Petraeus and 
his troops a chance to succeed for us in Iraq. Strike this language 
from this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 12\1/2\ minutes. The 
Republicans have 13 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  We need to change course in Iraq. That is why I support the 
supplemental bill now before the Senate and oppose the Cochran 
amendment that is pending. This underlying bill finally sets a new 
direction for our mission in Iraq. It begins to redeploy our troops, 
and it helps us refocus our efforts on fighting and winning the war on 
terror.
  Mr. President, our troops have done everything we have asked them to 
do. Now it is time to start bringing them

[[Page S3813]]

home. It is time for the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi Government to 
take responsibility for their own country. We should not be sending 
more and more Americans into the middle of a civil war. The conflict in 
Iraq is not going to be solved by military force alone. It is going to 
require a political solution among Iraqis. So this underlying bill sets 
benchmarks for the Iraqi Government on the types of progress that we 
all agree they ought to be making. They should not be stricken from 
this by the Cochran amendment.
  The President wants to commit more American servicemembers to an 
open-ended conflict. This bill recognizes that we need a new strategy. 
We need to do what the Iraqi Study Group and what many generals and 
what the American people have called for. We need to redeploy our 
troops. The bill says a redeployment should begin within 120 days, and 
it sets the goal of having most U.S. forces out of Iraq by next March.
  Importantly, this bill helps us take care of those who are injured 
fighting for our country. It is time we focused our attention on those 
men and women who have sacrificed so much, who have come home and have 
endured the hardship we have seen at Walter Reed and other facilities 
across this country. We need to make sure they get the resources they 
need, and this bill does that.
  I am pleased to support the underlying bill. I oppose the Cochran 
amendment, and I support this bill because it sets a new direction for 
our policy in Iraq and it provides important new support for our 
servicemembers and veterans who are here at home.
  I retain the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my long-term friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi. We came to the Senate together 
some 29 years ago. I commend him for the leadership he has provided 
throughout his many years and, particularly, on this coming vote, which 
is most important--not just to the Senate but to the whole Congress and 
to the people of the United States and to the world. I strongly support 
the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran.
  Some many weeks ago, shortly after January 10, when the President 
announced his new strategy for a surge, I was among those few voices on 
this side that expressed concern about that initiative. I believed that 
this Nation had invested so heavily in Iraq, in life, in limb, and an 
extraordinary amount of money, much of that having been spent on the 
training of the Iraqi security forces, and that the time had come for 
those security forces to bear the brunt of the battle. Our group, 
having drawn up a resolution, endeavored to try to get it debated, but 
the record shows that opportunity, and the opportunity to vote on it, 
was not given. But that is history.
  At this time, however, I believe the operations of our troops under 
the new strategy are well underway. We have many men and women of our 
Armed Forces in harm's way, and we must be very cautious as to the 
message we send at this time.
  Mr. President, I say most respectfully that with this current draft 
we are trying to strike out the language that, if allowed to stand, 
would send a sound all over the world. It would be the bugle of 
retreat; it would be echoed and repeated from every minaret throughout 
Iraq: The coalition forces have decided to take the first step 
backward.
  We cannot send that message at this time. I will be among those who 
will constantly challenge any aspect of the policies of this 
administration which I believe are not in the best interest. I have two 
amendments that, hopefully, will be considered in the context of the 
pending bill. One calls for an independent investigation--independent 
of the Department of Defense and all entities of the Federal 
Government--of the Iraqi security forces, principally the army and, to 
some extent, the police, to determine what the status is of those 
forces today.
  What has been the result of the billions of dollars we have expended 
over 2\1/2\ years to train and equip them? Are they now, or in the 
immediate future, able to carry the burden of this fight to enable the 
people and the Government of Iraq to have greater security and 
eventually achieve the goals and the full reins of a democracy?
  The other amendment I have calls for a table of benchmarks and a 
reporting sequence from our administration as to whether the Iraqis are 
or are not meeting those benchmarks because any option laid down is 
dependent on the capability of the Iraqi security forces. Early reports 
in the engagements thus far indicate that, in some measures, they have 
met the commitments they made to have sent battalions, to have engaged 
with such limited aggression that has been brought against them in the 
course of this surge and against the coalition forces. Nevertheless, it 
is the American forces that are primarily in the lead, primarily in the 
support role and carrying the greater burden of this battle.
  So at this time I do not think it is wise to sound that bugle, that 
sound of retreat. Think of the consequences if that nation implodes and 
fractures and the Government and all of the gains that we have gotten 
thus far are lost. Think of the consequences on, for example, the 
potential for other energy sources to be developed in that region--
energy that is vital to the world, energy that must flow from that 
region through the Straits of Hormuz that could be jeopardized if there 
is a convulsion among the border states and the spreading of the 
anarchy that could simply flow from this most distressed land of 
uncertainty we call Iraq, this situation that is so fragile at this 
time.
  So I urge my colleagues, with no disrespect to those who put this in 
the bill, to support the Cochran amendment.
  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I simply ask unanimous consent 
to send a modification to the desk for an amendment filed, No. 698.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, I 
would have to object at this time. We are happy to work with the 
Senator during the vote to deal with the modification.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respect the manager of the bill, and I 
thank her.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 10 minutes. The minority 
controls 6\1/2\ minutes. That includes 10 minutes for the leadership.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the amendment which we are going to vote 
on very shortly in the Senate is a historic amendment. It is an 
amendment which I think will be followed very carefully not just in the 
United States but around the world, particularly in Iraq.
  Understand what this amendment does. The Cochran amendment removes 
the language which starts to bring American troops home. The Cochran 
language, instead, calls on the President to make periodic reports to 
Congress on the progress in Iraq. With all due respect to those who 
support that amendment, periodic reports will not bring this war to an 
end. Periodic messages from the White House will not turn over this war 
to the Iraqis to defend their own country.
  What we have seen in Iraq is the worst foreign policy mistake in our 
time. We have paid so dearly in our Nation for this mistake. Over 3,200 
of our bravest soldiers have given their lives. Over 24,000 have come 
home injured, some with serious injuries that will haunt them for a 
lifetime. We have spent $500 billion of our treasure in Iraq that could 
have been spent in the United States for the betterment of our people. 
We have given to the Iraqi people more than any other Nation could ask 
for. We have stood behind them, we have deposed their dictator, we have 
given them free governance and a chance at a constitution and free 
elections. Now it is time for us to make it clear to the Iraqis that it 
is their country, it is their war, and it is their future.
  This President recently said we need to continue to send soldiers, 
more soldiers, into Iraq. Sadly, many of them are being sent to battle 
without the equipment, the training, the rest they

[[Page S3814]]

need, and the time at home with their families. We are pushing these 
brave men and women to the limit. Voting for the Cochran amendment says 
it is enough that the President sends us every 60 or 90 days a report; 
that he tells us how things are going; how we are doing. Is that why we 
are in Congress, to receive reports from the President, to put them on 
a bookshelf somewhere and hope a staffer has time to read them? I think 
not.
  What we are here to do is speak for the American people who want a 
new direction in Iraq. They want this Congress to stand up once and for 
all and say to this President that this policy has to change. American 
soldiers must start to come home in an orderly manner and the Iraqis 
have to stand and defend their own country. A vote for the Cochran 
amendment, sadly, will take away any type of incentive for the Iraqis 
to do the right thing for their own Nation.
  Many have studied this over the last 4 years, a war that has gone on 
longer than World War II. They have come to the same conclusions--the 
Iraq Study Group and many others--it is time for the United States to 
announce a new policy. The Cochran amendment says we will stay with the 
old policy; we will receive periodic reports from the White House. That 
is not the answer.
  What we need to do is to stand behind our soldiers by bringing them 
home as quickly as possible.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? That exceeds the Senator's 
time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes before the 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to use about 5 minutes of my 
leader time after Senator Hutchison, and she needs a minimum of 3 
minutes. I will ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchison be allowed 
to have 1\1/2\ minutes of my leader time, and I will take about 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will not object if we can add an equal 
amount of time to the majority side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me ask for 2 minutes. I thought 
the last time the Chair announced the time it was 6\1/2\ minutes after 
Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 6\1/2\ minutes, but the leader gets 5 of 
those 6\1/2\.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand. I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed 2 minutes, after which the leader will then be allowed his 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me say that the distinguished deputy leader on the 
other side said that if the Cochran amendment passes, it will be the 
same strategy, nothing new, nothing changed.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the President heard 
what the people said in the elections of last year. The President has 
changed the policy. We have confirmed a general to go over there and 
direct a new strategy, which, by all accounts, is beginning to have 
some hope of success.
  If we do what is in this bill, by not passing the Cochran amendment, 
it says that the President must commence the phased redeployment of 
U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of this 
act. That puts a bulls-eye on our troops on the ground. It says we are 
not committed to do what we said we would do, to stand with Iraq to 
have a stable democracy in their country. It says that we are just 
going to leave.
  We are not stating any benchmarks; we are not stating any success 
strategies; we are saying 120 days and we are gone. What do you think 
that does to our troops on the ground? What does it say to our allies? 
Most importantly, what does it say to the enemy? It says the greatest 
country in the world is going to be there as long as it is not very 
hard. But when it gets too tough for America, we will leave and we will 
walk out.
  That should not be the message of the greatest country on Earth, and 
I hope we will pass the Cochran amendment and do what is right for our 
country for the long term.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, less than 2 weeks ago, a bipartisan 
majority of Senators put aside disagreements over the war in Iraq and 
agreed on at least one thing and that one thing was that announcing a 
surrender date for our troops is certainly not in our national 
interest.
  It is wrong by the troops who have been risking their lives to bring 
stability and order throughout Baghdad and Iraq. Certainly, they do not 
want to tell the enemy they intend to run up the white flag 365 days 
from today. Setting a date for withdrawal is akin to sending a memo to 
our enemies to rest, refit, and replan until the day we leave. It is a 
memo to our friends, too, telling them we plan to walk away and leave 
them on their own, regardless of what we leave behind. We know as well 
as they do that we can expect the following: a Sunni minority exposed 
to the whims of the Shia majority, ethnic cleansing, and regional 
instability the consequences of which are painful to contemplate but 
easy to predict.
  It is wrong by the commanders in the field, who have been sent into 
battle with a mission to fulfill and who know better than we do how to 
carry out that mission.
  It is wrong by the Iraqis themselves, who have risked their lives and 
fortunes on the strength of a promise that the United States of America 
would stand with them and see this struggle through until the end.
  We voted against setting a surrender date, despite intense political 
pressure because common sense tells us that politicians in Washington 
don't tell the commanders on the battlefield when the fight is won.
  Common sense told us something else a few months ago. It told us we 
had to change course, and that is exactly what we have done. We 
realized the only way we would win this fight would be to secure the 
city of Baghdad, the seat of the Iraqi Government, and home to a 
quarter of its population. We implemented a strategy to do it.
  Some have said there is no military, only a political solution to 
ending the violence in Iraq. But we can't pretend the Iraqis will forge 
a political solution unless they are secure in their homes and on their 
streets. That is the key to the Petraeus strategy and to our efforts in 
Baghdad.
  We have been pursuing that new course for the last few months. A 
Democratic-controlled Senate sent a new commander into the field of 
battle to carry it out. We have seen early signs of success, enough to 
believe this new approach was exactly the right thing to do.
  Now Congress is being asked to fund it. I agree this is also the 
right thing to do. We are not about to pull the rug out from under our 
soldiers in the field just as they begin to carry out the mission we 
have sent them on. We are going to give them everything they need, and 
we are not going to slip a deadline now into their security package.
  The Constitution gives those who oppose this war a clear and concrete 
way of expressing their views, and that is to vote against funding it. 
Attempting to have it both ways--by slipping a withdrawal date into 
this bill and making the support of our troops contingent on a 
dangerous and defeatist surrender date--was wrong a week and a half ago 
and it is wrong now.
  It is also dangerous. President Bush has repeatedly said he will veto 
a bill that includes a surrender date. He said it again this morning. 
He said this spending bill, in its current form, assumes and enforces 
the failure of the new strategy even before American commanders are 
able to implement their plans and he will veto it if it reaches his 
desk.
  I urge my colleagues not to take us down this path, not to delay the 
delivery of emergency funding to our troops by forcing a Presidential 
veto. There is no need. Nothing has changed since the majority of us 
voted against this very same timeline the week before last.
  Stripping the withdrawal date will not prevent anyone in this Chamber

[[Page S3815]]

from expressing his or her views on Iraq. Its only effect would be to 
delay the delivery of much needed funding and equipment to our soldiers 
in the field. I strongly urge my colleagues to strike this dangerous 
provision and support the Cochran amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has 2\1/2\ minutes, but he 
is not here, so I will proceed to wrap up the debate.
  My friend, the Republican leader, said nothing has changed since the 
last vote. That is the whole problem, nothing has changed. Nothing has 
changed in over 4 years of this bloody war in Iraq. One course. That 
course has been followed from the very beginning and has never changed.
  The choice tonight is very clear. It is as clear as it is important. 
It is a choice between staying the course in Iraq and changing the 
course in that faraway land. With their votes, Senators tonight can 
send a message to the President that it is time to come with us, to 
help find a new way and end this intractable civil war or Senators can 
allow this course to continue, allow President Bush to commit more U.S. 
troops in this open-ended Iraqi civil war.
  After more than 4 years, the related deaths of 3,250 of our brave 
soldiers, and the wounded tens of thousands of these men and women, it 
is time we should change. This war is not worth the spilling of another 
drop of American blood. As it stands, this emergency legislation before 
this body tonight will send a signal to our President that it is time 
for a new direction, it is time to set benchmarks, it is time to send a 
signal to the Iraqi Government that they must take responsibility for 
their own people, and it is time to start redeploying our troops and 
recommitting ourselves to fighting al-Qaida and other terrorists around 
the world.
  If this amendment passes, sending a message to the President to 
change course, that is the right way to go. If, however, Senators 
decide to allow the President to continue along the line he has 
outlined for more than 4 years, that would be a shame. That is what 
this amendment is all about, whether this carefully crafted legislation 
will be stripped from this bill. It would then turn out to be, instead 
of a bill that demands the President change his policy, that we will 
have a bill that gives the President a blank check and a green light to 
continue the failed course we have had in Iraq.
  Without this language in the supplemental, the President would be 
free to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, serving an impossible 
mission of policing an acknowledged civil war. Staying the course in 
Iraq will not lead to success. There are no military solutions. My 
friend, the Republican leader, said ``some say.'' ``Some say.'' Well, 
one person who says the war can't be won militarily is the man we have 
commanding the troops over there, General Petraeus. He said 20 percent 
of the war is military, the rest is political and diplomatic and 
economic. That is the way it is.
  The bill, without this amendment, offers a responsible strategy in 
Iraq, which the American people asked for last November, a strategy 
that will maximize our chances to succeed in Iraq and enhance our 
ability to defeat al-Qaida. General after general after general has 
said that is the right strategy. A group of patriotic Americans devoted 
a year of their lives to giving the American people and this Congress 
and the President the advice of their collective wisdom--and it was 
wisdom--former Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of State, college 
professors, former Members of Congress. They came to the conclusion 
that we have in this amendment. It is in this bill. The Iraq Study 
Group agrees with what we have in this legislation.

  It is time for the Senate to put a stamp of approval on people such 
as Secretary Jim Baker. He is a man who is a card-carrying Republican. 
He served as Secretary of State, Chief of Staff for the President of 
the United States, and he has held other Cabinet positions. He is an 
example of what that Iraq Study Group was all about. They did it 
because it was the right thing to do. The reason we are having even 
minimal contact right now with Iranians is because of Secretary Baker. 
Secretary Baker said you do not only negotiate with your friends, you 
have to negotiate with your enemies.
  I have come to know very well a person who is part of my security 
detail. He has traveled with me all over the country--has been to my 
home in Searchlight. He is now headed for his third tour of duty in 
Iraq. He has two little children. He is headed for Iraq. He leaves in 
less than a month. I admire James for his courage and his patriotism, 
but he should not be going back for a third go-around. He is a National 
Guardsman.
  I understand how some of my colleagues feel. In this Chamber is Joe 
Lieberman. There is not a Senator for whom I have more respect than Joe 
Lieberman. I know how passionately he feels on this issue.
  John Warner, seated across from me, is one of my friends. I can say 
that without any reservation or hesitation. We have served together for 
many years. I was his subcommittee chairman in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. I know how he feels about this issue, how torn 
he is as to what is the right thing to do, what is not the right thing 
to do. I acknowledge the feelings of John Warner and Joe Lieberman, but 
that does not take away from the way I feel about this issue.
  I have said on this floor before and I will say it again, the 
sparsely populated State of Nevada has lost 39 soldiers in Iraq. The 
last one, I called his mother less than 2 weeks ago. Raul Bravo is 
dead. He was 21 years old--a marine on his second tour of duty in Iraq. 
His mother expressed to me what a tremendous loss this was. He was the 
only man in her family, she said--she and her three daughters. I admire 
Raul Bravo for going to Iraq twice. He did what he had to do. But we 
have had too many Raul Bravos dying over there, unnecessarily, in the 
middle of a civil war.
  I listened to my radio yesterday morning, as I do every morning. 
Yesterday morning: five dead soldiers the day before.
  I say sincerely that we should not spill any more blood there. We 
should start redeploying these troops, have them work in 
counterterrorism, force protection, training the Iraqis.
  Every one of my colleagues should understand that the Prime Minister 
of Iraq told the President of the United States to his face the last 
time they met: Get the American troops out of Baghdad. That is what he 
told him. This was before the surge that the President came up with. 
The leader of the country of Iraq told the President of the United 
States: Get the American troops out of here.
  The Iraqi people don't want us there. All the polls show 
overwhelmingly the people, Iraqi people, don't want us there. The 
majority of the people think it is OK to kill and injure Americans. Is 
that what we want to be involved in? I think not.
  A lot of people worked very hard on the provision that is subject to 
being stricken from this bill. This is a good piece of legislation that 
is in this bill. It is the right thing to do. It is good for America. 
It is good for our world. And it is good for President Bush.
  I yield back Senator Kennedy's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole

[[Page S3816]]


     Domenici
     Ensign
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Enzi
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 643) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to shortly suggest the absence of 
a quorum again. I want to tell everybody, it is going to take us a 
little while to figure out where we go next. I need to meet with 
Senator McConnell, Senator Byrd, and Senator Cochran. This is not an 
easy proposition. We have cloture in the morning. As we have heard from 
both sides, this is a very important bill and we have to move as 
quickly as we can. Well over 100 amendments have been filed on this 
bill. That is going to throw a monkey wrench into things. Senator 
McConnell has worked in good faith for us to get to the point where we 
are today. I hope I have done the same. I represented to Senator 
McConnell we could have a vote on the Iraq bill, and we have done that. 
I represented to Senator McConnell we could have a vote on the minimum 
wage, and we almost have that worked out. I represented to Senator 
McConnell there were certain amendments a couple of his Senators wanted 
to offer and we were going to work that out, and I think we have done 
that.
  There is something that is wanted on both sides, very important to 
Senator Wyden and Senator Smith, Senator Bingaman and Senator Baucus, 
and others. We are at a point where we can resolve that.
  Beyond that, it is a legislative mess. Standing here in the well, I 
have had five Senators come up to me and say they had emergency things 
they needed done. I asked each of them: Is it in the supplemental? No.
  It makes it tough to try to be everything to everybody. We need a 
little time to see what we can do to work through this. I want to be as 
fair as we can, but this is an unusual piece of legislation. We have a 
cloture vote in the morning. The staff will work during the night to 
find out which of the amendments that have been filed either are 
germane or appear to be germane or are not.
  We will not have a vote in the near future. It will be a little 
while. I would say it will probably take us at least 15 minutes before 
we know where we are going. We have Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, who 
are as experienced as anyone could be on this most important bill. We 
will do our best to give everyone an idea of where we are headed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for an observation?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think we are close to sorting out a 
way to go forward, as the majority leader has described. As soon as we 
finish this colloquy, why don't we get about figuring out how to sort 
that out.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate that very much. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
return to the Kennedy amendment and that a Grassley second-degree 
amendment be considered and agreed to; that the Kennedy amendment, as 
amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that on Wednesday, March 28, there be 30 minutes of debate to 
run concurrently with respect to the Wyden amendment No. 709 and the 
Burr amendment No. 716, with the time equally divided and controlled 
between Senators Wyden and Burr or their designees; that the Burr 
amendment be modified to be a first-degree amendment; that no 
amendments be in order to either amendment; that there then be 30 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
H.R. 1591, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees; that upon the use of time, without further 
intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation 
to the Wyden amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the 
Burr amendment, and then a vote on the motion to invoke cloture; that 
there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote; that 
on Wednesday, it be in order for Senator Hagel to call up amendment No. 
707 and there be 90 minutes of debate under the control of Senator 
Hagel; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the amendment 
be withdrawn. That would be whether cloture is invoked or not. And it 
relates to the Hagel amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have taken, as you know, a long time to 
get to this point. There are a number of other Senators who have 
questions, and we are still in the process of working our way through 
that.
  I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be recognized to 
call up six amendments en bloc--Nos. 648, 649, 656, 657, 717, and 718; 
that once they are reported by number, the amendments be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.


                     Amendment No. 698, as Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know there has been a diligent effort on 
both sides to get the Byrd-Warner amendment cleared. I am hoping to get 
the final clearance from Senator Stevens. I know where he is, and I 
have contacted him. If that could just be held in abeyance for a minute 
or two, in the meantime, may I modify one of the amendments that is 
filed at the desk?

       I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 698.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment (No. 698), as modified, is as follows:

                      (Purpose: Relating to Iraq)

       At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 1316. IRAQ.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On the fourth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
     the regime of a brutal dictator has been replaced by a 
     democratically elected government in the Arab world.
       (2) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723, 
     approved November 28, 2006, ``determin[ed] that the situation 
     in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international 
     peace and security''.
       (3) More than 137,000 United States military personnel are 
     currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since 
     March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent 
     with the finest traditions of the United States armed forces, 
     and are deserving of the support of all Americans, which they 
     have strongly.
       (4) Many United States military personnel have lost their 
     lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the 
     American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor 
     their families.

[[Page S3817]]

       (5) The United States Army and Marine Corps, including 
     their Reserve and National Guard organizations, together with 
     components of the other branches of the military, are under 
     enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq 
     and Afghanistan, and these deployments, and those that will 
     follow, will have lasting impacts on the future recruiting, 
     retention and readiness of our Nation's all volunteer force.
       (6) Iraq is experiencing a deteriorating problem of 
     sectarian and intra-sectarian violence based upon political 
     distrust and cultural differences between some Sunni and Shia 
     Muslims, concentrated primarily in Baghdad.
       (7) Iraqis must reach political settlements in order to 
     achieve reconciliation, and the failure of the Iraqis to 
     reach such settlements to support a truly unified government 
     greatly contributes to the increasing violence in Iraq.
       (8) The responsibility for internal security and halting 
     sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with the 
     Government of Iraq, relying on the Iraqi Security Forces 
     (ISF).
       (9) President George W. Bush said on January 10, 2007, that 
     ``I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other 
     leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended'' so as 
     to dispel the contrary impression that exists.
       (10) It is essential that the Government of Iraq set out 
     measurable and achievable benchmarks and President George W. 
     Bush said, on January 10, 2007, that ``America will change 
     our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet 
     these benchmarks''.
       (11) According to Secretary of State Rice, Iraq's Policy 
     Committee on National Security agreed upon a set of 
     political, security, and economic benchmarks and an 
     associated timeline in September 2006 that were--
       (A) reaffirmed by Iraq's Presidency Council on October 6, 
     2007;
       (B) referenced by the Iraq Study Group; and
       (C) posted on the website of the President of Iraq.
       (12) The Secretary of State indicated on January 30, 2007 
     that ``we expect the Prime Minister will follow through on 
     his pledges to the President that he would take difficult 
     decisions''.
       (13) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and 
     the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified 
     about, and, or, provided unclassified material to members of 
     Congress on Iraqi commitments and goals.
       (14) Congress acknowledges that the Baghdad Security Plan 
     is in its initially months and while there are signs of 
     progress, there are also signs of difficulty and uncertainty. 
     For these reasons, and others, Congress must have timely 
     reports to evaluate in performance of roles under the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       (b) Benchmarks.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, should be 
     conditioned on the Government of Iraq meeting benchmarks, as 
     told to members of Congress by the President, the Secretary 
     of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff, and reflected in the commitments of 
     the Government of Iraq to the United States, and to the 
     international community, including--
       (A) forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then 
     completing the Constitutional review;
       (B) enacting and implementing legislation on de-
     Bathification;
       (C) enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the 
     equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people 
     of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of 
     recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to 
     ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, 
     Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable 
     manner;
       (D) enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to 
     form semi-autonomous regions;
       (E) enacting and implementing legislation establishing an 
     Independent High Electoral Commission; provincial elections 
     law, provincial council authorities, and a date for 
     provincial elections;
       (F) enacting and implementing legislation addressing 
     amnesty;
       (G) enacting and implementing legislation establishing a 
     strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such 
     security forces are accountable only to the central 
     government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq;
       (H) establishing supporting political media, economic, and 
     services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan;
       (I) providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to 
     support Baghdad operations;
       (J) providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to 
     execute the Baghdad Security Plan and to make tactical and 
     operational decisions, in consultation with United States 
     commanders, without political intervention;
       (K) ensuring that there Iraqi Security Forces are providing 
     even handed enforcement of the law against all who break it;
       (L) ensuring that, according to President George W. Bush, 
     as Prime Minister of Iraq Maliki said ``the Baghdad security 
     plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, 
     regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation'';
       (M) establishing all of the planned joint security stations 
     in neighborhoods across Baghdad;
       (N) increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units 
     capable of operating independently;
       (O) allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues 
     for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential 
     services, on an equitable basis; and
       (2) the achievement of these benchmarks by the Government 
     of Iraq, or the demonstration by the Government of Iraq of 
     satisfactory progress towards achieving these benchmarks, 
     should be viewed as the condition for continued United States 
     military and economic involvement in Iraq.
       (c) Reports on Benchmarks.--
       (1) In general.--The Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, 
     in coordination with the United States Ambassador to Iraq, 
     shall submit a report to the Commander of United States 
     Central Command not later than July 15, 2007, and every 60 
     days thereafter. The report shall detail the status of each 
     of the specific benchmarks set forth in subsection (b), and 
     conclude whether satisfactory progress has been made toward 
     meeting the overall benchmarks as specified in that 
     subsection, in a timely manner.
       (2) Assessment by commander of central command.--Upon 
     receipt of a report under paragraph (1), the Commander of 
     United States Central Command shall prepare an assessment of 
     the report. The report and the assessment shall be submitted 
     to the Secretary of Defense not later than July 20, 2007, and 
     every 60 days thereafter.
       (3) Assessment by secretary of defense and secretary of 
     state.--Upon receipt of a report and assessment under 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, prepare an 
     independent assessment of the report and submit the report 
     and all assessments, not later than August 1, 2007, and every 
     60 days thereafter, to--
       (A) the Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, and 
     Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate; and
       (B) the Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, and 
     Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
       (4) Report by the president.--If any report or any of the 
     assessments fail to indicate satisfactory progress in any 
     benchmark, the President shall, within 30 days thereafter, 
     submit to Congress a report on those benchmarks that failed 
     to achieve satisfactory progress. The President's report 
     shall provide an explanation of why satisfactory progress was 
     not achieved and describe revisions to the January 10, 2007 
     strategy that reflect how satisfactory progress will be 
     attained.
       (5) Termination of superseded reporting requirement.--The 
     reporting requirement in section 1227 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 
     119 Stat. 3465; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is terminated after the 
     reporting period ending May 31, 2007.
       (d) Reports on Readiness of the Armed Forces.--
       (1) Reports by service secretaries.--Commencing 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretaries 
     of the military departments, in coordination with the Chiefs 
     of the Services, shall report to the Committees on Armed 
     Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees 
     on Armed Services and Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, not later than 30 days before the date of 
     embarkation, on the deployment of any unit of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States, to include the Reserve Forces 
     and National Guard (hereafter known as ``the unit''), outside 
     the United States and its territories that is not considered 
     fully mission capable of performing reasonably assigned 
     mission-essential tasks to prescribed standards, under 
     anticipated conditions in the theater of operations, of the 
     supported combatant commander.
       (2) Assessment of risk.--Subsequently, the supported 
     combatant commander, in coordination with the Commander of 
     Joint Forces Command, shall assess the risk of the deployment 
     of the unit as significant, high, medium, or low, and specify 
     to the Secretary of Defense corrective actions to reduce that 
     level of risk from significant, high, or medium to low, not 
     later than 20 days before the embarkation of the unit.
       (3) Transmittal of assessment.--Thereafter, the Secretary 
     of Defense, in coordination with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
     of Staff, shall forward the aforementioned risk assessment to 
     the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Armed Services and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, not later 
     than 10 days before the date of embarkation of the unit, with 
     a statement that--
       (A) the risk associated with the deployment of the unit has 
     been mitigated to satisfaction; or
       (B) the deployment of the unit has been cancelled, delayed, 
     or determined to be of such significant importance that 
     deployment of the unit is essential and the level of risk of 
     that deployment is vital to the national security of the 
     United States.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will advise the leadership as soon as I 
get a message. I thank the distinguished leaders.


                 Amendment No. 798 to Amendment No. 680

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S3818]]

clerk will report the Grassley second-degree amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 798 to amendment No. 
     680.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 798) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 680, as Amended

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Kennedy amendment No. 680, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 680), as amended, was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized under the previous order.


       Amendments Nos. 648, 649, 656, 657, 717, and 718, En Bloc

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up six amendments en bloc: 648, 
649, 656, 657, 717, and 718, and I ask that they be set aside after 
they are reported.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 648, 649, 656, 657, 717, and 718, en bloc) are 
as follows:


                           amendment no. 648

  (Purpose: To remove $100 million in funding for the Republican and 
                  Democrat party conventions in 2008)

       At the appropriate place, add the following: 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act 
     may be available for reimbursing State and local law 
     enforcement entities for security and related costs, 
     including overtime, associated with the 2008 Presidential 
     Candidate Nominating Conventions, and the total amount made 
     available in this Act in Title II, Chapter 2, under the 
     heading ``State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' is 
     reduced by $100,000,000.


                           amendment no. 649

(Purpose: To remove a $2 million earmark for the University of Vermont)

       At the appropriate place, add the following: 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Sec. 3608(b) 
     of this Act shall not take effect.


                           amendment no. 656

  (Purpose: To require timely public disclosure of Government reports 
             submitted to Congress, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Posting of Certain Reports on Internet 
     Websites.--Each report described in subsection (b) shall be 
     posted on the Internet website of the department or agency 
     submitting that report for the public not later than 48 hours 
     after the submission of that report to Congress.
       (b) Covered Reports.--The reports described in this 
     subsection are each report (including any review, evaluation, 
     assessment, or analysis) required by a provision of this Act 
     to be submitted by any department or agency to Congress or 
     any committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
       (c) Redaction of Certain Information.--In posting a report 
     on the Internet website of the department or agency under 
     subsection (a), the head of that department or agency may 
     redact any information the release of which to the public 
     would compromise the national security of the United States.


                           Amendment No. 657

 (Purpose: To provide farm assistance in a fiscally responsible manner)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 717

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, titles II, 
     III, and IV of this Act shall not take effect.


                           amendment no. 718

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, titles II 
     (except for chapter 8 and 9 of title II), III, and IV of this 
     Act shall not take effect.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments are pending en bloc.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have filed amendment No. 670 to H.R. 
1591. This amendment authorizes the Secretary to spend up to $50 
million for the establishment and maintenance of a civilian reserve 
corps to address postconflict situations and other emergencies 
overseas. The amendment provides the Secretary the flexibility to use a 
portion of the funding in this act to make an urgent effort to recruit 
and train more civilians in planning and managing stabilization and 
reconstruction.
  The Senate embraced the creation of such a civilian corps when it 
unanimously passed S. 3322 last May. The funding in this amendment 
matches the level provided in the House version of the emergency 
supplemental.
  If enacted, this amendment provides the Secretary with access to 
immediate funding to recruit and send civilians with the appropriate 
skills to assist in reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as to emerging trouble spots around the world. The 
United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources 
in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few 
weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and 
failure.
  Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware 
of the importance of this amendment. They understand that, if we cannot 
work together better as a government in postconflict and other unstable 
situations, the United States may come to depend even more on our 
military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. This 
amendment builds on the planning that has already taken place to 
develop a civilian reserve and jumpstarts it so that it can be 
available as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record at this 
point a letter from the Secretary of State strongly endorsing the need 
for the funding contained in this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           The Secretary of State,
                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 2007.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for including funding of $50 million in the 
     supplemental appropriations bill to establish a Civilian 
     Reserve Corps. Since our supplemental funding request went 
     forward, we have worked diligently to refine a proposal to 
     jump start the creation of a Civilian Reserve Corps. We are 
     pleased the House of Representatives agrees and has included. 
     $50 million in its supplemental appropriations bill for this 
     purpose. We believe that we are able to justify and to spend 
     wisely these funds in building a reserve capability to 
     complement our internal surge capacity.
       We have seen the dangers to U.S. interests that can occur 
     from unstable and ungoverned territories that foster the 
     emergence of terrorist organizations. We must find new and 
     better ways to respond to the urgent demands of post-conflict 
     stabilization and reconstruction. The Civilian Reserve Corps, 
     which the President proposed in his State of the Union 
     address, is one way to do just that. We cannot create 
     stability, reconstruct economies, and foster the growth of 
     institutions with military solutions; for these purposes we 
     must call on American civilians who have the necessary 
     expertise to assist in these vital tasks.
       The Civilian Reserve Corps will tap the creativity, the 
     energy, and the idealism of the American people. I look 
     forward to working with the Congress to advance and refine 
     the legislation which will authorize the use of these funds.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Condoleezza Rice.

  Mr. LUGAR. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 
February 6, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs Peter Pace talked about the urgent need for civilian expertise 
in the Iraq stabilization effort. General Pace also called for more 
civilian resources for the broader worldwide effort, people who can 
build judicial and rule of law systems, provide engineering expertise, 
and bring clean water and electricity to people ``before a country 
devolves into a state where the terrorists can find a home.''
  Passing the amendment will demonstrate that there is a keen 
understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward now to 
strengthen our civilian reconstruction capabilities in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I recommend this amendment to my colleagues and urge its adoption.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, once again we are debating additional 
wartime funding for Iraq. Once again, we are trying to mitigate the 
damage caused by the President's utterly failed Iraq policy and the 
failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam 
Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack 
of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the 
world.

[[Page S3819]]

  For the past 2 months, the spotlight has shone on another 
administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded 
soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when 
they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross 
mismanagement and a strained system. As such, I will offer amendment 
No. 766 to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and 
veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities.
  The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that some of the reasons 
for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living 
conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, 
moving to private contracts for maintenance can cause problems. After a 
private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on 
the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of 
approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went 
into effect. Many of the terrible living conditions found in Building 
18 were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance 
because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from 
occurring again, this amendment calls for public-private competitions 
of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our 
country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a 
Government Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions 
for basic maintenance work at military facilities.
  Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to 
shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical 
services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military 
medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been 
wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this amendment would require 
medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount 
while the Nation is involved in a major military conflict or war.
  Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is 
whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building 
new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda 
and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access 
to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the 
planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed 
professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns 
raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has 
been properly planned. To deal with that, this amendment requires the 
Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed 
plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of 
being able to guarantee professional jobs for 2 years or more following 
the closure; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for 
new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the 
needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single 
unit is moved.
  Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers 
is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. 
In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to 
ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable 
of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The 
VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, 
but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to 
send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability 
determination process. Making the disability determination system more 
efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families 
going through the determination process.
  Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make 
sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care 
they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, 
many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to 
servicemembers, this amendment requires a minimum ratio of case 
managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with 
recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers 
be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems 
so they can better assist patients with their paperwork.
  Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan 
have service-related mental health issues like posttraumatic stress 
disorder, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, TBI. Many have labeled TBI 
the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is 
estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That would mean 
about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers who have served in Operation 
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain 
injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there 
is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, 
returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms 
show up until several years later. This amendment calls for every 
returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced 
plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical 
facilities too. In addition, the amendment calls for a study on the 
advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every 
service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability 
evaluation system.
  We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been 
wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the 
demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was 
attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have 
been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 
630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, 
more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term 
costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 
643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, 
an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a 
significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in 
desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my amendment 
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan 
for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years.
  In addition to this amendment that I offer today, I am happy to have 
also joined with my colleagues Senators Obama and McCaskill and offered 
an amendment based on the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. My 
amendment complements the Obama and McCaskill amendment to improve the 
care our wounded soldiers receive at Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
and other military medical facilities. I believe both amendments will 
make medical care better for our military personnel and veterans. I 
also commend the Appropriations Committee for already providing 
approximately $3.1 billion in funding above the President's request for 
health programs in the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. Providing $1.3 billion for defense health programs 
and $1.767 billion for veterans' health programs is a great step to fix 
some of the problems we currently face.
  It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of 
brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of 
these wars for the rest of their lives. While President Bush and his 
administration may have failed to plan adequately to ensure that these 
soldiers and veterans receive the care that they deserve, we in 
Congress must act now to improve this situation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, in support of amendment No. 680. The 
substance of this amendment is what the Senate passed by a 94-to-3 vote 
as the minimum wage and small business tax bill on February 1.
  This amendment would thus extend to hard-working Americans a long-
overdue increase in the minimum wage. It is long past time when 
Congress should have increased the minimum wage.
  Now some worry that an increase in the minimum wage would burden 
small

[[Page S3820]]

businesses. Smaller businesses employ a disproportionate share of 
workers earning the minimum wage.
  Representatives of small businesses have therefore argued that any 
increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by tax incentives 
targeted for small businesses in order to lower their costs.
  Small business is particularly important in rural States like 
Montana. Rural communities generally do not have large employers. Rural 
families rely on small businesses for jobs.
  The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over taxes. The committee held 
a hearing on January 10 entitled ``Tax Incentives for Businesses in 
Response to a Minimum Wage Increase.'' The committee heard from a 
variety of witnesses, including labor economists, small business 
owners, and tax experts.
  Following that hearing, the committee held a markup on January 17. 
The committee reported an original bill called the Small Business and 
Work Opportunity Act of 2007.
  That bill is a revenue-neutral bill containing a number of tax 
incentives for small businesses and businesses that hire minimum wage 
workers. The committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice 
vote. And the majority leader included that bill in its entirety in his 
amendment to the House-passed Fair Minimum Wage Act. That bill passed 
the Senate on February 1.
  Now the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee and I have included that bill in its entirety in our 
amendment to the House-passed supplemental appropriations bill, the 
U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.
  The small business tax provisions included in this amendment will 
help small businesses to succeed. These provisions will spur investment 
and thus create jobs. They will provide greater opportunity for workers 
looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support.
  To carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners are often 
required to invest significant amounts of money in depreciable 
property, such as machinery. The amendment would help business owners 
to afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the 
amendment would extend for another year expensing under section 179 of 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  New equipment and property are necessary to successfully operate a 
business. But large business purchases generally require depreciation 
across a number of years, and depreciation requires additional 
bookkeeping.
  Expensing under section 179 allows for an immediate 100-percent 
deduction of the cost for most personal property purchased for use in a 
business. In 2007, small business owners may deduct up to $112,000 of 
equipment expenses.
  When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no 
longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So 
extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping 
burdens.
  The amendment would also allow small business owners to quickly 
recover the cost of improvements to their establishments through 
extension and expansion of the 15-year straight-line depreciation 
period for leaseholds and restaurant improvements. Without this 
provision, they would have to depreciate over the course of 39 years.
  Allowing retailers and restaurants to use a 15-year straight-line 
depreciation period would help entrepreneurs who open a business or 
remodel their property. The entrepreneur's investment could be 
recovered over a period of time more closely reflecting wear and tear.
  The amendment would extend the 15-year recovery period for leasehold 
and restaurant improvements. The amendment would also broaden the 
provision to allow retail owners and new restaurants to take advantage 
of this shortened depreciation period.
  The amendment would also help businesses to provide jobs for workers 
who have experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending 
and expanding the work opportunity tax credit or WOTC.
  WOTC encourages businesses to hire workers who might not otherwise 
find work. WOTC has been remarkably successful. By reducing 
expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is highly cost-effective. The 
business community is highly supportive of these credits. Industries 
like retail and restaurants that hire many low-skill workers find it 
especially useful.
  The amendment would extend WOTC for 5 years, and the amendment would 
expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire veterans 
disabled after 9/11.
  As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces were 
wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Many do 
not know what they are going to do. We need to help these young men and 
women. A modest tax incentive to help them get back into the workforce 
is one place to start.
  The amendment would simplify the way that small businesses keep 
records for tax purposes. The cash method of accounting is often the 
easiest method of accounting. Allowing small business to use the cash 
method reduces the administrative and tax compliance burden of these 
businesses.
  The amendment would let more businesses take advantage of this 
method. Businesses with gross receipts up to $10 million would be able 
to use the cash method.
  The amendment helps small businesses by modifying S corporation 
rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the 
``sting tax.'' These modifications improve the viability of community 
banks.
  Senator Grassley, members of the Finance Committee, and I have worked 
to develop a balanced package, and I believe that we have succeeded.
  The language included in the amendment is a responsible package that 
will ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses.
  We have also paid for it. Most of the offsets are proposals that the 
Senate has supported several times before.
  The offsets include a proposal to end future tax benefits for abusive 
sale in/lease out tax shelters, or SILOs. These deals use foreign tax 
exempt entities to generate sham tax deductions. Even after Congress 
shut these deals down in 2004, some taxpayers continue to take 
excessive, unwarranted depreciation deductions on German sewer systems 
and the like. The IRS says that it has 1,500 of these deals under 
audit, involving billions, yes, billions, of dollars.
  The offsets include doubling fines, penalties, and interest on taxes 
owed as a result of using certain abusive offshore financial 
arrangements to avoid paying taxes. Taxpayers who hide their money from 
the IRS through offshore credit cards and other shady financial 
arrangements need to get the message that this Congress is serious 
about ending these abuses.
  The offsets include closing corporate loopholes for companies who 
reinvented themselves as foreign corporations to avoid paying tax here 
in America. In March of 2002, Senator Grassley and I made it clear that 
those who put profits ahead of patriotism did so at their own peril. 
The amendment would treat those who moved offshore after that date like 
a U.S. company, and the amendment would make those companies pay U.S. 
taxes.
  The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in 
this amendment should not have to pay more in taxes because some 
taxpayers are abusing the tax system through tax shelters. They also 
should not have to bear the burden of civil settlements and punitive 
damages paid by companies who engage in questionable behavior.
  These are sound tax policy changes. Let us finally enact an increase 
in the minimum wage, and let us also pass this useful package of tax 
benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, along with Senator Bond and Senator 
Coleman, I will offer an amendment that addresses an issue about which 
there has been much news reporting and hearings in both House and 
Senate subcommittees; namely, the situation facing Iraqi and Afghani 
interpreters and translators who are bravely working on the front lines 
with our soldiers and diplomats. Such work is vital to our efforts in 
these two conflicts, yet it often makes them and their families targets 
for insurgents. This past week, Mr. George Packer wrote a lengthy piece 
in

[[Page S3821]]

the New Yorker on this that I commend to my colleagues.
  My interest in this issue, like many of my colleagues, began last 
summer when I received e-mails from a first lieutenant in the Indiana 
National Guard who had recently returned from a tour in Iraq and from a 
sergeant in the Army who was at the time serving in a combat support 
hospital, also in Iraq.
  Aaron Inkenbrandt wrote:

       During my year in Iraq, I served as a military Transition 
     team member. As such, I lived exclusively with Iraqi forces 
     and acted as a mentor and advisor to them. My team and I did 
     much to build and train these forces under very difficult 
     circumstances. However, we could not have achieved success 
     without our Iraqi interpreters. I believe that our Nation 
     must reciprocate the loyalty proved by these men by offering 
     to them sanctuary in the United States.
       Iraqi interpreters are an outstanding group of people. 
     These men not only act as our communicators but also our 
     cultural advisors and our friends. Our interpreters share 
     with us the dangers of combat and the rigors of military 
     life. While interpreters are generally well paid, the risks 
     associated in assisting Coalition forces are extraordinary. 
     Both at work and at home, interpreters fear for their lives. 
     This fear is often so great that they cannot tell even their 
     closest relatives what they do for a living.
       The insurgency in Iraq has made clear that they will murder 
     any Iraqi caught assisting Coalition Forces. Interpreters are 
     especially prized by insurgents who often pay high bounties 
     for their killings or capture. Iraqis not associated with the 
     insurgency are also hostile toward interpreters. Many Iraqis 
     believe, though wrongly, that interpreters are snitches or 
     traitors. Such hostility makes life very difficult for Iraqi 
     interpreters.''
       The withdrawal of Coalition Forces will likely increase 
     rather than decrease the danger posted to interpreters. 
     Without our protection, former interpreters will be left 
     defenseless before their enemies and subject to persecution 
     by their friends. In my opinion, [it] would be immoral and 
     contrary to the precepts of our Constitution to abandon these 
     brave patriots in light of the vast sacrifices that they have 
     made in the cause of freedom. Therefore, I implore you to 
     advocate preferable immigration status to all Iraqi 
     interpreters whose loyalty we reasonably ascertain.

  The e-mails, and a cable that our then Ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay 
Khalilzad, released regarding the life-threatening conditions our 
Foreign Service Nationals were facing prompted me to write to the 
Secretary of State last July about the issue. I encouraged her to 
develop a policy to address these various situations and suggest 
legislative language. The United States has experience and tradition in 
this respect from past wars that provide precedent and guidance.
  The amendment I am offering today with Senator Bond and Senator 
Coleman is not a conventional amendment for an emergency supplemental, 
but because it has a direct impact on the missions in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, we are hopeful this can be included in the package.
  By virtue of a provision crafted by former Congressman John 
Hostettler of Indiana, the 2006 Defense authorization bill established 
a program to allow 50 Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for the U.S. 
military as translators for at least 12 months to come to the United 
States on a special visa. The program has been underway now for just 
over a year and has been met with success and approval by all of the 
agencies who work with it.
  Since instatement, 445 applications have been received. 377 have been 
approved, 10 denied and 58 are pending. Under the current cap of 50 per 
year, it will take until 2016 to admit those currently in the queued--
and their families--for entry to the United States.
  In order to help reduce this wait-time, my colleagues and I have 
crafted an amendment that expands the program to 300 admissions per 
year and also makes some other technical changes. We change the 
language to include interpreters as well as translators--as that is the 
proper term for those who translate conversation while translators work 
on documents. We also authorize the U.S. Ambassadors in Iraq and 
Afghanistan to nominate non-Department of Defense personnel under this 
program, and we exempt those admitted under this program, and their 
families from the numerical cap of immigrants who enter in this same, 
so-called 4th Preference category. Finally, we wish to sunset the 
program after 3 years.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have before us today a supplemental 
appropriations bill that will finally start the process of bringing our 
troops home.
  The United States today is in its fifth year in Iraq. The 
administration offers no apparent road out of Iraq. It offers only an 
escalation plan that keeps growing, and an open-ended commitment to a 
civil war.
  The Congress of the United States has an obligation to express its 
voice on this matter and to offer a solution.
  The search for a solution has been difficult. We have come to the 
floor many times this year, and we have struggled to find the right 
course of action.
  I believe that path is before us today.
  This legislation would initiate the orderly drawdown of our forces 
and redefine the mission for a small supporting force that would 
remain. It sets benchmarks for the administration and for the Iraqi 
Government.
  This legislation calls for actions which this administration has 
stubbornly resisted, including the prompt phased redeployment of U.S. 
forces from Iraq. This redeployment would begin within 120 days of the 
legislation being enacted.
  The legislation sets a goal of March 31, 2008, for redeploying major 
combat forces from Iraq. A smaller force would be allowed to remain, 
with its mission limited to protecting American and coalition personnel 
and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting 
targeted counterterrorism operations.
  This supplemental also calls for a vigorous ``diplomatic, political, 
and economic strategy.''
  This strategy would involve ``sustained engagement with Iraq's 
neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working 
collectively to bring stability to Iraq.''
  This is the key to ending the violence in Iraq--the recognition that 
the solution to Iraq lies not in U.S. force but in political 
accommodation among the Iraqis.
  This legislation also sets benchmarks for the Iraqi Government.
  These include deploying trained and ready Iraqi security forces in 
Baghdad; strengthening the authority of Iraqi commanders to make 
tactical and operational decisions without political intervention; 
disarming militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are 
accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Iraqi 
Constitution; enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that 
Iraq's oil is distributed to all Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; 
enacting and implementing legislation that reforms the de-
Ba'athification process in Iraq; ensuring a fair process for amending 
the Iraqi Constitution to protect minority rights; and enacting and 
implementing rules to protect the rights of minority political parties 
in the Iraqi Parliament.
  Finally, this supplemental requires that the top U.S. commander in 
Iraq report to Congress on progress by the Iraqi Government in meeting 
these benchmarks--30 days after this act is enacted and every 90 days 
thereafter.
  Our Nation's present course of action is untenable and unsustainable.
  Our very purpose for being in Iraq bears little resemblance to the 
reasons Congress authorized the use of military force in October 2002. 
What do we have as we enter the fifth year of this war? A terrible 
human toll in dead and injured--3,200 Americans killed, more than 
24,000 wounded, with estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths that soar well 
into the six figures and a toll on our Treasury that is unsustainable.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Iraq war is 
already the fourth most expensive war in U.S. history, behind World War 
II, Korea and Vietnam. We are spending roughly $8.4 billion in Iraq a 
month--more than $2 billion a week. So far we have spent nearly $400 
billion in Iraq. Think of the opportunity costs to this Nation. Wars 
cost money. I understand this. But we cannot continue this level of 
spending on a distant civil war with no exit strategy. If we keep our 
combat forces in Iraq for years to come--as this administration seems 
intent on doing--it will likely become the second costliest war we have 
ever waged.
  Our military cannot continue to bear this heavy burden. This war has 
eroded our troop readiness, depleted military equipment, and left our 
fighting forces weary.
  Consider these developments:

[[Page S3822]]

  Army and Marine officers say the rapid pace of deployments into Iraq 
has put the readiness of their troops into a ``death spiral''--with 40 
percent of gear worn out and soldiers and marines left fatigued and 
undertrained. Our Nation owes our fighting forces better than this.
  The 3rd Infantry Division, scrambling to meet deployment orders, 
reportedly has sent injured troops back to Iraq--including ones so 
badly injured that they could not put on their body armor. We owe our 
fighting forces better than this.
  The Army's medical facilities are understaffed and underfunded--not 
just at Building 18 at Walter Reed--and its medical staff is 
overwhelmed. We owe our fighting forces better than this.
  Some 1,800 Marine Corps reservists will get letters this week 
notifying them that they are being involuntarily recalled for a year, 
thanks to a shortage of volunteers to fill some jobs in Iraq.
  This follows news that should make everyone in this Chamber take 
notice: The 82nd Airborne Division--the storied ``All-American'' 
Division--is so strained by this war that it can no longer respond on 
short notice to a crisis.
  For decades, the 82nd Airborne has kept a brigade on round-the-clock 
alert--ready to respond to a crisis anywhere around the globe within 18 
to 72 hours. But The New York Times reported on March 20 that the 82nd 
Airborne can no longer meet this standard--a standard it has long held 
with pride.
  I believe the supplemental that we have before us today is the 
solution to the Iraq problem. It provides a vehicle for Congress to 
express its sense on Iraq and to require the President to take 
concrete, measurable steps forward. It sets clear deadlines and 
requires vigorous regional diplomacy. It sends a message to an 
administration marked by arrogance and declares to the Iraqi Government 
that their time has come.
  Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said as much 
Monday, March 26, in his farewell news conference.
  Mr. Khalilzad was direct: The Iraqi leadership must understand, he 
said, that time is running out.
  Finally, most importantly, this legislation begins the process of 
bringing our troops home.
  We have a choice today. We can vote for a clear-headed Iraq policy or 
do nothing. We can exercise our constitutional oversight duties or we 
can be a rubberstamp for a failed Iraq policy.
  I urge my colleagues to choose the first path. To choose the other is 
to abdicate our responsibility.
  (At the request of Mr. Lott, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

                          ____________________