Senate Record - February 5, 2007
From dKosopedia
| Congressional Record | |
|---|---|
| Senate - February 5, 2007 - week 6 | |
| 110th - United States Congress | |
| |
| Senate Majority Leader | Harry Reid |
| Minority Leader | Mitch McConnell |
| Previous | Thursday - February 1, 2007 |
| Next | legislative session |
These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on February 5, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.
Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.
Contents
|
On the Floor
Afternoon Session - Monday, February 5, 2007
The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Mark Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas.
Schedule
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m. today. During morning business, Senator Byrd is to be recognized for up to 60 minutes. At 4 p.m. we will resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 470, the sense-of-Congress language relating to Iraq. Last Thursday I moved to proceed to that bill and filed a cloture motion. That vote is slated to occur today at 5:30.
Order of procedure
I now ask unanimous consent that the time from 4 to 5:20 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the final 10 minutes prior to 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the last 5 minutes.
The Acting President pro tempore - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iraq Resolution Filibuster
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority Leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, all across America this past weekend, and even this morning in schools, cafés, pool halls, I am sure, churches, synagogues, military bases, and all offices, people are talking about this war in Iraq. They are talking about President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq—or "augment,'" as the amendment of the Senator from Virginia talks about. But if you look in the dictionary, "augment" and "escalate" have the same definition. So every place in America people are talking about Iraq—every place, that is, except in the Senate. I say that because in press conferences held, in statements made by the Republican leader, they have stated there will be no ability to proceed to the debate on this most important issue.
According to my counterpart, the Republican leader, the Republican Senators are going to say no and, he says, without exception. What does this mean? That we are not going to be able to move to proceed to this debate? What is more important than what we are trying to do here today; that is, move forward on a debate on Iraq? As I said, they are doing it every other place in America. Why shouldn't we be able to do it here in the Senate? We learned on Friday—it was continued over the weekend—that the minority is going to do everything in its power to block an Iraq vote. Are they so worried that a bipartisan majority of Senators might voice their opposition to this escalation; so worried that these Senators are going to prevent any Iraq debate?
Remember, this is a very delicate time in the history of our country. Not only do we have the Iraq debate to worry about, but we also, because of the mess, frankly, that was
left by the prior majorities in the House and Senate, have no ability to fund this Government after February 15. We have to do that. This has to be completed by a week from this Friday.
I received letters from Republican Senators. They are going to filibuster the continuing resolution, which means I have to move forward on this to keep the Government from shutting down. Our inability to go forward on the Iraq debate means we may not have the Iraq debate. Remember, we have lost, already, several days. We should be debating this right here today rather than having to vote at 4:30 on whether we can proceed on it.
What is the excuse—and I say excuse—that they are not going to let the American people hear the Senate debate the escalation of the war in Iraq? This claim—and I might say, it is a feeble claim—that they haven't been guaranteed a vote on amendments is not credible. It is simply not true. They have rejected, through their leader—they, the Republicans—three compromises that would have permitted the Senate to vote on the President's plan. I have done this privately. I have done it publicly.
I offered to schedule an up-or-down vote on McCain—that is a resolution supporting the President's plan—and on the Warner-Levin resolution in opposition. That is votes up or down on these two amendments. This offer was rejected.
We then offered the Republican leadership up-or-down votes on those two resolutions I just talked about and they had another one. The Republican leader had another one. I read it. It is the Gregg amendment. So we said let's go ahead and vote on that. I was turned down there also.
I don't know what more we can do. I even went one step further and said we will hold supermajority votes, 60 votes, on WARNER and on MCCAIN, two separate votes, 60 each. What more could we do? These were rejected. I have said this publicly, but I said it privately—and there were all kinds of witnesses to my conversation with the Republican leader—the Republican leader obviously can't take "yes" for an answer. They have been given all they asked. It is clear their actions are not driven by getting votes on Republican proposals, they are not being driven by getting votes on Republican proposals; they are driven by a desire to provide political cover.
The majority can't rubberstamp the President's policies on Iraq anymore so they decided to stamp out debate and let the actions in Iraq proceed unchecked. America deserves more than a filibuster on the President's flawed plan to add 48,000 troops to Iraq. It is not 21,000. The war in Iraq has taken a great toll on our country. Well more than 3,000 American soldiers have been killed, 24,000 or 25,000 of them wounded, a third of them missing eyes—head injuries. We have 2,000 who are missing limbs.
The war has strained our military. I have been told by leaders at the Pentagon that we do not have a single Army unit that is nondeployed that is battle ready.
Mr. Byrd-D, West Virginia - Would the Senator say that again, please?
Mr. Reid - We do not have a single, nondeployed Army unit that is ready to go to war. We have depleted our Treasury over $400 billion—some say $500 billion.
Look at this. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan entity set up by this Congress. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a surge of 21,500 combat troops really means up to 48,000 more troops when support personnel are counted. And, remember, the 3,180 American soldiers who were killed were not all combat troops. They were truckdrivers, they were working in commissaries, they were doing all kinds of things to support the combat troops.
So we are saying it is not 21,500, it is 48,000, and it is going to cost, this little surge, an additional $27 billion. If the President wants to escalate the conflict and send, according to CBO, 48,000 more troops, given these costs alone—that is $27 billion in addition—it is important the Senators have an opportunity to vote up or down on escalation.
But it is even more important because there is widespread opposition in Congress and the country to the President's plan. Those we trust the most do not believe escalation is the right way forward. America's generals don't support this. What does General Casey say? When he was in Iraq he said, I don't think this is going to work. General Abizaid said the same thing. Many others have told us the same thing.
More troops will not bring stability to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group sent this project in another direction. They made very different recommendations. America's generals—of course, they do not support this. The American people do not support the escalation. Look at any public opinion poll—Democrats, Republicans, Independents. The President has heard from the Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Maliki, that he doesn't want more troops in Baghdad; he wants American troops to leave Baghdad. He told the President that to his face.
This is the message President Bush has heard from the generals, the people, the Iraq Study Group, even the Iraq Prime Minister. Now the President should hear from Congress. But is he going to? Perhaps not. The President must hear from Congress that he stands alone. A loud bipartisan message from this body will give him another opportunity to listen and to change course to a plan that gives our troops the best chance for success and gives the country of Iraq the best chance for stability.
Is there anyone who does not think this is an important debate? Is there anyone who believes the Senate should remain silent on the most pressing issue facing the country today? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. According to the Republican leader, all Republican Senators will vote not to proceed.
We are running out of time to find a new way forward in Iraq. That is certainly clear. Americans and our troops have waited 4 years for the Senate to get off the sidelines on this issue. They shouldn't have to wait longer for a new direction in Iraq because the minority wants to protect their politics at home.
We have seen politics in this war before. Politics gave us "Mission Accomplished." Remember that? On the aircraft carrier, the President dressed in a flight suit said: The mission is accomplished; we have won in Iraq. Politics gave us the Vice President who said the insurgency was in its last throes, and the President saying: There are insurgents? Bring them on. Politics gave us a Vice President who promised America we would be greeted as liberators. So we have had enough of this politics for 4 years into this war—4 years.
What we need is a strategy that will succeed in Iraq, a strategy that is not an escalation. Last week, America's intelligence communities provided their latest estimates of conditions on the ground in Iraq. The picture they painted was bleak and was backed by events this past week in Iraq. Every day, with rare exception, this is what we see out of Iraq: More than 200 people killed—more than 200 people. Hundreds and hundreds injured. It was a 2,000-pound bomb in a marketplace. The Iraqi Interior Ministry, which has been very conservative, said last week that at least 1,000 were killed in Iraq. Two million, it was reported over the weekend, have left Iraq—2 million Iraqis have left Iraq.
We don't need the unclassified assessment of our intelligence community to know things aren't going well in Iraq—and that is an understatement—that the present strategy has failed and there are only nonmilitary solutions to address Iraq's problems. That is why the military surge makes no sense.
Again, the National Intelligence Estimate came out last week. It was months overdue, but it did come out. Here are some of the things it talked about. This is from our own intelligence agencies:
Even if violence is diminished, Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this estimate.
Listen to this next one:
- Iraq has become a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle.
This is not Harry Reid. These are the finest, the people who are doing their very best to make America safe. The National Intelligence Estimate:
The term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, but does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict.
I have been saying, and the American people have been saying, for months this is a civil war. It is a civil war, but it is more than a civil war.
The National Intelligence Estimate:
- The involvement of these outside actors, Iran and Syria and Iraq's neighbors, is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability.
In effect, they are saying the President is now sending battle carrier groups off the waters of Iran because he is trying to blame them for everything that is going on in Iraq. That is not credible.
Am I saying Iran is the good guy on the block? Of course not. But let's not say they are the cause of all the trouble in Iraq because they are not.
The National Intelligence Estimate:
- A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory. They include, again, military solutions. Broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism, significant concessions by the Shia and the Kurds, a bottom-up approach, mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups.
Mr. President, we need to work to come to a political solution for the problems in Iraq.
Surging U.S. military forces is not a development that is going to help in Iraq. That is because there is no military solution. Military escalation would not end this conflict that is more complex than a civil war. Military escalation would not make it easy for Iraqi leaders to achieve political reconciliation. Military escalation would not bring an end to Iraq's internal sectarian struggle.
Mr. President, as I said when I started, all over America today people are talking about what is going on in Iraq—every place you want to talk about, whether it is the water cooler at the office or truck drivers on their CBs talking back and forth to each other. It is in schools all over America, from elementary to college, talking about what is going on in Iraq. But in the Senate, are we going to have a debate on it? We have been told "no."
The problems in Iraq are long term. Yet military escalation is a strategy that is shortsighted. This is the message President Bush has heard from the generals, the people, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Iraq Study Group, and now he must hear from Congress. I hope this afternoon my Republican colleagues will do what is right and allow this important debate to go forward.
I don't know if the Republican leader wishes to be recognized, but I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
The Acting President pro tempore - Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Durbin-D, Illinois - Mr. President, I yield to the minority leader, if he wishes to speak first.
Iraq Debate
Mitch McConnell-R (KY), Minority Leader
Mr. Mitch McConnell-R, (KY) Minority Leader - I thank my friend from Illinois. Mr. President, this whole discussion can best be described as a bump in the road. The majority leader and I had a number of discussions last week about how to proceed with the Iraq debate. There is no reluctance on this side of the aisle to have that debate. In fact, we had a number of different Republicans who had different approaches to offer in anticipation of the Iraq debate this week. We hear there are different approaches on the Democratic side as well.
In an effort to reach a unanimous consent agreement, we pared down our requests to two resolutions, one by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman that basically embodied benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and one by Senator Gregg, a very important resolution that should be voted on in the Senate that deals with the issue of whether the Senate believes we should cut off funds for the troops. This vote this afternoon should not be misunderstood. This is a fairness vote. This vote this afternoon is a vote to insist that the minority have a fair process in going forward to this very important debate. I think I am safe to say every single Republican shares the view it is not requesting too much of the majority to have a fair process. We could have asked for many more than two resolutions. There were several other Members of the Senate on this side of the aisle who had what they thought were good ideas that should have been put in the queue.
With regard to what the vote should be, this is the Senate. With the exception of the budget resolution, I can't think of anything in the Senate we have dealt with in my memory, except some kind of consent on a noncontroversial matter, that didn't require a 60-vote threshold. That is routine in the Senate. That is not extraordinary; that is ordinary. So what could be done and should be done--and I hope will be done sometime today--is the majority leader and myself will sit down and come up with a reasonable list of resolutions, all of them, as everything else in the Senate, subject to a 60-vote threshold. In fact, our good friends on the other side of the aisle in the previous Congress went to great lengths to establish that there even ought to be a 60-vote threshold for judges, something that had not been the norm in the Senate. So it looks to me like where we are today is that everything in the Senate requires 60 votes. Why would we not have a 60-vote threshold for the most important issue in the country right now: The Iraq war? So, of course, we think it should be dealt with in the same way that other issues are dealt with in the Senate.
So make no mistake about it. This vote at 5 o'clock doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with scuttling the Iraq debate. We welcome the debate. We are happy to have it. But the minority will insist on fair treatment, and our definition of fair has been pared down to two resolutions. And all of the resolutions, as everything else we consider in the Senate, would be subject to a 60-vote threshold.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader is recognized.
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority Leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Fairness. You start throwing the 60-vote number around when you have something to hide or you want to stall, and it appears that is the case here. We have offered the Republicans an up-or-down vote on Warner, an up-or-down vote on McCain, and an up-or-down vote on the matter relating to Senator Gregg. How much fairer could you be on that? We have heard in this body from the Republicans for years now: Up-or-down vote, up-or-down vote. We want an up-or-down vote.
That is what we want. Why should there be an arbitrary ruling by the minority that this take 60 votes as to how people feel about the Warner amendment or the McCain amendment?
Mr. Mitch McConnell-R, (KY) Minority Leader - Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. Reid - Sure.
Mr. McConnell - Isn't it true that any one Member of the Senate, just one Member of the Senate could insist that there be a 60-vote threshold on this issue?
Mr. Reid - Mr. President, nearly everything we do in this body--and I will be happy to respond to the distinguished Republican leader--nearly everything we do in this body is determined by unanimous consent. We have matters that come before this body--and that is how we get here, is with unanimous consent. I can't imagine why there would be anyone who would require 60 votes unless they didn't want us to go forward--unless they didn't want us to go forward. That obviously is the message we are giving around the country. Look at any newspaper: "GOP Threatens to Block Vote on Resolution." That, Mr. President, is USA Today. That is only one newspaper. They are all over America, the same thing.
This is an effort to stop. For every day we are not able to debate the Iraq resolution means one less day, and maybe we would not be able to get to it because of the continuing resolution. As I said earlier, we have been told by letters I received from Republicans that they are going to filibuster the continuing resolution. Today, starting today whenever we came in--and we came in late because we knew we had this procedural vote--we should have been debating Warner and McCain, but we are not. And now, if cloture is invoked, there is 30 hours after that before we can get to debating this and by then, frankly, it is too late. We will not be able to do it because of the continuing resolution.
Mr. McConnell - Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. Reid - Of course.
Mr. McConnell - Let me repeat my question. Isn't it true, I say to my good friend, the majority leader, that any one Member of the Senate could ensure that a matter has to receive 60 votes?
Mr. Byrd-D, West Virginia - Could do what, may I ask?
Mr. Reid - Could ask for 60 votes. I say to my friend, hypothetically that is true, but that is the way it is with many things in this body. But that person would have to come forward, identify themselves, and stand up and say:
- I do not want the debate on Iraq to go forward. This is a little difficult to do with the situation where, as I said before, everybody in America wants this debate to go forward. So let's hear somebody on the other side stand up, akin to a Senator who believes in something, and say: I don't want this debate to go forward.
The Acting President pro tempore - The Republican leader.
Mr. McConnell - Mr. President, let me say that there are many Members on my side who would argue we should not be having this debate this week at all. I hope none of those watching this on C-SPAN or any people in the gallery are confused. A 60-vote threshold is routine in the Senate. It is the ordinary, not the extraordinary. There was really only one exception to that, and that was the consideration of judicial nominees. My good friends on the other side of the aisle spent an enormous amount of time in the last couple of years trying to establish a 60-vote threshold for that as well.
There is nothing the minority is asking for that is in any way extraordinary, nothing extraordinary about it at all. It is really quite ordinary. We are prepared to have a debate on Iraq this week. We look forward to having a debate on Iraq this week. What should happen is the distinguished majority leader and myself should agree, by consent, to a reasonable number of resolutions. As I have indicated, some of the Republican Senators have given up their opportunity to offer proposals in deference to my request that we narrow down the number of resolutions to a reasonable number for consideration this week.
I hope that one of two things would happen: Either we vitiate the vote this afternoon because it is completely unnecessary or we will defeat cloture and the majority leader and I, hopefully, will be able to sit down and reach agreement for a fair consideration of alternate proposals that could have been reached last Friday and I had hoped would have been reached last Friday.
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader.
Mr. Reid - Mr. President, keep in mind what I offered the minority: up-or-down votes on Warner and McCain; up-or-down vote on Judd Gregg. I also offered a 60-vote on Warner and a 60-vote on McCain. That was also turned down.
This thing about 60 votes is exaggerated. I have been in the Senate 25 years. I have been involved in two filibusters, and that is two more than most anyone in the Senate has been involved in. Filibusters are just talk. Rarely are filibusters ever necessary or do they occur.
Therefore, this "everything is 60 votes" is simply not valid.
They want a fair process? Up-or-down vote on McCain, up-or-down vote on Warner, up-or-down vote on Judd Gregg. Okay, don't want that? I tell you what, this has been stated publicly and privately long before today: We will give you a 60-vote on Warner, we will give you a 60-vote on McCain. Nope. Turned down.
Where does this fairness come in? Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? They have to get everything they want? I cannot imagine how we could be more fair. The American public would see a debate on Warner, see a debate on McCain. One is for the surge, one is against the surge. Why not have that debate? There will be lots of other times to debate other issues dealing with Iraq. We have the September 11 recommendation coming up; we have the supplemental coming up. Iraq is not going to leave the Senate. But it will leave this Senate if we are not allowed to proceed in this manner because--again I say that is because of bad housekeeping and the Republicans just simply leaving town after they lost the majority--we have to pass a continuing resolution. We have to. We have no alternative. We have to start on that by Wednesday.
The Acting President pro tempore - The Republican leader.
Mr. McConnell - Mr. President, first, with regard to the 60-vote threshold, the majority leader and I both praised the bipartisan cooperation we had in the Senate on both the ethics bill and the minimum wage bill, both of which had a 60-vote requirement. That demonstrates how extraordinary 60-vote requirements are. These were two bills which were widely praised by both the majority leader and myself as examples of bipartisan cooperation.
I heard the majority leader say up-or-down votes on McCain and on Warner. If he would throw in the Gregg amendment for an up-or-down vote--I am sorry, what was his offer?
Mr. Reid - My offer has always been an up-or-down vote on McCain, on Warner, on Judd Gregg, and the Democratic alternative which basically says we are against the surge. It has always been the same. And the 60-vote would be on McCain and on Warner.
I would also say I appreciate my friend talking about the ethics in lobbying reform and the debate we had on minimum wage. However, I don't want to start a battle that is already over. But one reason we were able to get those two bills passed--we thought stopping debate on these was not the right thing to do. We spoke out loudly, and the American people said: Let's get on with those two issues. They held it up for a little while but not for very long.
Mr. McConnell - A further illustration of how ordinary it is to get 60 votes around here, there have been 9 cloture motions filed in this Congress alone, and we are now finally starting the second month. It is really not in dispute that a 60-vote threshold is quite common around here. It is ordinary rather than extraordinary.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Reid - Mr. President, I have offered 60 votes on McCain and Warner.
The Acting President pro tempore - The minority leader.
Mr. McConnell -I understand he has offered 60 votes on McCain and Warner. The Gregg amendment is also important and would have to be included in any such negotiation which, hopefully, we will get back to having later today.
Morning Business
Resolutions of Disapproval
Richard Durbin-D (IL)
Mr. Durbin-D, Illinois - Mr. President, let me say, for those who have not followed this debate closely, I think we have made amazing progress until today--until today--because what happened before today was that we were moving on a bipartisan track, a track of cooperation, so that the Senate would exercise its responsibility and deliberate a topic that is being debated today in Springfield, IL, and Little Rock, AR. That is the war.
In an effort to reach this point, we have made accommodations. Senators BIDEN, LEVIN, and HAGEL worked long and hard on a resolution of disapproval of the President's policy. They reported it from the Foreign Relations Committee. Yet, we set that aside and said, in the interest of comity, in the interest of fairness, we will gather behind Senator JOHN WARNER, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in a bipartisan fashion, and we will work together so we bring one resolution of disapproval to the floor.
Senator Warner was kind enough to make some modifications in that resolution, and we were prepared to proceed. We felt that was fair. Throughout this process, we have not been asserting the rights of the majority. We have tried to work in a bipartisan fashion.
So now comes the moment of truth. Will the Senate, after all the sound and fury, finally have a debate? Now we are told by the Republican side, no. We are told by the Republican side that because they have several other amendments they want to have brought up, they will stop any debate on the Warner resolution unless they have their way on the procedure.
I am troubled by this. If the Republicans in the Senate cannot swallow the thin soup of the Warner resolution, how will they ever stomach a real debate on the war in Iraq?
What we face now is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
It is important. It expresses the feeling of the Senate. But it is not going to change the situation on the ground. The President will not be held back from sending the troops that he wants to escalate the war, nor will there be any money moved from one place to another, nor any limits on the troops, nor any of the changes that have been discussed.
What we started to do here was to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, a bipartisan resolution, introduced by Senator Warner on the Republican side, as the basis for this debate. How much more good faith could we show on the majority side? And yet now we find that the Republicans have objected. We are witness to the spectacle of a White House and Republican Senators unwilling to even engage in a debate on a war that claims at least one American life every day and $2.5 billion a week.
As we debate the procedures, as we go back and forth, day by day, we lose more soldiers and spend more money. I am sorry there is no sense of urgency on both sides of the aisle to move this matter to debate quickly. If the Republicans want to stand by their President and his policy, they should not run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position.
One of their own on the Republican side, speaking before the Foreign Relations Committee, said he felt it was a matter of responsibility. He said: We are Senators, not shoe salesmen. I do not want to reflect poorly on entrepreneurs in America by referring to shoe salesmen in a derogatory way, but I would join in his remarks. If we cannot come together today and begin the debate on the single issue that is paramount in the minds of people across America, why are we here? What are we waiting for?
We have certainly tantalized them with the prospects of a debate. And now to have the Republicans pull the rug out from under us at the last minute and say, no debate this week, well, they understand, as we do, the continuing resolution is imminent. We have no time to wait. We have to move to it. And if they can slow us down and stall us for a few more days, then the White House gets its way: no deliberation, no debate, no vote.
The final thing I will say is this: Some on the other side have argued this is a vote of no confidence in the President and the troops. They could not be further from the truth. I cannot believe that Senator Warner, a man who has served his country so well in so many capacities, would be party to a resolution which would express no confidence in the troops of this Nation. I would not be. He would not either.
This resolution expresses our confidence and our faithfulness in those men and women in uniform. Nor is it a vote of no confidence in this President. Of course it is his policy. But what we should debate--and we will debate--is the policy itself, not the personalities involved. But for the Republicans, now in their minority status, to put a stop to this debate is to try to put a stop to a debate that is going on across America.
I will tell them this. They may succeed today, but they will not succeed beyond today. There will be a debate on this war. It may not be this week; it may not be this bill; it may not be this resolution. There will be a debate because the American people made it clear in the last election it is time for a new direction.
Chuck Schumer-D (NY)
Mr. Schumer-D, New York - Mr. President, let's make no mistake about what is happening today. The Republican side is afraid to debate even a nonbinding resolution as to whether this Senate supports an escalation. Simply put, this is a filibuster so that we cannot debate the war in Iraq. Some on the other side will say, well, the word "filibuster" should not be used. But that is exactly what is going on.
Some on the other side will say, well, Democrats filibustered judges. We did. They said that. We were willing to stand by it. Are they willing to stand by filibustering the war in Iraq? And let me say this—let me say this—the lack of debate on this war in this Senate, in this administration, and in this country has led to the muddle, the debacle we are now in, where 70 percent of the people do not support this war. And most experts you talk to say: What is the strategy? We do not seem to have one.
When General Shinseki, 3 years ago, said we needed more troops, there was no debate. When CIA agents and others said there were not weapons of mass destruction, they said we do not need debate. When this war devolved from fighting terror and removing Saddam Hussein into a war that was a civil war, with our young men and women policing the age-old hatred between the Shiites and the Sunnis, there was no debate.
That is why we are in the sad state we are right now. I fully support the troops. And I understand the need of a President to lead, but without debate, debate that has been the hallmark of this country, not words but a meeting of ideas, a meeting of disagreements so that the best policy might emerge? That is what America is all about. And when it comes to war, it should be all about it more than any single other issue.
Every one of my colleagues who is willing to block off this debate right now, who will vote against cloture, is saying: I don't wish to debate whether this escalation is the right thing. You can say the commas are in the wrong place or the dots are in the wrong place. Senator Reid has offered both resolutions, the one by the Senator from Arizona and the one by the Senator from Virginia, both Republican resolutions—an equal place under the Sun—yes or no.
The ability to obfuscate, the ability to shade, the ability to hide should not be available here. Yes or no. Do you support this so-called surge, this escalation, or do you not? I believe the election answered that on behalf of the American people. They want their Senate to debate it. They would much rather have their Senator vote yes or no than not vote at all.
And here we are at this sorry moment. We are on the most important issue that has faced this Senate in quite a while. We are saying, at least those on the other side of the aisle: No debate, no discussion.
Again, I remind my colleagues it is that lack of debate and that lack of discussion that led us into the situation we are in now, where this war has dwindling support in this country, in this Senate, and even in Iraq itself.
I yield the floor.
Trent Lott-R (MS)
Mr. Lott-R, Mississippi - Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He has proven once again his knowledge of how things proceed. But he also is fair in how he proceeds. I thank Senator Byrd for upholding the tradition that he feels so strongly about.
Mr. Byrd-D, West Virginia - I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. Lott - Mr. President, let me get right to the point. This is all show and tell. We know the Senate is ready to have a full debate on the question of how we proceed in Iraq. There are a number of resolutions that have been suggested that are pending. We know our leaders are going to find a way to work this out. So why are we here taking all this time to accuse each other of unfairness and trying to block and delay? We don't want to do that. There is a way we can work this out where resolutions of different points of view can be offered. I don't know what the magic number is. The leaders are going to work that out. But to come to the floor and suggest that we don't want a full debate--this is the Senate. We are going to have a full debate on this approach and a lot of others as we go forward----
Mr. Byrd - You bet.
Mr. Lott - [continuing]. Into the situation in Iraq. That is as it should be. I want to make it clear, this is not an effort to block debate. We could get an agreement, vitiate this vote this afternoon, and go right now into the debate. I think we ought to do that. What are the numbers and what resolutions will actually be offered, our leaders are going to work out.
But I do want to say this, too: If we really want to get to the debate about what is going to be the future there, we ought to be doing it in some way other than these nonbinding resolutions. This is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, so I question the whole process that we are under. I don't mind going forward. In fact, I want to go forward and have a full debate about what is going on here.
I recently had occasion to be at a meeting with a number of world leaders, and the discussion went back and forth. Finally, it came down to this: What do we do in Iraq? Stay, leave, or what? Well, they said: No, no, no, you can't leave. You have to stay. Then the question was, or then what? Well, they had no answer.
The President has been criticized for not coming forth with some changes to change the status quo. He did. Now he is being criticized with what he came up with in this plan that we are going to be voting on later. I don't know if it is perfect. I don't know if it will work. But I do know this: he is the Commander in Chief.
We do need to change the dynamics there. We do need to go forward in a way that will produce a positive result or decide what else we are going to do. That is what the Senate, in the minds of our forefathers, was intended to do.
Let's stop questioning each other's motives or threatening to block this, block that. Let's work this out. Let's have a full debate on this issue, beginning tonight, going forward tomorrow. I think everybody will be satisfied with the results, once we actually get to some votes.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd-D, West Virginia - How much time do I now have?
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from West Virginia has 56 1/2 minutes.
Robert Byrd-D (WV)
Mine Safety
Mr. Byrd-D, West Virginia - Mr. President, the great labor leader--and I mean great labor leader--and legendary president of the United Mine Workers of America, John L. Lewis, pleaded the cause of America's working men and women, as he said, "not in the quavering tones of a feeble mendicant asking alms, but in the thundering voice of the captain of a mighty host, demanding the rights to which free people, free men are entitled."
This was the voice of a true coal miner. I know that voice. I grew up in the coalfields of southern West Virginia. My dad--not my father, my dad--Titus Dalton Byrd, was a coal miner. He belonged to the United Mine Workers, then district 29, now district 17, local union 5771. My coal miner dad worked in the coal mines with my father-in-law, my wife's father, Fred James. My wife's brother-in-law was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. My wife's brother-in-law died of pneumoconiosis, black lung.
I--yes, I--married a coal miner's daughter. You have heard the song "I'm a Coal Miner's Daughter." By whom? By Loretta Lynn.
I married a coal miner's daughter a long time ago. We were married when we were 19. She was 19; I was 19. That marriage lasted almost 69 years, until her death. And today she is in heaven. She is in heaven. Yes, she is in heaven today. I believe that.
Together, my wife Erma and I--mostly Erma--ran a grocery store, yes, in Sophia, WV. Our customers were coal miners for the most part. Our neighbors were coal miners. Our friends were coal miners and others, but coal miners, surely.
Today my constituents in West Virginia, the core--certainly, the core in my viewpoint, but my constituents--includes coal miners. When I speak about coal miners and their safety underground, I am speaking about coal miners, my people, my family. I am speaking from the bottom of my soul when I speak about coal miners. It is a different breed of people, coal miners. Yes, they would leave the open air and sunshine and go back into the bowels of the Earth to search for their brothers, their brother coal miners--Black or White, it doesn't make any difference. They are all black when they come out of that mine. But they are all coal miners. They are West Virginians. I am talking about my constituents. I am speaking from the heart because that is the heart of my background, the coal miners.
I know what it is to stand at the mouth of a mine after an explosion. I know what it is to see the widows and the children who are left to shed their tears and to bury their loved ones. I know. I have helped to carry coal miners who had died around the mountainside. Their coffins are very heavy. I am no big man, never was, but I have helped to carry those coffins. And they are heavy, especially when we are walking on hillsides, yes. So I know what I am speaking about, and I am speaking from my heart. That is where I grew up. I expect to be buried there, yes, in the mountain soil of West Virginia.
The coal miner is proud--yes, you better believe it--of his profession. He is patriotic in that he mines the coal that fuels the American economy. You see those lights up there that are lighting this wonderful, beautiful Chamber of the Senate, the only Chamber of its kind in the world, the Senate, yes. The miner fuels those electric lights that surround this Chamber.
He, the coal miner, is religious in that he trusts in almighty God to keep him safe in his dirty, dangerous job; and he trusts in that God to keep and protect his family, while he, the coal miner, is away. He is courageous--you better believe it--in that he goes underground every day, even though he is surrounded by life-threatening hazards; they are overhead. I have been in the mines. I was not a coal miner, but I was in there with my dad--not my father but my dad. I have been in those mines. I heard the timbers, the tree trunks holding up the tons and tons and tons of earth and rock overhead to keep those rocks from crashing to the Earth and killing the miners. I could hear those timbers cracking. When I was in there, I heard the timbers--these trees, as they were. They are cut off, and they are 8, 10, 12, 15 feet, whatever the height of the covering earth is from the floor there; they were coming down. I heard them timbers cracking under that weight.
Coal miners provide so much for my country, for your country, for their country. And we--ROBERT BYRD, Senator Rockefeller, and other Senators and Members in the House--owe them, the coal miners, our best efforts in securing safer working conditions. Not as their alms but their right.
In 1977, the Congress passed--I was in this Senate in 1977--what is arguably the toughest worker safety law in the history of the world, the Federal Mine and Safety Health Act. I helped to write that law. I helped to champion its enactment in the Congress of the United States. It created the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, within the U.S. Department of Labor--MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, was in the Department of Labor--and the position of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine, Safety, and Health. I helped. I was here.
The opening passages of the MINE Act tell us all we need to know about what MSHA's priorities ought to be:
The first priority and concern of all in the coal or other mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource: the miner, the coal miner.
In recent years, that obligation has been neglected. It has been eroded by a Department of Labor that emphasizes so-called "compliance assistance" programs and has tried to recast its role as a technical consultant to business rather than a protector of working men and women. Let me read that again. In recent years, that obligation has been neglected. It has been eroded by a Department of Labor that emphasizes so-called "compliance assistance" programs and has tried to recast its role as a technical consultant to business rather than a protector of working men and women; namely, coal miners.
The Department's obligation to protect the safety of the coal miners has been eroded by arbitrary spending targets that are designed to appease the White House Budget Office rather than ensure the safety of the coal miners in the coal fields. These policies have fostered the highest casualty rates in the coalfields in more than a decade. Forty-seven coal miners perished--died, dead--last year, half of them in West Virginia. In the opening days of 2006, our Nation mourned as 12 coal miners--yes, my darling wife was on her deathbed at that time in the opening days of 2006; that was last year. Our Nation mourned after a 40-hour rescue effort was unable to save 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV. Our Nation watched with disbelief as an underground mine fire, days later, at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV, killed 2 more miners after another exhausting 40-hour rescue effort. The disbelief--yes, the disbelief--soon turned to outrage as congressional hearings and investigative news reports revealed an atrocious safety record at the Sago and Alma mines. The Department of Labor had been lax in assessing penalties for repeat violations. When penalties were assessed, habitual violators were too often given minor slaps on the wrist or had their fines reduced or negated within the appeals process.
Congressional hearings revealed the Department of Labor had abandoned or had withdrawn countless safety standards prior to the Sago and Alma tragedies, leaving coal miners underground with outdated emergency breathing and communications equipment. How would you like to be a coal miner in those conditions? Emergency preparedness and rescue training had been allowed to fall by the wayside, as the safety of coal miners became a secondary concern to what? To rising corporate profits. Shame, shame. This is the lives of men and women underground, in the bowels of the Earth.
The Department of Labor had allowed the Federal budget for mine safety to be squeezed by lesser priorities, reducing the number of coal mine safety inspectors by 217 since January 2001. The Government Accountability Office--the General Accounting Office--had warned as early as 2003 about the timeliness of inspections, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which was created to be an ever-vigilant advocate for the safety of coal miners, had been failing in its duty. Mine safety budgets and regulations had been allowed to erode at the Sago mine.
MSHA could have required better communications. That alone might have saved those miners. It could have mandated better emergency preparedness. It could have been more vigorous in its inspections and assessments of penalties. If MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, had used its authorities under the Mine Act to the fullest extent possible, those miners who perished at Sago and Alma might have survived. They might have been alive today. Who knows.
Coal mining communities across Appalachia were outraged by these findings, and they demanded action. They marched through the Halls of the Congress carrying pictures of their husbands, their brothers, their sons who had perished in the coalfield.
In response, my illustrious colleague, Senator JAY ROCKEFELLER, and I, along with the entire West Virginia delegation in the House of Representatives--two Democrats and one Republican--introduced mine safety legislation to force the Department of Labor to act. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators MIKE ENZI and TED KENNEDY, rallied to our cause. Our offices began to craft, to shape, to write important and much needed mine safety legislation.
By the end of May--May, O May, when the flowers bloom--the Senate had passed legislation to add the first new safety requirements to the Mine Act since 1977. The MINER Act required additional oxygen. Oh, I can only live with oxygen. You can only live with oxygen. You, Mr. President, can only live with oxygen. You can't live without it. No, I mean by that, without it, a few minutes. Oxygen. It has been around since Adam and Eve inhabited the Garden of Eden.
The MINER Act required additional oxygen supplies underground. It required emergency wireless communications within 3 years. It required improvements in emergency preparedness, rescue teams, and accident notification.
Separately, I worked to secure $36 million in the fiscal year 2006 Iraq supplemental for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to hire additional mine safety inspectors and for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to expedite the introduction of emergency breathing and communications equipment into the coal mines.
Who am I? I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Yes, I am the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So I worked to do that.
By June--the merry month of June--the Congress had passed the MINER Act and added $36 million to the Federal budget for mine safety. By the end of the summer, the Department of Labor had pledged, with the funds that I, a coal miner's boy, had secured, to hire 170 new coal inspectors by the end of the fiscal year 2007. By the end of calendar year 2006, the coal mining industry had at last focused on getting emergency communications and breathing equipment into the coal mines. That's late, isn't it? By the end of the calendar year 2006, while coal mining has been going on for decades--yes, yes, back beyond the beginning of the 20th century until now--by the end of the calendar year 2006, the coal mining industry had at last focused on getting emergency communications equipment and breathing equipment into the coal mines of America.
The question before the Congress now--do it here, do it now; do it here, do it now. Have you heard that on the radio or TV? Do it here; do it now. The question before the Congress now is, what happens next?
We know that extensive oversight will be required by the Congress not only to ensure that MSHA fulfills its duties under the MINER Act but also to ensure that the coal operators meet their duties. So we know that extensive oversight will be required by the Congress not only to ensure that MSHA fulfills its duties under the MINER Act but also to ensure that the coal operators meet their duties.
The House and Senate appropriations and authorizing committees have a significant role to play in this regard. We must do all--we must do all--that we can to ensure that the deadlines set by the MINER Act are met. We must do all that we can to ensure that wireless communications are available to coal miners within the next 2 1/2 years, after all the many years that have gone before. If that means providing more funds to NIOSH to expedite the development of wireless communications and tracking and prodding the industry along to purchase and install that equipment, count on me. As the old Bible says: Here am I, send me. Here am I, send me.
We know also that several issues have not yet been addressed by the Congress from last year. The Congress has not yet addressed the issue of refuge chambers. The MINER Act required NIOSH to study the issue and report back by the end of this year. About what? Refuge chambers.
The Congress must require MSHA and NIOSH to find a way to make refuge chambers. What does "refuge" mean? A place to go. Refuge chambers, a place to go for refuge, for safety after an explosion. During the explosion, that's a big wind, a big explosion.
The Congress has not yet addressed the issue of whether belt air should be used to ventilate the working areas of underground mines--belt air, a conveyor belt that comes along, a belt, a wide belt that comes on rollers and comes into the mine.
Given how the use of belt air and inadequate safety precautions at Alma Mine resulted in the death of two coal miners last year, this is an issue that will not go away with yet another study and yet another report to the Congress. The Department of Labor must reconsider the belt air rule issued in 2004.
We know that the low level of penalties remains an ineffective deterrent for too many coal operators. I am not against coal operators. We have to have them. They invest money, their money. They invest money. We know the low level of penalties remains an ineffective deterrent for too many coal operators. I know many of them personally. I like them. They like me, I think. Penalties are not commensurate with the seriousness of violations.
The Department of Labor recently informed my office that the accident at the Jim Walters Resources Mine in Alabama that killed 13 miners in 2001 will be punished with a fine as little as $5,000--$5,000. That is disgusting. That is disgusting. It is clearly a signal to the Congress that the penalty system demands further improvement.
Last October, MSHA issued its procedural instruction letter to revise the structure for how penalties are assessed by its inspectors. That procedural letter implemented the minimum penalty provision of the MINER Act. However, if higher fines are being assessed by inspectors but continue to be reduced or negated within the appeals process, then MSHA's procedural letter is almost irrelevant.
Mr. President, we need to find a way to ensure that fair penalties are assessed by administrative law judges and the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission within the appeals process.
We must continue to review and ask questions about the structure of mine rescue teams and the changes codified by the MINER Act last year. Here is another area where the rules issued by MSHA in recent years have contradicted the intent and spirit of the 1977 Mine Act.
We must continue to probe whether enough has been done. Two deaths last month in southern West Virginia serve as a macabre reminder that the crisis in the coal fields is not yet over--will probably never be over--but we have got to work at it. It is not yet over. We must be innovative. It is time for us to stop simply addressing mine disasters as they happen. We must seek opportunities to get ahead of the dangers. We must use foresight as well as hindsight.
Last month, I met with the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health, Richard Stickler. Mr. Stickler is in his current position because of a recess appointment in October 2006. He has not been confirmed by the Senate, and so his appointment will expire at the end of this year. I am hopeful that he will prove himself a friend of the coal miner. He has a dedicated team at MSHA, which includes many former coal miners who would like to see MSHA do better. I am convinced that more can be done. The question is whether the Department of Labor and the White House will let MSHA do what needs to be done. The Congress will get some insight into that question as it reviews the President's budget request for mine safety, which was delivered today.
As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and as a Senator who will have some say about the Federal budget for mine safety, hear me when I say that the days of cheating the safety and well-being of our Nation's coal miners are over. The Senate Appropriations Committee will examine the various mine safety accounts, and the Senate Appropriations Committee will make its recommendations to the Senate about where improvements can be made. That process has already begun with the inclusion of $13 million above--above, on top of, over--the President's request in the continuing resolution for the fiscal year 2007 for MSHA to hire and train additional coal safety inspectors. I and other Senators have encouraged the President of the United States--hear me--to include additional funds to retain those inspectors in his mine safety budget request for the fiscal year 2008, and I am glad that the President appears to have done so.
This is an issue that is close to my heart, and I pledge to do all that I can to increase congressional oversight in the coal field. As a son of the coal fields, the Appalachian coal fields, as the son of a coal miner, I am determined, yes, determined to be the "captain of a mighty host demanding the rights to which free men"--free men--coal miners--"free men are entitled." And women. Free men and women are entitled.
Mr. President, that concludes my prepared speech.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, I say this to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I have been privileged to be here but a small fraction of the time that he has, 29 years here and well over 40 for my colleague from West Virginia, but in that period we have worked many times on behalf of coal miners.
Mr. Byrd - Yes.
Mr. Warner - As the Presiding Officer recognized, my fellow colleague from Virginia, our States are joined.
Mr. Byrd - Yes.
Mr. Warner - Those mines have a great deal of comparability, those in Virginia and those in West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd - Joined at the hip.
Mr. Warner - They are joined. The plight of the miners and their families has been a subject that no Senator in the modern history of this Senate has fought harder for than the senior senator from West Virginia, and very often you have involved me and my colleagues, whoever they might be. I have served with three now, the distinguished Harry Byrd, Jr., whom you will recall, Senator Robb, and Senator Allen. All of us have worked on this subject.
I hope to join you on this, and I hope the Presiding Officer, likewise, will work on this subject of coal mine safety. So I thank my friend.
Mr. Byrd - I thank the distinguished, the very distinguished senior senator from the great State of Virginia. I thank him.
Mr. Warner - Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and we will work together.
John Warner-R (VA)
Expressing the sense of Congress on Iraq
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, the cloture vote was very fully discussed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, with leadership and our ranking members, so I am confident that somehow this matter can be worked out. I want you to know, however, that I stand steadfast behind the content of a resolution I put together, along with Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Susan Collins, and some eight other cosponsors.
The question is how does the Senate bring it into focus under the complexity of our rules. I won't take the time to deal with that now, but I would say to those following this debate that we stand, the Senators I mentioned, the two principal cosponsors and myself, firmly behind this resolution, the content of which has been amended.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amended copy of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks, allowing ready reference for those persons examining the Congressional Record.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
- (See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. Warner - That resolution has been distorted and misunderstood in the debate thus far. That is one of the reasons I am so anxious to proceed with this debate. I want to make clear, because it was mentioned that perhaps these resolutions were brought along for political cover, that on that issue each Senator has to speak for themselves, but I assure my colleagues that this Senator from Virginia has moved forward with my thoughts and my ideas in the best interest of the country and the best interest of the men and women of the United States military, and not for any political cover. Nor will I, in any way, impugn the motives of Senators whose opinions differ from mine.
This being my 29th year in the Senate, I have never, to my knowledge, ever intentionally, and I don't think indirectly, impugned the motive of any Senator for the position he or she has taken on a matter. We are all patriots. We are equal patriots. We all support the men and women of the Armed Forces. Let that be understood.
I firmly believe, as we are approaching this debate, that it is imperative that the Senate work its will, and work its will in the open, on this issue which is so critical at this point in time in our many years of involvement in the Iraq situation.
I solidly support the President in his view that we cannot accept failure in getting a government, whether it is this one or an ensuing government, in Iraq up and running and functioning such that it can seize the full range of sovereignty in this nation, and not let this nation implode, causing absolute disaster throughout the region. Indeed, certainly as it relates to energy and other issues, it could impact severely on the rest of the world, not only in energy but in a signal that the terrorists have won. We cannot let that happen. So let's let the Senate work its will, and I think our colleagues here, the distinguished leaders, will work out a procedure by which we will do that. The comment was made, and understandably, that this is a nonbinding resolution. Nonbinding. Well, we have them in the history of the Senate. At this time, this Senator is not voting for any cutoff of funds. That is our one constitutional lever we can pull. As a matter of fact, in our resolution--I refer to our resolution as the one that I, together with Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have put together--we specifically have included an iteration of the concept advanced by our distinguished colleague Senator Gregg, which may come before the Senate. We solidly support that concept of no cutoff of funds.
What do we do short of that? Well, we have a debate. Somehow you have to have some focal point, something written down, some document in writing as to the ability of this institution, the Senate, to reach a consensus, and a bipartisan consensus, on how best we go forward with a new strategy in Iraq. That has been my motivation from the very beginning, to put this institution on record on a bipartisan basis. I am not talking about one or two Senators on that side joining all the Senators on this side or vice versa, no, a truly on its face bipartisan consensus, albeit a resolution without any legal force and effect.
It is important that the people of this country give their support to the men and women in uniform and to a strategy which they hope will succeed in our goal of not letting Iraq implode and fall into greater disaster than it is experiencing today. So how do they go about it? The President, in his speech on January 10, explicitly said those who have other ideas, generally speaking, or concepts, bring them forward. That is what we have done. We have exercised what the President has given us, the option to come forward.
To quote the President: "If Members," referring to Congress, "have improvements that can be made, we will make them," he said. "If circumstances change, we will adjust, showing flexibility, said the President.
Using that as our chart, we then proceeded as a group to figure out how best to comment on the President's strategy. We did say, and I repeat it, that the Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500 and urge the President, instead, to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below. Each Senator has to interpret that phrase, that sentence, as he or she so desires. I repeat that. Each Senator has the right to look at that and decide, one, do you disagree in any way with what the President is doing and the force of 21,500.
I believe we can accomplish the goals this country has set out to accomplish in Iraq, goals that were enumerated by the Baker-Hamilton commission, in a manner that we do not need a full force of 21,500. Indeed, that force, we now learn, could be somewhat higher than that number if you are going to have the essential support troops joined. Unfortunately, there was no reference to that made in the President's speech, and right now it is a matter of debate and contention.
I don't know what the additional figure is, but in my judgment, I say most respectfully that we do not in this resolution in any way challenge or contravene the constitutional provision that you are Commander in Chief and that you can deploy troops which, in your best judgment, are for the security of this Nation and the welfare of the troops. We don't challenge that. We simply accept your offer, we have expressed it, so we support it.
I support, for example, additional troops if they are necessary over and above the current level for operations in Al Anbar. On my last trip to that region, it was clear that the marines had enough troops to do certain portions of their mission, but it was also clear that additional forces were needed.
Perhaps they could come from within the current force structure currently in Iraq. But perhaps you need--to use the word ``surge--some modest surge to meet the requirements for Al-Anbar to be brought under a higher level of security.
Nothing in this resolution prohibits the President from having some portion of that surge force of 21,500 utilized to do those things which are essential--further training of the Iraqi forces, further embedding, enlarging the number of troops to be embedded with the Iraqi forces. Those are the sorts of things this Senator supports. Within the framework of this resolution, I can take those stands.
But I turn now to the principal thing we have in this resolution, and that is one of the main things that I believe has to have greater emphasis. It is as follows. We state it very clearly in a provision in our resolution:
The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to these goals, which were enumerated by the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
I go back and I read the goals here, all set forth on page 6 of the resolution. The military part of this strategy should: focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting coun�ter�ter�ror�ism operations, promoting regional stability, supporting Iraqi efforts to bring greater security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.
Therein is the principal motivation.
The Presiding Officer - The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. Warner - I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent that I could proceed until such time as Senators desiring to come forth and address the standing order, namely----
The Presiding Officer - We have an order to lay down the motion to proceed. Will the Senator allow that to go forward at this time?
Mr. Warner - Fine, if the Presiding Officer desires to do that.
Chuck Grassley-R (IA)
Tax Gap an the Minimum Wage
Mr. Grassley-R, Iowa - Mr. President, I would like to speak about two issues that have been much in the news lately: the tax gap and the minimum wage bill. We had on the front page of the Times today the discussion about the tax gap. In addition, with the release of the President's budget today, the administration has provided Congress substantive proposals to deal with the tax gap. It is now Congress's responsibility to consider these proposals, review them, and hear from the public and also see what more is possible in terms of addressing the tax gap. But the good news is we have already taken steps in this Congress to deal with the tax gap. We have very important tax reforms and tax gap measures included in the minimum wage bill. So Congress is effectively killing two birds with one stone.
First, we are providing needed tax relief for small businesses that could be harmed by the increase in the minimum wage--and I voted for an increase in the minimum wage. Second, in the minimum wage bill we are going after the tax gap and those who engage in the tax scams.
Two things: No. 1, we are dealing with efforts to help small business and, No. 2, we are at the very same time bringing more money into the Federal Treasury by closing tax scams and reducing the tax gap.
I would say, as a sidenote to my colleagues, particularly the new leaders on the Budget Committee, that these tax provisions are only the latest example of the Finance Committee producing additional revenues by changes in the Tax Code. Unfortunately, I feel as though I need to put on a Sherlock Holmes hat and hire a bloodhound to go out and try to find any savings that the Budget Committee makes and had enacted into law when it comes to the spending side of the ledger. We have more than done our job on the tax side. I say it is time for the Budget Committee to deliver savings on the spending side.
But let me turn back to the tax gap and turn back to the minimum wage bill. I am very pleased that in working with Senator Baucus we have, as part of the tax provisions contained in the minimum wage package, a new provision--a number of provisions, in fact--that will go after those engaged in tax shelters and tax scams and take steps, then, in the process, to address the tax gap--in other words, money that is owed but not paid. I would like to highlight just a few of these provisions that are in the minimum wage bill that are closing the tax gap and shutting down tax scams.
We shut down the SILO scheme. That is an acronym. U.S. corporations cut their tax bills by purchasing and leasing back overseas government facilities such as sewer plants and subways in the country of Germany. We take additional steps to go after corporations that move to the Bahamas and have just a mailbox, not any people, and use the gimmick to cut their taxes. I can't tell you how many times I have heard speeches about that issue from Senators on the other side of the aisle. We can end the talking and we can start doing something about it with these very provisions contained in the minimum wage bill if we do not let suceed people who are talking about separating the tax provisions of the wage bill just to get a minimum wage bill passed.
We also tightened the rules on individuals who expatriate to avoid taxes legally owed in the United States--and we have that happen.
We end the fast and loose ways that corporations account for fines and penalties, so if a corporation gets a penalty for, let's say, polluting the environment, they do not get to deduct that from their income tax. We also increase penalties for those who underpay taxes due to fraud. I think everybody would agree with that. We double the fines and the penalties for those who use offshore financial arrangements to avoid taxes. The Finance Committee views that as a growing problem and a major reason that there is such a tax gap.
We expand and improve the whistleblower program which will provide the Internal Revenue Service a roadmap for corporate tax fraud.
We modify the collection due process rules to protect the tax protesters from abusing the system. This is something that the administration proposed in its budget today to help deal with the tax gap.
This collection due process provision contained in the minimum wage bill only emphasizes my point that we can start dealing with a tax gap today, right now.
And then a final provision I will make reference to is one provision that closes a loophole in section 162(m), the $1 million limitation for corporate executives. The provisions provide that a CEO can't avoid the effects of 162(m) by not being on the job at the end of the year.
Mr. President, forests have been sacrificed to print the speeches that politicians make decrying excessive CEO pay. Yes, we have a provision in the minimum wage bill that tightens the deduction that can be taken for higher CEO pay.
So I get down to the basics, and I get down to the basics because I have been hearing some rumors from Senators--but more importantly from the leadership of the other body--that in order to get a minimum wage bill passed, we ought to drop the tax provisions and pass the minimum wage bill. But I have always been hearing over the years from those people who are saying: We need to do something about the tax gap; we need to do something about the tax scams; we need to do something about people going offshore to avoid the payment of taxes, and on and on. So I have to ask the Democratic leadership if they are going to put the provisions I am talking about--closing the tax gap, closing down the tax scams--if they want to put those provisions in the trash can. If they do, I would also like to put into the trash all the speeches made on the other side then about CEO pay.
I say this because the time for speeches is over. We can take steps right now with the tax provisions in the minimum wage bill to deal with the tax gap and CEO pay. I have listed these provisions, and as my colleagues know, while many of them are good common sense, these provisions are also not at all popular downtown on K Street or up the eastern coast on Wall Street.
While the debate has focused on the tax breaks for small business in the minimum wage bill--and those are important because they are helping small business overcome some negative impact of the minimum wage increase--it is also critical we pass a much-needed tax gap and anti-abuse provisions contained in the minimum wage bill and pass them now. Delaying these reforms as some would argue--putting them on another tax bill--rewards tax cheats. These reforms are often date and time sensitive. Delay only benefits those who are playing fast and loose with our tax laws.
I can't believe the House Democratic leadership wants the first action they take in the area of taxes to drop these reform provisions--these provisions that would close the tax gap--and signal to the tax cheats that the door is wide open.
Senator Baucus and I, working together over the years, have passed into law a good many reforms, and we have shut down a number of tax scams. However, we have been, at times, stymied in the other body--not by Democrats but by Republicans.
We heard a lot of commentary during the elections and afterwards how it was no longer going to be business as usual. My hope is that given the rhetoric of the new House leadership, we could finally pass these anti-abuse tax reforms in the minimum wage bill. I worry, though, that with folks talking about stripping the tax provisions from the minimum wage bill, the House leadership may be singing a new song. But the results are the same. The House Democratic leadership needs to understand that kowtowing to K Street is not a new direction that was promised by a new majority in the last election. They can show it is not business as usual, as they were condemning Republicans of doing. They can show that by passing all the tax provisions contained in the Senate minimum wage bill.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
U.S. Strategy in Iraq
Debbie Stabenow-D (MI)
Mr. Stabenow-D, Michigan - Mr. President, I rise this evening being greatly disturbed by what happened on the floor of the Senate, after a tremendous amount of good-faith effort and very hard work by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, bringing together a resolution to offer to this body for a debate, for a full debate on the question of escalating the war in Iraq. What we have seen from the minority is a filibuster that has stopped us from even proceeding--from even proceeding to be able to take up the resolution.
Our majority leader offered to take up other resolutions, some contradicting the one that we wished to have brought forward, to have equally debated resolutions, the same amount of time, the same amount of votes that are needed in order to be able to bring forward the resolutions and possibly pass them.
Every effort by the majority leader was turned down. Every time he brought up a possible solution to be able to bring forward these resolutions and have a full debate, which the American people are demanding that we do, he was told ``no. No, no, no. So we are now in a situation where the minority has voted down the ability for us to even go to a resolution or multiple resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, which we are all so deeply concerned about.
Right now it is after midnight in Baghdad, and we have over 130,000 American troops who are settled in for another long night half a world away from home. They are living, working, fighting in the most difficult conditions anyone can imagine. They are patrolling crowded streets. They are standing guard on lonely posts. They are reaching out to Iraqi citizens and putting themselves constantly in harm's
way to protect their fellow soldiers. They are there because their Government called them. They come from every corner of this great Nation. They represent every color, creed, religion, and political voice in this country.
I have been to Iraq--many of us have--and I have talked to our men and women in the field and they are the best this country has to offer. For our entire history, they have answered when called. They have gone where we sent them. They have fought when we have asked them to do so. They have dedicated their lives to preparing for wars they did not want, and when asked, they have executed their training with pride, bravery, and an unwavering spirit.
We are blessed this evening to sleep under the blanket of freedom they provide. And no one--no one in this Chamber--is questioning the job they are doing. We are all patriots in this debate--all of us--with differing views, strongly held views about the best way to move forward. We are all patriots.
I have listened intently over the past weeks, and I have heard colleagues and representatives of the administration state time and again that those of us questioning the President are somehow undermining the morale of our troops. I find that insulting, not only to me and to my colleagues who care deeply about this and who have worked together in a bipartisan way to bring forward this resolution but to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines. Open and honest debate about the execution of this war is not only what our armed services expect, it is what they deserve. Our citizen soldiers demand our best, and our best is not idle silence. Our best is not a filibuster that stops a resolution from even coming to the floor so that we can have an open, honest debate about it. Our citizen soldiers are on the frontlines. In this Chamber, we use words, but those words have real-world consequences, and no one lives those consequences more than our troops on the ground. Debate in a democracy does not undermine the morale or the will of our armed services. The lack of a clear, measurable, and achievable mission does undermine what they are doing. That is what we are all wanting to see happen. That is what we want to see developed for them.
They need to know that their leaders have based their orders on reason, not on wishful thinking and on a misguided adherence to a failed strategy. They need to know that their leaders have sensibly considered all of the options available and that those considerations are grounded in fact, not in rhetoric or posturing.
On October 11, 2002, 23 of us in the Senate cast a lonely vote against this White House effort to go to war because the evidence was not clear enough--it just wasn't there--to warrant going to war. I cast that vote because I believed that the pretense for war was based not in definable evidence but on predetermined conclusions. War is a tool of last resort, a decision that should be made with great trepidation when our country is at risk and other options have been exhausted.
From day one, the reasoning for this war has been unclear and inconsistent, from the initial lack of preparedness for securing Baghdad to the most recent call for escalation. We have seen a strategy based on the best-case scenario calculations of politicians, not on the wholly realistic conclusions of career military officers. Mistakes have been made at every turn, and 4 years and over 3,000 American lives later and hundreds of thousands of lost lives and injuries of Iraqis, we are still paying the price.
Some have insisted this resolution is a ploy to embarrass the President. This is clearly not our goal. This is not a discussion about politics. It is a debate about policy. Any soldier will tell you there are no politics in a foxhole. The American people, Republicans and Democrats, are asking us to look long and hard at what we are doing in Iraq. We were not elected to stand silently by while our fellow citizens demand answers.
We can't even have a full debate because of the vote that happened. The American people are asking us not only to debate but to come to the right answers, the responsible answers for the direction and strategy in Iraq. Our soldiers deserve that, and we have in front of us a resolution that we couldn't even get enough votes to bring up to discuss, to debate it fully and have a vote. I believe the simple fact is very clear that escalation is not the answer, and I want the opportunity to vote on that, to say that on behalf of the people of Michigan. Putting more Americans in harm's way will not bring our men and women home any sooner. Why would we go further down the path that has led us to this point? Why would we repeat our previous mistakes and call it a new strategy?
A free and stable Iraq can only be secured by the Iraqis. They must embrace responsibility for their collective future and decide that living and dying at the hands of sectarian violence is not the future they want for their children and their grandchildren.
We must support their efforts--and I do--but we cannot substitute American troops for Iraqi resolve. With the freedom of self-determination comes the responsibility of collective security.
We must continue to train our friends in Iraq. We must equip them and provide sensible military support based on the advice of our generals and military experts. We must lead them by example, by embracing the realities of our own democratic process as we attempt to collectively solve the challenges in the war in Iraq. How can we be talking to them about the democratic process when that process is stopped right here in the Senate in the ability to openly debate and vote on the resolution?
I stand in support of the Warner-Levin resolution and to say that escalation is a grave mistake. I am certain when judged by our fellow Americans, the votes that many Members will cast, if we have the opportunity to do so, to say ``enough is enough to this White House will be greeted with sober support.
With heaviness in my heart, I am also sadly confident that when judged by history, those who have questioned the reasoning and the execution of this war will have our concerns justified.
We can't change how we got here. We can't change the fact we are in Iraq. That chapter of history is written, set in stone, and paid for with the lives of Americans and Iraqis, and the lives of many other individuals around the world. However, we can learn from the path we have walked. We have the ability to reassess and to change course, to get it right, to put forward our collective best wisdom from everyone who has been involved. On behalf of our soldiers, they deserve that. They deserve a full debate in the Senate, to be able to state our positions on policy, on policy that right now at this moment they are carrying out in Iraq. They deserve the very best debate and very best decisions.
hat is what this is about. That is what we were hoping to get tonight, the opportunity to go forward, to work together in a bipartisan way to put forward a statement that says we believe there is a better way, a better strategy than what the President has begun to execute.
I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on this resolution. I welcome other resolutions that colleagues have put forward in good faith. I may not agree with them--and that is all right; that is how the process works--but they deserve debate just as our resolutions deserve debate.
In Iraq, we are talking about their setting up a democracy, the ability to fully debate and participate in their government. We need to show by example that we are not afraid of debate, of involvement, we are not afraid to stand and say what we think and put our own vote and opinions on the line on something so critical to the future of our country, most particularly to our men and women in the armed services and their families, and, frankly, to the world.
We need the opportunity to vote. We need the opportunity to debate. The American people are calling on the Senate to do nothing less. Tonight was not an example of our listening.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer - The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Sanders-I, Vermont - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Bernard Sanders-I (VT)
Mr. Sanders-I, Vermont - Mr. President, in my home State of Vermont and all across this country, the American people are deeply concerned about the war in Iraq. They want real debate here in Washington on this issue and, more importantly, they want real action.
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why some of my colleagues, regardless of what their position on the war might be, would try to prevent a vote on what is at best a very modest proposal that was brought forth this afternoon. If you like the Warner bill, you should vote for it. If you do not like it, you should vote against it. But in fairness to the American people, we should have a serious debate and a vote on this issue.
Let me be very clear in giving you my perspective on this war. In my view, President Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster. It is a war we were misled into and a war many of us believed we never should have gotten into in the first place.
This is a war which the administration was unprepared to fight. The administration has shown little understanding of the enemy or the historical context or the cultural context in which we found ourselves. Who will forget President Bush declaring ``mission accomplished aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln when, in fact, the mission had barely begun? Who will forget Vice President Cheney telling us that the insurgency was in its ``last throes, just before some of the bloodiest months of the war took place? Who will ever forget those Bush advisers who predicted that the war would be a cakewalk--nothing to worry about--and that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators?
This war in Iraq has come at a very, very high price in so many ways. This is a war which has cost us terribly in American blood. As of today, we have lost some 3,100 brave American soldiers, twenty-three thousand more have been wounded, and tens of thousands will come home with post-traumatic stress disorder.
This is a war which, with the President's proposed increase, will cost us some $500 billion, with the price tag going up by $8 billion every single month. This cost is going to add to the huge national debt we are already leaving to our children and grandchildren. And it is going to make it more difficult for us to fund health care, education, environmental protection, affordable housing, childcare, and the pressing needs of the middle class and working families of our country, not to mention the needs of our veterans, whose numbers are rapidly increasing as a result of this war.
This is a war which has caused unimaginable horror for the people of Iraq. People who had suffered so long under the brutality of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship are suffering even more today. There are estimates that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded and almost 2 million have been forced to flee their country--some 8 percent of their population.
While civil war tears neighborhoods apart, children are without schools, and the Iraqi people lack electricity, health care, and other basic necessities of life. The doctors and nurses, teachers and administrators who have provided the professional infrastructure for the people of Iraq are now long gone.
This is a war which has lowered our standing in the international community to an all-time low in our lifetimes, with leaders in democratic countries hesitant to work with us because of the lack of respect their citizens have for our President. Long-time friends and allies are simply wondering what is going on in the United States today. This is a war which has stretched our active-duty military to the breaking point, as well as our National Guard and Reserve forces. Morale in the military is low, and this war will have lasting impacts on the future recruitment, retention, and readiness of our Nation's military. This is a war which has in many respects lowered our capability to effectively fight the very
Five years after the horrific attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden remains free. Using the presence of United States troops in Iraq as their rallying call, al-Qaida's strength around the world continues to grow and the situation in Afghanistan is currently becoming more and more difficult.
Tragically, this administration has refused to listen to the American people who, in this last election, made it very clear that they want a new direction in Iraq, and they want this war wound down, not escalated.
This administration has refused to listen to the thoughtful suggestions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which included two former Secretaries of State, including President Bush's own father's Secretary of State, as well as a former Presidential chief of staff and a former Secretary of Defense, that it was time for a change in direction. This administration has refused to listen to the advice of our military leaders in Iraq who told us that increasing troops from the United States would make it easier for the Iraqi Government and military to avoid their political and military responsibilities.
This administration has refused to listen to the Iraqi people who, according to a number of polls, have told us very strongly that they believe, in the midst of all of the horror and turmoil and violence within their country, that they would be safer and more secure if our troops left their country.
In fact, this administration has tragically refused to listen to almost anybody except that same shrinking inner circle, led by the Vice President, who has consistently been wrong on this issue from day one.
As most everybody understands and as the recent National Intelligence Estimate has confirmed, the situation today in Iraq is extremely dire. The sad truth is there are now no good options before us; there are simply less bad options. In Iraq today, according to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, there are now at least four separate wars being fought, wars that our soldiers who have fought with incredible bravery and skill find themselves in the middle of.
Let me quote Secretary Gates, who has recently stated:
- I believe there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. One is Shia on Shia, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad but not solely. Third is the insurgency, and fourth is Al Queda.
The reality today, as described by the Secretary of Defense, has nothing to do with why President Bush got us into this war in the first place. In March of 2002, he told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they were poised to use those weapons against us. That was not true and certainly has no relevance to the war today. In 2002, the President told us Iraq was somehow linked to al-Qaida and bore some responsibility for the horrific 9/11 attack against our country. That also turned out not to be true and has no relevance to the situation we find ourselves in today.
In the 2006 elections, the American people, in a loud and unmistakable voice, told us they no longer had confidence in the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. In my view, they told us they wanted Congress to begin asserting its constitutional authority over this war, and they wanted us to rein in the administration. Most importantly, they told us they wanted us to begin the process of bringing our troops home as soon as possible. And as a Vermont Senator, that is exactly the effort I intend to make.
In my view, the Warner resolution is far too weak. It is a baby step forward. Whether it is passed or not, it must be followed with much stronger legislation, legislation that has real teeth. Instead of just voicing our disapproval of President Bush's escalation of the war with a nonbinding resolution, we should now be considering legislation that provides for the safe and orderly redeployment of virtually all of our troops out of Iraq within the next year, even as we continue to give support to the Iraq Government and their military for the purpose of helping them accept their political and military responsibilities. That is the legislation we should be debating. That is the legislation we should be passing.
How can we accomplish this withdrawal and redeployment? Regardless of what happens with the nonbinding Warner bill, in the very near future we must bring forth legislation on to the floor of the Senate that would prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces without a specific new authorization from the Congress. Secondly, we must consider legislation to require a schedule for the return home of a majority of American forces and the redeployment of the rest of the American forces from Iraq to other places. Finally, we must vote against any additional funding to increase troop levels. In addition, we must set conditions in any future funding bill so that the President is obliged to begin winding down this war.
We are mired in a war that has gone on longer than American involvement in either the First World War or the Second World War. We will spend more money on this war in real dollars than we spent on either the Korean war or the war in Vietnam. Our standing in the international community has declined, and our ability to combat international terrorism has been seriously compromised. It is time to say no to this ill-conceived escalation. It is time to deploy our troops out of harm's way. It is time to end this war.
Ken Salazar-D (CO)
Gang Abatment and Prevention Act
Mr. Salazar-D, Colorado - Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, introduced by Senator Feinstein. Before discussing the details of this bill, I want to state how pleased I am that it has such broad bipartisan support. With 13 sponsors, 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans, I am hopeful that this bill can move quickly through Congress.
Gang-related violence is on the rise, in Colorado and throughout the Nation. Just by way of example: according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Denver is home to roughly 12,470 gang members, who are affiliated with 110 gangs. Nationwide, there are roughly 730,000 gang members. Since 1999 the number of crimes investigated by the Denver gang unit has risen 35 percent; gang members were responsible for fully 35 percent of Denver's firearm-related homicides;
As these statistics show, gang violence is still a serious problem--and we in Congress have an obligation to respond. This bill is a good first-step, because it focuses on four key pillars of effective law enforcement policy: prevention; investigation and prosecution; firm and just penalties; and effective law enforcement training.
On prevention, the bill would authorize $250 million for intervention programs focused on at-risk youth. These funds would be administered through a new High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Area program, or HIGAA, which would be designed to facilitate cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement in identifying, targeting, and eliminating violent gangs.
I have firsthand experience with the effectiveness of multijurisdictional law enforcement efforts: the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, and the various local multijurisdictional drug task forces in Colorado, have successfully leveraged Federal, State, and local resources to fight crime. I support applying this model to the fight against gangs.
On the investigation and prosecution front, I am pleased that the bill would increase funding for the Justice Department, Federal prosecutors, and FBI agents to coordinate Federal enforcement against violent gangs.
In regards to penalties for gang-related activity, this bill takes a sensible approach. It would replace the current sentencing enhancement for gang-related conduct with a new Federal antigang law that directly criminalizes gang crimes--and related conspiracies and attempts to commit crimes in furtherance of a criminal gang. The bill would also create new Federal offenses prohibiting the recruitment of minors into a criminal gang.
Finally, the bill would authorize $3-$5 million per year for the creation of a national gang violence prevention training center and clearinghouse, which would assist local law enforcment with training and the implementation of effective gang violence prevention models. Since my time as attorney general, I have been acutely aware of the importance of effective law enforcement training--and I am pleased that this bill contains provisions which would directly address this important issue.
This is a sensible, comprehensive bill. By focusing on prevention, investigation, prosecution, punishment, and training, I am hopeful that it will give our law enforcement agencies--Federal, State, and local--the resources they need to effectively fight the growth of gangs and gang activity.
Passage of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
Mr. Kennedy-D, Massachusetts - Mr. President, this momentous achievement that helps so many millions of Americans would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of our staff.
Of my own staff, I want to give a special thank you to Lauren McGarity for her strong commitment, her deep knowledge, and her hard work on this issue over many months. Lauren, you have really made a difference.
I thank Portia Wu for her help and leadership and especially her able work over the past 2 weeks in handling the many amendments to this legislation.
Thanks also to Missy Rohrbach for helping us manage the floor schedule and for all she does so well.
Thanks, too, to Jonathan McCracken, Jeff Teitz, Dave Ryan, Esther Olavarria, and Laura Capps.
As always, I am grateful also for the leadership of Michael Myers, who has been with me for many years as staff director of our HELP Committee.
But above all my special thanks go to Holly Fechner, my chief labor counsel. This momentous vote is a tribute to her--to her skill, professionalism, and deep dedication to those who are the backbone of this country. Working men and women in America could not have a better friend and champion. Holly is a true leader, and we all owe her a great debt today.
I commend Senator ENZI's staff, too. Katherine McGuire, Ilysse Schuman, Brian Hayes, Kyle Hicks, and Greg Dean. They are real professionals. It is a pleasure to work with them, and I thank them for their courtesies.
Thanks, too, to Senator BAUCUS' able staff for making this victory possible--Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck, and Bill Dauster.
And special thanks for the able leadership of Senator Reid's staff, especially Darrel Thompson and Bob Greenawalt. And, of course, Marty Paone, Lula Davis, Tim Mitchell, and Trish Engle as well.
Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2008
Submited to Congress from George W. Bush
The Presiding Officer - laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred jointly, pursuant to the order of January 30, 1975 as modified by the order of April 11, 1986; to the Committees on the Budget; and Appropriations:
To the Congress of the United States:
America is a country of opportunity. Throughout our history, we have overcome great challenges by drawing on the strength, creativity, and resolve of the American people. We have adapted to change--while maintaining our commitment to freedom and an open economy.
Our economy is strong and growing, Federal revenues are robust, and we have made significant progress in reducing the deficit. The Budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012. My formula for a balanced budget reflects the priorities of our country at this moment in its history: protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism, keeping the economy strong with low taxes, and keeping spending under control while making Federal programs more effective.
As Commander in Chief, my highest priority is the security of our Nation. My Budget invests substantial resources to fight the Global War on Terror, and ensure our homeland is protected from those who would do us harm. We will transform our military to meet the new threats of the 21st Century and provide the brave men and women on the front lines with the resources they need to be successful in this decisive ideological struggle. The Budget will support a new strategy in Iraq that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives American forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. And it will continue to provide the tools necessary to keep America safe by detecting, disrupting, and dismantling terrorist plots.
The U.S. economy is strong. Since August 2003, 7.2 million jobs have been created. Unemployment is low. Wages are growing. Productivity is strong. Inflation and interest rates are low. And we have seen tremendous progress despite a series of challenges, including recession, the terrorist attacks of 2001, corporate scandals, the costliest natural disaster in our Nation's history, energy price spikes, and a temporary slowdown in the housing sector. The resilience of our economy is a tribute to America's workers and entrepreneurs. And well-timed, pro-growth tax policies helped create the right climate for innovation and entrepreneurship.
The Federal deficit is declining and on a path to elimination. Last year, we successfully met our goal of cutting the deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. This occurred because tax relief helped the economy to recover and grow, resulting in record-high revenues while we restrained non-security discretionary spending. With continued strong economic growth and spending discipline, we are now positioned to balance the budget by 2012, while providing for our national security and making tax relief permanent.
My Budget proposes to keep non-Ðsecurity discretionary spending below inflation for the next five years. My Budget also reforms projects and spending that don't get the job done. We need lawmakers' support to help us accomplish this goal--including reforms that will improve the Congressional budget process.
To bolster public confidence in the Government's ability to manage taxpayers' money successfully, Congress should adopt earmark reform. The earmark process should be made more transparent, ending the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language never included in legislation. The number and cost of earmarks should be cut by at least half by the end of this session. I have also called on Congress to adopt the legislative line-item veto, which gives the Legislative and Executive Branches a tool to help eliminate wasteful spending. These common-sense reforms will help prevent billions of taxpayers' dollars from being spent on unnecessary and unjustified projects.
To keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. If we do not address this challenge, we will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits.
In the short term, my Budget works to slow the rate of growth of these programs, saving $96 billion over five years. This Administration is also actively working with Congress to comprehensively reform and improve these vital programs so they will be strong for the next generations of Americans.
I am optimistic about the future of our country. We are an entrepreneurial and hard-working Nation. And while we face great challenges, we enjoy great opportunities. This Budget reflects our highest priorities while reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget by 2012. I am confident that this approach will help make our country more secure and more prosperous.
George W. Bush The White House February 5, 2007.
The Presiding Officer - Morning business is closed.
Legislative Session
The legislative session of the Senate for February 5, 2007 can be found here, and begins with...
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)