[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8629-8631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mrs.  Boxer, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, 
        and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 1077. A bill to safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave 
troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of 
Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. 
troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country 
continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. 
Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no 
intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it 
might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in 
greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended 
military mission.
  That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I 
am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin 
safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that 
would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending 
funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an 
even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, 
I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this 
legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, 
and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring 
it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth 
another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged 
brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring 
the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have 
the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and 
Kennedy.
  There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the 
recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a 
``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' 
And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of 
the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me 
quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the 
complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-
Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition 
forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.''
  Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to 
police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it make any sense to ask our 
troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle 
of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in 
Iraq.
  It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by 
al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow 
``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members 
of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to 
continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions 
for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for 
other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these 
exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations.
  The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out 
terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes 
that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in 
fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the 
vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us 
to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a 
one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much 
of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and 
counter-productive.
  Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the 
same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of 
troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment 
and resources they need.
  Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we 
must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and 
support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal 
that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill 
would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the 
safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, 
deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress 
can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops.
  Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a 
Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's 
Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end 
funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for 
salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of 
the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or 
ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. 
Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed 
forces are utilized.''
  This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 
1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military 
operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited 
exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them 
are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, 
Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, 
Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many 
Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and 
security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military 
mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and 
women in uniform?
  Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the 
power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in 
Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be 
terminated.
  That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included--
supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia 
operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have 
eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal 
or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty-
eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table 
that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was 
proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the 
purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in 
any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The 
McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to 
bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of 
American troops.''
  Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces 
home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it 
is responsible, and it is long overdue.
  The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to 
this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's 
mishandling of

[[Page 8630]]

Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this 
Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and 
draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and 
its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. 
Now it is up to Congress to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Smith):
  S. 1078. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
incentives for employer-provided employee housing assistance, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Housing 
America's Workforce Act. My legislation will address the need to ensure 
safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as creating and sustaining 
healthy communities for our Nation's workforce. I would also like to 
thank Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez for her leadership in introducing 
the companion bill in the House of Representatives.
  The sad truth is that across the Nation, working full-time no longer 
guarantees the security and comfort of a home. The shortage of 
workforce housing has emerged as a national crisis as housing costs 
have far outgrown the rate of inflation in many markets. As the gap 
between wages and housing costs widens, affordable housing is pushed 
beyond the reach of an increasing number of working families.
  As a result, people who provide the bulk of vital community 
services--teachers, firefighters, police officers, and laundry and 
restaurant workers--often cannot themselves afford to live in the high-
priced communities in which they serve. That is why I am reintroducing 
the Housing America's Workforce Act.
  This bill creates incentives to expand employer assisted housing 
initiatives across the Nation. This legislation offers a tax credit of 
50 cents for every dollar that an employer provides to eligible 
employees, up to $10,000 or six percent of the employee's home purchase 
price, whichever is less, or up to $2,000 for rental assistance.
  In addition, this act defines housing assistance as a nontaxable 
benefit to ensure that employees receive the full value of employers' 
contributions. Finally, the act establishes a competitive grant program 
available to nonprofit housing organizations that provide technical 
assistance, program administration, and outreach support to employers 
undertaking housing assistance initiatives.
  The benefits of this legislation are far reaching. Employees receive 
financial support to buy or rent a home closer to work, while their 
employer enjoys the benefits of a more stable workforce, including 
improved morale, and reduced turnover and recruitment resulting in 
bottom line savings. Furthermore, the surrounding community receives a 
new investment in the form of property taxes, as former commuters buy 
homes near the jobsite.
  Research has shown that this legislation is needed. Recent data shows 
that the number of working families with critical housing problems, 
defined as those paying more than half of their income for housing and/
or living in dilapidated conditions, has increased 67 percent from 1997 
to approximately 5 million families. In addition, a recent workforce 
housing study released by the National Association of Home Builders 
found that workers who provide vital services to the community can only 
find affordable housing in less than half of the Nation's top 25 
metropolitan areas.
  The Housing America's Workforce Act addresses our Nation's housing 
challenge from a new perspective by allowing the private sector to play 
a direct role in promoting housing affordability. This legislation will 
create opportunities for us as a Nation to expand these public-private 
partnerships and will make a profound impact in the lives of our 
workforce.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation and 
move it to the floor without delay.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Obama (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Menendez, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Cantwell)):
  S. 1084. A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income 
veterans; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for 
Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, 
Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation.
  As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust 
to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of 
my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after 
Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he 
came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.
  He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even 
finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized 
the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend 
those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college 
through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal 
Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family 
and build his own American Dream.
  And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had 
as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who 
told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless 
veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. 
Fighting over access to the dumpsters.
  Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our 
Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will 
experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single 
cause for this.
  Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from 
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally 
battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills 
that could be easily used in the private sector.
  All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the 
very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof 
over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings 
shame to every single one of us.
  This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of 
praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about 
their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the 
resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And 
it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow 
such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And 
so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this 
right.
  These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive 
services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income 
veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of 
becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and 
supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the 
streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans 
in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified 
permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight 
against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for 
homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction 
of those who are in need.
  That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes 
Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, 
affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and 
nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes 
and apartments for veterans.
  So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on 
their own, the organizations would also provide services like 
counseling, employment training, and child care to the

[[Page 8631]]

veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would 
expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the 
current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this 
authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly 
successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.
  Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with 
handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' 
Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are 
soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They 
made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we 
must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to 
send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to 
speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.
  This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective 
responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents 
and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time 
for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home 
today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lott, Mr. Allard, 
        and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 1083. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation from 
last Congress--the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership Act 
of 2007 or the ``SKIL Act of 2007''. In the past two years, there has 
been so much focus by this Congress and this Administration on 
restoring America's competitive advantage. The President has proposed 
the America's Competitiveness Initiative. Last Congress, I was proud to 
cosponsor the Protecting America's Competitive Edge bills and the 
American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006. In the 110th 
Congress, I have cosponsored along with 44 other Senators the America 
COMPETES Act. This is a bipartisan legislative response to 
recommendations contained in the National Academies' ``Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate 
America'' report.
  The one thing we have learned through the process of retaining 
America's competitiveness is that everyone has to do their part to keep 
our country's economy strong and viable. Currently, we are working very 
hard on comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased to be a part 
of that process. However, our country, right now, is losing its 
competitive edge in the global market. Why? Because our immigration 
policies prohibit us from retaining some of the ``best and brightest'' 
students currently graduating from U.S. colleges and universities--
especially those with advanced degrees in science and technology. We 
also continue to lose highly qualified and highly skilled workers to 
foreign competitors because of our failed immigration system.
  Recently Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates made it clear the dire 
situation we are faced with today in terms of high-skilled labor 
shortages:
  ``For generations, America has prospered largely by attracting the 
world's best and brightest to study, live, and work in the United 
States. Our success at attracting the greatest talent has helped us 
become a global innovation leader, enriched our culture, and created 
economic opportunities for all Americans.
  Unfortunately, America's immigration policies are driving away the 
world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most . . . 
Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly 
skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that 
have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a 
different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well-
trained, highly skilled individuals--many of whom are educated at our 
top colleges and universities--that the United States does not welcome 
or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, 
however, our immigration policies send precisely this message.
  This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in 
terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it 
infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if 
it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. 
Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They 
are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented 
students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work 
here. Our lost opportunities are their gains.''
  The U.S. Department of Labor projects that between 2002 and 2012 
there will be 2 million U.S. job openings in the fields of computer 
science, mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences. The SKIL 
bill would retain foreign students educated in the U.S. to ensure 
continued competition in the global market.
  As I have stated before, a critical part of America's economy is our 
ability to innovate but our current immigration policies are 
threatening future growth. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's 
recent announcement that the 2008 cap for H-1B workers was met in one 
day makes clear that we urgently need to reform our policies for 
highly-skilled workers in the scientific and technology fields. Because 
the U.S. has already met the cap for H-1B visas, foreign students 
graduating from our universities this spring are virtually shut out of 
the U.S. job market. This situation is unprecedented. If we don't act, 
America's technology companies will be harmed and our economy will 
suffer. The SKIL bill will allow the U.S. to remain competitive in this 
global economy.
  The SKIL bill promotes competitiveness and allows the U.S. to remain 
competitive in this global economy. While I encourage and intend to be 
a part of the continued dialogue on overall immigration reform, I urge 
my colleagues to act quickly on this issue.

                          ____________________