[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13900-14006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, Congress approved 
legislation that would have changed the course of the U.S. occupation 
of Iraq. I say occupation because, frankly, that is what this is. Our 
troops won the battle they were sent to fight. The dictator Saddam 
Hussein is deposed and executed. His rotten government is no more, 
replaced with a democratically elected Parliament, President, and Prime 
Minister. We all are cheered at the skill of our soldiers.
  But, sadly, this President has not done justice by our brave troops. 
The dreadful management of this occupation has resulted in chaos. Iraq 
is at war with itself and our troops are caught in the middle. That is 
why this Congress established a new direction for bringing our troops 
home from this misbegotten occupation. The bill the President vetoed 
would have refocused our military, not on the civil war in Iraq but, 
rather, on Osama bin Laden and his base of operations. It is time for 
the President to take off his blinders and uncover his ears. White 
House obstinacy cannot continue to drive our military plans in Iraq.

[[Page 13901]]

  With this supplemental funding legislation we begin to shift the 
responsibility for Iraq's future off the shoulders of our military, and 
onto the shoulders of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. The 
White House wanted a blank check for the President's mangled occupation 
of Iraq. We are not going to sign on that dotted line--not now, not 
ever. The legislation that is before the Senate today is a step toward 
that goal. It is not a giant leap, but it is progress. And it is only a 
first step. In a few weeks, this Senate is expected to focus on the 
Defense Department authorization bill. I shall press for a vote on the 
proposal Senator Clinton and I have outlined in the authorization for 
the Iraq war and to give Congress a chance, just a chance, to decide 
whether the so-called new mission in Iraq should continue. If this 
mission is so critical, then let the administration make its case and 
let the people's elected Representatives--that is us--let the people's 
elected Representatives vote.
  In July we will turn our attention to the Pentagon's fiscal 2008 
funding request, and in September we will consider the $145 billion war 
funding request for the next fiscal year. Each of these bills is an 
opportunity to shape the future course of the mission in Iraq. Clearly, 
Congress is not turning from the debate on Iraq. On the contrary, we 
are just beginning this debate.
  We have all committed to protecting our men and women in uniform. 
This legislation provides the funding to do just that. We ensure $3 
billion for the purchase of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. 
The 2,000 additional advanced armored vehicles that will be built with 
these funds will help to save the lives of American soldiers and 
American marines as they travel the lonely streets of Baghdad--the 
lonely streets of Iraq.
  If our soldiers are injured in battle, this legislation ensures they 
will receive high-quality health care when they come home. The fiasco 
at Walter Reed should be seared into our national consciousness. That 
is why this legislation provides $4.8 billion to ensure that troops and 
veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service.
  A few weeks ago, we watched Kansas families try to put their lives 
back together after deadly tornadoes ripped through their homes. The 
Kansas Governor pointed out that her State's National Guard equipment 
was parked in Iraq and not at home, slowing cleanup and recovery 
efforts. Other States faced the potential for the exact same problem. 
This supplemental bill provides $1 billion--that is 1 dollar for every 
minute since Jesus Christ was born--$1 billion for the National Guard 
and reserve to replace the trucks and heavy equipment that Guard units 
have been directed to leave in Iraq.
  Again today President Bush warned of terrorist attacks on American 
soil. He talks a great deal about the threats of such attacks, but very 
seldom does he provide resources to protect the country. If the 
President's warnings are accurate, the $1 billion contained in this 
bill should help to save lives.
  We include funds for port security and for mass transit security, for 
explosive detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives 
in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate, including a more 
aggressive screening of cargo on passenger airlines. We will not--no, 
we will not--close our eyes to the huge gaps in our protections at 
home.
  We also work to heal the devastated communities still struggling to 
recover from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. To this day, mangled 
trash heaps stand where homes and families once lived. This White 
House, the Bush White House, sends billions of dollars to rebuild 
Baghdad but ignores the overwhelming needs in New Orleans, Slidell, 
Biloxi, and so many other places at home.
  This bill invests $6.4 billion--that is $6.40 for every minute since 
Jesus was born--this bill invests $6.4 billion to rebuild the gulf 
coast communities and to restore the vibrance of this proud region.
  I close, and I thank my ranking member, Senator Thad Cochran, for his 
help. I thank Representative Dave Obey, chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee, and the Senate leaders, Senator Harry Reid 
and Senator Mitch McConnell. I thank the Appropriations Committee 
staff: staff director, Charles Kieffer; Republican staff director, 
Bruce Evans; and our subcommittee and professional staff members.
  I appreciate, I deeply appreciate the long hours they have worked--
yes, long hours they have worked to craft the supplemental legislation. 
I urge Senators, all Senators on both sides of the aisle, to support 
this legislation. It is the product of bipartisan negotiations. That is 
right, isn't it, Thad?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Sometimes.
  Mr. BYRD. It meets the critical needs of this country. It moves us 
forward in our efforts to change the dynamic in Iraq. We must 
challenge--we must challenge--this President, our President, to open 
his eyes to the truth and adopt the new direction in Iraq that this 
Nation and the world so eagerly--yes, so anxiously--awaits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to talk first about the 
process and then the substance of this legislation. As everybody knows, 
we will soon be considering the war supplemental bill entitled ``The 
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.''
  That title is very important. As the title says, the legislation is 
an appropriations bill. The title refers to troop readiness. There is 
finally, after several months of legislative wrangling, funding for the 
troops that the President can sign.
  The title refers to veterans care. There is funding for that. The 
title refers to Katrina recovery. There are funds for Hurricane Katrina 
damage. The title also refers to Iraq accountability. There is language 
finally in the form acceptable to the President so that he can sign it 
dealing with benchmarks on our mission in Iraq and the role of the 
Iraqi Government.
  The title of the bill, however, does not refer to any matters within 
the jurisdiction of a committee I am very familiar with, the Finance 
Committee. But take a look and you will find three categories of 
Finance Committee matters: One, the small business tax relief package; 
two, the so-called pension technicals; and, three, Medicaid and SCHIP 
provisions.
  Now, why does it matter whether these policy provisions travel in a 
tax-writing committee bill or an appropriations bill? It matters for 
several reasons. I had the pleasure of serving on both the Finance 
Committee, and for a very short period of time during my career in the 
Senate, on the Appropriations Committee. They are the money committees 
of the Senate.
  Appropriations bills, by and large, spend money. That is not 
entitlements, that is the set-asides in the budget. Finance Committee 
bills, on the other hand, raise revenue and deal with most of the 
health and welfare entitlement spending.
  Both the Appropriations and Finance Committees have very strong 
constitutional traditions, expertise in the complex subject matter, and 
seasoned memberships motivated and dedicated to service of the 
respective committees. All you have to do is look at the careers of 
Chairman Byrd, the ranking member, or Senator Baucus, to know that they 
dedicate themselves to these two great money committees of the Senate.
  So when policy issues are processed outside of the Appropriations or 
outside the Finance Committee, necessary care, expertise, and 
experience is lost. When I was chairman, I took great pains to avoid 
taking on appropriations matters. More often than not, policy made 
outside of either of these committee jurisdictions will, it seems, 
somehow need to be corrected.
  There is another reason it matters; that is, policy made through the 
committee process is very transparent, and that is what American 
Government and the Congress is all about, transparency--the public 
business to be done publicly. The committee's role is to air

[[Page 13902]]

and carefully consider proposals in the areas of committee 
jurisdiction.
  We are really talking about transparency. Sunshine is the best 
disinfectant. When the committee process is end-run, as I will 
demonstrate in part of this bill, there is usually no positive reason. 
Usually the reason is expediency on the part of people, maybe even 
beyond the control of the committee chairman, and I would suggest 
legislative leadership.
  It has happened not just now, it has happened under Republicans and 
under Democrats. But I am pleased to say it has been effectively very 
rare over the last few years. Skipping the committee process on new 
proposals was the exception rather than the rule.
  Unfortunately, now, with respect to the critical pieces of Finance 
Committee jurisdiction, it looks as if leadership prefers to skip the 
committee, after I have been told privately and publicly so many times 
all of the work is going to be done through the committee. So I am 
hoping that what I am going to complain about is pretty much a 
temporary pattern.
  To sum it up, the people's business should be done in committees in a 
transparent way so the people of this country know what is going on. 
Committee process means sunshine. I think the committee process was 
abused on this legislation.
  But the conference process was also abused. We never even went 
through the trappings of the committee process. We have an amended 
House bill that because of the imperative of an acceptable war funding 
package has the force of a conference report.
  How was the process abused? Just take a look at the bill, and you 
will find a patchwork of unconnected provisions in the Finance 
Committee jurisdiction that is not even mentioned in the title. Aside 
from a small business tax relief provision, no real back-and-forth 
discussion occurred on these matters, either in the Finance Committee 
or in conference.
  With respect to the small business tax relief provisions, the House 
and Senate Democratic leadership set an arbitrary ceiling that 
constrained our outstanding chairman, Senator Baucus, from reaching a 
bipartisan agreement which is so much in the tradition of how Senator 
Baucus and I work together.
  The bottom line is, Republicans opened the door to a conference 
agreement without receiving assurances of a fair deal. I don't think we 
got a fair deal. Once Republicans opened the door to the conference, 
the door was effectively shut on full and meaningful participation.
  Now, in the past, Republican leadership did similar things, and 
Democrats cried foul. I am proud to say that on most, not all, Finance 
Committee conferences, the Senate Democrats were represented and 
present for final conference agreements. After crying foul about some 
conference processes, the Senate Democratic leadership insisted in 
previous years on preconference agreements before letting Republicans 
go to conference.
  As I feared earlier in the year, the Senate Republican leadership 
will have to similarly insist on assurances before conferences are 
convened. This supplemental and its vetoed predecessor made the case 
that the conference process can't be trusted.
  Senate Republicans have no recourse other than to insist on 
preconference agreements, as we can learn from the Democratic minority 
of the previous 4 years.
  Now, I want to turn to the substance of three categories of the 
Finance Committee matters that were inserted in the process, after 
spending my previous minutes on that process. Now to the substance.
  The first matter deals with the small business tax relief package 
that traveled with a minimum wage increase. The deal in the conference 
is basically the same deal presented by the Democratic negotiators on 
the last appropriations bill. It favors the House position in number 
and composition of that package, practically ignoring the great work 
that Senator Baucus and I did on these provisions.
  From a small business standpoint, the House bill was a peanut shell. 
The Senate bill was real peanuts. Real peanuts--still not enough from 
my perspective but more, much more than what the House has.
  As you can see here, I have got Mr. Peanut up here to demonstrate the 
Senate bill, the House bill, and the conference report. From a small 
business standpoint, then, I want to repeat: The House bill was a 
peanut shell. The Senate bill was real peanuts. It is a missed 
opportunity because a conference agreement is a single, shriveled 
peanut, not helping small business the way small business ought to have 
been helped to offset the negative impacts on small business of a 
minimum wage tax increase.
  We could have, in fact, provided small business with meaningful tax 
relief that is contemporaneous with the effects of the minimum wage 
hike that I say, and I think economists agree, are negative toward 
small business.
  This chart shows Mr. Peanut. It shows this bill at each of its 
stages--a peanut, a peanut shell, and shriveled peanut. What we are 
going to be voting on will be that shriveled peanut.
  There is another matter that bothers me and this is the so-called 
pension technical corrections. What is a technical correction, one 
might ask. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax 
bills. Last year's landmark bipartisan pension reform bill certainly 
can be described as a major tax bill. It contained the most significant 
retirement security policy changes within a generation. There are 
proposals necessary to ensure that the provisions of the pension reform 
bill are working consistently within congressional intent and to 
provide clerical corrections. That is what technical corrections means. 
Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain 
or loss is scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Technical corrections is derived from a deliberative and consultative 
process among the congressional as well as administration tax staffs, 
where there is a great deal of expertise. That means the Republican as 
well as the Democratic staffs, regardless of who is in the majority or 
minority of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate 
Finance Committee, are involved, as well as Treasury Department 
personnel, whether we have a Republican or Democratic President. All of 
this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the 
nonpartisan professional staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. A 
technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate. 
Any one segment I have listed can veto it. That is why we know it is 
nonpartisan. That is why we know it is technical. That is why we know 
it is not a substantive change in law. If it were, it would not be 
technical.
  The pension provisions in this bill, the one we will be voting on in 
a little while, represent then forgetting this process so you know 
things are done right. It represents a cherry-picking of some, not all, 
of the technical corrections that these professional people, in a 
nonpartisan way, are currently trying to put together with a bill that 
will come up later on.
  In addition, there are pension provisions included in this bill that 
are called technical but are of great substance and are not then 
technical. Some of these proposals are even controversial. I have 
reviewed legislative history over the last 15-plus years, and that 
history informs me that this may be an unprecedented treatment of 
technical corrections. Techincals were processed on a 2000 year bill 
that was not a tax-writing committee bill, but that package was a 
consensus package. All the committees and the administration had signed 
off that year, 7 years ago. In other instances, technicals were 
processed on tax-writing committee vehicles. In all these instances, 
the packages represented an agreement between all the tax-writing 
committees, Republican and Democratic, and the Treasury.
  In this case, there are four committees involved, the two tax-writing 
committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, what we call the HELP Committee, and the House Education and 
Labor Committee. To illustrate the

[[Page 13903]]

controversy over the pensions technical package, I ask unanimous 
consent to print in the Record a copy of a letter from HELP Committee 
Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi. The letter lays out their 
objections to the House technical process. I also ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of a letter I wrote regarding the Finance Committee's 
jurisdiction be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
           Pensions,
                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders: Last year we worked with other committees to 
     author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding rules 
     in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) was 
     signed into law in August 2006, following extensive 
     bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent on 
     ensuring that retirement plans are properly funded, and that 
     Americans' retirement savings will be there when they need 
     it. This law passed the Senate with overwhelming support, 93-
     5.
       We understand that a number of pension provisions 
     originating in the House may be included in the emergency war 
     spending bill. While moving forward on pensions technical 
     corrections is a goal that many members share, moving House 
     pension technical corrections separately on this spending 
     bill from Senate priorities creates a disparity. We are very 
     concerned at this disregard for equal consideration and lack 
     of discussion of Senate priorities and prerogatives.
       Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP 
     Committee's jurisdiction, and we recognize that immediate 
     technical corrections are needed to the PPA. Bicameral, 
     staff-level meetings are taking place regularly, and we are 
     working with the Administration to ensure that the needed 
     corrections are promptly addressed. The HELP Committee has a 
     history of finding common ground on complex legislative 
     challenges, and we are confident that we will reach consensus 
     on a package soon. We urge you to provide us with the 
     opportunity to bring a finished pension technical package to 
     the floor in a timely fashion in order to give our colleagues 
     the chance to have their priorities considered.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       Chairman.
     Michael B. Enzi,
       Ranking Member.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                         Committee on Finance,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2007.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran: I am writing 
     to express my continued opposition to the consideration of 
     any provision concerning intergovernmental transfers/cost 
     based reimbursement by the Committee on Appropriations for 
     the supplemental appropriation bill we will be voting on 
     shortly. I am also opposed to the inclusion of tax provisions 
     that passed separately through the Senate as part of the 
     supplemental appropriations. As you know, the Medicaid matter 
     pertains to programs under the Social Security Act and the 
     tax provisions amend the Internal Revenue Code. Both the 
     Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code fall 
     clearly and solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Finance.
       Throughout the years, the Committee on Finance has worked 
     to safeguard and improve the programs under its jurisdiction, 
     including the Medicaid program. The Finance Committee has 
     unique expertise with these programs and is the only 
     Committee in the position to assess the possible effects of 
     individual changes on all Social Security Act programs as a 
     whole. Any requests for additional changes to these programs 
     must be examined with great care, and the Committee on 
     Finance is the only Committee with experience necessary for 
     this task. Accordingly, the Committee will legislate to 
     modify these programs only after thorough analysis of the 
     issues involved and potential solutions.
       The proposed intergovernmental transfers/cost based 
     reimbursement provision in question is case in point of why 
     it should not be considered in an appropriations bill. This 
     provision would halt the implementation of a Department of 
     Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation on cost based 
     reimbursement. The regulation addresses the questionable 
     practice of states recycling Medicaid funds paid to 
     providers. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
     opined numerous times about the inappropriateness of the 
     practice and the Finance Committee has worked to expose it as 
     well. Restricting payments to cost and requiring claims 
     documentation both are in the best interest of the integrity 
     of the Medicaid program, and forbidding HHS from acting in 
     these areas is extraordinarily short-sighted. In fact, the 
     Administration believes the new rule will save $5 billion 
     over the next five years. Clearly, halting implementation 
     will have an impact on Medicaid resources and, therefore, 
     decisions that have such an impact are more appropriate for 
     the Finance Committee.
       Certainly, a one-year moratorium is an improvement over the 
     two-year moratorium that was in the bill that was originally 
     passed by the Senate, but the language in the bill still 
     encourages states to push the envelope on payment schemes. If 
     a state submits a proposed waiver or state plan amendment 
     that is in contravention with the regulation, the agency will 
     not have the authority to deny the proposal. This is a 
     provision written for the benefit of special interests so 
     they can avoid real scrutiny of their financing arrangements. 
     This provision will encourage states to offer payment schemes 
     that CMS has previously disallowed as being inappropriate. It 
     will encourage litigation if CMS tries to assert that they do 
     still maintain jurisdiction.
       The inspector general has investigated and reported to 
     Congress on why there are problems in the areas the rule 
     addresses. The Finance Committee has not had the first 
     hearing on why the rule doesn't work and must be stopped.
       The way that this provision is paid for is equally 
     problematic. The extension of the Wisconsin pharmacy plus 
     waiver is an unnecessary earmark. Every state but Wisconsin 
     has changed their pharmacy assistance program as the MMA 
     required. Furthermore, the way the language is written sets a 
     very bad precedent. The language is written in a way that 
     alters Medicaid's budget neutrality test. It's written to 
     guarantee that it appears to save money. The reality is that 
     Wisconsin will be providing many poor seniors with less of a 
     benefit than they could get through Part D. Wisconsin charges 
     greater cost-sharing than Medicare for low income seniors.
       Legislating to prevent CMS from cleaning up 
     intergovernmental transfers scams on this appropriation bill 
     sets a bad precedent. That is clear. It is legislation on 
     Medicaid and that is a basic part of the jurisdiction of the 
     Finance Committee.
       I am also concerned that the supplemental appropriation 
     includes tax provisions which also fall solely in the 
     jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The power of the 
     purse, appropriations, is Congress' power and we are directly 
     accountable to our constituents for our spending actions. In 
     that vein, I deeply respect the deep traditions of the 
     Appropriations Committee. As a former Chairman, and now, 
     Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, I deeply respect 
     that division of power. The power to tax is our power and we 
     are directly accountable to our constituents for our taxing 
     actions.
       We should rarely mix the jurisdiction of the two great 
     money committees. It should only occur, if at all, when the 
     four senior members of the tax writing and appropriations 
     committees agree. Mixing tax writing and appropriations 
     jurisdiction should not occur at the whim of leadership. 
     Those kinds of actions demean the committees. Fortunately, I 
     insisted and the leadership respected this division of 
     jurisdiction between the tax writers and appropriators over 
     the last six years.
       Earlier this year, the Senate acted on the minimum wage 
     bill/small business tax relief bill after the House had 
     passed its own version of the bill. We worked with our House 
     counterparts to resolve differences between the two bills. 
     However, because of a bicameral Democratic Leadership 
     obsession with a top-line number on the tax side, the 
     conference options were severely limited. Chairman Baucus was 
     able to accommodate far less than half the tax policy the 
     Senate sent to conference. The Senate's authority was limited 
     by the Leadership decision to attach the bill to the 
     supplemental appropriations bill where Chairman Baucus was 
     not a conferee. Legitimate tax policy proposals on the 
     revenue losing and revenue raising sides were left on the 
     conference's cutting room floor.
       The composition of the final package is heavily weighted 
     towards an extension and modification of the work opportunity 
     tax credit. I support that credit. But the benefits of that 
     policy are delayed. Small businesses need the tax relief to 
     be in synch with the time the minimum wage kicks in.
       Both of these outcomes do not reflect a proportionate 
     agreement between the House and Senate bills. The arbitrary 
     ceiling on the amount of tax relief was not a fair balance.
       I appreciate your Committee members' interest in the Social 
     Security Act programs and the Internal Revenue Code. I ask 
     that they work with the Committee on Finance to see that 
     their objectives are examined and addressed at the 
     appropriate time, in the appropriate setting. Thanks for your 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
                                                   Ranking Member.


[[Page 13904]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The bottom line is, the Republicans now know that the 
conference process and the committee process will not be respected. We 
are doing things of a substantive nature. We are doing things for which 
there is a process to make sure that the term ``technical'' is abided 
by. That process that worked so perfectly is ignored. So if the 
committee process will not be respected, we have to do things to make 
sure that it is. In the future, we will need to protect the committee 
and the conference process, and we will need to do some preconferencing 
agreements as we ought to have learned from now what is the majority, 
the Democrats, when they were in the minority, that they got 
Republicans to agree to. It seems to me that is legitimate. It may not 
be exactly the way it ought to work, but it is something we have to do 
to make sure these things don't happen again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, history has proven it was a mistake to give 
this President the power to go to Iraq, and I believe history will 
prove it is a mistake to give him the open-ended power that this 
supplemental bill leaves in his hands. This war is not what this 
President says it is. I believe we have an obligation not to vote for 
the continuation of a policy that empowers the President to simply 
continue the war at his discretion. I have listened to some of my 
colleagues and others who have suggested that this bill will somehow 
change the course. I have to respectfully disagree. This bill does not 
provide a strategy worthy of our soldiers' sacrifice. Instead it 
permits more of the same, a strategy that relies on sending American 
troops into the alleys and back roads of Iraq to referee a deadly civil 
war.
  Instead of the same misguided strategy, I believe we had an 
opportunity. While I understand the votes and I understand the threat 
of veto, and I am not new to this process, I still believe we had an 
opportunity to elicit a legitimate, fundamental change and some 
commitments from this administration with respect to the way in which 
we would hold Iraqis accountable and the way in which this 
administration itself would be held accountable.
  I say with all due respect, that is what the American people voted 
for in November 2006. That is what they have a right to expect from 
this Congress. The fact is, we could show our support for our troops in 
many different ways in this legislation. I don't believe the only way 
to show that support is by letting the President have full discretion 
to continue to do what the President has been doing for these last 
years. I believe the way you do it is by requiring--and setting up real 
measurements with real consequences--the Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. I 
am convinced, because the last years have proven it, the President is 
wrong to keep suggesting we will stand down when they stand up. I 
believe they will not stand up until we stand down. That is the 
reality.
  The fact is, the benchmarks in this supplemental are not meaningful 
benchmarks. The President has a complete waiver. All we require is a 
report, a certification from the President. Is there anybody here, 
based on the statements the President has made for the last 5 years, 
who doesn't know exactly what the President is going to say with 
respect to progress? All we require is that there be some measurement 
of ``progress.''
  Let me say very clearly, because I have been there before in this 
argument, I know what happens when you vote in a way that people can 
easily try to pick up and construe as a vote other than what it is. 
There is good in this supplemental. Yes, we need money for readiness 
for troops, and every single one of us wants our troops to be as ready 
as they can be. Yes, it is good that there is money for care for 
veterans, and our veterans deserve the best care in the world. In fact, 
the money available in this bill is a far cry from the real needs of 
our veterans with respect to mental health, outreach centers, the 
veterans centers, the VA, care in the hospitals. That could be a great 
deal stronger. But we are for that. We are also for the money for 
Katrina. So let me make it clear to anybody who wants to try to distort 
this vote: I am in favor of the money for readiness. I am in favor of 
giving our troops all the care they need and deserve. I am in favor of 
money for support for Katrina.
  But the fundamental gravamen of this bill, the heart of this bill, is 
the strategy with respect to the war in Iraq. The heart of this bill 
are the consequences that we invite as a result of our votes.
  In the last week or two, I have been to three funerals, one funeral, 
the son of a man who was opposed to the war, a military man, a West 
Pointer, a man who gave his career, but he is opposed to this war. He 
dared to use the word to me in a conversation on the very day that his 
son was being buried about how it was important for us to redouble our 
efforts in the Senate to bring this to a close, how it was important 
for us not to allow these young men and women to have their lives 
``wasted,'' a word that if any politician used, we would be pilloried 
for. But the father of a man who was being buried used that word on the 
very day his son was being buried. Another funeral I attended with a 
father who was overcome from emotion speaking from the pulpit, left the 
pulpit, came down, stood beside his son's coffin and said: I have to 
talk beside my son. He put his hand on the coffin and talked to us 
about his son's pride, his son's patriotism, his son's love of his 
fellow soldiers, his son's and his commitment to what he was doing 
personally but, obviously, the agony they feel over a war that so many 
people don't support.
  We have a responsibility with respect to those young men and women, 
with respect to those families. I believe that responsibility is not 
met when you give the President the very same power to continue on a 
daily basis what he has been doing for these last years. There isn't 
one person in this body who doesn't know what this President is going 
to say with respect to progress. How many times have we heard, in the 
midst of this war, Vice President Cheney come out: We are making 
progress. The President yesterday talked about progress, even as he 
mischaracterizes what this war is about, talking principally about al-
Qaida, when all of us know this war is principally a civil war, a 
slaughter now between Shia and Sunni over the political spoils of Iraq. 
Our presence is empowering that.
  A few days ago, we set a new strategy, forcing Iraqis to do what only 
Iraqis can do. We gave the President the full discretion to leave the 
troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqi security forces, to 
chase al-Qaida and protect U.S. forces and facilities. In the sixth 
year of this war, which we will reach by next year, it seems to me fair 
that we should expect that Iraqis can assume that responsibility. The 
Iraqi Government has said they can. The Iraqi Parliament has said they 
don't want us there. Our own CIA tells us our presence is creating more 
terrorists, that we are creating a bigger target. We have become a 
recruitment tool for fundraising by al-Qaida out of Pakistan and 
Afghanistan. We now know that al-Qaida is using our presence in Iraq to 
raise money and recruit jihadists around the world. This policy is 
counter to the best security interests of our Nation.
  This vote is a vote about those best security interests. We demanded 
a little while ago a strategy of real benchmarks. There is not in this 
supplemental one benchmark that can be enforced, not one. I don't 
disagree with the benchmarks themselves. Yes, we want an oil deal. But 
I listened to Secretary of State Rice in front of our committee months 
ago say: The oil deal is just about to be approved, right around the 
corner.
  It hasn't even been put to the Parliament. It is not approved months 
later and too many lives lost later because of the procrastination of 
Iraqi politicians. How do you say to an American family that their son 
or daughter ought to give up their life so Iraqi politicians can spin 
around and play a game between each other at our expense?

[[Page 13905]]

  It is unconscionable. It is bad strategy. It is bad policy. It defies 
common sense. That is what this vote is about: why and when we, as a 
Congress, are going to insist--now, I understand they do not want the 
deadline, and the President insists he is not going to have the 
deadline, notwithstanding--notwithstanding--we gave the President full 
discretion to leave troops there to complete the training, to leave 
troops to chase al-Qaida, to leave troops there to protect American 
facilities and forces.
  Those kids we are burying deserve an honest debate, not a debate 
where people come to the floor and say: Oh, these are the cut-and-run 
folks. These are the folks who are looking for defeat. It is an insult 
to any Member of the Senate to suggest somebody is actively looking for 
defeat. We have a different way of finding success. As Thomas Jefferson 
said: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Even the patriotism of 
people who offer a different road has been questioned. Well, not any 
longer, and I have no fear about casting this vote against this because 
this is the wrong policy for Iraq. This continues the open-ended lack 
of accountability. This allows the President to certify whatever the 
President wants, to waive whatever the President wants.
  I promise my colleagues, we will be back here in September having the 
same debate with the same benchmark questions, and they will not have 
moved in their accountability. Even the strategy is still changing.
  Let me ask my colleagues something: When can you remember in American 
history hearing about a President of the United States casting about to 
find a general to act as the czar for a war, where four four-star 
generals said no to the President?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. General Sheehan, a career military man--these are people 
whose lives are committed to defending our Nation, whose lives are 
committed to the troops, who, when a President would call them, you 
would think would be so honored and so unbelievably challenged by the 
moment, they would say: Of course, Mr. President, I will do what I need 
to do for my country. But four of them said no. And one of them was 
quoted, in saying no: Why would I do that because they don't know where 
the hell they're going. And as he said it, he said: I would go over 
there for a year, I would get an ulcer, I would come back, and it would 
be the same thing.
  We have an obligation to vote for a change. That is why I will cast 
my vote ``no'' on this supplemental--yes for the money for troops; yes 
for care; yes for readiness; yes for all the things we need to do; but, 
most importantly, a ``yes'' that we are not able to cast for a change 
in the entire dynamic with the Iraqis themselves and the accountability 
we will hold this administration to, the accountability we hold the 
Iraqis to, and, ultimately, a strategy for real success, not just in 
Iraq but in the Middle East, where we have made Hamas more powerful, 
Iran more powerful, Nasrallah and Hezbollah more powerful, and our 
interests are being set back.
  It is time for us to get the policy right. That is how you support 
the troops.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in March and April I voted for an 
emergency spending bill that would have fully funded our troops in Iraq 
but would have changed their mission--would have changed their 
mission--to a sound mission. That mission would have taken our troops 
out of the middle of a civil war and put them into a support role, as 
the Iraq Study Group suggested, training Iraqi soldiers and police. We 
would have allowed them to fight al-Qaida and protect our troops.
  The President did not agree to that, and he will not agree to that. 
As a matter of fact, the President will not agree to any change in 
strategy in Iraq. That is more than a shame. For the American people, 
it is a tragedy.
  It does not seem to matter how many Americans die in Iraq, how many 
funerals we have here at home, or what the American people think. This 
President will not budge. This new bill on Iraq keeps the status quo. 
Oh, it has a few frills around the outside, a few reports, a few words 
about benchmarks--while our troops die and our troops get blown up.
  Now, I understand why this legislation is before us today. It is 
because this President wants to continue his one-man show in Iraq. That 
is the only thing he will sign. The President does not respect the 
Congress. What is worse, he does not respect the American people when 
it comes to Iraq. He wants to brush us all off like some annoying spot 
on his jacket. Well, that is wrong, and we won't be brushed off.
  We have lost 3,427 American soldiers in Iraq. Of those, 731--or 21 
percent--have been from my State of California or based in my State of 
California. Mr. President, 25,549 American soldiers have been wounded.
  If you come to my office, on big boards, I have the names of the 
California dead and they are now blocking the doorway, there are so 
many names, and we have to send the charts back for smaller and smaller 
print.
  Today, after several days of worrying and praying, we received the 
tragic news of the death of PVT Joseph Anzack, Jr., 20 years old, of 
Torrance, CA, who was abducted during a deadly ambush south of Baghdad 
almost 2 weeks ago. One member of his platoon, SPC Daniel Seitz, summed 
it up this way to the Associated Press:

       It just angers me that it's just another friend I've got to 
     lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13 friends 
     since I've been here, and I don't know if I can take any more 
     of this.

  He should not have to. But with this bill, he will.
  The first half of this year has already been deadlier than any 6-
month period since the war began more than 4 long years ago. In this 
month alone, 83 U.S. servicemembers have already been killed in Iraq.
  Let me be clear: There are many things in this bill I strongly 
support--many provisions I worked side by side with my colleagues to 
fight for, for our troops, for our veterans, for their mental health, 
for our farmers, for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, who so deserve 
our attention--but I must take a stand against this Iraq war and, 
therefore, I will vote ``no'' on this emergency spending bill.
  Mr. President, we are not going away. You cannot brush us off like 
some spot on your jacket because we are going to be back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern and deep regret 
over the conference report to H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Appropriations Act of 2007.
  I am extremely disappointed our troops have to continue to pay the 
price for our political posturing on this legislation and the inclusion 
of funding for pet programs in a must-pass military funding bill.
  I want to make very clear my strong support for the members of our 
Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing around the world every 
day. I have the greatest admiration for all of them, for their 
commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national 
security. They are all true heroes, and they are the ones who are doing 
the heavy lifting and making the great sacrifices in our country's name 
so we might continue to be the land of the free and the home of the 
brave.
  We are faced with a vote on a bill that our troops need, but the 
troops are not the focus of this legislation. This supplemental is yet 
another example of a Congress whose fiscal house is not in order. It 
contains more than $17 billion in unrequested items--$17 billion in 
funding that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
  The intent of this legislation is to fund our troops and to provide 
them with the resources they need to win the war on terror. Emergency 
supplementals are not intended to be a Christmas tree that includes 
presents

[[Page 13906]]

in the form of every Member's favorite pet programs. Unfortunately, the 
bill we will be voting on is just that.
  This legislation includes funding for a number of programs I would 
support on their own merits. It includes agricultural disaster 
assistance for our Nation's ranchers who have suffered through years of 
drought. Many of those are in Wyoming. It includes funding for the 
Secure Rural Schools program. These are both important priorities for 
people in Wyoming, and although I support the programs on their merits, 
I do not support their inclusion in this emergency war supplemental.
  This legislation is not intended to deal with drought relief. It is 
not intended to deal with SCHIP. It is not intended to deal with 
wildland fire management. It is intended to fund our troops. Instead of 
attaching these unrelated programs to a must-pass troop funding bill, a 
fiscally responsible Congress would examine each of these programs on 
their own merits through our regular appropriations process--or else we 
ought to call ourselves irresponsible.
  The American people have made clear that we need to be fiscally 
responsible. They have made clear they do not support spending billions 
of taxpayers' dollars with little or no debate. Unfortunately, if this 
legislation passes, that is exactly what we are going to do.
  The war supplemental also touches on various issues before the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, including minimum 
wage and pensions. Unfortunately, our committee was not consulted on 
this language nor made any part of the discussions on this 
supplemental.
  The supplemental contains a provision that will boost the Federal 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. I have always believed any 
increase in the minimum wage must be accompanied by appropriate relief 
for those small business employers who have to absorb those costs. It 
is a mandate. Small businesses are the proven engine for our economy, 
and they are the greatest source of employment opportunity for U.S. 
workers. A raise in the minimum wage is of no value to a worker without 
a job or a job seeker without prospects.
  It was for these very reasons the minimum wage package which passed 
the Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support--overwhelming 
bipartisan support; I think there were two votes in opposition--
contained a series of provisions designed to provide relief for small 
businesses. That is how we got it. That was bipartisan.
  The Senate-passed versions of the minimum wage legislation contained 
significant tax relief that was targeted to small businesses and 
industries most likely to employ minimum wage workers. Unfortunately, 
much of this tax relief has been stripped from the current version of 
the supplemental. While some tax relief remains, the lion's share of 
that relief is contained in the Work Opportunity Tax Credit provisions, 
which, as a practical matter, are not utilized by small businesses.
  While the bill does continue to contain important regulatory relief 
provisions, such as compliance assistance for small businesses, and a 
small business childcare grant authorization, the tax relief this body 
overwhelmingly determined was necessary to help small businesses offset 
the cost of a new Federal minimum wage is no longer contained in the 
legislative package, nor were any of us consulted. I cannot support 
legislation that dramatically raises the Federal minimum wage and fails 
to acknowledge and adequately offset the impact of such an increase on 
our small businesses.
  With respect to pensions, last year the Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions worked with other committees in landmark 
legislation to author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding 
rules in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 was signed 
into law in August 2006, following extensive--extensive--bipartisan, 
bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent on ensuring that 
retirement plans are properly funded and that Americans' retirement 
savings would be there when they need it.
  One of the fundamental reasons for pension funding reform was to 
ensure--to ensure--the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation and its ability to guarantee benefits in plans that are 
underfunded. I am very concerned that there are provisions in the war 
supplemental that the House leadership claims are technical corrections 
to the Pension Protection Act. Any changes to the Pension Protection 
Act must be considered by the committees that have jurisdiction, the 
ones that know about all the intricacies and interrelationships of the 
parts that are in there, instead of legislating on an appropriations 
bill.
  Chairman Kennedy and I sent a letter to Senate leadership on Tuesday 
night citing our concerns with the House approach. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
         U.S. Senate, Committee on Health Education, Labor, and 
           Pensions,
                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader,
     U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders: Last year, we worked with other committees to 
     author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding rules 
     in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) was 
     signed into law in August 2006, following extensive 
     bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent on 
     ensuring that retirement plans are properly funded, and that 
     Americans' retirement savings will be there when they need 
     it. This law passed the Senate with overwhelming support, 93-
     5.
       We understand that a number of pension provisions 
     originating in the House may be included in the emergency war 
     spending bill. While moving forward on pensions technical 
     corrections is a goal that many members share, moving House 
     pension technical corrections separately on this spending 
     bill from Senate priorities creates a disparity. We are very 
     concerned at this disregard for equal consideration and lack 
     of discussion of Senate priorities and prerogatives.
       Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP 
     Committee's jurisdiction, and we recognize that immediate 
     technical corrections are needed to the PPA. Bicameral, 
     staff-level meetings are taking place regularly, and we are 
     working with the Administration to ensure that the needed 
     corrections are promptly addressed. The HELP Committee has a 
     history of finding common ground on complex legislative 
     challenges, and we are confident that we will reach consensus 
     on a package soon. We urge you to provide us with the 
     opportunity to bring a finished pension technical package to 
     the floor in a timely fashion in order to give our colleagues 
     the chance to have their priorities considered.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       Chairman.
     Michael B. Enzi,
       Ranking Member.

  Mr. ENZI. Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP 
Committee's jurisdiction. I recognize that technical corrections are 
needed to the over 900 pages of the Pension Protection Act. Bicameral, 
staff-level meetings are taking place at this very time, and we are 
working with the administration to assure that the needed corrections 
are promptly addressed. With the huge bipartisan, bicameral support 
that had before, there should be no difficulty with that, and people 
have been working on it since the very time that we passed it. House 
leadership, by cherry-picking certain technical corrections intended 
for certain special interest groups, is not the way to legislate, and I 
would contend that they are not technical corrections.
  Chairman Kennedy and I, together with Chairman Baucus and Senator 
Grassley, have worked extremely well on making sure that everyone has a 
voice at the table and that the process is transparent.
  Generally, these provisions undo, in a piecemeal fashion, what was 
accomplished in the Pension Protection Act as far as strengthening 
funding requirements. It permits some plans to choose to have reduced 
funding obligations and reduced pension benefit guarantee premiums. In 
fact, it means that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation must 
refund some premiums to some employers.
  Again, I want to provide our troops with the funding and the 
resources

[[Page 13907]]

they need to be successful in all their tasks. Unfortunately, this 
conference does not make our troops the priority of congressional 
business. The men and women of our armed services deserve better than 
this spending bill. The people of the United States deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the 
supplemental appropriations bill we will be considering shortly.
  Let me be very clear. I strongly disagree with the President on our 
course in Iraq. I was one of only 23 Members of the Senate to vote 
against going to the war in Iraq, and I am committed to changing the 
course, redeploying our troops, and refocusing our efforts on fighting 
the global war on terror. I have voted time and again for resolutions 
and amendments to change direction. I believe the President is wrong to 
continue on with an open-ended commitment to an Iraqi government that 
has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and take responsibility for its 
own country. I believe the President is wrong to continue to ignore the 
warnings of generals, experts, and the will of the American people.
  But I also believe the President is wrong when, in his stubborn 
refusal to change, he also withholds money for our troops whom he has 
sent into harm's way. The President did just that on May 1 when he 
vetoed a congressionally approved supplemental that provided $4 billion 
more than he asked for for our troops. When the President vetoed that 
bill, he was the one who denied our troops the resources, equipment, 
and funding they need to do their jobs safely. The President was wrong, 
but he hasn't changed his mind. He and the majority of Republicans in 
Congress are blocking funding for our troops.
  As we head into this Memorial Day, I will vote for this supplemental 
because the President has blocked this funding for too long, and I will 
vote for this supplemental because Democrats in Congress have changed 
our course. With this bill, we have taken a responsible path forward, 
in spite of the President, on many of our Nation's most pressing 
issues.
  This bill, for the first time, funds the needs of our veterans and 
wounded warriors who have sacrificed for all of us and whose needs the 
President has refused to acknowledge as the cost of war. This bill 
makes our homeland more secure by investing critical funds in our ports 
and our borders, and this bill aids the recovery of hard-hit 
communities across the country and in the gulf coast where families 
have continued to suffer due to neglect from this administration. In 
just 5 short months, Democrats have provided a new commitment to the 
American people, a new direction in Iraq, and we are going to continue 
on this new path to change.
  From the start of the war in Iraq, the Republican Congress allowed 
President Bush a free hand. They held few oversight hearings. They 
demanded no accountability. There were no wide-ranging investigations 
into this administration's endless mistakes. Year after year, they sent 
the President blank checks in the form of emergency supplementals. Now, 
5 years into this war, after 5 years without accountability, 3,400 of 
our heroes have died, and over 25,000 have been injured. Our troops are 
now policing a civil war in Iraq. Billions of taxpayer dollars are 
unaccounted for. The reconstruction of Iraq is far from complete, and 
our veterans are facing awful conditions when they return home.
  In November, voters asked for an end to this. They voted for us to 
stand up, ask difficult questions, and hold those who make mistakes 
accountable for them. Democrats heard that call.
  Immediately after being sworn in, we began to hold hearings. We heard 
from military and foreign affairs experts and called administration 
officials to testify--under oath. We began conducting investigations 
into prewar intelligence, the waste of taxpayer dollars, and the 
treatment of our veterans. Democrats began holding vote after vote on 
Iraq. We forced Republicans to make clear to Americans where they stood 
on the war: Are they for escalation or redeployment? Are they for 
allowing Iraqis to continue to shirk their responsibility or for 
forcing them to stand up?
  In January, President Bush ignored calls from Congress to follow the 
Iraq Study Group recommendations. Instead, he escalated our troops in 
Iraq. Congressional Republicans refused to criticize the escalation and 
stood by the President and attacked anyone who spoke out against that 
surge.
  But congressional Democrats stood strong. We upheld our 
constitutional duties and what Americans put us in office for--
conducting oversight and holding the administration accountable for its 
actions. This trend continued for months, and eventually, though 
slowly, some of my Republican colleagues began separating from the 
President and siding with us and the American people. After months of 
this, Democrats overcame Republican opposition and passed a bill with 
redeployment provisions. We sent that bill, based on the advice from 
the Iraq Study Group and military leaders and supported by 64 percent 
of Americans, to the President. We hoped he would read that bill. We 
hoped he would realize it was the best way forward in Iraq. But he 
didn't, and he vetoed it.
  Now, finally, after months of blindly following the President, more 
and more of our colleagues on the other side are beginning to stand up 
to the President, demanding benchmarks and a timeline for change in 
Iraq.
  It is clear that despite a slim majority in the House and only a one-
vote margin in the Senate, Democratic efforts are working. Today is 
further evidence of that.
  The bill we pass tonight will not be perfect. It doesn't go nearly as 
far as many of us would like. We, along with the American people, have 
made it clear what we want--a new direction that forces Iraqis to take 
control of their own country. Unfortunately, the President has said he 
would veto that bill.
  So today we have a bill that takes a step forward with our changing 
course in Iraq. It forces the White House to acknowledge the will of 
the American people and the role of Congress, it pressures Iraqis to 
stand up, and, importantly, it funds our troops. The hard truth, of 
course, is that not enough Democrats are here to override a veto. We 
realize that another veto will not serve our troops well. They need our 
funds; they don't need another White House delay. So we are moving 
ahead.
  I will say it again: This bill is not all I hoped for, but this war 
is not going to be brought to a close in 1 day. It is not going to be 
brought to a close with one bill. We will support our troops, and we 
will bring an end to the war in Iraq. We will continue to debate and 
force votes on this war week after week after week. Americans will 
continue to hear where the Republicans stand on this war.
  We face terror threats around the world. We must, and we will, defeat 
them. Unfortunately, the Iraqi civil war is not making us more secure. 
We do need to refocus our fight back on the war on terror, and we do 
need to rebuild our military. I support a new direction in Iraq so that 
we can focus on the larger security challenges our country faces, and 
they are high. But I know we can improve security at home, that we can 
track down and eliminate terrorists around the world, and that we can 
take care of our servicemembers. It is a matter of getting our 
priorities straight. Redeploying our troops from Iraq is an important 
first step toward getting those priorities straight. It is a step the 
Senate must take, just as passing this bill tonight is one.
  This bill, however, is about much more than just Iraq; it is about 
taking care of the best military in the world, both when they are 
deployed and when they return home. It is about rebuilding here in 
America, on the gulf coast and on family farms from coast to coast, and 
it is about providing hard-working Americans struggling to care for 
their families with a desperately needed raise.
  I am not satisfied with the Iraq language in this bill. I disagree 
with Senator Warner's language. I voted against it last week. But I am 
proud of what we were able to accomplish in this bill--in particular, 
taking care of the troops, which this bill does. It includes billions 
more than the President

[[Page 13908]]

requested to train and equip and take care of our fighting men and 
women and to make sure we care for them when they come home.
  So tonight, when we vote, I will cast my vote as a yes--not for the 
Warner language, not for the language on Iraq, but to make sure that 
those men and women whom we have sent to battle, despite how I feel, 
have the care and support they need.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of the 
supplemental.
  I opposed the authorization to go to war in Iraq because I thought it 
would be a tragic error, and it has proved to be. Iraq did not attack 
this country; al-Qaida did. Sometimes I think that is somehow lost in 
this discussion. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, led 
by Saddam Hussein, who masterminded the attacks of September 11. That 
is a fact. That is a reality. I think it was one of the great mistakes 
in American history that we launched an attack on Iraq before ever 
finishing business with al-Qaida.
  Now we face a difficult choice. We have 160,000 troops in the field, 
and I believe we must fund those troops until there is a responsible 
plan to redeploy them. Unfortunately, this President has absolutely 
refused to construct such a plan. I believe that leaves us with little 
choice but to fund the troops in this resolution before us tonight.
  We also have in this package a matter of great interest to the people 
whom I represent, so I would like to speak for just a moment on a 
separate subject; that is, the disaster relief which is contained in 
this legislation.
  I introduced a comprehensive disaster plan 3 years ago. The Senate 
has supported it, most recently in a vote of 74 to 23 on the Senate 
floor. The House supported it 2 weeks ago in a vote of over 302 Members 
in support. Today, it received 348 votes. Now we have an assurance we 
did not have before--that the disaster package will be signed by 
President Bush. This has been a long, hard fight, but it is critically 
important to the people whom I represent.
  These have been the headlines all across my State:

       Crops Lost To Flooding.
       Beet Crop Smallest in 10 Years.
       Heavy Rain Leads to Crop Diseases.
       Rain Halts Harvest.
       Area Farmers Battle Flooding and Disease.

  This is the picture which we saw in my State 2 years ago. I flew over 
southeastern North Dakota, and it looked like a giant lake. Over a 
million acres were prevented from even being planted. Another million 
acres had tremendous losses in production.
  Then, irony of ironies, last year we had one of the worst droughts in 
our Nation's history--by scientific measurement, the third worst 
drought in American history--and the Dakotas were the epicenter of that 
drought.
  Mr. President, it got very little attention. It wasn't like 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which were disasters that were immediately 
evident, and which received enormous national media attention. This was 
a slow-developing tragedy but a tragedy nonetheless. The Dakotas were 
right at the heart of it--North Dakota and South Dakota. It was rated 
as an exceptional drought--not extreme or severe or moderate, which are 
the other measurements, but an exceptional drought. Exceptional it was.
  Here is the map of the U.S. Drought Monitor. They concluded it was 
the third worst drought in our Nation's history, right down the center 
of our country.
  As you can see in this picture taken near my home in Burleigh County, 
ND, the corn is supposed to be knee-high by July 4, but it was just 
over the edge of this man's boot. I went into a cornfield that was 
irrigated. The farmer started shucking the corn, and every other row 
was empty. I asked him how can that be? He told me: Senator, this week 
it was 112 degrees one day. We had day after day where it was over 100 
degrees.
  This led to a devastating series of losses. The bankers of my State 
came to me and said: If there is not help, 5 to 10 percent of our 
clients are going to be out of business. That is how serious and 
consequential this is. Without this help, thousands of farm and ranch 
families will be forced off the land.
  This legislation is funded as an emergency and doesn't require 
offsets from other programs. This is a change from the 2004 agriculture 
disaster package. Producers will be eligible for assistance for one 
year only. Assistance payments plus the value of crop sales and crop 
insurance cannot exceed 95 percent of the expected crop value, so 
nobody is getting rich.
  It doesn't allow producers to receive multiple benefits for the same 
loss. So there is no double-dipping.
  Crop assistance eligibility requires a 35-percent loss before there 
is a dime of assistance, and the payment rate is 42 percent of the 
established price for insured crops.
  Livestock producers are eligible for both a livestock compensation 
program to help offset forage losses and feed costs and a livestock 
indemnity program to help cover death losses.
  I thank my colleagues in the Senate and the House who have worked 
tirelessly for the last 3 years to help deliver this assistance. It has 
been bipartisan in the Senate. It has been a long and hard fight, but 
it is going to be a lifeline to thousands of farm and ranch families in 
my State. This is a bill the President should sign.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am glad this long and unfortunate 
political process has apparently come to an end, so we can now provide 
the funding for our troops that has been needed for some time. The 
failure to do so has created uncertainty and ambiguity and has, I 
believe, undermined our policies in Iraq in a number of different ways. 
Historically, politics have stopped at the water's edge. That was a 
cardinal rule of American foreign policy that you might agree with or 
not, but you would not criticize fundamental decisions made by the 
United States while things are ongoing in various places in the world 
and, certainly, you would not take steps and actions that would 
undermine our troops in combat someplace in the world.
  Vigorous debate is absolutely a part of who we are as a Nation. A lot 
of people who have been critical of our war efforts in Iraq have made 
suggestions that have been good. A number of their criticisms have been 
correct, and it is certainly welcome and a part of our heritage that we 
would have that kind of debate. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But 
the delays we have been seeing now in actually providing the funding 
necessary for our military men and women in harm's way has been too 
long. I believe it has had a tendency to embolden our enemies and raise 
questions in the minds of our own soldiers.
  So as I have said a number of times on the floor of the Senate, those 
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan today are there for one reason, and 
that is because we sent them. They are doing tough, hot, demanding, 
dangerous work. I have been there six times. I have to tell you, I have 
never been more impressed. They don't complain. They do their work with 
professionalism. They care about what they are doing. They believe in 
what they are doing. They want to succeed, and I tell you that with 
every fiber in my being. It is their desire to help the country of Iraq 
achieve stability and progress.
  They are executing lawful policies of the U.S. Government. That 
includes the Congress--the House and Senate--as well as the President 
of the United States. We have, through lawful processes, deployed them 
to execute policies that we have decided on. This Congress, of course, 
has the power to bring them home at any moment that we desire. I think 
people are wrestling with that. Some think they should come home now. 
Some think that is not the appropriate decision. The President believes 
that is not the appropriate decision. We have accepted and have 
fundamentally affirmed the surge that has sent additional troops there. 
They are there to execute our mission. That is all I wish to say. They 
are there to execute our mission.
  I talked to a mother not long ago whose son was killed in Iraq. She 
told

[[Page 13909]]

me her son told her he believed in what he was doing. He told me when 
they went into neighborhoods, the women and children were glad they 
were there. They wanted them in the neighborhoods. That is all I am 
telling you. You can read what you want to in the newspaper. But 
because it brought a sense of security there, they wanted them there. I 
know there are limits to our ability to achieve what we would like to 
achieve, no matter what we would like to achieve; I know we are not 
unlimited in our ability to achieve it. We have to be realistic, and we 
cannot commit a single soldier to an effort a single day longer than we 
conclude is an appropriate thing for them to be doing. If we think it 
is not justified and worthwhile, we need to bring them home. I 
certainly agree with that.
  This is a serious discussion we have been having, and I don't dispute 
the people who have different views of how this ought to occur. I will 
say again that real support of the soldiers in harm's way means we 
affirm them and their mission as long as we fund their mission, as long 
as we order them there. You may say we didn't order them there, but we 
did order them there. We have funded them to stay there, according to 
the President's tactical decision. But we authorized him to do so, and 
we can end that authorization as we choose.
  But the truth is, we have invested a tremendous amount in Iraq. 
General Petraeus--what a fabulous general he is--told us the truth, I 
believe. The truth is it is hard, but it is not impossible. He also has 
said what we are doing there is important. It is important that a 
stable, decent government be maintained in Iraq. That is not a little 
thing; it is a very important thing. The soldiers who have been there--
the soldiers who serve--would be, indeed, in pain and be hurt if we 
prematurely give up on what they have sacrificed to achieve and what so 
many of them truly believe in, if you talk to them.
  I have to tell you that the surge of troops into Iraq was a bitter 
pill to me. I remember distinctly when General Casey said in late 2005 
he believed we could start bringing home troops in 2006. That was 
absolutely music to my ears and what I wanted to hear. Then he said he 
had to delay the troops coming home because the sophisticated, 
sustained effort by al-Qaida to attack Shia individuals in holy places 
had created a reaction by Shia, with the formation of a Shia militia, 
and they were killing Sunni individuals and that broke out into a spate 
of violence in Baghdad, the capital city, the central focus of Iraq, 
and that was extremely unfortunate.
  So my thinking is this: Benchmarks for the Iraqi Government--if we 
write that correctly and don't do it in a way that is unwise and 
counterproductive, as I believe this language is, at least it would be 
language the President can accept, and I would be prepared to accept 
the demand that they do certain things. That is all right with me. Our 
commitment is not open-ended. We cannot continue to try to lift a 
government that cannot function effectively. We want them to function. 
We want them to have a healthy, prosperous government. There are some 
good things that have happened--really and truly, there have been good 
things. But there are very difficult things also that are not going 
well. This is a challenge to the Iraqi Government.
  I truly hope the benchmarks and language in this funding resolution 
will be such that it will be a positive spur to the Iraqi Government to 
confront their reconciliation difficulties, spur them to reach 
agreements on other constitutional questions that are critical, and be 
an effective step in helping that Government stand up and assume 
responsibility for its own fate.
  I have to say I am not comfortable and am indeed uneasy with high 
troop levels sustained in what would be considered an occupation or a 
stand-in for the democratically elected Government of Iraq. That 
Government has to stand up and assume greater and greater 
responsibility. I do hope and pray that they will because it is 
exceedingly important that they do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think it is important that, in response 
to the comments of my friend Senator Enzi, I set the record straight 
for the Senate and the American people regarding the practice of 
including unrequested emergency funding in war supplementals.
  The emergency supplemental bills approved by Republican Congresses in 
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 included emergency funding for many of the 
same issues that are in the emergency supplemental, such as: 
agriculture disaster assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--
$500 million; border security--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$1.9 
billion; pandemic flu--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$2.3 billion; 
wildland fire suppression--fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act, 
which carried $25.8 billion war supplemental--$500 million; airline 
security--fiscal year 2003 war supplemental--$2.396 billion; and 
fisheries assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$112 million.
  The White House has complained about Democrats including agricultural 
disaster assistance in the war supplemental. Not only did the 
Republican Congress approve a targeted agriculture disaster package in 
2006, but there is also precedent for including assistance to a sector 
in the economy that has been hard hit by a disaster. In 2003, Congress 
approved $515 million of relief for the aviation industry.
  The White House has also complained about Democrats including other 
matter in a war supplemental, such as the minimum wage increase.
  Yet under Republican control, war supplemental laws included such 
unrelated matters as the REAL ID Act, fiscal year 2005, a temporary 
worker program, fiscal year 2005, and budget process provisions, fiscal 
year 2006.
  So I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify for my colleagues the 
real record when it comes to meeting the needs of the American people 
in emergency supplemental appropriation bills.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, while there are many aspects of this 
conference report that I cannot support, I am pleased that it will 
finally allow us to get a minimum wage bill to the President's desk. 
The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for more than 10 
years, but now--finally Americans across the country will get the raise 
they need and deserve. For the millions of working families who will 
benefit, this increase may be long overdue, but it is nonetheless 
something to celebrate.
  Mr. President, 13 million Americans will see more money in their 
paychecks for the first time in a decade. They will have a few more 
dollars to spend on the essentials of life, or maybe they will have a 
few more hours to spare to spend time with their families; 6 million 
children will have better food, better health, and better opportunities 
for the future.
  I deeply regret that this vital increase was so long in coming. The 
minimum wage bill passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins 
in January and February of this year. Had we been able to send that 
bill to the President's desk right away, the first phase of the raise 
would already be in effect.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not 
let that happen. They prevented the minimum wage bill from going to 
conference until they could make sure it included a big enough tax 
giveaway for businesses. That is why were here talking about it today. 
We had to put in on a bill they couldn't block to get it to the 
President's desk.
  We have overcome many obstacles--and faced every procedural trick in 
the book--to get this minimum wage increase across the finish line. 
Democrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works 
hard for a living should have to live in poverty.
  But we didn't do it alone. The passage of the minimum wage is not 
merely a legislative victory--it's a victory for the American people.
  After years of delay and inexcusable inaction by Congress, the 
American people took this fight into their own hands. They started a 
grassroots movement that spread across the Nation like wildfire. They 
pounded the pavements. They prayed in their pews.

[[Page 13910]]

They refused to take no for an answer. We are here today because of 
their efforts, and they deserve the gratitude of our Nation.
  The minimum wage is one of the great achievements of our proud 
democracy. It is a reflection of our values, and a cornerstone of the 
American dream. It is about the kind of country we want to be.
  Americans want to live in a country where everyone has opportunity 
and the chance to succeed. Where anyone who works hard and plays by the 
rules can build a better life for their family. Where there is no 
permanent underclass, and everyone has hope for a brighter future. When 
the President signs a minimum wage increase into law, we will be one 
step closer to that noble goal.
  Certainly, the increase we have passed today is only the first of 
many steps we must take to address the problems of poverty and 
inequality in our society. There is no doubt that we need to do much, 
much more. But it's important to take a moment today to celebrate this 
victory. Raising the minimum wage will add dignity to the lives of 
millions of working families. It is one of the proudest achievements of 
this new Congress.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, due to a family medical emergency, I am 
returning to Minnesota this evening and will be unable to cast my vote 
in favor of the supplemental appropriations bill. I believe the Senate 
is taking responsible action by passing critical funding for the troops 
without attaching it to arbitrary timelines for withdrawal. Moreover, 
this bill contains critical agricultural disaster assistance funding 
that I have been fighting to deliver for Minnesota's farmers for over a 
year. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the 
supplemental.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am voting 
against the Iraq war supplemental. I wish I didn't have to. I wish that 
I looked at Iraq and saw a stable, united government, a society free of 
terrorists and insurgents, and liberal democracy around the corner, if 
only we spent another billion dollars, or a hundred lives, or another 
year of waiting. I wish that our surge had, at long last, brought quiet 
to the tortured city of Baghdad. I wish that our President's policies 
were working.
  I wish that I could look at Iraq and say, with a clear voice and a 
clean conscience: I share our President's confidence.
  I wish; and even as I wish, the truth tells me otherwise. It tells me 
that 3,415 men and women in uniform have already sacrificed everything 
in Iraq, with no end in sight. It tells me that our military is being 
hollowed out by the Iraq experience, that two-thirds of our Army in the 
United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are forced to 
report: Not ready for duty, sir. It tells me that the American people 
demand an end to this war, and that the Iraqi people--for whose sake we 
toppled a dictator and established elections, precisely so we could 
hear their voice--demand the same.
  I look at this bill and I don't see the truth in it. It exists in a 
world in which the President's plans are all meeting their mark. It 
gives us a status-quo strategy that has failed and failed again. It 
writes the President a blank check.
  I had hoped that this supplemental would have passed with strong 
timetables for withdrawal, a unambiguous line in the sand. A 
responsible supplemental would have established definitive guidance for 
the President to transition the mission of our forces away from combat 
operations. It would have defined that mission clearly as counter-
terrorism, training of Iraqi forces, and American force protection. It 
would have required a diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq. And it 
would have held both the President and the Iraqi Government 
accountable. The Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill contained just such 
timetables, and mandated a responsible transition in mission, all 
backed by Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
  But I cannot, in good conscience, support the half-measure that has 
taken its place. Instead of establishing realistic timetables, this 
supplemental does one thing only: It delays for 4 months, until funding 
runs out again, the decision we all know is coming: ultimately, combat 
troops will be redeployed from Iraq. This bill allows 4 more months of 
reckless endangerment of our troops and our national security.
  A Senator shouldn't talk like that, some will say. I will be told I 
am declaring surrender right here on the Senate floor. Those are the 
words that will come from the other side of the aisle, big, grand 
words--surrender, triumph, defeat, victory--words that will blur and 
swirl together until they lose all mooring in reality. The President's 
supporters want to paint us a picture of a world in which we line up on 
a field of battle, the terrorists on one side and America on the other, 
and fight pitched warfare until one side waves the white flag.
  But Iraq does not exist in that world. General Petraeus tells us that 
there will be no military solution; so does the Iraq Study Group. 
Senator Hagel, a war hero and member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, tells us that ``there will be no victory or defeat in Iraq . 
. . Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there . . . Iraq is 
not a prize to be won or lost.''
  So I am not conceding defeat in Iraq--because there is no defeat to 
be conceded. There is only the hope that Sunni, Shia, and Kurd will 
reconcile in government, call off their militias and death squads, and 
turn against the foreign terrorists who have helped to spark this civil 
war. Our combat presence in Iraq cannot make that hope real. We can, 
and must, continue to assist the Iraqis in trying to reach these 
goals--but we cannot do it with military might alone. In the end, the 
challenges in Iraq can only be addressed through political means.
  We are told, again and again, that we are failing to ``support the 
troops''--support that is subject to only the vaguest of measurements: 
``Messages'' and ``signals'' and ``resolve.''
  We answer with fact. We answer with young lives lost and dollars 
squandered. We answer with the wisdom of James Baker and Lee Hamilton. 
We ask how any conceivable definition of ``support'' would leave our 
troops stranded in a civil war of strangers, with no mission or end in 
sight. And we say, unequivocally, that the only way to support our 
troops is to bring them home--now.
  In fact, from the very outset of this war, it has been the 
President's defense policies that have hollowed out our Armed Forces 
and further threatened our national security. To reverse this 
negligence, Democrats have taken concrete action for our troops, again 
and again.
  In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical protective gear 
identified by the Army, which the Bush administration had failed to 
include in its budget. But it was blocked by the administration and its 
allies.
  In 2004 and 2005, I authored legislation, signed into law, to 
reimburse troops for equipment they had to purchase on their own, 
because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to provide them with the body 
armor and other gear they needed to stay alive.
  And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I 
offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to 
replace and repair thousands of war-battered tanks, aircraft, and 
vehicles. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law.
  That is support--support that can be measured, support that carries a 
cost beyond words.
  And it is support that will continue, even if this supplemental 
fails, as it should. The Defense Department has ample funds to maintain 
our combat troops in Iraq until they can be withdrawn responsibly. The 
failure of this bill will not turn funds off like a spigot--the 
military simply does not work like that. Instead, our troops are 
supported by the more than $150 billion in the Pentagon's regular 
operations and maintenance account--and in the meantime, we might 
negotiate with the President for a responsible drawdown of combat 
troops. Any implication that we are stranding our soldiers

[[Page 13911]]

in the desert--without fuel or bullets or rations--is totally specious.
  And it follows that the President's Memorial Day deadline is totally 
arbitrary. The lives of our troops are more important than the 
President's vacation schedule. Why should he set timelines for 
Democrats but not for Iraqis?
  Instead, let us vote down this bill and then join President Bush at 
the table, with the dignity befitting an equal branch of government, 
and the authority vested in us by the American people and our 
Constitution. Let us bring this disastrous war to a responsible end. 
And after 4 years of failed policy, let our voice be loud and 
unmistakeable: This far, and no further.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote against the fiscal year 2007 
emergency supplemental conference report. Although there are many sound 
and worthy provisions in this bill--such as assistance for Afghanistan 
and other countries, and additional funds not requested by the 
administration to help address the backlog of equipment for the 
National Guard--the inescapable fact is that this legislation would not 
reverse this administration's disastrous Iraq policy. I simply cannot 
vote in favor of a bill, containing tens of billions of additional 
dollars for the President's policy in Iraq, that does not begin to 
bring our troops home.
  As one of the 23 Senators who opposed authorizing this war, I believe 
it is vital that we send a strong signal that Congress is going to 
exercise its article I constitutional powers and end our central 
involvement in Iraq's civil war. Every Senator--for or against this 
military adventure--must take a stand on whether to continue the status 
quo or change course. That, at the end of the day, is what this vote 
represents.
  Congress had a workable and I believe widely acceptable plan in the 
original version of this supplemental bill. Taking a page from the Iraq 
Study Group recommendations, the plan was to end the military mission 
in Iraq as we currently know it. We would reduce American forces to the 
contingent necessary for limited Iraqi troop training, counterterrorism 
operations, and protecting remaining American personnel.
  I and others joined with Senator Feingold in an effort to strengthen 
that position by ensuring that no funding could go toward deployment, 
beyond those narrow purposes. About a month ago, we all saw the 
President veto the supplemental bill. Then last week, the President 
muscled his congressional allies to vote against the stronger Feingold-
Reid-Leahy provision.
  So what we are left with is this new version of the supplemental--the 
status quo, more of the same old stay the course. The reality is that 
this new conference report does nothing to stop the President's open-
ended escalation. It will not force the Iraqis to make the difficult 
political compromises which they need to make. Nor will it begin a 
redeployment of American forces. The final legislation drops the 
mandatory timetable for planning and commencing redeployment with a 
targeted completion date. Beyond some reporting requirements, there is 
no limitation on troop levels.
  What the legislation does do is limit our aid to the Iraqi government 
if actions toward reconciliation are not taken, although the President 
may waive these limitations.
  I agree that we should tie our aid to the Iraqi government to clear 
benchmarks. But that alone is not sufficient. The reality is that 
despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, the violence 
has increased. We all know that the trends are going in the wrong 
direction. This piecemeal approach assures that our troops will remain 
in the middle of harm's way for the foreseeable future.
  And when it comes to changing the dynamic in Iraq, it is troop levels 
that matter. The introduction of more forces through this open-ended 
escalation that the President calls the surge is sending the wrong 
signal to the Iraqis and to countries in the region that have interests 
there. It says they do not have to make the tough decisions because the 
American forces are there to do the dirty work, to spill their blood 
and to contain sectarian militias or deal with unwelcome foreign 
fighters.
  Rory Stewart, a perspicacious observer with hands-on experience in 
Iraq, rightly pointed out in a recent public forum that our presence 
there is fundamentally undermining Iraq's political system, 
``infantilizing'' Iraq politics, to use his phrase. He notes that Iraqi 
politicians are far more capable of making deals and reaching 
compromise than we think, but that our troop presence allows them to 
play hardball with each other. ``Were we to leave,'' Mr. Stewart says, 
``they would be weaker and under more pressure to compromise.''
  As I have said, there are many aspects of this supplemental that I 
support. We have, for example, included $1 billion in unrequested 
funding to help rebuild our National Guard, which is suffering from 
dangerously low equipment stocks because so much of the Guard's 
equipment has been sent to Iraq. We have funded the Marla Ruzicka Fund 
to aid innocent Iraqi civilians who have suffered casualties, and a 
similar program to aid civilian victims of war in Afghanistan. There is 
other funding for refugees and humanitarian assistance in Africa and 
the Middle East, as well as for Kosovo. I am gratified that we have 
been able to include funding for elections in Nepal, to support 
reintegration of former combatants in northern Uganda, and to begin the 
clean up of dioxin-contaminated sites in Vietnam and for health 
programs in nearby communities.
  These are just a few of the things carried over from the original, 
vetoed version of the bill that I support and for which I have worked 
hard. I thank Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the State, Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, and our counterparts in the House, Chairwoman 
Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf, for working together in a bipartisan way 
to allocate the foreign assistance funding in this bill.
  Yet there is a central fact that we must meet head on. This war has 
been a costly disaster for our country. Our ability to fight terrorism, 
pursue our larger national security and foreign policy goals, and 
secure the welfare of every American has been diminished because of it. 
Thousands of our troops have lost their lives or suffered grievous, 
life-altering injuries. Tens of thousands--and possibly hundreds of 
thousands--of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives. We have opened a 
gaping wound in the Middle East and severely damaged our image and our 
influence. This war has been a foreign policy failure of epic 
proportions.
  It is time to bring our troops home. It is time to show the Iraqi 
people that they cannot expect us to make these sacrifices if they 
won't make the hard decisions that are spread before them. I regret 
that this legislation whitewashes what was a reasonable, good faith 
effort to bring real pressure to bear in Baghdad and beyond. I cannot 
in good conscious vote for it.


                      defense subcommittee funding

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to act on H.R. 2206, 
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, 
which will fully fund the needs of our men and women in uniform. The 
process that we have used to reach this point has been somewhat 
different from our normal course of business. As such, I wanted to 
engage my cochairman of the Defense Subcommittee, the Senator for 
Alaska, in a colloquy on the defense portion of this bill. The bill 
before the Senate is not accompanied by the customary report because of 
the way the process unfolded. However, it is also true that for matters 
involving the allocation of funding and direction for those matters 
under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee, the bill closely 
mirrors the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591 as printed in 
House Report 110-107 that the Senate passed on April 26, 2007. Would my 
friend from Alaska agree that in terms of funding, the bill is nearly 
identical to that which the Senate previously approved?
  Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend from Hawaii that it is my 
understanding that the Senator is correct. I am advised that the 
funding in this bill for Defense Subcommittee matters is

[[Page 13912]]

identical to that agreed to by the Senate on April 26, 2007, except in 
three areas. The increase in this bill for the Defense Health program 
is nearly $1.876 billion while the previous bill would have increased 
the health program by $2.126 billion. In addition, this bill has 
reduced funding for the Defense Working Capital Fund by $200 million 
and reduced the initiative for the Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund by 
$385 million. Aside from these changes the funding in this bill is 
exactly the same as previously passed.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for that clarification. Therefore, I 
ask my friend whether he agrees that the allocation of funds that the 
Congress provided for these defense programs as described in the joint 
explanatory statement of the committee of conference to accompany H.R. 
1591, except for those three areas that he just specified, is exactly 
the intent of this bill that we are about to pass?
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree completely with my good friend. The intent of 
those of us who oversee the Defense Department and the drafting of this 
bill was to provide funds as specified in the joint explanatory 
statement which accompanied H.R. 1591.
  Mr. INOUYE. Again, I thank my colleague. If I could make another 
inquiry, the Congress also included items in House Report 110-60 and 
Senate Report 110-37 which provided guidance to the Defense Department 
on several items in this bill. Would the Senator from Alaska agree with 
me that the intent of the chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense was that the guidance in these 
reports should be adhered to except in those areas that were altered in 
this bill or those areas that were addressed to the contrary in the 
joint explanatory statement to H.R. 1591?
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur in the Senator's assessment. The Defense 
Subcommittee reviewed many matters before it prepared Senate Report 
110-37 regarding the supplemental appropriations request before the 
Senate. In putting together H.R. 2206, our intent was to continue the 
guidance that the Senate included in its report. In addition, we have 
concurred in the guidance of House Report 110-60 except in those areas 
specifically noted in the joint explanatory statement which accompanied 
H.R. 1591.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend. Then would you agree with me that it 
is our intent that the Defense Department should adhere to the guidance 
under the conditions which you and I have described above?
  Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend I agree with his assertion. I share 
his view that the Department of Defense should use the two committee 
reports and the joint explanatory statement of the committee of 
conference accompanying H.R. 1591 to discern the will of Congress in 
respect to this bill H.R. 2206.
  Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Senator from 
Alaska, and concur. It is our view and intent that the Defense 
Department shall adhere to the funding allocation and comply with the 
guidance in the above described reports in interpreting the will of the 
Congress with respect to H.R. 2206, except in those few areas which are 
also described above. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his time and 
cooperation in this matter.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our service men and women on the front 
lines in the war on terror have been waiting too long for the funding 
this bill provides. Our soldiers, airmen, and marines need this 
appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have 
provided it months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they 
need to prevail in their missions. As such, I will vote for its 
passage. But I do so with deep reservations. The legislation we are 
considering now is the wrong way to fund this war, and it fails the 
most basic tests imposed on us as stewards of taxpayer dollars.
  This emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $120 billion 
in funding, approximately $17 billion above the President's request. It 
is filled with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has 
nothing to do with funding the troops. In a time of war, with large 
federal budget deficits, we should be constraining our Federal 
expenditures. Sadly, we have chosen, once again, to do the opposite, 
and loaded this bill with billions of dollars in spending we don't 
need, spending that was not requested, spending that will only add to 
the already excessive size of government.
  The President submitted his supplemental funding request on February 
5 nearly 4 months ago. The Senate finally passed a very flawed version 
of a bill on March 29 a bill that everyone knew was nothing more than a 
political stunt, one that was dead before arrival to the President. 
Instead of putting our country first and providing the troops with full 
funding as expeditiously as possible, we let partisan politics rule the 
day. While some may believe that they scored political points by 
forcing meaningless procedural votes, I would ask them to reflect for a 
moment. What gain inheres in playing partisan politics with the lives 
of our honorable warriors and their families? How can we possibly find 
honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage 
in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at 
war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of 
us--those who fight and risk all on our behalf--by playing politics 
with their service.
  So now, nearly 4 months after the supplemental funding request was 
submitted, here we are, with money literally running out to fund this 
war. We are about to pass a bill that while better than the last 
version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do 
with the war on terror. We can do better than this. The American 
taxpayers deserve and expect more.
  As my colleagues know, I have been meeting with citizens across the 
country, and let me assure you, they are not happy with the workings of 
Congress. There is a reason that the poll results on Congress's 
favorability rating are at such lows the latest at 31 percent. It is 
because of partisan politics having a greater priority in Washington 
than doing the people's business. It is because we are not making the 
tough choices to halt deficit spending and fix the out of control 
entitlement programs. It is because we seem to care more about our own 
reelections than about reforming government. This is not the way the 
American public wants their elected officials to behave. What will it 
take for that to sink in?
  Let me mention some of the unrequested and unauthorized items 
contained in this bill: $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries 
industries; $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New 
Jersey; $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency's computer 
system; $13 million for the Save America's Treasures program; and, $3 
billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22 million to 
support the Department of Agriculture in implementing programs to 
provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.
  There are also several items in this bill that seek to legislate on 
an appropriations bill rather than allowing such items to move through 
the regular legislative process. Examples include language that: raises 
the minimum wage; restricts the Department of Transportation from 
implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement's, NAFTA, 
provisions expanding cross-border trade between Mexico and the United 
States with the introduction of a pilot program that would allow a 
select group of Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries into our 
country beyond the 25 miles that current law permits; extends several 
tax credits, while setting forth new Internal Revenue Service 
definitions and exempting some programs from taxation; and, amends the 
Food Security Act to make adjustments to the Department of 
Agriculture's land and soil conservation program.
  Another provision that seeks to legislate on this appropriations bill 
is a provision that would end-run the Defense Base Realignment and 
Closure, BRAC, process. The 2005 BRAC commission decided to close the 
Naval Air

[[Page 13913]]

Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and the Department of Navy was 
in the process of closing the base in accordance with the law. This 
bill, however, would transfer the land and facilities to the Air Force 
even though the Secretary of the Air Force stated on April 12, 2007, 
that there is not a military need for the land it will be forced to 
receive. This provision was not requested by the administration, is not 
an emergency, and is not a responsible way to legislate. It was not 
reviewed or debated in any committee, and the committee of jurisdiction 
has had no say in the matter. Yet the American people will now be 
forced to continue to pay for the maintenance of this unwanted land 
when the Air Force receives it.
  Despite these unacceptable earmarks and legislative language, I am 
pleased that this bill does not contain a timeline for the withdrawal 
of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such 
a mandate would have had grave consequences for the future of Iraq and 
the security of Americans. The President was right to veto the first 
iteration of this legislation.
  I do have concerns, however, with the way in which this measure 
conditions aid to the Iraqi Government by requiring the government to 
meet benchmarks. Although I support benchmarks for the Iraqi 
Government, and I believe that we should encourage the Iraqi government 
to move ahead as rapidly as possible on a number of fronts, some of the 
benchmarks contained in this bill are beyond the control of the Iraqi 
leadership. One of the benchmarks, for example, mandates that there 
will be no safe haven for ``any outlaws.'' This should of course be an 
aspiration, but if terrorists or insurgents hang on and hole up in 
Baghdad, should this constitute a reason why the United States 
withholds economic aid to the government? Similarly, another benchmark 
requires the Iraqi Government to reduce the level of sectarian 
violence. But if sectarian violence does not decline as rapidly as we 
would like, does this suggest that the answer is to cut off 
reconstruction aid? It's not at all clear to me that it does.
  I believe that, instead of legislating a list of benchmarks that must 
be met by the Iraqis, and imposing statutory penalties for 
nonperformance, it would be preferable for the administration to reach 
agreement on a series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government, a 
timeline for implementation, and consequences attached to each. Such an 
approach would make clear to the Iraqis that they must make progress, 
but would do so in a way that is specific, flexible, and realistic.
  If this bill is to have benchmarks at all, it should be a benchmark 
that Congress may not approve any earmark, no matter how valid the 
cause, without an authorization, an administration request or inclusion 
in the budget. The national debt grows $75 million an hour and $1.3 
billion a day. Congress should benchmark its spending sprees on zero 
debt, but it won't. This body would rather set benchmarks for others 
around the world than take responsibility for its own actions. For 
these reasons, this bill is flawed and irresponsible, but I will vote 
for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting 
for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the tax provisions included in this bill 
would help small businesses to succeed. These provisions would spur 
investment and thus create jobs. They would provide greater opportunity 
for workers looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support.
  The bill helps businesses to provide jobs for workers who have 
experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending and 
expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC.
  WOTC encourages businesses to hire workers who might not otherwise 
find work. WOTC allows employers a tax credit for wages that they pay 
to economically disadvantaged employees. WOTC has been remarkably 
successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is 
highly cost-effective. The business community is highly supportive of 
these credits. Industries like retail and restaurants that hire many 
low-skill workers find it especially useful.
  The bill would extend WOTC for more than 3 years, and the bill would 
increase and expand the credit for employers who hire disabled 
veterans. The bill would also expand the credit to make it available to 
employers who hire people in counties that have suffered significant 
population losses.
  To carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners are often 
required to invest significant amounts of money in depreciable 
property, such as machinery. The bill would help business owners to 
afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the bill 
would extend for another year expensing under section 179 of the 
Internal Revenue Code.
  New equipment and property are necessary to successfully operate a 
business. But large business purchases generally require depreciation 
across a number of years, and depreciation requires additional 
bookkeeping.
  Expensing under section 179 allows for an immediate 100-percent 
deduction of the cost for most personal property purchased for use in a 
business. The bill increases the expensing limit from $112,000 to 
$125,000, and the bill increases the phase-out threshold from $450,000 
to $500,000 for 2007.
  When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no 
longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So 
extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping 
burdens.
  The bill includes a package of tax incentives to help recovery of 
small business and low-income housing in areas hit by Hurricanes 
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The bill also requires GAO to conduct a study 
on how State and local governments have allocated and utilized the tax 
incentives that have been provided for these areas since 2005. We want 
to make sure that the tax incentives that Congress provided for 
hurricane recovery are being properly used, and we want to make sure 
that these incentives are providing the much-needed help for which they 
were created.
  Tips received by restaurant employees are treated as wages for 
purposes of Social Security taxes. As such, employers must pay Social 
Security taxes on tips received by their employees. These employers 
receive a business tax credit for taxes paid on tip income in excess of 
the Federal minimum wage rate. The bill would prevent a decrease in the 
amount of this business tax credit that restaurant owners may claim 
despite an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
  Currently, if a small business jointly owned by a married couple 
files taxes as a sole proprietorship, only the filing spouse receives 
credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Furthermore, 
unless the married couple is located in a community property State, 
both the married couple and the business are subject to penalties for 
failing to file as a partnership.
  The bill would allow an unincorporated business that is jointly owned 
by a married couple in a common law State to file as a sole 
proprietorship without penalty. The bill would also ensure that both 
spouses receive credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
  Current law limits a small business' ability to claim WOTC and the 
tip credit by imposing a limitation that such credits cannot be used to 
offset taxes that would be imposed under the alternative minimum tax, 
or AMT. The bill would provide a permanent waiver for WOTC and the tip 
credit and would allow WOTC and the tip credit to be taken under AMT.
  The bill would help small businesses by modifying S corporation 
rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the 
``sting tax.'' These modifications would improve the viability of 
community banks.
  The tax language included in the bill is a responsible package. It 
would ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses.
  And we have also paid for it.
  The offsets include a proposal to discourage the practice of 
transferring investments to one's child for the purpose of avoiding 
higher tax rates.

[[Page 13914]]

  The offsets also include proposals to improve tax administration.
  The offsets would allow the IRS more time to notify the taxpayer 
about a deficiency before it must stop charging interest and penalties. 
The offsets include making permanent the fees that the IRS is 
authorized to charge for private letter rulings and other forms of 
guidance.
  The offsets also enhance penalties that the IRS may impose when 
taxpayers and preparers do not comply with the law. The offsets would 
also prohibit employers from using the collection due process to delay 
or prevent the IRS from collecting delinquent trust fund employment 
taxes.
  The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in 
this bill should not have to pay more in taxes because some taxpayers 
are abusing the tax system.
  The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the 
public a technical explanation of the tax provisions of H.R. 2206. The 
technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and 
legislative intent behind this important legislation. It will be 
available on the Joint Committee's website at www.house.gov/jct.
  These are sound tax policy changes. Let's finally enact an increase 
in the minimum wage, and let's also pass this useful package of tax 
benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the following are additional explanatory 
materials regarding the appropriations for the Department of Defense 
made by the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206.
  I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Department of Defense--Military


                           PROGRAM EXECUTION

       The Department of Defense shall execute the appropriations 
     provided in this Act consistent with the allocation of funds 
     contained in the joint explanatory statement of the committee 
     of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 when such appropriations 
     (by account) are equal to those appropriations (by account) 
     provided in this Act. The Department is further directed to 
     adhere to the reporting requirements in Senate Report 110-37 
     and House Report 110-60 except as otherwise contravened by 
     the joint explanatory statement of the committee of 
     conference accompanying H.R. 1591 or the following statement.

                         reporting requirements

       The Secretary of Defense shall provide a report to the 
     congressional defense committees within 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this legislation on the allocation of 
     the funds within the accounts listed in this Act. The 
     Secretary shall submit updated reports 30 days after the end 
     of each fiscal quarter until funds listed in this Act are no 
     longer available for obligation. These reports shall include: 
     a detailed accounting of obligations and expenditures of 
     appropriations provided in this Act by program and 
     subactivity group for the continuation of the war in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan; and a listing of equipment procured using funds 
     provided in this Act. In order to meet unanticipated 
     requirements, the Department of Defense may need to transfer 
     funds within these appropriations accounts for purposes other 
     than those specified. The Department of Defense shall follow 
     normal prior approval reprogramming procedures should it be 
     necessary to transfer funding between different 
     appropriations accounts in this Act.


                          CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

       Recommended adjustments to classified programs are 
     addressed in a classified annex.

                       Operation and Maintenance


                      SOAR VIRTUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

       The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Community 
     and Family Policy is directed to comply with the guidance 
     contained in the joint explanatory statement of the committee 
     of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 regarding the Student 
     Online Achievement Resources (SOAR Virtual School District) 
     program.


                       IRAQ SECURITY FORCES FUND

       The Department is directed to report to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of 
     enactment of this Act the accountability requirements DoD has 
     applied to the train-and-equip program for Iraq and the plans 
     underway to formulate property accountability rules and 
     regulations that distinguish between war and peace.


             JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE DEFEAT FUND

       The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 
     (JIEDDO) shall report on JIEDDO staffing levels no later than 
     June 29, 2007.

                              Procurement


   SINGLE CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE RADIO SYSTEM (SINCGARS) FAMILY

       The Department of the Army is directed to comply with the 
     guidance contained in the joint explanatory statement of the 
     committee of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 regarding 
     funding limitations and reporting requirements for the Single 
     Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems.

                         Defense Health Program


TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (TBI) AND POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD) 
                         TREATMENT AND RESEARCH

       If a service member is correctly diagnosed with TBI or 
     PTSD, the better chance he or she has of a full recovery. It 
     is critical that health care providers are given the 
     resources necessary to make accurate, timely referrals for 
     appropriate treatment and that service members have high 
     priority access to such services. Therefore, $900,000,000 is 
     provided for access, treatment and research for Traumatic 
     Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 
     Of the amount provided, $600,000,000 is for operation and 
     maintenance and $300,000,000 is for research, development, 
     test and evaluation to conduct peer reviewed research.
       By increasing funding for TBI and PTSD, the Defense 
     Department will now have significant resources to 
     dramatically improve screening for risk factors, diagnosis, 
     treatment, counseling, research, facilities and equipment to 
     prevent or treat these illnesses.
       To ensure that patients receive the best care available, 
     the Department shall develop plans for the allocation of 
     funds for TBI and PTSD by reviewing the possibility of 
     conducting research on: therapeutic drugs and medications 
     that ``harden'' the brain; and, testing and treatment for 
     tinnitus which impacts 49 percent of blast victims. The 
     Department also should consider in its planning the 
     establishment of brain functioning base lines prior to 
     deployment and the continued measurement of concussive 
     injuries in theater.
       If the Secretary of Defense determines that funds made 
     available within the operation and maintenance account for 
     the treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic 
     Stress Disorder are excess to the requirements of the 
     Department of Defense, the Secretary may transfer excess 
     amounts to the Department of Veterans Affairs to be available 
     for the same purpose.
       The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional 
     defense committees no later than 15 days following any 
     transfer of funds to the VA for PTSD/TBI treatment.


              SUSTAINING THE MILITARY HEALTH CARE BENEFIT

       Provided herein is $410,750,000 to fully fund the Defense 
     Health Program for fiscal year 2007. The Department is 
     expected to examine other ways to sustain the benefit without 
     relying on Congress to enact legislation that would increase 
     the out-of-pocket costs to the beneficiaries.


  HEALTH CARE IN SUPPORT OF ARMY MODULAR FORCE CONVERSION AND GLOBAL 
                              POSITIONING

       The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and 
     the Surgeon General of the Army shall coordinate an effort 
     and report back to the congressional defense committees 
     within 120 days after enactment of this Act on how these 
     anticipated costs will be funded to ensure soldiers and their 
     families affected by AMF and global positioning will have 
     access to the health care they deserve.


                   MEDICAL SUPPORT FOR TACTICAL UNITS

       The Department of the Army is directed to address medical 
     requirements for those tactical units currently deployed to 
     or returning from the Iraq or Afghanistan theaters. The 
     Department of the Army shall focus funding on the 
     replenishment of medical supply and equipment needs within 
     the combat theaters, to include bandages and the provision of 
     medical care for soldiers who have returned home in a medical 
     holdover status.


                          MEB/PEB IMPROVEMENTS

       The system for evaluating soldiers' eligibility for 
     disability benefits has diminished, causing the soldiers' 
     needs to go unmet. In particular, the thousands of soldiers 
     wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have overwhelmed 
     the system leading to failure to complete reviews in a timely 
     manner. In some cases, lack of management, caseworkers, 
     specialists to help identify depression and post-traumatic 
     stress disorder, medical hold facilities and even wheelchair 
     access has meant that wounded soldiers have had to overcome 
     many obstacles during their medical care.
       Therefore, within the funds provided, $30,000,000 is to be 
     used for strengthening the process, programs, formalized 
     training for personnel, and for the hiring of administrators 
     and caseworkers. The resources provided are to be used at 
     Walter Reed, Brooke, Madigan, and Womack Army Medical Centers 
     and National Naval Medical Center, San Diego.

                     Summary and Tabular Materials

       The following tables provide details of the supplemental 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense-Military.

[[Page 13915]]

     TH24MY07.001
     


[[Page 13916]]

     TH24MY07.002
     


[[Page 13917]]

     TH24MY07.003
     


[[Page 13918]]

     TH24MY07.004
     


[[Page 13919]]

     TH24MY07.005
     


[[Page 13920]]

     TH24MY07.006
     


[[Page 13921]]

     TH24MY07.007
     


[[Page 13922]]

     TH24MY07.008
     


[[Page 13923]]

     TH24MY07.009
     


[[Page 13924]]

     TH24MY07.010
     


[[Page 13925]]

     TH24MY07.011
     


[[Page 13926]]

     TH24MY07.012
     


[[Page 13927]]

     TH24MY07.013
     


[[Page 13928]]

     TH24MY07.014
     


[[Page 13929]]

     TH24MY07.015
     


[[Page 13930]]

     TH24MY07.016
     


[[Page 13931]]

     TH24MY07.017
     


[[Page 13932]]

     TH24MY07.018
     


[[Page 13933]]

     TH24MY07.019
     


[[Page 13934]]

     TH24MY07.020
     


[[Page 13935]]

     TH24MY07.021
     


[[Page 13936]]

     TH24MY07.022
     


[[Page 13937]]

     TH24MY07.023
     


[[Page 13938]]

     TH24MY07.024
     


[[Page 13939]]

     TH24MY07.025
     


[[Page 13940]]

     TH24MY07.026
     


[[Page 13941]]

     TH24MY07.027
     


[[Page 13942]]

     TH24MY07.028
     


[[Page 13943]]

     TH24MY07.029
     


[[Page 13944]]

     TH24MY07.030
     


[[Page 13945]]

     TH24MY07.031
     


[[Page 13946]]

     TH24MY07.032
     


[[Page 13947]]

     TH24MY07.033
     


[[Page 13948]]

     TH24MY07.034
     


[[Page 13949]]

     TH24MY07.035
     


[[Page 13950]]

     TH24MY07.036
     


[[Page 13951]]

     TH24MY07.037
     


[[Page 13952]]

     TH24MY07.038
     


[[Page 13953]]

     TH24MY07.039
     


[[Page 13954]]

     TH24MY07.040
     


[[Page 13955]]

     TH24MY07.041
     


[[Page 13956]]

     TH24MY07.042
     


[[Page 13957]]

     TH24MY07.043
     


[[Page 13958]]

     TH24MY07.044
     


[[Page 13959]]

     TH24MY07.045
     


[[Page 13960]]

     TH24MY07.046
     


[[Page 13961]]

     TH24MY07.047
     


[[Page 13962]]

     TH24MY07.048
     


[[Page 13963]]

     TH24MY07.049
     


[[Page 13964]]

     TH24MY07.050
     


[[Page 13965]]

     TH24MY07.051
     


[[Page 13966]]

     TH24MY07.052
     


[[Page 13967]]

     TH24MY07.053
     


[[Page 13968]]

     TH24MY07.054
     


[[Page 13969]]

     TH24MY07.055
     


[[Page 13970]]

     TH24MY07.056
     


[[Page 13971]]

     TH24MY07.057
     


[[Page 13972]]

     TH24MY07.058
     


[[Page 13973]]

     TH24MY07.059
     


[[Page 13974]]

     TH24MY07.060
     


[[Page 13975]]

     TH24MY07.061
     


[[Page 13976]]

     TH24MY07.062
     


[[Page 13977]]

     TH24MY07.063
     


[[Page 13978]]

     TH24MY07.064
     


[[Page 13979]]

     TH24MY07.065
     


[[Page 13980]]

     TH24MY07.066
     


[[Page 13981]]

     TH24MY07.067
     


[[Page 13982]]

     TH24MY07.068
     


[[Page 13983]]

     TH24MY07.069
     


[[Page 13984]]

     TH24MY07.070
     


[[Page 13985]]

     TH24MY07.071
     


[[Page 13986]]

     TH24MY07.072
     


[[Page 13987]]

     TH24MY07.073
     


[[Page 13988]]

     TH24MY07.074
     


[[Page 13989]]

     TH24MY07.075
     


[[Page 13990]]

     TH24MY07.076
     


[[Page 13991]]

     TH24MY07.077
     


[[Page 13992]]

     TH24MY07.078
     


[[Page 13993]]

     TH24MY07.079
     


[[Page 13994]]

     TH24MY07.080
     


[[Page 13995]]

     TH24MY07.081
     


[[Page 13996]]

     TH24MY07.082
     


[[Page 13997]]

     TH24MY07.083
     


[[Page 13998]]

     TH24MY07.084
     


[[Page 13999]]

     TH24MY07.085
     


[[Page 14000]]

     TH24MY07.086
     


[[Page 14001]]

     TH24MY07.087
     


[[Page 14002]]

     TH24MY07.088
     


[[Page 14003]]

     TH24MY07.089
     


[[Page 14004]]

     TH24MY07.090
     


[[Page 14005]]

     TH24MY07.091
     


[[Page 14006]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.

                          ____________________