[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 112 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9190-S9199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature
of a substitute.
Levin amendment No. 2087 (to amendment No. 2011), to
provide for a reduction and transition of U.S. forces in
Iraq.
Reed amendment No. 2088 (to amendment No. 2087), to change
the enactment date.
Cornyn amendment No. 2100 (to amendment No. 2011), to
express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national
security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a
failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
Dorgan/Conrad amendment No. 2135 (to amendment No. 2011),
relative to bringing Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al-
Qaida to justice.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 9:30 a.m. shall be for debate on amendment No. 2135, as amended,
with the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the Senator from
New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, each controlling 10 minutes.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I inquire again as to the schedule
of the vote?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The vote is presently scheduled for
9:30 or, if the speaking engagements end sooner, at the conclusion of
those speaking engagements, at the back end of the time. The vote will
not be shifted forward in order to accommodate Senators who are
counting on the 9:30 vote beginning.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized for 10 minutes. There is 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DORGAN. Would the Chair remind me when I have consumed half of
that time? I want to yield the remainder of the time to Senator Conrad.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I will.
Mr. DORGAN. In about 4 minutes, let me describe an amendment that is
very simple. Yesterday, we received a report--it is described in
today's paper--
[[Page S9191]]
on progress dealing with benchmarks in Iraq. There is only one reason
we are given this report by the administration. It is because we
required this report in law. The Congress said: We require you to give
us this report.
There is another report we are not getting. We have not yet required
it. Our amendment will require it. That is, What has been done and what
is being done to bring to justice Osama bin Laden and the leadership of
al-Qaida and those who committed the attacks against this country on 9/
11/2001? What is being done to bring them to justice? It has been
nearly 6 long years and Osama bin Laden remains free. More importantly,
the threat against our country today is a threat by Osama bin Laden,
the leadership of al-Qaida, operating from a secure and safe place in
Pakistan, we are told, planning attacks against our country and others.
Here is the situation: August 2001, the Presidential daily briefing
said this--the title was ``Bin Laden determined to strike in the US.''
That was August 2001. It is what was handed to the President back then.
Here is today. Our intelligence assessments, we are told by newspaper
accounts: ``Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West.'' Think
of that. Nearly 6 years later and al-Qaida is better positioned to
strike the West.
Now, let me tell you what Mr. Negroponte told us in January of this
year. He said: ``Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our
Homeland'' from a ``secure hideaway in Pakistan.'' That is from Mr.
Negroponte, the top intelligence official in our country.
He further said this in January of this year:
Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the
greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to [our]
Homeland.
Now, having known that, let me describe a couple of things we have
been reading recently. This is February of this year:
Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over the
last year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal
regions near the Afghan border, according to American
intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
American officials said there was mounting evidence that
Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been
steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous
Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.
Finally, this week:
While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to
al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting,
regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border
between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military,
intelligence and law enforcement officials said.
Now, the question is this: While we have soldiers going door to door
in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, with sectarian violence----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. May we have order, please, for the
Senator who is speaking on the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. The question is this: It has been almost 6 years since
Osama bin Laden and the network of al-Qaida attacked our country on
September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is still free. He has not been
brought to justice. We are told he is operating in a secure hideaway in
northern Pakistan. Al-Qaida is stronger than it has been in years, and
we are told it is rebuilding and regrouping with terrorist training
camps. It remains the greatest threat to our country.
We are told this after almost 6 years, two wars in two countries,
hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent here and abroad, the
deaths of thousands of our soldiers and tens of thousands of our
soldiers wounded, and the threat grows and remains, and those who
perpetrated the attack against this country and now represent the
greatest threat to our country live free in a secure hideaway.
President Bush said this in 2003:
I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The halfway point has been reached.
Mr. DORGAN. It is a priority for this country, I would say to the
President, and we ask for quarterly reports on what is happening in the
search to bring the leadership of al-Qaida to justice.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Conrad.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has now been 2,131 days since 9/11. I
think all of us remember that day. It was a horrific day. I will never
forget having given a speech over in Crystal City that morning and
having driven past the Pentagon, only to get to the Capitol and see
that the Pentagon had been attacked and then seeing the incredible
images from the World Trade Center and those buildings collapsing.
The President said at the time that we would hold Osama bin Laden and
al-Qaida to account, that we would smoke them out of their holes, and
that we would bring them to justice. It is 2,131 days later, and still
Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice, nor has Mr. Zawahiri,
who now regularly broadcasts additional threats against our country.
I believe a very serious strategic mistake was made when the
President chose to go to Iraq instead of finishing business with al-
Qaida. In fact, we know special forces, who are experts in Arab
culture, in Arab language, were transferred from the hunt in
Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Those special forces were
shifted to the hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. They were replaced by
experts in Spanish culture. There are not many Spanish speakers in
Afghanistan.
I have always believed it was a profound mistake not to finish
business with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I had the benefit of going to high school at an American military
base in Tripoli, Libya, north Africa, and living in the Arab culture
for 2 years. I think I learned a great deal from that experience about
that culture. I think strategically it has been a profound mistake for
us to go into Iraq instead of keeping our focus and effort and energy
on the people who did attack us--al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, and
not Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq. As awful and despicable a
character as Saddam Hussein was, that should not have been the focus of
our effort. The people who attacked us were al-Qaida, not Iraq.
Now we learn al-Qaida is ``considerably operationally stronger than a
year ago'' and has ``regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001,'' a
counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing a new intelligence
report's conclusions. They are ``showing greater and greater ability to
plan attacks in Europe and the United States.'' Are we not paying
attention? Al-Qaida, according to these reports, has increased from
20,000 terrorist operatives to 50,000.
We need to redirect the emphasis and the focus of our security
efforts and go after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. That is what this
amendment does. It doubles the bounty on Osama bin Laden.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time controlled by Senator
Dorgan has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and conclude by saying that it requires
an administration report on the strategy for bringing bin Laden and
other terrorists to justice.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, had I been present for the vote on
the Dorgan amendment, I would have voted in favor of it.
We're coming up on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and the
bloodthirsty terrorist who plotted this slaughter of nearly 3,000
Americans is still a free man. Back then, could any of us ever have
imagined such a failure on the part of this administration? Could any
of us have believed that--more than half a decade later--Osama bin
Laden would still be enjoying safe haven? Two wars and three elections
later--and Osama remains unscathed.
What would our reaction have been nearly 6 years ago, had President
Bush gone on national television and predicted this? What would we have
said if he'd told us that the capture of the man who'd unleashed such
horror simply wasn't a top priority of his administration? Would any
American have believed him?
The amendment before us aims to make this a top priority. It
obligates the administration to provide Congress with regular reports
on the progress made, if any, towards the capture or
[[Page S9192]]
killing of Osama bin Laden and his closest confederates.
The White House seems to have forgotten bin Laden. The American
people have not.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say, I intend to vote for this
amendment. But let us not be unmindful of the enormity of the sacrifice
of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States--and,
indeed, perhaps with the assistance of other nations--in trying to
ascertain exactly where bin Laden might be and perhaps to get him. So
much of this, quite understandably, cannot be revealed, but I assure
the American public that our U.S. military in no measure has been
asleep in its pursuit of this infamous man, Osama bin Laden.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Arizona.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me say two things about this amendment.
First of all, I hope all of my colleagues will support it because it
has been amended in a very important way, which I will discuss in a
moment. But the first thing I want to say is, it is a false choice to
suggest we should either be fighting in Iraq or going after Osama bin
Laden. We need to be fighting al-Qaida wherever they are, and we are
doing that, in Iraq and in the hills of Pakistan and Afghanistan and
other places where these terrorists might be hiding, to the very best
of our ability. We cannot leave Iraq to al-Qaida in order to go after
Osama bin Laden.
To rewrite history here, to somehow suggest we have stopped trying to
get Osama bin Laden is, I suggest, a willful misrepresentation of what
our special forces are attempting to do. I agree with the senior
Senator from Virginia that this is a very difficult and complicated
matter in dealing with the Government of Pakistan and other issues that
make it very hard to know precisely where Osama bin Laden is and to be
able to kill or capture him.
That relates to the second point. When this amendment was drafted,
there was a glaring problem with it. It increases the reward from $25
million to $50 million, but the way it was originally written, it was
written for information ``leading to the capture'' of Osama bin Laden.
We looked at the amendment and, in astonishment, sought to find the
rest of the phrase that you usually see there, ``the capture or
death,'' but it was not there.
I wondered: Is this yet another step in the effort of the majority
party to make this a criminal effort rather than to acknowledge that
this is a war against a sworn enemy of the United States? In a war, you
capture the enemy when you can. When you cannot, if it is necessary to
kill the enemy, you do. All of this brave talk about getting Osama bin
Laden and criticism of the administration because we have not gotten
him seems to me a little bit hollow if the only way we are going to get
him is to capture him.
Well, sure, it would be great to capture him, but we may have to kill
him; therefore, the amendment which omitted the potential for killing
Osama bin Laden was amended by Senator Sununu, who offered a second-
degree amendment to raise the reward from $25 million to $50 million
for the capture or death or information leading to the capture or death
of Osama bin Laden. It is under those circumstances that I strongly
support the amendment, as amended.
But I ask my colleagues on the other side--next week, we are going to
have some other discussion about language which would criminalize this
war rather than allowing it to be fought as the war it is against sworn
enemies of the United States. Are we going to continue this trend where
we treat it as a matter of criminal law rather than a war? I hope not
because the other side does not treat it that way.
So having amended the amendment to include ``the capture or death''
of Osama bin Laden, I am very happy to support it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, does money make the difference? Because if
money had made the difference, Osama bin Laden would be in his grave.
But it has not made the difference. Intelligence, human intelligence,
relationships, the ongoing development of those kinds of relationships
we build around the world makes the difference.
Osama bin Laden is a phenomenal symbol today in a large constituency
worldwide. We will add money, and all of us will support it. The intent
of this amendment is good. But, as my colleagues have said, to suggest
it is either/or, we cannot do both, nor should we--I suggest it is not
that.
Are we going to melt the mountains of northern Pakistan? What, should
we have tumbled the government of Musharraf in our pursuit of Osama bin
Laden? I think that was not our choice, nor should it have been.
So we will add some money. We will add some intent. But, in the long
haul, building back an intelligence organization, a human intelligence
organization, that couples with and strengthens our technological
capability to observe movement all over the world, ultimately, helps us
pursue terrorist organizations, to go where they are and where they are
training and to be able to topple them before they inflict injury upon
us. That should be our goal. That is our goal. That is what has been
our goal since 9/11. But we are so powerful, and we are all ``Nintendo
warriors'' today. Remember that game, that electronic game, a few years
ago, push buttons--zim, zam, boom--and it was all over with? That is
not the way you fight war, although we as a society have grown to
believe that.
When the human is involved, when the human intelligence decides to
hide, to divert, to connive, to organize, and ultimately to break
through the barriers we build, our vigilance must be constant. We have
just heard of their capabilities. We now must rest on ours.
I will support the amendment. But let us not be fooled that money
makes the difference. It is the constant vigilance, the building of
systems and organizations, the human intelligence, matched with our
electronic and our technological capability, that will continue to
allow us to be a safer nation in what Americans have now recognized is
a very unsafe world.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo)
and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
[[Page S9193]]
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--1
Bunning
NOT VOTING--12
Biden
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Gregg
Inouye
Johnson
Lautenberg
McCain
Obama
Vitter
The amendment (No. 2135), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The regular order would be the
Levin amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. I call for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sanders be recognized for 3 minutes as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish also
to accommodate the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. LEVIN. I will amend that request.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont was
going to speak for a couple minutes, and I wish to have the floor after
that for no more than 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I amend my request to ask that after the
Senator from Vermont speaks, the Senator from Minnesota be recognized
for up to 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, a number of Vermont families are
traveling to Arlington National Cemetery this week. They are a special
group and they are here for a very special reason. The group is called
The Vermont Fallen. They represent the many families in our State who
have lost a loved one during the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq.
On Saturday, July 14, The Vermont Fallen will come together to
support Marion and Peter Dooley for the internment of LT Mark Dooley's
ashes at Arlington National Cemetery.
A fellow Vermonter, Lieutenant Dooley was born July 15, 1978. He was
a graduate of the 2001 class of Norwich University and served as a
police officer in Wilmington, VT, as well as the Windham County
Sheriff's Department. A first lieutenant in the Vermont National Guard,
he served with the 3rd Battalion, 172d Mountain Infantry. He was killed
west of Ramadi, Iraq, on September 19, 2005, when the scout platoon he
was leading was ambushed.
The Vermont Fallen serves a wonderful and unique purpose. They allow
families from Vermont who have suffered unimaginable loss to come
together and support each other in a way that only they themselves can
do.
Today, we honor the life and the loss of LT Mark H. Dooley. In doing
so, we also honor the lives of all those brave Vermont soldiers who
never came home.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will yield
before he speaks for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
Senator from Minnesota is finished, Senator Bill Nelson be recognized
for up to 20 minutes on the pending amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that an objection has
been raised. I intended to offer amendment No. 2189, which is at the
desk. It is a Coleman, DeMint, Thune, Inhofe amendment which would
prohibit the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine.
I am not asking for a vote at this time. I only want an amendment to
be put into the queue. Just recently, the House dealt with a similar
amendment. That amendment passed the House with over 300 votes in
favor. The vote was 309 to 115.
My amendment says that the FCC would not be able to reinstate the
fairness doctrine. It says:
The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe
any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, or other requirement
that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or promulgating
in whole or part the requirement that broadcasters, including
the Armed Forces Network, present opposing viewpoints on
controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred
to as the fairness doctrine.
There is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. In the past few
weeks, there has been discussion among some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who have said very publicly that it is time to
reinstate the fairness doctrine. We have troops in the field of combat
today putting their lives on the line and part of what we protect in
this country is the first amendment--is freedom of speech.
The fairness doctrine amendment is a relic of a bygone past. It was
tossed on the ash heap of history in 1987. It was in place from 1949 to
1987. Its intended effect was to have the Federal Government monitor
what is said on the airwaves and require broadcasters to present
``fair'' and ``balanced'' programming.
The effect was much different from that. In effect, it stifled
speech. If you are a broadcaster and you own a station, you could be
subject to some kind of penalty if you do not provide the kind of
balance that the Government says you must provide. You may well
choose--and, in fact, history has shown what has happened--you may
choose simply to play country music. I love country music, but I also
love free speech, and we do not want to put anything in place that
stifles free speech.
We have gone from 1949, when we had a few TV stations and the
information you got came from relatively few sources, to a world today
in which we have broadband, high-speed Internet, satellites, blogs, and
a whole range of information. And that is a good thing.
In the end, we in this body have to respond, have to listen to the
voices of people. We want an informed and educated citizenship. We want
them to get diverse views.
The reality, in part, of why this issue even comes up is because of
concerns from my friends on the other side of the aisle that talk radio
somehow is dominated by conservatives. One may argue that perhaps
broadcast journalism may be dominated by liberals. There have been
studies that have shown that fact. But for us, we shouldn't care
whether it is dominated. And as to a response of the Government coming
in and trying to somehow measure and regulate----
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, in the interest of an
educated electorate, whether he thinks Americans should hear both sides
of the story, a fair and balanced approach when it comes to
information?
Mr. COLEMAN. I absolutely believe Americans should hear both sides.
Absolutely. But I believe--strongly believe--the Government should not
be in the position of deciding and dictating ``now here is the other
side.''
In the world of communications today, Americans have all sorts of
options to hear the other side. All they have to do is turn a dial, all
they have to do is push a button, all they have to do is press a mouse,
and they have that ability.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator concede that the airwaves belong to the
American people?
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I concede the airwaves belong to the
American people.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for a further question.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator concede that those who use the people's
airwaves to make a profit have to do it with a license from our
Government?
Mr. COLEMAN. I understand and agree we have a licensing process.
[[Page S9194]]
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield, and I yield to the Senator from Illinois to
present the entire question so I can continue.
Mr. DURBIN. I am not trying to delay the Senator from Minnesota. I
will concede the sense-of-fairness doctrine has been set aside since
the Reagan administration. Things have changed in broadcast journalism
and many other aspects of journalism. I have not seen the Senator's
amendment. I sense I know what it might be leading to, but I want to
make sure the premise is something on which we may agree.
The airwaves belong to the American people. Those who profit from
them do it by permission of the people through their Government and
those who use those airwaves should do it responsibly and should seek
to provide both points of view, both sides of the story so that
Americans can reach a decision. I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he
disagrees with any of those points?
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my learned colleague from
Illinois, here is our point of disagreement. There is no question, in
fact, that there is a licensing process. I am a former mayor. We
licensed a lot of things. But I think one of the basic principles at
stake is we don't license and measure content when it comes to speech,
and that is my concern. That, in fact, is because of the multiplicity
of communications options that are available to citizens today--as I
said before, blogs, Internet, broadband, and satellite--which we didn't
have 20, 30 years ago.
Where my objection lies, and the importance of this amendment says
Government should not be monitoring and regulating content. We are not
talking about obscenity. There are things the Senator from Illinois
understands the Government has an absolute right to monitor or to deal
with. When we get to content--and that is my concern, that those who
have raised the issue ``bring back the fairness doctrine,'' are
bringing it back, and the cry then is to regulate content. And that is
what I object to.
Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask the Senator to yield further for a question,
there was a recent episode in the last 2 years when the Public
Broadcasting Corporation took a show by Bill Moyers off the air and
wanted to replace it with a show authored by the Wall Street Journal.
There were complaints, obviously, that Mr. Moyers was too liberal in
content.
Does the Senator from Minnesota believe that was a fair outcome or
would he concede it would have been a fairer outcome to allow the
American people to watch both shows, by the Wall Street Journal and
Bill Moyers, and to hear both points of view and decide what they agree
with?
Mr. COLEMAN. Two observations. First, I am thrilled I am having this
discussion with the Senator from Illinois. My concern is that I just
offered an amendment which was objected to. Had the amendment not been
objected to, we would have time for a full debate on this amendment.
The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from South Dakota have a
great interest in this issue. I presume my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle--the junior Senator from Massachusetts has raised concerns
that we should reinstate the fairness doctrine. He said that publicly.
I would love to have this debate, and yet I stand here offering an
amendment which is being objected to and so instead we are having this
colloquy. I appreciate the question and will respond. But I am
disappointed that the other side of the aisle will not give us an
opportunity for a full debate on this issue.
In fact, I want all sides to be heard. What I don't want, and the
fundamental disagreement is, for the regulatory power of Government to
sit in judgment as Big Brother, to oversee and take stock with pencil
and pad and take notes: Well, we had Sean Hannity over here. Now we
have to get somebody on the left over there.
Balance should be heard, but we have a marketplace that provides that
opportunity. We have folks who support the perspective of the Senator
from Illinois, and we have folks who support my perspective. Sometimes
we are the same. But for Government to dictate, that is the concern.
That is why the FCC got rid of the fairness doctrine in 1987. It is why
the Supreme Court raised questions about the necessity of the fairness
doctrine. I don't think it is constitutional. We have not gotten to
that question.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COLEMAN. I will yield for one further question.
Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry to interrupt. Through the Commerce Committee
or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into
this question. But the Senator is arguing that the marketplace can
provide. What is the Senator's response if the marketplace fails to
provide? What if it doesn't provide the opportunity to hear both points
of view? Since people who are seeking the licenses are using America's
airwaves, does the Government, speaking for the people of this country,
have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a
fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American
people?
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will respond to the final question.
There is a very clear disagreement here. The Government does not have
the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That is what the
first amendment is about. That is exactly what the first amendment is
about. Government is not supposed to be regulating content, and at a
time in 1949 when we had three-network TV stations, basically when we
had limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate
concern on the part of some that in fact Government needs to step in
and ensure balance. But now we are in 2007. I cannot even conceive that
the market cannot provide opportunities for differing positions because
it does.
In the end, consumers also have a right, based on the market, to make
choices. So if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one
side than the other, that is OK. I think it is very dangerous, I say to
my friend from Illinois--I think it is very dangerous for Government to
be in the position of deciding what is fair and balanced. As we see on
the floor of the Senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, hopefully
learned individuals who have the great and humble opportunity to serve
in the Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced.
The reason we have a first amendment is we get Government out of
measuring, controlling, dictating, and regulating content. That is my
concern, and that is what this amendment is about.
I would love to have a debate with the Senator from Illinois. I would
have hoped that this amendment would simply have been put in the queue,
would have been heard. I think Americans love a fair fight. I think
Americans love this kind of dialog. There is nothing fair about the
fairness doctrine. There is nothing fair if the intent--really, we have
to lay it on the table--if the intent is to shut down or to limit the
conservative talk radio. That is where the concern is. Yet, as I said
before, one can raise questions about balance in the print media, one
can raise questions about balance in the broadcast media, but I don't
think it is the role of Government to be sitting there listening and
then weighing, deciding what is fair and balanced, and then requiring,
under penalty, a broadcaster to then have to present an opposing point
of view.
What is going to happen--and history has shown this--broadcasters are
simply going to say: Let's do something else. Why be in that position
where there may be a line that may be crossed, and I don't know what
that line is, and that line may change depending on who is sitting as
FCC Chair.
As I said before, beyond first amendment principles, there are market
principles. Talk radio has flourished because of the market. The
consumer says, I want to listen, and they have been given choices. They
can simply turn off the dial. They can shut off the radio if they don't
want to listen, but it has flourished. It has flourished because of
demand, and that is the market, not because of Government command, not
because of Government control. We don't want the Government regulating
content.
Like never before, Americans have a wealth of information and
viewpoints thanks to cable television, radio, the Internet, and that is
a good thing, and let it flourish.
John Kennedy stated:
[[Page S9195]]
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with
unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and
competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its
people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a
nation that is afraid of its people.
Mr. President, I am not afraid of the people. I am not afraid of the
people having access to the information and ideas they want access to,
but I am afraid of the Government stepping in and regulating content.
We have a first amendment that is the underpinning, the foundation, of
all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of
the first amendment. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it
back today is a very bad idea.
This amendment specifically includes the Armed Forces Network. Our
folks who are out there on the frontline fighting shouldn't be thinking
that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and
deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let
the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield for a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course, I yield to my distinguished
chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
Senator from Florida, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania be
recognized to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is there a time limit on my
remarks?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I come to this discussion of
the Iraq issue from a position of having been in the political arena
for 35 years. My brand of politics is moderation. My representation is
generally recognized as being in the mainstream. That is clearly where
my State of Florida and the majority of its politics is, in the
mainstream of American politics.
Since so many people like to categorize us in little boxes of where
our politics is, I am generally categorized in that box as a moderate
Democrat. I am here today to state why I will vote for the Levin-Reed
amendment with regard to the troops in Iraq.
How did I come to this conclusion? Remembering an Alfred Lloyd
Tennyson poem, ``Ulysses,'' he says, ``I am a part of all that I have
met.'' Certainly, my frame of reference was shaped in large part upon
graduation from college, being commissioned as a lieutenant in the U.S.
Army Reserve and being on active duty, first going on active duty as a
1st lieutenant and then, within a year--since that was the Vietnam era
with rapid promotions--serving the second of my 2 years of active duty
as a captain in the U.S. Army.
Vietnam was a tough experience for our country. As I went on active
duty, President Johnson had announced he was not going to run for
reelection, in large part, the Nation was split asunder over the issue
of support of the war. Then during my 2 years of active duty, it was
the beginning of the Nixon administration, and as they tried to grapple
with the war, they concluded some 4 years later that we had to start
withdrawing.
It was a time that certainly is different from now because there is
such a respect for our troops now. That was not necessarily the case
back then when I was in the military. Certainly, all the interaction I
had as a military officer was the best, but that was not the case for a
lot of returning soldiers. Indeed, they came home to an America that
did not support them and did not stand up for them. We learned a lot of
very painful lessons out of that Vietnam experience.
Most of us in this Senate who have the fresh memories of that time,
when we go to the Mall to the Vietnam Memorial, there is emotion that
is evoked--often the emotion of choking up, as you see those almost
60,000 names and you see those dramatic statues of both the men and the
women who served in Vietnam.
One of the awful lessons of Vietnam is that you cannot conduct a war
unless you have the support of the American people. Tragically, that is
the situation we are getting to today. Today it is a lot different than
Vietnam because there is outright unabashed patriotic support for our
troops and the extraordinary job they are doing. But it is very clear,
if you listen to the street, if you talk to your people back home, you
realize the American people are not satisfied with the conduct of this
war, they are not satisfied with the progress of this war, and the
American people, in increasingly larger numbers, are not supporting
this war.
How did I come to this conclusion to support the Levin-Reed
amendment? Well, back in 2003, when we voted on the authorization for
this war, I voted for it, as did most of the Senators here. The
information we were given at the time was clearly information that we
believed--that was that there were weapons of mass destruction, there
were certainly chemical and biological weapons, and we were led to
believe Saddam Hussein also had a very active nuclear program.
I am not talking about whispers behind the door or surreptitious
notes that were passed in the night. I am talking about meeting after
meeting--right up there in S. 407, the secure room in the U.S.
Capitol--sometimes when 75 Senators were present, being briefed by the
highest levels of the Government: The Secretary of Defense, the
National Security Adviser, the head and deputy head of the CIA, the
head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Over and over these were the
impressions; indeed, the specific information that we received.
Yes, I got a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate, and it was
in a meeting called by our chairman, Joe Biden, who had a classified
meeting to discuss it with representatives of the intelligence
community. Indeed, the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, at a later
meeting, confirmed what others had already briefed, that there was a
program that Saddam Hussein likely had to take unmanned aerial
vehicles, put biological and chemical weapons on them, put them on
ships off the east coast of the United States, and launch them over
east coast cities of the United States.
Did I conclude there was an imminent threat to the interests of the
United States by virtue of the information I was given? You bet I did.
George Tenet even confirmed that after the war started, the report's
veracity.
What was worse--and what I was not told--was a major part of the
intelligence community, the Air Force intelligence, disputed the
unmanned aerial vehicles report. In fact, Air Force intelligence knew
more about unmanned aerial vehicles than anybody else, and they said
they were likely for reconnaissance purposes, not for offensive
purposes.
So knowing today what I know--that none of that was true--would I
have voted the same way? Of course I wouldn't. But I voted in 2002 for
the war authorization on the basis of what I was told and which I
believed.
In 2006, the agitation against the war continued to swell and the
question came up about withdrawal. Again, I supported the
administration, and I voted against a withdrawal timeline because I
felt if we had a chance of success, we should not be micro-managing the
military, and we should let them make their decisions.
But then things started to change. At the end of the year came a big
change the report of the Iraq Study Commission. Jim Baker and Lee
Hamilton, two of the most respected Americans, co-chaired this. Listen
to names of the members of this commission who were unanimous. Larry
Eagleburger, former Secretary of State. He replaced, by the way, Robert
Gates, when Gates had to resign because the President was making him
the Secretary of Defense. Gates was in on a lot of this Commission
testimony.
Listen to the rest of them. Vernon Jordan; Ed Meese, former Attorney
General; Sandra Day O'Connor, everybody knows who she is; Leon Panetta,
former Chief of Staff to the President; Bill Perry, former Secretary of
Defense; Chuck Robb, a former colleague here; Alan Simpson, another
former colleague here.
These are the people who made up this Iraq Study Commission, and they
came out unanimously. There were five
[[Page S9196]]
Democrats and five Republicans. It was co-chaired by Jim Baker, the
former Secretary of State, and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the
House Committee on International Relations. They said there has to be a
different way and it had to be a goal of withdrawal next spring.
So when this issue came up again in the spring of 2007, I voted for
the report's goal--an amendment sponsored by Senator Levin and Senator
Reed--the goal of the start of a withdrawal--a partial, gradual
withdrawal--not a complete withdrawal, a gradual withdrawal. The goal
was April of 2008. Now the amendment has been changed, to mandate a
gradual withdrawal being completed by April of next year, 2008.
That doesn't mean a complete withdrawal. This amendment says is they
are going to leave a good portion of the troops in Iraq to do a number
of things. What are those things?
First, I wish to say that, except for the requirement of a
withdrawal, the Levin-Reed amendment is very similar to the Iraq Study
Commission report. Senator Salazar and a host of bipartisan Senators,
including this Senator, are cosponsors of Senator Salazar's amendment.
The Salazar amendment gives us almost word for word the Iraq Study
Commission Report. What is before us today is something similar, but
instead of the goal of withdrawal by next April, it is a requirement.
The Levin-Reed amendment would require the President to implement a
comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that
includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It would ensure
that our troops who remain in Iraq will perform the most vital
missions--that of protecting the United States and coalition personnel,
training and equipping the Iraqi Army, and continuing to fight the
terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaida--and it requires the President
to appoint an international mediator with the authority to engage
Iraq's various factions in an inclusive political process.
The Iraq Study Commission report says: Get going. Do an aggressive
diplomatic effort in the region. All five Republicans and five
Democrats on the commission said: You ought to open up to Syria, and
you ought to open up to Iran, under the theory that, indeed, we ought
to be talking to our enemies.
When I took off for the Middle East, about nine countries within a 2-
week period before last Christmas, one of my stops was to return to
Syria for a third visit with the President of Syria, Assad. The White
House said don't go. The State Department came and visited me and said
don't go.
I said the cat is out of the bag. The bipartisan Iraq Study
Commission says we have to open up and talk to enemies. That is the
commonsense thing to do.
I was attacked by Tony Snow in his White House daily briefing. Guess
what happened? Thereafter, Secretary Rice was meeting with the Syrian
Foreign Minister, the same one with whom I met, along with President
Assad.
It is all a part of the necessity of us engaging diplomatically in
the region at the same time we are trying to figure out what to do with
our military.
Earlier this year, over many objections, the President then decided
he needed to send more troops to Iraq in a surge, and he said it was
intended to bring about greater stability. I opposed the surge. I
pointed out, from my experience and understanding of Iraq, the surge
would put additional American soldiers and marines in the middle of the
sectarian violence crossfire of a civil war.
The sectarian violence has only been going on for 1,327 years, ever
since the battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. After that battle, you had, in
effect, the Shiites separating from the Sunnis, and that has led to
antipathy that it is hard for us in America to understand. Yet it
continues.
I said at the time there was a surge that I would support, and that
was in Anbar Province, which is mainly Sunni and where the real enemy
is al-Qaida. I believed that marines are having some success.
I understand I have 1 minute left. Mr. President, I ask for an
additional 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I believed the marines were making progress.
But there you had just Sunnis and you had al-Qaida that was trying to
undermine the Sunni leadership, and the marines working with the Sunnis
were having some effect. That is the part of the surge I supported. I
did not support the surge going into Baghdad in the middle of the
crossfire of a civil war.
The President ignored the findings and the warnings of the Iraq Study
Group which recommended a comprehensive strategy for changing the
course in Iraq.
So what has happened? In the last 6 months, we have spent more than
$60 billion and we have lost another 600 American lives and many more
have suffered grievous injuries. Despite those losses, the sectarian
violence has only increased.
Yesterday, the President reported that the Iraqi Government has
failed to meet many of the benchmarks that we laid out earlier this
year. Only the Iraqis can make the compromises necessary to end this
war. Our continued open-ended presence has provided them with no
incentive to do so. We cannot and we should not be in the middle of
their civil war.
What we need is a diplomatic solution with an aggressive, diplomatic
effort--which was argued by the Iraq Study Group.
We also need a political solution instead of a military solution. The
possible solution that I am drawn to is the one put forth by Senator
Biden. Under the Iraqi Constitution, which is a federal form of
government, it will allow autonomy of various regions or states that
can provide for their own governance along with a National Government
that will allocate the oil revenues according to the population.
But still, the President has not changed course in Iraq, despite the
facts on the ground and the overwhelming desire of the American people.
So, with a heavy heart, it brings me today to say that we must by law
insist that he begin the reduction of the forces in Iraq and the
transition of our mission there. Along with others, I do not reach this
conclusion lightly nor with any pleasure. I am extremely concerned by
the great toll that this war has taken on our Armed Forces and our
military families across this Nation, with the thousands killed and
many more injured.
I am very concerned about the lack of training and the lack of time
for recuperation for our troops, especially the National Guard and the
Reserves. I am very close to the Florida National Guard.
I am very concerned about the situation in Iraq, that it keeps
escalating, the violence, especially among Iraqis, and the lack of
their production of an economic lifeline by the production of their
oil. It is being lost to theft and to sabotage. They can't get their
arms around it.
And I am very concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people,
including now more than 2 million refugees.
I am concerned about the possibility of greater regional violence and
instability. I am concerned about the failure of the Maliki government,
the failure of the government in and of itself, but especially, as we
see now, the failure of the government to lead and to enact necessary
reforms.
I will conclude by saying, an open-ended commitment, keeping our
troops in the middle of a civil war, is not the solution. We must not
only demand that the President change course, but we must require that
he do so. So I rise today in support of the Levin-Reed amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Children's Health Insurance
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about children's
health insurance for a number of reasons, but principally because the
President of the United States, several times in the last couple of
weeks and months--but especially this past week--has spoken to this
issue in a way that I think is misleading, in a way that I think does
not do justice to this important, compelling issue: whether or not this
country is going to make a real commitment to insuring all of our
children.
This is an issue that you and I, Mr. President, have spoken about, as
have many others in this Chamber. It is a major priority for the
American people. I will give the bad news first. The
[[Page S9197]]
bad news is we have 9 million American children who have no health
insurance. That number stares us in the face every day. There is no
reason this Congress and this Senate should not do something about
that.
It is particularly disturbing and insulting that we have not only 9
million uninsured American children, but we have that number in the
face of some other numbers, like tax cuts for very wealthy people. Over
and over again, in the last couple of years, this Congress and the
Congress before it, has made judgments about priorities. I am afraid
there are some people who are making that judgment again about tax cuts
for very wealthy people over health care for children.
That is the reality. Unfortunately, we have now not only the 9
million uninsured, but here is another number. Of that 9 million, 6
million children of that 9 million are eligible for programs that can
help them now, either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance
Program.
The final bit of bad news and the challenge for us, not only as a
Senate but as a people, is that 80 percent of the 6 million who could
be helped right now by both programs--80 percent of them come from
working families. That should be disturbing to all of us.
Here is the good news. We can solve this problem. Not in one budget,
not in one year, but over time if we make a real commitment. We can do
it by supporting the SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance
Program. In my home State we call it CHIP, but the Federal Government
refers to it as SCHIP. In our State, over 160,000 kids are served by
this program now, but there are tens of thousands of other children who
are not covered right now. We need to cover them in Pennsylvania and
across the country. We know there are millions of children right now
across the country who are not covered today who could be covered if we
make the full commitment.
When we talk about children's health insurance, a lot of people
watching and a lot of people thinking about this issue say: Oh, it is
another Government program. It will cost a lot of money. Why are we
doing this?
Here is the evidence. We have a 10-year experiment in this country on
children's health insurance. Thank God, under a Democratic President--
Clinton--and a divided Congress, 10 years ago that commitment was made,
and now we have the evidence. We know for all these children, 6 million
covered--9 million not covered but 6 million covered, we know the
tremendous benefit that means to employers way down the road. We also
know what that means for the skills that are developed for one child
and for many others. It is better for economic growth to ensure
children. It is better for gross national product. It is better to
build a skilled workforce with children's health insurance.
Here is the challenge we have, in terms of this year's budget. I and
many others, including the Presiding Officer and many people in this
Chamber--mostly on this side but even some on the other side of the
aisle--supported a proposal to say that over 5 years we would spend $50
billion on children's health insurance.
It sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it. But when you break it
down, $10 billion a year for children's health insurance is a small
investment over the life of that child and over the life of our
country. That is what the goal was, and that still is the goal.
Here is the difficulty. We have to deal with the realities of the
budget. Senator Max Baucus and others on the Finance Committee--and,
frankly, in both parties but mostly on the Democratic side--have worked
out an agreement on $35 billion, which is a very good start. We can
grow that, but they deserve a lot of credit for making sure that money
was put in the Finance Committee proposal that is still being worked
on.
But Here is the problem.
In the face of that bipartisanship 10 years ago, and every year since
on children's health insurance--in the face of all the benefits to our
economy, not to mention the life of a child, and also in the face of
the consensus that is emerging now in this body about the priority of
children's health insurance, to get at least the $35 billion over 5
years--here is the problem. We have a President who thinks something
else.
President Bush recently talked about this initiative, to get $50
billion or even to get $35 billion, as somehow a federalization of
health care for children, which is, I guess, to some people a scary
word, a word that causes them concern.
But there are a lot of Governors across this country, Republicans and
Democrats, who think otherwise. So I think I have a basic question for
the President, and I will conclude with this because he has been
misleading people on this issue. Here is the question for the President
of the United States. If you can give a tax cut in 1 year for people
making over $200,000 a year, that amounts to $100 billion, if that is
your policy, to give $100 billion in tax cuts to very wealthy people,
why would you not be willing to spend $10 billion a year for children's
health insurance?
That is the question I have for the President. So if this President
and this Congress are concerned about a skilled workforce and
developing entrepreneurs and people to contribute to our economy, we
better make a commitment to children in the dawn of their lives to make
sure they can have the skills they need down the road. But even apart
from the skills, it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, if you can
help the millionaires, the multimillionaires, and the billionaires, why
won't you make a full commitment to help the children of America, the
working poor and middle-income children?
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the motion now that is pending is the
Levin-Reed, et al., amendment. The floor is open for Senators to come
and speak on that amendment. I would hope those who have speeches will
do that. We need to get to a vote on this amendment early next week.
There is no reason this amendment should be the subject of a filibuster
with the subject that is on every American's mind. They want us to be
able to vote up or down on this amendment. I hope it is not necessary
that there has to be a cloture motion, because the Senate should
express its will on a subject of this importance. But this is one of
the many times that will be available in the next few days to speak on
this amendment. We will be here Monday afternoon. We are here now. We
will be here Tuesday, obviously, before the meetings of our parties at
lunch. But I would hope people would take advantage of this opportunity
to come and speak, pro or con, on the pending amendment, because there
is no excuse for a filibuster on an amendment of this importance that
the entire country is watching. This is one of a number of
opportunities we are going to have in the next few days for Senators to
express their opinion. I hope they will use this opportunity.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we know of two speakers who do wish to come
over here shortly, about 11:20 and 11:30. We do not know of any other
speakers who wanted to be recognized at this point.
We are on the bill now. In a moment I am going to ask consent that we
go into morning business, with speakers limited to 10 minutes each. But
I want to note my good friend from Virginia has suggested that we make
it clear to the body that we are on the bill now. The amendment which
is pending is the Levin-Reed, et al., amendment, and that we will,
after we leave here today, be returning on Monday, at a time that the
leaders will set, to this bill. This bill will be the pending matter.
This amendment will be the pending matter on Monday when we return.
I thank the Senator from Virginia for suggesting that we make that
clear.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I concur in the distinguished chairman's
observation. I wish to compliment you and the ranking member, Mr.
McCain, for the progress you have made this
[[Page S9198]]
week on this bill. Having had this responsibility, sharing it with you
for these many years, I would say the two of you have done
exceptionally well.
Mr. President, also it is my intention--I am doing the final bit of
drafting on an amendment by myself, with the distinguished Senator from
Indiana, Mr. Lugar. I hope to be filing that before 12 noon today.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we also urge colleagues who still have
amendments they wish to have considered to bring those amendments here
to the floor by noon; to bring them here on Monday, because Senator
McCain and I have both spoken on the necessity of getting amendments
that are going to be filed to be filed by the end of business on
Monday.
We have a lot of amendments we have got to consider. Hopefully we can
clear some. But the body would be very--colleagues would be doing the
body a favor to get these amendments in if there are any additional
amendments they want to consider.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Levin's
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2008. This legislation is long overdue, and I hope all my colleagues
will support its swift implementation. I want to thank the chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, Senator McCain, and
the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Akaka, for
their leadership on this issue, and I commend them for the good work
they have done. I also want to thank my colleagues for working so
closely with me to get this legislation passed.
A few months ago I had the pleasure of introducing the Wounded
Warriors Assistance Act of 2007 with my good friend from Georgia,
Senator Saxby Chambliss. Our intent was to correct the injustice done
to our returning wounded veterans and to improve the access and quality
of health care our military personnel receive. There have been too many
cases where our veterans have slipped through cracks in the system, and
this is why I support the Levin amendment to H.R. 1585. It is a
comprehensive policy of care and management for servicemembers with
combat-related injuries or illnesses, a concept which mirrors the
intent of the legislation I introduced. I worked on this legislation
for a long time, and I am proud to have worked with the Senate Armed
Services Committee and Senator Chambliss to put forth meaningful
language that has the potential to directly help those who defend our
country.
This legislation will provide our veterans with assistance to make
sure their medical needs are met and bureaucracy does not interfere
with their progress. While this legislation addresses enhanced health
care, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder,
disability evaluations, and improvement of facilities housing military
patients, this amendment will ultimately restore confidence in the
integrity and efficiency of the military medical system and ensure our
wounded warriors feel secure in the fact they will always receive
committed, quality care. This act will also increase training for
health care professionals and medical case managers and make a
physician or health care professional available to help veterans
navigate the medical evaluation board process, translate findings and
recommendations, and explaining medical terms and regulations. This
process is a critical crossroad in a service man or woman's career and
can be very emotional, confusing, and stressful. I do not believe our
returning veterans should have to deal with any more adversity or undue
stress while trying to recover from their injuries, and this
legislation will make this process easier for them.
Another provision that I am particularly proud of is the section on
disability severance pay. This addition expands the population that is
eligible for the enhancement of disability severance pay to include
injuries incurred during performance of duty in support of combat
operations. Oftentimes our military personnel are wounded in training
exercises before they are sent into theater, and in current law they
are not eligible to receive disability severance pay. For example, if a
soldier is wounded while training to fast rope out of a helicopter, he
or she will now be fairly compensated for their sacrifice in support of
combat operations.
In my home State where 369 Arkansas soldiers have been wounded, my
office has provided immeasurable assistance to ensure those veterans
get better care. I am honored to support this legislation as it also
affects over 25,000 wounded warriors nationwide. I frequently make
trips to Walter Reed Hospital, and I visit wounded Arkansans who are
some of the most determined and inspiring individuals I have ever met.
However, they will still require top notch medical care and a lot of
prayer in order to recover, and I want to make sure they get it.
Again, I am proud to support Senator Levin's amendment to H.R. 1585,
and I am happy to see it adopted into the fiscal year 2008 National
Defense Authorization Act. We owe nothing less than the best for our
troops who make great sacrifices for defense of this country. I firmly
believe this legislation is what we need to reform and modernize the
way we care for our wounded soldiers.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on an amendment
offered by Senator Sessions, amendment No. 2024, that stated the policy
of the United States on the protection of the United States and its
allies against the possible threat from the potential development of
Iranian ballistic missiles. I supported that amendment, but my vote
should not be misconstrued as a blanket endorsement of missile defense
installations, nor as support for military action against Iran.
The amendment by Senator Sessions noted Iran's continuing work on a
nuclear program despite the many concerns voiced by the international
community, as well as Iran's development of ballistic missiles of
increasing range and sophistication. Iranian success in these two areas
might eventually pose a threat to the forward-deployed forces of the
United States and NATO allies in Europe. In the longer term, an Iranian
nuclear and ballistic missile program could perhaps pose a threat even
to the U.S. mainland. I must state clearly and unequivocally, however,
that the best way to confront these possible long-term threats is
diplomatically. Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs are not
an imminent threat to United States security by anyone's reckoning. The
best defense against an Iranian nuclear weapon is for that weapon never
to have been developed. We have time, working together with the
international community, to direct Iran toward a more peaceful path. I
note the good news being reported in today's newspapers that Iran has
agreed to allow IAEA inspectors in to inspect its nuclear facilities.
This is a step in the right direction, and we should support these
efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international
obligations. We will not tolerate an illicit nuclear weapons program,
but neither should we rush headlong into militant provocations.
The Sessions amendment stated the policy of the United States to
``develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, in
conjunction with its allies and other nations whenever possible, an
effective defense against the threat from Iran described in subsection
(a)(1) that will provide protection for the United States, its friends,
and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. . . .'' Further, the
amendment stated that deployment of these defenses should be
complementary to any missile defenses that might be deployed by NATO in
Europe.
This amendment does not say anything new, and it does not imply a
change in U.S. policy. The United States and its allies have been
developing missile defenses for many years now. The bill to which this
amendment was offered contains an additional $315 million to accelerate
several missile defense programs aimed at protecting the United States
and its allies. The Aegis program, the Patriot PAC3, and the THAAD
system program will all benefit from those additional funds.
Importantly, the underlying bill limits the availability of authorized
funding for missile defense installations in Europe until two
conditions have been met: one, approval is given by the countries in
which missile defense components are to be located; and, two, 45 days
have elapsed since Congress receives a report from the Secretary of
Defense on the proposed deployment. These requirements will help to
ensure that ballistic missile defense programs
[[Page S9199]]
are not put in place hastily or unwisely.
I voted for the amendment because I agree with its underlying
sentiment, which is that the United States should prepare defenses
against foreseeable threats. What I fear, however, is that the votes in
favor of this amendment will become fodder for attempts to further
increase funding for missile defense programs that are already more
than adequately funded and which history has shown us time and again
are technologically challenging and cannot be rushed. Over the years, I
have seen this tactic used time and again for missile defense programs.
It does not matter how much more money is thrown at them, the
technology cannot be rushed. Given the demands for funding for troops
in harm's way now from mortar rounds, bullets, and IEDs, we must be
cautious of attempts to further bloat a program intended to confront a
far-off threat that may never materialize. My vote in favor of a policy
of adequately preparing for a long term threat over the long term
should not be interpreted as support for excessive spending on missile
defense development and deployment. Further, it must not be interpreted
as a vote suggesting that the situation at this time justifies the
President to use military force in Iran.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Dignity for
our Wounded Warriors Act, which has just been approved as an amendment
to the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense authorization bill. Under
the leadership of Senators Carl Levin, Patty Murray, and Daniel Akaka,
we have drafted this comprehensive response to the failures of the Bush
administration to properly care for our wounded servicemembers and
veterans.
We were all shocked and awed by the sorry state of outpatient care at
Walter Reed. More than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq.
We know now that our troops have been twice wounded--once on the
battlefield and again battling a bureaucracy at home.
We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding.
Our military medical doctors and nurses are performing heroically,
giving our troops historic rates of survival against devastating new
weapons of war. We owe a debt of gratitude to these military medical
professionals and to the medics on the battlefield. But while we have
saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back.
Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability
benefits--the whole system seems dysfunctional.
In March, I visited Walter Reed and met with outpatients at Mologne
House. I am so proud of their service and sacrifice for our Nation and
so embarrassed by the treatment they have received. We know this
problem isn't limited to Walter Reed. It is part of the reckless
incompetence of this administration. They took us into this war without
a plan for winning it or caring for those we ask to fight it. That is
why the Senate has today taken this important step to provide the care
our troops, veterans, and their families have earned.
This is a comprehensive bill to address the treatment and care of
injured veterans and servicemembers. To ensure that what happened in
Building 18 at Walter Reed never happens again, the bill establishes
minimum standards of repair and maintenance for military treatment
facilities and outpatient housing. It authorizes at least $73 million
in additional funding to enhance care for traumatic brain injury, TBI,
and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, including $3 million for
pilot projects to monitor TBI; $10 million for Centers of Excellence
for TBI; and $50 million for additional TBI and PTSD research. This is
in addition to the $900 million in funding for TBI and PTSD programs
added by Congress to the fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act.
To support a smooth transition for injured troops from military
medical care to the Veterans' Administration, this bill also authorizes
$10 million for a joint DOD/VA office for electronic health records and
establishes comprehensive readjustment studies for Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans by the Defense Department, the Veterans' Administration, and
the National Academy of Sciences.
To develop a better understanding of the signature wounds of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the amendment directs DOD to establish Centers
of Excellence for TBI and PTSD and to report to Congress on their
progress. It requires comprehensive plans for prevention, diagnosis,
and treatment of TBI and PTSD as well as long-term studies, clinical
trials, and research about mental health, TBI, and PTSD.
Our amendment also addresses the unique needs of female
servicemembers by requiring DOD and the VA to take into account the
needs of women servicemembers and women veterans in every aspect of
patient and veterans care. Every report required by the amendment must
include a description of how it specifically addresses the needs of our
women warriors. It requires DOD and the VA to review the need for
mental health treatment tailored to meet the needs of female
servicemembers and veterans and requires the two agencies to develop a
joint policy for the treatment and care of mental health, TBI, and PTSD
for female servicemembers and veterans.
To cut through the health care bureaucracy, our bill entitles any
servicemember or former servicemember with ``severe injury or illness''
to treatment in any DOD or VA approved medical facility, whatever is
closest or most convenient for the patient. It also authorizes military
and VA facilities to provide counseling and medical care for families
and caregivers who are supporting servicemembers--this is important
support for those who have to travel to a treatment facility in order
to support their injured loved one.
To help injured servicemembers transition from DOD health care to the
VA system, the amendment requires improved information sharing between
agencies and establishes common processes, procedures, and standards
between the two agencies. It also institutes a 3-year overlap of
healthcare service between DOD and VA for severely injured
servicemembers, so no injured servicemember is allowed to fall between
the cracks.
This amendment also takes several important steps to improve the
quality of care in the VA health care system. It requires the VA to
create rehabilitation and reintegration plans for veterans suffering
from TBI and to provide nursing home care to veterans with severe cases
of TBI. The amendment also extends the window of time during which
veterans can seek combat-related medical care, from 2 years to 5 years.
This will especially help veterans suffering from PTSD, which can take
several years to develop and diagnose.
Mr. President, our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the
promises we make to troops and their families when they answer the
Nation's call to duty. I am proud to fight each year to make sure these
promises made are promises kept. This amendment honors our Nation's
service men and women.
____________________