[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.
____________________