[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6215-S6219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' CARE, KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ 
                ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2206, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2206) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for 
     agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid/McConnell amendment No. 1123, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid/McConnell amendment No. 1124 (to amendment No. 1123), 
     expressing the sense of the Congress that no action should be 
     taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States or impact their ability to complete their 
     assigned or future missions.
       Reid amendment No. 1125 (to amendment No. 1124), expressing 
     the sense of the Congress that no action should be taken to 
     undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     or impact their ability to complete their assigned or future 
     missions.
       Reid amendment No. 1126 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit H.R. 2206), expressing the sense of the Congress 
     that no action should be taken to undermine the safety of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States or impact their ability to 
     complete their assigned or future missions.
       Reid amendment No. 1127 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit (to amendment No. 1126)), expressing the sense of 
     the Congress that no action should be taken to undermine the 
     safety of the Armed Forces of the United States or impact 
     their ability to complete their assigned or future missions.
       Reid amendment No. 1128 (to amendment No. 1127), expressing 
     the sense of the Congress that no action should be taken to 
     undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of

[[Page S6216]]

     the United States or impact their ability to complete their 
     assigned or future missions.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 shall be equally divided and controlled by the two leaders 
or their designees.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.


                      U.S. Attorney Investigation

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I was shocked to read in the 
Washington Post that Tom Heffelfinger, the former U.S. attorney for the 
District of Minnesota, was among those recommended for removal by the 
Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Tom 
Heffelfinger had previously been appointed U.S. attorney for Minnesota 
by the first Bush administration in 1991 and had the distinction of 
being appointed again in 2001 by George W. Bush.
  During his second term as U.S. attorney, I had the privilege of 
working with Tom as a district attorney and chief prosecutor for 
Minnesota's largest county. The relationship between the U.S. attorney 
and the district attorney for a large metropolitan county is a very 
important one but also a difficult one. I can tell my colleagues this: 
It has been my experience that the people of this country don't care 
who prosecutes a case. They don't care if it is a local attorney or a 
State attorney or a Federal attorney. They just want us to get the job 
done. That was the spirit in which I worked with Tom Heffelfinger and 
his predecessor, B. Todd Jones, who was appointed by President Clinton.
  When I was first elected in 1998, B. Todd Jones had been appointed by 
President Clinton. Todd Jones and I forged an excellent relationship. 
We spoke often about the various cases in our jurisdiction and the 
surrounding area, and we worked together when jurisdictional lines were 
blurred, deciding if a case would be prosecuted federally or locally. 
It is not a small thing. In other jurisdictions there are often 
disputes that are not in the best interests of the citizens, but we 
were able to forge that relationship.
  I remember we made a plan early on, and that is that we were going to 
work together. I remember when Mr. Jones and I decided we would have a 
party for our joint offices, and he invited the county attorney's 
prosecutors over to the U.S. attorneys, and I have to tell you, there 
is traditionally a little bit of jealousy that goes on. The county 
attorneys always look at the U.S. attorneys and figure they can have 
less cases and fewer resources to do those fewer cases, and the U.S. 
attorneys may look at the county attorneys and say, oh, why can't they 
spend more time on a case.
  So we decided we would bring the people together. I still remember 
when we had the party at their beautiful offices. I got there first, 
and I never told my office, but U.S. attorney Todd Jones got on the 
intercom, and before my office came over, he said: Nail down the 
furniture; The cousins are coming over.
  Since then, we forged an amazing relationship. So when George W. Bush 
appointed Tom Heffelfinger as U.S. attorney--Tom Heffelfinger, of 
course, was a Republican; I was a Democrat--you might think there would 
be problems. Well, there weren't. Tom Heffelfinger basically ran the 
office the same way Todd Jones did, in a professional manner. Many of 
the same people continued to work there and, in fact, the chief deputy 
remained the same under both the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney and 
the Democrat-appointed U.S. attorney.
  An example of Tom's professionalism comes to mind. When there was an 
armored truck robbery in the southern suburbs in our metropolitan area, 
the victim was killed execution style, kneeling next to a truck. It was 
a Brink's truck driver. The case had gone unsolved for a number of 
years. Tom came to my office. I want my colleagues to know he didn't 
have to do this. He could have had just a press conference and 
announced the charges, and that would be the end of it. But he came to 
my office weeks before the case was charged to tell me he thought they 
were closing in on the suspect; to tell me he knew in most cases 
murders were handled by our office, but that this case was going to be 
different. It was different because the Feds had been investigating it 
for a number of years, and it was different because it involved an 
armored truck. It was also different because it could potentially be 
eligible for the death penalty, and he knew I was personally opposed to 
the death penalty and Minnesota didn't have a death penalty. Nothing 
required him to come and talk to me about that case, but Tom 
Heffelfinger did because he had the respect for me and he had the 
respect for our office that you don't always see with people in 
government service.
  Our office jointly prosecuted many cases, and when there was a 
jurisdictional issue, Tom and I would always talk about it. We did a 
number of criminally focused initiatives together. We saw our offices 
as partners, not as rivals, and as time went on, as the years went on, 
the respect between both our offices grew. As I said, each came to see 
each other, the people in our office, not as rivals, but as partners in 
justice.
  This is why I am so appalled that Tom Heffelfinger was targeted for 
firing. I take Tom at his word--and we have talked many times in the 
last few months--that he had made a decision to leave the office, that 
he never knew he was on such a list, and he made the decision based on 
the fact that his wife was going to retire. But the issue is not that 
he made the decision on his own, the issue is that someone of such 
integrity as Tom Heffelfinger was ever targeted by this Justice 
Department for firing.

  I have always believed, as a prosecutor, you do your job without fear 
of favor. It may not be easy, but whatever your decisions--and you know 
they are not going to make everyone happy, but whatever your decisions, 
you want to know at the end of the day that you did the right thing and 
that you had no regrets.
  We have learned these past few months that our Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer, our leading guardian of the rule of law in this 
country, has allowed politics to creep too close to the core of our 
legal system. This administration has determined that Washington 
politicians--not prosecutors out in the field, and even perhaps in some 
cases not the facts themselves--would dictate how prosecutions should 
proceed. The consequences are simply unacceptable. Good prosecutors 
like Tom Heffelfinger who, by all accounts, were just doing their 
jobs--upholding their oaths, following the principles of their 
professions--we find out were targeted for firing. The new information 
we also received this week is while this administration repeatedly said 
we were only focusing on these eight prosecutors, it turned out to be 
26 people who they were considering.
  This is why I am asking the Justice Department today to tell us why 
Tom Heffelfinger, someone of such integrity, would even be on this 
list. I am asking our Judiciary Committee to look into the fact that 
this man--this good man--was even on this list.
  We have seen cases all over the country now where prosecutors were 
pressured, where they were fired, where they were unfairly slandered by 
this administration. All of this, it would seem, was motivated by rank 
politics.
  This week was Law Enforcement Week. It made me a little melancholy 
for my previous job. I had many police officers come in and talk to me, 
so many I had known and worked with, and we talked about cases. I also 
treasured the work that I did with prosecutors throughout our State, 
from the smallest counties to the U.S. Attorney's Office. This is what 
our justice system is about in America. It is about putting justice 
first. It is about doing our jobs without fear of favor.
  That is why I believe this Attorney General must resign. I have been 
saying it for months. You simply cannot have a cloud over the Justice 
Department, where they can't do their jobs because they are constantly 
plagued by investigations and by everything that has been going on 
because of the brute political decisions made by this administration.
  This is just wrong. I call for the resignation of this Attorney 
General, and I ask that the country understand what a great man Tom 
Heffelfinger is, that he should never have been on this list. And I 
will stand tall to tell the people of my State how this is a man of 
integrity and that I respect him very much.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S6217]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, here we are once again--deja vu--debating 
supplemental funding for the President's disastrous misadventure in 
Iraq. Now in its fifth year of occupation, the U.S. death toll in Iraq 
is over 3,380. What a shame, shame, shame. The death toll of innocent 
Iraqis is largely unknown, but it probably numbers in the tens of 
thousands.
  The United States of America has spent over $378 billion in Iraq. Do 
you know how much a billion dollars is? That is $1 for every minute 
since Jesus Christ was born. So the United States has spent over $378 
billion in Iraq, and we are all familiar with the horrendous tales of 
waste and abuse by U.S. contractors in Iraq. The taxpayer--that is you 
out there--has been ravaged by the profiteering in Iraq. But even 
worse, despite the billions, our brave troops have been shortchanged 
with inadequate equipment to protect their lives and shoddy medical 
care, if they make it back home, to treat wounds of the body and of the 
mind.
  Now the President has threatened to veto the House bill, which is 
before the Senate, because it sets a date to withdraw, provides funding 
until late July and ``could unreasonably burden the President's 
exercise of his constitutional authorities, including his authority as 
Commander in Chief.''
  President Bush has also objected to funding for rebuilding the Gulf 
Coast States after Hurricane Katrina, funding to improve health care 
for our troops and our veterans, funding for the shortfall in the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, funding for Low-Income Heating 
Assistance Program, and more funding for Homeland Security.
  Mr. President, this President--our President--has a single-minded 
obsession with Iraq, and he appears to see no value in anything except 
continuing his chaotic ``mission impossible.'' While tilting at 
windmills may have been a harmless procedure for Don Quixote, Mr. 
Bush's war is turning the sands of Iraq blood red.
  Mr. Bush raises constitutional concerns in his latest veto threat. I 
don't know whether to laugh or to cry. I don't no whether to laugh or 
to cry. I suppose one could be encouraged that constitutional concerns 
exist in the Bush kingdom. After setting aside the Constitution 
whenever convenient to justify preemptive attacks, illegal searches, 
secret wiretapping, clandestine military tribunals, treaty violations, 
kidnapping, torture, and a rejection of habeas corpus, one has to 
wonder about the nature of these purported ``constitutional concerns.'' 
If the Constitution is finally to be read, let us read it in its 
entirety, including the articles which give the people's 
representatives--that is us--the power over the purse--yes, the power 
over the purse; don't ever forget it. That is the real power. It gives 
the people's representatives the power over the purse and the power to 
declare war.
  In its statement of administrative policy, the administration claims 
that the House bill before us `` . . . is likely to unleash chaos in 
Iraq. . . .'' Mr. President, what do we have now if not chaos in Iraq? 
Securing Iraq has unaccountably morphed into securing Baghdad, and even 
that goal eludes us. I doubt if building a wall around the green zone 
is going to be of much consequence in securing Baghdad, not to mention 
the very strange message such a wall conveys concerning our purported 
liberation of Iraq.
  The President--our President--continues to miss the point. Iraq is at 
war with itself. America cannot create a stable democracy in Iraq at 
the point of a gun. While our troops succeeded in toppling Saddam 
Hussein, it is the President's profound misunderstanding of the 
dynamics in Iraq that have led to the failure of his Iraq policies. Why 
in the world should we now believe the claims that he makes in his veto 
threat?
  There must be an end to this occupation of Iraq. Yes, I say 
occupation for it is no longer a war in which U.S. troops should be 
involved. Our troops won the war they were sent to fight, and they 
should not now be asked to serve as targets in a religious conflict 
between Sunni and Shiites that has raged for thousands of years. It is 
reported that even a majority in the Iraqi Parliament now supports 
legislation which demands a scheduled withdrawal and an immediate 
freeze on the number of foreign soldiers in Iraq.
  In April, Congress set a new course for the war in Iraq. Sadly, the 
President--our stubborn, uncompromising President--chose to veto that 
bill. As we prepare to go to conference again, the President 
continues--our President--to close his eyes and cover his ears to the 
reality in Iraq, and the urgent need for a new direction. Whatever 
decision is made in conference will not be the last chapter in this sad 
story. God willing, this Senator will not close his eyes, nor will he 
cover his ears, nor will I stand by in silence. Hear me.
  We need to conclude this terrible, awful mistake that we have made in 
Iraq. I said in the beginning that we ought not go into Iraq. But we 
are there. Anti-Americanism is more robust now than in any period in 
our history because of Iraq. Do you hear that? The international 
community is skeptical--why should they not be? They are skeptical of 
U.S. intentions because of Iraq. Our Constitution has been trampled--
hear that. Our Constitution has been trampled because of Iraq. 
Thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens have lost their lives 
because of Iraq. Thousands more are maimed physically or mentally 
because of Iraq. Billions of U.S. dollars have been wasted because of 
Iraq.
  President Bush has lost all credibility. President Bush, our 
President, has lost all--all--credibility because of Iraq.
  Terrorism is on the rise worldwide because of Iraq. May God grant 
this Congress--that is, us--may God grant this Congress the courage to 
come together and answer the cries of a majority of the people who sent 
us here. Find a way to end this horrible catastrophe, this 
unspeakable--unspeakable--ongoing calamity called Iraq. May God help us 
in the United States.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot support the procedure that the 
majority and minority leaders have concocted to speed a supplemental 
spending bill to conference without debate or amendments--and without 
even writing the actual bill. I share the desire of my colleagues to 
pass this important bill as soon as possible. But that is no excuse for 
us avoiding our responsibilities as legislators. Passing a symbolic 
resolution is not an acceptable alternative to writing, considering and 
working to improve legislation that provides tens of billions of 
dollars for a broad range of programs and that addresses the most 
pressing issue facing the country--the President's disastrous policies 
in Iraq.
  When it comes to legislation as important as this, we need full 
debate and votes. We can do this quickly--I am prepared to have this 
debate and consider amendments right away, and to stay as long as it 
takes to get it done. But we should do it openly and on the record. The 
votes we had yesterday on Iraq amendments to an unrelated bill are no 
excuse for bypassing the regular legislative process today.
  I admit, it is easier and quicker if we just send a placeholder bill 
to conference, so that the real work can be done there. But we do a 
disservice to our constituents, and to this institution, by passing the 
buck like that. The American people are calling on us to end the war in 
Iraq. They deserve to see this debate, even if it slows us down by a 
few hours. They deserve to know where their Senators stand, and which 
amendments they support. A decision about whether to continue our 
involvement in this misguided war should be made in open debate, not 
behind closed doors--particularly since neither house will have the 
opportunity to amend whatever final legislation emerges from 
conference.
  The first supplemental that Congress recently passed was a step 
forward toward ending this war. I am concerned that the bill that 
emerges from the upcoming conference, thanks to this expedited 
procedure, will be a step back. Passing a weak supplemental bill that 
expresses disapproval of the President's policies but doesn't do 
anything to fix them may make some of us feel better. But this debate 
should not be about providing political comfort for folks here in 
Washington. It is about responding to the wishes of the American people 
and the needs of our national security. And it should take place on the 
Senate floor, before the American people, right here, right now.

[[Page S6218]]

  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate held two important 
votes: one on the Feingold amendment, which called for transitioning 
the mission; and on the Warner amendment, which would require the 
President to certify the Iraqi Government is meeting benchmarks in 
order to receive United States aid.
  I supported the Feingold amendment, which provides a real change of 
direction and course out of the war. I opposed the Warner amendment 
because, after more than 4 years of war, 3,400 American deaths, almost 
30,000 wounded, and more than $500 billion--almost arriving at $1 
trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars spent--we need action, not more 
reports, especially those without consequences.
  Yet, while I supported one vote and opposed the other, I am 
encouraged by both. They show real and growing momentum on both sides 
of the aisle to move away from this tragic, endless war. As the Los 
Angeles Times reported this morning:

       The votes illustrated Congress' dramatic response to public 
     dismay with the war.

  As CNN's Dana Bash said:

       It was a milestone in the Iraq war debate. For the first 
     time, the vast majority of the President's fellow Republicans 
     voted to directly challenge his Iraq policy.

  It is no wonder a broad bipartisan consensus for change is emerging. 
We are well into the fourth surge of U.S. forces since the start of the 
war, yet April was one of the deadliest months in the entire war, and 
attacks on our troops show no sign of decreasing. The Iraqi Government 
has failed to adopt an oil law, a law on de-Baathification, or any 
further constitutional amendments they are required to implement.
  Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is accused of sabotaging efforts of peace 
and stability by firing some of the top law enforcement officials for 
doing too good a job of combating violent Shiite militias.
  Conditions are so chaotic, according to a report this morning by the 
Chatham House Research Institute--which is a respected institute in 
England--they say the Iraqi Government is:

        . . . on the verge of becoming a failed state with 
     internecine fighting and a continual struggle for power 
     threatening the nation's very existence.

  The U.S. mission grows further and further disconnected from our 
strategic national interests. Instead of focusing on force protection, 
hunting down al-Qaida and other terrorists, and training the Iraqi 
military--missions that will make us more secure, help the Iraqi 
people, and reduce our troops' exposure to sectarian violence--United 
States forces, as we speak, are patrolling Baghdad streets, extremely 
vulnerable to snipers, kidnappers, and these explosive devices which 
have become so well-known over there.
  Our brave fighting forces have done everything we have asked of them, 
and even more. Every day we debate the war, our troops remain in harm's 
way. The overwhelming veto-proof bipartisan majority of the Senate is 
now on record saying the status quo is unacceptable.
  With that reality as a backdrop, this morning we will vote for 
cloture on Senator Murray's sense-of-the-Senate resolution that will 
move us to conference on the emergency supplemental bill and the 
important negotiations that will take place in the near future on the 
Iraq situation.
  Last evening, I spoke to the father of one of the hostages in Iraq. 
He lives in Reno, NV. We talked, and it was difficult. He loves his 
son, he prays for his son's return, as we all do. We talked about how 
we have hope that he is alive.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution we are going to 
vote on. We can all agree we need to move swiftly to the supplemental 
bill that fully funds our troops. We all agree we can't ``stay the 
course.'' That is not an option, as President Bush has done for more 
than 4 years.
  As we move this debate to conference, the American people deserve to 
know that the Democrats' commitment to bring this war to a responsible 
end has never been stronger. If enough of our Republican colleagues 
decide to join with us, even the President will have to listen.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding the parliamentary issue before 
this body is a vote that will occur at 10:30; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 10:35.
  Mr. REID. At 10:35. And at 10:35, because the leaders used some of 
their time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it would be in the best interest of 
the Senate if we go ahead and start the vote. I have not had an 
opportunity to check with the minority, so I don't want to move to do 
that before I do so. We will know that in a minute. But it would 
probably be better if we got the vote started, if there is no one here 
to speak in the next 5 minutes.
  I think we will go ahead and start the vote, and if somebody is 
concerned about the extra 5 minutes, then we will extend the time an 
extra 5 minutes. I ask that we proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             cloture motion

  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid-McConnell 
     amendment No. 1123 relating to Iraq to H.R. 2206, the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
         Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Daniel K. Inouye, Jon 
           Tester, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara 
           Boxer, Patty Murray, Frank R. Lautenberg, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Tom Carper, Charles Schumer, Maria Cantwell, 
           Carl Levin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ted Kennedy, Amy 
           Klobuchar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1123, offered by the Senator from Nevada and the Senator 
from Kentucky, expressing the sense of the Congress that no action 
should be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the 
United States or impact their ability to complete their assigned or 
future missions, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. 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 Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune

[[Page S6219]]


     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

     Feingold
      
      

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coburn
     Dole
     Johnson
     McCain
     Sununu
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, all other amendments and motions are 
withdrawn, and the substitute amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1123) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2206), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                               H.R. 2206

         Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 2206) entitled ``An Act making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for 
     agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.'', do 
     pass with the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
       Since under the Constitution, the President and Congress 
     have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States, including their mission, 
     and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially during 
     wartime;
       Since when the Armed Forces are deployed in harm's way, the 
     President, Congress, and the Nation should give them all the 
     support they need in order to maintain their safety and 
     accomplish their assigned or future missions, including the 
     training, equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is 
     the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the 
     Legislative Branch of Government; and
       Since thousands of members of the Armed Forces who have 
     fought bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan are not receiving the 
     kind of medical care and other support this Nation owes them 
     when they return home: Now, therefore, be it
       Determined by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President and Congress should not take any action 
     that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States, and 
     will provide necessary funds for training, equipment, and 
     other support for troops in the field, as such actions will 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and 
     carrying out their assigned missions;
       (2) the President, Congress, and the Nation have an 
     obligation to ensure that those who have bravely served this 
     country in time of war receive the medical care and other 
     support they deserve; and
       (3) the President and Congress should--
       (A) continue to exercise their constitutional 
     responsibilities to ensure that the Armed Forces have 
     everything they need to perform their assigned or future 
     missions; and
       (B) review, assess, and adjust United States policy and 
     funding as needed to ensure our troops have the best chance 
     for success in Iraq and elsewhere.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House, and the 
Chair is authorized to appoint conferees.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________