[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8308-8309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--S. 1022 AND S. 1023

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to delineate exactly why I 
voted against this supplemental. We are in some very difficult and 
complex times in the world today, and certainly the situation in Iraq 
is right at the forefront.
  Americans have always stood tall when someone tries to interrupt our 
ability to exercise our rights of freedom, and right now we are 
fighting a global war on terrorism, with Iraq being at the center of 
it. For individuals in this body to think we can micromanage a military 
conflict from the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives 
is simply wrong.
  We have military leadership on the ground in Iraq. That leadership is 
recommending against imposing timelines. We have civilian leaders who 
have significant military experience, both from the State Department 
level as well as the Pentagon level. These leaders have testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and every single one of 
those individuals, whether they were Republican or Democrat, has said 
imposing timelines is not the way to go. Every military officer who has 
come to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee has said 
imposing timelines for withdrawal from Iraq will simply embolden the 
enemy. The enemy will lay in wait until we remove ourselves from Iraq 
and then all genocide will break loose in Iraq.
  The Baker-Hamilton commission--which so many people have relied 
upon--clearly stated that imposing timelines for withdrawal in Iraq is 
not the way to go. This vote today is simply the wrong signal to send 
to an enemy. The message needs to be that we are going to take you out; 
that we are not going to let you impose yourself on freedom and 
democracy. This vote today simply does not do that.
  I very strongly disagree with the provisions in this supplemental 
relative to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and that is the reason 
I did vote against this supplemental we so desperately need to fund our 
troops, to fund the operation in Iraq, as well as to take care of some 
other measures. One of those other measures included in this 
supplemental is critically important to my State, and it has to do with 
the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which 
was designed to help uninsured children across America.
  Unfortunately, it has gotten into the arena now of not only providing 
coverage for children but also coverage for some adults. Frankly, I 
don't agree with that, but I don't have a problem with it in this 
supplemental. We will deal with that issue in the reauthorization of 
this program. We do have a provision in the supplemental that would 
cover the shortfall for the SCHIP program, which in Georgia we refer to 
as PeachCare. It would have provided the money to fund a shortfall in 
SCHIP between now and the end of the fiscal year for States such as 
mine that are going to experience this shortfall. Georgia happens to be 
the first of 14 States that is going to have this shortfall, and we 
have had to take measures--and our legislature, thank goodness, has 
done that--to make up this shortfall. In the interim, between now and 
the time this bill is going to come back to this body for 
reconsideration after being vetoed by the President, Georgia's 
taxpayers are going to have to fund a greater portion of the SCHIP 
program than they should have to. So I have filed a bill today that is 
going to take care of that. It is going to provide immediate funding 
for the shortfall in Georgia, as well as all of the other shortfall 
States in the country today that, while they may not experience a 
shortfall as we speak, it is coming within the next 30 to 60 to 90 days 
to 13 other States.
  On behalf of Senator Isakson and myself, I would ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 
1022, introduced earlier today; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that 
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, unfortunately, I must object to the 
Senator's request. We passed money for

[[Page 8309]]

the shortfall in the supplemental and we should not extend the program 
at the expense of the current coverage.
  I look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia on 
reauthorization that preserves the program and the coverage that is 
needed, and toward that end, I ask unanimous consent that my bill 
dealing with SCHIP, introduced earlier today, S. 1023, be considered, 
read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. First, the Chair notes the objection of the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Is there objection to the motion of the Senator from New Jersey?
  Mr. DeMINT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection of the Senator from South Carolina 
is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

                          ____________________