[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5128-S5155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the conference report on H.R. 1591, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1591), ``making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 
     purposes,'' having met, have agreed that the House recede 
     from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and 
     agree to the same with an amendment and the Senate agree to 
     the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part 
     of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record of Tuesday, April 24, 2007.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                take our daughters and sons to work day

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to speak just for a few 
moments, not about the pending business, which I know is extremely 
important and that debate will go on throughout the day and perhaps 
over the next several days as we try to make decisions about 
supplemental spending for the Gulf of Mexico and the importance of the 
emergency that is still underway there, and as we try to debate the 
best way to find success in Iraq.
  I wanted to take a moment to speak about another issue that is 
important today to many Americans. In fact, we are celebrating that day 
on Capitol Hill. It is called Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day.
  I have been honored over the many years with my cochair, Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison, who is on the floor of the Senate today, to cohost 
this event for the Senate. We have many colleagues and staff members 
who participate in bringing their children and grandchildren and 
friends and neighbors to the Capitol to work to see the work of the 
Senate and the Capitol--how it happens, who makes it happen, and the 
significance of it. These children come from all over our country and 
take this experience back to their classrooms and into their homes and 
neighborhoods and share with their friends throughout the year.
  I thank Ms. Magazine for starting this. Over 35 million adults and 
children will participate today. So in skyscrapers all over America, 
and on farms out in our rural areas, in small businesses and 
restaurants and small little boutique hotels, and even in home offices, 
children will be working with their parents or with their grandparents 
understanding the value of work, understanding and exploring options 
for themselves as they grow, and trying to make choices about how they 
can contribute significantly to this economy and to being part of the 
world community.
  So I am pleased today to be able to submit for the Record the names 
of 14 young ladies who are with me today. I am not going to take the 
time to read their names, but I will submit them for the Record. They 
are from New Orleans, LA, and some from Manderville; some are from 
Washington, DC, friends of the family who are here; and others are from 
outlying areas such as Maryland and Virginia who have joined us today 
to be part of the Senate.
  Already this morning some of these girls have participated in closing 
the gap with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation that met on 
Capitol Hill out on the west lawn of our Capitol this morning to talk 
about the great effort that is being made to address breast cancer, 
particularly in this country, and to not only find cures but to offer 
preventive measures to help women and families stay healthy in our 
country. They have already participated in a press conference and will 
be joining us later today as we work through our offices in and around 
the Senate complex.
  I wanted to welcome them to the Senate. I will submit their names to 
be printed in the Record, and I encourage anyone in the Capitol 
complex, if you are not participating today, to think about next year 
and what you could do to contribute to make this day a special day for 
some child in either your family or in your community who could use an 
extra boost or some insight into a possible career for themselves.
  I thank Senator Reid for making the tour of the Senate possible today 
for the young girls and boys who got to spend some time on the floor 
earlier this morning, and I thank minority leader Mitch McConnell for 
arranging the special tours for that as well.
  Mr. President, I again thank Ms. Magazine for an extraordinary 
effort. I know the children enjoy getting a day off from school, but it 
is more than that, and I have enjoyed participating these many years.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I referred be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Morgan Daigle, 11, New Orleans, LA, St. Dominic.
       Christine Evans, 10, Washington, DC, National Cathedral 
     School.
       Katherine Evans, 10, Washington, DC, National Cathedral 
     School.
       Charlotte Ganucheau, 13, Mandeville, LA, Our Lady of the 
     Lake.
       Sofia Gonzales, 13, New Orleans, LA, Metarie Park Country 
     Day School.
       Jamie Hauptmann, 11, Mandeville, LA, Lake Harbor, Middle.
       Lena Jones, 12, Washington, DC, St. Peter's Inter-parish 
     School Capitol Hill.
       Gabrielle Kehoe, 11, New Orleans, LA, St. Pius X.
       Kristen Landrieu, 12, New Orleans, LA, St. Dominic.
       Natalie Mufson, 13, Washington, DC, Georgetown Day School.
       Selin Odabas-Geldiay, 13, Washington, DC, Georgetown Day 
     School.
       Erica Sensenbrenner, 14, New Orleans, LA, Dominican High 
     School.
       Hannah Sensenbrenner, 12, New Orleans, LA, St. Dominic.
       Eliza Matthews

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S5129]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Iraqi 
supplemental. I want to discuss this briefly with my colleagues. I will 
vote against the conference report with a deadline in it. A conference 
report with a deadline in it, if it passes, and sending it to the 
President to sign--he is not going to sign it, but if he does sign it, 
if he would sign it--would be the day al-Qaida would declare victory. 
The day the deadline is set would be the day they would declare 
victory. I think it is the wrong way for us to go, and that is why I 
will be voting against the supplemental.
  I am very pleased to support the President in his efforts not to set 
a deadline. I want to take the brief time I have to talk about a way 
forward because I think there is a bipartisan way forward. Once we get 
through this, and once this is forced upon the President, once he 
vetoes it, and once the veto is upheld--and I think these are motions 
we should not be going through because they take away precious time 
from focusing on a way forward, on a political solution that involves 
both sides of the aisle--we should focus on federalism in Iraq. It is 
something Senator Biden has spoken often about on the Democratic side, 
and I have spoke about on this side: federalism that will require a 
longtime presence by the United States in Iraq.
  I have spoken several times on this floor about how Iraq is more than 
three groups in one country: a Kurdish group, a Sunni group, and a Shia 
group. It has been held together for much of its history--not 
altogether but in much of its history--by exterior forces that have not 
wanted it to fly apart, who still don't want it to fly apart. I think 
we should recognize these realities as we did in the former Yugoslavia, 
as we are today in Sudan where the south is going to vote to secede, 
and recognize these political forces and put in place a federated 
system: one country, three states, Baghdad as a Federal city where 
powers devolve to the states, and recognize that it will require a 
long-term U.S. military presence to ensure that it will work. It is a 
route forward, and it is a route forward that we can agree upon as a 
body. It is a route forward that has allowed for the Iraqi 
Constitution, with a distribution of oil revenues equally distributed 
throughout the country, to be able to help hold things together. It is 
a route forward that can get us to a political equilibrium, that can 
get the violence down, that can give each of the groups their area, 
their region, and allow us to move forward. It requires a long-term 
U.S. military presence such as what happened in Bosnia and the Dayton 
Accords, where 15 years later we are still there and we are going to be 
there for some period of time because if we are not, they are going to 
go back to the violent ways they have had, and they have done 
previously.
  This is a realistic route that both sides of the aisle, that both 
parties, and the executive and legislative branches, could embrace.
  I met last week with the Vice President about it. I talked with the 
National Security Adviser about it. Many of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are saying: What is the plan? What is the exit plan? 
How do we get out? Here is a route to be able to deal with this. But 
they have to admit, as well, on their side that a timeline, a deadline 
will not work. We cannot do that. We cannot hoist it upon the 
President, and it will not work in that region. As soon as you set that 
deadline, as I said, al-Qaida will declare victory and people in the 
region will start looking for security in other places. They will be 
going to militias and different groups, and it will further fragment 
the country.
  If we would just set our partisanship aside for a little while and 
think about this, we would recognize that this is the situation we are 
in and this is the only viable solution forward. We don't want to bring 
back a dictator or allow one back into Iraq. We don't want Iraq to 
devolve into a full-scale civil war with a terrorist state taking place 
in that country. We don't want to turn it over and just have the Shia 
run the whole place and run over the Kurds and run over the Sunni in 
the region. That is not realistic.
  The other options are not viable and will not work. This is a route 
forward. I urge my colleagues that this prospect, this federalism that 
is enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution--the Iraqi Parliament passed a 
federalism law last year--the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq show 
that it is possible for Iraq and deepens its commitment to a Federal 
system. I urge my colleagues to embrace this after this is vetoed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from West 
Virginia to yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized immediately following the remarks of Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
  It has been 4 years since the President sent our troops into Iraq, 4 
long years. That is longer than it took to win World War II. More than 
3,300 troops have sacrificed their lives in Iraq, and nearly 25,000 
have been wounded--many severely.
  With passage of this conference agreement, Congress will have 
appropriated more than $450 billion for the war in Iraq. Did my 
colleagues hear that? Four hundred and fifty billion dollars. That 
compares with the $296 billion which the United States spent on World 
War II. Yet in the 4 years since our troops succeeded in removing 
Saddam Hussein from power, the President has failed--and I say this 
with all due respect when I speak about the President--the President 
has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of 
Iraq. The troops had the courage and the strength to win the war, but 
the President has not had the wisdom to win the peace. It is time--past 
time--for a new direction in Iraq.
  The agreement before us today provides that new direction. But rather 
than admit the need to change course, the President--and I say this 
with all due respect--continues to try to mislead the American public 
about the war in Iraq.
  He recently asked Congress to ``put partisanship on hold.'' But then 
he, the President, voiced the incredible assertion that the attacks on 
9/11 are linked to the war in Iraq. That is not true, and the American 
people know it.
  The President complained that Congress is holding funding for the 
troops hostage to funding for domestic needs. President Bush claims 
that Democrats are adding porkbarrel spending to a bill intended for 
the troops. The President has charged that Democrats are ``legislating 
defeat'' in Iraq.
  President Bush has tried to scare the pants off the public by 
suggesting that our bill could result in death and destruction in 
America. What utter nonsense. What hogwash. This Senate must not be a 
rubberstamp for this or any President. Under the Constitution, Congress 
has a duty to question the war policies of this or any President. We 
must listen to the voices of the people, and the American people have 
sent a very clear message to Washington: It is time to start to bring 
our troops home from Iraq.
  The Congress has responded, crafting a new direction that will spur 
the Iraqi Government to pursue real political reconciliation in that 
country. The American people do not support an open-ended U.S. military 
occupation in Iraq. It is time for the truth; it is time for the White 
House to stop the fear mongering and face the truth.
  In the book of John, chapter 8, verse 32 of the King James version of 
the Holy Bible are these words:

       And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you 
     free.

  The Congress is not holding funding for the troops hostage to 
domestic porkbarrel spending. The $6.9 billion for rebuilding the gulf 
coast after Hurricane Katrina is not pork barrel spending. Ask the 
citizens of New Orleans. The $1.8 billion for the VA to provide first-
class health care to our wounded veterans is not porkbarrel spending. 
Ask the troops who are waiting for care, and ask their families. I know 
$20 million to repair Walter Reed Hospital is not pork barrel spending. 
The $650 million for the SCHIP child health program to deal with the 
shortfall in 14 States is not porkbarrel

[[Page S5130]]

spending. Ask the parents with sick children. The $2.25 billion for 
securing the country from terrorist attack, including port and border 
security, transit security, funds to improve screening for explosives 
at airports, and/or screening cargo on passenger aircraft is not 
porkbarrel spending. It is homeland security to prevent the death and 
destruction which President Bush warns about.
  This country must not forsake critical domestic needs because of this 
President's single-minded obsession with his failed mission. Congress 
has appropriated more than $38 billion for rebuilding Iraq, and this 
agreement adds another $3 billion. I simply do not understand why this 
President--our President--is eager to commit billions of dollars to 
rebuild Baghdad but absolutely opposes additional money to rebuild the 
gulf coast here in America. Why does President Bush decry needed funds 
for the Veterans' Administration to build a first-class health care 
system for our brave troops?
  Porkbarrel spending? I think not. The conference agreement that is 
before the Senate today totals $124 billion. It is lower than the House 
bill. Yet essential funding for gulf coast recovery, veterans medical 
care, homeland security, and agricultural disaster relief remains.
  The conference report also includes an increase in the minimum wage--
the first increase since 1997. It is needed, it is fair, and it is long 
overdue.
  There is also $4.9 billion in tax incentives for small businesses 
that are fully paid for in the bill. Small business is the backbone of 
our economy and these incentives will help economic growth.
  This bill includes more than $100 billion for the Department of 
Defense--nearly $4 billion above the President's inadequate request. It 
protects the troops by including $1.2 billion above the President's low 
number for mine-resistant vehicles.
  This bill cares for the troops by providing $2.1 billion more than 
the President for health care, including more resources for troops with 
traumatic brain injury. Porkbarrel? I think not.

  The President--our President--claims this is a partisan bill. The 
President claims Congress is trying to micromanage the war, 
substituting our judgment for the judgment of our generals. The 
President knows better.
  The Constitution says that ``the Congress shall have power''--do you 
know what that means? The Congress, that is us--``the Congress shall 
have power to . . . provide for the common Defence.'' It is the 
Congress--yes, it is the Congress--that is given the sole power to 
declare war. The Congress is sworn to ``raise and support Armies.'' The 
Congress has heard the voices of the people, and we have responded as 
we are elected to do.
  This conference agreement provides a new directive for the war in 
Iraq. It is patriotic, not partisan, to help the President to see the 
truth--the truth. It is our duty. It is a duty born of love for this 
great country, the Constitution, and the American people.
  If the President decides to veto the bill, he will be holding funding 
for the troops hostage to his stubborn insistence on going into Iraq 
and the resulting disaster caused by his, the President's, war 
policies.
  I encourage all Members to vote for this conference report. We can 
send a strong message to the White House. We can help this President 
face the truth. Four years after our troops removed Saddam Hussein from 
power, the President's policies simply are not working. They must 
change. We must come together as a country to repair the damage caused 
by this horrendous war--this horrendous war--and chart a new direction 
in Iraq.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is to be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the majority side, including time reserved 
for the leader, there is 53 minutes. And on the minority side, 
including the time of the leader, there is 74 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speakers 
be in the following order: that following Senator Hutchison, I be 
recognized for 5 minutes, then Senator Lieberman, then to Senator 
Durbin for 5 minutes, to Senator Inhofe, and then to Senator Kennedy 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, and I won't object, I am 
wondering why we are confining the time to 5 minutes if we have that 
many minutes remaining. If the Senator wishes to expand the time--
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I inform the Senator that I was limiting 
the Senators on our side to 5 minutes. The Senator from Oklahoma has 
unlimited time. I did not give time to speak on the Senator's side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: There is a unanimous consent 
agreement already on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. What is the amount allocated for Senator Inhofe?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, Senator Inhofe 
is provided 5 minutes.
  Is there objection to the request? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, does the time start now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, when Tom Brokaw wrote the book ``The 
Greatest Generation,'' it reminded America what is great about our 
country. It reminded us that men and women have sacrificed through the 
years for our country to make sure it was free for the next generation.
  Can you imagine in the middle of World War II the Congress mandating 
the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe and the Pacific, oblivious to 
the facts on the ground or the absolute necessity to win? Can you even 
imagine in the middle of the Cold War if Congress had required the 
withdrawal of troops from the same parts of the world, thinking that if 
we withdrew our troops, the Communists would do the same and peace 
would prevail?
  If earlier Congresses had done what it appears this Congress is 
trying to do, freedom would have died in Europe, it would have died 
where it was in Asia, and who knows what would have happened in the 
future in America.
  Today we have to ask ourselves: Are we worthy of the sacrifices so 
many have made in the past? Are we going to stand for freedom and fight 
for future Americans to have the same opportunities we have had because 
so many brave men and women have sacrificed?
  There are those who say this isn't a world war; it is a civil war; it 
is over there, and we can't do anything about it. This is a tough time, 
there is no question. Every one of us grieves when we see the killing 
of innocent people, Iraqis or Americans. But make no mistake about it, 
this is a world war. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. General Petraeus said that 
yesterday. They have all the evidence. They know what al-Qaida is doing 
there. They are attacking Americans. They are attacking Iraqis. They 
are trying to take over Iraq so they will have the capability to spread 
their terrorism throughout the world.
  Does that mean they are in a civil war or are they an enemy we must 
face? If we don't face it there, we will face it in our own country. 
General Abizaid, the former Commander of U.S. CENTCOM, said to the 
Armed Services Committee: If we leave, they will follow us home. If we 
don't stand for freedom against this enemy, we will see it again. We 
will see it on our own shores, and we will see it in other parts of the 
world.
  It would be unimaginable to me for Congress not to fund our troops 
and to send the mixed message out of Washington to the enemy, to our 
allies in such an important conflict that Congress isn't sure if 
America has the will to stand and fight for freedom. And make no 
mistake about it, that is what is at stake in these votes that are 
happening on Capitol Hill.
  I have heard people say: Oh, we are going to vote on this every month 
because it is good for politics. They may think it is good for 
politics, but I say the American people are going to get it. They are 
going to understand if we look weak in the Congress on standing and 
fighting the enemy wherever it is to keep Americans secure, they will 
see what happens and they will question if

[[Page S5131]]

we are worthy of the sacrifices of the greatest generation.
  I wondered when that book came out: If America were ever attacked, 
would we stand and fight for freedom? I hope the answer is yes. I hope 
the Congress will wake up and see that setting deadlines and sending 
the signal to the enemy that we are weak is not worthy of the 
sacrifices of the past.
  I hope Congress will do the right thing, strip this language, send 
the money to the troops, and show that we, too, will stand for freedom 
for our children.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this 
supplemental appropriations conference report, and let me begin by 
thanking Senator Byrd, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, 
who has worked diligently throughout the process to bring us to this 
point today where we are addressing the critical infrastructure needs 
of this country as well as moving forward and changing course in Iraq.
  I also thank and commend our majority leader, Senator Reid, for his 
courage and his diligence in speaking out to get us to a point where we 
will be sending a message to the President and to the country that we 
are willing to be courageous and change course in Iraq.
  The agreement before us takes us on a responsible path on many of the 
most pressing issues of the day--the war in Iraq, as we have talked 
about and I spoke about on the floor yesterday, moving forward with the 
needs of our veterans and our injured servicemembers, homeland 
security, and the needs of our hard-hit communities here at home.
  I realize my colleagues across the aisle would prefer that Congress 
obediently approve the President's request, but we are not. Instead, we 
are providing a funding bill that meets the needs of the American 
people and those bravely serving for us overseas and all of those here 
at home.
  Last November, on November 7, the American people called for an end 
to the rubberstamp Congress, and today we are here to deliver. This is 
not, as some have tried to say, simply a war-funding bill. Instead, it 
provides funding for critical needs here at home in addition to the 
$100 billion in funding that is directed to our troops who are serving 
us so honorably overseas.
  In recent weeks, there has been a lot of heated rhetoric and plenty 
of mischaracterizations about this important bill. Much of that has 
focused on the critically necessary language that is included in this 
bill that will transition our mission in Iraq and begin to redeploy our 
troops.
  As Senator Byrd stated, there is much more in this bill. We need to 
pass this legislation because we need a new direction in Iraq, but we 
also need to pass this bill because it provides everything our troops 
need to complete their mission. It provides billions of dollars more to 
take care of them when they come home, and it will, finally, help 
American communities recover and rebuild.
  In addition to funding for the troops overseas, this conference 
agreement provides more than $5 billion to ensure that our returning 
troops and veterans get the critically important healthcare they have 
earned and deserve and which we now so vividly see is needed.
  It provides $6.9 million for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and 
Hurricane Rita. Senator Landrieu has been on the floor many times to 
talk about those families who have been forgotten on the gulf coast. We 
have not forgotten them in this bill, and this must get to the 
President and be signed to take care of those families.
  We provide $2.25 billion in homeland security investments, including 
funds for port security and mass-transit security, for explosives 
detection equipment at our airports, and for initiatives in the 9/11 
bill that recently passed here in the Senate. These are needs which we 
cannot forget, and we include them in this bill.
  We provide $3\1/2\ billion to provide relief for our farmers and our 
ranchers across the country. There are many families who are struggling 
and who have suffered from drought and agricultural disasters. For too 
long, we have forgotten them in this country or ignored them or blocked 
their needs. The Senate today is saying we have not forgotten.
  Finally, this conference agreement includes emergency funding for 
forest firefighting, a critical need throughout the West; low-income 
energy assistance, drastically needed in many of our communities; and 
pandemic flu preparations that all of us know we cannot forget.
  I was on the floor yesterday to talk about much of the funding, but 
critically important is the funding for our troops and our veterans 
when they come home. We all vividly saw the Walter Reed scandal just a 
few weeks ago. We provide the funding to make sure our soldiers, 
whether they are at Walter Reed or any of our facilities across the 
country, get the best of care, from traumatic brain injury to post-
traumatic stress syndrome.
  Of course, again, we do have the Iraq language, which is so critical. 
I hope our colleagues, as we move this bill to the President, will 
remind him and the country that this bill is essential for our troops, 
for those of us here at home, and for the future of this country. We 
urge him to read the bill and to sign it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The Senator said it well. The Senator could not have said it better. 
Senator Murray is right.
  I thank Senator Murray, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 10 minutes 
allocated in his own right.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we 
are debating today contains language that would have Congress take 
control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq. Like most 
Senators of both parties, I support the appropriations in this bill. 
But because I strongly oppose its language on Iraq, I will vote no.
  Earlier this week, the Senate majority leader spoke at the Woodrow 
Wilson Center and laid out the case for why the bill now before this 
Chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq. It 
was the most comprehensive recent argument in support of this position, 
and so I wish to address myself to its content respectfully and point 
by point.
  I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has 
offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore I wish to take it up 
in good faith and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in-
depth because this is a very serious discussion we are having this 
morning for America and its future security.
  In his speech Monday, the Senate majority leader described the 
several steps this new strategy for Iraq would entail. The first step, 
he said, is to:

     . . . transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil 
     war . . . to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, 
     protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-
     terror operations.

  I ask my colleagues to step back for a moment and consider this plan. 
When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be policing a civil war, that 
their operation should be restricted to the narrow list of missions, 
what does this actually mean? To begin with, it means our troops will 
not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and 
militias and terrorists who are trying to terrorize and kill them. 
Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has 
effectively argued should be the focus of any counterinsurgency 
campaign, it means our soldiers would, instead, be ordered, by force of 
this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all 
around them no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes. I fear if we 
begin to withdraw, it will become both vicious and horrific.

  In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously 
turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the 
slaughter of innocent civilians--men, women, and children singled out 
and killed on the basis of their religion alone or their ethnicity. It 
means turning our backs on the policies that led us correctly to 
intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles 
that today lead many of us to cry out and demand intervention in 
Darfur. To me, this makes no moral sense at all.
  It also makes no strategic or military sense. Al-Qaida's own leaders 
have

[[Page S5132]]

repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in 
Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as 
possible, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence because 
they know this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, 
overthrow Iraq's elected Government, radicalize its population, and 
create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use 
as a base. That is why al-Qaida blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra 
last February, and that is why we are seeing mass-casualty suicide 
bombings by al-Qaida in Baghdad today. The sectarian violence the 
majority leader says he wants to order American troops to stop 
policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence al-Qaida 
hopes will take it to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright 
legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil 
war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality. I don't know how to say 
it any more plainly. It is al-Qaida that is trying to inflame a full-
fledged civil war in Iraq. So we cannot both fight al-Qaida and get out 
of the civil war. They are one.
  The majority leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will 
still be able to conduct targeted counterterror operations under his 
plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other 
words, we can still go after the bad guys. But, again, I ask my 
colleagues, how would this translate into reality on the ground? How 
would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional 
military bases or fight in conventional formations?
  By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know 
where, when, and against whom to strike, and that, in turn, requires 
accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence. This is the kind of 
intelligence which can only come from ordinary Iraqis--the sea of 
people among whom the terrorists hide. That, in turn, requires 
interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It 
requires winning individual Iraqis to our side because they conclude we 
are there on their side, gaining their trust, and convincing them they 
can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share 
valuable information about them. This is no great secret. It is at the 
heart of what is happening in Iraq today and is part of the Petraeus 
plan.
  In sum, on this point, you can't have it both ways. You can't 
withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still say you are going to fight 
al-Qaida there. If you believe that there is no hope of winning in Iraq 
or that the cost of victory there is not worth it, then you should be 
for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
  There is another irony in the Iraq language in this bill. For most of 
the past 4 years, under former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United 
States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than 
deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the 
focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, 
protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted antiterrorist sweeps 
and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the 
proponents of the legislation before us.
  That Rumsfeld strategy failed, and we know why it failed. It failed 
because we didn't have enough troops doing the right things to ensure 
security, which in turn created an opening for al-Qaida and its allies 
to exploit and allowed sectarian violence to begin to run rampant. Al-
Qaida stepped into the security vacuum, as did the sectarian militias, 
and through horrific violence created a climate of fear and insecurity 
in which political and economic progress became impossible.
  For years, many Members of Congress saw this and spoke to it. We 
talked about it. We called for more troops and a new strategy--and, for 
that matter, a new Secretary of Defense. Yet now, when President Bush 
has come around, when he has acknowledged the mistakes that have been 
made and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq and to install a 
new Secretary of Defense and a new commander in Iraq, now his critics 
in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old failed 
strategy--the Rumsfeld strategy--wasn't so bad after all, because that 
is what would be adopted in the language on Iraq in this bill. What is 
going on here? What has changed so that the strategy we criticized and 
rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?
  The second element in the plan outlined by the majority leader on 
Monday is the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 
1, 2007. Let us be absolutely clear what this means. The legislation 
would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating 
from Iraq. That withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the 
ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus--
in short, regardless of reality, on October 1, 2007. As far as I can 
tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain 
why October 1 is the magic date, what strategic or military 
significance this date holds. Why not September 1? Why not January 1 or 
April 1? October 1, 2007, is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible. 
It is, I contend, a deadline for defeat.

  How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid 
gave several reasons. First he said a date for withdrawal puts 
``pressure on the Iraqis to make desperately needed political 
compromises.''
  But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the 
withdrawal will happen, regardless of what the Iraqi Government does. 
How, then, if you are an Iraqi Government official, does this give you 
any incentive to make the right choices? On the contrary, there is 
compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of 
American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its sponsors 
intend.
  I ask the Chair, how much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Connecticut has 
consumed the 10 minutes he was allocated.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I gather Senator Cornyn has yielded his 5 minutes to 
me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence 
Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of American troops in the 
months ahead would ``almost certainly lead to a significant increase in 
the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, 
and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.''
  That is the NIE, broadly supported and embraced by proponents of the 
Iraq language in this legislation.
  Second, the majority leader said withdrawing our troops will ``reduce 
the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the 
insurgency.''
  My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is saying the insurgency is 
in some measure being provoked by the very presence of American troops. 
By diminishing that presence, presumably the insurgency will diminish.
  But I ask my colleagues, where is the evidence to support this 
theory? I find none. In fact, all the evidence I find supports the 
opposite conclusion. Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took 
command and began implementing our new strategy there, American forces 
were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and 
regions, including Mosul, Fallujah, Tel'Afar, and Baghdad. What 
happened in these places? Did they stabilize when the American troops 
left? Did the insurgency go away? Of course not.
  On the contrary, in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled 
back, al-Qaida and sectarian warriors rushed in. Rather than becoming 
islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of 
fear and violence.
  So I ask advocates of withdrawal, on what evidence, on what data have 
you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency 
there when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that 
withdrawal, the kind of withdrawal mandated by this legislation, will 
strengthen the terrorists and insurgents and increase violence?
  I ask my colleagues to consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one 
of the leading tribal leaders in Anbar Province, who is now fighting on 
our side against al-Qaida because he is convinced we are on his side. 
This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what 
would happen if U.S. troops withdraw? He said:

       In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the 
     wise men of Anbar, if the American forces leave right now, 
     there will be civil war and the area will fall into total 
     chaos.


[[Page S5133]]


  This is a man whose father was killed by al-Qaida, who risks his life 
every day to work with us, a man who was described by one Army officer 
as ``the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition 
has worked with . . . since 2003.''
  In his remarks earlier this week, Senator Reid also observed there is 
``a large and growing population of millions--who sit precariously on 
the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the 
years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and 
Americans. We must win them over.''
  On this I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. But my 
question to him and others supporting this language is this: How does 
this strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this 
population of millions in Iraq who sit precariously on the fence?
  What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to these people 
who are the majority in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them 
we are not longer going to make an effort to protect them and their 
families against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond 
when we declare we will be withdrawing our forces, regardless of 
whether they are making progress in the next few months toward 
political reconciliation? Where will their hopes be for a better life 
when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the 
security and stability and opportunity for a better life that the 
majority of Iraqis clearly yearn for?
  Do my friends believe this is the way to convince Iraqis and the 
world of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this 
Chamber believe that by announcing a date certain for withdrawal we 
will empower Iraqi moderates, the mainstream, or enable Iraq's 
reconstruction, or open more schools for their children or more 
hospitals for their families or provide more freedom for everyone? With 
all due respect, this is a fantasy.
  The third step the majority leader proposes is to impose ``tangible, 
measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government.''
  I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were 
among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the 
Iraqi government.
  But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or 
any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them--
regardless of how they behave.
  We should of course be making every effort to encourage 
reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order 
that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.
  But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot 
rationally think that our terrorist enemies like al-Qaida in Iraq will 
simply vanish.
  Al-Qaida is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad 
because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim 
in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.
  It wants to blow up the table--along with everyone seated at it. Al-
Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will 
not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and 
defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no 
redeployment from this reality.
  The fourth step that the majority leader proposed on Monday is a 
``diplomatic, economic, and political offensive . . . starting with a 
regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability 
in the region.''
  I understand why we are drawn to ideas such as those that are in this 
legislation on Iraq. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, 
fatigue, and disappointment of the American people with Iraq. All of us 
would like to believe there is a better solution--quicker, easier--to 
the challenges we face in Iraq. But none of this gives us an excuse to 
paper over hard truths of which I have tried to speak. We delude 
ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our 
troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida 
terrorism and sectarian violence or that Iraqis will suddenly settle 
their political differences because our troops are leaving or that 
sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iraq and Syria to stop 
destabilizing Iraq, stop enabling the terrorists and insurgents who are 
killing too many Americans and Iraqis there today.
  What we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we are 
beginning to make and a recognition of the significant challenges we 
still face. There are many uncertainties before us, many complexities, 
many challenges. Barely half of the new troops General Petraeus 
requested have even arrived in Iraq.
  In following General Petraeus's path, there is no guarantee of 
success, but there is hope and a new plan for success. In rejecting 
General Petraeus's path, as this legislation would do, there is a 
guarantee of failure and, I fear, disaster. The plan embedded in this 
language contains no reasonable prospects for success. It is a strategy 
based on catch phrases and bromides rather than military realities and 
all that is on the line for us in Iraq.
  It does not learn from the many mistakes that have been made in Iraq. 
Rather, it promises to repeat them. Let me be absolutely clear. In my 
opinion, Iraq is not yet lost, but if we follow the plan in this 
legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for 
stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home. 
That is why I will vote no.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we are now in our fifth year of this 
conflict in Iraq, and throughout that time I have met with commanders 
of our Armed Forces, listened to their experiences and recommendations, 
and after much consideration I have come to the conclusion that we are 
not on the right path. While some of my colleagues believe that we 
should support President George W. Bush, who continues to make 
decisions that place our men and women in the Armed Forces in harm's 
way, I disagree.
  The past few months have been among the deadliest for our military 
personnel. We have seen 79 U.S. soldiers killed in February, 82 in 
March, and 85 so far this month. To the more than 3,300 U.S. soldiers 
that have been killed and the over 24,000 wounded since the conflict 
began, to our men and women in the Armed Forces and their families who 
are valiantly serving our country and to the American people, I say to 
all of you, we must change our course.
  To stay the course is to welcome disaster. Iraq lies like the 
proverbial clay pot broken in shards on the ground. It is shattered 
into the fragments of warring factions, clans, and religious groups. 
Afghanistan, still the center of the war on al-Qaida, is becoming 
progressively more dangerous as our attention remains focused on Iraq. 
Al-Qaida and the Taliban are rebuilding their forces and terrorists 
have extended their attacks to North Africa and Western Europe. We are 
facing, as our military leaders tells us again and again, a ``thinking 
enemy,'' one that learns and adapts. Should we not also learn and 
adapt? Can anyone doubt that our strategy needs to change?
  Some have painted this conflict as simply a war against al-Qaida in 
Iraq. Let us not make the mistake of fooling ourselves. Al-Qaida is 
stoking the flames but it is the internal divisions among the Iraqis 
themselves which has made it the bonfire it is today. If the Iraqis 
unite, they can defeat al-Qaida as they have demonstrated in some 
provinces already. But as everyone, including the President and our 
military leaders, have observed, the Iraqis themselves must form a 
reconciliation government. American soldiers are not a thread that can 
permanently stitch together the broken parts of Iraq. The Iraqis 
themselves are the masters of their own fate.
  The legislation before us today is a call for a new strategy. It 
requires that we change our present course. It makes clear that the war 
in Iraq can only be won by Iraqis. It is their will and their will 
alone that must determine the fate of their country. Americans cannot 
do the fighting for them. A democratic Iraq will not be established 
unless the Iraqis do it for themselves. We cannot put the shattered 
pieces of Iraq together. Only the Iraqis can do that.
  Today, with the Senate passage of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop 
Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007, we will be providing $100 billion for the 
Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. It also

[[Page S5134]]

includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve 
equipment and $1.1 billion for military housing. Mr. President, $1.789 
billion would be provided for the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
specifically target treatment for veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and Operation Enduring Freedom, reduce the backlog of benefit claims, 
and ensure that facilities are maintained at the highest level. In 
addition, $6.9 billion would be appropriated for the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, $650 million would be provided 
for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, $2.25 billion in 
homeland security investments, including funds for port security and 
mass transit security, and $3.5 billion to help relieve pressures that 
farmers and ranchers experienced due to severe drought and agricultural 
disasters.
  In addition to funding these important efforts, the legislation 
includes an important step in setting the proper course in Iraq for our 
military servicemembers and their families by providing them with a 
road map to success. By outlining the benchmarks that must be met by 
the Iraqi government and clarifies our military involvement in Iraq. It 
defines our mission in Iraq by steering our military away from policing 
a civil war to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting 
U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counterterror operations. A phased 
redeployment of our troops would begin no later than October 1, 2007, 
with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for 
those carrying out security, training, and counterterror operations. 
This bill holds the Iraqi government accountable by setting benchmarks 
that must be met for security, political reconciliation, and improving 
the lives of the Iraqi people. It is no longer acceptable for this 
Administration to set arbitrary benchmarks that have no consequences 
attached to it. It is time for the Iraqi government and regional 
leaders to work together to promote democracy in Iraq. It is time for 
the United States to take the necessary steps that illustrates our 
willingness to relinquish control and allow the Iraqi government and 
the Iraqi people to control their own destiny. And it is time for the 
Iraqi people to set their own path to victory and democracy.
  The American people and more importantly, our servicemembers and 
their families, deserve to have the administration define our mission 
in Iraq. The President must also give a clear directive to the Iraqi 
government that it must demonstrate the will to overcome the civil 
unrest that is taking control of their country. Unfortunately, the 
President has indicated that he will veto this important legislation. 
By vetoing this legislation, this administration is sending the wrong 
message. It is preventing our troops from receiving the funds they need 
to continue their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is preventing 
victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita from rebuilding their 
lives and farmers and ranchers from receiving relief due to severe 
drought and agricultural disasters. Moreover, it is preventing our 
veterans from receiving the health care and benefits that they deserve.
  It is time for this administration, this President, to lead us out of 
the morass in Iraq. This legislation sends the right message to our 
servicemembers, to the Iraqi government and its people, and to the 
American people. I urge the President to do the right thing and enact 
H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, 
and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.
  Mr. Salazar. Mr. President, today I will vote for the Iraq-
Afghanistan emergency supplemental bill. I believe that this bill 
supports our troops, our veterans and their families, and should be 
signed by the President.
  But first I would like to say that as we continue the debate on this 
legislation and on the best way forward in Iraq, I come to the floor 
today with two key principles in mind.
  One, we should honor the bravery and courage of our troops. America's 
finest men and women have done an extraordinary job--too often without 
the needed equipment and support. But honoring our troops means more 
than just singing their praise. It means making sure that every 
American in Iraq is adequately trained and equipped; it means 
guaranteeing every veteran access to all available benefits and 
services; and it means setting a policy that is as wise as our soldiers 
are brave.
  And two, we should work to heal the deep divisions which this war has 
caused at home. Not since Vietnam has the American public been so 
divided. I am concerned that the bitterness and the harshness of the 
debate clouds good judgment on the future direction in Iraq.
  It is important for us to remember that, no matter how contentious 
this debate may become, every Senator shares the same goal: peace and 
stability in the Middle East and a safe return home for our troops. 
While we may disagree on the best path to that end, we must continue to 
work together for a constructive change in our policy. It is important 
to remember what binds us together--so that we will not be torn too far 
apart.
  I would now like to comment on the bill before us today.
  Specifically, the bill includes: More than $100 billion for our 
troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan; more than $5 billion to 
help ensure that our veterans and their families can receive the health 
care they need and deserve when they return home; nearly $7 billion to 
rebuild the gulf coast and help the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita so that they can finally rebuild their homes, communities and 
livelihoods; and $3.5 billion in disaster assistance to help our 
farmers and ranchers across the Nation recover from 7 years of drought 
capped by this winter's devastating blizzards.
  The bill sends a direct message to the Iraqis that our military 
commitment is not open-ended. We hold the Iraqi government accountable 
through measurable and achievable benchmarks for security, political 
reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
  The bill also launches a new diplomatic, economic and political 
offensive and takes steps to begin to rebuild our military.
  Finally, it sets an April, 1, 2008, goal of redeploying U.S. troops 
not engaged in carrying out security, training and counterterror 
operations in Iraq.
  I support this new direction for Iraq. This new direction recognizes 
the reality that success in Iraq is contingent upon a strategy of 
military, political and diplomatic progress.
  I am disappointed that the President has said he intends to veto this 
legislation. But I remain hopeful. I believe that we must continue to 
seek a new course in Iraq. I believe we can and should do that by 
achieving a bipartisan consensus on the best path to success.
  I know most of my Republican colleagues do not support this bill. But 
I believe they sincerely want to join in finding a solution to the 
difficult problem that confronts us in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group 
provides a model for how we can work in good faith, across party lines. 
And I believe that the group's recommendations can and should be our 
blueprint for a compromise that can gain broad support here in the 
Senate.
  So next week, I will be back on the floor to discuss with my 
colleagues how we can implement those recommendations, working with the 
President.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr President, this morning I had the honor of saluting 
members of the Maryland Army National Guard as they departed to begin 
training for their upcoming deployment to Iraq. The 58th Brigade Combat 
Team, including the Headquarters Company from Pikesville, MD, the 1st 
Battalion of the 175th Infantry from Dundalk, MD, and the 1st Squadron 
of the 158th Cavalry Regiment, are leaving their families and 
communities to answer our Nation's call. As the Senator from Maryland 
and the Senator for Maryland, I have promised them that I will do 
everything I can to support them while they are on the battlefield, 
help care for their families while they are gone, and ensure they have 
the medical care, education, and job training benefits they need when 
they return.
  I support the conference report on the fiscal year 2007 emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill because it will help us keep our 
promises to America's citizen soldiers and their families. 
Unfortunately, President Bush continues to threaten to veto this bill. 
I hope it will not come to that. I

[[Page S5135]]

urge the President to work with this Congress to meet the pressing 
needs of our men and women in uniform.
  I support this emergency supplemental bill because it: Fully funds 
the needs of our warfighters on the battlefield; adds $466 million to 
ensure veterans get health care they need when they come home; and 
requires the President to immediately change our mission in Iraq; and 
sets the goal of bringing our troops home by no later than April 1, 
2008.
  This bill states clearly that Congress and the American people will 
continue to support and protect our troops. Our troops must understand 
that Congress will never abandon them, not while they are fighting on 
the battlefield and not when they come home. The best way to support 
our troops is to bring them home--swiftly and safely.
  I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the 
first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war, 4 years 
ago, on October 11, 2002. I opposed giving the President unilateral 
authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had 
to exhaust our diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to 
stick with the United Nations U.N., to let the U.N. meet its 
responsibility to deal with the threat from Saddam. The day of the 
vote, I said, we don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or 
landmines. Well, now we know: When we got to Iraq, there were no 
weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it 
happened fast.
  The United States went to war with Iraq, but today, we are at war 
within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there, mired in a civil 
war. No one could ask more of our troops. They are brave and courageous 
and have fought valiantly. And it is time to bring them home.
  We need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gives us 79 
recommendations as a way to go forward, but the President has 
completely ignored this report. Surely out of 79 recommendations, there 
are 50 we can agree on. The Iraq Study Group report calls for new and 
enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and a change in the 
primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to enable the United States to 
begin to move our forces out of Iraq responsibly. It provides a 
direction for the U.S. and Iraqi Governments to follow that could lead 
to withdrawal of American forces by the first quarter of 2008.
  This is exactly the approach called for by this supplemental bill, 
which will have most of our troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What 
are we voting for? This bill contains a binding resolution that directs 
the President to promptly transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq 
and begin a phased redeployment within 120 days. It sets a goal of 
bringing U.S. combat forces home by April 1, 2008, except for a limited 
number of troops essential for force protection, training, and 
equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter terror operations.
  This resolution also says success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi 
Government's ability to meet important benchmarks, including the 
training and equipping of Iraqi security forces so they can control the 
capitol city of Baghdad; giving Iraqi military commanders the authority 
to conduct operations without political interference; disarming 
sectarian militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are loyal to 
Iraq's Government; drafting and implementing legislation to ensure the 
equal division of Iraqi oil revenues; drafting and implementing 
legislation to reform the debaathification process; implementing a fair 
process for amending the Iraqi constitution to ensure minority rights 
are protected; and implementing new rules to protect minority rights in 
the Iraqi Parliament.
  I support this Iraq resolution. It says what the Iraq Study Group has 
already told us: the problems in Iraq cannot be solved by the U.S. 
military--they require a political solution by the Iraqis and 
diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It says Congress and the 
American people will not only support the troops but continue to 
protect them as well.
  I want to end this war, and the resolution in this bill will do just 
that. Yet in ending the war, it is my responsibility as a Senator to 
ensure that our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. I 
will not vote to end funding for the pay that supports military spouses 
and children, body armor and armored humvees our troops need for 
survival, tourniquets and surgical hospitals on the battlefield, jet 
fuel for the airplanes that take injured troops from Baghdad to Germany 
and then home, or the medical care they need when they get here.
  In the last few weeks, we have all been shocked and awed by the 
conditions facing our wounded warriors. We know that more than 22,000 
Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. Yet our troops are being twice 
wounded. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been 
astounding, with historic rates of survival from even the most brutal 
battlefield injuries. Yet, while we have saved their lives, we are 
failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, 
social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system is 
dysfunctional.
  This supplemental includes an additional $20 million to improve 
conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and an additional $900 
million for research and treatment of traumatic brain injury, post-
traumatic stress disorder, and other physical and mental trauma. It 
also adds $466 million for veterans' health care, including $53 million 
for new polytrauma facilities and services, $10 million for 100 
additional caseworkers to aid troops and their families as they 
transition from active duty, $25 million for prosthetic research and 
$120 million for mental health treatment.
  We know this is only a downpayment for our troops and veterans. We 
need to overhaul the disability benefits system that is outdated and 
adversarial. We need a better system for transitioning our troops from 
active duty to the Veterans' Administration, to ensure they get the 
health care, job training, and educational benefits they deserve. We 
need to hear the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on how 
to fix the problems in our military and veterans hospitals. And I look 
forward to working with Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and Senator 
Inouye on a comprehensive reform package that will ensure our troops 
have the medical care they will need for the rest of their lives.
  This supplemental supports our troops, follows the will of the 
American people, and follows the advice of the Iraq Study Group. It is 
time to change our direction in Iraq and bring our forces home. Let's 
send in the diplomats and bring our troops home safely and soon.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I offer for the record, the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 1591, 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2007.
  The conference report includes $124.153 billion in net, new 
discretionary budget authority for 2007, of which $100.681 billion is 
for defense activities and $23.472 billion is for nondefense 
activities. The additional budget authority will increase outlays by 
$31.935 billion in 2007. Of the total spending authority provided, H.R. 
1591 designates $124.789 billion in budget authority as emergency 
spending, which will increase outlays by $31.926 billion.
  The conference report to H.R. 1591 is subject to several points of 
order. First, the conference report includes emergency funding that 
would cause the $86.3 billion cap on 2007 emergency funding to be 
exceeded. This cap was included in S. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, and was made applicable 
by the deeming resolution included in section 7035 of P.L. 109-234. 
Funding above the cap counts against the subcommittees' allocations and 
would cause them to exceed their allocations. As a result, the 
conference report is subject to a point of order under 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. Second, the small business tax relief 
provisions included in the conference report reduce revenues by $4.465 
billion over the 2006-2010 period. Because the Congress is over the 
revenue aggregates under the 2006 budget resolution, the conference 
report is subject to a point of order under section 311 of the 
Congressional Budget Act. It should be noted that the tax provisions 
are fully offset over the 2007-2012 and 2007-2017 periods. Finally, the 
conference report is subject to a point of order under section 402 of 
H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution

[[Page S5136]]

on the budget for fiscal year 2006, for including a number of emergency 
designations for spending on nondefense activities.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous 
consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     HR. 1591, THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 1591, MAKING EMERGENCY
  SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
                                  2007
                     [Fiscal year 2007; $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Defense   Nondefense    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Emergency:
        Budget Authority..............   $100,681      24,108    124,789
        Outlays.......................     26,665       5,261     31,926
    Nonemergency:
        Budget Authority..............          0        -636       -636
        Outlays.......................          0           9          9
          Total:
            Budget Authority..........    100,681      23,472    124,153
            Outlays...................     26,665       5,270     31,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is irresponsible for Congress to 
operate this way.
  With the provisions in this bill, Congress is deserting our 
commitments to our military leaders and telling them that none of it 
matters, the war is over and your mission is done. Congress, with this 
bill, is reneging on the war and sending our men and women in uniform a 
demoralizing message.
  I am committed to giving our military, led by General Petraeus, time 
and resources to try to calm Baghdad.
  I understand the deep national unrest over the course of the war. I 
do not support an open-ended commitment in Iraq. The Iraqi government 
must do more.
  But effectively abandoning our military effort at this time poses a 
treacherous threat to the United States and the region.
  We should do right by our troops, give them the resources they need 
and work with the Iraqis toward solutions that will bring our Armed 
Forces home at an appropriate time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
have performed valiantly in Iraq in the face of great adversity. The 
costs of this war have been great to them and our Nation. Over 3,300 
brave American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq over 30 from my 
own State of Connecticut.
  To date, over $500 billion has been approved by Congress for military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not including the $95.5 billion 
included in the conference agreement being debated today or the $141.7 
billion in additional funding already requested by the administration 
for fiscal year 2008.
  In addition, because of the war, our forces have been drained of 
critical combat gear and training time, adding another element to the 
costs of this war--our military's combat readiness. Two-thirds of the 
Army in the United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are 
reporting 'not ready' for duty, largely due to equipment and training 
shortfalls.
  Now, as we have entered the fifth year of the Iraq war, it is long 
past time for a course correction. Rather than continue abetting the 
administration's efforts to escalate our entanglement in Iraq's civil 
war, it is time for Congress to assert itself and heed the American 
people's call for change.
  The conference report before us today takes the first steps toward 
that change. While I wish it would have included stronger language to 
immediately begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq and limiting the 
mission there to counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi troops 
and force protection for remaining U.S. personnel, it does for the 
first time set some new goals for this administration and the Iraqi 
Government that will mandate a change of course. For the first time it 
demands real accountability from the President to take action to 
restore our military's readiness which has been hollowed out as a 
result of his policies. And this bill finally provides critical 
resources for combat gear and protective equipment that the Bush-
Cheney-Rumsfeld administration has consistently shortchanged in their 
budget proposals.
  Regrettably, as my colleagues know, the President has already said 
that he will refuse to sign this legislation into law. He has announced 
his intention to veto this bill because after 4 years of a disastrous 
war policy, escalating combat deaths, and growing instability in the 
region, he insists that his is the only way. It is disheartening that 
President Bush does not see or will not admit that his policy in Iraq 
is a failure.
  In plowing ahead on the current course in Iraq, the President has 
rejected the advice of experts from across the political spectrum, from 
the Baker-Hamilton Report, and from members of Congress, all of whom 
have urged him to change the course in Iraq, to diminish our military 
footprint there, and to start a surge of diplomacy in the region. Like 
all my colleagues, I want to see success in Iraq. I wish that the 
President's policies were working. I wish that U.S. combat forces were 
able to restore security to Baghdad and to other parts of Iraq. I wish 
that the President had not mismanaged this war from day one. I wish 
that we had deployed enough troops on the ground to secure the peace at 
the outset. I wish that Secretary Rumsfeld hadn't run the Coalition 
Provisional Authority like a staffing agency for Republican political 
operatives, displacing countless U.S. Foreign Service professionals in 
the beginning of the war. I wish we hadn't disbanded the Iraqi Army and 
that we hadn't allowed looting. And I wish that our surge of 30,000 
more men and women in uniform into Iraq could be successful in 
stabilizing that country.
  But now is not the time for wishful thinking. Now is the time to 
address the real facts on the ground. This conflict cannot be resolved 
by increased military action. It requires a coherent, broad-based 
strategy to promote the political reconciliation necessary to secure 
the future for Iraq.
  The bill before us begins that process. If the President determines 
that the Iraqis are not making progress on key political, security, and 
economic benchmarks, then, under this legislation, the redeployment of 
American troops would begin this summer. If, on the other hand, the 
President determines that the Iraqis are complying with the benchmarks 
set forth in the legislation, then the redeployment of American forces 
would begin later in the fall of 2007. These reasonable and responsible 
timetables and benchmarks will force the President to change his 
strategy and will incentivize the Iraqi Government to take difficult 
but necessary steps toward reconciliation, power sharing, and security.
  This bill also allows for a limited ongoing presence of U.S. forces 
in Iraq for the specific purposes of training and equipping reliable 
Iraqi security forces, carrying out counterterrorism operations within 
Iraq, and providing force protection, because we understand that these 
vital components will be necessary to ensure a stable and secure Iraq 
even after our combat troops have been redeployed. Iraqis will continue 
to need some limited American assistance, and it is in our and Iraq's 
national interests for that limited support to continue.
  Exactly 1 day after President Bush disingenuously charged the 
Democratic Congress for causing what he called ``unacceptable'' delays 
in troops returning home, Secretary Gates announced that he was 
immediately extending the tour lengths of those units sent to Iraq to 
15 months--3 months longer than before. In addition, 13,000 National 
Guard troops from Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Ohio, as well as 
other States, were recently told to prepare to be deployed to Iraq.
  As a result of 4 years of war in Iraq, our Army has been stretched to 
its breaking point.
  It is time to say, ``enough is enough.'' And with this supplemental 
bill, Congress is taking a big step in that direction. This bill holds 
the President directly responsible for units being deployed who are not 
``fully mission capable'', by requiring him to waive requirements that 
mandate that units fully restock their depleted equipment inventories 
and restore their mission readiness prior to deployment. It includes 
funding for critical equipment, including mine-resistant, ambush-
protection vehicles which would dramatically lower the number of 
injuries and casualties sustained by our troops. And it includes 
billions of dollars for health care for our wounded veterans, many of

[[Page S5137]]

whom return home with debilitating and life-altering injuries. They 
have sacrificed everything for this Nation, and at the very least we 
owe them the best health care available.

  Sadly, there is no magic formula for fixing the myriad problems in 
Iraq, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission rightly pointed out. But it is 
critical that Iraqis make progress on reconciliation and security and 
that the Government improves the living conditions of its citizens. 
Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders must also play a role in finding 
such a solution. The United States and Iraq's neighbors all have long-
term interests in the region, and a broken Iraq does not advance those 
interests.
  With this supplemental bill, Congress is offering the President an 
opportunity to change our course in Iraq, to listen and respond to the 
will of the American people, to support the men and women sacrificing 
their lives there, and to provide for a responsible change in strategy 
in Iraq.
  It is also vital that we make America more resilient here at home. 
This bill begins to do just that, in providing $325 million to protect 
the millions of Americans who ride public transportation each day.
  Our Nation's public transit systems are inadequately prepared to 
minimize the threat and impact of potential terrorist attacks. Since 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has 
invested nearly $24 billion in aviation security--protecting the 1.8 
million people who fly on an average day. At the same time, our 
National Government has invested only $386 million, before the 110th 
Congress began, in transit security to protect the 14 million people 
who ride transit on an average workday. Put another way, since 2001, 
our Nation has spent over $7.50 per passenger on aviation security but 
less than one penny per transit rider on transit security. I am not 
suggesting that we ought to be investing equally, but clearly this is 
not the appropriate balance.
  As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee, I have made improving our national security a top priority. 
The very first hearing that I held as chairman focused on increasing 
the security of our Nation's 14 million daily transit passengers. The 
very first legislation that the committee considered during my 
chairmanship was the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2007, which was reported by the Banking Committee unanimously on 
February 8. The legislation authorizes the distribution of $3.5 billion 
in security funds, over the next 3 fiscal years, on the basis of risk 
directly to transit agencies.
  The Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was 
included as title XV of the 9/11 bill, which the Senate passed on March 
13. Senator Shelby and I worked with Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran 
to include language in the legislation to allow for such sums as 
necessary to be appropriated in this fiscal year to address the 
critical needs of our Nation's transit systems. The $325 million 
included in this appropriations act is a significant investment toward 
our goal of better securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. This 
investment builds on the $175 million that was included in the fiscal 
year 2007 continuing resolution. I once again thank all of the members 
of the Banking and Appropriations Committees who have worked so hard to 
advance us to where we are today.
  This bill also continues congressional efforts to help the citizens 
of Mississippi and Louisiana rebuild their lives after the catastrophic 
effects of Hurricane Katrina by including more than $1.3 billion to 
fund flood and storm damage reduction projects in affected areas.
  Finally, I want to take a few brief moments to discuss the minimum 
wage increase provision included in this bill. It has been nearly 10 
years since millions of hard-working men and women have seen their 
wages go up. During that time, inflation has eroded the purchasing 
power of families being paid the minimum wage. In fact, the real value 
of the minimum wage has declined $4 below what it was nearly 40 years 
ago, in 1968. It is currently at its lowest inflation-adjusted level in 
more than 50 years. During the past 10 years, while the minimum wage 
remained unchanged, the cost of housing, food, health care, education, 
transportation, and energy has increased.
  We cannot reduce poverty if we don't tackle raising the minimum wage. 
It is simply outrageous that so many Americans live in poverty, and it 
is long overdue that we take action to reduce the inexcusable and 
unconscionably high levels of poverty in this country. The language of 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which is included in this bill, will provide 
a three-step increase in wages over 26 months from the current level of 
$5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. This additional $4,400 per year would 
allow a low-income family of three to buy 8 months of rent, 15 months 
of groceries, 19 months of utilities, 20 months of childcare, or more 
than 24 months of health insurance.
  I urge the President to seize this opportunity to make America and 
Iraq stronger and safer. I sincerely hope he will reconsider his 
decision to veto this bill when it arrives on his desk. Such a veto 
would be an affirmation of the status quo in America, a status which 
this Nation can simply no longer afford.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the pending emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill includes a number of items within the jurisdiction 
of the Finance Committee. I would have preferred that the Senate had 
considered these matters on legislation that the Finance Committee had 
reported. I believe in the committee process. In the future, I will try 
to minimize the occasions on which Finance Committee legislation 
travels on legislation reported by other committees.
  But the House of Representatives included the minimum wage and small 
business tax provisions in the House-passed version of this 
supplemental appropriations bill. So it was only appropriate that the 
full Senate respond. The Senate Appropriations Committee added matters 
related to health care, so it was only appropriate that the conference 
committee on this supplemental appropriations bill address those 
issues, as well.
  I appreciate that the conference committee on this supplemental 
appropriations bill deferred to members of the Finance Committee in the 
formulation of these Finance Committee tax and health matters in the 
conference report on this bill. I particularly thank Chairman Byrd for 
his assistance in this regard.
  Some have been concerned that an increase in the minimum wage would 
burden small businesses. Small businesses are a vital source of job 
creation, economic opportunity, and technological innovation.
  There are about 23 million small businesses in America. Businesses 
with fewer than 500 employees represent more than 99 percent of all 
businesses in America. They pay more than 45 percent of American 
private payroll. They have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs 
annually over the last decade. They employ 41 percent of high-tech 
workers.
  Small business is particularly important in my home State of Montana. 
Small businesses are the backbone of our communities.
  We have the opportunity to help small businesses through tax 
incentives that stimulate their rates of formation and growth. That is 
why Chairman Rangel and I worked together to combine the House and 
Senate small business tax packages to achieve a comprehensive small 
business tax package.
  This is a responsible package that will help small businesses in the 
context of an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
  The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the 
public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation 
expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind 
this important legislation.
  The small business tax package provided a more than 3-year extension 
of the work opportunity tax credit, or WOTC. WOTC allows employers a 
tax credit for wages that they pay to economically disadvantaged 
employees. The final small business tax package also expands WOTC to 
allow the credit for employers who hire disabled veterans, a proposal 
that was part of both the Senate and House packages. The package 
includes the Senate's proposed expansion to allow the credit for 
employers who hire employees in a county

[[Page S5138]]

that has suffered significant population loss.
  The small business tax package also includes a 1-year extension of 
section 179 expensing. Section 179 allows small business owners to 
purchase and write off more equipment each year for use in their trade 
or business. Section 179 expensing was included in both the Senate and 
House small business tax packages. The final small business tax package 
also increases the amount allowed to be expensed in 2007 from $112,000 
to $125,000, a proposal in the House version.
  Enhancement of the tip credit, family business tax simplification, 
and waiver of limitations under the alternative minimum tax on WOTC and 
tip credits are three other House proposals included in the final small 
business tax package.
  Enhancement of the tip credit for certain small businesses will 
prevent a decrease in the amount of business tax credit that restaurant 
and other service-oriented business owners may claim for the Social 
Security taxes that they pay on their employee's tips despite an 
increase in the Federal minimum wage.
  The family business tax simplification proposal ensures that when a 
married couple jointly owns a small business, both spouses will receive 
credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
  The waiver of individual and corporate AMT limitations on WOTC and 
tip credits would allow business owners to take the WOTC and tip 
credits under AMT.
  The Senate's S corporation package is also included in the final 
small business tax package. The S corporation package includes several 
simplifications and modifications to rules governing community banks 
and other small businesses that operate as S corporations.
  The small business tax package includes several tax incentives 
included in both the Senate and House small business tax packages to 
help recovery of small business and low-income housing in areas hit by 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
  The small business tax package is a responsible package that is 
completely offset. The package includes offsets that were included in 
both the Senate and the House small business tax packages, such as 
modification to the interest suspension rules for IRS and a proposal 
to discourage the practice of transferring investments to one's child 
for the purpose of avoiding higher tax rates.

  The package also includes modifications to the collection due process 
for employment taxes, an expansion of preparer penalties, and a new 
penalty on erroneous refund claims. These offsets were part of the 
administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal to improve tax 
compliance.
  The small business tax package does not include the Senate's 15-year 
depreciation proposal for improvements made to leaseholds, retailer-
owned businesses, and restaurants. Nor does this final package include 
the Senate's proposal to expand availability of the cash method of 
accounting.
  These proposals both have merit. They were included in the chairman's 
mark when the Finance Committee wrote the Senate's small business tax 
package. These proposals enjoy the support of many Senators, including 
Senators Kerry and Snowe. But there simply was not enough room in a 
$4.8 billion conference package to include the 15-year depreciation and 
cash method of accounting proposals, as they have a combined estimated 
pricetag of nearly $7.4 billion. But this will not be the last bill in 
which the Senate can address these important proposals.
  If and when the President vetoes this bill, and it comes back again, 
we need to preserve the integrity of this balanced compromise. Congress 
should not litigate this tax package over again. I urge my colleagues 
to support this package.
  This bill also accomplishes key urgent health priorities.
  The bill includes emergency funding for the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, or CHIP. This fiscal year, 14 States will run short 
in their Federal CHIP funds by a total of about $624 million. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that 700,000 children will lose 
CHIP coverage unless Congress acts.
  This bill fills the gap in Federal CHIP funds. It ensures that all 
States can meet the demand for CHIP coverage for all those now eligible 
for coverage this year.
  I thank Chairman Byrd and Chairman Harkin for their help on this 
provision. Keeping children from losing their health coverage is a 
critical national priority. I will work with my colleagues to ensure 
that the final supplemental bill includes this provision.
  Another provision originally offered by Senator Durbin puts a 1-year 
hold on rulemaking relating to Medicaid payment rates for public 
hospitals and nursing homes. In January, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services proposed a rule that would make sweeping changes to 
reimbursement rates for public facilities. The rule also proposed major 
changes to how States can define which governmental facilities can pay 
a State's Medicaid share.
  The Nation's Governors have weighed in against the Medicaid rule, as 
have many hospitals and nursing homes. They are concerned that this 
rule would do immediate harm to our Nation's safety net by cutting 
Medicaid reimbursement for publicly owned facilities that serve our 
most vulnerable citizens.
  I am concerned this rule goes too far in implementing new policy, 
making changes that are better made by Congress.
  It is Congress's job to make major changes to the law. A 1-year 
moratorium will give the Finance Committee enough time to study this 
issue and determine the right approach in legislation to limit 
opportunities for fraud and abuse of Medicaid, while protecting the 
vulnerable individuals and vital safety net providers who rely on 
Medicaid payments.
  Some have raised concerns about the original Durbin amendment 
moratorium. They said that it should not have been included in an 
appropriations bill and that it could undermine oversight of Medicaid 
at the Department of Health and Human Services. I agree that we should 
keep Finance Committee issues within the committee. In this case, 
however, the Department is poised to act before July of this year. We 
need to take action now, before it is too late.
  I also agree that protecting against fraud and abuse in Medicaid is a 
priority. Not one taxpayer dollar should be misspent. That is why the 
revised version of this amendment clarifies that the moratorium has no 
affect on all other Medicaid integrity enforcement activity at the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
  This final version also removes the increase in the Medicaid 
prescription drug rebate that was used to offset the cost and replaces 
it with other Medicaid policies that will save Federal dollars. The new 
version includes provisions that will lower the incidence of fraud in 
Medicaid drug prescribing and preserve access to affordable 
prescriptions for 100,000 seniors covered by Wisconsin's Pharmacy Plus 
program.
  I think this is the right approach. It provides a shorter moratorium 
that allows the Finance Committee to act and preserves oversight on 
fraud and abuse at the Department of Health and Human Services.
  I will work with Senator Durbin and members of the Appropriations 
Committee to ensure that this version stays in the final bill.
  Once again, I thank Chairman Byrd for his help in reaching this good 
outcome. And I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.


                          Retail Improvements

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to followup on the comments 
Chairman Baucus made about the depreciation of retail improvements and 
engage in a colloquy with Senators Snowe and Baucus. Under current law, 
improvements made to rented retail property are depreciated over 15 
years. Improvements made to owned property are depreciated over 39 
years. The current tax treatment of improvements to retail property 
results in an inequity. There is no justification to treat these 
improvements differently for tax purposes based on whether the property 
is owned or rented. Unfortunately, this provision was not included in 
the small business tax package.
  Ms. SNOWE. I join Senator Kerry in my disappointment that this 
provision that would benefit retail operations

[[Page S5139]]

like Greenacres Kennel Shop in Bangor, ME, was not included in the 
conference agreement of the supplemental appropriations bill. The 
provision originated from legislation, S. 271, that I introduced with 
Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry to provide relief and equity to 
our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less 
than five employees. This bill will simply conform the Tax Code to the 
realities that retailers on Main Street face. Despite the fact that 
small businesses are the real job-creators in our Nation's economy, the 
current tax system is placing an entirely unreasonable burden on them 
when trying to satisfy their tax obligations. What is most troubling is 
that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 
per employee in tax compliance costs, an amount that is nearly 67 
percent more than larger firms. As a result, I was most pleased when 
the chairman and ranking member included this modest proposal as part 
of the small business tax relief package. Unfortunately, the provision 
did not survive conference negotiations with the House.
  Mr. KERRY. I agree with the comments made by Senator Snowe, and we 
have heard first hand how important this provision is to small 
businesses. During the January Finance Committee hearing on small 
business tax issues, Mr. Dave Ratner, owner of Dave's Soda and Pet City 
of western Massachusetts, testified about the need for retail owners to 
be able to depreciate improvements over 15 years instead of 39 years. 
He eloquently explained why owners and renters should be treated in the 
same manner and how difficult it is for small businesses to compete 
with large retail chains. Senator Snowe and I would like to work with 
you to address this inequity.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand and share the concerns 
expressed by Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe. I agree that owners and 
renters should receive the same tax treatment for improvements.
  There are many small businesses in Montana in which the owners would 
like to make improvements. And this provision would be extremely 
helpful.
  Just this week, I received an e-mail message from Scott Brown, the 
owner of The Base Camp in Helena, MT. Scott told me how this provision 
would help him and other Montana retailers to be more competitive.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues to find additional 
opportunities to address this important provision.
  Mr. KERRY. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this 
important provision which helps small businesses. We need to provide 
equal tax treatment for depreciated property regardless of whether it 
is owned or rented.
  Ms. SNOWE. I concur with Senator Kerry and appreciate his support for 
this proposal that simply would bring equity between retail operations. 
Frankly, this provision should have been included when Congress first 
extended accelerated depreciation for leasehold improvements. This is 
not a new provision but, rather, it simply perfects current law. Though 
disappointed by the absence of the provision in the conference 
agreement, I appreciate the chairman's commitment to this issue and 
hope he will continue to work with Senator Kerry and me, as well as the 
other cosponsors of S. 271, to see that the provision receives full and 
fair consideration as the process to finally enact small business 
relief continues to move forward
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent in the order that 
has already been placed, following Senator Kennedy, Senator Isakson be 
recognized, and then the following Senators be recognized on our side, 
alternating with Republicans, for 4 minutes each Senator: Cardin, 
Menendez, Webb, Schumer, Feinstein, Jack Reed, and Senator Inouye.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, please: I ask the Senator from 
Washington, that takes place after the Senator from Illinois and I are 
recognized, is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a war which never should have 
started and on this President's watch may never end. But the face of 
this war is not the face of President George W. Bush, nor is it the 
face of any Member of Congress. The face of this war can be found in 
the grief of children, wives, mothers, in 3,333 homes across America 
where a folded American flag and fading photograph are daily reminders 
of a fallen soldier.
  The face of this war can be found in a hospital room in the Midwest 
where a 22-year-old soldier sits in a wheelchair. When you walk in the 
room he notices you and watches you, but he cannot speak. He is a 
victim of traumatic brain injury, the signature injury of this war. His 
powers of communication are very limited. We hope that will change, but 
it may not.
  Seated next to this 22-year-old soldier in the hospital room is a 21-
year-old wife, holding the picture of a 2-year-old daughter. For 10--
20--30--or 40 years, this may be his life and her life. The face of 
this war can be found in hundreds of counseling sessions that are now 
treating thousands of soldiers who returned, haunted by the demons of 
this war or fighting post-traumatic stress disorder. The face of this 
war can be found in the wives and mothers at home, anxiously awaiting 
the return of their soldier, paying the bills, caring for the kids, 
hoping their marriage will survive.
  Today we send the President a chance to change the course of this 
war, a chance to finally demand accountability from the Iraqis, and a 
chance to honor our great men and women in uniform by bringing them 
home in an orderly, sensible, safe way.
  When the President receives this bill early next week, I hope he will 
ask himself some basic questions. How many lives? How many wounds? How 
many soldiers must America sacrifice, waiting for the Iraqis to accept 
their responsibility?
  Time and again the Iraqis have failed to shoulder the burden of 
leadership. They have set their own timetables and deadlines to finally 
bring political order to their country, and have failed time and time 
and time again. Instead of being held to the task of governing their 
own country, some in this Government make excuses and say let's send in 
some more soldiers and buy them some more time. As the Iraqis fail, 
brave Americans fall--victims of IEDs, victims of car bombs, victims of 
a civil war that has its roots in an Islamic battle that has gone on 
for 14 centuries; victims of Iraqi politicians who delay making the 
hard political decisions which might bring stability to their country.
  The law we send the President will give him a chance to start anew, 
an opportunity to finally accept change--a moment in history where he 
can accept the reality of this grim and deteriorating war in Iraq.
  The President has already predicted he is going to take this bill and 
veto it. But we hope there will be 1 moment--1 moment of prayerful 
reflection before he puts that pen to paper. In that moment, if he 
closes his eyes in prayer, I hope he sees the faces I have spoken of, 
of these fallen soldiers, of these battered warriors, of these men and 
women and families who have given more than we can ever ask of anyone 
in this country, and I hope he will realize, with that pen in his hand, 
he can honor them, honor this country, and bring this war to an end.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is very difficult for me to believe 
some of the things I am actually hearing right now. In fact, I don't 
believe them after General Petraeus has made such a fine presentation 
to us. There are a few things in the closed session that we cannot talk 
about, but I have taken those out. The things we can talk about--in 
answer to a question, you said: Can you talk about some of the positive 
things that have happened?
  He is talking about Anbar. I am now quoting: Anbar has gone from 
being assessed as being lost to a situation that now is quite 
heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to 
join the fight against al-Qaida; the reduction of sectarian murders in 
Baghdad, that is down by approximately a third; progress in Anbar is 
almost something that is breathtaking--the killing of the security

[[Page S5140]]

Amir of al-Qaida in eastern Anbar Province; the detention of the 
Khazali network; we have picked up the Shabani network head in Iraq. 
That is the explosively-formed projectile element in Iraq that gets 
them from others in Iraq, these are the explosively-formed projectiles.
  It goes on and on. He talks about the progress in Ramadi.
  My only wish is that so many of those who are detractors would have 
had the opportunity and had taken the opportunity to go and spend the 
time in the area of operations, in the whole area out there. But I can 
recall so many things that people just are not aware of here.
  I remember being in Tikrit. Tikrit is where they had the Iraqi 
security forces building that was blown up. Forty of them were either--
these are Iraqi security trainees--40 either were killed or were 
injured so that they would not be able to go back to the fields. You 
know, the families--you do not hear about this--of all 40 of these 
supplied the one who had died with another member of the family. In 
other words, they have this commitment that is so strong.
  I asked the general yesterday, I said: Are you still getting the 
family support that I witnessed when I was over there?
  He said: It is even stronger now. They are lined up and talking about 
it.
  The Iraqi security forces in Fallujah--now, that was a great 
experience that I had, having the honor of being there during two of 
their elections. The Iraqi security forces go out and vote the day 
before the rest of the public votes for two reasons: one, so they can 
provide security for the public when they vote, and the second reason 
is that they go out there knowing that is the risky time. They are 
willing to risk their lives, and several of them in the Fallujah area 
died just in the process of voting.
  I remember sitting down with the general--his name is General Mahdi--
and he was one, I have to say--he was the brigade commander for Saddam 
Hussein. He hated Americans. He was the one who said--when they came in 
there after the fall of Saddam Hussein--he was still the brigade 
commander for the Iraqis until the marines came to Fallujah and started 
training with the Iraqi security forces. He made the statement--he 
said: We became so close to the marines--this is the general who had 
been Saddam Hussein's brigade commander. He said: We became so close to 
the marines that when they rotated out, we got together and we all 
cried.
  We went from there on up, flew in a Black Hawk, and the easiest way 
to get around there is to fly low and fast over the Triangle, only to 
see the little kids down there waving American flags. I just wonder, if 
something like this is passed and we are telling all of those kids down 
there and we are telling the Iraqi security forces that are doing so 
well right now in their advanced training, that they are now on the 
point of these invasions that are taking place, the defenses that are 
taking place all throughout Iraq, that we are saying that we are the 
cut-and-run guys, we built up your hopes, we now see an improved Iraq, 
we see hospitals are opened, we see manufacturers that are making 
clothing, we see girls who are going to school when this has never 
happened in the history of Iraq, we have seen all of this progress, but 
we are going to dump on you now.
  So I just hope that we can stand back from the politics and do the 
right thing and get a good resolution--defeat this bill, get it vetoed, 
get a good resolution so we can finish what we started and give General 
Petraeus a chance to finish what he has started so successfully.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have 15 
seconds remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to congratulate our 
Democratic leader for his bold and decisive leadership and his 
determination to bring our troops home from Iraq in an orderly, 
responsible, and safe way. Those who are disparaging him are engaged in 
nothing more than a ploy to change the focus of the debate.
  Harry Reid is an effective and capable leader. What the American 
people and our soldiers in Iraq need is new leadership from the White 
House and a new policy in Iraq that requires the Iraqis to take 
responsibilities and our troops to begin to come home.
  A timeline for the withdrawal of combat troops is the only realistic 
way to encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. 
The Bush administration supported deadlines for three Iraqi elections 
and for writing of the Constitution as part of its strategy to ensure 
that Iraqis would make essential decisions. Yet the administration 
remains emphatically opposed to any timeline for the withdrawal of our 
military. The administration should follow the logic of its past action 
and embrace, rather than reject, a timeline. It should stop defying the 
will of the American people who want to bring our troops home to the 
heroes' welcome they have earned.
  The President is wrong to threaten to veto this legislation, he was 
wrong to get us into this war, wrong to conduct it so poorly, wrong to 
ignore the views of the American people, and wrong to accuse those of 
us who are working to change course as harming our troops. Now he is 
wrong to threaten to veto this bill, delaying funds and keeping our 
troops in a civil war with no end in sight to our commitment. Instead, 
President Bush should be listening to the American people and working 
with Congress to bring this tragic war to an end.
  Instead of continuing to defy the will of the American people and 
Congress by threatening to veto the legislation, he should be putting 
the Iraqis on notice. He must make it clear to the Iraqi Government 
that it is time for them to take responsibility for their country and 
resolve their political differences. The American military will not 
police Iraq's civil war indefinitely. It is time to end the loss of 
American lives and to begin to bring our soldiers home. For the sake of 
our troops, we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and allow this to 
drag on long after the American people know it is a mistake.
  We have Presidents who make mistakes. President Johnson was wrong in 
escalating in Vietnam. President Nixon was wrong to continue that 
escalation, and we saw the loss of 58,000 American lives. Presidents 
make mistakes.
  This President has made this mistake. The American people were right 
in Vietnam and brought that war to an end, and the American people are 
right now. No one in the administration can tell the American people in 
good faith and in good conscience that we are making progress in Iraq. 
Iraq is sliding deeper into civil war, and our military cannot solve 
their problems. It is time the President listen to the Iraq Study 
Group, the Congress, and the American people and work with us to bring 
our troops home.
  Mr. President, yesterday the United Nations issued a progress report 
on the progress of violence in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that 
sections of that report be printed at the appropriate place in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Summary

       1. The Government of Iraq continued to face immense 
     security challenges in the face of growing violence and armed 
     opposition to its authority and the rapidly worsening 
     humanitarian crisis. A number of large-scale insurgency 
     attacks had devastating effects on both the civilian 
     population and Iraqi law enforcement personnel, and continued 
     to claim lives among Multinational Force (MNF) personnel. 
     Civilian casualties of the daily violence between January and 
     March remained high, concentrated in and around Baghdad. 
     Violent deaths were also a regular feature of several other 
     cities in the governorates of Nineveh, Salahuddin, Diyala and 
     Babel. The implementation of the Iraqi-led Baghdad Security 
     Plan (Khittat Fardh al-Qanun) on 14 February saw an increase 
     in Iraqi and MNF troop levels and checkpoints on the streets 
     of Baghdad, expanded curfew hours and intensified security 
     operations and raids. The challenge facing the Government of 
     Iraq is not limited to addressing the level of violence in 
     the country, but the longer term maintenance of stability and 
     security in an environment characterized by impunity and a 
     breakdown in law and order. In this context, the intimidation 
     of a large segment of the Iraqi population, among them 
     professional groups and law enforcement personnel, and 
     political interference in the affairs of the judiciary, were 
     rife and in need of urgent attention.
       2. In its previous reports on the human rights situation in 
     Iraq, UNAMI regularly cited the Iraqi Government's official 
     data,

[[Page S5141]]

     including the Ministry of Higher Education's statistics on 
     killings among academics and the Ministry of Interior's 
     statistics on killings among police officers. It is therefore 
     a matter of regret that the Iraqi Government did not provide 
     UNAMI access to the Ministry of Health's overall mortality 
     figures for this reporting period. UNAMI emphasizes again the 
     utmost need for the Iraqi Government to operate in a 
     transparent manner, and does not accept the government's 
     suggestion that UNAMI used the mortality figures in an 
     inappropriate fashion.
       3. Evidence which cannot be numerically substantiated in 
     this report nonetheless show that the high level of violence 
     continued throughout the reporting period, attributable to 
     large-scale indiscriminate killings and targeted 
     assassinations perpetrated by insurgency groups, militias and 
     other armed groups. In February and March, sectarian violence 
     claimed the lives of large numbers of civilians, including 
     women and children, in both Shi'a and Sunni neighborhoods. 
     One of the most devastating attacks occurred on 3 February 
     when a truck packed with a ton of explosives detonated, 
     killing an estimated 135 people and injuring 339 others in a 
     busy market in the predominantly Shi'a district of al-
     Sadriyya of Baghdad. While government officials claimed an 
     initial drop in the number of killings in the latter half of 
     February following the launch of the Baghdad Security Plan, 
     the number of reported casualties rose again in March.
       4. In its previous reports, UNAMI expressed its concern 
     that many Baghdad neighborhoods had become divided along 
     Sunni and Shi'a lines and were increasingly controlled by 
     armed groups purporting to act as protectors and defenders of 
     these areas. Efforts to find a long-term and durable solution 
     to mass displacement will necessitate a reversal of this 
     trend, enabling civilians to return to their homes safely and 
     voluntarily. According to figures from the United Nations 
     High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), an estimated 
     736,422 persons were forced to flee their homes due to 
     sectarian violence and military operations since the 
     bombing of the al-Askari shrine in Samarra' on 22 February 
     2006. Of these, more than 200,000 were displaced since 
     December 2006. Together with 1.2 million IDPs displaced 
     prior to 22 February 2006, they are in need of continuous 
     assistance, including shelter and improved access to the 
     Public Distribution System (PDS). Additionally, 
     Palestinian refugees residing in several neighborhoods in 
     Baghdad continued to be victims of the deteriorating 
     security situation. According to a Palestinian human 
     rights organization and other Palestinian sources, 198 
     Palestinians were killed in targeted assassinations or 
     attacks on their residential compounds since 4 April 2003. 
     Many Palestinians responded to continuing threats and 
     attacks by leaving their homes and seeking refuge in camps 
     along the Iraq-Syria border.
       5. UNAMI notes again the serious trend of growing 
     intolerance towards minorities, whose representatives 
     continued to lodge complaints about discrimination, 
     intimidation and individual targeting on religious and 
     political grounds. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution protects the 
     ``religious freedoms'' of all of its citizens. Of equal 
     concern are ongoing attempts to suppress freedom of 
     expression through tighter control of the broadcast media and 
     printed press. UNAMI noted several incidents of harassment, 
     legal action and intimidation against journalists addressing 
     issues of corruption and mismanagement of public services in 
     the Region of Kurdistan. Across the country, attacks against 
     journalists and media outlets continued, resulting in a high 
     number of casualties among media workers.
       6. UNAMI remained concerned at the apparent lack of 
     judicial guarantees in the handling of suspects arrested in 
     the context of the Baghdad Security Plan. While in his public 
     statements Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged that the 
     government would respect human rights and ensure due process 
     within a reasonable time for those under arrest, there were 
     no references to any mechanisms for monitoring the conduct of 
     arresting and detaining officials. The new emergency 
     procedures announced on 13 February contained no explicit 
     measures guaranteeing minimum due process rights. Rather, 
     they authorized arrests without warrants and the 
     interrogation of suspects without placing a time limit on how 
     long they could be held in pre-trial detention. The use of 
     torture and other inhumane treatment in detention centers 
     under the authority of the Ministry of Interior and the 
     Ministry of Defense continues to be of utmost concern. UNAMI 
     re-emphasizes the urgent need to establish an effective 
     tracking mechanism to account for the location and treatment 
     of all detainees from the point of arrest.
       7. During this reporting period, UNAMI further expanded its 
     monitoring and reporting activities in the three northern 
     governorates under the authority of the Kurdistan Regional 
     Government (KRG), where the security situation remained 
     stable. Infringements to freedom of expression, including 
     press and media freedoms, were of serious concern. Equally 
     serious was the lack of due process with regard to detainees 
     held by Kurdish security forces (Asayish), the majority on 
     suspicion of involvement in acts of terrorism and other 
     serious crimes. Hundreds have been held for prolonged periods 
     without referral to an investigative judge or charges brought 
     against them. UNAMI also noted the absence of serious 
     measures by the KRG authorities to address the growing level 
     of violence against women, including prompt investigations 
     and criminal prosecution of perpetrators.
       ``Civilian casualties of the daily violence between January 
     and March remained high concentrated in and around Baghdad.'' 
     [page 3 of U.N. report.]
       ``By late February, government officials announced that the 
     number of such killings had decreased, which they attributed 
     to the success of the Baghdad Security Plan. Despite this 
     announced decrease, the number of victims was nevertheless 
     high, with up to 25 bodies still being found on some days 
     during this period in Baghdad. March again witnessed a rise 
     in the number of casualties, with reports of large number of 
     bodies found in Baghdad, al-Ramadi, al-Hilla, Kirkuk, Mosul, 
     Khalis, Tikrit and Himreen.'' [page 8 of U.N. report.]
       ``Despite reports from Iraqis in late February that 
     security had somewhat improved, there were a series of 
     indiscriminate attacks targeting civilians, and the rate of 
     kidnappings remained high.'' [page 7 of U.N. report.]
       Large-scale suicide and car bomb attacks were carried out 
     between January and March, with several incidents claiming 
     the lives of more than 50 people each [page 6 of U.N. 
     report].
       According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, more 
     than 200,000 Iraqis have been displaced since last December. 
     [page 4 of U.N. report.]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this conference 
report includes the minimum wage bill. After 10 long years, we will 
finally be able to send a minimum wage increase to the President. It's 
long overdue, and it's yet another reason why the President should sign 
this important bill.
  The minimum wage bill passed the House and Senate by overwhelming 
margins in January and February of this year. Under it, minimum wage 
workers will get a raise of $2.10 per hour. Those who work full time 
will earn an additional $4,400 a year.
  That's enough to pay for utilities that might otherwise be shut off, 
to put gas in the car so you can get to work, or to pay for after-
school care for a son or daughter who might otherwise be left home 
alone.
  In many ways, including the minimum wage increase in this bill on 
Iraq couldn't be more appropriate. The minimum wage represents the 
values our troops are fighting for--basic fairness. It's about what we 
stand for as a Nation.
  Americans believe that hard work should help you build a better life 
for your family. They believe that a job should keep you out of 
poverty, not force you to live in poverty.
  Our troops are away fighting to provide a better future for the 
people of Iraq. We'd like to think that our men and women in uniform 
don't have to worry about the economic security of their families here 
at home. But many of our fighting forces have husbands or wives back at 
home who are struggling to make ends meet.
  Ten percent of military spouses earn between $5.15 and $7.25 per 
hour. 50,000 military families will benefit from an increase in the 
minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. Our troops are overseas putting their 
lives on the line for their country, and we should provide fair 
opportunities for their spouses who are working hard here at home.
  I hope we can provide these families--and all other struggling 
families across the country--with the fair wages they deserve as soon 
as possible. I hope the President will do the right thing for our 
troops and for America's minimum wage workers by signing this important 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to 
associate my remarks with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. 
I think his point-by-point rebuttals to previous declarations were 
appropriate and were right on point.
  I will not talk long, but I rise to explain precisely why I will vote 
against this supplemental. In fact, there are a number of reasons I 
will vote against it--140,000 reasons are the men and women deployed 
right now on behalf of the United States of America and the civilized 
world.
  It is right for the Senate to debate this war. It is right for us to 
ask questions. But it is wrong to hold hostage the money that supports 
those troops. We should separate the money from the debate. We should 
never hold hostage the money for our troops who are, on order of the 
President of the United States, defending our country and what we stand 
for.

[[Page S5142]]

  There are almost 3,300 reasons I will vote no; that is, the 
sacrifices that have already been made on behalf of the United States 
of America, those troops who have fought and those who have given the 
ultimate sacrifice, troops like Diego Rincon, the first soldier from 
Georgia to die in Iraq, and LT Noah Harris, a famous Georgian who 
sacrificed his life as well. I have known those families. I have gone 
to those services. I understand the sacrifice, and I know how they feel 
of the pride of their sons who fought on behalf of this noble cause.
  There are six additional reasons--my grandchildren. This is the 
ultimate war between good and evil. This is but one battle in a war 
that will determine the future security of the world. Make no mistake, 
there have been mistakes made, but it would be a horrible mistake to 
not confront terror or the agents of terror, because if we do, they 
have won.
  Unlike any other war ever fought by the United States, we are 
fighting a group of people who don't want what we have, they don't want 
us to have what we have: the Bill of Rights; the right for me to 
express myself and Senator Kennedy to do the same without fear or 
without cowering; the right for the press to call it as they see it; 
the right to worship as you see fit; the right to bear arms. The 10 
basic rights of the Bill of Rights are precisely what they want to take 
away, not only from us but from the rest of the world.
  Terrorists want us to cower in fear and want to run the world based 
on that principle. To pass a supplemental appropriations bill that 
couches the support of our troops based on arbitrary deadlines that 
only serve to benefit the very people we fight is just plain wrong.
  I relish debate of this war every day on the floor and hope we will 
continue. The way you avoid making mistakes in the future is debating 
those things which have happened in the past. But it would be the worst 
of mistakes to withhold funding from our troops or condition it upon 
arbitrary deadlines and circumstances in another country, at another 
time, at another place.
  Mr. President, I end my remarks by thanking those brave men and women 
who have sacrificed and those who are sacrificing now and the families 
of those troops, many of them families who live in my State of Georgia. 
I will vote for the supplemental appropriations of our troops 
unconditionally and separate our debate of other issues to another 
document. But I will not support holding hostage our troops or their 
money.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ hours ago, along with Senator 
Mikulski, I attended a mobilization ceremony for members of the 
Maryland National Guard who are being deployed to Iraq. All Marylanders 
are proud of the service of our members of the National Guard who have 
been called up and have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and are now 
being called up. It was an emotional morning as these soldiers said 
goodbye to their families.
  I can tell you, they are ready. They are ready to serve our country. 
They will serve with great distinction. I told our soldiers and their 
families I would do everything I could as a Senator to make sure they 
had all of the resources so they can carry out the mission that has 
been assigned to them as safely and as effectively as possible. That is 
one reason I will vote for this conference report. I told their 
families I would do everything I could to help support their needs and 
to support the needs of military families around this Nation and to 
support the needs of veterans around this Nation, to take care of their 
support services, including their health care needs. That is another 
reason I will be voting for this conference report.

  We need a change in our mission in Iraq so our soldiers can achieve a 
mission that is in the best interest of this country. That is another 
reason I am supporting this conference report. It spells out a mission 
that is in the best interest of this Nation and can be achieved. We 
need to change our role in Iraq. We need to get our soldiers out of the 
middle of a civil war, to focus on the war against terror, to help the 
Iraqi people take care of their own needs, to bring our troops home. 
That is another reason I will be supporting this conference report.
  We need measurable and achievable benchmarks for the Iraqi Government 
so they can secure their own country to undertake political 
reconciliation and to provide basic needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens, 
another reason I will be supporting this conference report.
  We need a political framework to include all the Iraqi stakeholders 
in order to provide a political answer to the problems of that country, 
another reason I support this conference report.
  The President of the United States has threatened a veto. That would 
only delay the delivery of much needed funds to our forces, delay a 
change in direction in Iraq, and undermine the need for political 
reform in Iraq itself. We have our responsibility. Our first 
responsibility is to act and to pass this supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  I urge colleagues to support this appropriation. It is in the best 
interest of the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, a lot has been said about this bill. 
Let's get the facts straight before we cast a vote. This administration 
has said: If you vote for this bill, you don't support the troops. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is the ultimate 
definition of supporting the troops. The truth is, a ``yes'' vote 
ensures our troops are equipped and prepared to defend themselves, 
moves them out of another country's civil war, and provides health care 
that has been lacking for those who return home injured. This is not 
about surrender, this is about our best chance for success.
  A vote against this $124 billion spending bill is a vote against the 
$100 billion for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. A vote against 
this bill is a vote against a billion-dollar increase to get 
desperately needed equipment to our National Guard and Reserve who 
fight abroad and protect us at home. A vote against this bill is a vote 
against $3 billion for the purchase of 8,500 mine-resistant, ambush-
protected vehicles to protect our soldiers from deadly roadside bombs. 
A vote against this bill is a vote against nearly $3 billion to help 
reform an overburdened veterans health system struggling to take care 
of our returning wounded. A vote against this bill is a vote against 
$900 million to research and treat posttraumatic stress disorder and 
traumatic brain injuries, two of the most critical issues facing 
wounded soldiers. A vote against this bill is a vote against more than 
$650 million in emergency funding for children's health care coverage. 
Without this funding, we are closing our doctors' doors to our Nation's 
children. A vote against this bill is a vote against $6.9 billion for 
the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who are still struggling to 
rebuild their homes and their lives more than a year after the storms 
hit.
  A vote against this bill is a vote against allowing States to have 
stronger standards to protect chemical security plants. A vote against 
this bill is a vote against over $2 billion in homeland security 
initiatives, including mass transit, port security, and other measures 
that passed in the 9/11 bill in the Senate.
  Quite frankly, I don't have faith in President Bush's escalation, a 
plan with benchmarks but no real consequences. I have said again and 
again, benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. We have 
seen countless misguided plans from this administration, but the Iraqis 
have never been held accountable.
  We were told that by the end of 2006 a provincial election law would 
be approved. That benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis 
would approve a law for debaathification, but that benchmark has not 
been met. We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain 
sectarian militias. That benchmark has not been met. We were told that 
Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry and share 
revenues, but that benchmark has not been met. We were told that by 
March the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on 
constitutional amendments, but that benchmark has not been met.
  Time and time again, the Iraqi Government has fallen short, and time 
and

[[Page S5143]]

again this administration has looked the other way, basing their plans 
on the hope that the Iraqi Government will step up.
  Continuing this failed policy in Iraq based on the mere hope that 
things will improve is not good enough. The broken promises must stop.
  Some on the other side of the aisle point out that the President is 
the Commander in Chief. I remind my friends that the Constitution puts 
the Congress in charge of appropriating funds. Congress has the power, 
the right, and the obligation to make sure we spend the taxpayers' 
money wisely. What we are saying today with this bill is no more blank 
check for the Iraq war.
  This bill sends a strong message to the Iraqis that it is their 
responsibility to take control of their own country and that our 
involvement in Iraq is not indefinite. As Thomas Friedman has written: 
It is time to decide ``we will no longer play host to a war where we 
are everyone's protector and target.''
  We must put in motion a plan to bring a responsible end to this war. 
I urge all colleagues to vote for the supplemental, a vote that takes 
care of our troops, a vote to responsibly bring our troops home, and a 
vote for a new direction in Iraq and here at home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the title of this bill, ``The U.S. Troop 
Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act,'' doesn't say 
much for the contents of this legislation because it has gone way 
beyond that with a lot of material that has nothing to do with the 
title. The Finance Committee matters definitely don't fit into this 
bill.
  As the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Byrd has said on so many occasions the Founding Fathers vested 
the great power of the purse in the Congress. Likewise, the other great 
power, the power to raise taxes, is vested in Congress. The power of 
the purse, appropriations, is our power. We are directly accountable to 
our constituents for our spending actions. In that vein, I deeply 
respect the deep traditions of the Appropriations Committee.
  As former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee, I 
also deeply respect the division of power. The power to tax is our 
power as a committee, and we are directly accountable to our 
constituents for our taxing actions. We should mix the jurisdiction of 
the two great money committees--Finance and Appropriations--rarely, if 
at all. It should only occur if at all when the senior members of the 
tax writing and appropriations committees agree. Mixing tax writing and 
appropriations jurisdiction should not occur. As a leadership power 
play, those kinds of actions demean the committees.
  Fortunately, the leadership respected this division of jurisdiction 
between the tax writers and appropriators over the last 6 years. 
Unfortunately, early on in the tenure of this new Democratic majority 
and their leadership, we have seen a dramatically different course of 
action for purely partisan reasons.
  The Democratic leadership inserted into this sensitive supplemental 
appropriations bill two major matters that involve Finance Committee 
jurisdiction. So the first lesson we have learned is that the line 
between the tax writing committee jurisdiction and appropriations 
jurisdiction will not be observed. That will only undermine each 
committee and break down the committee process. The second lesson is 
the ``I told you so.'' Shortly after the Senate acted on the minimum 
wage and small business tax relief bill, I said I had learned something 
from the Democratic leadership, as they were in the minority over the 
last 6 years. It was a lesson the Democrats taught us while they were 
in the minority. That lesson is, get a preconference agreement. Put 
another way, if you are in the Senate minority, as we are now, don't 
agree to a conference unless you secure an agreement for fair treatment 
in advance. That is something that worked well for the Democrats while 
they were in the minority, something we ought to have learned, and we 
have learned.
  Now let me say I appreciate all the consultation and courtesy that 
Chairman Baucus has given me. He worked with me and I worked with him 
to get the minimum wage, small business tax relief bill through the 
committee. But the composition of the final package that is before us 
is heavily weighted toward an extension and modification of the work 
opportunity tax credit--and I support that credit--and the benefits of 
that policy are delayed. Small businesses need tax relief to be in sync 
with the time of the minimum wage kicking in. Both of these outcomes do 
not reflect a proportionate agreement between the House and Senate 
bills. The arbitrary ceiling on the amount of tax relief was not a fair 
balance. This agreement confirms that a preconference process--learning 
that from the Democratic minority of the last 4 years--is necessary to 
ensure that a conference agreement will reflect the priorities of both 
bodies. I will reiterate my point to the Republican leadership again on 
that. This process proves that we need a preconference agreement before 
agreeing to go to conference in the first place.
  Now I will return to the substance of the deal, Mr. President. I am 
hearing from a lot of small business folks who are going to be paying 
the minimum wage. They want to retain their current workforces, hey 
have to look to the bottome line. They are very disappointed that the 
arbitrary $5 billion limit meant that important tax relief measures 
were tossed out. I am referring to a simplification of the cash method 
of accounting. That proposal would cut down on a lot of paperwork small 
businesses currently have to do. I'm also referring to faster 
depreciation rules for new restaurant buildings, and I am referring to 
faster depreciation rules for retailers and owner-financed building 
improvements. All of these proposals would help with the coming cash 
crunch that these small businesses will be facing.
  I am not hearing from a lot of the big business folks who were 
targeted by the loophole closers and antitax shelter measures. Because 
of House opposition and fealty to the $5 billion number, those 
reasonable revenue raisers were tossed out the window.
  This was a missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity for a 
Congress that started with a supposed reform mission to send a message 
to K Street in DC and Wall Street in New York City. That message 
would've been simple. Don't engage in tax shelters like the so-called 
``SILO'' transactions. Don't move your company headquarters offshore to 
minimize your American tax responsibilities like the so-called 
``inversion'' transactions. For high-paid CEOS, don't rely too much on 
non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements. Nope, you can kiss 
that opportunity goodbye.
  When it came to the small business tax relief package, K Street and 
Wall Street big business won and Main Street small business lost. Not a 
good outcome. Hopefully, once this bill is vetoed and we return to the 
minimum wage/small business tax relief package, Main Street small 
business will come out on top.
  Now I am going to turn to the other Finance Committee material in 
this time-sensitive appropriations bill. I am referring to Medicaid 
proposals in the conference agreement. There is a provision in the 
conference agreement that would prevent CMS from implementing the cost-
limitation rule.
  Certainly, a one-year moratorium is an improvement over the two-year 
moratorium that was in the bill as passed by the Senate, but the 
language in the bill still encourages states to push the envelope on 
payment schemes.
  If CMS gets a waiver or state plan amendment that has authority to do 
with the rule, I don't think CMS has the authority to turn it down. 
Neither does CMS.
  And after trying to work it out with the sponsors of the provision 
for the last couple of weeks, I don't think they want CMS to have any 
authority either.
  Why? This is a provision written for the benefit of a special 
interests so they can avoid real scrutiny of their financing 
arrangements.
  This provision will encourage states to offer payment schemes that 
CMS has previously disallowed as being inappropriate.
  It will encourage litigation if CMS tries to assert that they do 
still maintain jurisdiction.

[[Page S5144]]

  This is just bad public policy.
  The inspector general has investigated and reported to congress on 
why there are problems in the areas the rule addresses.
  We have not had the first hearing on why the rule doesn't work and 
must be stopped.
  This is a tremendous mistake and should not be in the bill.
  The way that this provision is paid for is equally noxious.
  The extension of the Wisconsin pharmacy plus waiver is an unnecessary 
earmark. Every State but Wisconsin has changed their pharmacy 
assistance program as the MMA required.
  But why hasn't Wisconsin? It's very simple. They want the Federal 
dollars that Medicaid provides and the rebates they get from drug 
companies.
  That it is an earmark is bad. But the way the language is written is 
really offensive. The language is written in a way that games 
Medicaid's budget neutrality test. It's written to guarantee that it 
appears to save money.
  The reality is that Wisconsin will be providing many poor seniors 
with less of a benefit than they could get through part d. Wisconsin 
charges greater cost-sharing than Medicare for low income seniors.
  It truly is another missed opportunity. They could have paid for this 
with a provision we would have gladly supported.
  But again, the special interest won out. We could have struck a 
provision that the House Rules Committee stuck in the tax bill in the 
middle of the night last December that creates an unfair advantage for 
certain private fee-for-service Medicare Advantage plans.
  Senator Baucus and I thought this was terrible policy, we said so on 
the floor, and have wanted to change it. Plans based in Illinois and 
Nevada are among the plans it advantages most. So for some reason, 
striking the provision didn't make it into the bill. It's a corporate 
giveaway that should be eliminated.
  Legislating to prevent CMS from cleaning up intergovernmental 
transfers scams on this appropriation bill sets a bad precedent. That 
is clear. It's legislation on Medicaid and, that is a basic part of the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
  If the Senate proceeds in this manner, then nothing then would 
prevent the Senate legislating changes on other Medicaid and Medicare 
issues on appropriation bills without the benefit of hearings or 
committee action on those subjects.
  Invading the Medicaid and Medicare jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee is a mistake.
  It is almost impossible to cope with Medicaid and Medicare 
legislation on appropriation bills. These are complex issues that are 
best dealt with by the committee of jurisdiction.
  This bill is going to be vetoed. The Appropriations Committee will 
return to its work to fund the troops in the field. We ought to focus 
on that. On minimum wage/small business tax relief, we need to go to 
regular order. Let's arrive at a pre-conference agreement on the House 
and Senate bills and go to conference and hash it out with a real 
conference. Unlike this situation, the chairmen and ranking members of 
both tax writing committees should be conferees. In that setting, we 
can arrive at a bipartisan agreement that passes the House, Senate, and 
be signed by the President. On the Medicaid provision, it ought to be 
crafted by the committees of jurisdiction and incorporated in a vehicle 
controlled by those committees.
  After the veto, let's get this right. I would ask the leadership to 
get out of the way of the tax writing committees and let us do our work 
on our schedule in line with our committees' objectives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, there is a lot of emotion in the Congress 
today, as there is in the country, on this issue. There is a lot of 
rhetoric flying back and forth. Some of it is inaccurate. The first 
thing we need to say is that this is not an issue of the Congress 
denying anything to the people of the Armed Forces. We are exercising 
our constitutional power to appropriate. We are sending the President a 
$100 billion check. If he chooses not to cash that check, it is up to 
him to come up with the reasons why, not us.
  There is also a lot of rhetoric going around over the past couple of 
days about defeatism and surrender and accusations of betraying the 
troops. We need to calm down a bit. There is no one in this Congress 
who wants anything more than to support those people who have been put 
into harm's way. I believe people should be very careful on this floor 
to discuss political motivations of our military which reflect very 
closely the political views of the country at large. Poll after poll 
shows that.
  In respect to accusations about defeatism and surrender, the question 
becomes: Defeat by whom and surrender to whom? We won this war 4 years 
ago. The question is, When do we end the occupation? Iraq has been in 
turmoil for thousands of years. It will be in turmoil of one kind or 
another long after we leave. The U.S. military is not going to change 
the societal makeup of Iraq. The Maliki government is not going to 
bring peace among Iraq's competing factions without the strong, over 
diplomatic cooperation of other countries in the region. Despite the 
rhetoric to the contrary, these other countries, all of them, do have 
an incentive in seeing a stable Iraq.
  This administration claims that our deciding to withdraw from the 
internal problems of Iraq will embolden the enemy. Then the question 
becomes: Just which enemy? Do they mean the enemy that attacked us on 
9/11? We all know that was Osama bin Laden. He not only was not in 
Iraq, but he was opposed to the continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime 
because it was a secular government.
  Do they mean Saddam Hussein, whose ouster was their justification for 
beginning this war? Do they mean the remnants of the old regime, which 
was their catch phrase when the occupation began? Do they mean al-
Qaida? Let's remember, there were no al-Qaida operations in Iraq before 
we invaded, and there will be very little motivation for al-Qaida to 
continue in Iraq once we have left. Not only that, but the Iraqis 
themselves are quite capable of standing up to al-Qaida without our 
help. They do not want al-Qaida in Iraq. That is why they are 
cooperating with our forces in Anbar Province right now. And they kept 
al-Qaida out of Iraq before we got there. Or do they mean what this 
administration continually calls the insurgency, as if there were a 
monolithic group of defeatable guerrilla forces? We keep hearing about 
this insurgency. Well, which one? The Sunnis? The Shia? Ask yourselves 
again, against whom are the insurgents operating? Some are operating 
against us. Why? Because we are there and they want us to leave, as a 
vast majority of the Iraqis say in poll after poll. Some are operating 
against other ethnic factions in Iraq. But to what extent is that the 
responsibility of the United States military, to try to end ethnic 
rivalries that go back hundreds of years? Or perhaps, as defined by 
this administration, we are talking about the factions within the 
factions that are busily trying to kill each other, just as the 
factions in Lebanon were trying to kill each other more than 20 years 
ago, when we put the marines in the middle of that violence.
  Some say our withdrawal from Iraq would create chaos in the region. I 
have long advocated a withdrawal that should be accomplished under the 
umbrella of a strong diplomatic effort that involves regional 
cooperation. But I must regrettably say, for those of us who warned 
against invading Iraq and decapitating that existing Government, the 
chaos the administration is now predicting is exactly the chaos their 
invasion has brought us in the first place--instability in the region, 
a loss of American prestige, a rise in the influence of Iran, an 
increase in terrorist activity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to say I am very disappointed in some 
of the provisions in this report. I must say that candidly. At the same 
time, I believe, very strongly, the reservations

[[Page S5145]]

I have pale in comparison with my disappointment in the failure of 
leadership that has brought us into Iraq in the first place--a 
leadership that refuses to find a suitable turning point which will 
bring us out.
  This administration must be confronted. It must understand the 
American people have grown tired of this disastrous, one-dimensional 
approach to a crisis that demands innovative answers. It is for that 
reason I support this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on a question that 
continues to weigh rather heavily on my heart. I am reluctant to ask it 
since such a question would never have been asked, or even 
contemplated, by previous generations of Americans. But it is a 
question that now must be asked since it is central to our future: Do 
we, as Americans, have the resolve to see our commitments through? It 
is a question we must confront in a number of policy arenas that will 
directly affect the way we, our children, and our grandchildren will 
live in this new century. Do we have the resolve and the courage to 
meet our commitments and confront the looming crisis of Social 
Security?
  Do we have the resolve to balance our Nation's budget? Do we have the 
resolve to endow our children with a proper education so they can 
master and push the limits of science, thereby providing our Nation the 
means to compete in an increasingly competitive world economy?
  However, at this point in our Nation's history, the crucial question 
concerning our resolve as a nation does not relate to matters of 
domestic policy. It relates to our commitments beyond our borders. It 
is the central and critical component in determining who will prevail 
in the global war on terrorism. Will we, our coalition allies, the 
people of Iraq and their elected Government, emerge victorious? Or will 
we renounce and abdicate our commitments and responsibilities to the 
Iraqi people--leaving them to a fate controlled by terrorists and 
leaving our future security as a nation in peril?
  Generations ago that, unto itself, would be a stain on the honor of 
this country; but these are different times.
  Turning our back now will only provide our enemies with a new base of 
operations, and unlike Afghanistan, this base contains vast oil wealth. 
Imagine al-Qaida with billions of dollars to do with as Osama bin Laden 
wishes. I wonder what they will buy with all that money. Remember, 
shortly after the liberation of Kabul, there were numerous media 
reports that al-Qaida was working on chemical weapons.
  So, with that in mind, I again ask: Do we have the resolve to see our 
commitments through?
  As we seek to answer this question, I am reminded of events that 
occurred during the summer of 1940. The Nazi armies, seemingly 
invincible, had conquered Western Europe. France, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium had all fallen.
  The British Army, after its rescue from Dunkirk, no longer possessed 
sufficient numbers of artillery and tanks to defend against the 
blitzkrieg. All that stood between Hitler and complete victory was the 
English Channel and 650 fighters of the Royal Air Force.
  Then Hitler offered a deal. In exchange for a ``free hand in 
Europe,'' the Nazis would provide ``guarantees'' that they would not 
invade Great Britain.
  Despite the fact that the British Army lacked sufficient equipment to 
effectively repulse an invasion, Prime Minister Churchill resolved to 
keep his nation's commitment to the people of Europe. He would not 
abandon them.
  His words, which I will paraphrase, still echo today:

       The Battle of France is over . . . the Battle of Britain is 
     about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of . . 
     . Western civilization. . . .The whole fury and might of the 
     enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he 
     will have to break us . . . or lose the war. If we can stand 
     up to him, all Europe may be free. . . . But if we fail, then 
     the whole world, including the United States . . . and all 
     that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of 
     a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps 
     more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let 
     us, therefore, brace ourselves to our duties and so bear 
     ourselves that . . . men will say--This Was Their Finest 
     Hour.

  This is the lesson that history teaches us: that resolution to see 
your commitments through is what great statesmen and nations are made 
of--that peace and justice can only be restored through bold action.
  So what do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offer, 
knowing full well this lesson of history? In a word: defeat. In his own 
words, the Democratic leader said on the floor of the Senate, on April 
19, the ``war is lost.'' To be fair, the leader did attempt to temper 
his words by saying:

       As long as we follow the President's path, the war is lost. 
     But there is still a chance to change course and we must 
     change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East 
     more than I do. But there must be a change of course.

  So what plan, or new course, does the Democratic leader or other 
Democrats offer? How can we, in his words, ``succeed in the Middle 
East''?
  His answer can be found in the conference report to this bill. But I 
warn anyone who attempts to read this legislation, first you must wade 
through billions in spending allocated to projects and programs that 
have nothing to do with the war before you learn how our Democratic 
colleagues plan to ``succeed in the Middle East.''
  What is their plan for victory? Well, their legislation states that 
no matter what happens, the bulk of our forces will begin to withdraw 
after July 1, or if the President makes certain certifications, after 
October 1.
  So what is their strategy? I believe Winston Churchill would have 
characterized the Democratic strategy as: guaranteed defeat.
  Is this resolve?
  Is this determination to see our commitments through?
  No.
  This is the worst case of capitulation to appeasement since Neville 
Chamberlain spoke the words ``peace in our time.''
  What is needed now is leadership. Now, at this critical moment in 
history, great nations need to follow Churchill's advice, yet the 
Democrats offer us only Chamberlain's.
  The Democratic leaders previously stated, in 2005:

       [A]s far as setting a timeline . . . that's not a wise 
     decision because it only empowers those who don't want us 
     there, and it doesn't work well to do it.

  Wise and sound words. That was real leadership. Unfortunately, that 
was when the polls supported their position to stand firm. Now the 
Democratic leaders have reversed themselves because the polls have told 
them that is what they should do.
  Two days ago, during an interview on CNN, the Senator from Nevada was 
asked if he would believe the words of our new commander General 
Petraeus ``that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called 
surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?''
  What was his response? ``No, I don't believe him, because it's not 
happening.''
  Now, I find this to be an incredible remark. Less than 3 months ago, 
the majority leader had joined a unanimous Senate and voted in favor of 
General Petraeus. But this was more than just another confirmation 
vote. The major subject of his confirmation hearing and the subsequent 
debate on the Senate floor was the new strategy the general had 
outlined.
  So what is the new strategy? Simply put, General Petraeus is 
executing one of the tenets of a classic counterinsurgency strategy by 
providing and maintaining security to the local population and 
neighborhoods in Baghdad. Only when this is achieved will the Iraqi 
Government be able to continually offer basic services such as clean 
water and electricity, which are the backbone of any modern society.
  This, in turn, creates conditions where the Iraqi people can begin to 
develop a growing economy and where families feel safe to send their 
kids to school. As these goals are achieved, more and more of the 
population will desire even greater stability and will support and work 
toward creating Iraqi Government institutions and security services 
that maintain and enhance this new, secure environment.
  How is this different from the past? Previously, U.S. forces would 
clear an area of insurgents, but, unfortunately, soon thereafter, our 
forces would leave and the insurgents would return. Now, under General 
Petraeus's plan, American and Iraqi security forces will

[[Page S5146]]

maintain security in the cleared neighborhoods of Baghdad. To date, 
over 50 security force units, based in what are called garrisons, can 
be found in the neighborhoods of the city, and even more are planned.
  That is why the additional forces that we are sending to Iraq are 
vital. It is not more for more's sake, but to maintain a secure 
environment for the Iraqi people and to help them stand up for 
themselves.
  Based upon the briefing that the Senate received yesterday from 
General Petraeus, and information I have examined as a member of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, I can report that we are seeing signs of 
progress.
  Frankly, I believe the changes that have been made in the last 3 
months are remarkable and need our full support, and it is readily 
apparent we do not yet have all the promised forces deployed and in 
Iraq.
  So let us return to the question that I asked when I began my 
remarks: Do we, as Americans, have the resolve to see our commitments 
through? Or will we falter?
  That is what the vote on this conference report will demonstrate. 
Will we stand with firm resolve behind our commitments and see our new 
strategy through? Or do we adopt a policy of appeasement and hope that 
al-Qaida, and those who wish us harm and seek to destroy the values 
that we hold so dear, do not follow us home to our country?
  What side of history do you wish to be on? Based on America's history 
and our resolve that has seen us through so many difficulties in the 
past, I believe the American people do not want retreat, they want 
success and security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, we can do both: fund the troops and change our mission 
in Iraq. That is what this supplemental does, and we urge you, Mr. 
President, to look into your heart, reconsider, and sign it.
  The American people, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of 
Congress, military experts, and the Iraq Study Group all agree the only 
way to succeed is to change our mission. Only President Bush and his 
small band of advisers think we should stay the course.
  What is more, the President wrongly thinks the only way to support 
our troops is for everyone to rubberstamp his policies. That is not 
what the American people want. The American people want a change in 
mission. They want a new direction, not more of the same failed 
policies.
  I have talked to generals and to NCOs. They do not want us to 
rubberstamp the President's policies. They want a debate because 
everyone knows the present direction is failing. Everyone knows we need 
a change of mission--except the President and his small group of 
advisers who are clustered down there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 
refuse to listen--stubbornly refuse to listen--to the experts, to the 
American people, and to so many others.
  First, let me tell you what this supplemental does. The first thing 
it does is fund our troops. It fully supports our troops. It allocates 
more dollars for them than the President has asked for.
  Second, it provides reasonable and meaningful guidelines to protect 
our troops by ensuring that all units that are sent overseas to fight 
are ready, trained, and equipped to fight. It will require the 
Department of Defense to adhere to its own guidelines to ensure that 
every unit that is deployed is ``fully mission capable.''
  Why would President Bush want to send our troops to Afghanistan and 
Iraq, into fierce battles, without the training and equipment needed to 
get the job done and come home safely? But when he says he will veto 
this bill, he will veto that provision.
  Third, this legislation shows both the United States and Iraq how to 
change the failing strategy.
  What has happened is simple. Our mission in Iraq has devolved so that 
most of what we do is patrol, police, and stand in the middle of a 
civil war. The Sunnis and the Shiites have hated each other for 
centuries. Their enmity goes way back. They will continue to not like 
each other, not work with each other, fight with each other long after 
we are gone--whether it is 3 months or 3 years. Yet most of the time 
our troops--our brave men and women--are simply caught in the middle of 
a civil war. We have not chosen a side; we are just in the middle.
  The original purpose in Iraq was to fight terrorism. Our supplemental 
says, let's go back to that original purpose: counterterrorism, as well 
as force protection, and training the Iraqis. But to continue to spend 
most of our time, effort, and lives--lives--patrolling a civil war 
makes no sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in conclusion, again, there is a simple 
answer to our problems in Iraq, which is mission change. We can both 
support the troops and change the mission. That is what the American 
people want. That is what the experts tell us. I believe that is what 
most of our soldiers want. I urge support of this supplemental and 
again urge the President to reconsider and sign it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our job in this body right now for all of us 
is to fight and win the war that radical Islam terrorists have declared 
upon us.
  As I see it, Congress has three choices. First, Congress can and 
should provide the money it needs to support the troops. That is the 
only proper choice. There is money in this supplemental for additional 
mine-resistant armored protection vehicles--vehicles the Army reports 
will reduce casualties by 70 percent. Each day this Congress neglects 
to fund the troops and pass a bill that can be signed into law is an 
additional day our troops are without that protection.
  Second, if you want to stop this war, Congress can vote to cut off 
funding. However, doing so would tell the troops that even though 77 
Members of this body said we should fight this war to keep America 
safe, we would now be telling all of our brave men and women in Iraq, 
their families, and the families of those who gave their lives, we did 
not mean it, that we did not want to finish this job, and that when the 
going gets tough, America gets going--out. We will tell America we are 
no longer concerned about keeping our homeland safe from a new 9/11, 
about denying al-Qaida the safe haven it has declared it is seeking in 
Iraq to prepare for new attacks on America. While that choice is deadly 
wrong, it is an honest choice under the constitutional power given to 
the Congress.
  Third, and most deplorable, Congress is delaying the funds by forcing 
vote after vote, while attempting to score political points, and trying 
to micromanage the war, even though war management is the President's 
constitutional responsibility.
  Most sadly, this is the course of action the Democratic leadership 
has chosen--a course that will result in ``death by a thousand cuts.''
  Those who are attempting to end the war precipitously, politically, 
because they think it will score them seats in Congress or perhaps even 
the White House, are putting polls and politics ahead of our national 
security. Democratic leaders have stated they intend to pick up seats 
as a result of what they have referred to as a lost war. These comments 
were not just broadcast here in the United States; this talk about war 
loss was picked up and broadcast gleefully by al-Jazeera to our enemies 
and the world.
  The Los Angeles Times has reported a top House Democrat has said: Our 
goal is to keep giving them--Republicans--votes on Iraq.
  The article goes on to say:

       Democratic strategists also believe that repeated votes on 
     the war will allow the party to expand its congressional 
     majorities in next year's elections by continuing to link GOP 
     lawmakers with the President and his war policies.

  I am sure our troops in the field appreciate very much that some of 
the Democratic leadership are working to win the war--not the war 
against our sworn enemies blowing up our troops and killing Iraqi 
children who rely on

[[Page S5147]]

our protection but against fellow Americans in coming elections. Where 
is their strategy to win, to leave Iraq a stable and safe country?
  As I have said, the other side's leadership, by embracing a policy of 
repeated votes and delaying funding, is denying our troops the 
resources they need. Their enemy should be al-Qaida and its murderous 
insurgents, not the President and Republican opponents.
  Substituting Congress for General Petraeus's leadership and telling 
him how to run a war from 8,000 miles away is a disaster. General 
Petraeus is executing a new plan, a plan essentially recommended by the 
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, which last fall our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle said we should follow. But now even if some 
generals in Congress think they are smarter than General Petraeus and 
can devise in legislation a better plan, which I strongly doubt, I am 
very doubtful they can adjust that plan to conditions on the 
battlefield. This is a sad reflection of how vested the Democratic 
leaders are in defeat--defeat for President Bush but defeat for our 
troops and our safety in Iraq.
  Congress attempts to put artificial political timetables on the 
management of the war and does nothing to accomplish the mission. The 
Baker-Hamilton commission explicitly rejected timetables for 
withdrawal, because they recognized--the bipartisan group recognized--
it was a disaster, and many Democratic leaders have previously stated a 
legislative timetable, laying out this strategy in legislation, is 
absolutely unacceptable. What the political timetable does is give al-
Qaida the encouragement and information it needs to know when and where 
and how to attack our troops.
  This January, in open session, leaders of our intelligence community 
came before the Senate Intelligence Committee to answer questions about 
establishing a political withdrawal and the consensus was alarming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BOND. I understand I had 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator did. He is down to 1 minute.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the intelligence community said withdrawing 
forces before we can provide security will result in chaos: more 
killing among Iraqis, an al-Qaida safe haven, and a possible regionwide 
declaration of war.
  We need a political solution in Iraq, not in Washington, to allow the 
leaders in the national unity government to come together, but to get 
that, we need to repel the terrorists, we need to rebuild the Iraqi 
security forces. What won't help General Petraeus is direction from 
armchair generals in Congress.
  What I would say to those who want to direct the war is: If you want 
to run it, you will own it. When a newly revitalized al-Qaida carries 
out a renewed 9/11 scale attack, you will own that one, too.
  Mr. President, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families 
at home will remember that. I suggest we support our troops.
  As my colleagues know, I hail proudly from the Show-Me-State.
  If all of the rhetoric in Washington about supporting the troops is 
true and I suspect it is, then I suggest that the Congress show our 
troops that we do support them, get them the funds and give them a 
chance to succeed.
  Comments like ``The war is lost'' do not help our troops, but they do 
embolden the enemy.
  Our actions should inspire our troops and the millions of Iraqi 
citizens who actually trust that Americans will not embrace defeat.
  Our action should not be one that inspires al-Qaida and the murderous 
insurgents.
  We should not pass legislation that provides our enemy the clear path 
to their victory, a victory which some in this body have already 
awarded them.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond for his remarks. As the 
senior Republican on the Intelligence Committee, I know he has 
knowledge and information and passion maybe some of the rest of us 
don't have the benefit of.
  Mr. President, I rise today to oppose final passage of the emergency 
supplemental funding bill.
  It troubles me to oppose this bill because our troops need this money 
right now to continue operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the 
globe.
  But there are so many things I find objectionable in this final bill 
that I cannot support it.
  The bill still includes over $21 billion in unrequested items--$425 
million for rural schools, $3.5 billion for agricultural assistance, 
and even an additional $910 million more than the President requested 
in FEMA disaster relief for communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita.
  It is not that these programs are bad or wrong, because many of them 
aren't--in fact, most of this assistance is very valid. We desperately 
need that FEMA money on the gulf coast to repair our communities as 
many communities are still struggling to get back on their feet.
  But this is an emergency supplemental that is supposed to focus on 
the urgent needs of our military in fighting the war on terror. We 
should not be including money for a multitude of requirements that may 
be important, but are not urgent.
  I'm also very troubled that this bill micromanages the President's 
ability and constitutional mandate to serve as Commander in Chief of 
the Armed Forces.
  Through this bill, the Congress says to General Petraeus: ``Thank you 
very much, General. We unanimously think that you're the right man for 
the job--we just don't believe you when you tell us what you need to do 
that job, or when you tell us how things are actually going on the 
ground.''
  It tells our enemies: Just wait a few months, and the place is yours.
  It tells our friends: When the going gets tough, don't count on 
America to stick around.
  And it tells President Malaki: Good luck with that democracy and 
freedom thing you are working on. Let us know how it turns out.
  This is exactly the wrong message at the wrong time to send--not only 
to the terrorists in Iraq, but to terrorists and rogue states around 
the globe.
  The stakes only get higher from here. I'm convinced that surrender in 
Iraq will embolden these terrorists and ultimately threaten the 
security of our shores.
  Don't get me wrong--I, too, want our servicemen and women to come 
home as soon as possible. I pray that not 1 more American has to pay 
the ultimate price in this struggle.
  I agree that the Iraqi Government must step up to the plate as soon 
as possible, and take responsibility for the security of their county.
  I have always supported the establishment of benchmarks to ensure 
that expectations are clear, and progress against those expectations 
can be measured.
  What I don't agree with is telling the President and the Generals on 
the ground how to do their job.
  But this bill is even worse then that--this bill is like a bait and 
switch: we'll give the money today for operations in Iraq, but you need 
to come home tomorrow because we don't support operations in Iraq.
  Which one is it? Do we support our troops and their mission, or not?
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want our troops to 
come home tomorrow, they can make that happen. It is easy. The 
Constitution of the United States gives the legislative branch the 
power of the purse.
  You can cut off money today--you can vote against this bill today.
  When you start marking up the fiscal year 2008 Defense appropriation, 
you can cut off Iraq funding there as well.
  But what we have here is political theatre. This is a ``do nothing'' 
Congress at its worst.
  The President has been very clear many times--he is going to veto 
this bill because of the withdrawal timeline and all the excess 
projects. And in the Congress, there will not be enough votes to 
overturn that veto. Then what?
  I guess we'll get to talk about this matter again next week or the 
week after. But at some point, very soon, our inaction is going to 
cause some real harm--and I hope that the real harm doesn't include the 
loss of more American lives around the world.
  If we can't get moving and fund our troops with no strings attached, 
we are eventually going to impact the safety and capability of our 
military, not just in Iraq, but around the globe.

[[Page S5148]]

  This should not be about the President. It should not be about the 
Congress. This is about funds for our troops--the men and women in 
uniform--who are in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, doing the job they 
were directed to do. They need this money. They need the equipment the 
money would provide to do the job, and that should be our focus.
  This funding was requested by the President on February 6, almost 3 
months ago, and through this political theater we are fixed to embark 
upon a vote we know will not become law, one that will surely be vetoed 
by the President. This legislation is dead before arrival. Why don't we 
acknowledge that and find a way to get the job done without delaying 
even more, forcing our military to move funds around, to borrow from 
Peter to pay for Paul. It will have a negative effect on our men and 
women in the Navy and the Air Force and the rest of the military.
  We could have turned this over to our senior members of the 
Appropriations Committee, my colleague from Mississippi and the other 
appropriators, including the Senator from Washington State, and said: 
Look, work through this. Let's get something we can support in good 
conscience.
  There are more problems with this than just artificial deadlines. The 
$21 billion in domestic spending was added beyond--I believe that is 
approximately right--what the President asked for. Some of it is needed 
and justified. I know my colleague from Mississippi and the 
Appropriations Committees on both sides of the aisle and on both sides 
of the Capitol could have worked through that and come up with a bill 
to get the job done. It is not that some of these adds are not good and 
justified. The President asked for funds for Katrina recovery, and I 
think maybe some funds have been added to that beyond what he asked 
for. This is important to me and my State, but I refuse to be trying to 
get funds that may be immediately needed for a disaster on the back of 
our troops and to delay it even more. Surely there is a way we can come 
to an agreement on how to achieve this result.
  This is an emergency supplemental. Some of the things that have been 
added--not just money but language--don't relate to an emergency 
domestically or in terms of what our troops need. That language should 
be stricken. We make grand speeches here on the floor about how we 
should not legislate on appropriations, yet things have been added in a 
number of categories, not just the minimum wage and small business tax 
cuts that don't get the job done.
  This is a classic case of micromanagement where the Congress is 
trying to set dates. We have an alternative. If we want to use the 
power of the purse to stop the war on terror and our efforts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, vote no. Vote no. Vote against this. Don't provide the 
troops the funds they need or any of this other money. If you want to 
do that, go right ahead. There is a procedure. But here we are trying 
to set ourselves up as the final judges.
  General Petraeus was here yesterday telling us what is going on. He 
was honest. He didn't say it is perfect. There was a change in 
strategy. It is being implemented and carried forward. We voted 100 
percent for General Petraeus, and now we are saying: Oh, well, sorry 
about that, General. We are going to try to tell you when to do what, 
not wait until we get more reports from you. Wait months, our enemies 
are told, and the place is yours. When the going gets tough, can you 
count on the Americans to see it through in a responsible way? This is 
the wrong message at the wrong time.
  Mr. President, I am an incurable optimist. Let's get it done. Let's 
let it go on through. The President will veto it. But next week, can we 
get together and do the right thing for our country and for our troops? 
I beg my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have made our 
political points, our political statements. Then let's get our job 
done. Let's do the right thing for America, not the right thing for 
Republicans or Democrats but the right thing for our troops.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on our side 
the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, be recognized; following her, 
going back and forth, then Senator Feinstein for 4 minutes, and then 
Senator Jack Reed for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have a book which is a poignant and 
wonderful account of life in Louisiana after the storms. It is called 
``1 Dead in Attic,'' written by Chris Rose, a reporter for the Times 
Picayune. The title refers to the unique system for identifying what 
happened in people's homes during the storm. The notation, sprayed on 
the wall for everyone to see, would explain whether there were pets or 
people or, in this case, someone no longer living. This symbol--this 
information--remains spray painted on the sides of many houses to this 
day.
  In this book, Mr. Rose describes 2005:

       This was the year that defines our city, our lives, our 
     destiny. Nothing comparable has ever happened in modem times 
     in America, and there is no blueprint for how we do this. We 
     just wing it. Do good works. Save someone or something.
       *  *  *
       If there was no New Orleans, America would just be a bunch 
     of free people dying of boredom.

  A photographer for from England noted:

       I witnessed the destruction of one of the finest cities in 
     America, her soul bared and exposed, her inequality and 
     inefficiency laid out for all to see. And through it all I 
     saw the grace, courage and dignity of her citizens, forced to 
     flee their homes, their lives, their history. I trust her 
     soul will be repaired.

  I want to thank Chairman Byrd for his many courtesies and assistance 
in this bill. I also want to thank his staff for all of their hard work 
and long hours. I also want to thank Senator Cochran, who has done so 
much for the people of the gulf and who shares so much of the hard work 
on the recovery with me and the other gulf coast Senators. In fact, the 
entire Senate appropriations Committee--my fellow Senators and their 
staff--have been so supportive of us through this process--and I thank 
them.
  There are many provisions that will help the ongoing recovery efforts 
in my state and along the rest of the gulf coast included in this bill.
  I intend to vote for this bill because it provides critical resources 
and removes obstacles to the recovery of the gulf coast. In addition, 
the bill provides funding necessary to support our troops in Iraq.
  Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in August of 2005 and Hurricane 
Rita followed on its heels just a few weeks later. While a great deal 
of time has passed, and a lot of progress has been made, this recovery 
will take many, many years.
  As you have heard me say on many occasions, the damage to the gulf 
coast is unimaginable. Sometimes I think that people forget just how 
unimaginable the damage was. Mr. President, 1,836 people were killed. 
To put this in perspective, this means that l out of every 3 people who 
work here in the Senate would have lost their lives 6008 people work 
for the Senate. Mr. President, 650,000 people were displaced. It would 
be as if every single solitary person in the District of Columbia were 
displaced from their homes and neighborhood.
  Over 275,000 homes were damaged, with over 205,000 of those in 
Louisiana alone--again, this is the equivalent of every home in the 
District of Columbia being flooded, damaged, or destroyed, and 240,000 
jobs were lost. Here in DC, we are lucky, there are more jobs than 
there are residents. However, were a similar disaster to strike DC., 
every other person employed in the District would have lost their job. 
Also, 875 schools were destroyed and there was $82 billion in property 
damage.
  If you want to try an experiment at home, paint a chalk line at a 
point 3 feet from the floor and imagine that everything below that line 
submerged in water.
  But we are coming back from that aweful year. It is a long, hard 
struggle but there are signs of hope. Our people are rebuilding their 
homes. There are now over 223,000 people living in Orleans Parish--
about 43 percent of the pre-storm population--and over 450,000 in 
Jefferson. Our businesses are reopening. Visitors are returning. Our 
schools are rebuilding--better than before. We are creating a new 
health care system for the 21st century in Louisiana.
  However, much work remains. This bill will help so very much with 
those

[[Page S5149]]

ongoing efforts. I want to thank all of you for supporting these 
measures.
  Some out there have taken issue with this funding. This assistance to 
the gulf coast is not ``extraneous''. It is necessary. However, the 
President has called this spending ``excessive non-emergency 
spending''. This is simply untrue.
  This bill provides about $3 billion in additional direct aid to the 
gulf coast. We spend $8.6 billion per month in Iraq, which is $286 
million per day. So, we are providing the people of the Gulf Coast with 
the equivalent of 10 days of the funding for the war. To date; we have 
spend $470 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq only, we have spent 
$379 billion.
  Mr. President, you tell Cameron Parish where all 6 of their grade 
schools were closed until October 31, 2005 and 62 percent of all school 
facilities were destroyed that their teachers don't deserve a little 
extra money and that providing $30 million for bonuses and incentives 
for the grade schools in Mississippi and Louisiana is too much.
  You tell Dillard University, which had $115 million dollars in 
physical damage and lost $26 million in revenues--which counts Ellis 
Marsalis and Reavis Ortiz among its alumni--whose campus is not far 
from the lower levee breach of the London Avenue Canal and which 
suffered extensive flood damage in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina 
and whose main hall, Nelson Hall, was destroyed by a fire, during the 
flood, whose students took their normal classes at The New Orleans 
World Trade Center and The New Orleans Hilton Riverside Hotel until 
this fall, that $30 million in assistance--to be divided among the 27 
universities that were closed in Louisiana and Mississippi--is 
``excessive''.
  You tell small businesses in St. Bernard--where there were 1,400 
businesses before the storm and only about 400 have re-opened and less 
than 70 percent of the population has returned--that $25 million for 
economic injury loans is ``extraneous'' or unnecessary. Even Wal-Mart 
has not reopened in this Parish.
  You tell the people of Jefferson Parish, St. Bernard Parish, 
Plaquemines Parish, and Orleans Parish that their levees should not be 
repaired and that their homes and businesses will remain vulnerable to 
the next storm and that an additional $1.3 billion for their safety is 
too much.
  What is included in the Emergency Supplemental is FAIR funding, 
waiver of the 10 percent match. This bill eliminates the red-tape 
associated with so much of the Federal money. This supplemental 
includes the FAIR Funding Act language which will waive the local cost 
share for FEMA public assistance. This is FAIR. Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita were the first and third most costly disasters in the history of 
this country and the Federal Government has waived this local share 
requirement in 32 different disasters since 1985, including Hurricanes 
Andrew and Iniki.
  Forgiveability of CDLs is included. This bill will also correct a 
grave inequity and allow for our community Disaster loans to have the 
same treatment as all others.
  Levee money is included. In addition, this bill will shore up a 
shortfall that has been identified by the Army Corp of Engineers. They 
have estimated that they will be short $1.3 billion dollars this year 
for necessary levee work in Louisiana. However, instead of asking for 
money to alleviate this shortfall, the administration merely wanted to 
rob Peter to pay Paul. However, this committee has wisely decided to 
provide additional money for this necessary work. Unfortunately, I do 
not believe that this will be sufficient to meet the ongoing needs--or 
will be enough to restore, repair and rebuild our levee system.
  There is support for our education system. The Universities in 
Louisiana have been critical to our rebuilding efforts. They have 
fought to come back and about 80 percent of the students have returned. 
More importantly, the universities have provided resources and 
leadership during the rebuilding of the region. In Louisiana, they are 
also helping our grade schools stand up--forging new and stronger 
partnerships with our new school system.
  Our universities suffered over a billion dollars in damages as a 
result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In the 4th supplementa1 passed 
last Congress, we provided $40 million dollars for higher ed 
assistance--of which $33 million went to Louisiana universities. In 
this bill, we appropriate another $30 million, every penny of which is 
necessary.
  We also provide $30 million in order to reward the teachers who give 
their hearts out trying to bring normalcy to our children and prepare 
them for the future.
  I appreciate the continued assistance that this committee and my 
colleagues in the Seanate have given to the people of the Gulf Coast--
and the hope that this legislation provides to them.
  Mr. President, it is not often I disagree with my good friend from 
Mississippi, but I will say the people of the gulf coast don't think 
they are riding on the backs of the troops; they think they are the 
troops. The Guard and National Reserve who were in Iraq who are from 
Louisiana, 3,000 fighting in Iraq, only to come home to have their 
homes destroyed, have their jobs lost. They don't think it is too much 
to ask of the President to include $3 billion in a $24 billion bill--$3 
billion for the gulf coast recovery, which is domestic emergency 
funding that has been included in every supplemental, even when the 
Republicans drafted a bill where there was money for domestic 
emergencies. The people of the gulf coast don't believe $3 billion is 
too much to ask.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. We are spending $8.6 billion a month in Iraq, which is 
$286 million a day. In this bill, we are asking the gulf coast to have 
10 days--10 days of funding for the troops who are fighting in Iraq who 
lost their homes in the gulf coast. I don't think it is excessive. I 
ask the President to rethink his veto policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1999, when George Bush was a 
candidate for the Presidency and President Clinton was Commander in 
Chief, George Bush had this to say about American troops in Bosnia:

       Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the 
     President to explain what the exit strategy is.

  Well, the Congress has been asking for an exit strategy year after 
year for 4 years now. In fact, President Bush has no exit strategy. So 
the United States is bogged down in an impossible situation: ``Shock 
and awe,'' followed by ineffective follow-on efforts. Today, in the 
fifth year of this war, the United States is enmeshed in what has 
become a vicious and terrifying civil war. It cannot be won through the 
use of American military force. This war can only be won through 
political accommodation between Sunni and Shia, which means only the 
Iraqis can settle it, which means only the Iraqi Government can settle 
it. To this date, they appear to be unable to do what needs to be done 
to stop this conflict.
  So without an exit strategy, the war goes on, the killings continue, 
and the casualties rise. Nearly 25,000 Americans injured, with tens of 
thousands of Iraqis killed and injured, and hundreds of thousands of 
people displaced from their homes by this war. Estimates put Iraqi 
civilian deaths in the first 3 months of this year at more than 5,500 
in the Baghdad area alone.
  On Monday, two truck bombs killed nine members of the 82nd Airborne 
Division and wounded 20 more. It was the deadliest day of combat in the 
division's history since the Vietnam war.
  I fear that unless Congress acts and puts forward that exit strategy, 
this bloodshed will continue year after year. That is intolerable.
  Today, we have before us a measure that offers a solution and a 
strategy to fill the void left by the administration. The Iraqi 
supplemental spending bill responsibly funds our troops and changes the 
course in Iraq.
  Most importantly, it sends a message to the Iraqi Government that the 
U.S. commitment is not open-ended, that benchmarks will measure the 
progress, and that political accommodation is crucial.
  Under this legislation, the Iraqi Government would be judged on how 
it disarms militias, pursues Sunni-Shia reconciliation initiatives, 
establishes fair

[[Page S5150]]

oil-sharing laws, reforms debaathification laws, and protects the 
rights of minorities. This is as it should be.
  This legislation ensures that our troops have sufficient rest and 
training and are provided well-maintained equipment. This is as it 
should be.
  It allows for a redefined mission for American forces limited to 
antiterrorism operations, training Iraqi forces, and protecting 
American civilians and members of the Armed Forces. This is as it 
should be.
  It begins the process of bringing our troops home. Into the fifth 
year of a war, this, too, is as it should be.
  The American people spoke in a clear voice. Today, the United States 
Senate will as well.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
this measure before the Senate, and I will cast my vote against it.
  This measure places undue constraints on the utilization of our brave 
military, together with our allies working with us and, indeed, 
constraints on the utilization of the Iraqi military, which likewise 
has followed through with a brave performance with our forces.
  This is a very complex situation on the battlefield, and in the 
government, with respect to Iraq. Last fall, with other Senators, I 
returned from my eighth visit to Iraq and I said the complexity of the 
battlefield has forced the sovereign nation of Iraq to ``drift 
sideways.'' Regrettably, it continues, in my judgment, to drift. Our 
forces, and indeed our allies in that country, have fought bravely and 
are following through on their mission to try and bring about a greater 
degree of security in Baghdad.
  While I expressed some concerns about the ``surge'' operation when it 
was announced on January 10, it is an ongoing operation now. We are 
losing life and limb daily, and we must allow our troops to be properly 
funded to carry out their missions.
  Now, we heard yesterday from General Petraeus, and in my judgment, he 
gave a very factual, pragmatic, professional military opinion, showing 
objectivity. He is to be commended and our forces bravely fighting 
under his command should likewise be commended as well.
  I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a comment made by 
our distinguished Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, during his 
trip. He said, ``our commitment to Iraq is long-term, but it is not a 
commitment to have our young men and women patrolling Iraqi streets 
open-endedly.'' In no way does he question the long-term need for our 
Nation to show its resolve and commitment to give security to this 
region of the world. But he clearly says it is not open-ended.
  We cannot ask our forces, nor the Iraqi forces, to risk life and limb 
during their missions, unless the Iraqi legislature and the government 
of Iraq begins to give an equal or greater measure of commitment to 
perform their responsibility to achieve political solutions. A military 
solution, we all acknowledge, will not alone achieve a strong, 
survivable, sovereign Iraq. A political solution and a framework of 
legal reconciliation is essential.
  And we must, at this point in time, bring to light a serious 
potential problem, which I have been told, that the Iraqi legislature 
might possibly take a 2-month recess during July and August. That is 
not acceptable. An action of that consequence would severely hinder 
those of us, myself and others, who are looking at the greater issue 
beyond Iraq as to the impact on this region if the combined efforts of 
our country and other nations fail.
  We are seeing some progress as it relates to the international group 
of nations coming together, the border nations are scheduled to meet a 
second time. It is through only political reconciliation measures and 
bold leadership by the Prime Minister and each and every Member of the 
Iraqi Legislature, that this conflict can bring forth a stable, 
sovereign government, that is fully functioning, and is capable of 
providing for its own security. In so doing, Iraq will then be able to 
play an integral role in the security of this region.
  Further, we must again, and again, signal to Prime Minister Maliki 
and to each of the Members of the Iraqi Legislature that they must do 
their job in a timely manner because every day Iraqi and American lives 
are being lost in their heroic effort to provide the security for the 
Iraqi government to function.
  Finally, while I will vote against this report, I pledge to work with 
other Senators on how to rewrite the next bill, following the veto 
process, for these funds are essential for our troops and as we draft 
the next bill, we must we must assure the world of our resolve and 
commitment to the region.
  I yield the floor so that others may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we must change the mission of our military 
forces in Iraq. We have to concentrate on training Iraqi forces so they 
can assume the burden of this hostility. We have to continue our 
efforts in counterterrorism to strike those international terrorists 
wherever they may be. And we have to protect our forces at all times. 
But we cannot continue an open-ended commitment and involvement in a 
civil war. That is essentially what the President is urging us to do.
  This appropriations bill provides more resources for our military 
than was requested. It also funds extremely important domestic 
concerns, including the Veterans' Administration, so we can keep faith 
with those veterans who have served and will continue to serve; and 
also, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, we have to begin to 
reconstruct our gulf coast. It is ironic that we are pouring billions 
into Baghdad, helping them build all sorts of utilities, and still 
Americans languish along the gulf coast.
  It also includes the Murtha standards of readiness on our forces as 
they deploy, to ensure that no American unit goes into the war zone 
without proper equipment, proper training, and appropriate personnel. 
The President has the ability to waive this under certain 
circumstances, so we are not unduly constricting his ability as 
Commander in Chief.
  Then, of course, this legislation has benchmarks so that the Iraqi 
Government can stand up to their task. I think the one common theme 
that I have heard in this body is, ultimately, this is a political 
struggle and, ultimately, the Iraqi Government will make the decisions 
that are so important to the success of their efforts, which will allow 
us to begin a phased redeployment. But their record is very 
discouraging when it comes to their government.
  Leon Panetta published an editorial a few days ago in the New York 
Times. He points out the Iraqis promised to achieve by the end of last 
year and the beginning of this year the approval of a provincial 
election law but, so far, no progress; approval of a law to regulate 
the oil industry and share revenues, and a draft is circulating, but it 
has not been approved by the parliament; approval of a debaathification 
law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and have a 
reconciliation, but there has been no progress; approval of a law to 
rein in sectarian militias, but no progress there either.
  By March, the Government promised to hold a referendum on 
constitutional amendments. No progress.
  By May, the Prime Minister committed to putting in place the law 
controlling militias, with no progress; the approval of the amnesty 
agreement, with no progress; and the completion of all reconciliation 
efforts. No progress.
  If the Iraqi Government is unwilling to stand up to the demands they 
must face, then I think we can legitimately--and, indeed, we must--tell 
them very strongly that we will not support an open-ended commitment to 
that Government, that we will change our mission and refocus our 
resources.
  It is interesting to me that our Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of State, those who travel to Baghdad, stand up and say this: 
Tell them what we are doing here is important, critical, and will 
happen, unless the Iraqis change. But in Washington, we are criticized 
for doing this.
  I think the reality in Baghdad has to be the same as here. We have to 
move forward with this legislation to change the course, protect our 
soldiers in the field, and to allow a chance for success in Iraq.

[[Page S5151]]

  I think we are all committed, we hope, to a policy that will lead us 
and the people of Iraq to a much better day. I believe supporting this 
initiative will do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this conference report is the wrong 
response to the President's request for the supplemental funding that 
is urgently needed by the Department of Defense.
  While most of the funds--over $109 billion--are appropriated to wage 
the global war on terrorism, to continue operations in Afghanistan, and 
to support Iraqi security forces, the conference report also includes 
funding for continuing the recovery from Hurricane Katrina and ensuring 
that our veterans receive the care they deserve.
  I am very disappointed this bill includes language that sets forth a 
timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We should be 
providing the President with a bill he can sign so our military forces 
can receive the funding they now need.
  I recently brought to the attention of the Senate a letter I received 
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on April 2 describing the urgency of an 
appropriations bill and their concerns about further delays of funding. 
It has been now over 3 weeks since that letter was received.
  It is very clear that delay is occurring, and it is undermining the 
ability to manage the responsibilities of the Department of Defense. We 
are talking about life-and-death situations and the ability to obtain 
equipment, armaments, and the training that is necessary by our Armed 
Forces to carry out their mission.
  The Joint Chiefs pointed this out in their letter:

       Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the 
     Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive 
     measures in order to sustain combat operations.

  In addition, they stated:

       These restrictions increase the burden on servicemembers 
     and their families during this time of war.
  I cannot support this effort to dictate the management of this very 
serious threat to our Nation's security interests. The opponents of the 
President's efforts to win the battle against the terrorists should not 
be permitted to hijack this supplemental appropriations bill. The 
responsible thing for us to do is to send this conference report to the 
President so he can veto it. We can then revise it so it can be enacted 
without the offensive language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining on this side; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believe that all Members of this body 
support the Defense appropriations section. The only area of concern 
and contention is that which refers to Iraq.
  I think all of us agree that our forces today are bogged down in 
Iraq. They are caught in the middle of a civil war, and we need a 
change in plans. This war has dragged on too long and, incidentally, 
longer than our involvement in World War II. Staying the course is not 
working, and I, for one, am not convinced that it ever will.
  The only way we can succeed in Iraq is if the Iraqis fundamentally 
change the dynamic. The language in the conference agreement embraces 
this idea of offering a new plan. This new plan eventually should allow 
for forces to be withdrawn from Iraq.
  The proposal establishes a goal--and I repeat the word ``goal''--of 
redeploying most of our forces from Iraq by next March. It does not 
mandate that all the troops are removed. To the contrary, it allows 
that forces remain in Iraq to protect U.S. and coalition personnel. It 
also stipulates that U.S. forces can continue to train and equip the 
Iraqis so they can better defend themselves, and it directs that we may 
continue targeted counterterrorism operations in Iraq.
  This is a balanced plan. It recognizes that we still have 
responsibilities in Iraq and will continue to do so even a year from 
now, but it will force the Iraqis to fight their own civil war if they 
insist on doing so.
  We all know there are very few military objectives to be achieved in 
Iraq. We defeated the Iraqi Army 4 years ago. We should keep that in 
mind. I still recall the huge banner on the carrier that said: 
``Mission Accomplished.'' Yes, the military mission was accomplished. 
We won that part of the war, the part the military can win. We failed 
in not preparing for the aftermath of direct conflict, and now we are 
enmeshed in an untenable position.
  Our military has performed remarkably. They have achieved their 
military objectives. But the plan to rely on the military to achieve 
political objectives has not worked, and what we desperately need is a 
political solution. And in the end, how many truly believe we will 
emerge victorious with a Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the 
Tigris River? What is victory? I have asked this question many times. 
What will constitute victory? And no one has answered that question. Or 
we can embrace a new plan that begins to reshape our forces in Iraq to 
provide those missions that our military is best suited for with a 
goal, not a mandate, but a goal of redeploying the remaining forces.
  If Iraq is to succeed, it must assume responsibility for its own 
destiny. It must decide if it wants to stop the civil war. We cannot do 
that for them. This is a very modest proposal, but one that is caught 
up in the emotion of the debate. This conference report offers a plan, 
one that has much greater chance of success than staying the course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. INOUYE. May I have 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. It does not mandate a timetable for ending our 
involvement in Iraq but provides a new way ahead which will ensure 
better protection for our forces and a greater chance for the Iraqis to 
succeed.
  This is a good, balanced package. It includes the best from each of 
our bills. It funds the critical needs of our military and provides a 
way ahead for our forces in Iraq.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this conference agreement.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 3 months ago, President Bush set a new 
course in Iraq. He proposed a plan to secure Baghdad and its resident 
population, and he asked GEN David Petraeus, one of our best military 
minds of this generation, to carry out the mission. A Democratic-
controlled Congress approved the general without dissent and wished him 
well.
  Then something strange happened. Soon after sending General Petraeus 
into the field of battle, the Democratic leadership began its own 
change in course. It decided this new mission was over before it even 
had time to work.
  We were told in January by some of our Democratic colleagues to 
listen to the generals. Yet this week, with our top general in Iraq 
here to report on progress, most of those on the other side of the 
aisle covered their ears. The Speaker of the House skipped General 
Petraeus's briefing altogether, didn't even go listen to him.
  This posture may be calculated to impress opponents of the war at 
home, but it frustrates our troops abroad, and today the Democratic 
leadership does further damage by passing a war spending bill that has 
no chance--no chance--of being signed into law, a bill that calls for 
withdrawing U.S. troops without regard to conditions on the ground, a 
bill that says we leave in October if the Iraqis have made progress and 
that we leave in July if they haven't.
  Let me say that again. This bill says that we leave in October if the 
Iraqis have made progress and leave in July if they haven't. Either 
way, we are gone.
  It should not be this way. We should uphold our end of the bargain 
and pass a bill that funds our troops and gives us a reasonable period 
of time to judge this new strategy.

  The Iraq Study Group has outlined the stakes. They said premature 
withdrawal would ``almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence 
and further deterioration of conditions. The near-term results would be 
a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional 
destabilization, and

[[Page S5152]]

a threat to the global economy. Al-Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as 
a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-
term consequences could eventually require the United States to 
return.''
  That is the Iraq Study Group which has been so frequently cited by 
our good friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Bin Laden knows the stakes, too. In a letter last year, bin Laden had 
this to say: America's defeat in Iraq would mean defeat in all its 
wars.
  Yesterday, the commander of a senior Afghan Islamist group said bin 
Laden is personally involved in attacks on Americans in Iraq. General 
Petraeus went even further. He said al-Qaida has declared war on all of 
Iraq.
  I call on my friends on the other side to have an open mind and 
listen to the general. We must give this plan for winning the military 
component of our strategy in Iraq a real chance to succeed. Without it, 
there is no political solution. Just 4 months old and operating at half 
its ultimate strength, the Baghdad security plan is already having an 
effect. Military leaders say the increased violence around Baghdad is a 
sign that the terrorists are shaken. The latest attacks were meant to 
be dramatic and to be visible. They were meant to force our withdrawal 
and ultimately our humiliation.
  George Orwell said:

       The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

  This is a road we must not take. This legislation is tragic. If the 
Iraqis make progress, we leave; if they don't, we leave. This is not a 
choice, it is a mandate for a defeat that al-Qaida desperately wants.
  It is not too late to change course. I ask my colleagues to be as 
patient as our soldiers and marines--and, indeed, the terrorists--and 
draft a bill that does not arbitrarily circle a date on the calendar 
and trigger withdrawal without regard to conditions on the ground. Then 
we can tell our troops that help is on the way, that they can finish 
this mission, and that they will return with honor. If not, if we give 
up, we will truly have reason to fear because if we cannot win this 
most important battle, how will we ever win the war?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all time has expired on the other side; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is meritorious legislation, important 
legislation. First, I thank Senator Byrd, the chairman of our 
Appropriations Committee, and his staff for working so hard to get us 
where we are. I thank Congressman Obey, chairman of the comparable 
committee in the House of Representatives.
  I know that my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Mississippi, does not agree with the Iraq language, but I express my 
appreciation to his staff. This bill has in it more than the Iraq 
language, and his staff has worked with us all the way to get that 
done. I extend my appreciation for his usual gentlemanly way doing 
everything he does here.
  Also, because she worked so hard on a lot of things that she was 
assigned to do by Senator Byrd, Senator Patty Murray has done an 
outstanding job on this bill. She is in the Chamber, and I express my 
appreciation to her for her usual fine work but especially her fine 
work on this matter.
  The individuals I have just mentioned have delivered to us a 
tremendous conference report, one we can all be proud to send to the 
President and we should send to the President. This conference report 
honors and provides for our courageous men and women in uniform. This 
conference report doesn't forget the emergencies Americans face at home 
while the war rages abroad. This conference report makes us more secure 
by charting a new, more sustainable course in Iraq so we can find a 
responsible end to the war and return our focus to the global 
challenges that lie ahead.
  President Bush requested $91.5 billion for continued military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We provided every penny of that 
request, but, Mr. President, more. Our bill matches the President 
dollar for dollar on the equipment and training he requested for the 
140,000 troops in Iraq and the 20,000 deployed in Afghanistan, 
including hundreds of troops deployed from the State of Nevada.
  This conference report doesn't stop there because we recognize the 
President's request shortchanges our troops and our security in a 
number of critical areas. For example, with the roadside bombs that 
have accounted for over half of the fatalities suffered by our troops 
in Iraq, Democrats have added $1.2 billion for mine-resistant vehicles. 
This is important.
  My friend--and he is my friend--the distinguished Republican leader, 
said we should live up to our end of the bargain. Our end of the 
bargain? We have done pretty well, spending over one-half trillion 
dollars in the faraway land of Iraq, having lost more than 3,300, 
through death, of our finest, 27,000 wounded, a third of them missing 
limbs, 2,000 double amputees, brain injuries as we have never seen 
before, and paralysis. We have lived up to our end of the bargain.
  At a time when the health care needs of thousands of our soldiers and 
veterans are being ignored, Democrats have added--with the help of two 
courageous Republicans, who I am confident will vote with us on this 
matter--we have added $2.5 billion to ensure all of our troops receive 
the quality care they have earned--our troops--veterans. These funds 
will improve the unconscionable conditions at Walter Reed and other 
medical facilities around the country and greatly enhance the care 
provided to those who suffer from brain trauma and post-traumatic 
stress disorder.
  Every Thursday, Senator Ensign and I, when we are in session, in the 
Johnson Room, have a ``Welcome to Washington'' for Nevadans. The 
Baileys were here today. They had a 27-year-old son who went to Iraq 
and came home with severe emotional problems. He was fine before he 
went. He went to a VA facility in Southern California, hundreds of 
miles away from his parents, where he was not taken care of. He died of 
a drug overdose. Not illegal drugs but drugs they gave him. What we 
have put in this bill to help veterans, those people returning from 
Iraq who have been injured, is important. It is in this bill and it 
should stay here.
  At a time when our citizen soldiers have been pushed to their limit, 
and most Guard and Reserve units lack the equipment they need to 
conduct their mission, our bill would provide an additional $1 billion 
for the supplies and equipment they need. Despite the fact a majority 
of the American people disapprove of this administration's Iraq policy, 
this bill clearly takes care of the men and women who are serving us 
courageously in Iraq, as clearly as anyone who opposes this legislation 
would set back or hurt badly our efforts to support our fighting 
forces.
  We provide for our troops, we do that, but we also believe we have an 
obligation to address emergencies facing Americans here at home. That 
is what emergency supplemental bills were at one time--emergencies that 
developed during the year.
  President Bush has made numerous trips to the gulf region to take a 
look at the devastation created by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which 
devastated that region of the country, but he hasn't done anything 
about it, to speak of. We believe we have a responsibility to help the 
victims of this historic tragedy. We agree with the sentiment of the 
people of this country, who are determined to help their fellow 
citizens, and that is what this bill does. We provide $7 billion for 
the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, whose help is long overdue.
  Thousands of family farmers and ranchers from virtually every State 
in this country are suffering the effects of extreme drought or 
damaging weather conditions. These are emergencies. We rely upon these 
American farmers and ranchers for the Nation's food supply, and we 
believe we have an obligation to help them when disaster strikes. That 
is why we provide $3.5 billion to help address some of the losses 
suffered by farmers and ranchers caused by drought, flood, fire, 
hurricanes, and pestilence.
  More than 5 years after the terrible terrorist attacks of 9/11, we 
know gaps remain in this Nation's homeland security efforts. This is an 
emergency. We have tried here on the Senate floor to offer amendments 
to cover this. We have been defeated on a straight party-

[[Page S5153]]

line basis. This bill has that relief. That is why we provide $2 
billion for port security, mass transit security, airport security, and 
other initiatives to address the shortcomings identified by the 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission, whose recommendations came down almost 3 
years ago.
  Tens of thousands of children across this country will lose their 
health care in the next several months if we don't do something in this 
conference report. This, too, is an emergency. That is why we provide 
$650 million to keep the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
running. This is health care for kids.
  All of these nonmilitary investments are crucial priorities, but 
fully funding our troops and changing the course of the war in Iraq is 
this bill's primary goal. No one wants this Nation to succeed in the 
Middle East more than I do. But I know that after more than 4 years of 
mismanagement and incompetence of the war in Iraq by this 
administration, there is no magic formula or silver bullet that will 
lead us to the victory we all desire. Yet I also believe there is a way 
forward that gives us our best chance to end the war responsibly while 
protecting our strategic interests, strengthening our security, and 
better positioning us to provide the long-term assistance Iraq will 
need for years to come. This way forward is consistent with what our 
military leaders are telling us, including General Petraeus, who 
repeated again yesterday, publicly--not privately but publicly--that 
this war cannot be won militarily. That is what General Petraeus says.
  I want to talk about what is in this bill as relates to Iraq.
  First, we transition the U.S. mission from policing a civil war to 
training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces 
and conducting targeted counterterror operations.
  Second, we begin the phased redeployment of our troops no later than 
October 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat forces by April 
1, 2008, except for those carrying out the limited missions I have 
mentioned.
  Third, we impose tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on 
the Iraqi Government so they will be held accountable for making 
progress in security, political reconciliation, and improving the lives 
of ordinary Iraqis, who have suffered so very much.
  Fourth, we launch the kind of diplomatic, economic, and political 
offensive the President's strategy lacks, starting with a regional 
conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the 
region, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group, with Saudi Arabia, 
Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and, yes, Iran must be involved.
  Fifth, and finally, we build up our overburdened military to ensure 
that only battle-ready troops are sent into battle, and giving them the 
manpower and support they need to face the daunting challenges that lie 
ahead. My friend Congressman Murtha, whom I had the good fortune to 
serve with when I was in the House of Representatives, pointed out 
clearly in the debate on the House floor last night that we are 
currently paying 126,000 individuals, independent contractors, to 
supplement the work of our soldiers. These contractors are not held to 
the same standards or accountability of our troops, yet often earn tens 
of thousands of dollars more. This is unacceptable. Do the American 
taxpayers know this, that 126,000 people are being paid over there for 
various things? Doing what? Why? This is costing billions, and for 
what? And why? This supplemental funding bill was forged by listening 
to Members of Congress from both parties, to military experts, and, 
most importantly, to the American people. I have had a number of people 
from the other side who have come to me and said, we know you are doing 
the right thing but we can't help you now. There are two people on the 
other side, however, who are coming and saying they are going to vote 
on this matter. I don't know what I can say, other than to say it is 
for the American people, and they have a lot of courage.

  This compromise was forged through thoughtful negotiation. It was 
forged with the firm resolve that we must do what is right for our 
troops, our Nation's security, and Iraq's future. Once we pass this 
bill, we will send it to the President's desk. We know he has 
threatened to veto this legislation. But in the same spirit of 
compromise and bipartisanship with which this bill was written, we hope 
the President will reconsider his stubbornness and his refusal to 
listen to the American people. This is a good conference report. It 
provides for the safety of our troops, it helps Americans recover from 
emergencies that have plagued us here at home, and it sets us on a new 
course, away from a civil war with no end in sight, and toward a 
responsible, phased redeployment, and it holds the Iraqis accountable. 
This is a responsible plan for redeployment, not a precipitous 
withdrawal.
  Our troops in harm's way will always have the resources to do the 
mission their leaders ask of them. It directs our attention to 
eliminating al-Qaida, addresses refugee and humanitarian crises, and 
launches the diplomatic and political surges necessary to prevent 
regional instability. It also allows us to provide the longer term 
investments and the political solutions needed in Iraq. It prevents the 
jihadists from being able to claim victory over America, and it begins 
to restore America's prestige, power, and influence in the region and 
throughout the world.
  Some will say there is no alternative to the President's course. They 
say the only course is to stay the course or fail; that there is no 
plan B. But our President is wrong. I say that with all due respect. 
The choice is in our hands. Today, we have the chance to support our 
troops, represent the will of the American people, and lead America to 
a path of responsibility. If the President refuses to change direction, 
America risks being bogged down in Iraq for years, not months.
  This President, who took us to war under false pretenses, now needs 
the courage to admit his policies have failed and work with us to bring 
the war to a responsible end. This conference report gives him that 
path forward, and I hope he follows it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     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
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Johnson
     McCain
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S5154]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for Members of the Senate, as we have 
announced, there will be no more rollcall votes this week.
  We hope that we can move, on Monday, without any problems, to the FDA 
reauthorization. This is an extremely important piece of legislation 
which Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have worked on for months. Now, 
we hope we can move to that. We know people want to offer amendments. 
Certainly, that will be part of what we are doing here because the bill 
is imperfect. But it is a bill on which we must move forward. With all 
of the food safety and health safety issues that have come up during 
the past several years, we must do this. So we are going to move to 
that bill on Monday. That will be the next order of business for the 
Senate.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, with this vote, Congress has provided 
funding for our troops while also putting forward sensible provisions 
to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I call upon the President 
to work with Congress in order to ensure the troops receive these funds 
and that we change course in Iraq.
  I am also pleased to announce with Senator Schumer that after a long 
struggle, and thanks to the leadership of Senator Byrd and Senator 
Harkin, we have secured $50 million for the monitoring, diagnosis, and 
treatment for the thousands of men and women whose health has been 
terribly affected by the dust, debris, and poisons that filled the air 
after the attacks of 9/11.
  I am grateful for the support of Senator Byrd, Senator Harkin and 
Senator Specter who have been steadfast in recognizing our duty to help 
those who helped New York in our hour of need--and help everyone whose 
health and lives have been affected by 9/11.
  This is a great victory for the victims and heroes, for New York, and 
for our values which were targeted on 9/11.
  The Centers of Excellence providing care through the Mt. Sinai 
consortium and the Fire Department of New York with Federal funds are 
doing heroic work--but more and more people are walking through the 
doors because of respiratory problems and other debilitating 
conditions. These treatment centers--centers that provide essential 
care to those who responded in our time of need--are on the brink of 
running out of Federal resources in the fall. Thanks to the funding in 
this bill, we will be able to send a lifeline of funding before these 
treatment centers fall over the financial cliff.
  Based upon the estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, it would take nearly $283 million to treat to 34,000 first 
responders and workers for just one year. And that number doesn't take 
into account the treatment needs of forgotten populations, such as 
residents, office workers, students, and others who were also exposed 
to these toxic substances.
  The funding contained in this legislation is a great step forward and 
will serve as a bridge fund until we are able to come up with a long 
term solution. This $50 million will be used to help provide both 
inpatient and outpatient treatment services for responders and workers 
affected by debilitating respiratory and mental health problems.
  These are more than names on a list or lines in a budget. These are 
lives that have been turned upside down, often silently, often without 
public notice.
  When the towers collapsed, thousands of tons of coarse and fine 
particulate matter were released into the air, and inhaled into the 
lungs of hundreds of thousands of individuals--substances that included 
cement dust, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, hydrochloric acid, and other 
toxic pollutants. The combustion of jet fuel after the attacks created 
a dense plume of black smoke, filled with other toxic substances like 
benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Fires at Ground Zero 
continued to burn underground for several months after the attacks.
  Of course, none of our incredibly brave firefighters, police 
officers, emergency responders, workers, volunteers and others stopped 
to think about the health implications of what they were walking into--
they risked their lives to help save others.
  The day after 9/11, I visited Ground Zero; it was evident that the 
air was not fit to breathe and these conditions continued for months 
afterwards.
  Over the next 9 months, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of 
individuals were exposed to the dust and debris not only at Ground 
Zero, but also a site at Fresh Kills, the landfill in Staten Island, 
where workers sifted through the debris in an attempt to recover 
evidence from the attacks.
  People began coming down with what we would later call World Trade 
Center cough. We heard reports of previously healthy detectives who 
could bench press 250 pounds unable to lift a child. Firefighters who 
could run miles no longer able to climb stairs. Construction workers in 
perfect physical shape before the attacks with incredible difficulty 
breathing after the attacks. Increased risk of cancer. Newly developed 
asthma, bronchitis, persistent sinusitis, laryngitis, or other 
respiratory problems. For these individuals, their illnesses are a 
constant reminder of that terrible day.
  On March 21, the HELP Committee held a hearing--which I led along 
side Chairman Kennedy--on the long term impacts of 9/11.
  What we heard that day was nothing short of devastating and all of us 
in the room during the hearing came away with a new sense of urgency in 
making sure that the workers, residents, students, volunteers and 
others who are experiencing adverse health effects due to exposure of 
9/11 toxins get the care they desperately need.
  Of particular concern: many of those who are ill are falling through 
the cracks of traditional health coverage. According to testimony 
presented at this hearing, more than 40 percent of the responders 
enrolled in the Mt. Sinai treatment program are uninsured, and an 
additional 23 percent are underinsured. New York City reports that 
approximately 60 percent of those enrolled at Bellevue Hospital's 
treatment program are also uninsured.
  Today, Congress has sent a powerful message to the police officers, 
firefighters, first responders, workers, and volunteers of 9/11: You 
are not forgotten. We will respond to an attack on our values and way 
of life by honoring our values and helping the victims.
  But we must go further.
  We need a longer-term Federal solution to provide monitoring, 
diagnosis, and treatment. The city and local organizations have done a 
tremendous service, but this was as an attack on our whole Nation and 
our whole Nation should support the efforts taking place in New York. 
These funds will only support the work for the short term. And a third 
treatment center at Bellevue Hospital--the only center that evaluates 
and treats many of the forgotten victims: residents, office workers, 
students, and others--has not received any Federal help at all.
  I have introduced the 9/11 Heroes Health Improvement Act to provide 
$1.9 billion in grants for ongoing medical and mental health treatment 
and monitoring, and I will continue to work with my colleagues on the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to ensure that we have 
a long-term solution for 9/11 affected individuals.
  We should always keep in our hearts the people who deserve our help.
  Retired New York Police Detective Michael Valentin is one of those 
who is living with the health effects of 9/11. He rushed to Ground Zero 
from his home on Long Island on 9/11 and for the first few days 
searched for remains in the area, later working on the pile and 
providing perimeter security.
  Before 9/11, he was running miles a day and going to college at night 
to become a supervisor.
  Since 9/11, he has experienced respiratory problems and breathing 
difficulties, asthma attacks, operations to treat tumors he has 
developed, and other conditions. He could no longer find the strength 
to attend college at night or run enough to pass even the police 
department's physical test. He retired officially on January 31 of this 
year.
  Detective Valentin wanted to attend the hearing in Washington. He 
wanted to speak out and be heard because too many of the victims and 
heroes feel forgotten and left behind. Unfortunately, Detective 
Valentin was too sick to make the trip, and he is not alone.
  The tragedy of 9/11 is not over. The loss of life, the pain, and the 
suffering are not over. The tragic legacy continues for the families 
who lost loved ones and for residents, workers, volunteers, first 
responders and others who

[[Page S5155]]

have faced hardship and health consequences in the aftermath of the 
attacks.
  Today, we have achieved a great victory--but it must only be a first 
step to make sure those that gave so much on that terrible day are not 
forgotten and receive the help they deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

                          ____________________