Iraq War Debate
US Senate/March 27, 2007

U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT,
2007--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk an updated version of an amendment I filed earlier today to H.R. 1591.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to cooperate with my friend and
colleague. If the Senator would give us a few moments to go over that
for the leadership to work that out. I do not do it as a matter of
personal privilege but as speaking for our leader on this side. So if
the Senator would withhold for a half an hour or so.
I would have to object to it. I do not personally object to it. I
object for the leadership until it has an opportunity to examine the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I raise a question. Will the
distinguished Senator be able to respond that I have submitted the
amendment, in other words, that I would not have to reappear to
resubmit the amendment at that time or is the Senator in a position to give us that assurance?
Mr. President, I have already submitted the amendment, and I am
submitting an updated version of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is the Senator trying to perfect his own amendment?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, and I am attempting to file the amendment. It was requested I appear in person to do so.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator is requesting to alter his amendment, I have no objection to him doing so.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 680
(Purpose: To provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage, and for other purposes)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, amendment No. 680 is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself,
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment
numbered 680.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under "Text of
Amendments.")
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Members, as they remember, we passed the substance of this legislation, I believe, 97 to 3. That is what is effectively the substance of this legislation. The House of Representatives has passed its own minimum wage. Because of the parliamentary complexities, we were unable to get this issue resolved. The House has included a minimum wage provision in their proposal.
We offer this proposal, which is an expression of the Senate. It has broad bipartisan support-Republican and Democrat. This will mean both pieces of legislation-the supplemental-will have the minimum wage, and then the conferees will be able to make their judgment. But out of it will come an increase in the minimum wage. So it is in that spirit. I am delighted to debate the minimum wage, but I think we had a good debate. We had, I think, close to 7 days' debate on it in the last few weeks, so I do not think that is necessary.
That is the current situation. That is the reason that legislation is
pending at this time. I very much appreciate the cooperation of the
floor managers in letting us get this at least up before the Senate at
this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment-is the distinguished Senator from North Carolina intending to manage this legislation?
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is not
intending to manage this side. Our manager is not here right now. I
would ask the Senator from Oregon if he would withhold setting the
current amendment aside. If he wishes to talk on an amendment, feel
free to, but at this time I would have to object to setting aside the
pending amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would be happy to do that.
Amendment No. 709
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bipartisan
amendment I will be offering as soon as we have a manager on the other side to conduct business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer a bipartisan
amendment to address the great needs of rural communities across this
country. It is an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, the
distinguished Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith; Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Domenici, and a large additional group of Senators of both political parties who wish to see reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act which is also known as the County Payments Program.
Mr. President and colleagues, without this amendment, there is a very real prospect small counties in the rural West are going to fall into the Pacific Ocean. These small counties are now standing on the abyss because without county payments funding, they simply are not going to be able to pay for critical services such as law enforcement and rural education.
In Oregon, the sheriff of Grants Pass told me without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The county commissioners of Curry County report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payments funds, have already released prisoners from their jails. Local communities in many other States face similar hardships.
Some Senators may not yet be fully aware of what the county payments law is about, so I am going to give a brief explanation of how the program has come to be.
County payments are not welfare, but they are a more than 100-year-
old Federal obligation that goes back to the creation of the Federal
forest system. The deal was if Federal policy prevented local
communities from maximizing their revenues from their forests, the Federal Government would provide a partial payment to these local communities so they could pay for essential services such as law enforcement and schools.
As environmental values changed in the 1990s, and these payments grew even smaller, Senator Craig of Idaho and I wrote the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That law compensated these rural communities for part of what they needed to pay for essential services. The act has worked extraordinarily well and expired at the end of last year.
In this amendment, our large bipartisan coalition-and I read only a number of the Senators from both political parties who are sponsoring this amendment-our large group seeks to put in place a new updated lifeline to small rural counties. County payments would be extended for 5 years and a new formula put in place to provide greater funding to more than 80 percent of the counties in our country. The formula is based on the current funding formula for county payments and the acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with a mechanism to focus support on those communities where there is greatest economic need.
In addition to the County Payments Program, this amendment also assists States with a similar program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. This is a program which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from [[Page S3794]]
Federal lands in their State. For the first time in modern history,
this program will receive full funding, and it will result in
additional support for each county with Federal land.
I note at this time, particularly, the exceptional work done by the
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, with
Senator Bingaman and so many of our colleagues of both political
parties, has been involved in these efforts. As a result of those
combined efforts, this amendment is paid for with all funding beyond
2007 paid for by closing tax loopholes that have been identified by
Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
This bipartisan amendment is supported by a diverse coalition,
including the National Association of Counties, many labor
organizations, and education advocates across the country. I urge the Senate this afternoon to recognize the exceptional urgency of this situation and to support the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the County Payments Program and to strengthen the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.
Rural communities across this country have been hit with a wrecking ball. With the change in environmental values, we have seen many of them, as they look to diversify their economies, reach out and find new industries, yet they have still had great difficulty in paying for essential services.
As they try to meet these challenges-and I am committed, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, to work on finding new economic opportunities for these rural communities-the country should not turn its back on rural America as it looks to come up with vibrant, new economic prospects for the future.
These laws-the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act and the law that puts in place the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Program-provide essential funding and will be a lifeline as these
communities work to transition into additional areas that make sense for resource-based economies.
Today, these small communities are asking the Senate to help them from falling into the abyss. The blow to rural communities, if they lose county payments, will be a crippling blow that, in my view, some rural counties simply will not be able to recover from.
Mr. President and colleagues, let us remember rural America as we consider this legislation. I hope Senators of both political parties will join the very large block of Democratic and Republican Senators who offer this amendment today.
Mr. President, we are waiting for a manager on the other side. A
number of colleagues, particularly the Senator from Illinois, has been
very gracious and very patient. I think what I wish to do is yield at
this time. When a manager comes, we will resume deliberations.
I thank the Senator from Illinois for his patience.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at this point we cannot set aside the pending amendment because we are waiting for a floor manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from Illinois, unanimous consent needs to be sought and granted in order to proceed while the Cochran amendment is pending.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, why don't I wait to find out whether it is
possible for the Senator from Oregon to potentially call up his
amendment. If not, then what I would like to do is speak on my
amendment and find out when I can call up my amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has indicated he would speak very briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois could speak for his 5 minutes, and with the floor manager coming on to the floor, that we could then turn to the county payments legislation after the Senator from Illinois has spoken for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak, if the Senator from Oregon is able to call up his amendment, I be able to call up my amendment as well thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 664
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, toward the end of World War II, Norman Rockwell created a cover for the Saturday Evening Post titled "Homecoming GI." It is a picture of a soldier returning from war. He has a duffle bag clutched in his left hand. He is looking up at the back of a brick building with laundry hanging from the back porch. A woman in an apron sees him with outstretched arms, and a young child races down the stairs. Everyone sees that soldier-the neighbors' kids, the man fixing the roof, faces from another window-and everyone welcomes that soldier who has come home from war.
That is what our Nation did for the millions of servicemembers who returned from the Atlantic and the Pacific. We watched them come home in waves. Some were just as strong as their first day in battle; others limped. We saw them crowd Times Square. We saw them walk down Main Street and sit on stoops. My grandfather, who fought in Patton's army, would often speak about this time as America at its finest. That homecoming didn't just happen; we were ready for it.
Long before the beaches of Normandy were stormed and the last battle was fought, in 1943 President Roosevelt said:
Among many other things, we are, today, laying plans for
the return to civilian life of our gallant men and women in
the armed services. They must not be demobilized into an
environment of inflation and unemployment, to a place on a
bread line, or on a corner selling apples. We must, this
time, have plans ready instead of waiting to do a hasty,
inefficient, and ill-considered job at the last moment.
These are the words of wisdom that we ignore at our peril.
Today we have more than 631,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the global war on terror. According to a recent VA health care report, one-third-more than 205,000--have sought treatment at VA health facilities.
Even if the war in Iraq comes to an end soon-and I hope the Senate takes action this week to accomplish that goal-the war will live on with our servicemembers and their families for the rest of our lives.
Unfortunately, over the past month, we have all seen the disturbing
pictures of neglect at Walter Reed. We have read about bats and
bureaucratic redtape at the VA. We have seen too many stories about our
veterans who have been forgotten-not greeted by the Nation that asked
them to serve. The time has come for us to see this generation of
veterans in all their valor and pain. We should provide them with a
plan that is worthy of their courage and will help build back the
military they love.
That is what Senator McCaskill and I are trying to do with the
amendment we offer today.
First, we provide an additional $41 million to hire more caseworkers to assist servicemembers navigating the military's bureaucracy. The last thing a wounded servicemember should have to face when they return home is a front line of paperwork and delay. Right now, the caseworker-to-service-member ratio at Walter Reed is 1 to 50. Caseworkers help recovering soldiers schedule appointments, take care of their everyday needs, and fill out paperwork. Military caseworkers are overwhelmed. I understand the Army is reducing the caseworker-to-service-member ratio to 1 to 17, and I applaud this move. Our amendment would help the military achieve this goal at all military hospitals.
Our amendment also provides $30 million for the Armed Forces to
create an Internet-based system for servicemembers to submit their
paperwork electronically. No longer will amputees and servicemembers in
wheelchairs have to go to countless offices to fill out duplicative
forms only to learn that the forms have been lost in Government
bureaucracy.
We also need to do more to increase the number of mental health
crisis counselors available to assist recovering servicemembers and
their families. Too many servicemembers are returning home with unmet
mental health needs-stresses that are often experienced by their
family members.
[[Page S3795]]
That is why our amendment provides $17 million for more mental health crisis counselors.
While we all praise how our country treated the servicemembers
returning from World War II, we must remember the lessons after
Vietnam. The landmark National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study was congressionally mandated in 1983, 15 years after the height of that war. The completed report showed the vast majority of Vietnam veterans had successfully acclimated to postwar life.
We can't wait 15 years to plan and prepare for the readjustment needs of the servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The average age of a servicemember deployed since September 11 is 27. The average age of our Guard and Reserves is 33. Sixty percent of those deployed have family responsibilities, and 47 percent of those who have died have left families. Mr. President, 160,000 women have been deployed, and 10 percent of those women are single mothers. These men and women are going to face real challenges in readjusting to normal life.
Our amendment would provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the mental health and readjustment needs of returning servicemembers. This study will assist the Department of Defense, the Veterans' Administration, and Congress in planning for the long-term needs of our veterans.
Last week I met a woman at Walter Reed. She is one of the 160,000 women who have been deployed, and she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of us associate PTSD with men in combat, but many of the women in theater face firsthand dangers in their combat support roles. Driving a truck in Baghdad is one of the most dangerous missions around, and it is considered a support role. Women are witnessing the horrors of improvised explosive devices and the horrors of losing fellow servicemembers, and too many are experiencing the trauma of sexual harassment or abuse.
This young woman was very scared, and she trembled as we spoke. I asked her what we could do to help. She said that she could not handle group therapy sessions; she could only tolerate one-on-one sessions with counselors. Her experience is shared by many women. Treatment for women with PTSD, especially sexual abuse victims, is very different from treatment for men.
That is why as part of our amendment we want to provide $15 million to address the unique mental health needs of women. This funding will ensure the development and implementation of a women's treatment program for mental health conditions, including PTSD. It will also include the hiring and training of sexual abuse counselors so that the servicemembers who suffer from this trauma do not have to suffer in silence. We can do this for the woman I met at Walter Reed and the thousands who suffer like her.
The total cost of our amendment is $103 million-less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total cost of this bill. This is the least we can do for our servicemembers recovering at Walter Reed and other military hospitals.
I am proud that Veterans For America has endorsed our amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of endorsement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Veterans For America,
March 27, 2007.
Dear Senator Obama: Veterans for America commends you for
fighting to ensure that the service-related needs are met of
the one and a half million men and women who have been
deployed in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We commend you
for fighting to enact an amendment-based primarily on the
provisions of the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act (S. 713)--
to the current emergency supplemental appropriations bill (S.
965).
This is the most important piece of legislation offered
since the start of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today's military is drastically different from any other we
have ever sent to war. Too many of our troops are returning
to a system that completely ignores their most urgent
service-related health and readjustment needs.
One fact is quite striking: of the tens of billions of
dollars spent to meet the needs of America's veterans, less
than one percent is spent on this generation.
We waited almost 15 years after the end of the Vietnam War
to examine the specific needs of my generation through the
National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study. We fought hard
for this study, and while we waited for its completion, tens
of thousands of lives were shattered.
We cannot wait that long this time. The study included in
your amendment will prevent us from failing thousands upon
thousands of our service members and veterans. We must stop
throwing money at a broken system that does not address the
most urgent unmet needs of today's service members and
veterans.
I also want to commend your efforts to recognize the
challenges faced by women service members and veterans. The
needs of women troops are being effectively ignored. This is
a national disgrace.
Again, you have my sincere thanks and the thanks of
millions of others who have proudly served our country.
Sincerely,
Bobby Muller,
President.
Mr. OBAMA. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. At this point I turn the floor back to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and I ask, if the floor managers are prepared, that I be able to call up this amendment after the Senator from Oregon does so with his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the Obama amendment and then go back to regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I apologize. I should have allowed----
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just clarify for all of us, could you tell us what the current unanimous consent agreement has in it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment before the Senate is the Cochran amendment. The Senator from Illinois had asked unanimous consent to address the Senate for 5 minutes, and then when he completed, to yield back to Senator Wyden to continue to discuss his amendment. There was no objection. Further, after the Wyden amendment was brought up, the next amendment to be offered would be that of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. There was no objection.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Amendment No. 664
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the
amendment that will be offered by Senator Obama. Our amendment takes part of the legislation we have introduced, the Dignity for the Wounded Warriors Act, and moves it to the front of the line.
The question which has to be asked is, Why? Why is it important that this go into this bill at this time? There is a lot of talk about what should and shouldn't go into the supplemental. I think it is important we realize if we don't act immediately to begin to take the kind of care of our wounded they need to have, that they should have, that we are morally bound to give them, then we shouldn't be passing any more supplemental funding for any more activities in this war.
It is of primary importance to us that we take care of the men and women who have been wounded, who have given more than most Americans will ever give as it relates to this conflict in the Middle East.
I have to say, if you step back and look at this problem, it is not
just the active military hospitals that this amendment deals with, but
it is the entire system of medical care for our wounded and for our
veterans.
I was struck last week when a report came out on all the veterans
facilities around the country. This was an internal report done by the
Veterans' Administration but contained in that report was a startling
revelation. In that report they found there was a bat infestation in a
veterans hospital in the State of the Senator from Oregon.
Now, one would think that if you found a bat infestation in a
hospital alarms would go off, lights would signal, and the head of that
hospital would step up and say: I failed. Oh, no. The head of that
hospital said the bats had been helpful to the insect population.
Understand that with this particular species of bat, there is more
bacteria contained in an ounce of the droppings from this animal than any other species of bat. Microbiologists [[Page S3796]]
yearn to study these droppings because of all of the bacteria that is
contained in them.
Something is terribly wrong when we have a veterans hospital in this country that is putting up with an infestation of bats, and if we don't have it in us to fix this medical facility and all others like it in this country, then shame on us. Shame on our Nation that we can't do what we must do to take care of those who have taken care of us.
All the rhetoric about "support the troops"-forget about it if we
can't do basic medical care for those who are coming home who are
wounded. We specifically deal with that in our amendment, with the
additional funds in this supplemental that we have added to the
President's budget to care for our veterans and veterans facilities.
There is no job we have here that is more important. I hope my
colleagues will support this amendment and the addition of about $1.7 billion in funding to the supplemental for veterans care. They are both important. They are both moral imperatives. It is time we make that phrase-"support our troops"-more than a political phrase.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon, or to go back to
regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my bipartisan amendment on county payments and the payment in lieu of taxes.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object but for the purpose of asking if there would be any objection to my offering an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and then yielding to the Senator. We wouldn't have any debate, but we would just offer this amendment so it would be pending in the regular order.
Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to proceed, but I recognize the manager on our side.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just clarify, is it amendment No. 690?
Mr. COCHRAN. It is amendment No. 690.
Mrs. MURRAY. Then we would not object.
Amendment No. 690
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Lugar,
proposes an amendment numbered 690.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 690
(Purpose: To provide that, of the funds appropriated by this Act under
the headings "diplomatic and consular programs" and "Economic
Support Fund" (except for the Community Action Program), up to
$50,000,000 may be made available to support and maintain a civilian reserve corps)
On page 56, after line 18, insert the following:
CIVILIAN RESERVE CORPS
Sec. 1713. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the
headings "diplomatic and consular programs" and "Economic
Support Fund" (except for the Community Action Program), up
to $50,000,000 may be made available to support and maintain
a civilian reserve corps. Funds made available under this section shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 709
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up our bipartisan amendment on County Payments and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Smith, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Domenici, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bennett, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes
an amendment numbered 709.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under "Text of
Amendments.")
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a great many Senators of both political
parties have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation: the
distinguished Senate majority leader; the chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus; chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman; Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Stevens, Bennett, Cantwell, Boxer, Murray, Crapo, Tester, and Murkowski. A great many Senators have agreed to be cosponsors.
My understanding is that, perhaps, in a few minutes the Senate is going to be given a choice of two approaches on how to deal with this issue: the approach that I and a large bipartisan group of Senators are offering this afternoon or an approach that will be offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, our colleague, Senator Burr, which, in my view, is very restrictive and, unfortunately, it is not in line with what Senator Craig and I sought to do on a bipartisan basis back in 2000.
Our law that was enacted at that time was called the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would, for example, make it very difficult for local law enforcement to get some of these essential dollars that have been absolutely critical to public safety for all these years.
My view is that, under our bipartisan proposal, local law enforcement would have at least a fair measure of the resources they need to fight methamphetamine in local communities across the country. Our colleague from North Carolina, in his approach, would not make that possible. So I hope that, as colleagues consider this debate, they will vote in favor of the amendment I offer this afternoon, on behalf of the large group of Senators of both political parties who have been intimately involved in this program for many years.
Our amendment is fully paid for through the good work of the chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope our colleagues will vote
for our amendment and will reject the amendment of the Senator from
North Carolina, which is much more restrictive and, unfortunately,
forgets the second part of the legislation that is so vital to rural
communities and that is law enforcement and roads and other essential services.
I had a chance to speak on this earlier, so I will be brief. Other colleagues would like to speak as well. The reality in rural America and the rural West is that communities are about to fall off a financial cliff.
They are going to lose these essential funds that have been part of a
Federal obligation for more than a hundred years. It is not a welfare
program. It is not some kind of a handout that goes to rural
communities in the West. These are communities where the Federal
Government owns most of the land. The local community is not allowed to
maximize its revenues on those lands because the Federal Government has
essentially said we are not going to treat them as private property,
where you generate a sale and revenue and you pay for essential
services.
So the Federal Government entered into an agreement more than a
hundred years ago to provide compensation to those local communities where the Federal Government owned most of the land. What our bipartisan group wants to do is update and modernize that obligation that was incurred more than a hundred years ago when the Federal forest system was established.
Our amendment would resolve the budget crisis that is confronting rural communities by fully funding the County Payments Program for 2007, and then we set in place a formula that was negotiated for many months through a large group of Senators.
I have the chart indicating the new formula that has been put into place. It makes it very clear that Senators understand this program, because of the [[Page S3797]] will of this body, ought to be modernized. That is what we have done. But in addition to that effort, we have made sure the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in that State, would receive support as well. And every county in our country with Federal land would benefit from this particular program. The emergency funding is what gets us over the first year of the program; it is a 5-year program. Senator Baucus has been willing because he feels strongly about making sure when the Federal Government steps in and goes to bat for rural communities, that it will be fully paid for. On the Senate Finance Committee, because of Chairman Baucus's leadership, we are going to raise those funds by closing tax loopholes.
I know my friend from North Carolina is going so speak in a moment. I wish to note, again, a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this: Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Crapo, Stevens, Bennett, and Murkowski. They have all said that this amendment is the way to go if you want to stand up for rural communities. But if you want to make a break with 100 years' worth of history and not even give rural communities the opportunity to get support, as they historically have, for local law enforcement, then Senators can vote for the amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr. I hope my colleagues will not do that.
We are going to have two votes. One will be on the amendment I
offered with that large bipartisan group of Senators I listed. I hope
Senators will vote in favor of that amendment.
There will be another amendment offered by the Senator from North
Carolina. For the reasons I have described this afternoon, I hope
Senators will vote against that. Keep in mind that under the amendment
offered by the Senator from North Carolina, if you have people who are
concerned about local law enforcement they are not, under the amendment
of the Senator from North Carolina, going to be able to get support as
it relates to law enforcement-the needed support to fight meth and to
be able to protect public safety in their communities. That is why the
large coalition I have described this afternoon is in favor of what I
am proposing.
The Senator from North Carolina has come to the floor. I have
enormous respect for him. He is going to be the ranking member on the subcommittee. We don't happen to see eye to eye on this issue. I point out that the predecessor of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Craig, is a cosponsor of this amendment. He remembers the history from back in 2000, when we came together. It is my intent to allow the Senator from North Carolina time to offer his amendment as well, and then at that time I would like to respond to what the distinguished Senator from North Carolina said about his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, is it possible for the Senator from Oregon
to yield to me briefly so I could call up an amendment? I will call it
up, would not discuss it and it can then be set aside and we can
immediately go to the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. WYDEN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 664
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 664.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama], for himself, Mrs.
McCaskill, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 664.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To appropriate an additional $58,000,000 for Defense Health program for additional mental health and related personnel, an additional $10,000,000 for operation and maintenance for each of the military departments for improved physical disability evaluations of members of the Armed Forces, and an additional $15,000,000 for Defense Health Program for women's mental health services)
At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:
SEC. 1316. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FOR ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED PERSONNEL.
The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this
chapter under the heading "Defense Health Program" is
hereby increased by $58,000,000, with the amount of the
increase to be available for additional caseworkers at
military medical treatment facilities and other military
facilities housing patients to participate in, enhance, and
assist the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES)
process, and for additional mental health and mental crisis
counselors at military medical treatment facilities and other
military facilities housing patients for services for members
of the Armed Forces and their families.
SEC. 1317. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FOR THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS FOR IMPROVED
PHYSICAL DISABILITY EVALUATIONS OF MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Additional Amount for Operation and Maintenance,
Army.-The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this chapter under the heading "Operation and Maintenance,
Army" is hereby increased by $10,000,000, with the amount of
the increase to be available in accordance with subsection
(d).
(b) Additional Amounts for Operation and Maintenance for
Department of the Navy.-The aggregate amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by this chapter under the headings
"Operation and Maintenance, Navy" and "Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps" is hereby increased by
$10,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available
in accordance with subsection (d).
(c) Additional Amount for Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force.-The amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by this _chapter under the heading "Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force" is hereby increased by $10,000,000,
with the amount of the increase to be available in accordance
with subsection (d).
(d) Internet Access to Physical Disability Evaluations of
Members of the Armed Forces.-
(1) In general.-Each Secretary of a military department
shall, utilizing amounts appropriated by the applicable
subsection of this section, develop and implement an Internet
website to permit members of the Armed Forces who are subject
to the Physical Disability Evaluation system of such military
department to participate in such system through the
Internet.
(2) Elements.-Each Internet website under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) The availability of any forms required for the
utilization of the physical disability evaluation system
concerned by members of the Armed Forces who are subject to
such system.
(B) Secure mechanisms for the submission of forms described
in subparagraph (A) by members of the Armed Forces described
in that subparagraph, and for the tracking by such members of
the acceptance and review of any forms so submitted.
(C) Secure mechanisms for advising members of the Armed
Forces described in subparagraph (A) of any additional
information, forms, or other items that are required for the
acceptance and review of any forms so submitted.
(D) The continuous availability of assistance for members
of the Armed Forces described in subparagraph (A), including
assistance through the caseworkers assigned to such members,
in submitting and tracking forms, including assistance in
obtaining information, forms, or other items described by
subparagraph ©.
SEC. 1318. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FOR
WOMEN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this
chapter under the heading "Defense Health Program" is
hereby increased by $15,000,000, with the amount of the
increase to be available for the development and
implementation of a women's mental health treatment program
for women members of the Armed Forces to help screen and
treat women members of the Armed Forces, including services
and treatment for women who have experienced post-traumatic
stress disorder and services and treatment for women who have
experienced sexual assault or abuse, which services shall
include the hiring and training of sexual abuse crisis
counselors for members of the Armed Forces who have
experienced sexual abuse or assault.
SEC. 1319. STUDY ON MENTAL HEALTH AND READJUSTMENT NEEDS OF MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO DEPLOYED IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM AND THEIR FAMILIES.
(a) In General.-Using amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available by this chapter under the heading "Defense Health Program", the Secretary of Defense shall, in [[Page S3798]]
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, enter
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for a
study on the mental health and readjustment needs of members
and former members of the Armed Forces who deployed in
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and
their families as a result of such deployment.
(b) Phases.-The study required under subsection (a) shall
consist of two phases:
(1) A preliminary phase, to be completed not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to
determine the parameters of the final phase of the study
under paragraph (2).
(2) A second phase, to be completed not later than two
years after the date of the enactment of this Act, to carry
out a comprehensive assessment, in accordance with the
parameters identified under paragraph (1), of the mental
health and readjustment needs of members and former members
of the Armed Forces who deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom
or Operation Enduring Freedom and their families as a result
of such deployment.
(c) Reports.-The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress, and make available to the public, a comprehensive report on each phase of the study required under subsection
(a) not later than 30 days after the date of the completion
of such phase of the study.
Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Casey, Baucus, and Durbin be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 709
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to resume
consideration of the Wyden amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I have deep respect for my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked together in the House. We will work together in the Senate. As he said, this is a small disagreement we have because I believe when you have a bill that says this money is going to be used for schools and communities, we should make a commitment that this money in fact does go to our Nation's schools. Today, through my amendment, we have an opportunity to make an obligation to education.
Seventy percent of our children in high school today graduate on
time. In North Carolina it is 68 percent. That is 32 percent of
students who don't graduate on time. We hear on the floor of this
institution state all the time that there's a need to make a commitment to education. And I believe we need to make a commitment to it.
I believe we need to make a commitment on this bill. This program was set to sunset this year. That means the Congress, in the past, set this program to expire, to go away; that the Federal Government had met its obligation. I don't disagree with the Senators from Oregon, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith, who have both been instrumental on this. North Carolina is a beneficiary. We have a tremendous amount of public land. I think it should continue. But at a time that we are required to prioritize where we make our investment, I believe we would help every community by saying 80 percent of the new money-not the money we were using up until this point but the almost $500 million of additional money per year we are going to pump into this program, all new money, that 80 percent of it ought to be used for our schools. It ought to be used for public education and ought to be there to support school construction, K through 12, No Child Left Behind. It ought to focus on high school graduation.
We should take America's high school children from 70 percent graduation and drive it to 100 percent graduation. I heard the argument this was about economic development, about communities, about law enforcement. If you solve education, you lessen the need for law enforcement. The reason we need so many cops on the beat today, that we need more schools, is because our children don't have the skills to compete in the job market. So, yes, we can add policemen and make all Federal dollars open for every community to decide how they use them, but let me assure you, if we don't educate our children, no matter how much money is pumped into those communities, they will have cancer in them.
What am I doing? It is very simple. I am going to offer an amendment that requires 80 to 85 percent of the new dollars to be devoted solely to education. That way every community that is the beneficiary of this money-Oregon, with millions of dollars, and North Carolina, with the several million dollars it gets. It is not enough to solve the education problem, but it shows a commitment on our part to make sure we are willing to contribute the Federal dollars that are available to begin to address this cancer our kids have succumbed to.
Amendment No. 716 to Amendment No. 709
At this time, Madam President, I send to the desk a second-degree
amendment to the Wyden amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes
amendment numbered 716 to amendment No. 709.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require that payments to eligible States and eligible
counties only be used for public schools)
Beginning on page 13, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 17, line 18, and insert the following:
"(2) Expenditure purposes.-Subject to subsection (d),
payments received by a State under subsection (a) and
distributed to eligible counties shall be expended only for
public schools of the eligible county.
"(d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.-
"(1) Allocations.-
"(A) In general.-Except as provided in paragraph (3)(B),
if an eligible county elects to receive its share of the
State payment or the county payment, not less than 80
percent, but not more than 85 percent, of the funds shall be
expended only for public schools of the eligible county.
"(B) Election as to use of balance.-Except as provided in
subparagraph ©, an eligible county shall elect to do 1 or
more of the following with the balance of any funds not
expended pursuant to subparagraph (A):
"(i) Reserve any portion of the balance for projects in
accordance with title II.
"(ii) Reserve not more than 7 percent of the total share
for the eligible county of the State payment or the county
payment for projects in accordance with title III.
"(iii) Return the portion of the balance not reserved
under clauses (i) and (ii) to the Treasury of the United
States.
"© Counties with modest distributions.-In the case of
each eligible county to which more than $100,000, but less
than $350,000, is distributed for any fiscal year pursuant to
either or both of paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection
(a), the eligible county, with respect to the balance of any
funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) for that
fiscal year, shall-
"(i) reserve any portion of the balance for-
"(I) carrying out projects under title II;
"(II) carrying out projects under title III; or
"(III) a combination of the purposes described in
subclauses (I) and (II); or
"(ii) return the portion of the balance not reserved under
clause (i) to the Treasury of the United States.
"(2) Distribution of funds.-
"(A) In general.-Funds reserved by an eligible county
under subparagraph (B)(i) or (C)(i)(I) of paragraph (1) shall
be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the
United States.
"(B) Availability.-Amounts deposited under subparagraph
(A) shall-
"(i) be available for expenditure by the Secretary
concerned, without further appropriation; and
"(ii) remain available until expended in accordance with
title II.
"(3) Election.-
"(A) Notification.-
"(i) In general.-An eligible county shall notify the
Secretary concerned of an election by the eligible county
under this subsection not later than September 30 of each
fiscal year.
"(ii) Failure to elect.-Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), if the eligible county fails to make an
election by the date specified in clause (i), the eligible
county shall-
"(I) be considered to have elected to expend 85 percent of
the funds in accordance with paragraph (1)(A); and
"(II) return the balance to the Treasury of the United
States.
"(B) Counties with minor distributions.-In the case of
each eligible county to which less than $100,000 is
distributed for any fiscal
[[Page S3799]]
year pursuant to either or both of paragraphs (1)(B) and
(2)(B) of subsection (a), the eligible county may elect to
expend all the funds for public schools in the eligible
county.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, it is very simple. The question before us,
whether it is a side-by-side we decide on or a second-degree amendment,
is: Are we going to commit to using part of these Federal dollars that
States deserve-because it is in many cases in lieu of Federal payments
for a tax-are we going to commit those to local school systems to
educate our children? That is the decision we will have.
At the end of the day, I am going to support Wyden-Reid-Baucus-
Bingaman, and however many more people go on the chart before we actually have a vote, but before that vote we will have a decision as to whether we are going to make a commitment to education in this country, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona is here, but I wish to briefly respond to the comments of Senator Burr.
When we do vote, again I would highlight that I hope Senators, on a bipartisan basis, for the amendment I am offering on behalf of the large group that includes Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, and a great many Senators on the other side, virtually every Democrat, will reject the Burr amendment. Here is the difference, and it is striking.
The Burr amendment, offered by our distinguished colleague from North Carolina, sets in place a Federal mandate. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that somehow we ought to decide here in Washington, DC what happens in these local communities. What I have decided, with our bipartisan coalition, is we ought to have an approach that gives local communities a lot of flexibility and a lot of freedom to design approaches that are tailor made to their area.
I have mentioned law enforcement, for example, as one critical area a local community might want to support under the approach I offer with our bipartisan group but which cannot be offered under the approach of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and there would be other examples as well.
For example, if a community was concerned about its roads and was troubled about the prospect that their roads were dangerous, so that, for example, in the snowy seasons it would be treacherous for kids to get to school, under our amendment local communities would have the flexibility to support some of that upkeep for local roads. I have been told in communities such as Fossil, in my home State, they don't think they even have a roads program without the county payments legislation. So there are stark differences between the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina and the bipartisan approach I am offering today with many of our colleagues.
At the end of the day, the difference is the Senator from North Carolina is offering a Federal mandate which ties the hands of local communities and local school districts, and I gather is one of the reasons some educational advocates have already come out against the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
I hope our colleagues will support the approach we are advocating
today which gives local communities real flexibility, ensures that the
Federal Government is keeping its obligation-its more than 100-year
obligation-to these rural communities, but updates it, as we have
sought to do with this payment in lieu of taxes provision in our
amendment and with the new formula-a formula, as the distinguished Senator from Washington, the manager of the legislation, mentioned was arrived at only through some very difficult negotiations with many Senators involved.
So when Senators vote in a few minutes, I hope they will support the amendment I am offering today, with the large group of bipartisan sponsors, and reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which, in my view, is a Federal mandate that greatly limits the ability to make the best use of these county payments dollars.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Wyden's amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would provide critical funding for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and fully fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program.
This amendment provides nearly $5 billion for rural schools, counties and communities through 2012--crucial to California's rural counties, which face a devastating loss in Federal funding.
Last Thursday, March 22, my colleagues and I on the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved the inclusion of $425 million in
emergency appropriations to fund the Secure Rural Schools program for 1
year in the emergency supplemental-helping to immediately address the
pending budget crisis confronting over 700 counties in 39 States,
including my State of California.
This emergency funding adds $425 million to the $100 million
available from the 25 percent of receipts that compensate counties for reductions in timber harvest on public lands.
However, our counties should not have to rely on emergency funding year after year and be faced with such uncertainty.
We must provide our rural counties with a stable funding stream so that they are not in the same dire situation next year and can plan for the future.
This amendment, supported by the National Association of County Officials, the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, and the National Education Association, would maintain a safety net for counties while gliding down funding in a predictable manner so counties can fiscally prepare for the future.
Specifically, this amendment would provide $2.8 billion in funding over 5 years for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools Program. It would also provide $1.9 billion to fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program for 5 years, from 2008 through 2012. This program compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in the State. It would also provide funding beyond fiscal year 2007 to be fully paid for by a combination of tax offsets.
In addition, it would provide California, Oregon, and Washington with additional transition funding in the early years to minimize the effects of the overall decline of the total authorization level to $379 million in 2011 under the Secure Rural Schools Program. The additional transition funding for these States-California, Oregon, and Washington-would also help counties with adjusting to the new funding formula under the Secure Rural Schools Program.
The new funding formula would be based on the current formula of historical payments and the current acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with mechanism to focus support on those communities in greatest economic need.
Under this amendment, California's counties would receive $283 million in funding from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 from the Secure Rural Schools Program. Without this funding, mostly rural California counties would face sudden, catastrophic cuts. Counties in California would lose $57 million this year alone if the Secure Rural Schools Program is not extended.
Last year, California's counties received $69 million to fund their
schools and road and forest improvement projects from this program. The
loss of these Federal funds would have a devastating impact on
California's rural counties, resulting in school closures, teacher
layoffs, and some schools could even face bankruptcy or State takeover. Furthermore, essential road and forest improvement projects would be jeopardized.
For example, Trinity County received almost $8 million in funding, and all school districts in the county could be faced with bankruptcy and would have to eliminate the school curriculum, cut one full-time school nurse-leaving one nurse to cover the entire 4,000-square-mile county-and cut music and arts programs.
Plumas County, which received $7.5 million, would have to lay off teachers-resulting in increased class sizes in grades K through 12-- eliminate all school librarians, and close school cafeterias.
[[Page S3800]]
Lassen County received $4 million, and over half of the 10 school
districts in the county would be faced with budget insolvency-
resulting in school libraries being closed, teacher layoffs, the
elimination of school-based health services, and the reduction of
teacher training and student textbooks.
We simply cannot allow this to happen.
It is critical that we provide immediate and long-term funding to our rural counties that depend on the Secure Rural Schools Program for their livelihood.
This amendment would also fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program, providing $1.9 billion over 5 years.
This means California would receive an estimated $11 million or more
in additional dollars annually on top of the $21 million the State
currently receives from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.
In recognition of the reality that Federal lands pay no local
property taxes, PILT compensates counties for the Federal lands within their borders. PILT compensation is especially important for rural counties with heavy concentrations of Federal lands that reduce their available tax base.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can ensure that our Nation's rural counties continue to receive much needed resources to serve their schools and communities.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the funding
provided in the supplemental appropriations legislation for
continuation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, and the 5-year reauthorization of the program
through the Wyden amendment. Counties and school districts across this country are poised to cut much needed jobs and services without this continuation. Many of us have heard the urgent calls from constituents.
The message has been clear-"Please help us." And, I'm proud to
answer that call by supporting this reauthorization.
For example, Idaho's Fremont County is one of the counties across the
State and Nation that have been faced with a dire situation. Fremont
County is looking at not only eliminating road and bridge services but
also students would be impacted by a loss of nursing services for
students, playground and safety equipment at elementary schools,
library books, and continuing education instructions. Counties across Idaho face similar difficult emergency situations.
Ideally, management of our forested land would generate the revenue
necessary to assist with services in cash-strapped communities with
large amounts of federally owned land. Unfortunately, that just hasn't
been the case for some time. We must continue to work to remove
impediments to forest health and productivity. However, in the
meantime, Congress must commit the resources necessary to ensure that rural communities across this country do not have to forgo road maintenance, close libraries, and make cuts to children's education. Anything less is unacceptable.
The legislation before us today would respond by fully funding PILT
through 2012 reauthorizing Secure Rural Schools through 2011,
reauthorizing the valuable Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, and
phasing down the payments over time. I urge other Senators to join me
in supporting this amendment that fulfills the responsibility to these
communities that shoulder the local cost of the public lands we all
enjoy.
Thank you for the opportunity to share a few words.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for offering this amendment.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be allowed to speak for 3 minutes on the pending amendment, and that Senator McCain, who has been waiting, follow Senator Salazar with his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I thank Senator Murray and Senator Wyden as well.
I wish to make two quick points in support of the amendment Senator Wyden and our colleagues have brought to the Senate floor today.
The reality of the West in America is so much of our lands are owned
by the Federal Government. We have about a third of the entire State of
Colorado-and it is a big State, but it is about a third of that
State-that is owned by the Federal Government. In some of those
counties in my State, 95 to 98 percent of the lands is owned by the
Federal Government as well. So they have been dependent on payments in lieu of taxes in order for them to be able to pay the expenses of their government.
Unfortunately, what has happened over many years in the past is there has not been the full funding of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. The consequence of that is some of these small rural counties in my State of Colorado have not had the financial wherewithal to be able to move forward with the functioning of their government. I am hopeful the bipartisan coalition Senator Wyden has put together will help us move forward in the full funding of the bill.
Secondly, I wish to make a quick comment about the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I fully support
that part of this legislation. I know the importance of funding for
those rural school districts. The rural school district I grew up in
would receive about one-half of the funding that is being spent in
other school districts in the metropolitan areas. What this funding
will do is help equalize the amount of funding we are putting into
equal education opportunity for all people, so it doesn't matter
whether you come from a wealthy urban area or you come from one of the poorest, most rural, remote areas, there will be that funding assistance so everyone in America has an equal educational opportunity. Madam President, I yield the floor again, thanking my colleagues and Senator McCain for yielding to me first.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which we will be voting on at 5 p.m. that would, according to, I believe, the unanimous consent agreement, strike the language in this bill calling for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. These same provisions were rejected by the Senate 2 weeks ago by a 48-to-50 vote. Now here we are debating the same provisions that have the same serious problems. I hope they will be rejected again by the same, if not a larger, margin. Supporters of this provision say they want a date certain for a U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq, but what they have offered us is more accurately
described as a date certain for surrender-a date certain for
surrender-with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the
stability of the Middle East, and the security of Americans at home and abroad. And they offer it just as the situation in Iraq, though still fraught with difficult challenges, is beginning to improve.
The new developments argue for more effort in Iraq rather than the withdrawal advocated by this bill's sponsors. As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the conduct of this war since 2003, and I very much regret that only now, 4 years into the conflict, are we beginning to implement the kind of strategy that was necessary from the start: a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protection of the population, economic development, and political progress, all with troop levels appropriate for the mission.
We are seeing today the emergence of precisely such a strategy. I would emphasize this point: This new plan is not "stay the course."
We are not staying the course in Iraq and I would not support the
status quo any more than I have over the past 4 years. Nor have we
[[Page S3801]]
merely deployed a new commander, however capable, and additional forces. America is engaged today in a fundamentally new strategy, a new approach to the war, an approach that is already showing encouraging signs that it might succeed.
Until now, U.S. forces did not attempt to defeat the insurgency and the terrorists, protect the population, and end the violence so political and economic progress could occur. Most American troops spent their days on large forward-operating bases making forays out into hostile territory in which they were subject to ambush. Today, U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, are out of the FOBs and living in small outposts. Today, U.S. forces are operating throughout Baghdad, even in Shiite strongholds such as Sadr City, Sunni areas such as Mansoor, and mixed districts such as Rashid. As of March 15, 24 joint security stations were operational, with many more planned. American forces in these stations are visible every day, living among the population, building confidence that we-and not the terrorists-will prevail. Contrary to some predictions, this has not increased U.S.
casualties. And, not surprisingly, our presence has resulted in a
dramatic increase in actionable intelligence about terrorists.
You might not know it from reading newspapers or watching the evening
news, but in Iraq today there are real signs the new strategy is
working. I wish to spend a few moments outlining some of this progress,
not to paint an overly rosy scenario but, rather, to correct what has
become an almost single-minded focus in the Congress on the prospects
of defeat. The debate in Congress has an "Alice in Wonderland"
quality about it: We are debating efforts to micromanage a conflict
based on what the conditions were 3 months ago, not on what the reality is today. Conditions have changed in Iraq. The Baghdad security plan-the "surge"-is working far better than even the most optimistic supporter had predicted. The progress is tangible in many key areas despite the fact only 40 percent of the planned forces are in Iraq.
Allow me to review some specifics.
In Baghdad, the military has reported an increase in real-time,
actionable intelligence provided to U.S. and Iraqi forces by a newly
confident population. Prime Minister Maliki, who prevented U.S. troops
from conducting certain Baghdad operations last year, has given the
green light to American incursions throughout the city, including
Shiite strongholds. All of the Iraqi army battalions called for under
the plan have arrived, many at or above 75 percent of their programmed
manning levels. Bomb attacks and murders are down since the surge
began. Civilians killed in Baghdad numbered 1,222 in December, 954 in
January, and fell to 494 in February. There are reports of Sunni and
Shia moving back into neighborhoods from which they had fled constant
and horrific violence. Markets that have been subject to horrific car
bombings have been turned into pedestrian malls that facilitate
commerce and thwart terrorists.
Moqtada al-Sadr has fled, possibly to Iran, and has ordered his
followers not to oppose the new Baghdad security plan. The Madhi army,
purportedly dedicated to the expulsion of Americans from Iraq, does not
today openly challenge either U.S. or Iraqi forces. American troops are
engaged in reconstruction efforts in Saudi City, with the cooperation
of the local mayor. In the western part of Baghdad, our troops are
establishing new outposts in areas-these areas here-that have been
conduits for al-Qaida in Iraq penetration into the capital city, and
have begun to clear these areas of terrorists and insurgents. The net
result of all of this is key Shiite leaders are now claiming the
Baghdad security plan was their idea, and are taking credit for the
increase in security-a development that would have been unthinkable 3 months ago.
There is progress outside Baghdad as well:
Throughout Anbar Province, Sunni sheikhs have banded together to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, and are pouring recruits into the police forces. Sixteen of twenty-six tribes in that western province are now working against al-Qaida. With numerous senior al-Qaida leaders killed or captured, the younger, less experienced leaders are making mistakes, such as targeting respected sheikhs and murdering children, that have alienated Sunnis and their leaders.
In the town of Ramadi, hundreds of Iraqi police last week conducted a major sweep. In the surrounding areas-all of these surrounding areas-including Haditha and Hit, U.S. and Iraqis are conducting operations against al-Qaida and insurgents while protecting the population.
In Diyala Province U.S. forces expelled al-Qaida forces from one of their major bases in January, seized major weapons caches, disrupted fighter networks, and cleared cities and villages of al-Qaida fighters. A U.S. Stryker battalion has reinforced Diyala and is conducting major operations against AQI forces seeking to reconstitute. At the same time, other U.S. forces in Diyala are acting against rogue Mahdi Army leaders in the province and are holding the Diyala and Tigris Rivers to combat re-infiltration into Baghdad.
On the belt to the south of Baghdad, al-Qaida has come under heavy U.S. pressure in recent weeks, with American forces destroying car bomb factories and uncovering major weapons caches in areas such as Yusufiya, Latifiya, and Salman Pak.
In Mosul, U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed and captured numerous al-Qaida operatives since December.
In Samarra, American and Iraqi troops have captured al-Qaida
facilitators and north of the city, Salahuddin Province, American
troops have moved off of their forward operating base and into the town of Bayji, an important hub on the road network.
These developments, which have occurred just 1 month into the new strategy and with only a portion of the five additional U.S. brigades having yet deployed, suggest that, at long last, we have a strategy in Iraq that is succeeding. That is not to say that all is going well in Iraq; clearly, it is not. Violence continues, the Mahdi Army recently launched an attack in Basra, and one of Iraq's vice presidents was gravely wounded in a bomb attack. But we all know the negatives; we read about them every day and see them flash across our television screens hourly. The enemy knows how attention-getting car bombs are, and their strategy reflects this understanding.
We must try to stop such events, and push the Iraqi Government to move forward with its reconciliation efforts and meet the benchmarks laid out by the President. What we cannot do, and, for the sake of America's vital national security interests, we must not do, is give up just at the moment we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.
Yet in the face of this new reality, the proponents of the
legislation offer one prescription for the future: withdrawal of U.S.
forces. Despite the progress, despite the ongoing need for U.S. troops
to stabilize Iraq and pave the way for a political solution, despite
the moral burdens we have incurred as a result of our decision to
topple Saddam Hussein, and, above all, despite the catastrophic
consequences for vital U.S. interests that would follow a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the sponsors of this legislation would force precisely that.
To those who believe that the best course is to withdraw, I ask: Can
you explain to the American people precisely what you believe to be the
consequences of this action? If we follow the timetable included in
this bill-to withdraw troops whether or not we are succeeding or
failing; regardless of whether the country is secured; irrespective of whether the Iraqis can manage their own affairs alone, or whether the forces of terror and chaos will triumph-if we follow this timetable we risk a catastrophe for American national security interests.
Note that American national security interests are directly at stake.
Not just Israeli interests, though Prime Minister Olmert has said that
defeat in Iraq could be devastating for his country. Not just for our
Arab friends and partners in the region, though they fear the
consequences of massive humanitarian displacement, growing Iranian
influence, and wider bloodshed. Not just for the Iraqis themselves, for
whom genocide is a real prospect should sectarian violence spiral out
of control. But for America. Success or failure in Iraq is the
transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security.
People say they want to defeat the terrorists. But if we withdraw
[[Page S3802]]
from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.
Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority
would turn Iraq into a failed state, in the heart of the Middle East.
We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once
before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists
found sanctuary to train and plan attacks-including attacks against
America-with impunity. If we leave Iraq based on an artificial
timetable, al-Qaida will be free to plan, train for and conduct
operations from Iraq just as they did from Afghanistan. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice.
If Iraq descends into chaos, the power vacuum there will invite
further Iranian interference, at a time when Tehran already feels
emboldened. Iraq's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Turkey, would feel their own security eroding, and may intervene on the side of particular factions. This uncertain swirl of events could spark regional war severely damaging to America's fundamental security interests. And we would then face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, watch the terrorists establish new bases, with profound implications for the safety of Americans and their economic well-being, or send troops back into Iraq once again.
The proponents of withdrawal state that they envision no such
catastrophe; they are not advocating a precipitous withdrawal but
something more gradual, and they would leave American troops in place
to focus on three limited objectives: protecting coalition personnel
and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting
targeted counter-terrorism operations. But if these three missions
sound familiar, that's because they formed the centerpiece of the
strategy that was failing up until the beginning of this year. They
would forbid counterinsurgency operations, protection of the
population, and the other elements of our new strategy that are
directly responsible for the successes we have seen this year. This
legislation is a plan for failure. But neither failure nor success is
the objective of its sponsors. They wish to get out of Iraq, whatever the consequences for America. They conceive no failure as worse than remaining in Iraq and no success worthy of additional sacrifice. They are wrong, terribly, terribly wrong.
These provisions draw a false distinction between terrorism and
sectarian violence. Let us think about the implications of ordering
American soldiers to target "terrorists," but not those who foment
sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a
terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the
Mahdi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as
terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a Shia village along the
Diyala River, is that terrorism or sectarian violence? What about when
an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED
in the road? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute
terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply
intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction between
terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally misunderstand al-
Qaida's strategy which is to incite sectarian violence. To say that
targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian
violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality, and would make
it impossible to fight this war against terrorism, let alone prevail in
it.
Some Senators have taken a different tack, arguing that Iraq is still winnable but that, by withdrawing troops, we will actually maximize the chances of success. They concede that a withdrawal will encourage insurgents and terrorists to unleash greater violence on the Iraqi people, but believe that such violence might induce Iraqi politicians to make the political decisions necessary to end it. Could this possibly be true? Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce a political solution rather than make it less possible? Is success in Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?
GEN David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not. Of course the
dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is undeniably
true. But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply
conjured. It is impossible for meaningful political and economic
activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as
Baghdad has been. Security is the precondition for political and
economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political progress all of us agree is necessary. In this regard, there are positive indications. Prime Minister Maliki went to Ramadi to reach out to Sunnis, and the Iraqi Government is pushing through a new de-Baathification law. The oil revenue sharing law has been approved by the Council of Ministers and should be approved by parliament soon. Reports indicate that Iraqi officials are in discussions with a number of non-AQI Sunni insurgent groups, while fighting has broken out between AQI and Sunni insurgents.
Reconciliation is not the inevitable outcome of the new strategy. On the contrary, there is no guarantee of success. What the situation demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us the best possible chance for success. This, I believe, is what the new plan represents.
The provisions our amendment would strike would force redeployments
of U.S. forces within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to
leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. This does not incentivize the Government
of Iraq to make tough decisions on reconciliation; it sets the stage
for the Government's collapse. This arbitrary deadline informs our
enemies when they need no longer fear American military power. It
signals to the population that their best bet for security really does
rest in the hands of militias, rather than the Government. It
demonstrates to the Government that they cannot rely on us-after all, we are pulling out regardless of the situation or the consequences. And it tells the terrorists that they-not we-will prevail.
All of us want to bring our troops home, and to do so as soon as
possible. None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution
authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until
recently is sustainable. But there is a new situation, a new reality in Iraq. This amendment ignores that reality and ignores the consequences that would flow from its adoption. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. When we voted to send them into battle we asked them to use every ounce of their courage and fortitude on behalf of us.
This body unanimously confirmed General Petraeus. Why would we now
deprive him of the opportunity to pursue the strategy he helped design
and believes can work? Why would we hand our enemies a victory when we
have finally taken the initiative and they are on the defensive? Let us
give him and the soldiers he has the honor to command, Americans who
are risking everything so that this new plan can succeed, the time
necessary to achieve its objectives.
And let us elected officials who have the honor of overseeing the
conduct of our soldiers' mission in Iraq exercise a lesser magnitude of
courage-our political courage on behalf of them and the country they
serve. If any Senator believes that our troops' sacrifice is truly in
vain, the dictates of conscience demand that he or she act to prevent
it. Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree
deeply with their position, and dread its consequences, have the
courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it.
If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S.
troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission, provides the best chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to this new strategy. It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our Nation and the values upon which they rest. Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us.
There
[[Page S3803]]
are no others. I wish there were. But here we are, confronting a
political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the country's most vital security interests and the lives of the best Americans among us at stake. May God grant us the wisdom and humility to make this difficult judgment in our country's best interests only, and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences that will ensue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, under the previous unanimous consent agreement, at 3:45 we will return to the Cochran amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, proceed for up to 8 minutes and that the time remaining until 3:45 be allocated to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 692
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 692.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Webb] proposed an amendment
numbered 692.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.
(a) Prohibition.-Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be obligated or expended for military operations
or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or
within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a
specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Exceptions.-The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:
(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an
attack launched from within the territory of Iran.
(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.
(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.
(4) Intelligence collection activities of which Congress
has been appropriately notified under applicable law.
(c) Report.-Not later than 24 hours after determining to
utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a
military operation described in subsection (b), the President
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report on the determination, including a justification for
the determination.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I have been on the Senate floor on a
number of occasions to discuss the amendment which I am introducing
today. I introduced it on March 5 as S. 759, which is a bill to
prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the
consent of the Congress. I am offering this legislation today as an
amendment to the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, with the support of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
This bill has received a good bit of discussion and also a good bit
of correspondence from various citizens groups that have gone to
Members' offices. I will not take a great deal of time in terms of
going through a lot of the debate about it. I would like to say at the
outset that I have taken great care in the preparation of this
amendment to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military
forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such
as Iraq and in other areas that are on the coastlines and border lines
of Iran. But I would like to emphasis that, in my view, this amendment
is essential to revitalizing the constitutional health of our
governmental process.
The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance
between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of war. Any general attack on Iran would be, beyond cavil, a commencement of a new war in a region that is already enduring two costly and debilitating wars. If this action is to be taken, it should be done only with the full and considered consent of the Congress.
At the same time, the legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks which might be initiated from Iran, as well as those which might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory.
Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran, and it allows the following exceptions: first, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran; second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran; third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran; and finally, those intelligence-collection activities that have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress. The major function of the amendment again is to restore the constitutional balance. No administration should have the power to commence unproved military activities against Iran or any other nation without the approval of the Congress, but the issue of the day is Iran. I am offering this amendment partly due to my concern over President Bush's signing statement which accompanied the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. That amendment, if you read it carefully, indicates that this administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress. It should not be left unanswered by this body.
This amendment will not take any military operations off the table,
any options off the table. It will not tie the hands of this
administration if our military forces are actually attacked from
Iranian soil or territorial waters or by forces that retreat into
Iranian territory.
This is responsible legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I understand I have 7 minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has until 3:45--9 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. I was going to yield to Senator Coburn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized. Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendments and set them aside. That way, they can be considered as called up. Senator Graham has graciously allowed me some of his time to do that. The amendment Nos. are 648, 649, 656, 657, 715, 717, and 718. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator would hold and let us take a quick look at that. Perhaps Senator Graham could go ahead and use his time. We will talk, and then when Senator Graham is done, before we begin the debate on the Cochran amendment, we can work with the Senator on an agreement on those amendments.
I object at this time, and I will work with the Senator to work out
those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to associate myself with the comments of Senator McCain about what is going on on the ground in Iraq. I thought he did an excellent job of explaining that this new strategy is just what it is described as being-new. We are not sending more people to do the same old thing. It is a fundamentally different approach to how we handle the situation in Iraq.
The situation in Iraq is the result of not having enough forces on the ground in the early parts of the war. The security environment in Iraq got out of control. The terrorists seized an opportunity to divide the Iraqis by bombing the Samarra mosque, the third most holy site in the Shia region in Samarra. Ever since then, we have been in a conflict between Shias and Sunnis in Baghdad.
Anbar has always been about Sunni insurgents trying to topple this infant [[Page S3804]] democracy, and it has been the place where al-Qaida has been hiding.
The progress is that the Sunni insurgency-the tribal chiefs are
beginning to understand that their lives are better with the unified
Iraq; that if they can share in the oil revenues of the country, future
Sunni generations will be benefited. I think Shias are beginning to
understand that to reject Al-Sadr-his view of Iraq becoming a Shia
theocracy is not going to be accepted by people in the neighborhood and
other folks living in Iraq. So I think every group is beginning to
understand that through political reconciliation, they have a better,
brighter future. The way to get political reconciliation is to control
the violence. That is why we need more troops, more troops to hold areas previously cleared, to buy time for political reconciliation and economic progress, and the early indications are that it is working.
Now, what is not working. The Congress is not working. I think the Congress is about to make history in all of the wrong ways. Do we really want to be the first Congress-maybe ever in the history of the country, that I am aware of-that would, by congressional enactment, set a hard date to withdraw from a war in Iraq with which our vital national security interests as Americans are intertwined? What are the consequences of leaving in March or any other date in 2008? What happens when we leave? No one who is offering these amendments has really thought that through.
I do believe that a failed State in Iraq jeopardizes our national
security interests for decades, is a loss in the war on terror, is an
empowering event for extremists, a death blow to moderation, and that we need to see this through by changing course, and this is exactly what we are doing.
Setting a timeline for withdrawal is saying you have no confidence in General Petraeus to execute the plan we sent him to execute. It is saying we have no confidence in our military to deliver, because the day you set that date, you are going to freeze political reconciliation. People are not going to do deals the same way when they know America is going to leave at a certain date because what happens when America leaves will be thought of in terms of the consequences of a particular deal.
If we leave and Iraq is in chaos, the police and the army are unable
to deal with the wolves of terrorism, then they are overwhelmed, the
country breaks apart, and the regional consequences and the
consequences to the world are monumental, in my opinion.
The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. It should be the first
rule of politics. And we have done harm with our Iraqi strategy. We have assumed the best and never planned for the worst.
Whatever mistakes the Bush team has made, and there are many, the Congress is about to make the greatest mistake of all; that is, to tell the enemy what they have to do to get us out of Iraq on their terms, not ours. It is a death blow to moderation. Who in the Mideast will try to come together knowing that the United States cannot be counted on? What effect would it have on the worldwide terrorist networks if they believe, through their acts of violence and barbaric behavior, that America will leave?
We cannot let suicide bombers determine the fate of the 21st century. We cannot let people who will blow up children in a car determine the fate of Iraq. We cannot let that happen. We are bigger than that. We are better than that. I believe passionately, after five visits, with one more to come, that the people in Iraq want more. They are dying for their own freedom. I would leave tomorrow if I thought the Iraqi people were incapable of solving their problems. I do believe the majority of Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds want the same thing that every Member of this body wants for their family-a better life. They have looked into the abyss, and they are making the changes they need to make.
If we restrict funding, if we restrict our military commanders' ability to go after the enemy in all of its forms, we are doing them a disservice. If you set a hard deadline for withdrawal, you have doomed us as a nation to lose in Iraq. What good would it be for one person to be maimed or to die waiting on that day to come? If you pick March 2008, what do you tell a family member of the U.S. military why their loved one died or was harmed, knowing that the date killed our efforts to be successful? This is irresponsible. This does everything wrong that the Congress could do at a time when things could get better.
I cannot promise you success. But I know our last best chance lies with General Petraeus. Our last best chance lies with a reinforcement of a country and a military that needs it. The military needs this money. They deserve this money without strings attached. They deserve a chance to turn Iraq around to make us free.
The House may be satisfied with this vote on the supplemental, and they may think this is a victory for the Democratic leadership in the House. I think this is a shameful chapter in the history of the House. These votes to pass this bill were literally bought. There is money in this bill, the supplemental bill, that has nothing to do with the military, nothing to do with Iraq, and there was money being spent to buy votes to make sure we drive ourselves out of Iraq without consequence and the thought of what happens.
If we do not pass a supplemental soon, Secretary Gates has laid out what happens in April, May, and June to our military. Because of time limitations, I will not go into detail on what happens to the military, but I can tell you with certainty that the military needs this money for ongoing operations, and every month and week that goes by without this money going into the Department of Defense, major decisions have to be made that compromise troop safety, that hurt the quality of life of families, and keep this surge from being successful.
If your goal is to end this war because you think we have lost,
choose an honorable path. The honorable path would be to come to this
floor, offer an amendment to stop funding now and get out of Iraq as
soon as possible. A date certain a year from now, a year and a half
from now, whatever date you pick, it ensures we lose, and it ensures
that the people who are left there to fight until that day comes get
injured and die in vain.
This is the wrong way to run a war. This is the wrong way to fight
terrorism.
Three weeks ago, I was at Guantanamo Bay listening to Shaikh
Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, explaining why he was at war with us. He will be at war with us until his last breath. There are people like him in Iraq measuring us as a nation. Please do not send them the wrong signal. Fund our troops without condition. Stand behind General Petraeus because he deserves our support.
We sent him off to do a mission. Give him the resources to do it, and in time we will figure this out. This is not an open-ended commitment. I know as well as everybody else that we are not going to be in Iraq forever. But we need to be in Iraq on terms that will empower moderates and deflate extremists. I believe the Iraqi political leadership, given the breathing space, will have the ability, with our support, to reconcile their country because it is in their best interests.
Literally thousands of Iraqis have died for their own freedom. What
more can we ask of someone. Political reconciliation is hard. It took
us 13 years to write our Constitution. We were at civil war among
ourselves. Democracy is hard, but it is worth fighting for.
Amendment No. 643
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Washington. Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, under the previous consent agreement, for the information of all Senators, we are now going to the debate on the Cochran amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5 p.m. is for debate with respect to amendment number 643, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Washington. While I oppose the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi, I thank him for his courtesy in bringing this bill to [[Page S3805]]the floor. In order to facilitate Senate action on this critical supplemental bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill by voice vote on Thursday, March 22. Again, I thank the able Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, for his support.
In this 2007 supplemental, the Congress is providing nearly $100
billion to support our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This brings total appropriations for the wars to nearly
$170 billion for this year alone. When Congress approves this
supplemental, it will have appropriated $448 billion for the war in
Iraq.
As the conflict in Iraq enters its fifth year, more than 3,220 members of the uniformed services have sacrificed their lives, with over 24,000 more wounded, many grievously wounded. The Iraq conflict most certainly has become a civil war. The American people need to know what we are accomplishing by remaining in Iraq. How much longer will Congress continue to blindly write checks for this failed strategy in Iraq? Supporting the troops means doing all we can to remove them from this violent internal sectarian conflict in Iraq.
The American people have made it very clear where they stand on this
matter. A large majority of Americans, according to any number of
polls, wants the troops home, and the sooner the better. I, for one, am
not so stubborn that I will keep marching on toward some intangible
success in Iraq, no matter how many may die, no matter how many may be
wounded, and no matter how many families are torn apart by grief. A
continued U.S. presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq and in the
region. It is time to remove that spark from this volatile situation
and pursue a diplomatic track which may lead to a national
reconciliation for the people of Iraq.
The language in this bill encourages a decrease in Iraqi reliance on
U.S. troops to keep the peace in Iraq and pave the way for the Iraqi
people to take steps toward national reconciliation. The language in
the bill is not Draconian, nor is it precipitous. It is simply a
recognition of the reality of the situation in Iraq. It calls for a
gradual redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with concerted
efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces while building
regional and international support for the Iraqi Government. The
language permits continued counterterrorism operations by U.S. forces and allows a limited number of U.S. forces to remain in order to protect U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure. That is not a precipitous withdrawal. It is not cutting and running. Rather, it is a commonsense compromise between those who want all the troops home now and those who advocate a continued massive American presence in Iraq.
It is time-yes, time-to change course in Iraq before 3,000 more
Americans and thousands more Iraqis are killed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike section
1315(a) and (b) of the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the distinguished Senator from Louisiana 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized. Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to support the Cochran amendment as a responsible action. The situation in Iraq is deeply controversial and divisive. As we debate it, everyone here and in the country say they are clearly for supporting our troops in the field and giving them what they need once they are put there to do their mission. That is why just a week or two ago huge numbers of Members of the Senate supported the Gregg resolution, 82 Senators saying clearly: We are going to support the men and women in uniform in the field; likewise, they supported in huge numbers the Murray resolution, 96 Senators, to support the men and women in uniform in the field.
I am afraid the path some are urging us to go down today belies that statement, contradicts that statement, and does not support those men and women in uniform in the field.
We all know the consequences of the Reid language. That language
insists that the President pull our troops out of Iraq on a date
certain with no regard at all for the conditions on the ground or the
progress being made by our troops or the Iraqi Government. It
micromanages the war, taking what is in the purview of the Commander in Chief and bringing it to Congress. The Reid language will absolutely draw a veto from the President. What would that do? It would delay for a significant amount of time getting aid, money, help, and equipment to our troops in the field.
We should not go down this path. This language will earn a veto from the President. Indeed, it would earn a veto from any President because it micromanages his responsibilities as Commander in Chief, and that will delay getting resources to folks in the field.
Our military leadership has said in no uncertain terms that they must
get this supplemental funding to support the troops in the field by
mid-April. This language will push all of that well beyond that
deadline, will delay it by 5, 6 weeks or more, and endanger our troops in the field by not getting them the resources and equipment they need. That is not right. That is exactly contrary to what almost all Members of this body have spoken for: supporting our troops in the field.
This supplemental appropriations bill also has important help for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the gulf coast, emergency measures that are supported by the President and the Congress but have not yet been fully funded. Just as we are playing politics potentially with our troops in the field with this veto scenario, we would be playing politics with this language, drawing a veto from the President, with the victims of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. That is not right. It is politics over people. Worse than that, it is politics over our people in uniform. It is politics over our people who suffered the worst natural disaster in history. We should not go down this path. We should not be so cynical and callous. We should put our people in uniform first and get them the funds and support they need in the field as we promise to do speech after speech after speech.
Words are cheap. Actions, votes lead to consequences. That is what
this debate and what these votes are all about-supporting our troops
in the field, supporting the victims of the worst natural disaster in
U.S. history.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, there will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It does not belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.
We can help the people of Iraq, as we have been helping them over the
last 4 years, with a tremendous amount of our American blood and
treasure. We have much invested in Iraq. America has strategic
interests in the Middle East. And we will continue to help the people of Iraq, as we will continue to protect our interests and those of our allies in the Middle East.
But the future of Iraq, however, will be determined by the Iraqi
people. The future of Iraq will be determined by a political
accommodation by the people in Iraq, which will result in a political resolution that will be supported by the Iraqi people, its regional neighbors, and other powers, including the United States.
After 4 years in Iraq, America's policy there should be designed to
gradually pull the United States further away from the day-to-day
responsibilities, those day-to-day responsibilities of defending Iraq
and de facto governance of Iraq, and turning over those
responsibilities to the Iraqis, not escalating-not escalating-our
military involvement in Iraq.
Today, we are headed in the opposite direction. I will not support
sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq.
We are now in our fifth year in an active war in Iraq. Iraq is more
dangerous today than at any time in the last 4 years. And-puzzling-the administration says, we are making real progress in Iraq. So if we are making [[Page S3806]] real progress in Iraq, then why are we putting more and more American combat troops into Iraq at the same time our allies are leaving or have already left?
The President's strategy is taking America deeper and deeper into
this quagmire, with no exit strategy.
In January, we were told that 21,500 more U.S. troops would be sent
to Iraq. This month, we learned that as many as 7,000 more U.S. troops,
in addition to the 21,500, would be sent to Iraq. The Congressional
Budget Office has estimated that the President's recent decision to
escalate our military involvement could require as many as 48,000
additional U.S. troops in Iraq.
In January, the administration said progress on the Iraq war would be measurable by this summer. We have heard that at 6-month intervals for the last 2 years in oversight committee hearings. But now we are being told that additional troops could be required in Iraq well into next year.
This strategy to deepen America's military involvement in Iraq will
not bring a resolution in Iraq. It will only continue to undermine
America's standing in Iraq and the Middle East, complicating and
limiting our diplomatic options, and doing further damage to our
military. And we continue to finance and build the most powerful and unaccountable mercenary armies in history, like Blackwater.
We cannot continue down a path that is destroying our military and continuing to place our men and women in uniform in Iraq in the middle of a civil war.
In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter
Pace, reported to Congress that there is now-his word-a
"significant" risk that our military will not be able to respond to
an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Why did he say that? It is because we are overburdened, overstretched. We are breaking our force structure-third and fourth tours.
Recently, the inspector general of the Defense Department issued a report on our National Guard. Our National Guard-our Army National Guard in America is broken. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, has made similar, recent comments in open testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It is now time for the Congress to step forward and establish
responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military
involvement in Iraq. That is our responsibility. Need I remind our
colleagues in this body, the Congress of the United States is a coequal
branch of Government with the President of the United States? We not
only have moral obligations but we have constitutional
responsibilities.
To hear some of my colleagues say we should dispense with this
"frivolous" debate because the President has threatened a veto-what
a waste of our time-if you logically follow that through, why do we
need a Congress? Why don't we let the President make all the choices,
make all the decisions? There are some, I suspect, in this
administration who would like that, some in this country would like
that. But we tried a monarchy once. It is not suited to America. There
are separations of power. Of course there are. But there are three
coequal branches of Government.
It is now time for the Congress to step forward, after a disastrous 4
years in Iraq. The language in the Senate supplemental bill does this in a responsible way. The Senate language does not cut off funds. It does not impose a precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq: counterterrorism, training Iraqi forces, and protecting U.S. personnel. That is not new. We have heard that from this administration over the last 4 years. This was not dreamed up. This idea that somehow you do not support the troops if you do not continue, in a lemming-like way, to accept whatever this administration's policy is wrong. That is what is wrong, and that is dangerous.
This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq that focuses on the things we should be doing, we can be doing. This new and responsible mission would pull our troops out of the middle of Iraq's civil war. Is that wrong? Is there something wrong with that-asking these young men and women to put their lives on the line in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad, kicking down doors, with a bull's eye on their back-to pull them out of that? Is that wrong? Does that somehow display a cavalier attitude toward the