[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10488-10491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 
1591, the congressional supplemental bill. In casting our votes on this 
important measure, all of us must ask a fundamental question: Do we 
support a change in course in Iraq or do we want more of the same?
  This supplemental bill delivers over $100 billion in necessary 
funding, an increase of $4 billion over the President's request for our 
military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, fully meeting the President's 
request. More important, the bill establishes a change in course for 
our policy in Iraq by transitioning the mission of American troops away 
from involvement in a growing civil war to a more targeted mission, one 
focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and 
force protection for American troops.
  The supplemental bill that was voted on today offers a path away from 
the current quagmire in Iraq, a state of bloodshed and chaos which is 
straining the U.S. Army, diverting our attention from a resurgent al-
Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and finally sacrificing too many of 
our finest men and women.
  We must never forget the enormous personal sacrifices our troops are 
asked to make every day. As of today, 162 Pennsylvanians and more than 
3,300 Americans as a whole have given their lives in Iraq, with tens of 
thousands more suffering lifelong injuries, including amputations, 
severe burns, and traumatic brain injuries. On Monday, nine members of 
the 82nd Airborne Division gave their lives when a suicide bomber 
infiltrated their outpost in Diyala Province, the deadliest single 
attack on U.S. forces in Iraq since December 2005.
  We pray today for our fallen heroes--today and always--but we also 
pray for ourselves that we may be worthy of their valor.
  Our troops have done all they can. They have deposed Saddam, and they 
fought insurgents and foreign terrorists. They spent the last 4 years 
partnering with their Iraqi counterparts in a courageous effort to 
establish the foundation for democracy and a free society. They have 
been asked to mediate disputes and protect innocent civilians as 
targets in a crossfire of a civil war.
  So our troops have done their part. Now it is time for the Congress 
and the White House to do their part. As retired military generals, 
experienced diplomats, and scholars with intimate knowledge of Iraq 
have declared and as a bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded just last 
winter, any success in Iraq requires a political and diplomatic 
solution and cannot be achieved through military might alone.
  Just ask General Petraeus, who, upon assuming his new command in 
March, declared:

       There is no military solution to a problem like that in 
     Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq . . . A political resolution 
     of various differences . . . will determine, in the long run, 
     the success of that effort.

  GEN Barry McCaffrey recently returned from his latest trip to Iraq. 
One of our most widely respected former

[[Page 10489]]

military officers, General McCaffrey fought in Vietnam with 
distinction, commanded a division in the gulf war in 1991, and led U.S. 
operations in Latin America. He submitted a formal report on his trip, 
which is very sober reading. One line stands out for me, and I quote 
from General McCaffrey's report:

       No Iraqi Government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, 
     reporter, foreign nongovernmental organization, nor 
     contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor 
     Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without 
     heavily armed protection.

  This supplemental bill provides the Congress and the White House a 
chance to do their part to ensure success in our mission in Iraq. It 
brings to an end the ``stay the course'' mentality that defined our 
approach for the past 4 years in at least three ways.
  First, the supplemental revises our mission in Iraq away from 
policing a civil war toward training and equipping Iraqi security 
forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counterterror 
operations.
  Second, it initiates a phased redeployment of our troops no later 
than October 1 of this year, with a goal of removing all combat troops 
by April 1 of next year. These steps were called for in the bipartisan 
Iraq Study Group and represent the will of the American people. I am 
pleased that the Congress is finally following suit.
  Third, the supplemental at least holds the Iraqi Government 
accountable by setting measurable and achievable benchmarks on the 
Iraqi Government for ending the sectarian conflict, political 
reconciliation, and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
  If the Iraqi Government refuses to meet these benchmarks, they will 
put at risk future U.S. assistance and the continued presence of U.S. 
troops. We have repeatedly seen past benchmarks established by the Bush 
administration and the Iraqi Government come and go without progress 
and without consequence. Just this week, a revealing article in USA 
Today highlighted the growing lack of confidence among Iraqi 
Parliamentarians in the al-Maliki government, and one legislator was 
quoted as saying:

       This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of 
     doing the job.

  This bill, once and for all, establishes a series of accountable 
benchmarks.
  Finally, the supplemental recognizes the toll this war has taken on 
our uniformed military, especially the Army and Marine Corps. It 
establishes a set of troop-readiness standards that establish minimum 
levels between deployments for our troops and limits the duration of 
those deployments.
  The legislation includes a Presidential waiver authority, but it 
would require the President to certify that the continued strain on our 
military forces is in our national interest. These provisions will 
force the President to think long and hard about the impact of the Iraq 
war on the readiness of our military to handle other pressing 
challenges, including the need to fight and kill al-Qaida terrorists 
wherever we find them.
  The congressional debate that has helped produce this supplemental 
bill has been attacked by the President and his supporters. However, 
our Secretary of Defense last week described our debate as helpful in 
``communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended 
commitment.''
  Two of my distinguished colleagues, on a recent visit to Baghdad, 
explicitly informed Iraqi leaders that growing congressional pressure 
on the need for a phased redeployment signified that it was time for 
the Iraqi Government to get serious and start taking the hard steps 
needed for political reconciliation, including a fair distribution of 
oil revenues. Without the steps this Congress has taken, without the 
pressure it has applied, the Maliki regime would continue to be 
receiving an open-ended blank check from the White House, with our 
soldiers paying the ultimate price.
  The President has regrettably chosen to distort and malign our 
intentions in sending him the bill that is before us today. I wish to 
take a few minutes to briefly address those charges and demonstrate why 
it is the President--the President--and not the Congress who has 
cynically held hostage the funding and well-being of our troops.
  First, the President has repeatedly charged that our military forces 
needed the supplemental funding immediately and any delay to pass the 
supplemental in his exact specifications would harm their readiness. A 
number of my colleagues already cited authoritative research from the 
Congressional Research Service that demonstrates that the needed 
funding is available to the U.S. Army from mid to late July--let me say 
that again, mid to late July--without jeopardizing the war effort. 
However, there is a much larger cynicism at play here. There would be 
no need for a supplemental bill at all if this President had submitted 
an honest, regular budget request for this fiscal year.
  Four years into the war, this administration should be able to tell 
the American people how much the war in Iraq cost. Yet the 
administration has refused to incorporate wartime costs into his 
regular budget request, instead seeking to finance our operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan through a series of supplemental bills. Of course, 
the President doesn't want to do that because regular appropriations 
requests are subject to greater public and congressional scrutiny.
  Financing the war through supplemental bills also allows the 
President to better hide the impact of the war on our Federal budget. 
It is not surprising that a President who has run up the largest 
deficits in modern history would want to hide that fact. Doing so on 
the backs of our troops is outrageous.
  So the President is plain wrong when he attacks the Congress on 
supplemental funding for our troops in Iraq. The reality is that we 
have exceeded the President's request and on a timetable which is 
quicker than that of the previous Congress controlled by the 
President's party.
  If the President chooses to veto this bill, it is he--it is he--who 
is prolonging this process and denying necessary funds to our young men 
and women in uniform. If the President had been honest with the 
Congress and the American people on the true cost of this war from the 
very beginning, we would not have needed this supplemental bill.
  The second claim the President has made over and over again in recent 
weeks is that this supplemental bill is larded up with porkbarrel 
spending that is unrelated to our military operation in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Yet, once again, the President is distorting both his own 
actions and those of Congress for crude political gain. We should not 
forget that the President's original request for supplemental funding 
also included funds not related to the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. 
The President's request included money for debt relief in Kosovo, 
cultural exchanges, and assistance to refugees in Burundi. The 
President keeps calling for a clean bill, yet his own request to the 
Congress included extra items with no connection to Iraq or 
Afghanistan. In light of the President's request, the Congress, acting 
as an independent and equal branch of Government, engaged in its own 
deliberations and determined other emergency priorities that required 
funding through this supplemental bill.
  This President seems to think that the Congress exists merely to 
follow his orders and that it should not exercise any independent 
judgment. This may have been the case with our predecessors but not 
with this Congress and not with this Senator. We were elected by the 
people of our States, and we report to them, not the President and not 
the Vice President. So the Congress acted to ensure additional funding 
for a number of key priorities.
  The President has broadly tarred these projects as ``egregious 
porkbarrel.'' Does the President believe that label applies to the $1.2 
billion in funds for accelerated production of mine-resistent vehicles 
so our soldiers have a better chance of surviving IED attacks? Does he 
believe that label applies to $2.1 billion to better provide health 
care for our veterans? Does he believe that $650 million to help with 
the children's health insurance shortfall in 14 States is frivolous 
spending? I

[[Page 10490]]

could also talk about the funding for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita and our farmers and on and on.
  This supplemental bill, agreed upon by the House and the Senate, is a 
responsible effort that guarantees the funds our troops need, provides 
funding for other critical emergency priorities, and sets a badly 
needed change in course in Iraq.
  In conclusion, our policy in Iraq is not working, and it must change 
if we are to salvage our mission and seek to leave behind a functioning 
government in Baghdad that can defend its national borders and contain 
internal violence. It is time to recognize the reality of Iraq as it is 
today, get our mission right, and allow our troops to begin coming home 
with the honor they deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Tester be recognized following my presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate has passed a piece of 
legislation that includes funding for our troops who are committed to 
action in Iraq and other parts of the world, especially Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I expect there will be no controversy about the issue of 
funding, although we have provided more funding for the soldiers than 
requested by the President, but there are other portions of the 
legislation that are controversial. I understand that. But I wish to 
talk about something that has not been talked about nearly enough as we 
send our soldiers to war.
  William Manchester wrote a book called ``The Glory and the Dream.'' I 
remember, when I read that book, thinking about what an unbelievable 
commitment this country made during the Second World War. We have now 
been at war in Iraq longer than we were at war in the Second World War.
  Let me take a couple of brief comments from ``The Glory and the 
Dream,'' written by Manchester, about what this country did during the 
Second World War.
  This country geared up. Its factories were humming. Rosie the Riveter 
was riveting, and we had output from our factories that was nearly 
unbelievable in support of the war effort. There was rationing. There 
were all kinds of things happening in which the country supported the 
war effort and supported the soldiers.
  Let me quote:

       From an initial keel-to-delivery time of over 200 days, 
     Henry Kaiser cut the average work time on a liberty ship to 
     40 days. In 1944, he was launching a new escort aircraft 
     carrier every week, and they were turning out entire cargo 
     ships in 17 days. During the first 212 days of 1945, they 
     completed 247 cargo ships, better than 1 a day.

  That is what this country mobilized to do during the Second World 
War.
  From the same book, ``The Glory and the Dream,'' quote:

       In the 5 years following the French collapse, America 
     turned out: 296,000 warplanes, 102,000 tanks, 2.4 million 
     trucks, 8,700 warships, and 5,400 cargo ships.

  Now, why did that happen? Because this country mobilized. This 
country's factories were humming.
  At a meeting, Joseph Stalin observed to the American President--the 
American President, FDR, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill. Stalin 
said: We couldn't win this war without America's production.
  This country mobilized.
  Now, let me read something. Just understanding that in 1944, we were 
producing 4,000 warplanes a month, 50,000 warplanes a year, let me read 
something. Colonel Hammes came and testified last year at a policy 
committee hearing I chaired, and here is what he said:

       Since the improvised explosive devices exploded in Iraq in 
     the summer of 2003, we as a country have known--

  I am quoting him--

     we have known there are better and safer vehicles available 
     than the armored HUMVEE--for instance, the M-1117 armored 
     security vehicle. Yet in 3 years, the Pentagon has purchased 
     less than 1,000 of them. I find it remarkable that a Nation 
     that could produce 4,000 warplanes a month during World War 
     II can produce 45 armored vehicles per month today.

  Continuing to quote:

       We didn't ask soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the 
     inferior equipment they had in 1941. Why are we asking our 
     soldiers and Marines to use the same armor that was 
     insufficient in 2003? It's simple. The administration has 
     refused to dedicate the resources necessary to make it 
     happen. It is content to let our troops ride in inferior 
     vehicles.

  Continuing to quote:

       The administration has failed to replace and maintain the 
     equipment necessary for the units to be ready for other 
     potential operations, although our units lack equipment to 
     train, our repair depots are working single shifts and 5 days 
     a week. The American people haven't refused to provide what 
     our people need in the battlefield, the administration has 
     refused to ask for the funding. The failure to provide our 
     best equipment is a serious moral failure on the part of our 
     leadership.

  Now, why do I raise this question today? In the Second World War, in 
1944, we were producing 4,000 warplanes a month, and yet we have not 
mobilized. We have sent troops abroad to go to war, but the message 
here at home is to go shopping. Troops go to the war, we go to the 
mall. We haven't mobilized.
  Let me read to you a letter dated 1 March 2007. This is from the 
Marine Commandant about a vehicle called the MRAP vehicle, the mine-
resistent ambush-protected vehicle, a vehicle that is much stronger 
than the humvee, much safer than the humvee our soldiers are now riding 
in in Iraq on patrol.
  This is from the Marine Corps Commandant, in his memorandum to the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

       The MRAP vehicle has a dramatically better record of 
     preventing fatal and serious injuries from attacks by 
     improvised explosive devices. We estimate that the use of the 
     MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to IED 
     attacks by as much as 80 percent.

  Now, think of that, 3,325 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, and 
70 percent of those casualties have come as a result of IEDs. The 
Commandant of the Marine Corps says the MRAP vehicle would save 80 
percent of those casualties. Eighty percent. No marines have died in 
300 separate attacks on MRAP vehicles by IEDs, according to BG John 
Allen, deputy commander of coalition forces in Anbar Province--300 
attacks on MRAP vehicles and no marines have died.
  Now, why do I raise all this? Well, we need about 6,700 of these MRAP 
vehicles if this country is intending to provide the best equipment for 
our troops who are on patrol in Iraq. Until recent months, we were 
producing about 45 a month. Let me say that again. We are sending 
soldiers to war, and there is a vehicle that the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps says will save 80 percent of the lives now being lost in 
these IED explosions because this is a much safer vehicle than the 
humvee. It is called the MRAP. But we are not mobilized to produce the 
MRAP. No one has said: This is urgent, let's provide the best equipment 
for these soldiers.
  So what did we do? Well, in the 2007 Omnibus appropriations bill, we 
added money. Yes, we in Congress added money for it. In the bill we 
just voted for today, we added money for it because the President 
wasn't requesting sufficient money. We have a need for 6,700 of them. 
The administration, with all of their requests, would fund less than a 
third of that. In their 2008 budget request, which would take effect 
next October, once again it is underfunded.
  Let me show a picture, if I might, a photograph of what is called the 
MRAP vehicle. Three versions of the MRAP. The Defense Department 
experts say that soldiers on patrol, riding in this version of the MRAP 
80 percent of the soldiers who would otherwise lose their lives from 
IED explosives will be saved. Think of that. With 300 attacks against 
this vehicle, not 1 life has been lost. Yet we have soldiers patrolling 
in Iraq with vehicles much less safe, and 70 percent of the 3,325 
troops who have been killed have been killed as a result of IEDs, 
riding in vehicles that are not as safe as this vehicle, and until 
recently we were producing 45 a month. That is unbelievable. A country 
that could send everyone into its factories and have those factories 
humming three shifts a day and produce 4,000 warplanes a month and a 
liberty ship a

[[Page 10491]]

day, every single day, the country that won the Second World War with 
its prodigious productions, supporting its wonderful troops, that 
country can't mobilize? This President can't ask that country to 
mobilize? We have to stick money in this supplemental bill above the 
President's request in order to say that this is a priority, this is 
urgent, this is about saving the lives of soldiers?
  Again, I raise the question because we are at war. Yet you would 
hardly know it, with respect to the daily lives most of us lead. In the 
Second World War, it wasn't that way. Yet we have been at this war 
longer than the Second World War. In the Second World War, here is what 
we produced--the might of American production, in which a nation came 
together to say that we are going to support our troops and beat back 
the forces of fascism and defeat Adolf Hitler and where we produced 
296,000 warplanes--think of it--and 8,762 warships. We didn't do that 
working one shift a day. We didn't do that making 45 MRAPs a month. 
This country mobilized then, but it is not mobilized now.
  So we passed a piece of legislation here today. It has some areas the 
President says will persuade him to veto it. I assume this is not one 
of those areas. The President didn't request this funding for MRAPs. He 
should have. He didn't request enough funding in the coming fiscal 
year. He should have. If this country is going to send its soldiers to 
war, then we, all of us in this country, have an obligation to send 
them to war with the very finest equipment available to protect them 
and to help them. Regrettably, that is not now the case.
  Early on in this war, I received e-mail pictures, photographs from 
Iraq, from soldiers showing me their humvees with welded pieces of 
metal on the doors, metal they pulled out of a scrap heap and welded to 
a door to try to strengthen it because those humvees weren't up-
armored. Even now, much later, when all of the humvees on patrol are 
up-armored, we know there is a much safer vehicle that will save, we 
think, 80 percent of the fatalities that now exist through IEDs. There 
is no excuse--no excuse, in my judgment--for our not having three 
shifts at every plant available to produce these vehicles and get them 
to our soldiers in Iraq and save these lives. That is what we did in 
this supplemental appropriations bill.
  When anyone talks about undercutting or undermining soldiers, I refer 
them to this. This was the first time, today, in which this Congress 
said to the President and said to the country we are going to mobilize. 
We insist that if we send soldiers to war, we want them to go to war 
with the finest equipment available with the potential to save their 
lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
the conference report on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
we passed early this afternoon. This bill needs to be signed by the 
President. It will do a lot of good for a lot of people in this great 
country. It will not only help our troops serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but also millions of Americans who have suffered over the 
last year due to drought and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
  This bill has nearly $7 billion for cleanup and recovery on the gulf 
coast, which is, 18 months later, still dealing with the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina. There is $1.8 billion for veterans health care in 
this supplemental, to give our veterans the care they deserve when they 
return from serving our Nation. It contains $3.5 billion for 
agricultural assistance, assistance that is desperately needed. I have 
heard from several farmers in Montana about the drought and how it has 
devastated their farms and how they are barely hanging on.
  Tom Lightner, a farmer and rancher from north of Choteau, MT, grows 
wheat, barley, and alfalfa, and he used to run some cattle. But the 
continuing drought has hurt his operation. The reservoir near his 
operation, Bynum Reservoir, has been almost empty for the past 5 years 
because of this drought, and in 2005 Tom had to sell off his 120 head 
of cattle he used to run on his ranch. In February of this year, Tom 
wrote me this letter. What it says is:

       I am writing to you in need of your assistance. I own and 
     operate a small farm and ranch north of Choteau. Because of 
     the continuing drought conditions in this area, making it 
     from one year to the next has been a real challenge. In my 
     present circumstances, it may become impossible [to stay in 
     business].

  Now Tom is in danger of losing his crop insurance and is looking for 
help from me, and from us, and from the President, to help him through 
these difficult times.
  Another farmer in Montana, from Dagmar, wrote about conditions last 
year during the growing season. He writes that it is a foggy morning, 
no meaningful precipitation, but it cooled down some, which is good 
news in the heat of summer with little moisture. But the damage was 
done. Some of the late seeding re-crop had the top half of the head 
burnt right off.
  What does that mean, in a nutshell? He is not going to cut much of a 
crop and it is not going to have much quality when he does get it in 
the bin. What does that mean in reality? That means no money to pay 
expenses, to pay for insurance, to pay for heating, to pay for seeding 
costs; no money to buy groceries, to pay that operating loan or 
mortgage loan.
  That is why it is so critically important that the President of the 
United States sign this supplemental. Farmers and ranchers in Montana 
and throughout this country have suffered long enough. They have 
dedicated their lives to feeding the world, and it is the very least we 
can do to provide them with the assistance they need to keep going.
  Before I finish, I want to talk a little bit about our great men and 
women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have done 
everything we have asked and they have done it very well. This 
supplemental bill also gives our troops all the funding they need, and 
more, to meet the needs not addressed by the President's request. It 
provides a plan to get our troops out of the Middle East in this civil 
war they find themselves engaged in, and back to fighting the real war, 
the war on terrorism.
  It sets a goal, not a deadline, of being out of Iraq by the spring of 
2008. But it allows our troops to continue to train the Iraqi security 
forces, to conduct operations against terrorist groups, and to protect 
United States assets. This is hardly handcuffing the President of this 
country. This is a responsible plan to continue our fight against 
terrorism while getting our troops out of this Iraqi civil war.
  For these reasons, I urge the President of the United States to sign 
this emergency supplemental into law. No more excuses, sign the 
supplemental. Our troops, our farmers, the people of this country, 
deserve no less.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I understand we are in morning business, 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________