[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 85 (Thursday, May 22, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4714-S4742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--
                               Continued

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, the Senate has a real opportunity today 
to do right by our newest veterans who have served us well in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  When our troops came home at the end of World War II, our Nation made 
a choice to make college a reality for millions of them. Nearly 8 
million veterans--half of all who served in that war--took advantage of 
the Montgomery GI bill. They had their college education paid for. Our 
country made a decision to invest in our warriors' future as they 
returned from the battlefield. As a result, the ``greatest generation'' 
produced broad-based growth and prosperity.
  Today, we are great at sending our troops off to war, but we are 
coming up short in providing the benefits their service has earned. 
That is shortsighted and wrong.
  A very small percentage of Americans actually serve in our Armed 
Forces, the military, on Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guard. It 
totals less than 3 million people in a country of 300 million.
  So far, 1.6 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tens 
of thousands more of our troops will rotate through in the coming 
months. These men and women and their families are the ones who have 
borne the sacrifice of 15-month deployments, multiple tours of combat 
zones, injuries, and the loss of far too many of their battle buddies.
  It is right that the Senate give back to them by giving them a GI 
bill that meets today's needs. It is time to treat doing right by our 
veterans as a true cost of war. These folks all joined the service 
because they love their country, they want to serve, and they want to 
be a part of all the great work our military does. It is hardly 
glamorous, but it is critical to our Nation.
  A GI bill that provides our troops the full cost of a college 
education is a vital recruiting tool, and it helps us give back to the 
people who are serving our country.
  Today, nearly one-third of all Active-Duty servicemembers who signed 
up for the GI bill never use the benefit. There are many good reasons, 
but one of the main reasons is that the current GI bill doesn't provide 
enough benefit to meet the needs of today's veterans.
  Madam President, today's GI bill is woefully inadequate. It only 
provides about $9,000 in costs for an academic year of college. When 
you factor in tuition, room, board, books, and other living expenses, 
that is only about 70 percent of the actual cost of attending a 
university such as the University of Montana. It is only a drop in the 
bucket for a private school.
  The Webb amendment that we have before us today fully covers the cost 
of any instate public school's tuition and fees, and it creates a 
matching program to help create incentive for private schools to do the 
right thing and pay for a veteran's education. It will stay this way 
for a generation. This legislation is tied to the cost of public 
education so the benefit to our veterans will keep pace with the annual 
rise in tuition and fees, which have averaged about 6 percent over the 
last decade.

  Another thing that makes this amendment so important is that for the 
first time it brings the National Guard and reservists more access to 
the GI bill. Right now, few guardsmen and reservists can get the full 
benefit. Given how much we have relied on the Guard in Iraq, I think 
that is wrong.
  Let me also say we know the vast majority of servicemen sign up for 
the GI bill, but that has a cost. When you first receive a paycheck 
from the military, you have to decide whether to spend $100 a month for 
the first year on buying into the GI bill benefit. That is a total cost 
of $1,200. Now, $100 may not seem much to some folks in Washington, DC, 
but I guarantee you that to an airman just out of basic and on his or 
her first tour at a base such as Malmstrom Air Force Base, that $100 is 
a big deal. The Webb GI bill gets rid of that fee, and it is about time 
we did so.
  Finally, I wish to address one of the complaints about the Webb bill. 
Some have said the Webb bill will hurt retention, especially in the 
mid-career officer corps. This is simply untrue. A commissioned officer 
would have to serve 8 or 9 years before being fully eligible for the 
new enhanced GI benefit. It is not the GI bill that causes mid-career 
folks to leave the military. It is 15-month deployments, multiple 
tours, and stop-loss involuntary deployment extensions, the so-called 
back-door draft.

[[Page S4715]]

  So I hope we can get this done today. This bill will cost about $2 
billion a year, and that is a little less than we spend in Iraq in 1 
week.
  Keep in mind that, over a lifetime, the average individual who goes 
to college earns more than $500,000 more than someone who does not. 
This is the right thing to do for our troops, but it is also a good 
investment in our country's future, especially at a time when the 
economy is sputtering, wages are stagnant, and jobs are being lost. So 
I call on this body to stand by our Nation's warriors and to pass a 
21st century GI bill. It is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wish to be recognized for 6 minutes 
because we are going to split the time with my colleagues. Would the 
Chair let me know when 5 minutes has expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, three quick points.
  The procedure being employed is bad for the country, it is bad for 
the Senate, and my Republican colleague, Senator Cochran from 
Mississippi, expressed himself very well. If we give in to this, pack 
and go home. We don't deserve to be here.
  Now, I have a proposal, I say to my good friend, Senator Tester. I 
have a proposal that does two things. It helps those who leave the 
military get a better GI benefit. He is right; we need to increase the 
money we give to people who leave the service to go to college. But the 
Webb bill, unfortunately, according to CBO, hurts retention. The 
benefits of $52, $53 billion are all driven to the people who would 
leave, and the consequence of that is we are going to hurt retention, 
according to CBO, by 16 percent.
  Our approach, Senators McCain, Burr, and many of us here, is to do 
two things: Increase the benefit for those who leave but entice people 
to stay and reward those who will make a career out of the military. 
The backbone of the military, I say to Senator Tester, is the career 
NCOs, and we have a proposal that if they will stay in for 6 years, 
they can transfer half their benefits to their family members, to their 
spouse or to their child. If they will stay to the 12-year point, they 
can transfer 100 percent of their GI benefits to their spouse or their 
child.
  That would reward people for staying in and making a career. They can 
get their retirement pay and have money to send their kids to college. 
It rewards people to stay in the military and make a career of the 
military at a time we need a career force because we don't draft people 
anymore.
  This is not World War II, this is not Vietnam, this is a global 
struggle being fought by a few, and we need to do two things: Reward 
those who serve and decide to go back into civilian life, and tell 
those families and military members who will stay on for a career, God 
bless you, we are going to treat you differently than we have ever 
treated you before. We are going to give you a benefit you have never 
had before. You are not only going to be able to retire, but you are 
going to be able to send your kids to college without using a dime of 
your retirement pay.
  But under this procedure, we can't even talk about this. To my 
Republican colleagues who denied me a chance to put up my idea, shame 
on you. I have never done that to you all. Now, if there is some 
project in this bill that means that much to you that you are going to 
throw the rest of us over, we don't need to be here.
  As to the war and the funding, Senator Reid said on April 20, 2007:

       This war is lost. The surge has not accomplished anything, 
     as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

  April 20, 2007. April 13, 2007:

       Reid said he plans to continue an aggressive path for early 
     withdrawal from Iraq and does not particularly care if the 
     Republicans are trying to paint that position as a lack of 
     support for U.S. forces. Why? Because we are going to pick up 
     Senate seats as a result of this war.

  Schumer, April 25, 2007:

       The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankles, 
     Schumer warned, predicting that congressional Democrats will 
     pick up additional Republican votes for Democratic 
     initiatives as the 2008 elections approach. We will break 
     them, because they are looking extinction in the eye, Schumer 
     declared, making no attempt to hide his glee.

  Come down to the floor today and stand by those statements. It is not 
about the Republicans winning or losing seats, it is about this Nation 
being able to be safer. It is about winning in Iraq, not being a 
stakeholder in our defeat. It has never been about the next election to 
me, it has been about standing behind moderate forces in Iraq that will 
fight al-Qaida. Well over a year later, we have evidence now from the 
surge, with better security, that Muslims in Iraq have taken up arms, 
stood by us, and are giving al-Qaida a punishing blow. Reconciliation, 
political economic reconciliation in Iraq is beginning to bear fruit 
because of better security and Iranian desires to dominate that 
country, to kill Americans, and split Iraq. They are losing. We are 
killing special groups from Iran by the droves.
  So I hope this President, President Bush, will veto this bill, if 
that is what it will take.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Senator Webb said he is going to test President Bush's concerns for 
the troops to see if he will sign the Webb bill. To President Bush: Do 
not sign this bill. It will hurt retention.
  We can all come together to help those who serve and leave the 
military and give them a benefit better than they have today because 
they deserve it, but we should be working together for the common good 
to retain a career force that is going to fight this war and the war of 
the future.
  The people who put the Webb bill together had no idea what they were 
doing when it came to retention. They didn't even think about 
retention. Senator Obama said: Yes, if people leave, you will get some 
more. The heart and soul of any military is that career NCO officer, 
and we need to retain them, tell them their service is valuable, and 
help them stay around. We need to help those who leave, but, for God's 
sake, reward those who stay.
  So this is a defining moment for the Senate, for the Republicans, and 
for this war. I can tell you that if we will leave the generals alone 
and support our troops, they will win this war.
  To my Republican colleagues, if we will stand firm for a fair 
procedure and a sensible solution to the veterans' problems, we will 
get rewarded in the next election, not punished. If we give in to this, 
we don't deserve to be here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I also would request to be notified at the 
end of 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify.
  Mr. BURR. To my colleagues: What we have today is a choice between 
something and nothing. I am not sure that is fair for our veterans. I 
am not sure it is fair for the American people. Procedurally, what the 
leadership has decided to do is to give us one choice. When you have 
one choice, it is not a choice, it is a mandate. The choice they have 
given us today as Republicans, quite honestly, and as a Senate, is 
either support what they have prescribed to us or vote against it.
  The President has already said: I am going to veto this bill because, 
from a policy standpoint, it does not embrace what is in the best long-
term interest of this country and of our security. I think the American 
people understand that.
  Procedurally, the only tool we have is to say we are not going to 
vote for it or we are going to stand with the President and uphold his 
veto and bring the majority back to the table to present a process that 
allows us to debate the differences between the two competing views. I 
believe it is worth it when we talk about the education of our 
veterans.
  I believe there are parts of the Webb bill that are very well done, 
and there are parts of the Graham bill that are extremely beneficial to 
our soldiers. We will never get that opportunity unless enough people 
in this body are willing to stand up and say this process absolutely 
stinks and we are not going to stand for it.
  The politics of it Senator Graham pointed out very well. There are 
some who believe the politics of the next election trump whether this 
bill is right or whether the process is fair. I don't believe politics 
should play a part

[[Page S4716]]

in this. I only wish those who have expressed such concern about this 
education benefit would help me fix K-through-12 education, where last 
year 70 percent of the high school students in this country graduated 
on time, and 30 percent of our kids do not have the tools to be asked 
to interview for a job. But we are more passionate about making sure we 
don't even create a choice on education for our veterans. They have no 
voice in this. This dictates what their benefit is going to be in the 
future. I think we have a right to come down and debate the merits of 
two proposals but not under the structure we have been given today.
  The politics of this have gotten ugly. This week an ad was run that 
showed a veteran who had been injured in battle, a service-connected 
injury, and it said unless you support the Webb bill, there is no 
education benefit for this injured vet. Well, let me say today that is 
a lie. It is factually challenged. Any servicemember who has a service-
connected injury has 100 percent coverage for their education benefit 
today without us doing one thing. It is called the Vocational 
Rehabilitation Program within the Veterans Administration. It covers 
their tuition, public and private, Harvard or North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill. It doesn't matter if it is a State or private school. It covers 
their room, their board, and their tuition. It will even pay for 
somebody to work with them on their resume enhancements, on interview 
techniques.
  Every person with a service-connected disability is covered under 
vocational rehab. To suggest in an ad that they are left behind if the 
Webb bill is not passed is absolutely the most disingenuous thing I 
have ever seen.
  From a policy standpoint, do our veterans deserve the ability to 
determine whether the GI benefit they have qualified for is, in fact, 
transferable to a child? Well, what we are saying today is no. No, you 
don't have a right to do that. That is our benefit. We dictate in 
legislation how you use it. We are not going to have a debate on 
whether transferability, whether a servicemember who qualifies for an 
education benefit should have the right. Their decision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Should it be their decision to decide whether a spouse or family 
member, who has sacrificed so much, is going to be the recipient of a 
benefit or whether they are going to let it expire because they have 
the education they need? Well, not having the debate, we are not going 
to have an option to sell to our colleagues, to sell to veterans, to 
sell to the American people why veterans deserve more than what the 
Webb bill offers. We have only valued it on dollars, not on benefit.
  From a policy standpoint, this creates a tremendous inequity between 
States because the benefit is actually determined by where a veteran 
actually chooses to go to school, not by where they live or where they 
came from.
  It is not equal for every veteran. Some will get more, some will get 
less, and the unintended consequences are that States will look at that 
subsidized higher education today and say: Why should we subsidize it 
in the future, we get cheated when the Government pays us.
  We know who will pay for that: All the kids who go to school. All the 
kids in the future who are not connected to the military, when they go 
in to make their tuition payment, are going to be the ones who pay the 
brunt of this situation.
  There is only one way to stop this, and that is to make sure we 
uphold the President's veto. We are not going to defeat the legislation 
to move forward, but we have to uphold the President's veto if, in 
fact, we want to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor, have 
a real debate about the differences in the legislation, a real debate 
about what is important to our veterans, a real debate on what affects 
retention, a real debate on what provides the security we need in this 
country in an all-volunteer Army.
  I am convinced that our colleagues understand the importance 
procedurally of making sure this comes back to the Senate in a fashion 
that we can actually have a real debate about creating a choice between 
something and something versus the setup today, which is something and 
nothing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from North 
Carolina and the Senator from South Carolina for their leadership, but 
I also wish to congratulate Senator Webb, the Senator from Virginia. I 
do believe that all of these Senators, and those of us who join them, 
are operating with the best of intentions, and that is how do we 
modernize the GI bill that helped provide my father an education after 
he left the Air Force after World War II? How do we modernize the GI 
bill and provide the maximum benefit we can but also make sure it 
provides for benefits to military families by allowing for 
transferability to spouses and children under some circumstances? And, 
I would think, fundamentally to our national security, how do we 
preserve and protect the All-Volunteer military force?
  I know it is not his intention, but Senator Webb's bill actually 
would encourage people not to reenlist by providing a perverse 
incentive to leave early in order to obtain the benefits they would 
receive after 3 years of service. We need to make sure we encourage 
continuation of service, retention in the military in the best 
interests of our All-Volunteer military force.
  To me, it is ironic--I remember the Senator from Virginia had an 
amendment where we would restrict the amount of time a servicemember 
could be deployed and then provide for a minimum time they had to be 
back home before they could be deployed again. Again, it was a noble 
aspiration that he had but, unfortunately, because our forces were 
spread too thin because we had allowed the end force, the end strength 
of our military to degrade over time, we had to, as a matter of our 
national security and success in our current efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, ask these servicemembers to return to service without an 
adequate dwell time.
  Perversely, I think the Senator's bill, by encouraging early exit 
from the military and hurting retention, according to the CBO, by some 
16-percent, would actually be at cross-purposes with the very proposal 
he advanced earlier about allowing our military more time at home 
because it would reduce the number of people in our All-Volunteer 
military and make it necessary that they be deployed more often and at 
greater sacrifice.
  I do believe we ought to reward those who continue to serve. We ought 
to reward the families by allowing transferability of the benefit upon 
continued service to spouses and children.
  I can tell my colleagues, speaking to groups in Texas this last 
weekend, that one feature was something they very much appreciated. We 
ought to do everything we can to strengthen and nurture our All-
Volunteer military force and not to cause a 16-percent decline in 
retention rates.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor. I yield 
to him for a question.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Texas will yield 
for two questions I have.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I absolutely agree with the Senator from 
Texas that we have to get to a point where we can debate and vote on 
alternatives to assist our veterans. It is very distressing to me to 
hear there are TV ads running against the Senator from Texas and 
against my colleague from Arizona that call into question your 
commitment and his commitment to the veterans of our country.
  I am informed that one of the ads says:

       Senator Cornyn is fighting tooth and nail against giving 
     adequate benefits to our troops and veterans, using it as a 
     wedge in partisan politics.

  Is the Senator aware that language is being used in an ad against the 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am aware of the ad. I have to say to the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, it is not the first time I have 
seen a phony ad on television. Of course, as he suggests, there is no 
basis for it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may just say, the Senator from Texas, as 
you just heard and as we all know, has been

[[Page S4717]]

speaking on the floor of the Senate and in meetings we have been having 
about this issue. He has been working very hard to find the best way to 
support our veterans with their educational benefits. I want that 
crystal clear on the record.
  Secondly, is the Senator aware that there is also an ad--my 
understanding is it says that ``Senator McCain, as the leader of the 
Republican Party, must send a signal to his colleagues in the Senate 
that now is not the time to play politics by forcing Senators to choose 
between his bill and the Webb-Hagel measure.''
  It seems to me that statement is exactly right, that we should not be 
forced to choose between one or the other, but procedurally, the way 
the bill comes before us, we have two choices: to vote for or against 
Webb; whereas if the President were to veto this bill, there is an 
opportunity to negotiate between the two different approaches, both of 
which have some merit, and get the best of all worlds.
  Will the Senator from Texas comment about the process by which we 
might actually get the best bill to assist our veterans with GI 
educational benefits?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is exactly right. 
We need to have a fair debate and fair opportunity for a vote on these 
competing proposals, both of which I say, again, were borne out of the 
best of intentions, and that is providing educational benefits for our 
military servicemembers and their families.
  But I have to add that calling into question Senator McCain's 
commitment to veterans is laughable. It would be laughable if it wasn't 
so pathetic. No one serving in the Congress and few serving anywhere in 
the United States have given more to support our military 
servicemembers, both active and retired, and, obviously, Senator McCain 
himself is a war hero. To me, that is the kind of phony ad that I think 
causes most people simply to dismiss it because there is just no basis 
for it.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this procedure, whereby we 
are asked to vote on what started out to be an emergency funding bill 
to support our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq, has now 
been larded up with a bunch of pet projects and other spending which 
have nothing to do with supporting our troops in harm's way.
  Congress, by engaging in this sort of conduct, is actually slowing 
down delivery of the money to the troops who need it. We have been told 
by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Veterans' 
Administration--particularly the Secretary of Defense--that unless we 
act----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the colloquy has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Unless we act promptly, we are going to find out our 
troops are not going to get their paychecks, and the services that are 
available for our military families are going to be denied unless 
Congress acts. So why would we engage in this kind of delay?
  Finally, the Graham-Burr bill does provide for the full cost of a 4-
year public school education in my State of Texas, which costs roughly 
$55,000 a year. This bill provides $58,000 a year worth of benefits and 
added to items such as the Hazlewood Act, which allows tuition 
forgiveness, is a good benefit and one certainly deserved by the 
veterans who take advantage of their GI benefits in my home State, and 
I am proud to support them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following four Senators be our next speakers, rotating back and forth 
with the other side: Senator Harkin for 4 minutes, Senator Kohl for 3 
minutes, Senator Lincoln for 4 minutes, and Senator Clinton for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me state the obvious. The 
administration's position, and what I hear from the other side of the 
aisle, is a blank check for Iraq but not a dime for urgent domestic 
priorities. I can tell you that is a nonstarter with the American 
people. We have more to do here internally for America than just 
borrowing money from China and sending it to Iraq.
  I have worked to add to this bill urgently needed funding for an 
array of domestic needs, including health care, extended unemployment 
insurance, and grants to fight crime in neighborhoods across America.
  We have added emergency funding for the Byrne Grant Program to 
provide critical funding to local law enforcement, and this funding is 
crucial. Unless we restore the Byrne funding for fiscal year 2008, 
local law enforcement operations will be severely cut back--set back, 
even--if we provide the funds in 2009.
  In my State of Iowa, over half of all the drug task forces will be 
forced to shut down unless these cuts are restored. Mr. President, 15 
out of 21 regional drug task forces will be eliminated. That is just my 
State. Think about your State. It is going to devastate our law 
enforcement activities to fight drugs and crime. Law enforcement has 
made it clear that once these programs are stopped, they are very hard 
to start again. It is hard to hire back trained and experienced law 
enforcement, hard to restart a wiretap, for example, to reconnect with 
lost witnesses. So the Byrne Grant Program is absolutely essential. But 
there are other things we need to do.
  There is $400 million for NIH in this bill. Much of that is for 
cancer research. We are making great strides, but in the last few 
years, we have not kept up with medical inflation, and therefore the 
amount of dollars we have for cancer research is being eroded.
  We have $1 billion in this bill for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. Mr. President, 15.5 million households are 
at least 30 days overdue in meeting their heating costs. We know how 
high costs are going, and now we have the summer months coming on, and 
in the South particularly, where they are going to need air-
conditioning, we need this money for our low-income and our elderly 
people.
  We extend unemployment compensation by 13 weeks. We know the best 
stimulus of all is to help those who are unemployed, to get them the 
money, to get them through a rough patch so they can get back to work.
  We also defer the implementation of seven Medicaid and Medicare 
amendments. These are supported by the National Governors Association. 
If we do not defer the implementation of these amendments, it is going 
to have a profoundly bad effect on health care in all of our States, 
and many of these regulations go into effect in June and July of this 
year unless we put a stop to them.
  These are all the provisions that are in the domestic package.
  Again, we have $100 billion in this bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. 
What about America? What about using this bill to stimulate our 
economy, extend assistance to the unemployed, fight crime, create jobs, 
and invest in medical research? It is not just Iraq and Afghanistan, it 
is also America. That is what this first domestic package is about, and 
I urge all Senators to vote to adopt this amendment to the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the pending amendment includes several 
provisions within my jurisdiction as chairman of the Agriculture 
Subcommittee. Under the current unanimous consent agreement, these 
provisions will be stripped from the bill if we fail to get 60 votes. 
So I want my colleagues to know exactly what they are voting against if 
they oppose this amendment.
  The amendment includes $180 million to help American communities and 
families in most States recover from recent natural disasters, 
including floods and tornadoes. Already this year, we witnessed a new 
record of tornado touchdowns, and flooding in the South, Midwest, 
Pacific Northwest, and other parts of the country has been devastating. 
If these funds are dropped from the bill, then we are asking for even 
greater destruction when other storm events strike later this year.
  The amendment also includes $275 million for the Food and Drug 
Administration. I know this is important to the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and I suspect it is also a priority for

[[Page S4718]]

other Members as well. The FDA needs to get its house in order on food 
and drug safety, and these funds are targeted to do just that. FDA 
Commissioner Von Eschenbach called me himself to stress the need for 
this funding.
  Finally, I wish to talk about food aid. For Pub. L. 480, this 
amendment provides an additional $500 million over the President's 
request in the current fiscal year. These additional resources will 
compensate for skyrocketing food and transportation costs that no one 
in the administration seems to be acknowledging.
  I have written two letters in recent weeks, one to the President of 
the United States and another to the Secretary of State, urging them to 
support these additional resources. I am still waiting for a response. 
I am troubled by their silence.
  I ask unanimous consent these two letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2008.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Although the food aid proposal you 
     unveiled last week is a welcome signal of our Nation's 
     commitment to hungry people across the globe, I feel obliged 
     to respectfully disagree with the specifics and make several 
     observations.
       While your proposal calls for an additional $395 million 
     for Public Law 480 food assistance, none of this additional 
     assistance would become available until the beginning of the 
     next fiscal year. Sadly, I don't believe the crisis of 
     escalating food and transportation costs can be held at bay 
     that long and I fail to see how these additional resources 
     help anyone right now. I would welcome an explanation from 
     your administration.
       As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee with jurisdiction 
     over P.L. 480, I believe we need more timely action. I intend 
     to include enhanced P.L. 480 funding in the upcoming 
     supplemental appropriations bill so that additional resources 
     will be available for the current fiscal year. I realize this 
     may be at odds with your oft-stated pledge to veto any 
     supplemental which exceeds $108 billion. While I do not wish 
     to invite unnecessary controversy over such an important 
     topic. I think we have a moral obligation to act quickly. The 
     poorest of the poor across the globe cannot wait nearly half 
     a year for us to make good on this pledge.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
     Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
     U.S. Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: News that our government has reached 
     agreement with North Korea to provide food aid for the coming 
     year is a welcome development.
       U.S. food aid is tremendously important in many corners of 
     the globe, and as chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
     Subcommittee with jurisdiction over PL-480 food assistance I 
     welcome the opportunity to collaborate in this area. Recent 
     food shortages and price increases have sparked unrest and 
     instability in a variety of places. I believe it's critical 
     that we maintain robust capacity to respond with U.S. food 
     aid.
       With those thoughts in mind, I recently sent the attached 
     letter to the President regarding supplemental funding for 
     PL-480. As you know, the $770 million in food aid announced 
     with much fanfare earlier this month would do little to 
     provide immediate new resources for this key program. 
     Consequently, I insisted that the Supplemental Appropriations 
     Bill approved yesterday by the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee include an additional $500 million for PL-480 in 
     fiscal year 2008. I hope you will agree that this is a 
     necessary and appropriate course of action and that you will 
     encourage the Administration to endorse this revised funding 
     level.
       Our moral obligation to ease human suffering and our 
     strategic interest in promoting stability could not be more 
     closely aligned where food aid is concerned. Please join me 
     in pushing for these additional resources and convey to the 
     President how his oft-stated threat to veto any supplemental 
     which exceeds his request runs counter to this worthy 
     objective.
           Sincerely
                                                        Herb Kohl,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Public Law 48 provides our Nation's response 
to hunger and malnutrition around the globe. By all accounts we are 
facing a serious crisis in the months ahead. UNICEF estimates that 6 
million Ethiopian children under the age of 5 are at risk of 
malnutrition and that more than 120,000 have only about a month to 
live--that is a chilling and disturbing thought; 120,000 children in 
Ethiopia have only a month to live--and we know this tide is coming. 
Our moral responsibility, I believe, is clear.
  There are other critical situations around the globe. The Secretary 
General of the United Nations is in Burma today, surveying the crisis 
at hand. These additional resources are needed now and not just for 
places that are making headlines.
  Each of the provisions I described--the flood recovery money, the 
food and drug safety money, the food aid money--cover legitimate needs 
that deserve to be addressed. They are not pork, they are not 
excessive, they are rational responses to critical problems. If we fail 
to address them in this bill, we have done a disservice to the public.
  I urge my colleagues to weigh these items carefully as they consider 
their support for the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
support as well to the supplemental appropriations bill before the 
Senate today. I commend Chairman Byrd and all the hard-working members 
of the Appropriations Committee for the good work they have done. It 
reflects many diverse needs at home and abroad at such a critical time 
in our Nation's history.
  A proposal we will be voting on this morning--as we enter the sixth 
year of this war in Iraq and Afghanistan--will provide the necessary 
resources for our brave troops to continue their task and finish the 
job. It also makes clear to the Iraqi people our support for this war 
can no longer be open-ended. It sets practical and realistic goals for 
beginning the phased deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq. When our troops 
begin returning home and transition back to civilian life in their 
communities, we appropriately recognize their service in this bill by 
providing benefits that better reflect the sacrifices they have made 
for each one of us.
  I appreciate the leadership exhibited by Senators Webb and Hagel, 
Lautenberg and Warner, to keep the drumbeat alive and make this a 
priority. They have served our country honorably in past conflicts, and 
they understand that educating our Nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines is a cost of war.
  One provision included in the GI bill will ensure that our citizen 
soldiers, our National Guard and Reserve serving multiple deployments 
abroad, will accrue additional education benefits similar to those 
Active-Duty troops receive when they are deployed.
  I have fought for this equity because guardsmen and reservists who 
serve multiple tours of duty do not receive one extra penny of 
educational benefits for their added service because benefits are based 
on the single longest deployment. Passage of this bill will make that 
change, and it will make it possible for those Guard and Reserve to 
accrue their educational benefits.
  Another important piece of this bill is the domestic investment it 
makes. There are dollars for VA polytrauma centers, rural schools, and 
law enforcement that need immediate attention. It also includes funding 
under the Adam Walsh Act to track and prosecute sex offenders and those 
who would do harm to our children.
  In addition, this bill provides vital resources to help in recovery 
efforts from all kinds of disasters, from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
and other natural disasters such as the string of tornadoes and 
flooding that hit my State earlier this year. Arkansas has suffered a 
series of natural disasters this year unlike any I have seen in my 
lifetime. It has left 60 of our 75 counties in our State in need of 
Federal disaster assistance. Wave after wave of storms has rocked the 
residents of Arkansas and left many of them shocked by the disaster. It 
started on February 5, when a band of tornadoes created a path of 
destruction that stretched across 12 counties in Arkansas, killing 13 
people and injuring 133--the deadliest storm in nearly 10 years.
  A little more than a month later, heavy storms hit Arkansas once 
again, this time bringing rain, floods, and devastation that we have 
not seen the likes of in 90 years. Thirty-five Arkansas counties were 
declared disaster areas from that storm.
  Again, on April 3, another set of tornadoes hit central Arkansas. 
Although not as deadly as the February tornadoes, four twisters touched 
down in a five-county area, including some of the

[[Page S4719]]

counties suffering already from the floods. In addition, two more 
rounds of tornados hit the State earlier this month, bringing the total 
to 60 counties affected by these storms this year.
  This is evidence of the disaster upon disaster that hit our State. As 
we look at the opportunities we have before us with supplementals, this 
is what we use to address those kinds of devastation.
  I ask my colleagues to please support this part of the bill. These 
resources will help our State and other States in many other 
initiatives we truly need in our country.
  The citizens of Arkansas and in our communities all across this 
Nation have suffered much at the hands of Mother Nature. We are asking 
our colleagues to work with us to ensure that the things we could not 
predict, the things we could not prepare for, could be taken care of 
for those brave Americans in our great State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I certainly add my support to the very 
passionate appeal of my friend from Arkansas on behalf of that 
wonderful State. I remember very well all the difficult storms and 
floods that too frequently impact Arkansas. I hope our colleagues will 
support the request for disaster assistance.
  I rise to support strongly the GI bill that has been proposed in the 
Senate. I thank Senator Webb for his hard work on this bipartisan 
legislation, as well as Senator Lautenberg, Senator Warner, and Senator 
Hagel--each one a veteran who understands, deeply and personally, the 
importance of honoring the service and sacrifice of our men and women 
in uniform.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is in the spirit 
of the original GI bill of rights to provide every American who has 
served honorably since September 11, 2001, on Active Duty, with real 
help to go to college, to earn a degree, to end his or her military 
service with a new beginning in civilian life.
  After 36 months of Active-Duty service, a veteran's tuition and fees 
for any in-State public college would be fully covered. We provide a 
stipend for books and supplies and a housing allowance based on actual 
housing costs in the area. The benefit would apply fully to members of 
the National Guard and Reserve who have served on Active Duty, and all 
Active-Duty servicemembers would be entitled to a portion of the 
benefit based on the length of their Active-Duty service.
  This is not a half measure or an empty gesture. This is a full and 
fair benefit to serve the men and women who serve us, and that is why 
this is such a key vote.
  We often hear wonderful rhetoric in this Chamber in support of our 
troops and our veterans, but the real test is not the speeches we 
deliver but whether we deliver on the speeches.
  There are some who oppose this benefit, arguing that our men and 
women in uniform have not earned it, that it is too generous. I could 
not disagree more strongly. This is a question of values and 
priorities. Each one of us will answer that question with our votes 
today. Let's strengthen our military by improving benefits, not 
restricting them.
  There are those opposing this important legislation who have offered 
a half measure instead, designed to provide the administration with 
political cover instead of a benefit to our veterans. That is not 
leadership and it is not right. It is time we match our words with our 
actions. After all the speeches are done and the cameras are gone, what 
matters is whether we act to support our troops and our veterans--
before, during, and long after deployment.
  I have proposed my own GI bill of rights to build on this legislation 
with opportunities to secure a home mortgage, to start a small business 
or expand it with an affordable loan. As a member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, I am proud to support our troops and veterans, 
improving health care for the National Guard and reservists, providing 
our servicemembers with the equipment and supplies they need to improve 
treatment and care at our military and veterans hospitals.
  The original GI bill was proposed 2\1/2\ years after the attack on 
Pearl Harbor and, more than a year before the war ended, President 
Roosevelt signed that bill into law. Eight million veterans 
participated, improving their skills or education. At the peak in 1947, 
veterans accounted for nearly half of all college admissions. That is 
the way we should be honoring the service of those who served us. This 
is our moment to provide each and every new veteran the opportunity to 
realize their version of the American dream--the dream they have spent 
their lives trying to defend.
  It is time we started acting as Americans again. We are all in this 
together. Let's send this legislation to the President and let's serve 
the men and women who served us.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senator from 
Louisiana has 5 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of that portion 
of the emergency funding bill we will be voting on in about 35 minutes. 
The reason I do so is because it is absolutely essential to deliver the 
help the President has committed--that the Nation has committed--to our 
continuing recovery in Louisiana.
  First, let me begin by thanking all my colleagues and, perhaps even 
more importantly, the American people, the American taxpayer, for an 
unprecedented outpouring of support for our recovery. True, Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita, a devastating one-two punch, were unprecedented 
disasters, the biggest natural disasters--particularly when put 
together--that the country has ever faced. Still, it is very 
significant, very important to acknowledge that the American people 
have also stepped to the plate and made an unprecedented response. The 
people of Louisiana are deeply grateful.
  The provisions in this bill are an essential part of that commitment 
and that response. Very soon after Hurricane Katrina, I sat in Jackson 
Square, in the middle of the French Quarter, and heard the President 
deliver his live address to the Nation from Jackson Square, right in 
front of St. Louis Cathedral. It was a strange, eerie night because New 
Orleans had not yet recovered, in significant ways, from the storm. It 
was only a few weeks since Hurricane Katrina. The whole French Quarter 
was dark--no electricity. The only light, lighting a small portion of 
that part of the world, was from light trucks sent in so the President 
could speak from that historic point to the American people.
  The President made a clear and a firm commitment to the full recovery 
of our region. I thanked him for that. I thank him for that today.
  A big part of that commitment, of course, was strong, meaningful 
hurricane and flood protection for southeast Louisiana, building at a 
minimum a 100-year level of protection and building it quickly enough 
to sustain a storm that you might expect to see only once every 100 
years.
  Again, I thank the President for that commitment. I thank the 
American people for that commitment. But this funding in this bill 
passed now is absolutely essential to keep that commitment.
  The Corps of Engineers itself says, if they do not have this money by 
October 1, they will slip from their schedule and that rebuilding and 
that level of protection for southeast Louisiana will not be here in 
the promised timeframe for the hurricane season of 2011. We cannot 
allow that schedule to slip. We cannot allow that solemn commitment of 
the President not to be fulfilled in a real and a timely manner. That 
is why these funds in this emergency funding bill are so essential.
  I know many of my friends who have fiscal concerns, as I do in 
general have concerns about this bill. I would simply say with regard 
to these funds for our recovery, the President has asked for 95 percent 
of these moneys. The President himself has asked that those moneys be 
emergency spending. So this is hardly some Christmas tree on which we 
are trying to put ornaments for needs that are not there, that the 
President has not requested. At least 95 percent of this recovery 
package is what the President himself has explicitly requested and even 
requested be made emergency funding.
  Let's follow through on that solemn commitment of the President, of 
the Congress, of the American people, and let's be sure to do it in a 
timely way so this enormously important protection

[[Page S4720]]

system is built in time for the hurricane season of 2011. This is very 
important to our recovery.
  Besides levees and hurricane protection, it also addresses, in a 
small but important way, hospital needs, criminal justice needs, 
relocating businesses from the MRGO so that hurricane highway can 
finally be closed and we do not have a repeat of the devastation it 
helped cause in eastern New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish. Again, this 
is our opportunity to do this this year in a timely way.

  I respectfully again thank all of my colleagues for their support in 
our recovery and ask them to support this essential step in meeting the 
President's commitment, meeting these needs in a timely way.
  I yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her leadership and especially to Senator Byrd from West Virginia, the 
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  What we are considering on the floor of the Senate is not normal 
business, this is emergency spending. President Bush has come to 
Congress and said: We have an emergency in Iraq. Set aside whatever you 
are doing and deal with this emergency. He said: I am not going to pay 
for this. It is such an emergency, we are going to add it to the debt 
of America--not the first time President Bush has come to us and asked 
for that. In the 5 years plus of this ongoing war, President Bush has 
now asked us for $660 billion to be spent on the war in Iraq and the 
reconstruction of that country, $660 billion this administration says 
is such an emergency that we do not pay for it, we are going to spend 
it, put it on the debt of America and leave it to our kids and 
grandchildren.
  Well, some of us believe that, first, Iraq has a responsibility to 
pay its own bills; this country has a surplus. Iraq, with all of its 
oil, has a surplus of almost $30 billion. Why in the world are we 
taking billions of dollars out of our Treasury, the hard-earned 
paychecks of American families at a moment when we are facing a 
recession to send over and rebuild Iraq?
  Why would not the Iraqis spend their own money from their own oil 
first? That is going to be part of this in a later amendment. But to 
put it in perspective, this President says no. He wants $180 billion 
for the war in Iraq. We met in the Appropriations Committee, on a 
bipartisan basis. We said, as important as the war in Iraq may be to 
the Bush administration, we believe a strong America begins at home.
  If there is an emergency in Iraq, there is an emergency in America, 
and we need to address that emergency. No. 1, we include in this 
amendment the Webb GI bill. You know what happens when a Nation goes to 
war, when America invades a country as we did in Iraq? I can tell you. 
We love our soldiers when we send them to war. Our hearts go out to 
them and their families. We honor them while they are serving in that 
war, some unfortunately losing their lives and some coming back 
injured. We honor them with our speeches and all of our attention.
  Senator Webb, with this GI bill asks the basic question: Will you 
honor these soldiers when they come home? Will you make sure they have 
the education they need to go on with their lives or will they join the 
ranks of the unemployed after serving our country?
  We know a GI bill works. It worked after World War II. Millions of 
returning veterans, women and men, had an opportunity to go to college, 
and America enjoyed the greatest prosperity in our modern history 
because we put an investment in people in our future.
  Jim Webb, with this bipartisan amendment, does exactly the same 
thing. I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, do not 
tell me how much you love the soldiers if you will not stand behind 
them when they come home. Do not tell me how much you honor our 
military if you will not honor them and their families by giving them a 
chance at a quality education.
  Voting ``no'' on this GI bill will be remembered across America not 
only by soldiers but by many others. And that is not all. In this bill 
there is $437 million for VA polytrauma centers. Do you know why we 
need them? Because of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress 
disorders, amputations. Our VA was not ready for this, all of these 
thousands of returning veterans with all of their problems. We put the 
money in to rebuild the VA so they can respond and help those veterans.
  It also provides money for our communities and towns. In the city of 
Chicago, which I am proud to represent, we have had a painful year of 
gang violence. Over 20 schoolchildren have been killed outside of 
Chicago public schools by gang warfare.
  We put money in this bill, $490 million, to give to police forces 
around America to fight the drug gangs, to fight the violence, to bring 
peace to our neighborhoods. I want peace in Baghdad, but I want peace 
in Chicago as well. We can spend some money on America if we can find 
$180 billion to spend in Iraq.
  We also provide money for the Americans who are out of work. We are 
facing a recession. We have millions of Americans who cannot find a 
job. This bill provides them an extension of unemployment insurance so 
they can keep their families together. Is there a higher priority? Is 
there a higher family value?
  Let me also tell you, this bill provides assistance which is 
essential for health care for the poorest people in America; families 
who are struggling to get by, many of them going to work with no health 
insurance whatsoever. This bill provides assistance through Medicaid 
and Medicare. So if you believe a strong America begins at home, if you 
believe we have to honor our soldiers not only when they are at war but 
when they return, there is only one vote that can be cast. It is a 
``yes'' vote for the pending amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I speak today to lend my support to S. 22, 
the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. S. 22 
establishes a new GI bill for our servicemembers who have served after 
9/11 and represents a comprehensive readjustment benefit for our brave 
men and women, one they richly deserve, just as members of an earlier 
generation benefited from a GI bill following World War II, with a huge 
gain for our Nation from the more educated work force and leaders that 
resulted.
  Senators Webb, Hagel, and Warner have talked at length about the 
virtues, and need, for this landmark legislation. I want to speak today 
on the impact on retention, the transferability provisions recently 
added, and recruiting.
  Much has been said about the effect on retention this legislation may 
have. Some are afraid servicemembers may leave the military in 
unacceptable numbers in order to take advantage of these benefits.
  Our need to focus on retention is clear. The military we have today 
is vastly different from the military we had in 1945. Since 1973 we 
have enjoyed the benefits of the All-Volunteer Force. Rather than 
drafting servicemembers, we encourage them to join. Over the past 35 
years of the All-Volunteer Force, we have seen military basic pay rise 
significantly. As an employer, the military departments are competing 
with the private sector. This has led to a system of increasing 
benefits, bonuses, special and incentive pays. In analyzing the impact 
of S. 22 on retention and recruiting costs, the CBO recently estimated 
that the Department would have to spend $6.7 billion over the next 5 
years in additional retention bonuses to maintain retention at current 
levels, to a large extent offset by a $5.6 billion savings in 
recruitment bonuses and other recruitment costs.
  The challenge then is to provide a comprehensive reform of 
readjustment educational benefits while ensuring the continued 
viability of the All-Volunteer Force. These are and must be the twin 
goals of any legislation. I think this legislation achieves these 
goals.
  This legislation retains and supplements retention incentives. In the 
first place, S. 22 retains the system of ``kickers'' in additional 
incentives that exists under the current GI bill. Under this program, 
the services may provide up to an additional $950 per month of 
educational benefit to retain personnel with critical military skills 
or to retain any individual in a critical unit. For someone who 
qualifies for the full

[[Page S4721]]

36 months of educational benefits, that comes out to an additional 
$34,000, a significant retention incentive. Moreover, under this 
program, servicemembers who serve for at least 5 consecutive years on 
Active Duty may receive an additional $300 per month of educational 
benefit. Over 36 months, that comes to over $10,000. That is also a 
significant retention incentive.
  Our bill goes further in terms of retention. S. 22 has been amended 
to add a pilot program to provide transferability of education 
benefits. The CBO cost estimate I mentioned earlier did not consider 
this additional retention tool.
  I have long been a supporter of the transferability of GI bill 
benefits. There is an old maxim in the military that while you recruit 
the servicemember, you retain the family. These transferability 
provisions provide additional incentive for servicemembers to stay on 
Active Duty by tying continued service to varying levels of 
transferability of the benefit to immediate family members, with 100 
percent transferability coming after the servicemember has served 10 
years. Ten years is an important milestone. Once a service member hits 
midcareer, the military retirement benefit, an extremely generous 
benefit that is collectible immediately upon hitting 20 years of 
service, becomes the strongest retention incentive. Getting 
servicemembers to midcareer is critical, and this transferability 
provision will help do that.

  Not only does transferability help to address the retention issue, it 
is the right thing to do. This war has been fought not just by our 
brave servicemembers but by their families as well. Children may have 
missed one or both parents for as much as 4 years out of the past 5 or 
6. That is a steep toll to pay. But by providing transferability, we 
can help ensure a quality education for a spouse or child of a 
servicemember who has served so bravely since
9/11. I believe it makes this bill stronger and addresses a concern 
that has been raised against its provisions.
  This legislation should actually incentivize recruiting. What better 
promise can we make to a recruit or his parents than the promise that 
we will provide a more fully funded college education after fulfillment 
of the Active Duty commitment? Many in this body have raised the issue 
of recruiting--whether the Army in particular is granting too many 
waivers in order to meet recruiting goals. This legislation will help 
significantly in this regard. You have to recruit people before you can 
retain them, and this legislation will help recruiting, I believe 
significantly, over time. Recruiting young men and women into the 
military is more than half the battle; I have faith the services can 
retain the servicemembers they need, and Congress stands ready to 
provide additional authority if necessary.
  Regarding recruiting, I want to make another point that I do not 
believe has been raised, and that is on the subject of the 
``influencers.'' As many in this body know, support for military 
service among the influencers, including coaches, teachers, and school 
counselors, of the 17- and 18-year-olds who are our prime recruiting-
age demographic, is critically important. Aside from the immediate 
benefits of this legislation, my hope is that over time military 
service becomes in the minds of these influencers synonymous with a 
free, quality college education. After you serve us, we will serve you. 
We will pay for your college education.
  What better way to influence the influencers than this? As we know, 
the costs of education continue to soar. In these difficult economic 
times, paying for a college education is at the top of many parents' 
list of worries, a list that is already too long. We have read the 
stories of returning veterans having to work at night so that they can 
attend school during the day--even with their current GI bill benefits. 
I believe this bill will go a long way to increasing the support for 
military service among that critical segment of society, the people who 
influence our youth's choice of career.
  Finally, this readjustment benefit is an investment in our future as 
a nation. Indeed, seven members of this body were educated on the post-
World War II GI bill. As an editorial from last week's LA Times 
observed:

       College is the essential ticket to upward mobility, and who 
     more deserves a chance at that than the young men and women 
     who volunteered for military service in wartime? The post-
     World War II experience shows that educating them is good 
     public policy. . . . First, it would boost military morale 
     and the quality of recruits--even though the military worries 
     that it could hurt retention. Second, the investment in 
     education is likely to pay for itself many times over as 
     veterans join the workforce at higher pay rates.

  The brave men and women of our Armed Forces today will produce many 
future leaders of this Nation, and we owe them and their families this 
comprehensive readjustment educational benefit.
  I am proud to cosponsor this landmark legislation, and I urge my 
Senate colleagues to pass it expeditiously. We must do everything 
possible to assist our servicemembers, and their families, in the 
transition back into civilian life, to provide the tools that allow 
them to thrive and prosper in their postservice lives, and to become 
the next generation of leaders that this Nation needs them to be.
  I thank Senator Webb for his dogged pursuit of this legislation from 
his very first days in office. It will help our servicemembers and 
their families for generations to come.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Virginia and I have 
worked together closely on his proposal for a new GI bill since he 
introduced it in January 2007. I was delighted to be able to join him 
as a cosponsor of S. 22. I deeply appreciate his very strong--and very 
personal--commitment to it.
  Now it is time to give those young service members who are stepping 
forward voluntarily--putting themselves in harm's way--an opportunity 
for quality educational assistance. We must make good on our promise of 
an education in return for serving honorably in our military. Mr. 
President, the time has come for a new GI bill for the 21st century. I 
believe that it should be promptly signed into law.
  Sadly, despite the fact that it has passed this body by a veto-proof 
majority, President Bush, who sent our troops into war and is again 
requesting billions of dollars to pay for it, has threatened to veto 
this measure.
  Today, I extend my personal pledge to Senator Webb and all who 
support a revitalized GI bill. If bill is vetoed and Congress fails to 
override the veto, I will bring Senator Webb's New GI bill before the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee during our markup next month and urge that 
the Committee favorably report it to the Senate. It is time to give 
those young service members, stepping forward voluntarily and putting 
themselves in harm's way, an opportunity for quality educational 
assistance. We must make good on our promise of an education in return 
for serving honorably in our military. I am committed to seeing this 
legislation become law.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Medicare and Medicaid cost the American 
taxpayers a combined $770 billion in 2007; Medicare costing $432 
billion and Medicaid $338 billion. In 2007, the Federal Government's 
share of Medicaid expenditures was $190 billion and is expected to be 
$402 billion by 2017.
  Medicare expenditures alone account for 3.2 percent of GDP. Over the 
next 75 years these expenditures are expected to explode to almost 11 
percent of GDP. Every American household's share of Medicare's unfunded 
obligation is like a $320,000 IOU.
  The Medicaid Program, because of the promise of a generous Federal 
match of State Medicaid dollars, has given States heavy incentive to 
increase their State Medicaid spending. Medicaid spending now accounts 
for 26.3 percent of state budgets, up from just 6.7 percent in 1970. In 
some States, as much as half of all new revenues will go to Medicaid in 
the coming years.
  We have heard a lot of talk about bi-partisan commissions on 
entitlement reform come out of the Budget Committee, but the least that 
we can do is to stop blatant fraud and abuse in the mean time. 
Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is a baby step in addressing 
entitlements. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has 
worked over the last 5 or so years to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. 
They have done work on a State-specific basis and also by promulgating 
detailed regulations so that States have the clarity they need. Over 
the years, Medicaid has proven to be a program susceptible to fraud, 
waste, and abuse. Many States have pushed the limits of what should be 
allowed to maximize the Federal dollars sent to them.

[[Page S4722]]

  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, put Medicaid on its ``high 
risk'' report a few years back because of questionable financing and 
the lack of accountability.
  According to the Wall Street Journal:

       The GAO and other federal inspectors have copiously 
     documented these ``creative financing schemes'' going back to 
     the Clinton Administration. New York deposited its proceeds 
     in a Medicaid account, recycling federal dollars to decrease 
     its overall contribution. So did Michigan. States like 
     Wisconsin and Pennsylvania fattened their political 
     priorities. Oregon funded K-12 education during a budget 
     shortfall.

  According to the Wall Street Journal:
       The right word for this is fraud. A corporation caught in 
     this kind of self-dealing--faking payments to extract 
     billions, then laundering the money--would be indicted. In 
     fact, a new industry of contingency-fee consultants has 
     sprung up to help states find and exploit the ``ambiguities'' 
     in Medicaid's regulatory wasteland. All the feds can do is 
     notice loopholes when they get too expensive and close them, 
     whereupon the cycle starts over. No one really knows how much 
     the state grifters have already grabbed, though the 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Administration 
     remedies would save $17.8 billion over five years and $42.2 
     billion over 10. We realize this is considered a mere 
     gratuity in Washington, but Medicaid's money laundering is 
     further evidence that Congress isn't serious about spending 
     discipline.

  Examples of fraud in the Medicaid Program are plentiful. One dentist 
billed medicaid 991 procedures in a single day. According to the New 
York Times, a former State investigator of Medicaid abuse estimated 
that as much as 40 percent $18 billion of New York's Medicaid budget 
was inappropriate. New York spent $300 million of its Medicaid money on 
transportation.
  In 2005, Congressional testimony showed that 34 States hired 
contingency-fee consultants to game Federal Medicaid payments.
  Medicaid regulations by CMS are efforts to provide clear guidance in 
critical areas where there have been well-documented problems and 
result from years of work on the part of CMS and myriad reports by the 
GAO and the Office of the Inspector General, OIG, at the Department of 
Health and Human Services, HHS.
  When CMS doesn't know how a State is billing for a service and States 
don't have clear guidance for how they should, neither Medicaid 
beneficiaries nor the taxpayers are well served. The Medicaid 
regulations fix that problem.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the regulations 
would save the Medicaid Program $17.8 billion over 5 years and $42.2 
billion over 10 years by eliminating wasteful and fraudulent Federal 
payments to the program.
  The Federal Government will spend $1.2 trillion over the next 5 years 
on Medicaid, so the regulations save only about 1 percent of Federal 
spending on Medicaid. If Congress is afraid of taking on these very 
modest changes to Medicaid, does it really have the will to take on the 
special interests that is necessary to truly address entitlement 
reform?
  The very purpose of these regulations is to build accountability into 
the Medicaid Program that is long overdue. The proposed delay is a 
budgetary gimmick to avoid paying for the real costs of delaying the 
Medicaid regulations.
  CBO estimates that delaying the rules until April 1, 2009 would cost 
$1.65 billion. However, if the rules were withdrawn or permanently 
delayed--as it is likely they would be under the next administration--
the CBO estimates a 5-year year cost of $17.8 billion and a 10-year 
cost of $42.2 billion. Even if the regulations should be delayed, a war 
supplemental is the wrong place to include Medicaid policy changes. The 
war supplemental is given expedited consideration procedures because 
funding our troops is an urgent matter. The Medicaid regulations have 
been considered for years, and Congress has already put one 6-month 
delay on them. This isn't a new or urgent issue that justifies 
inclusion in a war supplemental.
  If ensuring that America's safety net programs are adequately funded 
is such an important issue, it deserves the full debate and 
consideration of the Senate. Burying a flat-out moratorium of Medicaid 
regulations on a war supplemental appropriations bill isn't being 
honest with the American people. Congressional leaders put a moratorium 
on the Medicaid regulations last year and are poised to do so again. If 
Congress truly opposes the regulations, then it should repeal them 
instead of pretending to ``study them'' a little longer. However, 
Congress is avoiding that kind of honesty because it will cost ten 
times the amount of a moratorium.
  Instead of blaming the Bush administration, Congress needs to decide 
for itself how it will address waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid 
Program. The Bush Administration has taken its turn and taken a stand 
to protect the integrity of one of our largest entitlement programs. 
Now it is Congress's turn.
  This is no longer about the Bush administration. This is now about 
Congress. Congress needs to decide whether or not it will ignore years 
of GAO and HHS OIG reports. Congress needs to decide whether it will 
listen to their State Medicaid directors and Governors or whether it 
will safeguard taxpayer dollars.
  States have had their turn and demonstrated that they will take 
advantage of loopholes, ambiguities, and lack of clarity. Congress is 
the one ultimately responsible for these programs. Congress is elected 
to set policy and fund priorities.
  By imposing another moratorium, Congress is failing to live up to its 
responsibilities. Congress is running away from them. Congress has 
closed its eyes and ears to the abuses that have been going on. By 
stopping the regulations from going into effect, Congress is simply 
giving more sugar to a diabetic. It may feel good for a moment, but it 
is not good in the long run. Congress doesn't really need another year 
to deal with these issues. These abuses have been going on for a long 
time. The GAO and the OIG have been issuing audits and reports on the 
abuses for years.

  Problems with the regulations themselves warrant a conversation not a 
moratorium. There have been very few substantive policy disagreements 
with the administration's regulations. The Finance Committee hasn't 
engaged the administration on specific problems with the regulations. 
There have been no hearings over the last 6-month delay. The only 
``hearing'' that has occurred is the parade of Governors and providers 
pleading to not turn off the funding.
  The rule to impose a cost limit on government providers--CMS-2258--is 
commonsense and good government. The cost rule saves $9 billion over 
five years and $22 billion over 10 years by ending creative State 
financing schemes. First, it requires that providers, like hospitals 
and nursing homes and physicians, receive and retain the total 
computable amount of their Medicaid payments for the services they 
provided. Why would Congress object to that? It seems simple that if 
you provided a service, you should get to keep the money.
  During the 1990s, States figured out creative ways to pass off their 
obligations to providers. That was wrong and unfair. Each time Congress 
stopped one financing practice, a new financing scheme popped up.
  In 1991, Congress cracked down on loopholes in provider taxes. States 
opened up new loopholes. In 1997, Congress cracked down on abuses in 
the disproportionate share hospital, DSH, payments program. In 2000, it 
tried to stop the abuses in upper payment limits, though it failed to 
close them completely.
  In 2003, the Bush administration put new emphasis on ending these 
schemes through the State plan amendment review process. This strategy 
proved to be effective and many States ended their ``recycling'' 
arrangements. But some States complained to Congress.
  In July 2004, Senator Baucus wrote the Administrator of CMS:

       As you know, and as I indicated to you in those 
     conversations, I feel strongly that any new CMS policy on 
     intergovernmental transfers (IGTs) must be implemented in a 
     manner that is transparent, that is applied equally to all 
     states, and that responsibly takes into account the 
     potentially serious financial consequences of eliminating a 
     source of state funding on which some states have a 
     longstanding reliance. Based on my understanding of current 
     law and practice, with respect to IGTs, and on my interest in 
     promoting public confidence in government decision-making 
     judgment that a rulemaking or legislative process is 
     warranted in these circumstances. Accordingly, I urge you to 
     develop rules or a legislative proposal as soon as possible 
     on this issue.


[[Page S4723]]


  The current chairman of the Finance Committee requested Medicaid 
regulations nearly 4 years ago. The administration has responded to 
that request by promulgating regulations. As soon as the regulations 
left the desk of the CMS Administrator, Congress blocked them from 
going into effect LAST year. What has Congress done since then in the 
way of hearings or conversations with CMS? Nothing. What is Congress 
doing now? Trying to delay them again.
  Chairman Baucus is right about treating States equally; Congress 
needs to let CMS do so. It is ironic that hospitals are telling Members 
to stop the Medicaid rules. The policy of the cost rule is that 
providers should get to keep the full amount of Medicaid reimbursement 
paid for the services they deliver. Why should hospitals or other types 
of providers be forced to send part of their payment for services back 
to the State or local government? It is not their responsibility to 
fund the State's share of the cost of Medicaid. That is the 
responsibility of the State and local governments.
  Another major part of the cost rule seeks to limit government 
providers to cost. This has been a recommendation of GAO dating back to 
1994. Under this provision, government providers would receive 100 
percent of their costs for delivering services to a Medicaid recipient. 
But they would be limited to cost, they simply could not charge a 
``profit'' to the Federal taxpayers.

  A government entity shouldn't bill the taxpayer for more than the 
cost of delivering a service. That is nothing more than Medicaid 
subsidizing non-Medicaid activities. If State and local officials 
decide not to fund a program, that doesn't mean the Federal taxpayer 
should pick up the tab.
  Congress may have heard pressure from their States about how the cost 
rule will ``shred the safety net.'' If Congress really cared about 
hospitals, shouldn't Congress be supporting the policy that they get 
paid in full? When this type of policy was put in place in California, 
revenues to hospitals increased by 12 percent.
  If Congress really cared about providers, there are other tax-relief 
policies that would be helpful to them. Provider taxes on hospitals, 
nursing homes, and others totaled $12 billion in 2007.
  The estimated savings for the cost rule for 2008 and part of 2009 is 
about $770 million. If you accept the argument that all providers in 
the entire country will ``lose'' $770 million if the cost rule goes 
into effect, consider that the hospitals in New York alone paid $2 
billion in provider taxes. The hospitals in Illinois paid $747 million 
in provider taxes. If Congress really cared about them, what about a 
little tax relief instead?
  The real story is that States are using creative ``provider taxes'' 
to forego paying their share of the Medicaid Program. A few years back, 
Congress gave a special deal to Illinois supposedly to support the Cook 
County Hospital system worth about $350 million per year. The hospital 
is forfeiting more than $300 million in order to generate supplemental 
payments back to the State for this.
  If you add provider taxes and what Cook County Hospital is 
forfeiting, it totals a billion dollars per year impact on Hospitals in 
Illinois. Instead of addressing that blatant example of taxpayer money 
abuse, these rules are an easier target.
  Senator Baucus is right that the States should be treated equally. 
The Senate should instruct the Finance Committee to identify all of the 
special treatment situations and report legislation to get rid of them.
  The school-based administrative costs and transportation rule--CMS-
2287--ensures that Medicaid money goes for medical care--not school 
buses. First, those individuals and groups who have been scaring 
parents of a child with a disability that this rule will end their 
child's treatment need to hear the truth about what this rule does. 
Schools are required to provide such services and if a child is on 
Medicaid, Medicaid will continue to pay for medically necessary 
services. This rule ensures that Medicaid pays only for medical and 
medically necessary services. Medicaid administrative claiming among 
schools varies widely among States. There are many States that do not 
bill Medicaid for administrative activities at all. Much of the funding 
is concentrated in a small group of States.
  Abuses in administrative claiming have been well documented. Comments 
on the rule confirm that schools are simply using Medicaid as a source 
of revenue to support activities that are related to education, not 
health care.
  Medicaid reimbursement has been used for a wide variety of unrelated 
purposes such as instructional materials and equipment or to fund staff 
positions. Schools use funds to attend workshops and purchase 
educational technology and materials, even to support after school 
activities, arts and music programs.
  There is no problem with those types of programs, but there is a 
problem when Medicaid is paying for them. If citizens at the local 
level decline to raise their property taxes for education, that doesn't 
mean that Federal taxpayers should have to pick up the tab. If State 
legislators increase funding for transportation rather than education, 
Medicaid shouldn't be the means of easing the impact of their decision.
  Allowing schools access to open-ended funding of Medicaid with 
virtually no accountability will erode the decision making process of 
every school board, State legislature as well as the Federal 
Government.

  Another rule--(CMS-2279) would stop the use of Medicaid dollars--
intended for low-income people--going to fund training for doctors.
  There is no question that training the next generation of physicians 
in this country is important. However, it should be paid for out in the 
open. There needs to be accountability as to where the dollars go and 
for whom they are used.
  Under Medicaid's graduate medical education, GME, funding, there is 
no obligation on the part of physicians who are trained with Medicaid 
dollars to serve Medicaid patients once the physicians graduate. In 
contrast both the military and the public health service corps require 
time commitments as repayments for help with medical school.
  There is no authority in the Medicaid statute to pay for GME. It is 
not there. Congress and CMS don't even know the exact fiscal impact of 
this rule because states are not required to report expenditures as 
GME.
  If Congress wants to fund a training program for doctors serving poor 
people, it should be done out in the open with real program 
accountability.
  I understand concerns that CMS shouldn't just abruptly end the 
Medicaid GME program without a transition plan in place, but at the 
same time the Administration is right in questioning how this money is 
spent. If we are going to fund residency training, we should do it 
right and out in the open.
  The Targeted Case Management--CMS-2237--rule targets scarce Medicaid 
dollars. In the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress appropriately 
acted to end state abuses. The rule promulgated by CMS is designed to 
be person-centered, comprehensive, and demand accountability.
  CMS has been accused of overstepping its authority because it is 
applying the criteria across the board however case management is 
delivered. In other words, states cannot get around the rules by hiding 
under administrative claiming rather than actual services. And that 
applies to home and community based service waivers as well as State 
plan amendments. So the complaint is really this--CMS did not leave any 
loopholes open.
  There are generally three provisions that have drawn the most 
complaints about this rule. First, there is a complaint about charging 
Medicaid only for a single case manager. The message of this 
requirement is simple and sensible--if you are the case manager for a 
person with mental illness, you should be capable and qualified to deal 
with all sorts of issues like housing and employment as well as health 
care needs. Why should Medicaid pay for four or five different case 
managers? Case management by qualified professionals should lead to 
better outcomes for the individual and lower costs in the long run. If 
one case manager is too few, then let the Finance Committee figure out 
if it should be two or three or four. We don't need a 1-year moratorium 
to figure that out. This provision does not take effect for another 
year--without

[[Page S4724]]

the moratorium--so there is no immediate impact on states. They have 
plenty of time to come into compliance.
  The second complaint is based on another accountability provision--
billing in 15-minute increments. This will help ensure that rates are 
appropriately set and that there is an audit trail. If 15 minutes isn't 
appropriate, then we can change the time allotment. We don't need an 
all-out moratorium on the rule to figure that out.
  The third common complaint is about limiting the period of time for 
which case managers can bill for transitioning an individual from an 
institution into the community. The rule provides that the transition 
period is the last 60 days of an institutional stay that is 180 days or 
longer. If 60 days is too short, then let us have the Finance Committee 
tell us what the right number is.
  The targeted case management rule was published December 4, 2007, 
nearly 6 months ago. That certainly is plenty of time for the committee 
to tell us how these three policies in this rule should be different. 
Delaying and delaying through a series of moratoriums only succeeds in 
throwing taxpayer dollars out the window.
  This rule is intended to fix another example of how States had 
incentives to transfer their obligations to the Medicaid Program's 
funding stream. States used Medicaid case management to fund their 
foster care systems, juvenile justice programs, and adult protective 
services.
  The State of Washington had used Medicaid to fund non-Medicaid 
activities. The State legislature has now done the right thing and 
appropriated $17 million to replace the reduced Medicaid funding after 
the TCM regulation was published. If the State legislators in 
Washington can live up to their obligations, why should we not expect 
that of the other States?
  Medicaid has become well known as the budget filler for States. If 
funding was short, find someway to call it Medicaid and State costs 
will be cut at least in half.
  This is a dangerous path. If Medicaid keeps picking up the tab for 
schools or foster care or the correctional system, then we are simply 
inviting even larger raids on the Federal Treasury in the future.
  A provision that will prevent health coverage for low-income children 
doesn't belong in a bill to provide funding for American troops. Hidden 
in a bill intended to provide funding for our troops at war is an 
unrelated provision that would have the effect of denying health care 
to low-income children. The provision would impose a moratorium on a 
CMS directive which requires that States cover low- income children 
before expanding their State Children's Health Insurance Programs SCHIP 
to higher income levels. This commonsense initiative, implemented in an 
August 17 letter from CMS to State health officials, ensures that 
children's health resources are targeted towards those children and 
families who need help the most. The result of the moratorium will be 
that States will be able to ignore the needs of low-income children and 
instead direct resources to families with higher incomes who are more 
likely to have existing health insurance coverage.
  SCHIP should focus on low-income children first. SCHIP was designed 
to cover low-income children between 100-200 percent FPL. Even though 
studies have shown that a significant number of children below these 
income levels remain uninsured, States have tried to expand coverage to 
higher income levels without first taking steps to make sure that they 
have covered as many low-income children as possible. Health coverage 
of low-income children must remain the number one goal of SCHIP.
  The CMS August 17 letter implemented reasonable steps to ensure that 
States focus on low-income children before expanding their program. The 
letter explains the steps that States must take to ensure that their 
SCHIP programs cover low-income children before expanding to higher 
income levels. The letter only applies to those States that wish to 
expand their SCHIP programs above 250 percent of the federal poverty 
level (FPL). CBO reported that fewer than 20 states offer coverage 
above this income threshold. Additional, on May 7 CMS issued a letter 
clarifying the August 17 letter and specifying that current enrollees 
would not be impacted and that the agency would work with States to 
show they are meeting the requirements.
  CBO showed that covering families at higher income levels is an 
inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. The CBO has repeatedly stated its 
views that expanding SCHIP to families at higher income levels will 
result in a ``crowd-out'' rate of up to 50 percent. That is, for every 
100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a 
corresponding reduction in private coverage of up to 50 children. The 
CBO estimates that 77 percent of children living in families with 
incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the FPL have private coverage, 
as do 89 percent of children in families with incomes between 300 and 
400 percent of FPL.
  It is wrong to take away seniors' choices in hospitals, and it is 
wrong to do that on a war supplemental so it can't be debated out in 
the open. Americans enjoy the highest per capita GDP among large 
nations mainly because we have the highest rate of productivity gains. 
The hospital sector sorely needs productivity-enhancing innovations 
like specialty hospitals.
  U.S. health care costs are the world's highest at 16 percent of GDP, 
creating major problems for Americans and their employers. For example, 
General Motors' financial woes are exacerbated by $1,500 of health care 
costs per car, which exceeds their cost of steel.
  Hospitals are the largest component of our health care costs, 
accounting for over one-third of our $2.2 trillion health care system. 
They are also the major reason for the growth in costs. According to a 
recent article in Forbes Magazine, 1 in 200 patients who spend a night 
or more in a hospital will die from medical error. The same article 
continues:

       1 in 16 will pick up an infection. Deaths from preventable 
     hospital infections each year exceed 100,000, more than those 
     from AIDS, breast cancer and auto accidents combined.

  Specialty hospitals have consistently offered high-quality health 
care with high-quality outcomes. Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates 
were significantly lower for specialty hospitals than for community 
hospitals, according to a 2006 Health Affairs article.
  There are 200 specialty hospitals in the U.S. out of the 6,000 
hospitals overall, often delivering better, safer services at lower 
costs.
  According to a recent University of Iowa study, Medicare patients who 
receive hip or knee replacement at specialty orthopedic hospitals have 
a 40 percent lower risk of complications after surgery--(bleeding, 
infections, or death) compared to Medicare patients at general 
hospitals. A 2006 study funded by Medicare found that patients of all 
types are four times as likely to die in a full-service hospital after 
orthopedic surgery as they would after the same procedure in a 
specialty hospital.
  McBride Clinic in Oklahoma City is Oklahoma's best hospital for 
overall orthopedic services, according to the Tenth Annual HealthGrades 
Hospital Quality in America Study released last month. McBride has 5-
star ratings in joint replacement, total knee replacement, hip fracture 
repair, spine surgery, and back and neck surgery. The hospital received 
HealthGrades' 2008 Orthopedic Surgery Excellence Award, and is the only 
Oklahoma hospital among the top five percent in the Nation for overall 
orthopedic services.
  When it comes to specialization, the question is not whether to 
specialize, but rather how to do it. Everyone agrees that the health 
care system should provide focused, integrated care--especially for the 
victims of chronic diseases and disability who account for 80 percent 
of costs. For example, Duke Medical Center tried an integrated, 
supportive program for congestive heart failure. The approach resulted 
in better patient outcomes, increased patient compliance with their 
doctors' recommendations, and a 32 percent drop in costs per patient. 
Hospital admissions and lengths of stay dropped and visits to 
cardiologists increased nearly sixfold.
  Some contend that physicians who invest in specialty hospitals have a 
conflict of interest that may lead to overutilization. But a recent 
study published in Health Affairs found that most physicians refer 
patients to specialty hospitals for reasons totally unrelated to 
profits.
  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, has also found no 
evidence that overall utilization rates in communities with specialty 
hospitals rise more rapidly than the

[[Page S4725]]

utilization rates in other communities. MedPAC and the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, have found no evidence that 
physicians who have an ownership interest in a specialty hospital 
inappropriately refer patients to that hospital or have increased 
utilization.
  The connection between corporate ownership and performance is a 
bulwark of our economy. Adam Smith argued in 1776:

       The directors of . . . [joint-stock] companies, . . . being 
     the managers rather of other people's money than of their 
     own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over 
     it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in 
     a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. 
     Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail . . 
     .

  One CEO of an orthopedic surgery practice said:

       Orthopedists . . . in a hospital . . . work in the same 
     operating room [as] general surgery and obstetrics. 
     Orthopedics is nuts-and-bolts equipment intensive. It drives 
     them crazy to have a staff that's not familiar with a tray of 
     multi-size screws and nuts and bolts.

  Some object to specialty hospitals by arguing that they only select 
the most profitable cases in their area and leave the other hospitals 
with less profitable services--burn units, trauma centers, et cetera. 
MedPAC has recommended changing the payments for all acute care 
hospitals to reduce the incentives in the overall inpatient payment 
system that some believe fueled the growth of specialty hospitals. 
Based on those MedPAC recommendations, CMS has just implemented major 
In-patient Prospective Payment System reforms.
  There is also an abundance of evidence that community hospitals are 
making record profits. A recent news article reported:

       Profits for U.S. general acute-care hospitals hit a record 
     high of $35.2 billion in 2006--a one-year jump of more than 
     20%--on net revenue of $587.1 billion for a margin of 6%.

  We should resist efforts to bind our health care system in regulatory 
straightjackets. Both the hospitals' and economy's problems could be 
solved if we allow the market, rather than insurance bureaucrats, to 
set prices.
  If the Members of the Senate really believe that specialty hospitals 
are harmful, then there shouldn't be earmarks protecting the specialty 
hospitals in home States of certain members of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  According to a recent Congressional Quarterly, CQ, article, during 
the committee process, four Democrats on the Senate Appropriations 
Committee made language changes to the underlying ban on new growth of 
physician-owned hospitals that happen to protect the specialty 
hospitals that are located in their home States.
  According to CQ:

       A spokesman for [one Appropriations Member] confirmed that 
     [that Member] had sought the changes, to protect a physician-
     owned hospital in [their state]: Wenatchee Valley Medical 
     Center. A loosening of the grandfather clause will allow the 
     Wenatchee's physician-owners to maintain their 100 percent 
     stake in the hospital, as opposed to being forced to sell 
     part of it.

  According to CQ, spokesmen for [two other Appropriations members] 
confirmed their Senators' roles in getting the language changes.
  One Senator's spokesman claimed:

       We were concerned that forced divestiture would cripple the 
     marketplace.

  In Michigan, the home State of another appropriator, physician-owned 
Aurora BayCare Medical Center would benefit from the looser rules 
passed by the Appropriations Committee.
  If Congress really believes specialty hospitals are harmful, why are 
they not harmful in the home States of four appropriators?
  The Congressional Budget Office needs to get its story straight on 
the budgetary impact of killing specialty hospitals.
  Congress has heard from the hospital association groups about the 
potential cost savings from eliminating the potential for new specialty 
hospitals. That argument is untenable when the Congressional Budget 
Office can't even get their story right on the budget impact. If 3 
years ago, eliminating specialty hospitals barely saved anything how 
can it save billions of dollars today?
  During the drafting of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the Senate 
reconciliation bill contained a similar provision to curtail specialty 
hospitals. At that time, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
projected less than minimal savings to the Medicare Program resulting 
from that provision.
  Subsequently, CBO scored a similar provision in the Children's Health 
and Medicare Protection Act of 2007. This time they changed their story 
and projected Medicare savings of $700 million over 5 years and $2.9 
billion over 10 years, with the bulk of the projected savings 
attributed to the assumption that Medicare spends more for outpatient 
services for patients treated in physician-owned hospitals.
  In December of 2007, CBO changed its story again and attributed the 
savings from restricting specialty hospitals to a presumed shift of 
services to ambulatory surgical centers, admitting that the use of 
fewer outpatient services accounts for only a small portion of the 
estimated savings.
  This bill has troops fighting to keep birth control prices low for 
Ivy League students and profits high for Planned Parenthood clinics and 
drug companies.
  Congressional leaders are using the war supplemental appropriations 
bill to expand preferential governmental drug pricing policies to 
university based clinics and more Planned Parenthood clinics than 
currently allowed under the Medicaid statute and regulations.
  To have their products available in the Medicaid Program, drug 
manufacturers must pay rebates to the Federal Government and States. 
The rebates are calculated as the difference between the manufacturer's 
average price and the ``best price''--lowest--at which their drugs are 
sold.
  A tiny provision tucked away in a war supplemental will allow drug 
manufacturers to avoid counting these deeply discounted drugs sold to 
certain types of clinics when calculating how much they will owe the 
Medicaid Program in rebates, thereby protecting their profits. If the 
provision becomes law, the clinics could receive cheaper drugs--like 
RU-486 and birth control--from manufacturers which they can sell to 
their customers at a higher price, thereby making a profit.
  Manufacturers previously offered high volume clinics the discounts as 
a marketing tool to attract long-term loyal customers so long as they 
could avoid the Medicaid rebate. Taxpayers were in effect subsidizing 
these clinics by forfeiting Medicaid rebates. In the Deficit Reduction 
Act of 2005, DRA, Congress limited the types of health care clinics 
that can benefit from this special arrangement, providing the 
preferential treatment only to certain safety net clinics. Not 
convinced by arguments that college campus health clinics are serving 
``vulnerable populations,'' the Bush administration refused to add them 
and additional Planned Parenthood clinics to the list of providers 
designated by Congress.
  The Deficit Reduction Act didn't prevent drug manufacturers from 
selling their products at lower acquisition costs to any health clinic 
regardless of the DRA. They would not, however, be able to avoid 
counting those discounts when paying States and the Federal Government 
their respective Medicaid rebates. Auditors in California found two 
Planned Parenthoods had overbilled the Medicaid Program in excess of $5 
million based on the difference between their customary fees and 
acquisition costs. This suggests that restoring these subsidies 
nationwide is likely worth hundreds of millions of dollars over just a 
few years.
  The current congressional leadership's usual approach towards drug 
companies is to get higher rebates from them. However, that's not the 
case when it comes to forfeiting rebates for the Medicaid Program in 
order to make certain frat boys and sorority sisters get cheap drugs--
including birth control--and the clinics that provide them get bigger 
profits.
  Instead of debating the merits of such a policy change in the open, 
the leaders in Congress are using funding for our troops to slip this 
through.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the 
amendment to the supplemental that focuses on our domestic priorities, 
which is the first amendment we will be voting on this morning. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this important package.
  While President Bush is fixated on trying to get his next check for 
the Iraq war, we on the Senate Appropriations Committee under the 
leadership

[[Page S4726]]

of Chairman Byrd have brought to the floor important priorities for 
Americans here at home.
  As our economy continues to struggle, more and more Americans find 
themselves without work and having trouble paying their bills. In 
April, the unemployment rate in New Jersey was 5 percent. That is up 
from 4.8 percent in March of this year and 4.3 percent in April of 
2007. Not only are more people out of work, but they are staying 
unemployed for longer periods of time as they search for new jobs. 
These unemployed Americans are facing the prospect of losing their 
homes and fighting to afford the rising costs of food, gasoline, and 
health care. They need our help, which is why in this amendment we 
extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks in all States and an 
additional 13 weeks in States with the highest unemployment rates. This 
is the right thing to do, and we must do it now.
  This amendment also includes a provision that I successfully offered 
in the Senate Appropriations Committee markup last week to delay a Bush 
administration policy that threatens the health care of hundreds of 
thousands of children across the country, including 10,000 in New 
Jersey. Last year, I supported and the Senate passed, an expansion of 
the Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health 
insurance for an additional 4 million children nationwide. President 
Bush irresponsibly vetoed that bill twice--and then made matters worse 
by issuing a new policy that will actually take away health care from 
children who have it today. This is not only misguided--both the 
Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service 
found that it violated Federal law. During these tough economic times, 
the last thing we should be doing is taking away health care from our 
children. My provision in this amendment would delay this policy until 
April 1, 2009.
  As our veterans return home from overseas, we must show our gratitude 
for their service by improving educational benefits to help them afford 
to go to college. Our veterans are finding that the current G.I. bill 
has simply not kept up with the rising costs of college, and they are 
forced to either forego college entirely or face mounting debt to get a 
degree. The amendment now on the floor includes a provision based on 
the Webb-Hagel-Lautenberg-Warner legislation which closes the gap 
between the current G.I. bill and the costs of college by paying for 
tuition, books and housing at the most expensive public institution in 
the veteran's State. This update of the G.I. bill deserves our strong 
support.
  The domestic package before us also includes $10 million to conduct 
oversight of American taxpayer dollars spent in Afghanistan. Our work 
in Afghanistan is critical to our national security and our fight 
against terrorism. But right now, we know too little about how billions 
of U.S. dollars in reconstruction and assistance funding are spent in 
Afghanistan and whether there is any waste, fraud, and abuse of these 
funds. In January of this year, President Bush signed into law my 
legislation to establish a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction, SIGAR, to root out waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer 
money in Afghanistan. The SIGAR funding we would provide today would 
bring us one step closer to better oversight and accountability, and to 
the beginning of SIGAR's work to uncover information about any 
corruption and mismanagement of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan.
  Finally, we must help our States and local communities recover from 
and prepare for natural disasters, including floods. This amendment 
includes more than $8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to 
address the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other 
recent natural disasters. We have had our eyes opened to the massive 
devastation that can occur when we neglect our Nation's flood control 
infrastructure. In addition to gulf coast recovery, I am pleased that 
this amendment will also provide funding for emergency infrastructure 
needs in other areas, including my home State of New Jersey.
  The Senate has an opportunity with this vote to honor our 
responsibility to our returning veterans and all those who are 
struggling in our country today. I implore my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to join us in supporting this critical amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the impasse--the 
completely avoidable impasse--that we face with regard to the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill, which, if I'm not mistaken, is 
intended to provide much-needed funds and resources for our troops 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'll have to pardon my confusion 
because, looking over the substance of the bill in front of us, it is 
difficult to determine exactly what purpose it is meant to serve.
  There has been in this and in virtually every recent election year a 
sensitivity among those on the other side of the aisle whenever anyone 
questions their support for our Nation's military and their commitment 
to national security. Indeed, it seems that any time these issues are 
mentioned, whether it is by the President, those of us in Congress, or 
by candidates running for office, Republicans are accused of 
``questioning their patriotism'' or engaging in the ``politics of 
fear.''
  Certainly, I don't believe that we should question the patriotism of 
those in the Senate majority. I believe that every one of them loves 
their country and that there is no one in this chamber who does not 
honor and respect our nation's military. However, while the majority's 
patriotism should not be subject to question, their judgment on these 
issues is fair game.
  Frankly, after the recent FISA debacle and now the absurd course 
being taken on this emergency supplemental, I believe that the 
Democrats in Congress have given all of us reason to question their 
judgment.
  As I stated, the purpose of this bill is to provide much-needed 
funding for our troops in harms way. However, it appears that the 
Democrats see this--not as an opportunity to support our military, but 
as a vehicle for unrelated, nonemergency funding for a number of their 
pet programs. In this time when the American people are clamoring for 
more fiscal discipline in Congress, the majority has decided to tack 
onto a war supplemental billions of dollars in domestic spending, none 
of which was requested by the President and all of which is unrelated 
to supporting the troops.
  For example, the bill includes $1.2 billion for a science initiative, 
$1 billion for government-funded energy assistance, nearly half a 
billion each for transportation projects and wildfires, and $200 
million for the U.S. census--an event that has taken place every 10 
years since 1790. They have also added more than $60 billion in 
mandatory spending relating to unemployment insurance extensions--in a 
time of very low unemployment, no less--and veterans education 
benefits.
  Now, I am sure that many of these are worthwhile endeavors deserving 
of the Senate's time and attention. However, they can and should all be 
debated separately and should not be tied to funding for the troops.
  Given these efforts to add such a large number of unrelated and 
nonemergency provisions, is it really unreasonable for the American 
people to conclude that supporting the troops is not the majority's 
highest priority?
  Certainly, they'll want all of us to believe otherwise. In fact, I am 
fairly sure that there is a Democrat somewhere watching me give this 
speech preparing a response that accuses me of practicing the 
``politics of fear.''
  But when Members of the Senate majority flatly refuse to provide 
resources for the troops without unrelated spending, what other 
conclusion is there for the rest of us to draw?
  It gets worse. I wish that the added funding was the worst thing 
about this bill. Unfortunately, it is the least of our worries.
  In addition to the nonemergency spending, the Democrats have once 
again attempted to use a bill that funds our troops as an opportunity 
to play armchair quarterback with the conduct of the war.
  The majority knows that the inclusion of this provision guarantees 
that the President will veto the bill. One also has to assume that they 
know that they do not have the votes to override such a veto. Yet, once 
again, we are about to send to the President a bill that conditions our 
support for the troops on his agreement to supplant the judgment of his 
military commanders with the political whims of the Senate majority.

[[Page S4727]]

  This comes at a time when even the most strident opponents of the war 
have begun to acknowledge our military's successes on the ground in 
Iraq. Even worse, it comes at a time when our men and women in uniform 
are in desperate need of additional funding.
  As we have heard, on May 5, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that it was essential that funds be 
approved before the Memorial Day recess, which begins in less than 2 
days. In his words, the military will ``stop paying soldiers on June 15 
'' meaning that they have ``precious little flexibility'' with respect 
to the funds.
  The majority leader, in his own words, believes that not finishing 
the bill before the recess is ``no big deal.'' Indeed, he admits that 
sending the bill in its current form to the President guarantees that 
we will go to recess without having funded the troops. Instead of 
heeding the warnings of our military leaders, the majority would 
apparently rather subject emergency military funds to yet another 
partisan debate and even more election-year political wrangling.
  I understand that many in the majority have come to oppose this war. 
I, for one, do not oppose an honest, straightforward debate about our 
policies in Iraq and the war on terror. However, that is simply not 
what is going on here today. This is not a serious debate about our 
future in Iraq; it is a needless political maneuver aimed at appeasing 
the more radical elements of the Democrats' political base.
  Once again, I can't help but wonder about the majority party's 
priorities when its members purposefully and dangerously delay funding 
for our troops in order to make a political statement. As I stated, I 
will not question their patriotism, but I will continue to question 
their judgment. Given what has been displayed here, I believe the 
American people will as well.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
Senator Webb and Senator Hagel's new GI bill.
  Mr. President, one of the smartest things Congress has ever done is 
pass the GI bill for World War II veterans.
  Several of the Members of the Senate--including me--would not be here 
if it were not for the GI bill.
  I went to the Ohio State University on a Navy ROTC scholarship, and 
when I got out, I went to graduate school at the University of Delaware 
on the GI bill.
  As you know, the authors of this new veterans benefit proposal and 
two of my fellow Vietnam veterans--Senators Webb and Hagel--were also 
able to use the GI bill to help transition back into society after 
fighting in the jungles of Vietnam.
  I share their belief that we need to reexamine the current GI bill 
with an eye toward Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
  To that end, Senators Webb and Hagel have worked tirelessly to try to 
provide the men and women of the Armed Forces who have served since
9/11 with the education benefits they deserve.
  These two Senators have created a bill that represents the best hope 
of increasing veterans' education benefits. They should be commended 
for their hard work and their commitment to our troops.
  Let me be clear: I support their proposal, and I would be proud to 
pass an emergency supplemental with this proposal included.
  However, how we pass this bill will be very important.
  This emergency supplemental provides these veterans education 
benefits at about $50 billion over the next 10 years.
  Like the rest of this bill, there is no offset and no way to pay for 
these benefits.
  Our colleagues in the House, however, did something quite different 
and, in my view, a lot better.
  When the House passed this same veterans education benefit, they also 
included a way to pay for it.
  They created a nominal tax increase of .47 percent on individuals 
making over $500,000 or couples making over $1 million.
  By offsetting this increase in veterans' benefits, the House sent a 
clear message to the country and to the troops. That message was that 
we will honor the members of the Armed Forces by giving them the 
benefits they rightfully earned, but we are going to do this in a 
fiscally responsible way; we are not going to do this by going deeper 
into the red; we will exercise a little discipline; we will tighten our 
belts; and we are going meet our troops' sacrifice with a sacrifice of 
our own.
  In this time of war and economic hardship, I believe the Senate needs 
to send a similar message to our troops: We will sacrifice here at home 
to give you what you deserve, because you sacrificed abroad to protect 
the United States.
  That is why I have offered an amendment to this bill that provides 
the same offset as the House bill.
  In order to pay for the new GI bill, my amendment calls for a small 
sacrifice: a nominal tax increase--less than one-half of 1 percent--on 
individuals making over $500,000 or couples making over $1 million.
  One of the principles that I have always tried to follow is, if it is 
worth doing, it is paying for.
  I doubt any of my colleagues would argue that providing veterans with 
a new GI bill is not worth doing. So then, I ask my colleagues, why is 
trying to pay for this benefit not worth doing?
  I realize my amendment is not the most popular idea. We in the Senate 
like to talk a good game about the need to rein in Government spending, 
reduce the deficit, and to adhere to pay-as-you-go principles. But we 
are not so good at walking the walk.
  I also know that several of my colleagues have argued that when this 
bill passes, we will have spent nearly $600 billion in Iraq and none of 
that has been paid for. Why shouldn't we, then, try to find an offset 
for $50 billion in education benefits for our veterans?
  I understand that sentiment. I am a veteran. I benefited from the GI 
program. And I, too, am not happy about our situation in Iraq.
  I have complained for years that our spending in Iraq lacks 
accountability and that we have done little to nothing to make Iraq pay 
its fair share.
  Again, I want to unequivocally state that I will vote to pass this 
new GI bill--offset or not--because our troops deserve this benefit.
  However, I just feel strongly that before we pass a new entitlement, 
we should at least make an attempt to pay for it, that we in the Senate 
should be willing, as the House has done, to put our money where our 
mouth is, to step up to the plate, and say this is worth doing and it 
is worth paying for.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are in the sixth year of the war in 
Iraq, and the costs to our troops, our security, and our country rise 
by the day. With the current course still not working, I have no choice 
but to vote against amendments 4817 and 4818 to the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act of 2008. It is clear that these measures continue to give President 
Bush a blank check to continue his chosen policy, despite the constant 
warnings of military experts who tell us that there is no military 
solution to Iraq's civil war and that political compromise in Iraq will 
not occur absent meaningful deadlines for the transition of our mission 
and the redeployment of U.S. troops.
  I believe this was an occasion where Congress had the responsibility 
to force the President to change a policy that is broken. Not to 
caution, warn, or cajole--not to give a blank check and hope for the 
best--but to force a change in a policy that is making us weaker, not 
stronger.
  Make no mistake--on the core issue of changing our deployment in 
Iraq, these amendments are deficient, and that is why I must oppose 
them. However, they contain provisions many of us have supported time 
and again.
  Particularly, the first amendment has many important provisions that 
I support, including mandating dwell time between deployments for our 
troops, a prohibition on permanent bases in Iraq, and the requirement 
that any long-term security agreements with Iraq be subject to approval 
by the Senate. But because the language with respect to Iraq--setting a 
nonbinding goal of completing the transition of the mission by June of 
2009--is not strong enough, I cannot support the amendment.
  I also oppose the second amendment, which provides billions and 
billions more in funding for the war without

[[Page S4728]]

any policy corrections at all. This is tantamount to giving the 
President another blank check to continue with an Iraq war policy that 
I strongly believe is making America less safe. There is no requirement 
to transition the mission and no deadline to leverage political 
progress. And there is no relief for a military stretched to the 
breaking point. That approach will not resolve the sectarian divisions 
that have fed this civil war, it will not bring long-term stability to 
Iraq, and it will not protect our national security interests around 
the world.
  All of us--and I would underscore, all of us--are incredibly grateful 
for the remarkable sacrifices our troops have made in Iraq. They have 
done whatever we have asked of them, and they have served brilliantly. 
The question before us now is whether we have a strategy that is worthy 
of their sacrifice.
  We can all agree that there is no purely military solution to the 
problems in Iraq. All of our military commanders, including General 
Petraeus, as well as Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice, have told us 
as much. And when the President announced his escalation to the 
American public last January, he said the purpose was to create 
``breathing room'' for national reconciliation to move forward.
  Over a year later, it is clear that this escalation did not 
accomplish its primary goal of fostering sustainable political 
progress. General Petraeus himself recently said that ``no one'' in the 
U.S. or Iraqi Governments ``feels that there has been sufficient 
progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.''
  I don't believe that it is too much to ask of Iraqis to make tough 
compromises when over 4,000 of our troops have given their lives to 
provide them that opportunity. In fact, I think the only strategy that 
honors the tremendous sacrifice of our troops is one that pushes the 
Iraqis to solve their own problems. And by General Petraeus's own 
account, the current strategy is not accomplishing that.
  By my count, we are now entering the fifth war in Iraq. The first was 
against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. 
Then came the insurgency that Dick Cheney told us nearly 2 years ago 
was in its last throes. There was the fight against al-Qaida terrorists 
whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than 
here. There was a Sunni-Shia civil war that exploded after the Samara 
mosque bombing. As we saw in Basra, there may be a nascent intra-Shia 
civil war in southern Iraq. And nobody should be surprised if we see a 
sixth war between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk.
  We are also on at least our fifth ``strategy'' for Iraq. First there 
was ``Shock and Awe,'' which was supposed to begin a peaceful 
transition to democracy in Iraq. Then there were ``search and destroy'' 
missions designed to fight the growing insurgency. There was the era of 
``As they stand up, we'll stand down,'' focused on transitioning 
responsibility to Iraqi security forces. That was followed by the 
``National Strategy for Victory'' and the introduction of the ``Clear, 
Hold and Build'' approach. And last year, we had the ``New Way 
Forward,'' with the troop escalation that was supposed to provide 
breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress.
  What we have never had is a strategy that brought about genuine 
political reconciliation or that made Iraqis stand up for Iraq or that 
allowed us to meet our strategic objectives and bring our troops home. 
What we have never seen is an exit strategy.
  In fact, at the beginning of the war in 2003, we had about 150,000 
U.S. troops in Iraq. Today, there are still about 150,000 U.S. troops 
on the ground. After more than 5 years, after more than 4,000 U.S. 
lives lost, after more than $500 billion dollars spent, we are 
basically right back where we started from--with no end in sight.
  And we know that after the escalation ends in July the plan is to 
keep some 140,000 troops in Iraq--slightly more than the levels of 
early 2007, when the violence was out of control and political 
reconciliation was non-existent.
  So it looks like the sixth strategy is basically to repeat what 
didn't work the first time and hope for a different result. And we keep 
hearing that approach justified with the twisted logic that because we 
cannot afford to fail in Iraq, we must continue with a strategy that 
has failed to achieve our primary goals.
  We clearly need a new approach that fundamentally changes the 
dynamic, and I continue to believe that Iraqis will not make the tough 
political compromises necessary to stabilize the country while they can 
depend on the security blanket provided by the indefinite presence of 
large numbers of U.S. troops.
  One thing we know is that the costs of continuing down this path are 
extraordinary. Over $12 billion per month and over 900 soldiers dead 
since the surge began. And while we are bogged down in Iraq, we 
continue to neglect the most pressing threats to our nation's security.
  Let's be clear: The war in Iraq is not making us safer--it is making 
us less safe. Iran has been empowered in the region and emboldened to 
defy the international community in pursuit of its nuclear program. 
Hezbollah and Hamas are stronger than ever. Our military is stretched 
to the breaking point. Our intelligence agencies have told us Iraq is a 
``cause celebre'' for al-Qaida that helps ``to energize the broader 
Sunni extremist community, raise resources and to recruit and 
indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks.'' So it is no 
surprise that terrorist incidents outside Iraq and Afghanistan have 
risen dramatically since the war began and are now at historic highs.
  And we know where the real threats lie: Our top national security 
officials keep warning us that the next attack is likely to come from 
the Afghanistan-Pakistan border--not Iraq. Meanwhile Afghanistan slides 
backwards, in part because--as Admiral Mullen has acknowledged--with so 
many troops tied down in Iraq, we simply don't have the manpower 
available to give our military commanders the troops they need.
  Every day we fail to change course we play further into the hands of 
our enemies. We need a fundamentally new approach to our Nation's 
security in the region and around the world--and that starts with a new 
strategy that in Iraq. The events of the last year have shown once 
again a basic truth: Iraqis will not resolve their differences and 
stand up for Iraq while they can depend on the security blanket 
provided by the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. troops.
  As we redeploy, we need to engage diplomatically with Iraq's 
neighbors in a way that creates a new security structure for the 
region. And we must responsibly redeploy from Iraq so we can refocus 
our efforts on fighting al-Qaida around the world--especially on the 
real front line in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for the non-Iraq portion of the 
supplemental because it included a number of provisions I support, such 
as Senator Webb's GI bill, an extension of unemployment insurance, 
funding for LIHEAP and Byrne grants, and a number of important Africa-
related provisions. The Webb GI bill represents one of the best ways 
that the Federal Government can support members of our Armed Forces who 
might not otherwise have the opportunity to obtain a higher education. 
Expanding educational benefits is the least we can do for the men and 
women in uniform who have been asked to do so much for our country.
  However, I am disappointed that the Senate was prevented from voting 
on the fiscally responsible House version of the GI bill. We should not 
be piling up more debt for future generations to repay, and I will work 
to try to make sure that the cost of this benefit is paid for. The 
Senate should not get into the habit of using nonoffset emergency 
supplemental bills to bypass the regular appropriations process. Just 
because the President refuses to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq 
doesn't mean we should follow his path of fiscal irresponsibility.
  I am deeply disappointed that neither the House nor the Senate 
version of the supplemental contains language that would end the Iraq 
war. In fact, both bills--particularly the Senate Appropriations 
Committee bill--are actually weaker in this respect than the first 
supplemental we passed just over a year ago. Democrats took power of 
Congress last year pledging to work to bring an end to the war. While 
we have made significant progress in other

[[Page S4729]]

areas, we are actually moving backward, not forward, when it comes to 
Iraq.
  What do I mean that the current supplemental is weaker than the one 
we passed a year ago? The new House supplemental requires redeployment 
of troops from Iraq to begin in 30 days, with a goal of completion 
within 18 months, or approximately the end of 2009. The supplemental we 
sent to the President a year ago set a goal of completing redeployment 
no later than the end of March 2008, or around 11 months from passage 
of the bill. So we have gone from an 11-month goal to an 18-month goal.
  And the exceptions have become even broader, meaning that even more 
U.S. troops could be allowed to remain in Iraq. In the new version, the 
administration is no longer limited to conducting targeted missions 
against ``members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations with 
global reach.'' Now, it can leave troops in Iraq to go after any 
``terrorist organizations'' in that country. Going after al-Qaeda and 
its affiliates makes sense because they represent a direct threat to 
the United States. Leaving U.S. troops in Iraq to launch missions 
against any organization that the administration labels ``terrorist,'' 
regardless of whether they pose a threat to our country, doesn't make 
sense. It is just a continuation of the current administration's 
muddled, misguided approach, which focuses so much of our resources on 
one country while largely ignoring the threat posed by al-Qaida around 
the world.
  In addition, the House language allows U.S. troops to not just 
conduct training and equipping of Iraqi troops but also to provide 
``logistical and intelligence support,'' which wasn't in last year's 
supplemental. That could mean our troops would still be fighting on the 
front lines, embedded with Iraqi forces, or providing air power, as we 
saw during the recent clashes in Basra. If you are looking to keep tens 
of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, then you won't have a 
problem with this new language. If, however, you want to bring our 
involvement in this war to a close, then you can and should be troubled 
by these big loopholes in the House bill.
  The House bill may be bad in this respect, but the Senate bill that 
we actually voted on and passed is far worse. It doesn't have any 
loopholes--it doesn't need them because it doesn't do anything. It 
simply expresses the sense of Congress that the mission in Iraq should 
be transitioned to a few limited purposes by June 2009. That is it--
nonbinding language that may make a few Members feel better about 
themselves but that won't do a thing to bring the war to a close.
  To make matters worse, the Senate bill includes a provision requiring 
a report on transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq but leaving 40,000 
troops in Iraq at the end of the transition. Based on existing 
estimates, it would likely cost $40 billion a year to maintain such a 
presence in Iraq. We should be promptly redeploying our troops, not 
studying the option of transitioning to an open-ended, significant 
military presence in Iraq.
  Both the supplemental bills, and the process by which we are 
considering them, seem devised to maximize our political comfort, 
rather than put pressure on the White House to end a disastrous war. 
This shouldn't be about allowing ourselves to cast votes that make us 
feel better and look good.
  Now I realize, like my colleagues, that we have limited options to 
try to end the war before the next President and the next Congress take 
office. But that doesn't mean we can simply ignore Iraq or write off 
the next 10 months. More brave Americans will die in Iraq over the next 
10 months, and our national security will continue to suffer while we 
focus on Iraq to the exclusion of so much else, including the global 
threat posed by al-Qaida. We have a responsibility to our constituents 
and to the American people, who have been demanding an end to the war 
for far, far too long, only to have that call go unheeded.
  At a minimum, we should be voting on an amendment I filed to safely 
redeploy our troops by setting a date after which funding for the war 
will be ended. The Senate has voted on such an amendment several times, 
offered by myself and the majority leader. I am under no illusions 
about whether such an amendment would pass. But Members of Congress 
should have to put themselves on the record as to whether they are 
serious about wanting to end the war. That may make some of them, even 
members of my party, a little uncomfortable. But making tough 
decisions, casting tough votes, standing on principle--that is what our 
constituents expect of us.
  As all of this weren't bad enough, this so-called supplemental 
spending bill doesn't just include Iraq spending for the current fiscal 
year. It also includes tens of billions of dollars to keep the war 
going in the next fiscal year. That means we can spare ourselves the 
inconvenience of taking up another Iraq spending bill this Congress. 
That may make us all feel better, but it is another way of showing that 
we aren't serious about putting pressure on the President to bring the 
war to a close.
  Instead of negotiating backroom deals, instead of trying to devise 
procedures and votes that minimize our discomfort, instead of acting 
like we are against the war without following through, instead of all 
that pretense and posturing, let's act like a legislative body and do 
some actual legislating. Let's have debates, and amendments, and votes. 
Let's do this in the open, on the record. That way our constituents 
will see whether we really are committed to ending the war, to fiscal 
responsibility, and to the other principles and goals that matter to 
the folks back home but that seem to have been forgotten here.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to point out to my colleagues what 
we will not be funding if this amendment fails. First and foremost, we 
will not be funding critical military construction projects for our 
troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are emergency 
infrastructure requirements that our men and women in uniform have 
requested--projects that will contribute to their safety and security 
and that are crucial for them to be able to perform the mission with 
which they have been tasked.
  We will not be funding construction of critically needed VA 
polytrauma rehabilitation centers. These are cutting-edge centers for 
the treatment of Active Duty and separated Iraq and Afghanistan war 
veterans suffering from the signature injuries of those wars: traumatic 
brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss, 
amputations, fractures, burns, visual impairment, and spinal cord 
injury. It is hard to think of anything more important than providing 
the best possible care to our wounded soldiers.
  We will also be leaving a $787-million shortfall in the BRAC account, 
meaning that important construction at our bases here at home will be 
delayed, and the 2011 deadline for completing BRAC may become 
impossible to meet.
  We will be delaying emergency renovation and replacement of barracks 
for our soldiers returning from war. Many of us were appalled at the 
deplorable conditions at Fort Bragg, which is why this bill provides 
$200 million to rebuild the ``worst of the worst'' of the Army's 
barracks. If we fail to pass this amendment, we will be leaving our 
soldiers to continue to live in unacceptable conditions.
  We will not be funding childcare centers for our military families. 
Childcare is a serious quality of life issue for the families who bear 
the brunt of war, and this bill would accelerate funding for 31 of the 
highest priority child development centers--funding for which the 
President himself has signaled support.
  In short, this bill provides critical funding for some of the highest 
priorities of our Nation, including our military forces. All of my 
colleagues should be very aware of what they are voting against if they 
vote against this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to object to 
the inclusion of provisions that are clearly in the jurisdiction of the 
Finance Committee in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to 
fund the war.
  The supplemental appropriations bill seeks to place a moratorium on 
seven Medicaid regulations until the next administration.
  It also prevents implementation of a CMS policy to ensure States 
cover poor kids before expanding their SCHIP programs.

[[Page S4730]]

  I know some people have concerns with the CMS policies.
  Let me be clear: I am not here to argue the regulations are perfect. 
I have issues with some of them I would like to see addressed.
  However, the regulations do address areas where there are real 
problems in Medicaid.
  Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership that provides a crucial 
health care safety net for some very vulnerable populations . . . low-
income seniors, the disabled, pregnant women, and children. They depend 
on Medicaid, and it does generally serve them well.
  Medicaid is also a program with a checkered history of financial 
challenges.
  Medicaid has a history of States abusively pushing the limits of what 
should be allowed to maximize Federal dollars sent to them.
  And while sometimes States have clearly pushed the envelope, at other 
times, States have struggled to understand what is and is not allowable 
in Medicaid.
  So after years of work by CMS, numerous reports by GAO and the 
Inspector General at HHS, and frequent Congressional hearings, CMS 
issued regulations to try to clarify the rules in some very problematic 
payments areas of Medicaid.
  I will start with the public provider regulation.
  We know that in the past, many States used to recycle Federal health 
care dollars they paid to their hospitals to use for any number of 
purposes beyond health care.
  It was an embarrassing scam that several administrations tried to 
limit.
  For years, the Medicaid Program was plagued by financial 
gamesmanship. States used so-called intergovernmental transfers or 
IGTs, to create scams that milk taxpayers out of millions--even 
billions--of dollars.
  Here is an example: a State bills the Federal Government for a $100 
hospital charge. The hospital gets the $100 payment and then the State 
would require the hospital to give $25 of it back to the State. In my 
view, that is a scam.
  What happens to the $25? In the days before Congress and CMS cracked 
down on the behavior, the money could go to roads or stadium 
construction.
  That is right. Medicaid IGT scams paid for roads and stadiums instead 
of health care for the poor.
  In 1991, 1997 and again in 2000, Congress took specific action to 
limit the States' ability to use payment schemes to avoid paying the 
State share of Medicaid.
  CMS has continued their work since then.
  Over the past 4 years, CMS has been working with States to try to 
limit these scams.
  I will note these efforts have not been without their controversy. 
States have been very concerned about exactly what the new standards 
are.
  Senator Baucus and I wrote the GAO and asked them to look into what 
CMS has been up to in trying to limit the way States make these 
payments.
  We were concerned that there was not enough transparency in what CMS 
was doing.
  And CMS did publish a rule for all to see. It is out there in the 
open.
  The core goal of the rule is to limit provider reimbursement to 
actual cost.
  I know some people consider this a radical idea, but I just don't 
understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have hospitals paid 
more than cost so they can be a part of these scams that rob the 
taxpayer to fund State pork.
  Restricting payments to cost is not exactly a new idea. In 1994, GAO 
recommended that payments to government providers be limited to cost. 
This is a fundamental issue for program integrity.
  What did GAO find in their 1994 report that led them to this 
conclusion?
  The State of Michigan used these questionable transfers to reduce 
their share of the Medicaid Program from 68 percent, which is what it 
should have been, to 56 percent.
  The GAO found evidence that in October 1993, the State of Michigan 
made a $489 million payment to the University of Michigan. Within 
hours, the entire $489 million was returned to the State.
  The report found that in fiscal year 1993, Michigan, Tennessee, and 
Texas were able to obtain $800 billion in Federal matching funds 
without putting up the State Share.
  Congress and CMS have spent the last 17 years combating that 
behavior.
  Last year, the emergency supplemental included a provision to delay 
implementation of the public provider rule for 2 years.
  Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the delay was reduced to 1 
year.
  But I wish to read what I said at the time. This is from remarks I 
made on March 28, 2007:

       If some people think CMS has gone too far, then we should 
     review their actions in the Finance Committee. We should call 
     CMS in, make them testify, and ask the tough questions to 
     which we need answers. If we think there are things we should 
     have done differently, then we should legislate. That is the 
     way it ought to be done.

  That is the right way to operate. We should have dealt with it in the 
Finance Committee.
  We should have tackled the issues here that are extremely complex. 
They deserve thorough consideration so we can insure we are taking 
appropriate action.
  But a year has passed with no action and instead we are here with 
this amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. No hearings 
have been held. No testimony submitted. Nothing.
  Making the CMS regulation go away opens the door for a return to the 
wasteful, inappropriate spending of the past.
  Intergovernmental transfers can have a legitimate role, but it is 
critical that States have a clear, correct understanding of what is a 
legitimate transfer and what is not.
  If the regulation goes away, those lines will still not be adequately 
defined.
  Why should we care if the lines are not adequately defined? Let me 
read from the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site: 
``IGTs can enhance a State's Federal match and thus bring additional 
funds to the State in two main ways. First, States can use county funds 
instead of State funds to generate a Federal match to support services 
provided by counties. Second, States can use IGTs to help it claim 
additional Federal funds based on upper payment limits. Under this 
model, a State can make payments to eligible public facilities using 
the rate Medicare pays for the same service, a rate that may exceed the 
State's standard Medicaid reimbursement rate. If it chooses to do so, a 
State then could use a portion of the new revenues generated--a share 
of the portion that remains after the standard Medicaid rate is paid 
for other goods or services.''
  States speak openly about these payment schemes to maximize Federal 
dollars flowing to the States.
  It is absolutely the worst thing we could do for the Medicaid Program 
to leave States without clear guidance on these types of payments.
  We cannot simply walk away from this subject.
  Now I would like to turn to the CMS regulation on graduate medical 
education. I personally think Medicaid should pay an appropriate share 
of graduate medical education or GME.
  But I would like to see us put that in statute rather than return to 
the current customary practice because I do not think the taxpayers are 
well served by the way Medicaid GME operates today.
  If we simply make the regulation go away, what are the rules for 
States to follow?
  There are five different methods States use in billing CMS, 11 States 
don't separate IME from GME, and CMS cannot say how much they are 
paying States for GME.
  Let me quote from a CRS memo I submitted for the Record during the 
budget debate a few months ago: ``States are not required to report GME 
payments separately from other payments made for inpatient and 
outpatient hospital services when claiming Federal matching payments 
under Medicaid. For the Medicaid GME proposed rule published in the May 
23, 2007 Federal Register, CMS used an earlier version of the AAMC 
survey data as a base for its savings estimate and made adjustments for 
inflation and expected State behavioral changes, for example.''
  To make their cost estimate for the regulation, CMS relied on a 
report from the American Association of Medical Colleges to determine 
how much they are paying for GME in Medicaid.

[[Page S4731]]

That is because the States do not provide CMS with data on how much 
they pay in GME.
  That is simply unacceptable.
  You can disagree with the decision to cut off GME, but simply leaving 
the current disorderly and undefined structure in place is not good 
public policy.
  Now let me turn to the regulations governing school-based 
transportation and school-based administration.
  Is it legitimate for Medicaid to pay for transportation in certain 
cases I think the answer to that is yes.
  I do think it is legitimate for Medicaid to pay for transportation to 
a school if a child is receiving Medicaid services at school.
  That said, we should have rules in place that make it clear that 
Medicaid does not pay for buses generally.
  We should have rules in place that make it clear that schools can 
only bill Medicaid if a child actually goes to school and receives a 
service on the day they bill Medicaid for the service.
  You can also argue that the school-based transportation and 
administrative claiming regulation went too far by completely 
prohibiting transportation, but if making this regulation go away 
allows States to bill Medicaid for school buses and for transportation 
on days when a child is not in school, we still have a problem.
  It is also critical that Medicaid pay only for Medicaid services.
  We all openly acknowledge the Federal government does not pay its 
fair share of IDEA.
  Quoting from the CRS memo: ``States, school districts, interest 
groups, and parents of children with disabilities often argue that the 
Federal government is not living up to its obligation to `fully fund' 
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA, P.L. 
108-446--the grants-to-States program.''
  We can also acknowledge that just because IDEA funding is inadequate, 
States will try to take advantage of Medicaid to make ends meet.
  Again quoting from the CRS memo: ``It is generally assumed that such 
transportation is predominantly provided to Medicaid/IDEA children.''
  If a child is required to be in school under IDEA and receives a 
Medicaid service while in school, is the transportation of that child 
100 percent Medicaid's responsibility?
  We should define clear lines so that States know what is and is not 
Medicaid's responsibility.
  Now I would like to turn to the rehabilitation services regulation.
  I certainly would argue that Medicaid paying for rehabilitation 
services is good for beneficiaries. We want Medicaid to help 
beneficiaries get better.
  But States must have a common understanding of what the word 
``rehabilitation'' means in the Medicaid Program.
  Again quoting from the CRS memo: ``Rehabilitation services can be 
difficult to describe because the rehabilitation benefit is so broad 
that it has been described as a catchall.''
  Also, States need clear guidance on when they should bill Medicaid or 
another program.
  Again quoting from the CRS memo: ``There is limited formal guidance 
for states in Medicaid statutes and regulations on how to determine 
when medically necessary services should be billed as rehabilitation 
services.''
  You can say the CMS regulation went too far, but that doesn't mean 
there isn't a problem out there.
  As CRS notes, billing for rehabilitation services between 1999 and 
2005 grew by 77.7 percent. I am far from convinced that all of that 
growth in spending was absolutely legitimate.
  Finally turning to the case management regulation, I first want to 
point out the issues relating to case management are a little different 
than issues associated with some of the other Medicaid regulations I 
have discussed so far.
  The provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--DRA--relating to 
case management received a full review in the Finance Committee, along 
with Senate floor consideration and conference debate prior to 
enactment of the DRA. This regulation relates to a recently enacted 
statutory provision.
  There is reason to believe that States have been using case 
management to supplement State spending. Some believe that States are 
shifting some of their child welfare costs to the Medicaid Program 
through creative uses of case management.
  Concern about the inappropriate billing to Medicaid for child welfare 
services extends back to the Clinton administration.
  There are some who would disallow most child welfare case management 
claims from reimbursement from Medicaid. This goes further than I would 
support. Getting these children the proper services requires thoughtful 
review, planning and management, and I believe that Medicaid has an 
appropriate role in supporting these activities.
  On the other hand, driving a child in foster care to a court 
appearance and billing the caseworker's time to Medicaid is not an 
activity that should be billed to Medicaid.
  Certainly, the regulations are not perfect. The degree that CMS has 
gone to in specifying how case management should operate conflicts with 
the efficient operation of the benefit in certain respects.
  But again let me quote from the CRS memo:

       Although there may be a number of issues related to 
     claiming FFP for Medicaid addressed in these sources, at 
     least two issues have been sources of confusion, 
     misunderstanding, and dispute. One issue where there has been 
     misunderstanding is non-duplication of payments. Another area 
     where there has been some disagreement is over the direct 
     delivery of services by other programs where Medicaid is then 
     charged for the direct services provided by the other 
     program.

  When CMS tried to come up with rules to increase accountability in 
case management, they had good reason to be trying to provide clarity 
and specificity for States.
  Surely the answer is not to tell States they are on their own to 
interpret the case management provision in the DRA.
  As CRS notes, billing for case management services between 1999 and 
2005 grew by 105.7 percent. With spending growing that fast, we must 
make absolutely certain States understand how they should be billing 
CMS.
  During the Appropriations Committee markup, a provision was added to 
delay implementation of an August 17, 2007, State Health Officials 
letter regarding the SCHIP program.

  Simply put, the idea behind the policy is that States should have to 
show they are covering their poorest kids before they can expand to 
cover kids with higher incomes.
  No matter how many technical issues people might have with the 
ability of CMS to implement the policy, I find it mind boggling that 
anyone would argue with the idea of covering poor kids first.
  Poorer kids are generally sicker and in need of care. It is 
reasonable public policy to require States that want to cover higher 
income children to first demonstrate that they are doing a good job 
covering poor kids.
  It is just common sense.
  Earlier this month the administration issued further clarification on 
the August 17 directive. The purpose of this additional State Health 
Official letter is to respond to some of the concerns that have been 
raised by States looking to accommodate the August 17 directive.
  Rather than work with the administration to find solutions--even 
after the administration made an effort to clarify the policy--this 
bill simply makes the policy go away.
  This bill provides for $1.3 billion in savings to address the various 
policy provisions in the Finance Committee's jurisdiction.
  I actually support the provisions that save money in this bill.
  I have been working on the provision related to physician-owned 
hospitals for years.
  But it is wrong to move it in this bill, and as much as I do support 
that provision, I must object to its inclusion here as well.
  The provisions in this bill are scored by CBO as spending $1.7 
billion. It is $1.7 billion because the regulations are delayed only 
until the end of March of next year.
  I know supporters hope that the next administration will pull back 
and undo the regulations completely.
  What would it cost if we tried to completely prevent these 
regulations from ever taking effect?
  Not $1.7 billion that is for sure.
  It would actually cost the taxpayers $17.8 billion over 5 years and 
$42.2 billion over 10 years.

[[Page S4732]]

  It is an absolute farce for anyone to argue that all of those dollars 
are being appropriately spent and that Congress ought to just walk away 
from these issues.
  Instead of just making the regulations go away, the Finance Committee 
and the Energy and Commerce Committee should sit down with the 
administration and fix the problems with the regulations and address 
real problems in Medicaid.
  That is what we should be doing for the taxpayers.
  Secretary Leavitt states that the most pressing of regulations will 
not go into effect on May 25 as many have feared.
  He has offered to sit down with us and work on these issues.
  There is no cause for us to act today to block the implementation of 
these regulations while an offer to talk is on the table.
  After the President vetoes this bill, I encourage my colleagues to 
drop these provisions and sit down with the administration to find real 
solutions.
  Separately, I want to voice my concern over the inclusion of an 
authorization relating to imports of uranium from the Russian 
Federation.
  The Finance Committee has not had an opportunity to examine this 
complex legislation and evaluate how it relates to our bilateral 
agreement with Russia concerning the disposition of highly enriched 
uranium extracted from nuclear weapons, and its potential impact on our 
bilateral agreement to suspend the antidumping investigation on uranium 
from the Russian Federation.
  The Finance Committee is the committee of jurisdiction over 
international trade in the Senate, and circumvention of that 
jurisdiction has in the past led to significant trade disputes. I am 
disappointed that the Finance Committee was not fully engaged on this 
matter.
  We were deprived of an opportunity to contribute expertise and 
provide input so that any potential consequences under our trade laws 
could be mitigated.
  Perhaps my concern will prove unfounded in this case. But 
nevertheless, this manner of legislating does not serve our best 
interests and should be avoided in the future.
  In conclusion, I oppose provisions that are the jurisdiction of the 
Finance Committee being considered in this bill.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very 
important provision to New Orleans in the supplemental and to thank the 
Senate Appropriations Committee members for their strong and continued 
support for Louisiana during the long and difficult posthurricane 
recovery process.
  Included in the emergency supplemental bill before the Senate is $70 
million for emergency funding for 3,000 rental subsidies, which will 
provide permanent supportive housing in Louisiana for its most at-risk 
residents. These are the individuals who normal housing assistance 
programs are most likely to fail or miss, or who are unable to take 
advantage of available assistance without extra support. They are the 
homeless, the elderly in need of additional outside care or 
supervision, and individuals with severe disabilities. For them, 
permanent supportive housing can mean the difference between being 
exposed to the streets or having a secure, stable home environment.
  The permanent supportive housing funding is the final piece of a 
three-prong initiative in Louisiana to address the post-storm needs of 
its most at-risk population. Louisiana has already dedicated 
significant resources toward this project: Louisiana's Road Home 
recovery plan will provide the necessary supportive services funding 
for the first 5 years of the initiative and some capital funding and 
the State has already invested in 800 to 1,000 permanent supportive 
housing units through existing affordable housing programs. All that 
remains now before this initiative can become a successful reality is 
the rental subsidy funding, which would provide Louisiana with the 
2,000 project-based voucher and 1,000 shelter plus care units that will 
finally bring the services and housing to the people that need it most.
  However, without the $70 million in rental subsidy funding included 
in the supplemental, this important initiative will fail. This is an 
issue that transcends politics and party affiliation. It enjoys the 
bipartisan support of myself and Senator Landrieu, as well as the 
support of the Appropriations HUD subcommittee chair and ranking 
member, Senators Murray and Bond, and the committee leadership. The 
Louisiana House congressional delegation supports the funding and wrote 
the House appropriators to advocate for it. In fact, Louisiana's new 
Governor, Governor Jindal, signed that letter as a Congressman and has 
since written the House and Senate leadership last month urging its 
adoption.
  As of the latest count last year, the homeless population in New 
Orleans had almost doubled to approximately 12,000 persons compared to 
the period prior to the storm. This is an opportunity to bring the most 
disadvantaged and at-need home. I urge Congress take this critical step 
of providing the necessary housing funding for this important Louisiana 
recovery initiative. And, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
funding in negotiations with the House of Representatives to ensure its 
inclusion in the final funding package.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, simply put, I cannot vote for another 
$165 billion to give President Bush a blank check and fund the 
continuation of the war in Iraq, without condition, for over another 
year.
  This is a difficult decision and not one I take lightly. But I 
believe that the time has come for Congress to exercise the power of 
the purse and bring this war to a conclusion.
  I am a strong supporter of our troops in the field. They have done a 
tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They weren't greeted as 
liberators as Vice President Cheney said they would be.
  Instead, they found themselves targets in an internecine battle, 
whose roots go back hundreds of years. They found themselves in the 
crossfire between Sunni insurgents and Shia extremists. They've done 
everything asked of them, with the courage and dedication that we 
expect from our service men and women.
  But President Bush has never provided an exit strategy for Iraq. He 
has never laid out a plan for bringing our troops home.
  So, here we are more than 5 years after this war began. More than 
4,000 troops killed. Tens of thousands injured. And no end in sight. 
$525 billion spent all designated as emergency spending and none of 
which is paid for simply added to our Nation's growing debt.
  This is the first major war that has not been paid for, but instead 
has relied time and time again on emergency supplemental funds outside 
of the Federal budget.
  I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, have voted again 
and again for a change of course to transition the mission. But the 
minority has obstructed the vote or President Bush has vetoed the bill 
each time we have tried.
  So the power of the purse is the only tool we have to change the Iraq 
war. And it is time to bring this war to a conclusion after 5 long 
years.
  The $165 billion supplemental funds the war for 1 year and 1 month, 
or until July 2009. This is all funded on the debt. I simply cannot 
agree to do it.
  It would have been one thing if the supplemental had been to fund the 
war for an additional 6 months. But it is not. This means that the next 
administration essentially need not make any move or change until July 
2009. This is simply not acceptable to me.
  To me, it is a big mistake to have a supplemental this big because it 
simply means ``business as usual.'' And I don't believe we can be 
``business as usual.''
  On Tuesday, I questioned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the 
funding for this war. I told Secretary Gates that it is unclear to me 
why the passage of a $165 billion 2009 bridge fund is urgent at this 
time, particularly given that funding needs for next year are very much 
up in the air.
  I told him that it is my understanding that if DOD transfers funding 
to the Army to meet its personnel and operational expenses, the Army 
could stretch its current funding quite far. And I asked how long the 
Army and Marine Corps could operate without the '09 bridge fund.

[[Page S4733]]

  The Secretary said:

       ``The notion of having to borrow from the base budget in 
     '09 to pay war costs . . . we probably could make it work for 
     a number of months.'' And ``can we technically get thought 
     some part of fiscal year 2009 without a supplemental? 
     Probably so.''

  So the other question that I have been grappling with is why should 
we provide 13 months of funding now? Where is the urgency to fund this 
war through July 2009? That is over a year away. It is simply not 
necessary to appropriate $165 billion for the Iraq war in a single day. 
This is almost twice the size of any previous supplemental the Senate 
has considered to date.
  President Bush won't listen to the wishes of the majority of Congress 
and the American people. He has shown a complete unwillingness to 
evolve in the face of compelling evidence of the need for change.
  After the fall elections, a new President will offer new ideas and 
policies, and at the top of the list should be a new plan for Iraq.
  Congress should not, during this time of transition and great 
opportunity to seize the moment and change our war policy, allow the 
war to linger unaddressed for up to 7 months of the new administration.
  Congress should not relinquish its constitutional right and 
obligation to use the power of the purse to require the next President 
to present a plan for Iraq one that includes the funding he or she will 
need to put that plan in motion.
  So now, we are faced with another choice: Do we provide $100 billion 
through the end of this year and an additional $66 billion to take us 
through July 2009? Do we give the next President a pass and affirm that 
he or she does not have to change the mission or plan an exit strategy 
until the middle of next year?
  I cannot support this.
  Passing a year-long supplemental is an abandonment of the power of 
the purse, the greatest power that the Congress has. I believe that the 
time has come for the Senate to assert its will, and another year and a 
month of funding for this war is not the answer.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today in support of 
the domestic spending amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies bill, which is the 
underlying vehicle for fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding.
  These appropriations include funding for programs vital for our 
Nation's welfare. With my long record of support for these programs, I 
could hardly reject supporting them now especially in the face of 
supporting significant additional funding for national defense. There 
must be some semblance of balance on military and domestic spending.
  This legislation includes emergency unemployment compensation, UC, 
benefits for individuals who have exhausted all regular unemployment 
benefits after May 1, 2006. The UC program, funded by both Federal and 
State payroll taxes, pays benefits to covered workers who become 
involuntarily unemployed for economic reasons and meet State-
established eligibility rules. These emergency UC benefits will provide 
a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits for those Americans in 
need of help.
  Although America's economic growth has been positive during each of 
the past 25 quarters, between January and March 2008, payroll 
employment fell by some 160,000 and the unemployment rate rose to 5.1 
percent in March of this year. Inflation has accelerated with the 
consumer price index rising to 3.9 percent for the 12 months ending in 
April 2008 compared with 2.5 percent during 2006 and 3.4 percent in 
2005. With the increased costs of food and energy and loss of jobs in 
the United States, we need to offer assistance to those employees who 
have lost their jobs in order for them to provide for their families 
until they can find another job. I have consistently supported efforts 
to extend UC benefits to help our fellow Americans through difficult 
times. The Senate failed to extend UC benefits during consideration of 
the economic stimulus bill on February 6, 2008, despite my support. 
Therefore, I support this amendment recognizing the need to capitalize 
on the opportunity it provides for a much needed economic boost to 
those hard-working Americans hit hardest by the recent economic 
downturn.
  Additionally, I support this amendment as it includes a much needed 
update to the GI bill of rights, which has not been revised for over 20 
years. I joined 57 of my colleagues in sponsoring legislation that 
would provide a 4-year public university education for anyone who has 
served on active duty for at least 36 months since Sept. 11, 2001. This 
legislation would provide for this generation what the post-WWII GI 
bill provided for veterans of that global conflict. The current 
proposal is supported by the current chairmen of the Armed Services 
Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee, as well as by a former 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  This reform is a real necessity. Regrettably we do not take care of 
our veterans as we should. We find that men and women are coming back 
now from Iraq and Afghanistan and the wonders of modern medicine have 
been able to keep people alive, but they have very serious 
disabilities. Many need a lot of counseling, have a lot of psychiatric 
problems and a lot of brain damage. Some young men and women coming 
back in their early twenties will require decades of care. General 
Colin Powell recently said, ``For someone coming back after serving in 
Iraq or Afghanistan for two or three or four tours of duty, they need 
to catch up quickly, and we need to help them.''
  For those veterans ready to return to school, it is vital that they 
not be hindered with financial impediments to accessing higher 
education. It is a very sound economic approach to provide this 
education. The post-WWII program has been paid off many times over by 
producing men and women who have been very productive and paid more 
taxes. According to a recent editorial by Tom Ridge and Bob Kerrey, 
``for every tax dollar spent on the World War II GI bill, our country 
received $7 in tax remittances from veterans whose careers benefitted 
from enhanced education.'' I agree with General Powell's statement 
that, ``America got that money back in spades.'' I think this is 
something we ought to do, most fundamentally to treat the veterans 
properly, but also for the future of the country. We would be well 
served by another generation of very well educated men and women; they 
deserve it, and it would help the country a great deal in the long run.
  This amendment before the Senate contains $400 million for the 
National Institutes of Health, NIH. These additional funds are critical 
in catalyzing scientific discoveries that will lead to a better 
understanding in preventing and treating the disorders that afflict 
men, women, and children in our society. I was very disappointed in the 
small increase NIH received in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2009, I 
am asking for an increase of several billion dollars.
  This amendment contains an additional $26 million for Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to respond to outbreaks of 
communicable diseases related to the re-use of syringes in outpatient 
clinics. Funds would be used for research, education and outreach 
activities.
  Further, I have consistently supported efforts to increase funding 
for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, as the 
ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education. This amendment provides an 
additional $1 billion for fiscal year 2008 for this critical program. 
With the cost of energy continually increasing, it is essential that 
those on fixed incomes have assistance in making their home heating and 
cooling payments. This additional funding will bring the total level 
for fiscal year 2008 closer to the goal of the fully authorized level 
of $5 billion.
  Paying heating and cooling bills for low-income households throughout 
this Nation has always been a struggle, but never more so than today 
with the soaring energy costs. The inability to pay for heating or 
having to make decisions to forgo other needs such as food and medicine 
pose health and safety hazards--especially to the elderly, the disabled 
and children. This winter, Americans, on average, spent $977 to heat 
their homes which is 10 percent higher than last winter. Nationwide 
average oil heating bills are expected to be 22 percent higher than in 
the previous year. I support this amendment

[[Page S4734]]

which will go a long way towards addressing the serious plight of those 
individuals facing a critical need for assistance during this energy 
crisis.
  This amendment will also provide a moratorium on several Medicaid 
regulations. These Medicaid Programs are critical to providing 
healthcare to low-income individuals in Pennsylvania.
  The moratorium prevents the elimination of school-based 
administrative and transportation programs and case management services 
for individuals with multiple health and social complications. This 
amendment will provide access for beneficiaries to rehabilitation 
services. Further, the moratorium would continue the payments to 
hospitals for graduate medical education funding, allowing Pennsylvania 
hospitals to train the physicians of tomorrow. These programs provide 
an important health safety net for disadvantaged children, seniors and 
parents that must be preserved.
  This amendment would restore access to nominal drug pricing for 
selected health centers specifically those clinics based at colleges 
and universities whose primary purpose is to provide family planning 
services to students of that institution.
  The domestic amendment also contains provisions that will decrease 
Federal spending. This includes the expansion of a demonstration 
project that verifies the assets held by Medicaid applicants. It saves 
federal dollars by preventing noneligible people from receiving 
Medicaid benefits inappropriately.
  Additionally, this amendment would impose a 1-year moratorium on the 
August 17, 2007, directive by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services. This directive changed Federal policy by prohibiting coverage 
of uninsured children under SCHIP if their family income is above 250 
percent of the Federal poverty level or $42,400. This is of particular 
importance in Pennsylvania where the SCHIP program covers children in 
families up to 300 percent of the poverty level or $63,600.
  For these reasons that I have outlined above--an extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits, enhanced benefits for our nation's 
veterans, and additional funding for LIHEAP, FDA, CDC and NIH where 
insufficient funding has been provided--I support the domestic spending 
amendment to the supplemental bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about a number 
of important provisions in this domestic funding amendment. I am 
delighted that this amendment passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote 
of 75-22, and I hope the House will pass it swiftly and overwhelmingly 
as well.
  There are many provisions in this amendment that will meet many 
important needs we are facing as a country, but I would like to mention 
a few that are of particular note. First, the bill contains a total of 
$15 million to help reduce drug-related violence in the border region 
by aggressively stepping up efforts to prevent weapons from being 
smuggled into Mexico to arm drug cartels. Of this money, $5 million 
would be allocated for ATF to provide assistance to Mexican authorities 
in investigating weapons trafficking cases and $10 million would be set 
aside for ATF to enhance Project Gunrunner Teams in the southwest 
border States.
  This funding is based on S. 2867, the Southwest Border Violence 
Reduction Act, which I recently introduced with Senator Hutchison. This 
measure is also cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Kyl, Durbin, and 
Domenici.
  According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms recovered in 
Mexico come from the United States. These weapons are used by drug 
gangs to forcefully maintain control over trafficking routes and 
greatly undermine the ability of Mexico to fight drug traffickers. 
These violent groups use smuggled weapons to assassinate military and 
police officials, murder rival members of drug organizations, and kill 
civilians. In the Mexican state of Chihuahua, which shares a border 
with New Mexico, there have been over 200 killings since the beginning 
of 2008, an increase of about 100 percent over the previous year.
  Violence perpetrated by international drug trafficking organizations 
impacts the well-being and safety of communities on both sides of the 
United States-Mexico border. I am pleased that additional resources are 
being allocated to target weapons trafficking networks and enhance 
international cooperation in investigating these cases.
  The second provision I would like to discuss relates to assistance we 
are providing to local law enforcement situated along the southern 
border. The bill includes $90 million for a competitive grant program 
within DOJ to help local law enforcement along the southern border and 
other agencies located in areas impacted by drug trafficking. As the 
sponsor of the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act, I have been pressing 
for Congress to help border law enforcement agencies with the costs 
they incur in addressing criminal activity in the border region. I 
strongly believe this funding is greatly needed and I am glad the 
Congress is giving this issue the attention it deserves.
  This bill also takes an important step forward in advancing our 
economic security by increasing funding for math and science education 
programs by $50 million. In America Competes, this Congress recognized 
that in order to ensure an educated and skilled workforce, we needed to 
strengthen math and science education. Accordingly, we significantly 
expanded math and science education programs at the National Science 
Foundation. I am particularly pleased to see an increase of $20 million 
in the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, which recruits and prepares 
talented students and professionals to become math and science 
teachers. The bill also contains an additional $24 million to support 
graduate study in STEM fields.
  Further, earlier this year Senators Domenici, Alexander, Dorgan, 
Corker, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer and I wrote a letter to the 
Appropriations Committee requesting $250 million for the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science. This bill allocates some $900 million for 
agencies performing science, including $100 million for the DOE's 
Office of Science. In addition, it provides $400 million for the 
National Institutes of Health to keep its budget up with inflation and 
$200 million for NASA and their space flight mission. I am grateful to 
the committee for recognizing the importance of science and taking it 
into account in this supplemental appropriations bill.
  In light of the ``silent tsunami'' of the food crisis in the 
developing world, I am pleased that the Senate version of the 
supplemental provides for approximately $1.2 billion in funding for 
food aid through fiscal year 2009. I am also pleased that USAID will 
reportedly announce a $45 million package in food aid for Haiti, of 
which $25 million will be distributed via the World Food Programme, at 
a press conference tomorrow morning.
  However, I believe that more needs to be done for Haiti. According to 
Haitian President Rene Preval, Haiti needs $60 million in U.S. food aid 
assistance to avert famines over the next 6 months. Accordingly, I call 
upon USAID to allocate at least $60 million of the $1.2 billion food 
aid appropriation to Haiti.
  Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, where 
approximately 76 percent of Haiti's population subsists on under $2 per 
day and 55 percent on under $1 per day. One in five Haitian children is 
malnourished. We must address these challenges, partly for reasons of 
preserving stability in the Caribbean, and partly to provide an 
alternative to emigrating to the United States, but mostly because it 
is the right thing to do.
  I am also pleased that the supplemental provides for $100 million of 
assistance for Central America, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic to 
support the Merida Initiative in those regions and countries. In 
particular, I am pleased that the Senate version of the supplemental 
set aside $5 million of this money to combat drug trafficking and for 
anticorruption and rule of law activities in Haiti. This amount doubled 
the $2.5 million called for in the House version.
  Last year, when the Drug Enforcement Agency stationed two helicopters 
in Haiti on a temporary basis, the level of cocaine shipments 
transiting the country by air and sea declined significantly. This 
decline resulted in lower levels of corruption in Haiti and less 
cocaine reaching the United States. I hope that today's $5 million in 
funding for Haiti will replicate these successes,

[[Page S4735]]

and I call upon the DEA to use a portion of these funds to increase 
interdiction capability in Haiti by placing helicopters there on a more 
sustained basis.
  Finally, I would also like to voice my strong support for provisions 
within this legislation to block attempts by the Bush administration to 
reduce health care access for low-income children, seniors, and others. 
In the last year and a half the Bush administration has aggressively 
attempted to shrink the Federal Medicaid program by reducing the 
ability of States to provide Medicaid coverage to their most vulnerable 
populations. These actions have been taken under the ruse of ``fraud 
and abuse'' reforms but we should be clear about what they really are, 
an attempt to reduce Federal expenses on the backs of poor Americans. 
At a time when we are spending approximately $12 billion a month on the 
war, that is about $5,000 a second, and at a time when so many 
Americans are facing economic hardship and will be depending on low-
income programs, it is unconscionable that the Bush administration is 
attacking the poorest among us--all in a weak attempt at appearing 
fiscally responsible.
  These programs are critical to many low-income patients and safety-
net providers in my home State of New Mexico and across the Nation. For 
example, the most significant of the administration's proposals would 
devastate New Mexico's Sole Community Provider Fund, which plays a 
critical role in ensuring New Mexicans in rural areas of the State have 
access to life-saving hospital services and funds programs for 
uninsured New Mexicans. It also would cause the University of New 
Mexico Hospital and other New Mexico institutions to lose millions of 
dollars for the care they provide to our low-income residents. It is 
important to note this is not a partisan issue. I have worked for the 
last year and a half to block this specific proposal including 
introducing legislation with Senator Dole, S. 2460. Seventy-four 
members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, have gone on 
record opposing this Bush proposal. We were successful in blocking it 
last year and I am very pleased that we are acting to block it for an 
additional year.
  Sadly, the Bush administration's proposals don't end there. The White 
House also would undermine the ability of schools to help enroll 
children in Medicaid and coordinate their health care services. The 
administration would also cut rehabilitation services provided to 
people with disabilities, especially those with mental illness and 
intellectual disabilities; cut case management services for the 
elderly, children in foster care and people with disabilities; reduce 
specialized medical transportation services for children; and severely 
limit Medicaid payments for outpatient hospital services. Finally, the 
administration also is attempting to severely limit States' abilities 
to expand enrollment of children in the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program or SCHIP.
  Taken together the Bush administration's efforts would cost my State 
approximately $180 million this year in Federal low-income support and 
much more in subsequent years. The Nation's Governors oppose the Bush 
administrations efforts, as do State Medicaid directors, State 
legislators, and the National Association of Counties. More than 2,000 
national and local groups--such as the American Hospital Association, 
the American Federation of Teachers, and the March of Dimes--also 
oppose these efforts. They know the devastating effect these rules 
would have on local communities, their hospitals, and vulnerable 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today we are voting on funding our troops 
on the front lines. We can disagree about whether we should be in Iraq 
at all and we can disagree with the President's failed policies, but as 
long as Americans are in harm's way, we need to give them the best 
possible protection this country has. To me, that is a sacred 
obligation. In terms of protection, there are a lot of reasons to vote 
for this funding--it provides $2 billion to fight deadly improvised 
explosive devices, it funds 25 C-130s to replace planes worn out by 
nonstop use moving people and supplies around the war zone, it gives 
more assets to families, it funds much needed military health care, and 
it provides $1.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. 
That is a good thing.
  Now in our fifth year of the Iraq war and the seventh year of the war 
in Afghanistan, it often seems that good news is hard to come by. But 
sometimes good things do happen here on the Senate floor. Sometimes we 
are able to profoundly improve the odds for American men and women 
fighting in those wars. For my colleagues, I would like to review one 
good story.
  For me, this story begins in the summer of 2006 on one of my trips to 
Iraq. A Marine commander in Fallujah showed me a new vehicle they were 
using called a Buffalo. He told me that these Buffalos were saving 
lives and that they needed more of them. I was impressed. This Buffalo 
was a huge vehicle with a large claw arm, high off the ground, with a 
v-shaped undercarriage. I found out later that it was the largest of a 
group of vehicles called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or 
MRAPs.
  So, when the next wartime funding bill came to the Senate, I looked 
into what was going on with these MRAPs. The most important thing that 
I found out was that military experts were starting to say that MRAPs 
could reduce casualties from improvised explosive devices, those 
roadside bombs also called IEDs, by two-thirds. At that time, 70 
percent of all the casualties suffered by Americans were caused by 
IEDs. So even if MRAPs only worked half as well as the military 
claimed, they would have a tremendous effect reducing deaths and 
injuries.
  In a March 1, 2007, memo to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, emphasized 
the importance of the MRAPs, saying, ``The MRAP vehicle has a 
dramatically better record of preventing fatal and serious injuries 
from attacks by improvised explosive devices. Multi-National Force--
West estimates that the use of the MRAP could reduce the casualties in 
vehicles due to IED attack by as much as 70 percent.'' He ended by 
saying, ``Getting the MRAP into the Al Anbar Province is my number one 
unfilled warfighting requirement at this time.'' Later that month, in 
testimony to Congress, General Conway told us that the likelihood for 
survival in Iraq was four to five times greater in an MRAP.
  Two weeks after that memo was written, then Chief of Staff of the 
Army, General Schoomaker told the Committee on Appropriations of the 
funding shortfalls for MRAP procurement. I will be honest here. I was 
genuinely surprised. It was clear to me that this vehicle was essential 
and needed to be fielded as quickly as possible. I could not understand 
why funding was not already in the supplemental.
  I looked into it and found out that in fiscal year 2006 and in the 
bridge fund for fiscal year 2007, there was a total of $1.354 million 
for MRAPs, but much more was needed because this was a new vehicle. 
Only one company was making MRAPs then, and the military was only 
ordering small amounts of them.
  In February 2007 the military ordered and received 10 MRAPs. That is 
it. It became clear to me that we needed to do more to push this 
process.
  The Marine Corps was running the program for all of the services. 
They told me that one issue was that the requirements in the field had 
changed dramatically--it started with a request for 185 in May of 2006, 
then another 1,000 were requested in July, the total went to 4,060 in 
November and to 6,728 in early February of 2007. By March, the total 
need was thought to be 7,774 MRAPs for all four services. The plan at 
the time was to spend $8.4 billion to build those 7,774 MRAPs--$2.3 
billion in fiscal year 2007 and $6.1 billion in fiscal year 2008. The 
administration, however, had not asked for $2.3 billion. Despite this, 
my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee put $2.5 billion in their 
bill because they saw the need.
  The Marine Corps believed that even that plan was not aggressive 
enough and that production could be accelerated if more funding was 
moved to fiscal year 2007. So I asked my colleagues to join me in 
adding another $1.5 billion to the wartime funding bill to produce and 
field 2,500 more MRAPs by December of 2007. I felt very strongly that 
we had to accelerate things. Some of you may remember that I came to 
the Senate floor in a tuxedo, to explain

[[Page S4736]]

how vital the funding was the night before the vote.
  On March 29, 2007, we spoke as one. The vote was 98 to 0 to add the 
$1.5 billion and give the MRAP program a total of $4 billion. This 
Senate should be congratulated for that decision.
  We stood up and said, ``We can do better.'' We also made clear our 
agreement with General Conway, who called this effort ``a moral 
imperative.''
  I know that some had doubts. They were concerned that the vehicles 
had not been adequately tested and that producers simply could not 
expand production lines quickly enough. But in the end we all agreed 
that we had to take a chance on American industry because our kids' 
lives were at stake.
  When the bill went into conference, some of our colleagues in the 
House had not yet realized how critical this was and what a difference 
early funding could make to the production schedule. So, the total in 
the final bill sent to the President in late May was reduced to $3.055 
billion. The additional funds were important, but equally important was 
the interest that the debate sparked in the press.
  Secretary Gates has said that he first heard about the MRAP program 
after reading a USA Today article. After which, on May 2, he made the 
MRAP program the Pentagon's top acquisition priority. On June 1, he 
gave the program a DX rating, giving it priority for the acquisition of 
critical items like steel and tires that multiple military programs 
need. He also established the MRAP Task Force to work on any issues 
that might delay MRAP production.
  Despite Secretary Gates's clear understanding of the need for MRAPs, 
the fiscal year 2008 wartime funding request from the administration 
was only for $441 million. Four point one billion was needed just to 
produce the 7,774 MRAPs. So, on May 17, I formally asked the Armed 
Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee to provide the $4.1 
billion needed. Again, to my colleagues' credit, 17 others joined those 
requests and both Committees responded with the $4.1 billion needed in 
the bills they presented to the Senate.
  At almost the same time, we began to hear that the requirements in 
Iraq had grown again. GEN Raymond Odierno, commander of Multi-National 
Forces--Iraq, indicated that he wanted to replace all of the Army 
humvees in Iraq with MRAPS. That would mean the Army alone would need 
close to 17,700 MRAPs. The plan that we had been trying to fund 
included only 2,500 MRAPs for the Army. That now appeared to be 15,200 
too few.
  Given that MRAPs cost approximately $1 million per vehicle, that also 
meant that at least $15.2 billion more would be needed. We were now 
looking at a total price tag of over $23 billion for MRAPs, making the 
MRAP program the third most expensive in the entire defense budget.
  It was clear to me, and to many colleagues here, that more needed to 
be done. Despite Secretary Gates's commitment to expedite production, 
there still seemed to be a lack of urgency in the administration and 
plenty of people were still saying that more MRAPs simply could not be 
produced quickly. So on May 23 I called on the President to personally 
engage so that the Nation could meet the needs of our men and women 
under fire.
  I am sorry to say that we did not see the President engage. To this 
day, we must wonder how much faster we could have moved if he had.
  Instead, in early July, the Army finally said publicly that they 
needed approximately 17,700 total MRAPs. The Joint Requirement 
Oversight Council, however, did not immediately approve that change. 
So, Congress was once again left knowing that the needs in Iraq were 
growing but not having a clear number or plan to meet the needs.
  In speeches I made last year, I talked about some of the tensions 
within the military that slowed down the MRAP program, so I won't go 
into those details today. For now I will only quote Secretary Gates's 
analysis from May 13 of this year: ``In fact, the expense of the 
vehicles . . . may have been seen as competing with the funding for 
future weapons programs with strong constituencies inside and outside 
the Pentagon.''
  Despite the frustration of not having a clear plan, some things were 
going well. The funding we had added to the supplemental combined with 
the hard work of the MRAP Task Force and MRAP program management team 
was making a difference. The Pentagon saw clear increases in production 
capacity and was ready to try to move faster. I told you that in 
February 10 MRAPs had been produced. In July, that number was up to 
161--an amazing increase but clearly nothing close to the level needed 
to meet the requirement. The Pentagon asked Congress to approve moving 
$1.165 billion from other military programs to the MRAP program to try 
to keep growing the production. Congress agreed.
  In July, I introduced an amendment to the Defense authorization bill 
to provide all of the funding that would be needed to get the Army 
17,700 MRAPs and to deal with increased costs for the original 7,774 
MRAPs that the committees had funded. I was also concerned that we were 
not moving fast enough to provide protection from explosively formed 
penetrators, EFPs, so I included funds for that work as well. The total 
amendment was for $25 billion, which included $23.6 billion for 15,200 
MRAPs, $1 billion for cost increases, and $400 million for additional 
EFP protection. My goal at the time was very simple: to make absolutely 
clear to the Pentagon and to MRAP producers that Congress would provide 
all of the funding needed for MRAPs, up front and without delay, so 
that we could get these lifesaving vehicles to the front lines as 
quickly as possible.
  That bill got delayed, but in the end, there was unanimous approval 
on September 27 for my amendment adding $23.6 billion to purchase 
15,200 more MRAPs. The final bill, passed by the Senate on October 1, 
also raised the basic amount from $4.1 billion to $5.783 billion to 
address the increased costs for the 7,774 MRAPs already planned.
  Three weeks later, October 23, the administration finally came to 
Congress and asked for $11 billion for 7,274 additional MRAPs for the 
Army. This officially made 15,374 the total request for all services 
and was approximately 8,000 MRAPs less than the Army appeared to need. 
However, at that time, Army leaders were telling us that they believed 
it was important to get MRAPs into the field and see how well they 
worked before committing to the much larger number. Concerned about 
this, I went to the floor again when it was time to debate the Defense 
appropriations bill. Mr. President, $11.6 billion was included for 
MRAPs, and Senator Inouye promised on the Senate floor to closely 
monitor the Army needs and he personally guaranteed that if those 
additional vehicles were needed, they would be funded.
  By this time, production was truly ramping up. In October, 453 MRAPs 
were produced. By November we were up to 842, and by December we were 
at 1,189 MRAPs. That means we got a total of 3,355 MRAPs produced in 
2007 even though in February, industry could only make 10 per month. In 
the span of 18 months, this program went from trying to meet a 
requirement for 185 MRAPs to meeting the requirement for 15,374 MRAPs. 
This Senate stepped up and said we will meet the need. We provided over 
$22.4 billion to give industry the ability to ramp up their production 
ability.
  When I argued in March that we could deliver close to 8,000 MRAPs to 
Iraq by February of 2008, some said it was impossible. We came close. 
Five thousand seven hundred and twelve MRAPs had been produced by the 
end of February.
  As of this week, just under 8,300 MRAPs have been produced. More 
important, 4,664 are fielded and in the hands of front line forces in 
Iraq and 456 are fielded in Afghanistan. The rest are on the way, and 
we are producing well over 1,000 per month.
  Let me go back to where we started. Something profoundly good 
happened on this Senate floor last year. Last year, we made it clear 
that we would provide the best possible protection to our troops. We 
recognized that this was a matter of honor and a matter of life and 
death. The results have been phenomenal.
  Secretary Gates said last Tuesday, ``MRAPs have performed. There have 
been 150-plus attacks so far on MRAPs and all but six soldiers have 
survived. The casualty rate is one-third that of a humvee, less than 
half that of an

[[Page S4737]]

Abrams tank. These vehicles are saving lives.''
  MG Rick Lynch, commander of Multi-National Division--Central, which 
operates south of Baghdad, told USA Today just over a month ago, ``The 
MRAPs, in addition to increasing the survivability of our soldiers from 
underbelly attacks, also have improved force protection for EFP attacks 
as well. So I've had EFPs hit my MRAPs and the soldiers inside, in 
general terms, are OK.'' He also pointed out that he had lost 140 
soldiers, many in up-armored HMMWVs or Bradleys hit by IEDs and said, 
``Those same kind of attacks against MRAPs allow my soldiers to 
survive. I'm convinced of that.''
  And soldiers know it. On April 4, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution 
quoted SSG Jamie Linen of the 3rd Infantry Division talking about using 
MRAPs in the Baghdad area. He said, ``It is the one vehicle that gives 
us the confidence to go out there. Nothing is invincible here. You got 
tanks with three feet of armor getting blown up. But the MRAPs give us 
a sense of security.''
  MRAPs have not only saved hundreds of lives, they have also saved 
limbs. The additional protection MRAPs provide usually means that 
injuries are less severe and complicated. That means more soldiers, 
airmen, sailors, and marines coming home and able to return to the 
lives they left behind. There is really no price too high to get this 
result, so again, I want to congratulate this Senate. What we did last 
year to support the MRAP program was not all that had to be done--the 
program managers and producers also had to do their part--but it was 
essential, and today, every day, it is literally saving American lives. 
What we did today continues that effort.
  We have no higher obligation than to give those fighting for us the 
best possible protection. It is a sacred duty. Today and last year, 
with the MRAP, we fulfilled that duty, and I congratulate my 
colleagues.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before us today is a supplemental 
appropriations bill that would provide vital funding for the men and 
women fighting valiantly on our behalf abroad. Yet instead of acting on 
the needs of our military in an expeditious and efficient manner, we 
find ourselves considering a bloated bill, loaded down with extraneous 
provisions unrelated to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Sadly, this has become an unfortunate and reoccurring trend in recent 
years.
  Congress has an obligation to provide our servicemen and women with 
the resources they need to fulfill their mission. Yet we have, once 
again, chosen to abrogate our duties and use this bill as a vehicle to 
fund various domestic projects that were not requested by the 
President, nor are they authorized, and have not been handled through 
the appropriate legislative process.
  The President has already stated his intention to veto this measure 
if it arrives at his desk in its current form. Rather than 
demonstrating true bipartisanship and working together to produce a 
bill that meets the needs of our military and one that has the 
potential of becoming law, the Senate intends to pass a bill will be 
passed that is sure to be met swiftly by the President's veto pen, 
unnecessarily prolonging the delay in funding our troops.
  Let us not underestimate the necessity of providing this funding to 
our military promptly and the consequences of delaying such payment. In 
a recent letter to Congress, Under Secretary of Defense Gordon England 
stated in no uncertain terms that if this funding is not provided, 
``the Army will run out of Military Personnel funds by mid-June and 
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds by early July.'' In order to deal 
with these depleted accounts, the Department of Defense--DoD--would be 
required to borrow funds from other service branch accounts, hampering 
ongoing DoD activities around the globe. Under Secretary England goes 
on to state in his letter that by late July, the entire Department will 
have ``exhausted all avenues of funding and will be unable to make 
payroll for both military and civilian personnel .  .  . including 
those engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' Let us understand what this 
means. If this appropriations measure is not enacted in a timely 
manner, thousands upon thousands of men and women in uniform will stop 
receiving a paycheck and our ability to conduct operations throughout 
the world will be severely restricted.
  When we should be working together to produce a clean bill that 
provides our servicemen and women with the vital resources they need to 
fulfill their duties, we have instead reverted to the same old 
Washington habit of loading spending bills with billions of dollars 
going to unrequested, non-emergency projects. Examples include: $75 
million not requested by the administration for expenses related to 
economic impacts associated with commercial fishery failures, fishery 
resource disasters, and regulation on commercial fishing industries. 
This comes after Congress appropriated $128 million in 2005 for 
commercial fishery failures, $170 million in 2007 and included an 
additional $170 million in the Farm bill. Since 2005, Congress has 
provided almost $300 million for commercial fisheries disasters not 
including the $75 million in this supplemental and the proposed $170 
million from the Farm bill. Additionally, questions remain by some 
commercial fishermen if this funding can be used to offset high gas 
prices which may be considered a disaster. The disaster here is that 
the American public isn't receiving any assistance on high gas prices.

  Other examples are: $10 million not requested by the administration 
for Educational and Cultural Exchange programs; $75 million not 
requested by the administration for rehabilitation and restoration of 
Federal lands; more than $451 million not requested by the 
administration for emergency highway projects for disasters that 
occurred as far back as Fiscal Year 2005; $210 million not requested by 
the administration for the decennial census and $3.6 billion for 15 Air 
Force C-17 cargo aircraft. We have looked to the administration to 
inform Congressional budgetary decisions and the Department of Defense 
has been quite clear regarding the purchase of more of these cargo 
aircraft--they do not want them, because there is no military 
``requirement'' for them and buying more C-17s is contrary to the 
Pentagon's current budget plan. DOD Secretary Gates, the DOD Deputy 
Secretary, and the Department's top acquisition official have all 
stated that additional C-17s were not necessary. Yet the Air Force 
continues to appeal to the parochial interests of Members of Congress, 
and once again the taxpayers find themselves on the wrong end of a bad 
decision. I am troubled by the Air Force's apparent disregard for 
proper acquisition policy, practice and procedure and seeming eagerness 
to further contractors' interests. As evidence of this, the Department 
of Defense Inspector General has an open investigation regarding how 
senior Air Force officials may have inappropriately solicited new 
orders for C-17s contrary to the orders of the President and the 
Secretary of Defense.
  While I do not doubt the importance some may see in the various 
provisions included in the underlying bill, I strongly disagree with 
their inclusion in a war supplemental funding bill. Instead of 
attempting to hijack this vital legislation, the authors of these 
extraneous provisions should pursue their objectives through the normal 
legislative process and as part of appropriate authorizing and spending 
vehicles.
  I also want to express my concerns about the authorizing legislation 
included in this emergency supplemental regarding veterans' educations 
benefits, commonly referred to as the Webb bill. There have been a lot 
of misrepresentations made about my position on this issue--not only on 
the Senate floor by the majority leader, who has alleged that I think 
the Webb bill is ``too generous,'' which is absolutely false, but most 
recently in an ad by VoteVets.org, which offers a complete 
misrepresentation of the facts and is a disservice to our Nation's 
veterans. I will once again attempt to set the record straight.
  I believe America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to 
our veterans, active duty servicemembers, Guard and Reserves. Men and 
women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits 
we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly 
as possible and in a manner that not only promotes recruitment efforts, 
but also promotes retention of servicemembers. I would

[[Page S4738]]

think we could have near unanimous support for such legislation and I 
am confident that we will reach that point in the days ahead. But 
adding a $52 billion mandatory spending program to this war funding 
bill without any opportunity for amendments to improve the measure is 
not the way to move legislation nor will it expedite reaching an 
agreement in an efficient manner. Our vets deserve better than this.
  On numerous occasions I have commended Senators Webb, Hagel and 
Warner for their work to bring this issue to the forefront of the 
Senate's attention. Their effort has been for a worthy cause, but that 
does not make it a perfect bill, nor should it be considered the only 
approach that best meets the education needs of veterans and 
servicemembers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
if their bill is passed, it will harm retention rates by nearly 20 
percent. That is the last thing we need when our Nation is fighting the 
war on terror on two fronts.
  Senators Graham, Burr and I, along with 19 others, have a different 
approach, one that builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill to ensure 
rapid implementation of increased benefits. And, unlike S. 22, we think 
a revitalized program should focus on the entire spectrum of military 
members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to 
the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to 
veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the 
families of all of these individuals.
  We need to take action to encourage continued service in the military 
and we can do that by granting a higher education benefit for longer 
service. And, we need to provide a meaningful, unquestionable 
transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the 
option of transferring education benefits to their children and 
spouses. S. 22, unfortunately, does not allow transferability. As a 
matter of fact, 2 days ago, Senators Webb and Warner agreed that 
transferability is a serious matter that merited change. What they 
proposed, however, does not go far enough and would only provide for a 
2-year pilot program. Their efforts underscore the need for debate and 
further discussion on this important issue. But I applaud them for 
acknowledging the Congress needs to take a proactive stance and allow 
transferability of earned education benefits to a spouse or children.
  We cannot allow this important issue to be hijacked by the anti-war 
crusade funded by groups like MoveOn.org and VetsVote.org who are 
running ads saying that that I do not ``respect their service.'' The 
accusation is wrong, they know that it is, and they should be ashamed 
of what they are doing to all veterans and servicemembers. I respect 
every man and woman who have been or are currently in uniform.
  It is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education 
benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts 
meaningful legislation that the President will sign and as soon as 
possible. Such legislation should address the reality of the All 
Volunteer Force and ensure that we pass a bill that does not induce 
servicemen and women to leave the military; but instead bolsters 
retention so that the services may retain quality servicemen and women. 
It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the 
needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the 
active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their 
exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, 
deserves no less.
  As we move forward with consideration of this supplemental 
appropriations legislation, we must remember to whom we owe our 
allegiance--the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fighting bravely 
on our behalf abroad. These brave Americans need this appropriation to 
carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it to them 
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. Unfortunately, it seems we have failed to 
live up to this obligation today, instead producing a bill fraught with 
wasteful spending more attuned to political interests instead of the 
interests of our military men and women.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we are here today--after more than 5 
years, 4,000 American lives lost, 30,000 wounded, and nearly $600 
billion spent--to discuss funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I have always believed invading Iraq was a mistake. I voted against 
granting our President that authority in 2002. I have opposed, from the 
beginning the way this administration carried out that effort once 
begun. Last year, when the 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill came before the Senate, I, along with a majority of my colleagues, 
passed a bill that would have brought our troops home. The President 
chose to veto that bill. If he had signed it, most of our troops would 
be home today.
  Instead, we now have more troops in Iraq than we did more than 5 
years ago when President Bush declared our mission accomplished. The 
grave costs of his aimless strategy continue to plague us both at home 
and abroad.
  Former President John F. Kennedy said, ``To govern is to choose.'' 
President Bush has repeatedly chosen to pursue his war in Iraq, despite 
its costs to our nation. After voters sent an overwhelming message that 
they wanted a different direction, President Bush charged full steam 
ahead. In his ``New Way Forward'' speech on January 10, 2007, President 
Bush announced his decision to place more troops in Iraq.
  But even the President recognized, and I quote, ``A successful 
strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi 
citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible 
improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will 
hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' 
``America's commitment,'' he said, ``is not open-ended.''
  As General Petraeus stated in a March Washington Post interview, ``no 
one'' in the U.S. and Iraqi Governments ``feels that there has been 
sufficient progress by any means in the area of national 
reconciliation,'' or in the provision of basic public services. And, in 
fact, only 3 of the 18 benchmarks the Iraqi Government and our 
Government agreed were important have been fully accomplished.
  President Bush, however, has not held the Iraqi Government 
accountable for its failures as he promised. Instead, he has asked for 
over $170 billion to stay the present course: arming opposing militias, 
meddling in intra-Shi'a violence, and tinkering around the edges of the 
growing refugee crisis. The President wants money for his war, but says 
he will veto any conditions on those funds or any additional funds this 
Congress offers for the other urgent needs that face our Nation's 
troops, our Nation's families, and our Nation's economy.
  To govern is to choose. I believe it is past time for a more 
comprehensive strategy in Iraq under which our current, unsustainable 
military presence evolves into a longer term diplomatic role. I believe 
it is past time to hold President Bush to his promise that American 
support to the Iraqi Government is not open ended.
  So I will vote against providing any additional funds for this war 
until we have a new mission for our Armed Forces. I will also vote 
against a provision that merely suggests a new mission for United 
States forces in Iraq. The time for suggestions, pleas, and protests 
has passed. The President has demonstrated that these fall on deaf 
ears.
  Because our troops remain mired in an Iraqi civil war, we as a nation 
remain distracted from efforts to combat terrorists and extremists in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan where they pose the greatest threat. We have 
stretched our military too thin. We have pushed our troops too far. 
Beyond the priceless cost in life and limb, the nearly $600 billion and 
counting we have spent in Iraq has kept us from rebuilding the gulf 
coast, improving our infrastructure, fixing our schools, and providing 
quality health care for all.
  So far, Maryland has paid over $10 billion for the war in Iraq. With 
just that share of the cost of the war we could have:
  Provided over 2 million people with health care;
  Powered over 9 million homes with energy from renewable sources;
  Put over 200,000 new public safety officers on the street;

[[Page S4739]]

  Given over 1 million students scholarships to university; or
  Allowed over 1 million children a brighter beginning in Head Start.
  To govern is to choose. I am proud to vote for provisions, above and 
beyond the President's request, that will provide additional funds for 
barracks improvements, restore $1.2 billion in BRAC military 
construction funding, and provide nearly $440 million to construct 
world class VA polytrauma centers.
  I am especially pleased to vote to provide veterans returning from 
Iraq and Afghanistan with a new level of educational benefits that will 
cover the full costs of an education at a State institution. President 
Bush and some of my colleagues say the benefit is too generous. But 
this country provided our troops a similar opportunity after World War 
II. That investment created a generation of great leaders and an 
economic boom that transformed our country.
  A new GI bill allows a new generation of brave men and women to 
fulfill their dreams and adjust to civilian life. That is an 
opportunity we owe veterans who this administration has asked to serve 
extended and repeated combat tours. A new GI bill is also a wise 
investment; it allows our economy to fully benefit from these veterans' 
talent, leadership, and experience.
  I believe that the Iraqi refugee crisis, international disasters in 
China and Myanmar as well as an international food crisis require bold 
action by our government. I am proud to support significant additional 
aid to Jordan who has accepted hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, 
as well as disaster assistance and global food aid above and beyond the 
President's request.
  We have an obligation to respond to the growing economic crisis and 
the needs it has created for American families. People are losing their 
homes and their jobs, and along with those jobs, their health care. 
Since March 2007, the number of unemployed has increased by 1.1 million 
workers. I find it unbelievable that the President would threaten to 
veto emergency assistance for Americans in crisis.
  So I am happy that this Senate has ignored the President's veto 
threats and I support provisions that extend unemployment benefits by 
13 weeks for all the nation's workers and by an additional 13 weeks in 
those States with the highest unemployment rates. Extending 
unemployment benefits helps families. That is critically important. But 
it will also help our economy. Economists estimate that every dollar 
spent on benefits leads to $1.64 in economic growth.
  The bill extends a freeze on seven Medicaid rules issued by the 
administration that would have put a tremendous burden on State and 
local budgets already under pressure and affected access to services 
for Marylanders and Americans all around the country. This bill also 
makes critical investments in our infrastructure including roads, dams, 
and levees; increases energy assistance by $1 billion to low-income 
Americans facing skyrocketing fuel prices; and provides commercial 
fishery disaster assistance that could help Maryland's watermen.
  These are only a few of the critical investments this bill makes in 
our Nation. With this emergency supplemental legislation, we chose to 
address many of the most pressing issues of our time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 64 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt 
signed legislation that would change the course of American history and 
greatly enrich the lives of millions of our country's finest minds and 
bravest souls. That day, President Roosevelt said that the bill ``Gives 
emphatic notice to the men and women in our Armed Forces that the 
American people do not intend to let them down.''
  Since 1944, nearly 8 million veterans have benefitted from the GI 
bill. Nearly 8 million men and women, home from war, provided with the 
opportunity to advance their education, get better jobs, and afford a 
brighter future for themselves and their families. Among them, seven 
now serve in the United States Senate: Dan Akaka graduated from the 
University of Hawaii, Chuck Hagel graduated from the University of 
Nebraska at Omaha, Dan Inouye graduated from the University of Hawaii 
and George Washington Law School, Frank Lautenberg graduated from 
Columbia University, Ted Stevens graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law 
School, John Warner graduated from Washington and Lee and the 
University of Virginia Law School, and Jim Webb, a Naval Academy 
alumnus, graduated from Georgetown Law School.
  There is no doubt that if you ask any of these seven distinguished 
Americans, they would tell you that along with hard work, the GI bill 
was a major reason for their success.
  The 8 million veterans on the GI bill became an army of prosperity 
here at home. They became doctors, teachers, scientists, architects, 
and, like the seven I mentioned, public servants. They saved lives, 
built cities, enriched young minds and expanded the opportunities 
available to a new generation of Americans.
  Every dollar invested in the GI bill by the Government returns $7 to 
our economy--and the returns on our cultural prosperity are impossible 
to calculate.
  In his time, President Roosevelt promised to never let our troops 
down. Now it is our time to do the same. The new GI bill, sponsored by 
Senator Webb and cosponsored by nearly 60 Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, does just that. It increases educational benefits to 
all members of the military who have served on active duty since 
September 11, including reservists and National Guard and it covers 
college expenses to match the full cost of an in-state public school, 
plus books and a monthly stipend for housing. This is a bipartisan 
accomplishment we can all be proud to support.
  A small minority of voices in the Bush administration oppose it on 
the faulty logic that it would decrease retention rates. On the 
contrary, there is every reason to believe that it would increase 
recruitment rates.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this crucial bipartisan bill--
supported by those among us who have served and understand the military 
best.
  Democrats are committed to honoring our troops in deeds and not just 
words. This call should be a cause for all of us. Passing this new GI 
bill will send that message loud and clear.
  Once this GI bill reaches the President's desk, I urge him to do the 
right thing for our troops and veterans by quickly signing it into law.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Democratic side has 8 minutes 
45 seconds remaining; the Republican side has 27\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining time on our side be reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we had understood that there was a 
Senator or two on our side who wanted to be recognized before we go to 
a vote on this issue. But pending their arrival, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Mississippi yield me 4 minutes off the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield the distinguished Senator 4 minutes 
off the time allotted to the Republicans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I rise to speak about one specific element of the next 
four votes which has been come to be known as the Webb GI bill; a 
sincere attempt and a positive effort to try address to the issue of 
updating the GI benefits.
  I regret that that bill is being brought up in isolation and is not 
being juxtaposed with the Graham-Burr-McCain bill which also does the 
same thing, only does it in a much better way. I strongly support the 
Graham-Burr approach, which does not undermine retention while 
expanding benefits, the GI benefits to veterans.
  The problem with the Webb bill, as the Secretary of Defense has said, 
and

[[Page S4740]]

senior leadership in the military have said, is the bill will undermine 
our ability to retain personnel in the military. That has also been the 
conclusion of CRS. The reason is because it has such a high incentive 
for people to leave the military after their first tour of duty in the 
military in order to take advantage of the educational benefits.
  The Graham bill, on the other hand, takes a different approach. It 
gives even more generous benefits, in many ways, especially to the 
families of GIs, people serving in the military, but at the same time 
it increases those benefits with the more years you serve.
  So the benefits go from $1,500 after 3 years of service, up to $2,000 
after 12 years of service, and the ability to take those benefits and 
give them to your children or to your spouse is also authorized in the 
Graham bill, which does not occur in the Webb bill.
  That seems to me to be proper approach here. We do not want to 
undermine retention as we address the issue of improving benefits for 
people who serve in the military for us. This does not seem to me to be 
rocket science. It seems to me we should be able to get these two bills 
together, merge them in a way that produces this sort of a positive 
response where we significantly expand the benefit to people who have 
served us, for the ability to get educational benefits after they leave 
the service but at the same time do it in a way that does not undermine 
the capacity of the military to retain quality people.
  When the Secretary of Defense says this is going to cost us quality 
people, he is talking about national defense. These are the folks who 
have been trained to have the skills, who are extraordinary 
professionals whom we want to encourage to stay in the military. We do 
not want to create a system where we actually encourage them to leave 
the military.
  The Graham-Burr bill takes the approach of encouraging these folks to 
stay in the military and allow the benefits to accrue and grow so they 
can use them or their family members can use them. Thus, I think that 
is a much more positive and appropriate approach. So setting up the 
Webb bill as a freestanding vote without any amendments--that is the 
structure we have got here on the floor, no amendments to the Webb 
bill; it hasn't gone through committee, it has not gone through regular 
order, it is being brought to the floor to make a political statement--
basically is not constructive to getting the best product and the best 
benefits for our GIs, and also the best bill to make sure we have the 
strong and vibrant military in order to defend ourselves and have a 
strong national defense.
  Regrettably I have to vote against the Webb bill until we can get it 
in a posture where it addresses the issue of retention, where it 
addresses the issues raised by the Secretary of Defense, raised by the 
military leaders who work for the Defense Department, and raised by our 
own congressional study groups. Hopefully we can step back from this 
issue and do it right and do it in a cooperative way that will actually 
accomplish the goals which we all want, which is to significantly 
extend and expand benefits for education to people who serve us in the 
military, and at the same time encourage retention, at the same time 
allow these benefits to be passed down to the children of the persons 
serving us if that is their choice.
  I wanted to make that point clear prior to this vote. I appreciate 
the courtesy of the Senator from Mississippi.
  I yield back to the Senator from Mississippi any time I have. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes be allocated to 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and that 
the time be added to the base time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The President pro tempore is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week the Senate Appropriations 
Committee met for 3\1/2\ hours and reported responsible legislation 
that supports the troops, sets a goal for reducing the scope of the 
mission in Iraq, honors our veterans, and helps Americans to cope with 
a sagging economy.
  The bill includes $10 billion of domestic funding not requested by 
the President, less than what the President spends in Iraq in 1 month. 
Yet the President has threatened to veto the bill if it is one thin 
dime--one thin dime--over his, the President's--your President, my 
President, our President--request. He wants this Congress to approve 
another $5.6 billion--that is $5.60 for every minute since Jesus Christ 
was born--to rebuild Iraq. Yes, he wants this Congress to approve 
another $5.6 billion to rebuild Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq has 
huge--I mean huge--surpluses from excess oil revenues. He wants funding 
for Mexico. He wants funding for Central America. But the President 
says he will veto the bill if we add funding for bridges in Birmingham 
or for help with the high cost of energy bills in Maine or to fight 
crime in U.S. towns and cities or to aid Katrina victims.
  Just yesterday the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
repeated the silly assertion that by taking care of America, we hold 
funding for the troops hostage. This is pure--I am sorry to say, 
something like horse manure--nonsense. Our legislation includes funds 
that the President did not request for health care for our troops, for 
Guard and Reserve equipment, for building and repairing barracks, and 
for training the Afghans to fight for their own security.
  In the amendment on which we are about to vote, we honor those who 
have served America by increasing educational benefits for our 
veterans. We extend unemployment benefits by another 13 weeks. We honor 
promises made to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We roll back 
Medicaid regulations that our Nation's Governors believe disrupt health 
coverage for our most vulnerable citizens. We respond to dramatic 
increases in food prices by increasing funding for the Global Food Aid 
Program. We also provide humanitarian relief to disaster victims in 
China, Bangladesh, and in Burma.
  This amendment includes provisions that have broad bipartisan 
support, such as funding for Byrne grants and the Rural Schools 
Program, which runs out of money on June 30, 2008. In the last 18 
months, the President has designated 62 disaster grants for floods in 
32 States. Yet the President has not requested funding to repair 
levees, leaving our citizens in Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and 
other States vulnerable to more flooding. We fund those repairs.
  This is responsible legislation that supports our troops, honors our 
veterans, and helps our citizens to cope with a troubled economy. I 
urge adoption of the pending amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of all of our colleagues, I 
thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his work on this 
appropriations bill and for taking into account all of the important 
needs across this country in presenting this amendment. I thank him for 
his words today as well.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 6\1/2\ 
minutes, and the Senator from Mississippi has 19 minutes 50 seconds.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, at the end of the Second World War, this 
country thanked a generation of returning heroes for their service by 
giving them the chance to attend college on the GI bill. Stanley 
Dunham, my grandfather, was one of the young men who got that chance. 
More than half a century later, we face the largest homecoming since 
then, at a time when the costs of college have never been higher.
  Senator Webb, a former marine himself, along with the leaders of both 
parties, have introduced a 21st century GI bill that would give this 
generation of returning heroes the same chance at an affordable college 
education that we gave the ``greatest generation.''
  We have asked so much of our brave young men and women. We have sent 
them on tour after tour of duty to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have 
risked their lives and left their families and

[[Page S4741]]

served this country brilliantly. It is our moral duty as Americans to 
serve them as well as they have served us. This GI bill is an important 
way to do that.
  I know there are some who have argued that this will have an impact 
on retention rates. I firmly believe--and I think it has been argued 
eloquently on this side--that in the long term, this will strengthen 
our military and improve the number of people who are interested in 
volunteering to serve.
  I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country. He is one of 
those heroes of which I speak. But I cannot understand why he would 
line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill. I can't 
believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not 
disagree with him and the President more on this issue.
  There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but 
giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of 
them. I am proud that so many Democrats and Republicans have come 
together to support this bill. I would also note that the first GI bill 
was not just good for the veterans and their families, but it was good 
for the entire country. It helped to build our middle class. Whenever 
we invest in the best and the brightest, all of us end up benefiting, 
all of us end up prospering.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to give those who have defended America 
the chance to achieve their dream. I commend Senator Webb and the many 
veteran service organizations that have worked so tirelessly on this 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Illinois for his 
statement. I appreciate that he mentioned his grandfather and others 
who were helped by the GI bill of rights. There are so many people I 
know in Vermont who were able to get an education because of that bill.
  I also commend the Senator from Washington State. As always, she 
carries out Herculean tasks on this floor and does it in the best 
tradition of the Senate.
  I thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for their work on this 
supplemental bill.
  The Appropriations Committee has a long tradition of bipartisanship, 
and the two leaders, the Republican leader and the Democratic leader, 
have always demonstrated that, just as I have tried in the Foreign 
Operations subcommittee, working with Senator Gregg and his staff. We 
worked closely together to make difficult choices, including finding 
funds for urgent humanitarian needs that the President's budget 
overlooked.
  For the first time, we require the Government of Iraq, which has an 
oil surplus--with oil selling for over $120 a barrel--to match U.S. 
funds dollar for dollar. It is time for Iraq to pay a larger share of 
its own reconstruction. This requirement, included by Senator Gregg and 
myself, would lessen the burden on American taxpayers.
  We provide $450 million to Mexico and Central America, to help our 
neighbors to the south combat the drug cartels. This is the first down 
payment on a multi-year program. I spoke in this chamber at greater 
length about the Merida Initiative yesterday.
  We have significantly increased funding for refugees, including Iraqi 
refugees. I thank Senator Gregg for helping us provide $650 million for 
assistance for Jordan, and I thank Senator Edward Kennedy for the money 
included for Iraqi refugees. Thanks to Senators Biden and Lugar, the 
bill includes essential authority to enable the administration to help 
dismantle North Korea's nuclear facilities.
  As other Senators have mentioned, this bill also provides funds for 
critical domestic needs, from repairing decaying infrastructure in 
America to disaster relief for American victims of floods, tornadoes, 
and other disasters. We are helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, 
but we are also providing funds to help the American people the 
President's budget left out. I wish the President had considered these 
needs in his supplemental request. He wants to fix roads in 
Afghanistan, but we also need to fix roads in America. He wants to 
repair infrastructure in Iraq, but we need to repair infrastructure in 
America. My State and the States of every Senator are waiting for help 
from the Federal Government. Working together, both parties, we have 
addressed important national security interests, but we have also 
addressed the urgent needs of the American people at home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back the 
remainder of the time on the bill on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yield back.
  All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the cloture motion with respect to the 
motion to concur in House amendment No. 2 with amendment No. 4803 is 
withdrawn, and amendment No. 4804 is withdrawn.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in House 
amendment No. 2 to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 with amendment No. 
4803.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coburn
     Kennedy
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this motion, the motion to concur with an amendment 
is agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4816

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in House amendment No. 1, 
with an amendment, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     amendment of the House No. 1 to the amendment of the Senate 
     to H.R. 2642, with an amendment numbered 4816.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that chapter 3, 
section

[[Page S4742]]

11312, of the General Provision title violates paragraph 4 of Senate 
rule XVI in the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment No. 1, 
with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
motion to concur to the amendment falls.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4817

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in House amendment No. 1, 
with an amendment, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     amendment of the House No. 1 to the amendment of the Senate 
     to H.R. 2642, with an amendment numbered 4817.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in House 
amendment No. 1 to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 with an amendment 
No. 4817.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Hagel
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--63

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Obama
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coburn
     Kennedy
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for adoption of this motion, the motion to concur with an amendment is 
withdrawn.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my vote against the 
previous amendment which both appropriated $165 billion to continue the 
tragic and misguided war in Iraq, and also included a number of 
provisions relating to our policies regarding Iraq. I favor many of the 
policy provisions contained in the amendment, such as requirements that 
the Iraqi government share in some of the costs of the war and a 
prohibition against the establishment of permanent military bases in 
Iraq. I commend my Democratic colleagues in the Appropriations 
Committee, including my good friend and distinguished colleague from 
Rhode Island, Jack Reed, for their work on these laudable provisions. I 
also strongly support the provision that requires our intelligence 
agencies to give access to detainees to the International Committee of 
the Red Cross. I have worked closely with my colleagues on the 
Intelligence Committee on this important provision, which is designed 
to end secret detentions.
  While I fully supported some of the policy provisions in the 
amendment, I could not vote to fund this war in the absence of a firm 
and enforceable timeline for withdrawal. Unfortunately, it appears that 
the Republican minority remains intent on filibustering any attempts to 
mandate a rapid and responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq. 
I, along with thousands of Rhode Islanders who have contacted me on 
this critical issue, oppose spending $4,000 per second on a war that 
has diminished our national security and damaged our standing in the 
world. I am hopeful that, under a new President, we can work together 
to bring an end to this war.


                           Amendment No. 4818

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in House amendment No. 1 
with an amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     amendment of the House No. 1 to the amendment of the Senate 
     to H.R. 2642 with an amendment numbered 4818.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur with House 
amendment No. 1 to the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 2642 with 
amendment No. 4818.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--26

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coburn
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for adoption of this motion, the motion to concur with an amendment is 
agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid on the table.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________