[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6687-S6793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, Congress approved
legislation that would have changed the course of the U.S. occupation
of Iraq. I say occupation because, frankly, that is what this is. Our
troops won the battle they were sent to fight. The dictator Saddam
Hussein is deposed and executed. His rotten government is no more,
replaced with a democratically elected Parliament, President, and Prime
Minister. We all are cheered at the skill of our soldiers.
But, sadly, this President has not done justice by our brave troops.
The dreadful management of this occupation has resulted in chaos. Iraq
is at war with itself and our troops are caught in the middle. That is
why this Congress established a new direction for bringing our troops
home from this misbegotten occupation. The bill the President vetoed
would have refocused our military, not on the civil war in Iraq but,
rather, on Osama bin Laden and his base of operations. It is time for
the President to take off his blinders and uncover his ears. White
House obstinacy cannot continue to drive our military plans in Iraq.
With this supplemental funding legislation we begin to shift the
responsibility for Iraq's future off the shoulders of our military, and
onto the shoulders of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. The
White House wanted a blank check for the President's mangled occupation
of Iraq. We are not going to sign on that dotted line--not now, not
ever. The legislation that is before the Senate today is a step toward
that goal. It is not a giant leap, but it is progress. And it is only a
first step. In a few weeks, this Senate is expected to focus on the
Defense Department authorization bill. I shall press for a vote on the
proposal Senator Clinton and I have outlined in the authorization for
the Iraq war and to give Congress a chance, just a chance, to decide
whether the so-called new mission in Iraq should continue. If this
mission is so critical, then let the administration make its case and
let the people's elected Representatives--that is us--let the people's
elected Representatives vote.
In July we will turn our attention to the Pentagon's fiscal 2008
funding request, and in September we will consider the $145 billion war
funding request for the next fiscal year. Each of these bills is an
opportunity to shape the future course of the mission in Iraq. Clearly,
Congress is not turning from the debate on Iraq. On the contrary, we
are just beginning this debate.
We have all committed to protecting our men and women in uniform.
This legislation provides the funding to do just that. We ensure $3
billion for the purchase of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.
The 2,000 additional advanced armored vehicles that will be built with
these funds will help to save the lives of American soldiers and
American marines as they travel the lonely streets of Baghdad--the
lonely streets of Iraq.
If our soldiers are injured in battle, this legislation ensures they
will receive high-quality health care when they come home. The fiasco
at Walter Reed should be seared into our national consciousness. That
is why this legislation provides $4.8 billion to ensure that troops and
veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service.
A few weeks ago, we watched Kansas families try to put their lives
back together after deadly tornadoes ripped through their homes. The
Kansas Governor pointed out that her State's National Guard equipment
was parked in Iraq and not at home, slowing cleanup and recovery
efforts. Other States faced the potential for the exact same problem.
This supplemental bill provides $1 billion--that is 1 dollar for every
minute since Jesus Christ was born--$1 billion for the National Guard
and reserve to replace the trucks and heavy equipment that Guard units
have been directed to leave in Iraq.
Again today President Bush warned of terrorist attacks on American
soil. He talks a great deal about the threats of such attacks, but very
seldom does he provide resources to protect the country. If the
President's warnings are accurate, the $1 billion contained in this
bill should help to save lives.
We include funds for port security and for mass transit security, for
explosive detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives
in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate, including a more
aggressive screening of cargo on passenger airlines. We will not--no,
we will not--close our eyes to the huge gaps in our protections at
home.
We also work to heal the devastated communities still struggling to
recover from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. To this day, mangled
trash heaps stand where homes and families once lived. This White
House, the Bush White House, sends billions of dollars to rebuild
Baghdad but ignores the overwhelming needs in New Orleans, Slidell,
Biloxi, and so many other places at home.
[[Page S6688]]
This bill invests $6.4 billion--that is $6.40 for every minute since
Jesus was born--this bill invests $6.4 billion to rebuild the gulf
coast communities and to restore the vibrance of this proud region.
I close, and I thank my ranking member, Senator Thad Cochran, for his
help. I thank Representative Dave Obey, chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, and the Senate leaders, Senator Harry Reid
and Senator Mitch McConnell. I thank the Appropriations Committee
staff: staff director, Charles Kieffer; Republican staff director,
Bruce Evans; and our subcommittee and professional staff members.
I appreciate, I deeply appreciate the long hours they have worked--
yes, long hours they have worked to craft the supplemental legislation.
I urge Senators, all Senators on both sides of the aisle, to support
this legislation. It is the product of bipartisan negotiations. That is
right, isn't it, Thad?
Mr. COCHRAN. Sometimes.
Mr. BYRD. It meets the critical needs of this country. It moves us
forward in our efforts to change the dynamic in Iraq. We must
challenge--we must challenge--this President, our President, to open
his eyes to the truth and adopt the new direction in Iraq that this
Nation and the world so eagerly--yes, so anxiously--awaits.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to talk first about the
process and then the substance of this legislation. As everybody knows,
we will soon be considering the war supplemental bill entitled ``The
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.''
That title is very important. As the title says, the legislation is
an appropriations bill. The title refers to troop readiness. There is
finally, after several months of legislative wrangling, funding for the
troops that the President can sign.
The title refers to veterans care. There is funding for that. The
title refers to Katrina recovery. There are funds for Hurricane Katrina
damage. The title also refers to Iraq accountability. There is language
finally in the form acceptable to the President so that he can sign it
dealing with benchmarks on our mission in Iraq and the role of the
Iraqi Government.
The title of the bill, however, does not refer to any matters within
the jurisdiction of a committee I am very familiar with, the Finance
Committee. But take a look and you will find three categories of
Finance Committee matters: One, the small business tax relief package;
two, the so-called pension technicals; and, three, Medicaid and SCHIP
provisions.
Now, why does it matter whether these policy provisions travel in a
tax-writing committee bill or an appropriations bill? It matters for
several reasons. I had the pleasure of serving on both the Finance
Committee, and for a very short period of time during my career in the
Senate, on the Appropriations Committee. They are the money committees
of the Senate.
Appropriations bills, by and large, spend money. That is not
entitlements, that is the set-asides in the budget. Finance Committee
bills, on the other hand, raise revenue and deal with most of the
health and welfare entitlement spending.
Both the Appropriations and Finance Committees have very strong
constitutional traditions, expertise in the complex subject matter, and
seasoned memberships motivated and dedicated to service of the
respective committees. All you have to do is look at the careers of
Chairman Byrd, the ranking member, or Senator Baucus, to know that they
dedicate themselves to these two great money committees of the Senate.
So when policy issues are processed outside of the Appropriations or
outside the Finance Committee, necessary care, expertise, and
experience is lost. When I was chairman, I took great pains to avoid
taking on appropriations matters. More often than not, policy made
outside of either of these committee jurisdictions will, it seems,
somehow need to be corrected.
There is another reason it matters; that is, policy made through the
committee process is very transparent, and that is what American
Government and the Congress is all about, transparency--the public
business to be done publicly. The committee's role is to air and
carefully consider proposals in the areas of committee jurisdiction.
We are really talking about transparency. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant. When the committee process is end-run, as I will
demonstrate in part of this bill, there is usually no positive reason.
Usually the reason is expediency on the part of people, maybe even
beyond the control of the committee chairman, and I would suggest
legislative leadership.
It has happened not just now, it has happened under Republicans and
under Democrats. But I am pleased to say it has been effectively very
rare over the last few years. Skipping the committee process on new
proposals was the exception rather than the rule.
Unfortunately, now, with respect to the critical pieces of Finance
Committee jurisdiction, it looks as if leadership prefers to skip the
committee, after I have been told privately and publicly so many times
all of the work is going to be done through the committee. So I am
hoping that what I am going to complain about is pretty much a
temporary pattern.
To sum it up, the people's business should be done in committees in a
transparent way so the people of this country know what is going on.
Committee process means sunshine. I think the committee process was
abused on this legislation.
But the conference process was also abused. We never even went
through the trappings of the committee process. We have an amended
House bill that because of the imperative of an acceptable war funding
package has the force of a conference report.
How was the process abused? Just take a look at the bill, and you
will find a patchwork of unconnected provisions in the Finance
Committee jurisdiction that is not even mentioned in the title. Aside
from a small business tax relief provision, no real back-and-forth
discussion occurred on these matters, either in the Finance Committee
or in conference.
With respect to the small business tax relief provisions, the House
and Senate Democratic leadership set an arbitrary ceiling that
constrained our outstanding chairman, Senator Baucus, from reaching a
bipartisan agreement which is so much in the tradition of how Senator
Baucus and I work together.
The bottom line is, Republicans opened the door to a conference
agreement without receiving assurances of a fair deal. I don't think we
got a fair deal. Once Republicans opened the door to the conference,
the door was effectively shut on full and meaningful participation.
Now, in the past, Republican leadership did similar things, and
Democrats cried foul. I am proud to say that on most, not all, Finance
Committee conferences, the Senate Democrats were represented and
present for final conference agreements. After crying foul about some
conference processes, the Senate Democratic leadership insisted in
previous years on preconference agreements before letting Republicans
go to conference.
As I feared earlier in the year, the Senate Republican leadership
will have to similarly insist on assurances before conferences are
convened. This supplemental and its vetoed predecessor made the case
that the conference process can't be trusted.
Senate Republicans have no recourse other than to insist on
preconference agreements, as we can learn from the Democratic minority
of the previous 4 years.
Now, I want to turn to the substance of three categories of the
Finance Committee matters that were inserted in the process, after
spending my previous minutes on that process. Now to the substance.
The first matter deals with the small business tax relief package
that traveled with a minimum wage increase. The deal in the conference
is basically the same deal presented by the Democratic negotiators on
the last appropriations bill. It favors the House position in number
and composition of that package, practically ignoring the great work
that Senator Baucus and I did on these provisions.
From a small business standpoint, the House bill was a peanut shell.
The
[[Page S6689]]
Senate bill was real peanuts. Real peanuts--still not enough from my
perspective but more, much more than what the House has.
As you can see here, I have got Mr. Peanut up here to demonstrate the
Senate bill, the House bill, and the conference report. From a small
business standpoint, then, I want to repeat: The House bill was a
peanut shell. The Senate bill was real peanuts. It is a missed
opportunity because a conference agreement is a single, shriveled
peanut, not helping small business the way small business ought to have
been helped to offset the negative impacts on small business of a
minimum wage tax increase.
We could have, in fact, provided small business with meaningful tax
relief that is contemporaneous with the effects of the minimum wage
hike that I say, and I think economists agree, are negative toward
small business.
This chart shows Mr. Peanut. It shows this bill at each of its
stages--a peanut, a peanut shell, and shriveled peanut. What we are
going to be voting on will be that shriveled peanut.
There is another matter that bothers me and this is the so-called
pension technical corrections. What is a technical correction, one
might ask. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax
bills. Last year's landmark bipartisan pension reform bill certainly
can be described as a major tax bill. It contained the most significant
retirement security policy changes within a generation. There are
proposals necessary to ensure that the provisions of the pension reform
bill are working consistently within congressional intent and to
provide clerical corrections. That is what technical corrections means.
Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain
or loss is scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
Technical corrections is derived from a deliberative and consultative
process among the congressional as well as administration tax staffs,
where there is a great deal of expertise. That means the Republican as
well as the Democratic staffs, regardless of who is in the majority or
minority of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate
Finance Committee, are involved, as well as Treasury Department
personnel, whether we have a Republican or Democratic President. All of
this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the
nonpartisan professional staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. A
technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate.
Any one segment I have listed can veto it. That is why we know it is
nonpartisan. That is why we know it is technical. That is why we know
it is not a substantive change in law. If it were, it would not be
technical.
The pension provisions in this bill, the one we will be voting on in
a little while, represent then forgetting this process so you know
things are done right. It represents a cherry-picking of some, not all,
of the technical corrections that these professional people, in a
nonpartisan way, are currently trying to put together with a bill that
will come up later on.
In addition, there are pension provisions included in this bill that
are called technical but are of great substance and are not then
technical. Some of these proposals are even controversial. I have
reviewed legislative history over the last 15-plus years, and that
history informs me that this may be an unprecedented treatment of
technical corrections. Techincals were processed on a 2000 year bill
that was not a tax-writing committee bill, but that package was a
consensus package. All the committees and the administration had signed
off that year, 7 years ago. In other instances, technicals were
processed on tax-writing committee vehicles. In all these instances,
the packages represented an agreement between all the tax-writing
committees, Republican and Democratic, and the Treasury.
In this case, there are four committees involved, the two tax-writing
committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, what we call the HELP Committee, and the House Education and
Labor Committee. To illustrate the controversy over the pensions
technical package, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a
copy of a letter from HELP Committee Chairman Kennedy and Ranking
Member Enzi. The letter lays out their objections to the House
technical process. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter
I wrote regarding the Finance Committee's jurisdiction be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders: Last year we worked with other committees to
author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding rules
in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) was
signed into law in August 2006, following extensive
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent on
ensuring that retirement plans are properly funded, and that
Americans' retirement savings will be there when they need
it. This law passed the Senate with overwhelming support, 93-
5.
We understand that a number of pension provisions
originating in the House may be included in the emergency war
spending bill. While moving forward on pensions technical
corrections is a goal that many members share, moving House
pension technical corrections separately on this spending
bill from Senate priorities creates a disparity. We are very
concerned at this disregard for equal consideration and lack
of discussion of Senate priorities and prerogatives.
Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP
Committee's jurisdiction, and we recognize that immediate
technical corrections are needed to the PPA. Bicameral,
staff-level meetings are taking place regularly, and we are
working with the Administration to ensure that the needed
corrections are promptly addressed. The HELP Committee has a
history of finding common ground on complex legislative
challenges, and we are confident that we will reach consensus
on a package soon. We urge you to provide us with the
opportunity to bring a finished pension technical package to
the floor in a timely fashion in order to give our colleagues
the chance to have their priorities considered.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy,
Chairman.
Michael B. Enzi,
Ranking Member.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2007.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran: I am writing
to express my continued opposition to the consideration of
any provision concerning intergovernmental transfers/cost
based reimbursement by the Committee on Appropriations for
the supplemental appropriation bill we will be voting on
shortly. I am also opposed to the inclusion of tax provisions
that passed separately through the Senate as part of the
supplemental appropriations. As you know, the Medicaid matter
pertains to programs under the Social Security Act and the
tax provisions amend the Internal Revenue Code. Both the
Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code fall
clearly and solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Finance.
Throughout the years, the Committee on Finance has worked
to safeguard and improve the programs under its jurisdiction,
including the Medicaid program. The Finance Committee has
unique expertise with these programs and is the only
Committee in the position to assess the possible effects of
individual changes on all Social Security Act programs as a
whole. Any requests for additional changes to these programs
must be examined with great care, and the Committee on
Finance is the only Committee with experience necessary for
this task. Accordingly, the Committee will legislate to
modify these programs only after thorough analysis of the
issues involved and potential solutions.
The proposed intergovernmental transfers/cost based
reimbursement provision in question is case in point of why
it should not be considered in an appropriations bill. This
provision would halt the implementation of a Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation on cost based
reimbursement. The regulation addresses the questionable
practice of states recycling Medicaid funds paid to
providers. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
opined numerous times about the inappropriateness of the
practice and the Finance Committee has worked to expose it as
well. Restricting payments to cost and requiring claims
documentation both are in the best interest of the integrity
of the Medicaid program, and forbidding HHS from acting in
these areas is extraordinarily short-sighted. In fact, the
Administration believes the new rule will save $5 billion
over the next five years. Clearly, halting implementation
will have an impact on Medicaid resources and, therefore,
[[Page S6690]]
decisions that have such an impact are more appropriate for
the Finance Committee.
Certainly, a one-year moratorium is an improvement over the
two-year moratorium that was in the bill that was originally
passed by the Senate, but the language in the bill still
encourages states to push the envelope on payment schemes. If
a state submits a proposed waiver or state plan amendment
that is in contravention with the regulation, the agency will
not have the authority to deny the proposal. This is a
provision written for the benefit of 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.
The inspector general has investigated and reported to
Congress on why there are problems in the areas the rule
addresses. The Finance Committee has not had the first
hearing on why the rule doesn't work and must be stopped.
The way that this provision is paid for is equally
problematic. 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. Furthermore, the way the language is written sets a
very bad precedent. The language is written in a way that
alters 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.
Legislating to prevent CMS from cleaning up
intergovernmental transfers scams on this appropriation bill
sets a bad precedent. That is clear. It is legislation on
Medicaid and that is a basic part of the jurisdiction of the
Finance Committee.
I am also concerned that the supplemental appropriation
includes tax provisions which also fall solely in the
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The power of the
purse, appropriations, is Congress' power and 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 a former Chairman, and now,
Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, I deeply respect
that division of power. The power to tax is our power and we
are directly accountable to our constituents for our taxing
actions.
We should rarely mix the jurisdiction of the two great
money committees. It should only occur, if at all, when the
four senior members of the tax writing and appropriations
committees agree. Mixing tax writing and appropriations
jurisdiction should not occur at the whim of leadership.
Those kinds of actions demean the committees. Fortunately, I
insisted and the leadership respected this division of
jurisdiction between the tax writers and appropriators over
the last six years.
Earlier this year, the Senate acted on the minimum wage
bill/small business tax relief bill after the House had
passed its own version of the bill. We worked with our House
counterparts to resolve differences between the two bills.
However, because of a bicameral Democratic Leadership
obsession with a top-line number on the tax side, the
conference options were severely limited. Chairman Baucus was
able to accommodate far less than half the tax policy the
Senate sent to conference. The Senate's authority was limited
by the Leadership decision to attach the bill to the
supplemental appropriations bill where Chairman Baucus was
not a conferee. Legitimate tax policy proposals on the
revenue losing and revenue raising sides were left on the
conference's cutting room floor.
The composition of the final package is heavily weighted
towards an extension and modification of the work opportunity
tax credit. I support that credit. But the benefits of that
policy are delayed. Small businesses need the tax relief to
be in synch with the time the minimum wage kicks 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.
I appreciate your Committee members' interest in the Social
Security Act programs and the Internal Revenue Code. I ask
that they work with the Committee on Finance to see that
their objectives are examined and addressed at the
appropriate time, in the appropriate setting. Thanks for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
Mr. GRASSLEY. The bottom line is, the Republicans now know that the
conference process and the committee process will not be respected. We
are doing things of a substantive nature. We are doing things for which
there is a process to make sure that the term ``technical'' is abided
by. That process that worked so perfectly is ignored. So if the
committee process will not be respected, we have to do things to make
sure that it is. In the future, we will need to protect the committee
and the conference process, and we will need to do some preconferencing
agreements as we ought to have learned from now what is the majority,
the Democrats, when they were in the minority, that they got
Republicans to agree to. It seems to me that is legitimate. It may not
be exactly the way it ought to work, but it is something we have to do
to make sure these things don't happen again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, history has proven it was a mistake to give
this President the power to go to Iraq, and I believe history will
prove it is a mistake to give him the open-ended power that this
supplemental bill leaves in his hands. This war is not what this
President says it is. I believe we have an obligation not to vote for
the continuation of a policy that empowers the President to simply
continue the war at his discretion. I have listened to some of my
colleagues and others who have suggested that this bill will somehow
change the course. I have to respectfully disagree. This bill does not
provide a strategy worthy of our soldiers' sacrifice. Instead it
permits more of the same, a strategy that relies on sending American
troops into the alleys and back roads of Iraq to referee a deadly civil
war.
Instead of the same misguided strategy, I believe we had an
opportunity. While I understand the votes and I understand the threat
of veto, and I am not new to this process, I still believe we had an
opportunity to elicit a legitimate, fundamental change and some
commitments from this administration with respect to the way in which
we would hold Iraqis accountable and the way in which this
administration itself would be held accountable.
I say with all due respect, that is what the American people voted
for in November 2006. That is what they have a right to expect from
this Congress. The fact is, we could show our support for our troops in
many different ways in this legislation. I don't believe the only way
to show that support is by letting the President have full discretion
to continue to do what the President has been doing for these last
years. I believe the way you do it is by requiring--and setting up real
measurements with real consequences--the Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. I
am convinced, because the last years have proven it, the President is
wrong to keep suggesting we will stand down when they stand up. I
believe they will not stand up until we stand down. That is the
reality.
The fact is, the benchmarks in this supplemental are not meaningful
benchmarks. The President has a complete waiver. All we require is a
report, a certification from the President. Is there anybody here,
based on the statements the President has made for the last 5 years,
who doesn't know exactly what the President is going to say with
respect to progress? All we require is that there be some measurement
of ``progress.''
Let me say very clearly, because I have been there before in this
argument, I know what happens when you vote in a way that people can
easily try to pick up and construe as a vote other than what it is.
There is good in this supplemental. Yes, we need money for readiness
for troops, and every single one of us wants our troops to be as ready
as they can be. Yes, it is good that there is money for care for
veterans, and our veterans deserve the best care in the world. In fact,
the money available in this bill is a far cry from the real needs of
our veterans with respect to mental health, outreach centers, the
veterans centers, the VA, care in the hospitals. That could be a great
deal stronger. But we are for that. We are also for the money for
Katrina. So let me make it clear to anybody who wants to try to distort
this vote: I am in favor of the money for readiness. I am in favor of
giving our troops all the care they need and deserve. I am in favor of
money for support for Katrina.
But the fundamental gravamen of this bill, the heart of this bill, is
the strategy with respect to the war in Iraq. The heart of this bill
are the consequences that we invite as a result of our votes.
In the last week or two, I have been to three funerals, one funeral,
the son of a man who was opposed to the war, a military man, a West
Pointer, a man
[[Page S6691]]
who gave his career, but he is opposed to this war. He dared to use the
word to me in a conversation on the very day that his son was being
buried about how it was important for us to redouble our efforts in the
Senate to bring this to a close, how it was important for us not to
allow these young men and women to have their lives ``wasted,'' a word
that if any politician used, we would be pilloried for. But the father
of a man who was being buried used that word on the very day his son
was being buried. Another funeral I attended with a father who was
overcome from emotion speaking from the pulpit, left the pulpit, came
down, stood beside his son's coffin and said: I have to talk beside my
son. He put his hand on the coffin and talked to us about his son's
pride, his son's patriotism, his son's love of his fellow soldiers, his
son's and his commitment to what he was doing personally but,
obviously, the agony they feel over a war that so many people don't
support.
We have a responsibility with respect to those young men and women,
with respect to those families. I believe that responsibility is not
met when you give the President the very same power to continue on a
daily basis what he has been doing for these last years. There isn't
one person in this body who doesn't know what this President is going
to say with respect to progress. How many times have we heard, in the
midst of this war, Vice President Cheney come out: We are making
progress. The President yesterday talked about progress, even as he
mischaracterizes what this war is about, talking principally about al-
Qaida, when all of us know this war is principally a civil war, a
slaughter now between Shia and Sunni over the political spoils of Iraq.
Our presence is empowering that.
A few days ago, we set a new strategy, forcing Iraqis to do what only
Iraqis can do. We gave the President the full discretion to leave the
troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqi security forces, to
chase al-Qaida and protect U.S. forces and facilities. In the sixth
year of this war, which we will reach by next year, it seems to me fair
that we should expect that Iraqis can assume that responsibility. The
Iraqi Government has said they can. The Iraqi Parliament has said they
don't want us there. Our own CIA tells us our presence is creating more
terrorists, that we are creating a bigger target. We have become a
recruitment tool for fundraising by al-Qaida out of Pakistan and
Afghanistan. We now know that al-Qaida is using our presence in Iraq to
raise money and recruit jihadists around the world. This policy is
counter to the best security interests of our Nation.
This vote is a vote about those best security interests. We demanded
a little while ago a strategy of real benchmarks. There is not in this
supplemental one benchmark that can be enforced, not one. I don't
disagree with the benchmarks themselves. Yes, we want an oil deal. But
I listened to Secretary of State Rice in front of our committee months
ago say: The oil deal is just about to be approved, right around the
corner.
It hasn't even been put to the Parliament. It is not approved months
later and too many lives lost later because of the procrastination of
Iraqi politicians. How do you say to an American family that their son
or daughter ought to give up their life so Iraqi politicians can spin
around and play a game between each other at our expense?
It is unconscionable. It is bad strategy. It is bad policy. It defies
common sense. That is what this vote is about: why and when we, as a
Congress, are going to insist--now, I understand they do not want the
deadline, and the President insists he is not going to have the
deadline, notwithstanding--notwithstanding--we gave the President full
discretion to leave troops there to complete the training, to leave
troops to chase al-Qaida, to leave troops there to protect American
facilities and forces.
Those kids we are burying deserve an honest debate, not a debate
where people come to the floor and say: Oh, these are the cut-and-run
folks. These are the folks who are looking for defeat. It is an insult
to any Member of the Senate to suggest somebody is actively looking for
defeat. We have a different way of finding success. As Thomas Jefferson
said: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Even the patriotism of
people who offer a different road has been questioned. Well, not any
longer, and I have no fear about casting this vote against this because
this is the wrong policy for Iraq. This continues the open-ended lack
of accountability. This allows the President to certify whatever the
President wants, to waive whatever the President wants.
I promise my colleagues, we will be back here in September having the
same debate with the same benchmark questions, and they will not have
moved in their accountability. Even the strategy is still changing.
Let me ask my colleagues something: When can you remember in American
history hearing about a President of the United States casting about to
find a general to act as the czar for a war, where four four-star
generals said no to the President?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. General Sheehan, a career military man--these are people
whose lives are committed to defending our Nation, whose lives are
committed to the troops, who, when a President would call them, you
would think would be so honored and so unbelievably challenged by the
moment, they would say: Of course, Mr. President, I will do what I need
to do for my country. But four of them said no. And one of them was
quoted, in saying no: Why would I do that because they don't know where
the hell they're going. And as he said it, he said: I would go over
there for a year, I would get an ulcer, I would come back, and it would
be the same thing.
We have an obligation to vote for a change. That is why I will cast
my vote ``no'' on this supplemental--yes for the money for troops; yes
for care; yes for readiness; yes for all the things we need to do; but,
most importantly, a ``yes'' that we are not able to cast for a change
in the entire dynamic with the Iraqis themselves and the accountability
we will hold this administration to, the accountability we hold the
Iraqis to, and, ultimately, a strategy for real success, not just in
Iraq but in the Middle East, where we have made Hamas more powerful,
Iran more powerful, Nasrallah and Hezbollah more powerful, and our
interests are being set back.
It is time for us to get the policy right. That is how you support
the troops.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in March and April I voted for an
emergency spending bill that would have fully funded our troops in Iraq
but would have changed their mission--would have changed their
mission--to a sound mission. That mission would have taken our troops
out of the middle of a civil war and put them into a support role, as
the Iraq Study Group suggested, training Iraqi soldiers and police. We
would have allowed them to fight al-Qaida and protect our troops.
The President did not agree to that, and he will not agree to that.
As a matter of fact, the President will not agree to any change in
strategy in Iraq. That is more than a shame. For the American people,
it is a tragedy.
It does not seem to matter how many Americans die in Iraq, how many
funerals we have here at home, or what the American people think. This
President will not budge. This new bill on Iraq keeps the status quo.
Oh, it has a few frills around the outside, a few reports, a few words
about benchmarks--while our troops die and our troops get blown up.
Now, I understand why this legislation is before us today. It is
because this President wants to continue his one-man show in Iraq. That
is the only thing he will sign. The President does not respect the
Congress. What is worse, he does not respect the American people when
it comes to Iraq. He wants to brush us all off like some annoying spot
on his jacket. Well, that is wrong, and we won't be brushed off.
We have lost 3,427 American soldiers in Iraq. Of those, 731--or 21
percent--have been from my State of California or based in my State of
California. Mr. President, 25,549 American soldiers have been wounded.
If you come to my office, on big boards, I have the names of the
California dead and they are now blocking
[[Page S6692]]
the doorway, there are so many names, and we have to send the charts
back for smaller and smaller print.
Today, after several days of worrying and praying, we received the
tragic news of the death of PVT Joseph Anzack, Jr., 20 years old, of
Torrance, CA, who was abducted during a deadly ambush south of Baghdad
almost 2 weeks ago. One member of his platoon, SPC Daniel Seitz, summed
it up this way to the Associated Press:
It just angers me that it's just another friend I've got to
lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13 friends
since I've been here, and I don't know if I can take any more
of this.
He should not have to. But with this bill, he will.
The first half of this year has already been deadlier than any 6-
month period since the war began more than 4 long years ago. In this
month alone, 83 U.S. servicemembers have already been killed in Iraq.
Let me be clear: There are many things in this bill I strongly
support--many provisions I worked side by side with my colleagues to
fight for, for our troops, for our veterans, for their mental health,
for our farmers, for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, who so deserve
our attention--but I must take a stand against this Iraq war and,
therefore, I will vote ``no'' on this emergency spending bill.
Mr. President, we are not going away. You cannot brush us off like
some spot on your jacket because we are going to be back.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern and deep regret
over the conference report to H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Appropriations Act of 2007.
I am extremely disappointed our troops have to continue to pay the
price for our political posturing on this legislation and the inclusion
of funding for pet programs in a must-pass military funding bill.
I want to make very clear my strong support for the members of our
Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing around the world every
day. I have the greatest admiration for all of them, for their
commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national
security. They are all true heroes, and they are the ones who are doing
the heavy lifting and making the great sacrifices in our country's name
so we might continue to be the land of the free and the home of the
brave.
We are faced with a vote on a bill that our troops need, but the
troops are not the focus of this legislation. This supplemental is yet
another example of a Congress whose fiscal house is not in order. It
contains more than $17 billion in unrequested items--$17 billion in
funding that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
The intent of this legislation is to fund our troops and to provide
them with the resources they need to win the war on terror. Emergency
supplementals are not intended to be a Christmas tree that includes
presents in the form of every Member's favorite pet programs.
Unfortunately, the bill we will be voting on is just that.
This legislation includes funding for a number of programs I would
support on their own merits. It includes agricultural disaster
assistance for our Nation's ranchers who have suffered through years of
drought. Many of those are in Wyoming. It includes funding for the
Secure Rural Schools program. These are both important priorities for
people in Wyoming, and although I support the programs on their merits,
I do not support their inclusion in this emergency war supplemental.
This legislation is not intended to deal with drought relief. It is
not intended to deal with SCHIP. It is not intended to deal with
wildland fire management. It is intended to fund our troops. Instead of
attaching these unrelated programs to a must-pass troop funding bill, a
fiscally responsible Congress would examine each of these programs on
their own merits through our regular appropriations process--or else we
ought to call ourselves irresponsible.
The American people have made clear that we need to be fiscally
responsible. They have made clear they do not support spending billions
of taxpayers' dollars with little or no debate. Unfortunately, if this
legislation passes, that is exactly what we are going to do.
The war supplemental also touches on various issues before the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, including minimum
wage and pensions. Unfortunately, our committee was not consulted on
this language nor made any part of the discussions on this
supplemental.
The supplemental contains a provision that will boost the Federal
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. I have always believed any
increase in the minimum wage must be accompanied by appropriate relief
for those small business employers who have to absorb those costs. It
is a mandate. Small businesses are the proven engine for our economy,
and they are the greatest source of employment opportunity for U.S.
workers. A raise in the minimum wage is of no value to a worker without
a job or a job seeker without prospects.
It was for these very reasons the minimum wage package which passed
the Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support--overwhelming
bipartisan support; I think there were two votes in opposition--
contained a series of provisions designed to provide relief for small
businesses. That is how we got it. That was bipartisan.
The Senate-passed versions of the minimum wage legislation contained
significant tax relief that was targeted to small businesses and
industries most likely to employ minimum wage workers. Unfortunately,
much of this tax relief has been stripped from the current version of
the supplemental. While some tax relief remains, the lion's share of
that relief is contained in the Work Opportunity Tax Credit provisions,
which, as a practical matter, are not utilized by small businesses.
While the bill does continue to contain important regulatory relief
provisions, such as compliance assistance for small businesses, and a
small business childcare grant authorization, the tax relief this body
overwhelmingly determined was necessary to help small businesses offset
the cost of a new Federal minimum wage is no longer contained in the
legislative package, nor were any of us consulted. I cannot support
legislation that dramatically raises the Federal minimum wage and fails
to acknowledge and adequately offset the impact of such an increase on
our small businesses.
With respect to pensions, last year the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions worked with other committees in landmark
legislation to author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding
rules in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 was signed
into law in August 2006, following extensive--extensive--bipartisan,
bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent on ensuring that
retirement plans are properly funded and that Americans' retirement
savings would be there when they need it.
One of the fundamental reasons for pension funding reform was to
ensure--to ensure--the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation and its ability to guarantee benefits in plans that are
underfunded. I am very concerned that there are provisions in the war
supplemental that the House leadership claims are technical corrections
to the Pension Protection Act. Any changes to the Pension Protection
Act must be considered by the committees that have jurisdiction, the
ones that know about all the intricacies and interrelationships of the
parts that are in there, instead of legislating on an appropriations
bill.
Chairman Kennedy and I sent a letter to Senate leadership on Tuesday
night citing our concerns with the House approach. I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Committee on Health Education, Labor, and
Pensions,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader,
U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders: Last year, we worked with other committees to
author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding rules
in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) was
signed into law in August 2006, following extensive
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent
[[Page S6693]]
on ensuring that retirement plans are properly funded, and
that Americans' retirement savings will be there when they
need it. This law passed the Senate with overwhelming
support, 93-5.
We understand that a number of pension provisions
originating in the House may be included in the emergency war
spending bill. While moving forward on pensions technical
corrections is a goal that many members share, moving House
pension technical corrections separately on this spending
bill from Senate priorities creates a disparity. We are very
concerned at this disregard for equal consideration and lack
of discussion of Senate priorities and prerogatives.
Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP
Committee's jurisdiction, and we recognize that immediate
technical corrections are needed to the PPA. Bicameral,
staff-level meetings are taking place regularly, and we are
working with the Administration to ensure that the needed
corrections are promptly addressed. The HELP Committee has a
history of finding common ground on complex legislative
challenges, and we are confident that we will reach consensus
on a package soon. We urge you to provide us with the
opportunity to bring a finished pension technical package to
the floor in a timely fashion in order to give our colleagues
the chance to have their priorities considered.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy,
Chairman.
Michael B. Enzi,
Ranking Member.
Mr. ENZI. Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP
Committee's jurisdiction. I recognize that technical corrections are
needed to the over 900 pages of the Pension Protection Act. Bicameral,
staff-level meetings are taking place at this very time, and we are
working with the administration to assure that the needed corrections
are promptly addressed. With the huge bipartisan, bicameral support
that had before, there should be no difficulty with that, and people
have been working on it since the very time that we passed it. House
leadership, by cherry-picking certain technical corrections intended
for certain special interest groups, is not the way to legislate, and I
would contend that they are not technical corrections.
Chairman Kennedy and I, together with Chairman Baucus and Senator
Grassley, have worked extremely well on making sure that everyone has a
voice at the table and that the process is transparent.
Generally, these provisions undo, in a piecemeal fashion, what was
accomplished in the Pension Protection Act as far as strengthening
funding requirements. It permits some plans to choose to have reduced
funding obligations and reduced pension benefit guarantee premiums. In
fact, it means that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation must
refund some premiums to some employers.
Again, I want to provide our troops with the funding and the
resources they need to be successful in all their tasks. Unfortunately,
this conference does not make our troops the priority of congressional
business. The men and women of our armed services deserve better than
this spending bill. The people of the United States deserve better.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the
supplemental appropriations bill we will be considering shortly.
Let me be very clear. I strongly disagree with the President on our
course in Iraq. I was one of only 23 Members of the Senate to vote
against going to the war in Iraq, and I am committed to changing the
course, redeploying our troops, and refocusing our efforts on fighting
the global war on terror. I have voted time and again for resolutions
and amendments to change direction. I believe the President is wrong to
continue on with an open-ended commitment to an Iraqi government that
has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and take responsibility for its
own country. I believe the President is wrong to continue to ignore the
warnings of generals, experts, and the will of the American people.
But I also believe the President is wrong when, in his stubborn
refusal to change, he also withholds money for our troops whom he has
sent into harm's way. The President did just that on May 1 when he
vetoed a congressionally approved supplemental that provided $4 billion
more than he asked for for our troops. When the President vetoed that
bill, he was the one who denied our troops the resources, equipment,
and funding they need to do their jobs safely. The President was wrong,
but he hasn't changed his mind. He and the majority of Republicans in
Congress are blocking funding for our troops.
As we head into this Memorial Day, I will vote for this supplemental
because the President has blocked this funding for too long, and I will
vote for this supplemental because Democrats in Congress have changed
our course. With this bill, we have taken a responsible path forward,
in spite of the President, on many of our Nation's most pressing
issues.
This bill, for the first time, funds the needs of our veterans and
wounded warriors who have sacrificed for all of us and whose needs the
President has refused to acknowledge as the cost of war. This bill
makes our homeland more secure by investing critical funds in our ports
and our borders, and this bill aids the recovery of hard-hit
communities across the country and in the gulf coast where families
have continued to suffer due to neglect from this administration. In
just 5 short months, Democrats have provided a new commitment to the
American people, a new direction in Iraq, and we are going to continue
on this new path to change.
From the start of the war in Iraq, the Republican Congress allowed
President Bush a free hand. They held few oversight hearings. They
demanded no accountability. There were no wide-ranging investigations
into this administration's endless mistakes. Year after year, they sent
the President blank checks in the form of emergency supplementals. Now,
5 years into this war, after 5 years without accountability, 3,400 of
our heroes have died, and over 25,000 have been injured. Our troops are
now policing a civil war in Iraq. Billions of taxpayer dollars are
unaccounted for. The reconstruction of Iraq is far from complete, and
our veterans are facing awful conditions when they return home.
In November, voters asked for an end to this. They voted for us to
stand up, ask difficult questions, and hold those who make mistakes
accountable for them. Democrats heard that call.
Immediately after being sworn in, we began to hold hearings. We heard
from military and foreign affairs experts and called administration
officials to testify--under oath. We began conducting investigations
into prewar intelligence, the waste of taxpayer dollars, and the
treatment of our veterans. Democrats began holding vote after vote on
Iraq. We forced Republicans to make clear to Americans where they stood
on the war: Are they for escalation or redeployment? Are they for
allowing Iraqis to continue to shirk their responsibility or for
forcing them to stand up?
In January, President Bush ignored calls from Congress to follow the
Iraq Study Group recommendations. Instead, he escalated our troops in
Iraq. Congressional Republicans refused to criticize the escalation and
stood by the President and attacked anyone who spoke out against that
surge.
But congressional Democrats stood strong. We upheld our
constitutional duties and what Americans put us in office for--
conducting oversight and holding the administration accountable for its
actions. This trend continued for months, and eventually, though
slowly, some of my Republican colleagues began separating from the
President and siding with us and the American people. After months of
this, Democrats overcame Republican opposition and passed a bill with
redeployment provisions. We sent that bill, based on the advice from
the Iraq Study Group and military leaders and supported by 64 percent
of Americans, to the President. We hoped he would read that bill. We
hoped he would realize it was the best way forward in Iraq. But he
didn't, and he vetoed it.
Now, finally, after months of blindly following the President, more
and more of our colleagues on the other side are beginning to stand up
to the President, demanding benchmarks and a timeline for change in
Iraq.
It is clear that despite a slim majority in the House and only a one-
vote margin in the Senate, Democratic efforts are working. Today is
further evidence of that.
The bill we pass tonight will not be perfect. It doesn't go nearly as
far as many of us would like. We, along with the American people, have
made it clear what we want--a new direction that forces Iraqis to take
control of their own country. Unfortunately, the President has said he
would veto that bill.
[[Page S6694]]
So today we have a bill that takes a step forward with our changing
course in Iraq. It forces the White House to acknowledge the will of
the American people and the role of Congress, it pressures Iraqis to
stand up, and, importantly, it funds our troops. The hard truth, of
course, is that not enough Democrats are here to override a veto. We
realize that another veto will not serve our troops well. They need our
funds; they don't need another White House delay. So we are moving
ahead.
I will say it again: This bill is not all I hoped for, but this war
is not going to be brought to a close in 1 day. It is not going to be
brought to a close with one bill. We will support our troops, and we
will bring an end to the war in Iraq. We will continue to debate and
force votes on this war week after week after week. Americans will
continue to hear where the Republicans stand on this war.
We face terror threats around the world. We must, and we will, defeat
them. Unfortunately, the Iraqi civil war is not making us more secure.
We do need to refocus our fight back on the war on terror, and we do
need to rebuild our military. I support a new direction in Iraq so that
we can focus on the larger security challenges our country faces, and
they are high. But I know we can improve security at home, that we can
track down and eliminate terrorists around the world, and that we can
take care of our servicemembers. It is a matter of getting our
priorities straight. Redeploying our troops from Iraq is an important
first step toward getting those priorities straight. It is a step the
Senate must take, just as passing this bill tonight is one.
This bill, however, is about much more than just Iraq; it is about
taking care of the best military in the world, both when they are
deployed and when they return home. It is about rebuilding here in
America, on the gulf coast and on family farms from coast to coast, and
it is about providing hard-working Americans struggling to care for
their families with a desperately needed raise.
I am not satisfied with the Iraq language in this bill. I disagree
with Senator Warner's language. I voted against it last week. But I am
proud of what we were able to accomplish in this bill--in particular,
taking care of the troops, which this bill does. It includes billions
more than the President requested to train and equip and take care of
our fighting men and women and to make sure we care for them when they
come home.
So tonight, when we vote, I will cast my vote as a yes--not for the
Warner language, not for the language on Iraq, but to make sure that
those men and women whom we have sent to battle, despite how I feel,
have the care and support they need.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of the
supplemental.
I opposed the authorization to go to war in Iraq because I thought it
would be a tragic error, and it has proved to be. Iraq did not attack
this country; al-Qaida did. Sometimes I think that is somehow lost in
this discussion. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, led
by Saddam Hussein, who masterminded the attacks of September 11. That
is a fact. That is a reality. I think it was one of the great mistakes
in American history that we launched an attack on Iraq before ever
finishing business with al-Qaida.
Now we face a difficult choice. We have 160,000 troops in the field,
and I believe we must fund those troops until there is a responsible
plan to redeploy them. Unfortunately, this President has absolutely
refused to construct such a plan. I believe that leaves us with little
choice but to fund the troops in this resolution before us tonight.
We also have in this package a matter of great interest to the people
whom I represent, so I would like to speak for just a moment on a
separate subject; that is, the disaster relief which is contained in
this legislation.
I introduced a comprehensive disaster plan 3 years ago. The Senate
has supported it, most recently in a vote of 74 to 23 on the Senate
floor. The House supported it 2 weeks ago in a vote of over 302 Members
in support. Today, it received 348 votes. Now we have an assurance we
did not have before--that the disaster package will be signed by
President Bush. This has been a long, hard fight, but it is critically
important to the people whom I represent.
These have been the headlines all across my State:
Crops Lost To Flooding.
Beet Crop Smallest in 10 Years.
Heavy Rain Leads to Crop Diseases.
Rain Halts Harvest.
Area Farmers Battle Flooding and Disease.
This is the picture which we saw in my State 2 years ago. I flew over
southeastern North Dakota, and it looked like a giant lake. Over a
million acres were prevented from even being planted. Another million
acres had tremendous losses in production.
Then, irony of ironies, last year we had one of the worst droughts in
our Nation's history--by scientific measurement, the third worst
drought in American history--and the Dakotas were the epicenter of that
drought.
Mr. President, it got very little attention. It wasn't like
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which were disasters that were immediately
evident, and which received enormous national media attention. This was
a slow-developing tragedy but a tragedy nonetheless. The Dakotas were
right at the heart of it--North Dakota and South Dakota. It was rated
as an exceptional drought--not extreme or severe or moderate, which are
the other measurements, but an exceptional drought. Exceptional it was.
Here is the map of the U.S. Drought Monitor. They concluded it was
the third worst drought in our Nation's history, right down the center
of our country.
As you can see in this picture taken near my home in Burleigh County,
ND, the corn is supposed to be knee-high by July 4, but it was just
over the edge of this man's boot. I went into a cornfield that was
irrigated. The farmer started shucking the corn, and every other row
was empty. I asked him how can that be? He told me: Senator, this week
it was 112 degrees one day. We had day after day where it was over 100
degrees.
This led to a devastating series of losses. The bankers of my State
came to me and said: If there is not help, 5 to 10 percent of our
clients are going to be out of business. That is how serious and
consequential this is. Without this help, thousands of farm and ranch
families will be forced off the land.
This legislation is funded as an emergency and doesn't require
offsets from other programs. This is a change from the 2004 agriculture
disaster package. Producers will be eligible for assistance for one
year only. Assistance payments plus the value of crop sales and crop
insurance cannot exceed 95 percent of the expected crop value, so
nobody is getting rich.
It doesn't allow producers to receive multiple benefits for the same
loss. So there is no double-dipping.
Crop assistance eligibility requires a 35-percent loss before there
is a dime of assistance, and the payment rate is 42 percent of the
established price for insured crops.
Livestock producers are eligible for both a livestock compensation
program to help offset forage losses and feed costs and a livestock
indemnity program to help cover death losses.
I thank my colleagues in the Senate and the House who have worked
tirelessly for the last 3 years to help deliver this assistance. It has
been bipartisan in the Senate. It has been a long and hard fight, but
it is going to be a lifeline to thousands of farm and ranch families in
my State. This is a bill the President should sign.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am glad this long and unfortunate
political process has apparently come to an end, so we can now provide
the funding for our troops that has been needed for some time. The
failure to do so has created uncertainty and ambiguity and has, I
believe, undermined our policies in Iraq in a number of different ways.
Historically, politics have stopped at the water's edge. That was a
cardinal rule of American foreign policy that you might agree with or
not, but you would not criticize fundamental decisions made by the
United States while things are ongoing in various places in the world
and, certainly, you would not take steps and actions that would
undermine our troops in combat someplace in the world.
[[Page S6695]]
Vigorous debate is absolutely a part of who we are as a Nation. A lot
of people who have been critical of our war efforts in Iraq have made
suggestions that have been good. A number of their criticisms have been
correct, and it is certainly welcome and a part of our heritage that we
would have that kind of debate. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But
the delays we have been seeing now in actually providing the funding
necessary for our military men and women in harm's way has been too
long. I believe it has had a tendency to embolden our enemies and raise
questions in the minds of our own soldiers.
So as I have said a number of times on the floor of the Senate, those
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan today are there for one reason, and
that is because we sent them. They are doing tough, hot, demanding,
dangerous work. I have been there six times. I have to tell you, I have
never been more impressed. They don't complain. They do their work with
professionalism. They care about what they are doing. They believe in
what they are doing. They want to succeed, and I tell you that with
every fiber in my being. It is their desire to help the country of Iraq
achieve stability and progress.
They are executing lawful policies of the U.S. Government. That
includes the Congress--the House and Senate--as well as the President
of the United States. We have, through lawful processes, deployed them
to execute policies that we have decided on. This Congress, of course,
has the power to bring them home at any moment that we desire. I think
people are wrestling with that. Some think they should come home now.
Some think that is not the appropriate decision. The President believes
that is not the appropriate decision. We have accepted and have
fundamentally affirmed the surge that has sent additional troops there.
They are there to execute our mission. That is all I wish to say. They
are there to execute our mission.
I talked to a mother not long ago whose son was killed in Iraq. She
told me her son told her he believed in what he was doing. He told me
when they went into neighborhoods, the women and children were glad
they were there. They wanted them in the neighborhoods. That is all I
am telling you. You can read what you want to in the newspaper. But
because it brought a sense of security there, they wanted them there. I
know there are limits to our ability to achieve what we would like to
achieve, no matter what we would like to achieve; I know we are not
unlimited in our ability to achieve it. We have to be realistic, and we
cannot commit a single soldier to an effort a single day longer than we
conclude is an appropriate thing for them to be doing. If we think it
is not justified and worthwhile, we need to bring them home. I
certainly agree with that.
This is a serious discussion we have been having, and I don't dispute
the people who have different views of how this ought to occur. I will
say again that real support of the soldiers in harm's way means we
affirm them and their mission as long as we fund their mission, as long
as we order them there. You may say we didn't order them there, but we
did order them there. We have funded them to stay there, according to
the President's tactical decision. But we authorized him to do so, and
we can end that authorization as we choose.
But the truth is, we have invested a tremendous amount in Iraq.
General Petraeus--what a fabulous general he is--told us the truth, I
believe. The truth is it is hard, but it is not impossible. He also has
said what we are doing there is important. It is important that a
stable, decent government be maintained in Iraq. That is not a little
thing; it is a very important thing. The soldiers who have been there--
the soldiers who serve--would be, indeed, in pain and be hurt if we
prematurely give up on what they have sacrificed to achieve and what so
many of them truly believe in, if you talk to them.
I have to tell you that the surge of troops into Iraq was a bitter
pill to me. I remember distinctly when General Casey said in late 2005
he believed we could start bringing home troops in 2006. That was
absolutely music to my ears and what I wanted to hear. Then he said he
had to delay the troops coming home because the sophisticated,
sustained effort by al-Qaida to attack Shia individuals in holy places
had created a reaction by Shia, with the formation of a Shia militia,
and they were killing Sunni individuals and that broke out into a spate
of violence in Baghdad, the capital city, the central focus of Iraq,
and that was extremely unfortunate.
So my thinking is this: Benchmarks for the Iraqi Government--if we
write that correctly and don't do it in a way that is unwise and
counterproductive, as I believe this language is, at least it would be
language the President can accept, and I would be prepared to accept
the demand that they do certain things. That is all right with me. Our
commitment is not open-ended. We cannot continue to try to lift a
government that cannot function effectively. We want them to function.
We want them to have a healthy, prosperous government. There are some
good things that have happened--really and truly, there have been good
things. But there are very difficult things also that are not going
well. This is a challenge to the Iraqi Government.
I truly hope the benchmarks and language in this funding resolution
will be such that it will be a positive spur to the Iraqi Government to
confront their reconciliation difficulties, spur them to reach
agreements on other constitutional questions that are critical, and be
an effective step in helping that Government stand up and assume
responsibility for its own fate.
I have to say I am not comfortable and am indeed uneasy with high
troop levels sustained in what would be considered an occupation or a
stand-in for the democratically elected Government of Iraq. That
Government has to stand up and assume greater and greater
responsibility. I do hope and pray that they will because it is
exceedingly important that they do.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think it is important that, in response
to the comments of my friend Senator Enzi, I set the record straight
for the Senate and the American people regarding the practice of
including unrequested emergency funding in war supplementals.
The emergency supplemental bills approved by Republican Congresses in
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 included emergency funding for many of the
same issues that are in the emergency supplemental, such as:
agriculture disaster assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--
$500 million; border security--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$1.9
billion; pandemic flu--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$2.3 billion;
wildland fire suppression--fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act,
which carried $25.8 billion war supplemental--$500 million; airline
security--fiscal year 2003 war supplemental--$2.396 billion;
and fisheries assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$112
million.
The White House has complained about Democrats including agricultural
disaster assistance in the war supplemental. Not only did the
Republican Congress approve a targeted agriculture disaster package in
2006, but there is also precedent for including assistance to a sector
in the economy that has been hard hit by a disaster. In 2003, Congress
approved $515 million of relief for the aviation industry.
The White House has also complained about Democrats including other
matter in a war supplemental, such as the minimum wage increase.
Yet under Republican control, war supplemental laws included such
unrelated matters as the REAL ID Act, fiscal year 2005, a temporary
worker program, fiscal year 2005, and budget process provisions, fiscal
year 2006.
So I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify for my colleagues the
real record when it comes to meeting the needs of the American people
in emergency supplemental appropriation bills.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, while there are many aspects of this
conference report that I cannot support, I am pleased that it will
finally allow us to get a minimum wage bill to the President's desk.
The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for more than 10
years, but now--finally Americans across the country will get the raise
they need and deserve. For the millions of working families who will
benefit, this increase may be long overdue, but it is nonetheless
something to celebrate.
Mr. President, 13 million Americans will see more money in their
paychecks
[[Page S6696]]
for the first time in a decade. They will have a few more dollars to
spend on the essentials of life, or maybe they will have a few more
hours to spare to spend time with their families; 6 million children
will have better food, better health, and better opportunities for the
future.
I deeply regret that this vital increase was so long in coming. The
minimum wage bill passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins
in January and February of this year. Had we been able to send that
bill to the President's desk right away, the first phase of the raise
would already be in effect.
Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not
let that happen. They prevented the minimum wage bill from going to
conference until they could make sure it included a big enough tax
giveaway for businesses. That is why were here talking about it today.
We had to put in on a bill they couldn't block to get it to the
President's desk.
We have overcome many obstacles--and faced every procedural trick in
the book--to get this minimum wage increase across the finish line.
Democrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works
hard for a living should have to live in poverty.
But we didn't do it alone. The passage of the minimum wage is not
merely a legislative victory--it's a victory for the American people.
After years of delay and inexcusable inaction by Congress, the
American people took this fight into their own hands. They started a
grassroots movement that spread across the Nation like wildfire. They
pounded the pavements. They prayed in their pews. They refused to take
no for an answer. We are here today because of their efforts, and they
deserve the gratitude of our Nation.
The minimum wage is one of the great achievements of our proud
democracy. It is a reflection of our values, and a cornerstone of the
American dream. It is about the kind of country we want to be.
Americans want to live in a country where everyone has opportunity
and the chance to succeed. Where anyone who works hard and plays by the
rules can build a better life for their family. Where there is no
permanent underclass, and everyone has hope for a brighter future. When
the President signs a minimum wage increase into law, we will be one
step closer to that noble goal.
Certainly, the increase we have passed today is only the first of
many steps we must take to address the problems of poverty and
inequality in our society. There is no doubt that we need to do much,
much more. But it's important to take a moment today to celebrate this
victory. Raising the minimum wage will add dignity to the lives of
millions of working families. It is one of the proudest achievements of
this new Congress.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, due to a family medical emergency, I am
returning to Minnesota this evening and will be unable to cast my vote
in favor of the supplemental appropriations bill. I believe the Senate
is taking responsible action by passing critical funding for the troops
without attaching it to arbitrary timelines for withdrawal. Moreover,
this bill contains critical agricultural disaster assistance funding
that I have been fighting to deliver for Minnesota's farmers for over a
year. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the
supplemental.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am voting
against the Iraq war supplemental. I wish I didn't have to. I wish that
I looked at Iraq and saw a stable, united government, a society free of
terrorists and insurgents, and liberal democracy around the corner, if
only we spent another billion dollars, or a hundred lives, or another
year of waiting. I wish that our surge had, at long last, brought quiet
to the tortured city of Baghdad. I wish that our President's policies
were working.
I wish that I could look at Iraq and say, with a clear voice and a
clean conscience: I share our President's confidence.
I wish; and even as I wish, the truth tells me otherwise. It tells me
that 3,415 men and women in uniform have already sacrificed everything
in Iraq, with no end in sight. It tells me that our military is being
hollowed out by the Iraq experience, that two-thirds of our Army in the
United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are forced to
report: Not ready for duty, sir. It tells me that the American people
demand an end to this war, and that the Iraqi people--for whose sake we
toppled a dictator and established elections, precisely so we could
hear their voice--demand the same.
I look at this bill and I don't see the truth in it. It exists in a
world in which the President's plans are all meeting their mark. It
gives us a status-quo strategy that has failed and failed again. It
writes the President a blank check.
I had hoped that this supplemental would have passed with strong
timetables for withdrawal, a unambiguous line in the sand. A
responsible supplemental would have established definitive guidance for
the President to transition the mission of our forces away from combat
operations. It would have defined that mission clearly as counter-
terrorism, training of Iraqi forces, and American force protection. It
would have required a diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq. And it
would have held both the President and the Iraqi Government
accountable. The Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill contained just such
timetables, and mandated a responsible transition in mission, all
backed by Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
But I cannot, in good conscience, support the half-measure that has
taken its place. Instead of establishing realistic timetables, this
supplemental does one thing only: It delays for 4 months, until funding
runs out again, the decision we all know is coming: ultimately, combat
troops will be redeployed from Iraq. This bill allows 4 more months of
reckless endangerment of our troops and our national security.
A Senator shouldn't talk like that, some will say. I will be told I
am declaring surrender right here on the Senate floor. Those are the
words that will come from the other side of the aisle, big, grand
words--surrender, triumph, defeat, victory--words that will blur and
swirl together until they lose all mooring in reality. The President's
supporters want to paint us a picture of a world in which we line up on
a field of battle, the terrorists on one side and America on the other,
and fight pitched warfare until one side waves the white flag.
But Iraq does not exist in that world. General Petraeus tells us that
there will be no military solution; so does the Iraq Study Group.
Senator Hagel, a war hero and member of the Foreign Relations
Committee, tells us that ``there will be no victory or defeat in Iraq .
. . Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there . . . Iraq is
not a prize to be won or lost.''
So I am not conceding defeat in Iraq--because there is no defeat to
be conceded. There is only the hope that Sunni, Shia, and Kurd will
reconcile in government, call off their militias and death squads, and
turn against the foreign terrorists who have helped to spark this civil
war. Our combat presence in Iraq cannot make that hope real. We can,
and must, continue to assist the Iraqis in trying to reach these
goals--but we cannot do it with military might alone. In the end, the
challenges in Iraq can only be addressed through political means.
We are told, again and again, that we are failing to ``support the
troops''--support that is subject to only the vaguest of measurements:
``messages'' and ``signals'' and ``resolve.''
We answer with fact. We answer with young lives lost and dollars
squandered. We answer with the wisdom of James Baker and Lee Hamilton.
We ask how any conceivable definition of ``support'' would leave our
troops stranded in a civil war of strangers, with no mission or end in
sight. And we say, unequivocally, that the only way to support our
troops is to bring them home--now.
In fact, from the very outset of this war, it has been the
President's defense policies that have hollowed out our Armed Forces
and further threatened our national security. To reverse this
negligence, Democrats have taken concrete action for our troops, again
and again.
In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical protective gear
identified by the Army, which the Bush administration had failed to
include in its budget.
[[Page S6697]]
But it was blocked by the administration and its allies.
In 2004 and 2005, I authored legislation, signed into law, to
reimburse troops for equipment they had to purchase on their own,
because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to provide them with the body
armor and other gear they needed to stay alive.
And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I
offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to
replace and repair thousands of war-battered tanks, aircraft, and
vehicles. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law.
That is support--support that can be measured, support that carries a
cost beyond words.
And it is support that will continue, even if this supplemental
fails, as it should. The Defense Department has ample funds to maintain
our combat troops in Iraq until they can be withdrawn responsibly. The
failure of this bill will not turn funds off like a spigot--the
military simply does not work like that. Instead, our troops are
supported by the more than $150 billion in the Pentagon's regular
operations and maintenance account--and in the meantime, we might
negotiate with the President for a responsible drawdown of combat
troops. Any implication that we are stranding our soldiers in the
desert--without fuel or bullets or rations--is totally specious.
And it follows that the President's Memorial Day deadline is totally
arbitrary. The lives of our troops are more important than the
President's vacation schedule. Why should he set timelines for
Democrats but not for Iraqis?
Instead, let us vote down this bill and then join President Bush at
the table, with the dignity befitting an equal branch of government,
and the authority vested in us by the American people and our
Constitution. Let us bring this disastrous war to a responsible end.
And after 4 years of failed policy, let our voice be loud and
unmistakeable: This far, and no further.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote against the fiscal year 2007
emergency supplemental conference report. Although there are many sound
and worthy provisions in this bill--such as assistance for Afghanistan
and other countries, and additional funds not requested by the
administration to help address the backlog of equipment for the
National Guard--the inescapable fact is that this legislation would not
reverse this administration's disastrous Iraq policy. I simply cannot
vote in favor of a bill, containing tens of billions of additional
dollars for the President's policy in Iraq, that does not begin to
bring our troops home.
As one of the 23 Senators who opposed authorizing this war, I believe
it is vital that we send a strong signal that Congress is going to
exercise its article I constitutional powers and end our central
involvement in Iraq's civil war. Every Senator--for or against this
military adventure--must take a stand on whether to continue the status
quo or change course. That, at the end of the day, is what this vote
represents.
Congress had a workable and I believe widely acceptable plan in the
original version of this supplemental bill. Taking a page from the Iraq
Study Group recommendations, the plan was to end the military mission
in Iraq as we currently know it. We would reduce American forces to the
contingent necessary for limited Iraqi troop training, counterterrorism
operations, and protecting remaining American personnel.
I and others joined with Senator Feingold in an effort to strengthen
that position by ensuring that no funding could go toward deployment,
beyond those narrow purposes. About a month ago, we all saw the
President veto the supplemental bill. Then last week, the President
muscled his congressional allies to vote against the stronger Feingold-
Reid-Leahy provision.
So what we are left with is this new version of the supplemental--the
status quo, more of the same old stay the course. The reality is that
this new conference report does nothing to stop the President's open-
ended escalation. It will not force the Iraqis to make the difficult
political compromises which they need to make. Nor will it begin a
redeployment of American forces. The final legislation drops the
mandatory timetable for planning and commencing redeployment with a
targeted completion date. Beyond some reporting requirements, there is
no limitation on troop levels.
What the legislation does do is limit our aid to the Iraqi government
if actions toward reconciliation are not taken, although the President
may waive these limitations.
I agree that we should tie our aid to the Iraqi government to clear
benchmarks. But that alone is not sufficient. The reality is that
despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, the violence
has increased. We all know that the trends are going in the wrong
direction. This piecemeal approach assures that our troops will remain
in the middle of harm's way for the foreseeable future.
And when it comes to changing the dynamic in Iraq, it is troop levels
that matter. The introduction of more forces through this open-ended
escalation that the President calls the surge is sending the wrong
signal to the Iraqis and to countries in the region that have interests
there. It says they do not have to make the tough decisions because the
American forces are there to do the dirty work, to spill their blood
and to contain sectarian militias or deal with unwelcome foreign
fighters.
Rory Stewart, a perspicacious observer with hands-on experience in
Iraq, rightly pointed out in a recent public forum that our presence
there is fundamentally undermining Iraq's political system,
``infantilizing'' Iraq politics, to use his phrase. He notes that Iraqi
politicians are far more capable of making deals and reaching
compromise than we think, but that our troop presence allows them to
play hardball with each other. ``Were we to leave,'' Mr. Stewart says,
``they would be weaker and under more pressure to compromise.''
As I have said, there are many aspects of this supplemental that I
support. We have, for example, included $1 billion in unrequested
funding to help rebuild our National Guard, which is suffering from
dangerously low equipment stocks because so much of the Guard's
equipment has been sent to Iraq. We have funded the Marla Ruzicka Fund
to aid innocent Iraqi civilians who have suffered casualties, and a
similar program to aid civilian victims of war in Afghanistan. There is
other funding for refugees and humanitarian assistance in Africa and
the Middle East, as well as for Kosovo. I am gratified that we have
been able to include funding for elections in Nepal, to support
reintegration of former combatants in northern Uganda, and to begin the
clean up of dioxin-contaminated sites in Vietnam and for health
programs in nearby communities.
These are just a few of the things carried over from the original,
vetoed version of the bill that I support and for which I have worked
hard. I thank Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the State, Foreign
Operations Subcommittee, and our counterparts in the House, Chairwoman
Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf, for working together in a bipartisan way
to allocate the foreign assistance funding in this bill.
Yet there is a central fact that we must meet head on. This war has
been a costly disaster for our country. Our ability to fight terrorism,
pursue our larger national security and foreign policy goals, and
secure the welfare of every American has been diminished because of it.
Thousands of our troops have lost their lives or suffered grievous,
life-altering injuries. Tens of thousands--and possibly hundreds of
thousands--of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives. We have opened a
gaping wound in the Middle East and severely damaged our image and our
influence. This war has been a foreign policy failure of epic
proportions.
It is time to bring our troops home. It is time to show the Iraqi
people that they cannot expect us to make these sacrifices if they
won't make the hard decisions that are spread before them. I regret
that this legislation whitewashes what was a reasonable, good faith
effort to bring real pressure to bear in Baghdad and beyond. I cannot
in good conscious vote for it.
defense subcommittee funding
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to act on H.R. 2206,
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007,
which will fully fund the needs of our men and
[[Page S6698]]
women in uniform. The process that we have used to reach this point has
been somewhat different from our normal course of business. As such, I
wanted to engage my cochairman of the Defense Subcommittee, the Senator
for Alaska, in a colloquy on the defense portion of this bill. The bill
before the Senate is not accompanied by the customary report because of
the way the process unfolded. However, it is also true that for matters
involving the allocation of funding and direction for those matters
under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee, the bill closely
mirrors the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591 as printed in
House Report 110-107 that the Senate passed on April 26, 2007. Would my
friend from Alaska agree that in terms of funding, the bill is nearly
identical to that which the Senate previously approved?
Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend from Hawaii that it is my
understanding that the Senator is correct. I am advised that the
funding in this bill for Defense Subcommittee matters is identical to
that agreed to by the Senate on April 26, 2007, except in three areas.
The increase in this bill for the Defense Health program is nearly
$1.876 billion while the previous bill would have increased the health
program by $2.126 billion. In addition, this bill has reduced funding
for the Defense Working Capital Fund by $200 million and reduced the
initiative for the Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund by $385 million.
Aside from these changes the funding in this bill is exactly the same
as previously passed.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for that clarification. Therefore, I
ask my friend whether he agrees that the allocation of funds that the
Congress provided for these defense programs as described in the joint
explanatory statement of the committee of conference to accompany H.R.
1591, except for those three areas that he just specified, is exactly
the intent of this bill that we are about to pass?
Mr. STEVENS. I agree completely with my good friend. The intent of
those of us who oversee the Defense Department and the drafting of this
bill was to provide funds as specified in the joint explanatory
statement which accompanied H.R. 1591.
Mr. INOUYE. Again, I thank my colleague. If I could make another
inquiry, the Congress also included items in House Report 110-60 and
Senate Report 110-37 which provided guidance to the Defense Department
on several items in this bill. Would the Senator from Alaska agree with
me that the intent of the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense was that the guidance in these
reports should be adhered to except in those areas that were altered in
this bill or those areas that were addressed to the contrary in the
joint explanatory statement to H.R. 1591?
Mr. STEVENS. I concur in the Senator's assessment. The Defense
Subcommittee reviewed many matters before it prepared Senate Report
110-37 regarding the supplemental appropriations request before the
Senate. In putting together H.R. 2206, our intent was to continue the
guidance that the Senate included in its report. In addition, we have
concurred in the guidance of House Report 110-60 except in those areas
specifically noted in the joint explanatory statement which accompanied
H.R. 1591.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend. Then would you agree with me that it
is our intent that the Defense Department should adhere to the guidance
under the conditions which you and I have described above?
Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend I agree with his assertion. I share
his view that the Department of Defense should use the two committee
reports and the joint explanatory statement of the committee of
conference accompanying H.R. 1591 to discern the will of Congress in
respect to this bill H.R. 2206.
Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Senator from
Alaska, and concur. It is our view and intent that the Defense
Department shall adhere to the funding allocation and comply with the
guidance in the above described reports in interpreting the will of the
Congress with respect to H.R. 2206, except in those few areas which are
also described above. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his time and
cooperation in this matter.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our service men and women on the front
lines in the war on terror have been waiting too long for the funding
this bill provides. Our soldiers, airmen, and marines need this
appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have
provided it months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they
need to prevail in their missions. As such, I will vote for its
passage. But I do so with deep reservations. The legislation we are
considering now is the wrong way to fund this war, and it fails the
most basic tests imposed on us as stewards of taxpayer dollars.
This emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $120 billion
in funding, approximately $17 billion above the President's request. It
is filled with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has
nothing to do with funding the troops. In a time of war, with large
federal budget deficits, we should be constraining our Federal
expenditures. Sadly, we have chosen, once again, to do the opposite,
and loaded this bill with billions of dollars in spending we don't
need, spending that was not requested, spending that will only add to
the already excessive size of government.
The President submitted his supplemental funding request on February
5 nearly 4 months ago. The Senate finally passed a very flawed version
of a bill on March 29 a bill that everyone knew was nothing more than a
political stunt, one that was dead before arrival to the President.
Instead of putting our country first and providing the troops with full
funding as expeditiously as possible, we let partisan politics rule the
day. While some may believe that they scored political points by
forcing meaningless procedural votes, I would ask them to reflect for a
moment. What gain inheres in playing partisan politics with the lives
of our honorable warriors and their families? How can we possibly find
honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage
in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at
war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of
us--those who fight and risk all on our behalf--by playing politics
with their service.
So now, nearly 4 months after the supplemental funding request was
submitted, here we are, with money literally running out to fund this
war. We are about to pass a bill that while better than the last
version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do
with the war on terror. We can do better than this. The American
taxpayers deserve and expect more.
As my colleagues know, I have been meeting with citizens across the
country, and let me assure you, they are not happy with the workings of
Congress. There is a reason that the poll results on Congress's
favorability rating are at such lows the latest at 31 percent. It is
because of partisan politics having a greater priority in Washington
than doing the people's business. It is because we are not making the
tough choices to halt deficit spending and fix the out of control
entitlement programs. It is because we seem to care more about our own
reelections than about reforming government. This is not the way the
American public wants their elected officials to behave. What will it
take for that to sink in?
Let me mention some of the unrequested and unauthorized items
contained in this bill: $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries
industries; $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New
Jersey; $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency's computer
system; $13 million for the Save America's Treasures program; and, $3
billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22 million to
support the Department of Agriculture in implementing programs to
provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.
There are also several items in this bill that seek to legislate on
an appropriations bill rather than allowing such items to move through
the regular legislative process. Examples include language that: raises
the minimum wage; restricts the Department of Transportation from
implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement's, NAFTA,
provisions expanding cross-border trade between Mexico and the
[[Page S6699]]
United States with the introduction of a pilot program that would allow
a select group of Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries into
our country beyond the 25 miles that current law permits; extends
several tax credits, while setting forth new Internal Revenue Service
definitions and exempting some programs from taxation; and, amends the
Food Security Act to make adjustments to the Department of
Agriculture's land and soil conservation program.
Another provision that seeks to legislate on this appropriations bill
is a provision that would end-run the Defense Base Realignment and
Closure, BRAC, process. The 2005 BRAC commission decided to close the
Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and the Department of
Navy was in the process of closing the base in accordance with the law.
This bill, however, would transfer the land and facilities to the Air
Force even though the Secretary of the Air Force stated on April 12,
2007, that there is not a military need for the land it will be forced
to receive. This provision was not requested by the administration, is
not an emergency, and is not a responsible way to legislate. It was not
reviewed or debated in any committee, and the committee of jurisdiction
has had no say in the matter. Yet the American people will now be
forced to continue to pay for the maintenance of this unwanted land
when the Air Force receives it.
Despite these unacceptable earmarks and legislative language, I am
pleased that this bill does not contain a timeline for the withdrawal
of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such
a mandate would have had grave consequences for the future of Iraq and
the security of Americans. The President was right to veto the first
iteration of this legislation.
I do have concerns, however, with the way in which this measure
conditions aid to the Iraqi Government by requiring the government to
meet benchmarks. Although I support benchmarks for the Iraqi
Government, and I believe that we should encourage the Iraqi government
to move ahead as rapidly as possible on a number of fronts, some of the
benchmarks contained in this bill are beyond the control of the Iraqi
leadership. One of the benchmarks, for example, mandates that there
will be no safe haven for ``any outlaws.'' This should of course be an
aspiration, but if terrorists or insurgents hang on and hole up in
Baghdad, should this constitute a reason why the United States
withholds economic aid to the government? Similarly, another benchmark
requires the Iraqi Government to reduce the level of sectarian
violence. But if sectarian violence does not decline as rapidly as we
would like, does this suggest that the answer is to cut off
reconstruction aid? It's not at all clear to me that it does.
I believe that, instead of legislating a list of benchmarks that must
be met by the Iraqis, and imposing statutory penalties for
nonperformance, it would be preferable for the administration to reach
agreement on a series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government, a
timeline for implementation, and consequences attached to each. Such an
approach would make clear to the Iraqis that they must make progress,
but would do so in a way that is specific, flexible, and realistic.
If this bill is to have benchmarks at all, it should be a benchmark
that Congress may not approve any earmark, no matter how valid the
cause, without an authorization, an administration request or inclusion
in the budget. The national debt grows $75 million an hour and $1.3
billion a day. Congress should benchmark its spending sprees on zero
debt, but it won't. This body would rather set benchmarks for others
around the world than take responsibility for its own actions. For
these reasons, this bill is flawed and irresponsible, but I will vote
for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting
for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the tax provisions included in this bill
would help small businesses to succeed. These provisions would spur
investment and thus create jobs. They would provide greater opportunity
for workers looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support.
The bill helps businesses to provide jobs for workers who have
experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending and
expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC.
WOTC encourages businesses to hire workers who might not otherwise
find work. WOTC allows employers a tax credit for wages that they pay
to economically disadvantaged employees. WOTC has been remarkably
successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is
highly cost-effective. The business community is highly supportive of
these credits. Industries like retail and restaurants that hire many
low-skill workers find it especially useful.
The bill would extend WOTC for more than 3 years, and the bill would
increase and expand the credit for employers who hire disabled
veterans. The bill would also expand the credit to make it available to
employers who hire people in counties that have suffered significant
population losses.
To carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners are often
required to invest significant amounts of money in depreciable
property, such as machinery. The bill would help business owners to
afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the bill
would extend for another year expensing under section 179 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
New equipment and property are necessary to successfully operate a
business. But large business purchases generally require depreciation
across a number of years, and depreciation requires additional
bookkeeping.
Expensing under section 179 allows for an immediate 100-percent
deduction of the cost for most personal property purchased for use in a
business. The bill increases the expensing limit from $112,000 to
$125,000, and the bill increases the phase-out threshold from $450,000
to $500,000 for 2007.
When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no
longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So
extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping
burdens.
The bill includes a package of tax incentives to help recovery of
small business and low-income housing in areas hit by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The bill also requires GAO to conduct a study
on how State and local governments have allocated and utilized the tax
incentives that have been provided for these areas since 2005. We want
to make sure that the tax incentives that Congress provided for
hurricane recovery are being properly used, and we want to make sure
that these incentives are providing the much-needed help for which they
were created.
Tips received by restaurant employees are treated as wages for
purposes of Social Security taxes. As such, employers must pay Social
Security taxes on tips received by their employees. These employers
receive a business tax credit for taxes paid on tip income in excess of
the Federal minimum wage rate. The bill would prevent a decrease in the
amount of this business tax credit that restaurant owners may claim
despite an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
Currently, if a small business jointly owned by a married couple
files taxes as a sole proprietorship, only the filing spouse receives
credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Furthermore,
unless the married couple is located in a community property State,
both the married couple and the business are subject to penalties for
failing to file as a partnership.
The bill would allow an unincorporated business that is jointly owned
by a married couple in a common law State to file as a sole
proprietorship without penalty. The bill would also ensure that both
spouses receive credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Current law limits a small business' ability to claim WOTC and the
tip credit by imposing a limitation that such credits cannot be used to
offset taxes that would be imposed under the alternative minimum tax,
or AMT. The bill would provide a permanent waiver for WOTC and the tip
credit and would allow WOTC and the tip credit to be taken under AMT.
The bill would help small businesses by modifying S corporation
rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the
``sting tax.'' These modifications would improve the viability of
community banks.
[[Page S6700]]
The tax language included in the bill is a responsible package. It
would ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses.
And we have also paid for it.
The offsets include a proposal to discourage the practice of
transferring investments to one's child for the purpose of avoiding
higher tax rates.
The offsets also include proposals to improve tax administration.
The offsets would allow the IRS more time to notify the taxpayer
about a deficiency before it must stop charging interest and penalties.
The offsets include making permanent the fees that the IRS is
authorized to charge for private letter rulings and other forms of
guidance.
The offsets also enhance penalties that the IRS may impose when
taxpayers and preparers do not comply with the law. The offsets would
also prohibit employers from using the collection due process to delay
or prevent the IRS from collecting delinquent trust fund employment
taxes.
The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in
this bill should not have to pay more in taxes because some taxpayers
are abusing the tax system.
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the
public a technical explanation of the tax provisions of H.R. 2206. The
technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and
legislative intent behind this important legislation. It will be
available on the Joint Committee's website at www.house.gov/jct.
These are sound tax policy changes. Let's finally enact an increase
in the minimum wage, and let's also pass this useful package of tax
benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to
support the bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the following are additional explanatory
materials regarding the appropriations for the Department of Defense
made by the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206.
I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Defense--Military
PROGRAM EXECUTION
The Department of Defense shall execute the appropriations
provided in this Act consistent with the allocation of funds
contained in the joint explanatory statement of the committee
of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 when such appropriations
(by account) are equal to those appropriations (by account)
provided in this Act. The Department is further directed to
adhere to the reporting requirements in Senate Report 110-37
and House Report 110-60 except as otherwise contravened by
the joint explanatory statement of the committee of
conference accompanying H.R. 1591 or the following statement.
reporting requirements
The Secretary of Defense shall provide a report to the
congressional defense committees within 30 days after the
date of enactment of this legislation on the allocation of
the funds within the accounts listed in this Act. The
Secretary shall submit updated reports 30 days after the end
of each fiscal quarter until funds listed in this Act are no
longer available for obligation. These reports shall include:
a detailed accounting of obligations and expenditures of
appropriations provided in this Act by program and
subactivity group for the continuation of the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan; and a listing of equipment procured using funds
provided in this Act. In order to meet unanticipated
requirements, the Department of Defense may need to transfer
funds within these appropriations accounts for purposes other
than those specified. The Department of Defense shall follow
normal prior approval reprogramming procedures should it be
necessary to transfer funding between different
appropriations accounts in this Act.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Recommended adjustments to classified programs are
addressed in a classified annex.
Operation and Maintenance
SOAR VIRTUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Community
and Family Policy is directed to comply with the guidance
contained in the joint explanatory statement of the committee
of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 regarding the Student
Online Achievement Resources (SOAR Virtual School District)
program.
IRAQ SECURITY FORCES FUND
The Department is directed to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of
enactment of this Act the accountability requirements DoD has
applied to the train-and-equip program for Iraq and the plans
underway to formulate property accountability rules and
regulations that distinguish between war and peace.
JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE DEFEAT FUND
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) shall report on JIEDDO staffing levels no later than
June 29, 2007.
Procurement
SINGLE CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE RADIO SYSTEM (SINCGARS) FAMILY
The Department of the Army is directed to comply with the
guidance contained in the joint explanatory statement of the
committee of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 regarding
funding limitations and reporting requirements for the Single
Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems.
Defense Health Program
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (TBI) AND POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)
TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
If a service member is correctly diagnosed with TBI or
PTSD, the better chance he or she has of a full recovery. It
is critical that health care providers are given the
resources necessary to make accurate, timely referrals for
appropriate treatment and that service members have high
priority access to such services. Therefore, $900,000,000 is
provided for access, treatment and research for Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Of the amount provided, $600,000,000 is for operation and
maintenance and $300,000,000 is for research, development,
test and evaluation to conduct peer reviewed research.
By increasing funding for TBI and PTSD, the Defense
Department will now have significant resources to
dramatically improve screening for risk factors, diagnosis,
treatment, counseling, research, facilities and equipment to
prevent or treat these illnesses.
To ensure that patients receive the best care available,
the Department shall develop plans for the allocation of
funds for TBI and PTSD by reviewing the possibility of
conducting research on: therapeutic drugs and medications
that ``harden'' the brain; and, testing and treatment for
tinnitus which impacts 49 percent of blast victims. The
Department also should consider in its planning the
establishment of brain functioning base lines prior to
deployment and the continued measurement of concussive
injuries in theater.
If the Secretary of Defense determines that funds made
available within the operation and maintenance account for
the treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder are excess to the requirements of the
Department of Defense, the Secretary may transfer excess
amounts to the Department of Veterans Affairs to be available
for the same purpose.
The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional
defense committees no later than 15 days following any
transfer of funds to the VA for PTSD/TBI treatment.
SUSTAINING THE MILITARY HEALTH CARE BENEFIT
Provided herein is $410,750,000 to fully fund the Defense
Health Program for fiscal year 2007. The Department is
expected to examine other ways to sustain the benefit without
relying on Congress to enact legislation that would increase
the out-of-pocket costs to the beneficiaries.
HEALTH CARE IN SUPPORT OF ARMY MODULAR FORCE CONVERSION AND GLOBAL
POSITIONING
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and
the Surgeon General of the Army shall coordinate an effort
and report back to the congressional defense committees
within 120 days after enactment of this Act on how these
anticipated costs will be funded to ensure soldiers and their
families affected by AMF and global positioning will have
access to the health care they deserve.
MEDICAL SUPPORT FOR TACTICAL UNITS
The Department of the Army is directed to address medical
requirements for those tactical units currently deployed to
or returning from the Iraq or Afghanistan theaters. The
Department of the Army shall focus funding on the
replenishment of medical supply and equipment needs within
the combat theaters, to include bandages and the provision of
medical care for soldiers who have returned home in a medical
holdover status.
[[Page S6701]]
MEB/PEB IMPROVEMENTS
The system for evaluating soldiers' eligibility for
disability benefits has diminished, causing the soldiers'
needs to go unmet. In particular, the thousands of soldiers
wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have overwhelmed
the system leading to failure to complete reviews in a timely
manner. In some cases, lack of management, caseworkers,
specialists to help identify depression and post-traumatic
stress disorder, medical hold facilities and even wheelchair
access has meant that wounded soldiers have had to overcome
many obstacles during their medical care.
Therefore, within the funds provided, $30,000,000 is to be
used for strengthening the process, programs, formalized
training for personnel, and for the hiring of administrators
and caseworkers. The resources provided are to be used at
Walter Reed, Brooke, Madigan, and Womack Army Medical Centers
and National Naval Medical Center, San Diego.
Summary and Tabular Materials
The following tables provide details of the supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense-Military.
[[Page S6702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.001
[[Page S6703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.002
[[Page S6704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.003
[[Page S6705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.004
[[Page S6706]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.005
[[Page S6707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.006
[[Page S6708]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.007
[[Page S6709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.008
[[Page S6710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.009
[[Page S6711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.010
[[Page S6712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.011
[[Page S6713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.012
[[Page S6714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.013
[[Page S6715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.014
[[Page S6716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.015
[[Page S6717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.016
[[Page S6718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.017
[[Page S6719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.018
[[Page S6720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.019
[[Page S6721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.020
[[Page S6722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.021
[[Page S6723]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.022
[[Page S6724]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.023
[[Page S6725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.024
[[Page S6726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.025
[[Page S6727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.026
[[Page S6728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.027
[[Page S6729]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.028
[[Page S6730]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.029
[[Page S6731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.030
[[Page S6732]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.031
[[Page S6733]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.032
[[Page S6734]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.033
[[Page S6735]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.034
[[Page S6736]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.035
[[Page S6737]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.036
[[Page S6738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.037
[[Page S6739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.038
[[Page S6740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.039
[[Page S6741]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.040
[[Page S6742]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.041
[[Page S6743]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.042
[[Page S6744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.043
[[Page S6745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.044
[[Page S6746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.045
[[Page S6747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.046
[[Page S6748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.047
[[Page S6749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.048
[[Page S6750]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.049
[[Page S6751]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.050
[[Page S6752]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.051
[[Page S6753]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.052
[[Page S6754]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.053
[[Page S6755]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.054
[[Page S6756]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.055
[[Page S6757]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.056
[[Page S6758]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.057
[[Page S6759]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.058
[[Page S6760]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.059
[[Page S6761]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.060
[[Page S6762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.061
[[Page S6763]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.062
[[Page S6764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.063
[[Page S6765]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.064
[[Page S6766]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.065
[[Page S6767]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.066
[[Page S6768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.067
[[Page S6769]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.068
[[Page S6770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.069
[[Page S6771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.070
[[Page S6772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.071
[[Page S6773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.072
[[Page S6774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.073
[[Page S6775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.074
[[Page S6776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.075
[[Page S6777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.076
[[Page S6778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.077
[[Page S6779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.078
[[Page S6780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.079
[[Page S6781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.080
[[Page S6782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.081
[[Page S6783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.082
[[Page S6784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.083
[[Page S6785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.084
[[Page S6786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.085
[[Page S6787]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.086
[[Page S6788]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.087
[[Page S6789]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.088
[[Page S6790]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.089
[[Page S6791]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.090
[[Page S6792]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MY07.091
[[Page S6793]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
____________________