The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the conference report on H.R. 1591, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1591), "making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes," having met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
The Presiding Officer: The Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in the Record of Tuesday, April 24, 2007.)
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. Landrieu: Mr. President, I would like to speak just for a few moments, not about the pending business, which I know is extremely important and that debate will go on throughout the day and perhaps over the next several days as we try to make decisions about supplemental spending for the Gulf of Mexico and the importance of the emergency that is still underway there, and as we try to debate the best way to find success in Iraq.
I wanted to take a moment to speak about another issue that is important today to many Americans. In fact, we are celebrating that day on Capitol Hill. It is called Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day.
I have been honored over the many years with my cochair, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is on the floor of the Senate today, to cohost this event for the Senate. We have many colleagues and staff members who participate in bringing their children and grandchildren and friends and neighbors to the Capitol to work to see the work of the Senate and the Capitol--how it happens, who makes it happen, and the significance of it. These children come from all over our country and take this experience back to their classrooms and into their homes and neighborhoods and share with their friends throughout the year.
I thank Ms. Magazine for starting this. Over 35 million adults and children will participate today. So in skyscrapers all over America, and on farms out in our rural areas, in small businesses and restaurants and small little boutique hotels, and even in home offices, children will be working with their parents or with their grandparents understanding the value of work, understanding and exploring options for themselves as they grow, and trying to make choices about how they can contribute significantly to this economy and to being part of the world community.
So I am pleased today to be able to submit for the Record the names of 14 young ladies who are with me today. I am not going to take the time to read their names, but I will submit them for the Record. They are from New Orleans, LA, and some from Manderville; some are from Washington, DC, friends of the family who are here; and others are from outlying areas such as Maryland and Virginia who have joined us today to be part of the Senate.
Already this morning some of these girls have participated in closing the gap with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation that met on Capitol Hill out on the west lawn of our Capitol this morning to talk about the great effort that is being made to address breast cancer, particularly in this country, and to not only find cures but to offer preventive measures to help women and families stay healthy in our country. They have already participated in a press conference and will be joining us later today as we work through our offices in and around the Senate complex.
I wanted to welcome them to the Senate. I will submit their names to be printed in the Record, and I encourage anyone in the Capitol complex, if you are not participating today, to think about next year and what you could do to contribute to make this day a special day for some child in either your family or in your community who could use an extra boost or some insight into a possible career for themselves.
I thank Senator Reid for making the tour of the Senate possible today for the young girls and boys who got to spend some time on the floor earlier this morning, and I thank minority leader Mitch McConnell for arranging the special tours for that as well.
Mr. President, I again thank Ms. Magazine for an extraordinary effort. I know the children enjoy getting a day off from school, but it is more than that, and I have enjoyed participating these many years.
I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
- Morgan Daigle, 11, New Orleans, LA, St. Dominic.
- Christine Evans, 10, Washington, DC, National Cathedral School.
- Katherine Evans, 10, Washington, DC, National Cathedral School.
- Charlotte Ganucheau, 13, Mandeville, LA, Our Lady of the Lake.
- Sofia Gonzales, 13, New Orleans, LA, Metarie Park Country Day School.
- Jamie Hauptmann, 11, Mandeville, LA, Lake Harbor, Middle.
- Lena Jones, 12, Washington, DC, St. Peter's Inter-parish School Capitol Hill.
- Gabrielle Kehoe, 11, New Orleans, LA, St. Pius X.
- Kristen Landrieu, 12, New Orleans, LA, St. Dominic.
- Natalie Mufson, 13, Washington, DC, Georgetown Day School.
- Selin Odabas-Geldiay, 13, Washington, DC, Georgetown Day School.
- Erica Sensenbrenner, 14, New Orleans, LA, Dominican High School.
- Hannah Sensenbrenner, 12, New Orleans, LA, St. Dominic.
- Eliza Matthews
Ms. Landrieu: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. Brownback: Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Iraqi supplemental. I want to discuss this briefly with my colleagues. I will vote against the conference report with a deadline in it. A conference report with a deadline in it, if it passes, and sending it to the President to sign--he is not going to sign it, but if he does sign it, if he would sign it--would be the day al-Qaida would declare victory. The day the deadline is set would be the day they would declare victory. I think it is the wrong way for us to go, and that is why I will be voting against the supplemental.
I am very pleased to support the President in his efforts not to set a deadline. I want to take the brief time I have to talk about a way forward because I think there is a bipartisan way forward. Once we get through this, and once this is forced upon the President, once he vetoes it, and once the veto is upheld--and I think these are motions we should not be going through because they take away precious time from focusing on a way forward, on a political solution that involves both sides of the aisle--we should focus on federalism in Iraq. It is something Senator Biden has spoken often about on the Democratic side, and I have spoke about on this side: federalism that will require a longtime presence by the United States in Iraq.
I have spoken several times on this floor about how Iraq is more than three groups in one country: a Kurdish group, a Sunni group, and a Shia group. It has been held together for much of its history--not altogether but in much of its history--by exterior forces that have not wanted it to fly apart, who still don't want it to fly apart. I think we should recognize these realities as we did in the former Yugoslavia, as we are today in Sudan where the south is going to vote to secede, and recognize these political forces and put in place a federated system: one country, three states, Baghdad as a Federal city where powers devolve to the states, and recognize that it will require a long-term U.S. military presence to ensure that it will work. It is a route forward, and it is a route forward that we can agree upon as a body. It is a route forward that has allowed for the Iraqi Constitution, with a distribution of oil revenues equally distributed throughout the country, to be able to help hold things together. It is a route forward that can get us to a political equilibrium, that can get the violence down, that can give each of the groups their area, their region, and allow us to move forward. It requires a long-term U.S. military presence such as what happened in Bosnia and the Dayton Accords, where 15 years later we are still there and we are going to be there for some period of time because if we are not, they are going to go back to the violent ways they have had, and they have done previously.
This is a realistic route that both sides of the aisle, that both parties, and the executive and legislative branches, could embrace.
I met last week with the Vice President about it. I talked with the National Security Adviser about it. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying: What is the plan? What is the exit plan? How do we get out? Here is a route to be able to deal with this. But they have to admit, as well, on their side that a timeline, a deadline will not work. We cannot do that. We cannot hoist it upon the President, and it will not work in that region. As soon as you set that deadline, as I said, al-Qaida will declare victory and people in the region will start looking for security in other places. They will be going to militias and different groups, and it will further fragment the country.
If we would just set our partisanship aside for a little while and think about this, we would recognize that this is the situation we are in and this is the only viable solution forward. We don't want to bring back a dictator or allow one back into Iraq. We don't want Iraq to devolve into a full-scale civil war with a terrorist state taking place in that country. We don't want to turn it over and just have the Shia run the whole place and run over the Kurds and run over the Sunni in the region. That is not realistic.
The other options are not viable and will not work. This is a route forward. I urge my colleagues that this prospect, this federalism that is enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution--the Iraqi Parliament passed a federalism law last year--the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq show that it is possible for Iraq and deepens its commitment to a Federal system. I urge my colleagues to embrace this after this is vetoed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from West Virginia to yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized immediately following the remarks of Senator Byrd.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
It has been 4 years since the President sent our troops into Iraq, 4 long years. That is longer than it took to win World War II. More than 3,300 troops have sacrificed their lives in Iraq, and nearly 25,000 have been wounded--many severely.
With passage of this conference agreement, Congress will have appropriated more than $450 billion for the war in Iraq. Did my colleagues hear that? Four hundred and fifty billion dollars. That compares with the $296 billion which the United States spent on World War II. Yet in the 4 years since our troops succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein from power, the President has failed--and I say this with all due respect when I speak about the President--the President has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq. The troops had the courage and the strength to win the war, but the President has not had the wisdom to win the peace. It is time--past time--for a new direction in Iraq.
The agreement before us today provides that new direction. But rather than admit the need to change course, the President--and I say this with all due respect--continues to try to mislead the American public about the war in Iraq.
He recently asked Congress to "put partisanship on hold." But then he, the President, voiced the incredible assertion that the attacks on 9/11 are linked to the war in Iraq. That is not true, and the American people know it.
The President complained that Congress is holding funding for the troops hostage to funding for domestic needs. President Bush claims that Democrats are adding porkbarrel spending to a bill intended for the troops. The President has charged that Democrats are "legislating defeat" in Iraq.
President Bush has tried to scare the pants off the public by suggesting that our bill could result in death and destruction in America. What utter nonsense. What hogwash. This Senate must not be a rubberstamp for this or any President. Under the Constitution, Congress has a duty to question the war policies of this or any President. We must listen to the voices of the people, and the American people have sent a very clear message to Washington: It is time to start to bring our troops home from Iraq.
The Congress has responded, crafting a new direction that will spur the Iraqi Government to pursue real political reconciliation in that country. The American people do not support an open-ended U.S. military occupation in Iraq. It is time for the truth; it is time for the White House to stop the fear mongering and face the truth.
In the book of John, chapter 8, verse 32 of the King James version of the Holy Bible are these words:
And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.
The Congress is not holding funding for the troops hostage to domestic porkbarrel spending. The $6.9 billion for rebuilding the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina is not pork barrel spending. Ask the citizens of New Orleans. The $1.8 billion for the VA to provide first- class health care to our wounded veterans is not porkbarrel spending. Ask the troops who are waiting for care, and ask their families. I know $20 million to repair Walter Reed Hospital is not pork barrel spending. The $650 million for the SCHIP child health program to deal with the shortfall in 14 States is not porkbarrel spending. Ask the parents with sick children. The $2.25 billion for securing the country from terrorist attack, including port and border security, transit security, funds to improve screening for explosives at airports, and/or screening cargo on passenger aircraft is not porkbarrel spending. It is homeland security to prevent the death and destruction which President Bush warns about.
This country must not forsake critical domestic needs because of this President's single-minded obsession with his failed mission. Congress has appropriated more than $38 billion for rebuilding Iraq, and this agreement adds another $3 billion. I simply do not understand why this President--our President--is eager to commit billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad but absolutely opposes additional money to rebuild the gulf coast here in America. Why does President Bush decry needed funds for the Veterans' Administration to build a first-class health care system for our brave troops?
Porkbarrel spending? I think not. The conference agreement that is before the Senate today totals $124 billion. It is lower than the House bill. Yet essential funding for gulf coast recovery, veterans medical care, homeland security, and agricultural disaster relief remains.
The conference report also includes an increase in the minimum wage-- the first increase since 1997. It is needed, it is fair, and it is long overdue.
There is also $4.9 billion in tax incentives for small businesses that are fully paid for in the bill. Small business is the backbone of our economy and these incentives will help economic growth.
This bill includes more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense--nearly $4 billion above the President's inadequate request. It protects the troops by including $1.2 billion above the President's low number for mine-resistant vehicles.
This bill cares for the troops by providing $2.1 billion more than the President for health care, including more resources for troops with traumatic brain injury. Porkbarrel? I think not.
The President--our President--claims this is a partisan bill. The President claims Congress is trying to micromanage the war, substituting our judgment for the judgment of our generals. The President knows better.
The Constitution says that "the Congress shall have power"--do you know what that means? The Congress, that is us--"the Congress shall have power to . . . provide for the common Defence." It is the Congress--yes, it is the Congress--that is given the sole power to declare war. The Congress is sworn to "raise and support Armies." The Congress has heard the voices of the people, and we have responded as we are elected to do.
This conference agreement provides a new directive for the war in Iraq. It is patriotic, not partisan, to help the President to see the truth--the truth. It is our duty. It is a duty born of love for this great country, the Constitution, and the American people.
If the President decides to veto the bill, he will be holding funding for the troops hostage to his stubborn insistence on going into Iraq and the resulting disaster caused by his, the President's, war policies.
I encourage all Members to vote for this conference report. We can send a strong message to the White House. We can help this President face the truth. Four years after our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power, the President's policies simply are not working. They must change. We must come together as a country to repair the damage caused by this horrendous war--this horrendous war--and chart a new direction in Iraq.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Texas is to be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mrs. Hutchison: I will be happy to yield.
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The Presiding Officer: On the majority side, including time reserved for the leader, there is 53 minutes. And on the minority side, including the time of the leader, there is 74 minutes.
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speakers be in the following order: that following Senator Hutchison, I be recognized for 5 minutes, then Senator Lieberman, then to Senator Durbin for 5 minutes, to Senator Inhofe, and then to Senator Kennedy for 5 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Inhofe: Reserving the right to object, and I won't object, I am wondering why we are confining the time to 5 minutes if we have that many minutes remaining. If the Senator wishes to expand the time--
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, I inform the Senator that I was limiting the Senators on our side to 5 minutes. The Senator from Oklahoma has unlimited time. I did not give time to speak on the Senator's side.
Mrs. Hutchison: Parliamentary inquiry: There is a unanimous consent agreement already on our side.
The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
Mrs. Hutchison: What is the amount allocated for Senator Inhofe?
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous agreement, Senator Inhofe is provided 5 minutes.
Is there objection to the request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, does the time start now?
The Presiding Officer: Yes. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, when Tom Brokaw wrote the book "The Greatest Generation," it reminded America what is great about our country. It reminded us that men and women have sacrificed through the years for our country to make sure it was free for the next generation.
Can you imagine in the middle of World War II the Congress mandating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe and the Pacific, oblivious to the facts on the ground or the absolute necessity to win? Can you even imagine in the middle of the Cold War if Congress had required the withdrawal of troops from the same parts of the world, thinking that if we withdrew our troops, the Communists would do the same and peace would prevail?
If earlier Congresses had done what it appears this Congress is trying to do, freedom would have died in Europe, it would have died where it was in Asia, and who knows what would have happened in the future in America.
Today we have to ask ourselves: Are we worthy of the sacrifices so many have made in the past? Are we going to stand for freedom and fight for future Americans to have the same opportunities we have had because so many brave men and women have sacrificed?
There are those who say this isn't a world war; it is a civil war; it is over there, and we can't do anything about it. This is a tough time, there is no question. Every one of us grieves when we see the killing of innocent people, Iraqis or Americans. But make no mistake about it, this is a world war. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. General Petraeus said that yesterday. They have all the evidence. They know what al-Qaida is doing there. They are attacking Americans. They are attacking Iraqis. They are trying to take over Iraq so they will have the capability to spread their terrorism throughout the world.
Does that mean they are in a civil war or are they an enemy we must face? If we don't face it there, we will face it in our own country. General Abizaid, the former Commander of U.S. CENTCOM, said to the Armed Services Committee: If we leave, they will follow us home. If we don't stand for freedom against this enemy, we will see it again. We will see it on our own shores, and we will see it in other parts of the world.
It would be unimaginable to me for Congress not to fund our troops and to send the mixed message out of Washington to the enemy, to our allies in such an important conflict that Congress isn't sure if America has the will to stand and fight for freedom. And make no mistake about it, that is what is at stake in these votes that are happening on Capitol Hill.
I have heard people say: Oh, we are going to vote on this every month because it is good for politics. They may think it is good for politics, but I say the American people are going to get it. They are going to understand if we look weak in the Congress on standing and fighting the enemy wherever it is to keep Americans secure, they will see what happens and they will question if we are worthy of the sacrifices of the greatest generation.
I wondered when that book came out: If America were ever attacked, would we stand and fight for freedom? I hope the answer is yes. I hope the Congress will wake up and see that setting deadlines and sending the signal to the enemy that we are weak is not worthy of the sacrifices of the past.
I hope Congress will do the right thing, strip this language, send the money to the troops, and show that we, too, will stand for freedom for our children.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this supplemental appropriations conference report, and let me begin by thanking Senator Byrd, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, who has worked diligently throughout the process to bring us to this point today where we are addressing the critical infrastructure needs of this country as well as moving forward and changing course in Iraq.
I also thank and commend our majority leader, Senator Reid, for his courage and his diligence in speaking out to get us to a point where we will be sending a message to the President and to the country that we are willing to be courageous and change course in Iraq.
The agreement before us takes us on a responsible path on many of the most pressing issues of the day--the war in Iraq, as we have talked about and I spoke about on the floor yesterday, moving forward with the needs of our veterans and our injured servicemembers, homeland security, and the needs of our hard-hit communities here at home.
I realize my colleagues across the aisle would prefer that Congress obediently approve the President's request, but we are not. Instead, we are providing a funding bill that meets the needs of the American people and those bravely serving for us overseas and all of those here at home.
Last November, on November 7, the American people called for an end to the rubberstamp Congress, and today we are here to deliver. This is not, as some have tried to say, simply a war-funding bill. Instead, it provides funding for critical needs here at home in addition to the $100 billion in funding that is directed to our troops who are serving us so honorably overseas.
In recent weeks, there has been a lot of heated rhetoric and plenty of mischaracterizations about this important bill. Much of that has focused on the critically necessary language that is included in this bill that will transition our mission in Iraq and begin to redeploy our troops.
As Senator Byrd stated, there is much more in this bill. We need to pass this legislation because we need a new direction in Iraq, but we also need to pass this bill because it provides everything our troops need to complete their mission. It provides billions of dollars more to take care of them when they come home, and it will, finally, help American communities recover and rebuild.
In addition to funding for the troops overseas, this conference agreement provides more than $5 billion to ensure that our returning troops and veterans get the critically important healthcare they have earned and deserve and which we now so vividly see is needed.
It provides $6.9 million for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Senator Landrieu has been on the floor many times to talk about those families who have been forgotten on the gulf coast. We have not forgotten them in this bill, and this must get to the President and be signed to take care of those families.
We provide $2.25 billion in homeland security investments, including funds for port security and mass-transit security, for explosives detection equipment at our airports, and for initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed here in the Senate. These are needs which we cannot forget, and we include them in this bill.
We provide $3½billion to provide relief for our farmers and our ranchers across the country. There are many families who are struggling and who have suffered from drought and agricultural disasters. For too long, we have forgotten them in this country or ignored them or blocked their needs. The Senate today is saying we have not forgotten.
Finally, this conference agreement includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, a critical need throughout the West; low-income energy assistance, drastically needed in many of our communities; and pandemic flu preparations that all of us know we cannot forget.
I was on the floor yesterday to talk about much of the funding, but critically important is the funding for our troops and our veterans when they come home. We all vividly saw the Walter Reed scandal just a few weeks ago. We provide the funding to make sure our soldiers, whether they are at Walter Reed or any of our facilities across the country, get the best of care, from traumatic brain injury to post- traumatic stress syndrome.
Of course, again, we do have the Iraq language, which is so critical. I hope our colleagues, as we move this bill to the President, will remind him and the country that this bill is essential for our troops, for those of us here at home, and for the future of this country. We urge him to read the bill and to sign it.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the Chair.
The Senator said it well. The Senator could not have said it better. Senator Murray is right.
I thank Senator Murray, and I thank the Chair.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut has 10 minutes allocated in his own right.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq. Like most Senators of both parties, I support the appropriations in this bill. But because I strongly oppose its language on Iraq, I will vote no.
Earlier this week, the Senate majority leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why the bill now before this Chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq. It was the most comprehensive recent argument in support of this position, and so I wish to address myself to its content respectfully and point by point.
I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore I wish to take it up in good faith and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in- depth because this is a very serious discussion we are having this morning for America and its future security.
In his speech Monday, the Senate majority leader described the several steps this new strategy for Iraq would entail. The first step, he said, is to:
. . . transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war . . . to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter- terror operations.
I ask my colleagues to step back for a moment and consider this plan. When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be policing a civil war, that their operation should be restricted to the narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean? To begin with, it means our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias and terrorists who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has effectively argued should be the focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would, instead, be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes. I fear if we begin to withdraw, it will become both vicious and horrific.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians--men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone or their ethnicity. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us correctly to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to cry out and demand intervention in Darfur. To me, this makes no moral sense at all.
It also makes no strategic or military sense. Al-Qaida's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence because they know this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected Government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base. That is why al-Qaida blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last February, and that is why we are seeing mass-casualty suicide bombings by al-Qaida in Baghdad today. The sectarian violence the majority leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence al-Qaida hopes will take it to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality. I don't know how to say it any more plainly. It is al-Qaida that is trying to inflame a full- fledged civil war in Iraq. So we cannot both fight al-Qaida and get out of the civil war. They are one.
The majority leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct targeted counterterror operations under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys. But, again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?
By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike, and that, in turn, requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence. This is the kind of intelligence which can only come from ordinary Iraqis--the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. That, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side because they conclude we are there on their side, gaining their trust, and convincing them they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. It is at the heart of what is happening in Iraq today and is part of the Petraeus plan.
In sum, on this point, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still say you are going to fight al-Qaida there. If you believe that there is no hope of winning in Iraq or that the cost of victory there is not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
There is another irony in the Iraq language in this bill. For most of the past 4 years, under former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted antiterrorist sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.
That Rumsfeld strategy failed, and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops doing the right things to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for al-Qaida and its allies to exploit and allowed sectarian violence to begin to run rampant. Al- Qaida stepped into the security vacuum, as did the sectarian militias, and through horrific violence created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.
For years, many Members of Congress saw this and spoke to it. We talked about it. We called for more troops and a new strategy--and, for that matter, a new Secretary of Defense. Yet now, when President Bush has come around, when he has acknowledged the mistakes that have been made and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq and to install a new Secretary of Defense and a new commander in Iraq, now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old failed strategy--the Rumsfeld strategy--wasn't so bad after all, because that is what would be adopted in the language on Iraq in this bill. What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?
The second element in the plan outlined by the majority leader on Monday is the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007. Let us be absolutely clear what this means. The legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. That withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus-- in short, regardless of reality, on October 1, 2007. As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date, what strategic or military significance this date holds. Why not September 1? Why not January 1 or April 1? October 1, 2007, is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It is, I contend, a deadline for defeat.
How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First he said a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make desperately needed political compromises."
But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen, regardless of what the Iraqi Government does. How, then, if you are an Iraqi Government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices? On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its sponsors intend.
I ask the Chair, how much time have I used?
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Brown): The Senator from Connecticut has consumed the 10 minutes he was allocated.
Mr. Lieberman: I gather Senator Cornyn has yielded his 5 minutes to me?
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank the Chair.
This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of American troops in the months ahead would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."
That is the NIE, broadly supported and embraced by proponents of the Iraq language in this legislation.
Second, the majority leader said withdrawing our troops will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency."
My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is saying the insurgency is in some measure being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, presumably the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues, where is the evidence to support this theory? I find none. In fact, all the evidence I find supports the opposite conclusion. Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command and began implementing our new strategy there, American forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul, Fallujah, Tel'Afar, and Baghdad. What happened in these places? Did they stabilize when the American troops left? Did the insurgency go away? Of course not.
On the contrary, in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, al-Qaida and sectarian warriors rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal, on what evidence, on what data have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency there when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that withdrawal, the kind of withdrawal mandated by this legislation, will strengthen the terrorists and insurgents and increase violence?
I ask my colleagues to consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading tribal leaders in Anbar Province, who is now fighting on our side against al-Qaida because he is convinced we are on his side. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw? He said:
In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar, if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.
This is a man whose father was killed by al-Qaida, who risks his life every day to work with us, a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with . . . since 2003."
In his remarks earlier this week, Senator Reid also observed there is "a large and growing population of millions--who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."
On this I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. But my question to him and others supporting this language is this: How does this strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq who sit precariously on the fence?
What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to these people who are the majority in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them we are not longer going to make an effort to protect them and their families against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare we will be withdrawing our forces, regardless of whether they are making progress in the next few months toward political reconciliation? Where will their hopes be for a better life when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability and opportunity for a better life that the majority of Iraqis clearly yearn for?
Do my friends believe this is the way to convince Iraqis and the world of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this Chamber believe that by announcing a date certain for withdrawal we will empower Iraqi moderates, the mainstream, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children or more hospitals for their families or provide more freedom for everyone? With all due respect, this is a fantasy.
The third step the majority leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."
I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.
But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them-- regardless of how they behave.
We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.
But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like al-Qaida in Iraq will simply vanish.
Al-Qaida is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.
It wants to blow up the table--along with everyone seated at it. Al- Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.
The fourth step that the majority leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive . . . starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region."
I understand why we are drawn to ideas such as those that are in this legislation on Iraq. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people with Iraq. All of us would like to believe there is a better solution--quicker, easier--to the challenges we face in Iraq. But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths of which I have tried to speak. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism and sectarian violence or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iraq and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq, stop enabling the terrorists and insurgents who are killing too many Americans and Iraqis there today.
What we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we are beginning to make and a recognition of the significant challenges we still face. There are many uncertainties before us, many complexities, many challenges. Barely half of the new troops General Petraeus requested have even arrived in Iraq.
In following General Petraeus's path, there is no guarantee of success, but there is hope and a new plan for success. In rejecting General Petraeus's path, as this legislation would do, there is a guarantee of failure and, I fear, disaster. The plan embedded in this language contains no reasonable prospects for success. It is a strategy based on catch phrases and bromides rather than military realities and all that is on the line for us in Iraq.
It does not learn from the many mistakes that have been made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them. Let me be absolutely clear. In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost, but if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home. That is why I will vote no.
Mr. Akaka: Mr. President, we are now in our fifth year of this conflict in Iraq, and throughout that time I have met with commanders of our Armed Forces, listened to their experiences and recommendations, and after much consideration I have come to the conclusion that we are not on the right path. While some of my colleagues believe that we should support President George W. Bush, who continues to make decisions that place our men and women in the Armed Forces in harm's way, I disagree.
The past few months have been among the deadliest for our military personnel. We have seen 79 U.S. soldiers killed in February, 82 in March, and 85 so far this month. To the more than 3,300 U.S. soldiers that have been killed and the over 24,000 wounded since the conflict began, to our men and women in the Armed Forces and their families who are valiantly serving our country and to the American people, I say to all of you, we must change our course.
To stay the course is to welcome disaster. Iraq lies like the proverbial clay pot broken in shards on the ground. It is shattered into the fragments of warring factions, clans, and religious groups. Afghanistan, still the center of the war on al-Qaida, is becoming progressively more dangerous as our attention remains focused on Iraq. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are rebuilding their forces and terrorists have extended their attacks to North Africa and Western Europe. We are facing, as our military leaders tells us again and again, a "thinking enemy," one that learns and adapts. Should we not also learn and adapt? Can anyone doubt that our strategy needs to change?
Some have painted this conflict as simply a war against al-Qaida in Iraq. Let us not make the mistake of fooling ourselves. Al-Qaida is stoking the flames but it is the internal divisions among the Iraqis themselves which has made it the bonfire it is today. If the Iraqis unite, they can defeat al-Qaida as they have demonstrated in some provinces already. But as everyone, including the President and our military leaders, have observed, the Iraqis themselves must form a reconciliation government. American soldiers are not a thread that can permanently stitch together the broken parts of Iraq. The Iraqis themselves are the masters of their own fate.
The legislation before us today is a call for a new strategy. It requires that we change our present course. It makes clear that the war in Iraq can only be won by Iraqis. It is their will and their will alone that must determine the fate of their country. Americans cannot do the fighting for them. A democratic Iraq will not be established unless the Iraqis do it for themselves. We cannot put the shattered pieces of Iraq together. Only the Iraqis can do that.
Today, with the Senate passage of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, we will be providing $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for military housing. Mr. President, $1.789 billion would be provided for the Department of Veterans Affairs to specifically target treatment for veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, reduce the backlog of benefit claims, and ensure that facilities are maintained at the highest level. In addition, $6.9 billion would be appropriated for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, $650 million would be provided for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, $2.25 billion in homeland security investments, including funds for port security and mass transit security, and $3.5 billion to help relieve pressures that farmers and ranchers experienced due to severe drought and agricultural disasters.
In addition to funding these important efforts, the legislation includes an important step in setting the proper course in Iraq for our military servicemembers and their families by providing them with a road map to success. By outlining the benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqi government and clarifies our military involvement in Iraq. It defines our mission in Iraq by steering our military away from policing a civil war to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counterterror operations. A phased redeployment of our troops would begin no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for those carrying out security, training, and counterterror operations. This bill holds the Iraqi government accountable by setting benchmarks that must be met for security, political reconciliation, and improving the lives of the Iraqi people. It is no longer acceptable for this Administration to set arbitrary benchmarks that have no consequences attached to it. It is time for the Iraqi government and regional leaders to work together to promote democracy in Iraq. It is time for the United States to take the necessary steps that illustrates our willingness to relinquish control and allow the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to control their own destiny. And it is time for the Iraqi people to set their own path to victory and democracy.
The American people and more importantly, our servicemembers and their families, deserve to have the administration define our mission in Iraq. The President must also give a clear directive to the Iraqi government that it must demonstrate the will to overcome the civil unrest that is taking control of their country. Unfortunately, the President has indicated that he will veto this important legislation. By vetoing this legislation, this administration is sending the wrong message. It is preventing our troops from receiving the funds they need to continue their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is preventing victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita from rebuilding their lives and farmers and ranchers from receiving relief due to severe drought and agricultural disasters. Moreover, it is preventing our veterans from receiving the health care and benefits that they deserve.
It is time for this administration, this President, to lead us out of the morass in Iraq. This legislation sends the right message to our servicemembers, to the Iraqi government and its people, and to the American people. I urge the President to do the right thing and enact H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.
Mr. Salazar: Mr. President, today I will vote for the Iraq- Afghanistan emergency supplemental bill. I believe that this bill supports our troops, our veterans and their families, and should be signed by the President.
But first I would like to say that as we continue the debate on this legislation and on the best way forward in Iraq, I come to the floor today with two key principles in mind.
One, we should honor the bravery and courage of our troops. America's finest men and women have done an extraordinary job--too often without the needed equipment and support. But honoring our troops means more than just singing their praise. It means making sure that every American in Iraq is adequately trained and equipped; it means guaranteeing every veteran access to all available benefits and services; and it means setting a policy that is as wise as our soldiers are brave.
And two, we should work to heal the deep divisions which this war has caused at home. Not since Vietnam has the American public been so divided. I am concerned that the bitterness and the harshness of the debate clouds good judgment on the future direction in Iraq.
It is important for us to remember that, no matter how contentious this debate may become, every Senator shares the same goal: peace and stability in the Middle East and a safe return home for our troops. While we may disagree on the best path to that end, we must continue to work together for a constructive change in our policy. It is important to remember what binds us together--so that we will not be torn too far apart.
I would now like to comment on the bill before us today.
Specifically, the bill includes: More than $100 billion for our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan; more than $5 billion to help ensure that our veterans and their families can receive the health care they need and deserve when they return home; nearly $7 billion to rebuild the gulf coast and help the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita so that they can finally rebuild their homes, communities and livelihoods; and $3.5 billion in disaster assistance to help our farmers and ranchers across the Nation recover from 7 years of drought capped by this winter's devastating blizzards.
The bill sends a direct message to the Iraqis that our military commitment is not open-ended. We hold the Iraqi government accountable through measurable and achievable benchmarks for security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
The bill also launches a new diplomatic, economic and political offensive and takes steps to begin to rebuild our military.
Finally, it sets an April, 1, 2008, goal of redeploying U.S. troops not engaged in carrying out security, training and counterterror operations in Iraq.
I support this new direction for Iraq. This new direction recognizes the reality that success in Iraq is contingent upon a strategy of military, political and diplomatic progress.
I am disappointed that the President has said he intends to veto this legislation. But I remain hopeful. I believe that we must continue to seek a new course in Iraq. I believe we can and should do that by achieving a bipartisan consensus on the best path to success.
I know most of my Republican colleagues do not support this bill. But I believe they sincerely want to join in finding a solution to the difficult problem that confronts us in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group provides a model for how we can work in good faith, across party lines. And I believe that the group's recommendations can and should be our blueprint for a compromise that can gain broad support here in the Senate.
So next week, I will be back on the floor to discuss with my colleagues how we can implement those recommendations, working with the President.
Ms. Mikulski: Mr President, this morning I had the honor of saluting members of the Maryland Army National Guard as they departed to begin training for their upcoming deployment to Iraq. The 58th Brigade Combat Team, including the Headquarters Company from Pikesville, MD, the 1st Battalion of the 175th Infantry from Dundalk, MD, and the 1st Squadron of the 158th Cavalry Regiment, are leaving their families and communities to answer our Nation's call. As the Senator from Maryland and the Senator for Maryland, I have promised them that I will do everything I can to support them while they are on the battlefield, help care for their families while they are gone, and ensure they have the medical care, education, and job training benefits they need when they return.
I support the conference report on the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill because it will help us keep our promises to America's citizen soldiers and their families. Unfortunately, President Bush continues to threaten to veto this bill. I hope it will not come to that. I urge the President to work with this Congress to meet the pressing needs of our men and women in uniform.
I support this emergency supplemental bill because it: Fully funds the needs of our warfighters on the battlefield; adds $466 million to ensure veterans get health care they need when they come home; and requires the President to immediately change our mission in Iraq; and sets the goal of bringing our troops home by no later than April 1, 2008.
This bill states clearly that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect our troops. Our troops must understand that Congress will never abandon them, not while they are fighting on the battlefield and not when they come home. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home--swiftly and safely.
I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war, 4 years ago, on October 11, 2002. I opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust our diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the United Nations U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the threat from Saddam. The day of the vote, I said, we don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. Well, now we know: When we got to Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.
The United States went to war with Iraq, but today, we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there, mired in a civil war. No one could ask more of our troops. They are brave and courageous and have fought valiantly. And it is time to bring them home.
We need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gives us 79 recommendations as a way to go forward, but the President has completely ignored this report. Surely out of 79 recommendations, there are 50 we can agree on. The Iraq Study Group report calls for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to enable the United States to begin to move our forces out of Iraq responsibly. It provides a direction for the U.S. and Iraqi Governments to follow that could lead to withdrawal of American forces by the first quarter of 2008.
This is exactly the approach called for by this supplemental bill, which will have most of our troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What are we voting for? This bill contains a binding resolution that directs the President to promptly transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and begin a phased redeployment within 120 days. It sets a goal of bringing U.S. combat forces home by April 1, 2008, except for a limited number of troops essential for force protection, training, and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter terror operations.
This resolution also says success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi Government's ability to meet important benchmarks, including the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces so they can control the capitol city of Baghdad; giving Iraqi military commanders the authority to conduct operations without political interference; disarming sectarian militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are loyal to Iraq's Government; drafting and implementing legislation to ensure the equal division of Iraqi oil revenues; drafting and implementing legislation to reform the debaathification process; implementing a fair process for amending the Iraqi constitution to ensure minority rights are protected; and implementing new rules to protect minority rights in the Iraqi Parliament.
I support this Iraq resolution. It says what the Iraq Study Group has already told us: the problems in Iraq cannot be solved by the U.S. military--they require a political solution by the Iraqis and diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It says Congress and the American people will not only support the troops but continue to protect them as well.
I want to end this war, and the resolution in this bill will do just that. Yet in ending the war, it is my responsibility as a Senator to ensure that our troops are brought home not only swiftly but safely. I will not vote to end funding for the pay that supports military spouses and children, body armor and armored humvees our troops need for survival, tourniquets and surgical hospitals on the battlefield, jet fuel for the airplanes that take injured troops from Baghdad to Germany and then home, or the medical care they need when they get here.
In the last few weeks, we have all been shocked and awed by the conditions facing our wounded warriors. We know that more than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. Yet our troops are being twice wounded. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding, with historic rates of survival from even the most brutal battlefield injuries. Yet, while we have saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system is dysfunctional.
This supplemental includes an additional $20 million to improve conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and an additional $900 million for research and treatment of traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorder, and other physical and mental trauma. It also adds $466 million for veterans' health care, including $53 million for new polytrauma facilities and services, $10 million for 100 additional caseworkers to aid troops and their families as they transition from active duty, $25 million for prosthetic research and $120 million for mental health treatment.
We know this is only a downpayment for our troops and veterans. We need to overhaul the disability benefits system that is outdated and adversarial. We need a better system for transitioning our troops from active duty to the Veterans' Administration, to ensure they get the health care, job training, and educational benefits they deserve. We need to hear the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on how to fix the problems in our military and veterans hospitals. And I look forward to working with Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and Senator Inouye on a comprehensive reform package that will ensure our troops have the medical care they will need for the rest of their lives.
This supplemental supports our troops, follows the will of the American people, and follows the advice of the Iraq Study Group. It is time to change our direction in Iraq and bring our forces home. Let's send in the diplomats and bring our troops home safely and soon.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I offer for the record, the Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 1591, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007.
The conference report includes $124.153 billion in net, new discretionary budget authority for 2007, of which $100.681 billion is for defense activities and $23.472 billion is for nondefense activities. The additional budget authority will increase outlays by $31.935 billion in 2007. Of the total spending authority provided, H.R. 1591 designates $124.789 billion in budget authority as emergency spending, which will increase outlays by $31.926 billion.
The conference report to H.R. 1591 is subject to several points of order. First, the conference report includes emergency funding that would cause the $86.3 billion cap on 2007 emergency funding to be exceeded. This cap was included in S. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, and was made applicable by the deeming resolution included in section 7035 of P.L. 109-234. Funding above the cap counts against the subcommittees' allocations and would cause them to exceed their allocations. As a result, the conference report is subject to a point of order under 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. Second, the small business tax relief provisions included in the conference report reduce revenues by $4.465 billion over the 2006-2010 period. Because the Congress is over the revenue aggregates under the 2006 budget resolution, the conference report is subject to a point of order under section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. It should be noted that the tax provisions are fully offset over the 2007-2012 and 2007-2017 periods. Finally, the conference report is subject to a point of order under section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, for including a number of emergency designations for spending on nondefense activities.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
| HR. 1591, THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 1591, MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,2007 (Fiscal year 2007; $ millions) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Defense | Nondefense | Total | |
| Conference Report: | |||
| Emergency: | |||
| Budget Authority | $100,681 | 24,108 | 124,789 |
| Outlays | 26,665 | 5,261 | 31,926 |
| Nonemergency: | |||
| Budget Authority | 0 | -636 | -636 |
| Outlays | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| Total: | |||
| Budget Authority | 100,681 | 23,472 | 124,153 |
| Outlays | 26,665 | 5,270 | 31,935 |
Mr. Domenici: Mr. President, it is irresponsible for Congress to operate this way.
With the provisions in this bill, Congress is deserting our commitments to our military leaders and telling them that none of it matters, the war is over and your mission is done. Congress, with this bill, is reneging on the war and sending our men and women in uniform a demoralizing message.
I am committed to giving our military, led by General Petraeus, time and resources to try to calm Baghdad.
I understand the deep national unrest over the course of the war. I do not support an open-ended commitment in Iraq. The Iraqi government must do more.
But effectively abandoning our military effort at this time poses a treacherous threat to the United States and the region.
We should do right by our troops, give them the resources they need and work with the Iraqis toward solutions that will bring our Armed Forces home at an appropriate time.
Mr. Dodd: Mr. President, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have performed valiantly in Iraq in the face of great adversity. The costs of this war have been great to them and our Nation. Over 3,300 brave American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq over 30 from my own State of Connecticut.
To date, over $500 billion has been approved by Congress for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not including the $95.5 billion included in the conference agreement being debated today or the $141.7 billion in additional funding already requested by the administration for fiscal year 2008.
In addition, because of the war, our forces have been drained of critical combat gear and training time, adding another element to the costs of this war--our military's combat readiness. Two-thirds of the Army in the United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are reporting 'not ready' for duty, largely due to equipment and training shortfalls.
Now, as we have entered the fifth year of the Iraq war, it is long past time for a course correction. Rather than continue abetting the administration's efforts to escalate our entanglement in Iraq's civil war, it is time for Congress to assert itself and heed the American people's call for change.
The conference report before us today takes the first steps toward that change. While I wish it would have included stronger language to immediately begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq and limiting the mission there to counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi troops and force protection for remaining U.S. personnel, it does for the first time set some new goals for this administration and the Iraqi Government that will mandate a change of course. For the first time it demands real accountability from the President to take action to restore our military's readiness which has been hollowed out as a result of his policies. And this bill finally provides critical resources for combat gear and protective equipment that the Bush- Cheney-Rumsfeld administration has consistently shortchanged in their budget proposals.
Regrettably, as my colleagues know, the President has already said that he will refuse to sign this legislation into law. He has announced his intention to veto this bill because after 4 years of a disastrous war policy, escalating combat deaths, and growing instability in the region, he insists that his is the only way. It is disheartening that President Bush does not see or will not admit that his policy in Iraq is a failure.
In plowing ahead on the current course in Iraq, the President has rejected the advice of experts from across the political spectrum, from the Baker-Hamilton Report, and from members of Congress, all of whom have urged him to change the course in Iraq, to diminish our military footprint there, and to start a surge of diplomacy in the region. Like all my colleagues, I want to see success in Iraq. I wish that the President's policies were working. I wish that U.S. combat forces were able to restore security to Baghdad and to other parts of Iraq. I wish that the President had not mismanaged this war from day one. I wish that we had deployed enough troops on the ground to secure the peace at the outset. I wish that Secretary Rumsfeld hadn't run the Coalition Provisional Authority like a staffing agency for Republican political operatives, displacing countless U.S. Foreign Service professionals in the beginning of the war. I wish we hadn't disbanded the Iraqi Army and that we hadn't allowed looting. And I wish that our surge of 30,000 more men and women in uniform into Iraq could be successful in stabilizing that country.
But now is not the time for wishful thinking. Now is the time to address the real facts on the ground. This conflict cannot be resolved by increased military action. It requires a coherent, broad-based strategy to promote the political reconciliation necessary to secure the future for Iraq.
The bill before us begins that process. If the President determines that the Iraqis are not making progress on key political, security, and economic benchmarks, then, under this legislation, the redeployment of American troops would begin this summer. If, on the other hand, the President determines that the Iraqis are complying with the benchmarks set forth in the legislation, then the redeployment of American forces would begin later in the fall of 2007. These reasonable and responsible timetables and benchmarks will force the President to change his strategy and will incentivize the Iraqi Government to take difficult but necessary steps toward reconciliation, power sharing, and security.
This bill also allows for a limited ongoing presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for the specific purposes of training and equipping reliable Iraqi security forces, carrying out counterterrorism operations within Iraq, and providing force protection, because we understand that these vital components will be necessary to ensure a stable and secure Iraq even after our combat troops have been redeployed. Iraqis will continue to need some limited American assistance, and it is in our and Iraq's national interests for that limited support to continue.
Exactly 1 day after President Bush disingenuously charged the Democratic Congress for causing what he called "unacceptable" delays in troops returning home, Secretary Gates announced that he was immediately extending the tour lengths of those units sent to Iraq to 15 months--3 months longer than before. In addition, 13,000 National Guard troops from Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Ohio, as well as other States, were recently told to prepare to be deployed to Iraq.
As a result of 4 years of war in Iraq, our Army has been stretched to its breaking point.
It is time to say, "enough is enough." And with this supplemental bill, Congress is taking a big step in that direction. This bill holds the President directly responsible for units being deployed who are not "fully mission capable", by requiring him to waive requirements that mandate that units fully restock their depleted equipment inventories and restore their mission readiness prior to deployment. It includes funding for critical equipment, including mine-resistant, ambush- protection vehicles which would dramatically lower the number of injuries and casualties sustained by our troops. And it includes billions of dollars for health care for our wounded veterans, many of whom return home with debilitating and life-altering injuries. They have sacrificed everything for this Nation, and at the very least we owe them the best health care available.
Sadly, there is no magic formula for fixing the myriad problems in Iraq, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission rightly pointed out. But it is critical that Iraqis make progress on reconciliation and security and that the Government improves the living conditions of its citizens. Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders must also play a role in finding such a solution. The United States and Iraq's neighbors all have long- term interests in the region, and a broken Iraq does not advance those interests.
With this supplemental bill, Congress is offering the President an opportunity to change our course in Iraq, to listen and respond to the will of the American people, to support the men and women sacrificing their lives there, and to provide for a responsible change in strategy in Iraq.
It is also vital that we make America more resilient here at home. This bill begins to do just that, in providing $325 million to protect the millions of Americans who ride public transportation each day.
Our Nation's public transit systems are inadequately prepared to minimize the threat and impact of potential terrorist attacks. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has invested nearly $24 billion in aviation security--protecting the 1.8 million people who fly on an average day. At the same time, our National Government has invested only $386 million, before the 110th Congress began, in transit security to protect the 14 million people who ride transit on an average workday. Put another way, since 2001, our Nation has spent over $7.50 per passenger on aviation security but less than one penny per transit rider on transit security. I am not suggesting that we ought to be investing equally, but clearly this is not the appropriate balance.
As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I have made improving our national security a top priority. The very first hearing that I held as chairman focused on increasing the security of our Nation's 14 million daily transit passengers. The very first legislation that the committee considered during my chairmanship was the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which was reported by the Banking Committee unanimously on February 8. The legislation authorizes the distribution of $3.5 billion in security funds, over the next 3 fiscal years, on the basis of risk directly to transit agencies.
The Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was included as title XV of the 9/11 bill, which the Senate passed on March 13. Senator Shelby and I worked with Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran to include language in the legislation to allow for such sums as necessary to be appropriated in this fiscal year to address the critical needs of our Nation's transit systems. The $325 million included in this appropriations act is a significant investment toward our goal of better securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. This investment builds on the $175 million that was included in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution. I once again thank all of the members of the Banking and Appropriations Committees who have worked so hard to advance us to where we are today.
This bill also continues congressional efforts to help the citizens of Mississippi and Louisiana rebuild their lives after the catastrophic effects of Hurricane Katrina by including more than $1.3 billion to fund flood and storm damage reduction projects in affected areas.
Finally, I want to take a few brief moments to discuss the minimum wage increase provision included in this bill. It has been nearly 10 years since millions of hard-working men and women have seen their wages go up. During that time, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of families being paid the minimum wage. In fact, the real value of the minimum wage has declined $4 below what it was nearly 40 years ago, in 1968. It is currently at its lowest inflation-adjusted level in more than 50 years. During the past 10 years, while the minimum wage remained unchanged, the cost of housing, food, health care, education, transportation, and energy has increased.
We cannot reduce poverty if we don't tackle raising the minimum wage. It is simply outrageous that so many Americans live in poverty, and it is long overdue that we take action to reduce the inexcusable and unconscionably high levels of poverty in this country. The language of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which is included in this bill, will provide a three-step increase in wages over 26 months from the current level of $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. This additional $4,400 per year would allow a low-income family of three to buy 8 months of rent, 15 months of groceries, 19 months of utilities, 20 months of childcare, or more than 24 months of health insurance.
I urge the President to seize this opportunity to make America and Iraq stronger and safer. I sincerely hope he will reconsider his decision to veto this bill when it arrives on his desk. Such a veto would be an affirmation of the status quo in America, a status which this Nation can simply no longer afford.
Continue on to DocID:cr26ap07-158; Part 2
