Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. This bipartisan legislation will protect nearly 200,000 acres of pristine and ecologically sensitive lands in Riverside County as Wilderness or Potential Wilderness, the highest level of protection and conservation for Federal public lands in American law.

Over the past year, I worked with my colleague, Representative Mary Bono, who represents the areas protected in this bill. Together, we worked to reach consensus with local officials, environmentalists, businesses, sportsmen, and Indian tribes. The result is this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Riverside County contains some of California's, indeed, America's, most spectacular desert and mountain vistas and landscapes. The breathtaking lands protected in this bill also provide habitat for threatened bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise, as well as many other species such as mule deer, mountain quail, and bald eagles.

Specifically, the bill protects 150,531 acres of lands as wilderness, highest level of protection and conservation for Federal public lands in American law. Another 41,100 acres of land would be designated as potential wilderness. Once the final inholding claims are settled by the National Park Service, these lands will become ``wilderness'' without the necessity of an additional act of Congress. In the meantime, these lands will be managed by the Park Service as ``wilderness.''

The bill also designates 31 miles of river as wild and scenic on four California Rivers: North Fork San Jacinto River, Fuller Mill Creek, Palm Canyon Creek, and Bautista Creek. These rivers are biologically important watersheds in this dry part of my State.

Many of these lands were included in my statewide wilderness bill, the California Wild Heritage Act, which I reintroduced in February.

The bill has broad, local support including from Riverside County supervisors, municipalities, chambers of commerce, environmentalists, sportsmen, and businesses. The bill includes important provisions clarifying that Federal agencies could use all the tools necessary to fight and prevent wildfires. The wilderness boundaries were drawn in consultation with local communities and tribes.

I look forward to working with local interests and all of my colleagues to see this important legislation enacted.

Mr. President, are we awaiting, hopefully, an agreement at this point? We are speaking on the bill in general? Is that where we are?

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will indulge me for about 5 or 6 minutes while I speak about the Biden-Brownback-Boxer- Specter, and many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, amendment. I wish to say to my colleague from Delaware how much I appreciate what he has done. In the face of so much opposition, he has kept to this idea that we need to respect the Iraqis enough to understand the reality of their situation.

I remember before we had the vote on whether to go to war, or give the President the authority to go to war, a friend of mine, former Congressman John Burton, called me and said: Barbara, I want you to read one book before you cast your vote, one book that I think explains what Iraq is about. That book is entitled ``The Reckoning,'' and it was written by someone named Sandra Mackey, a historian, in 2002. So I read the book before we voted on whether to give the President authority to go into Iraq. The book detailed how Saddam Hussein egregiously used his power as a brutal dictator and a strongman to hold that country together. She explains the history of Iraq and why the only way to hold it together, in her view, was by such a strongman and what a terrible reality she came to. She said that after World War I, Iraq was a young, fragile country, patched together by the victorious European powers.

She wrote:

Within its artificial boundaries, the Iraqis have lived for

eight decades as a collection of competing families, tribes,

regions, tongues, and faiths. This complex, multilayered

mosaic of Arabs and nonArabs, Muslims, and Christians, is

trisected by Iraq's three major population groups, each in

possession of a distinct identity; each group dominates a

region of Iraq--the Sunnis the center, the Shia the south,

the Kurds the north.

She goes on to conclude:

Iraq is a state, not a nation. Over the 80 years of their

common history, the Iraqis have engaged in the conflicted,

and at times convoluted search for a common identity. But

Iraqis as a whole have never reached consensus.

What Senator Biden has understood for several years now, and why I was so interested in supporting him from the very start as a proud member of his Foreign Relations Committee, is we have to deal with the Iraq we have, not the Iraq we wish we had. If that sounds similar to someone--I understand that is a similar sentence. But we don't have an Iraq that we romantically wish we had. After all, as Senator Biden has said many times, for Iraq to survive and thrive, they have to want democracy as much as we want it for them. I think that quote by Senator Biden has been in my mind since the very start of this war that I did not vote for.

So I see a light at the end of a very dark tunnel--a darkness that is impacting our Nation. It is impacting the Senate in a way where we are paralyzed. We can't get from A to B; we can't see this light. We can't grab it. We argue over military tactics such as a surge. Our military has done everything we have asked them to do. But every single military leader and political leader has told us there is only one solution, and it is a diplomatic one. In this very important amendment, what Senator Biden and the rest of us are doing is saying, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Look at the Kurds. Look at the Kurdish area. Do my colleagues know, and thank God, we haven't lost one soldier in that area. Of the approximately 165,000 soldiers we have there, only 100 soldiers are there.

The Kurds are running their own lives. They even fly the Kurdish flag. They make their own decisions. I think worth repeating is this solution we are putting before the Senate today--we hope it is today-- recognizes the Iraqis will decide this for themselves, that this idea is consistent with the Constitution, not outside their Constitution. Of course, they will be the ones who have to embrace this.

But what this amendment does is it says to the world we are ready to move past a military solution. We understand we are not going to have lasting

peace when all you have on the table is a gun and bullets. We have to put a diplomatic solution on the table.

So I am very delighted to have this time now. I don't know if I will have any time later to speak, but I have said what I need to say. I think this is a golden moment for us. I think we could move this debate in a better direction, in a direction all of us want to move it, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, whether we voted for the war or not. We want to craft some type of political solution. We want a roadmap. The Senator from Delaware has given it to us. I am proud to be a part of this bipartisan group that has cosponsored this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, could the Chair tell me what the order is this morning.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to bring to the floor today the conference report on H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I think I can pick up on something Senator Alexander said about how divided we are in this country over this Iraq war. That is very clear. No one understands more than our Senator who is sitting in the chair and presiding today how we are divided. This is a different story, so we will take a little break out of our discussions about Iraq, and we will continue to work for bipartisanship in bringing this war to an honorable close.

At this time, we take a little break from that and turn toward something that is very important, which is building and rebuilding the water infrastructure of our Nation. Today is a day that is 7 years in the making.

I wish to start off by thanking my committee, all of the Members on my side of the aisle, and Senator Inhofe, our ranking member, and all his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. This is an unusual day. This is a day where we come forward united on a bill that will authorize the projects and policies of the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am so pleased we will vote today on final passage of that bill, and we will send it to the President.

I hope President Bush will reconsider his veto threat of this bill. I think colleagues will speak to how urgent this bill is. Imagine not having a water resources bill for 7 long years. That is too long to wait. If colleagues are concerned about the size of the bill--truly, if we had gone back the way we did it, every 2 years, it would be about the size that this bill is. As Senator Inhofe will say when he gets here--and, as you know, he and I don't agree on many environmental matters, but on public works matters we do agree--this is the first step in a long process--the authorizing step--and then comes the appropriations.

So every one of these projects that has gone through local governments all over this country--remember, for every one of these projects, there is a local match. These are projects that came from the bottom up, from our people who were saying to us we need help with flood control, with economic development, with dredging and we need help with wetlands restoration and in a number of areas involving the movement of water; and this country learned it when we watched after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

If we didn't know it then, we certainly know it now. So I say to this President, this bill is in line, in terms of the pricetag, with what we would have had if we had done this bill every 2 years. There is huge support for this bill. The votes in the House and the Senate are enormous, very one-sided.

So I hope, Mr. President, if you are listening or people in your office are listening, this is a respectful request to please join with us. We don't have to fight over every single thing. When it comes to the economy, the quality of life of our people, we should be united.

The House vote on this conference report was 381 to 40. We are hoping we will vote in that same fashion in the Senate.

Mr. President, how much time do I have, since I am Senator Reid's designee?

Mr. President, will Senator Landrieu be amenable to taking 10 minutes at this time, and I will reserve time later for her in the debate?

I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Landrieu. I wish to say before she begins, she has been a mover behind this bill. She has worked her heart out to get this bill to the floor and, as a result of her working, of course, along with her colleague, Senator Vitter, who is on the committee, our committee came to Louisiana and held a very unique hearing. We had many colleagues--I see Senator Cardin is on the floor. He was there. We had a very good turnout, and Senator Landrieu was eloquent. She has been eloquent on the floor of the Senate in the past I look forward to hearing her remarks.

Mr. President, I have a little UC to take care of the people on the floor right now.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes; Senator Nelson for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Baucus for up to 10 minutes.

Yes. And, for now, this will be it, but I will do a second UC to include Senator Landrieu for another 10 at a later time.

Mr. President, before my friend begins, I wanted to get the parliamentary situation, if he will yield for a minute?

It is my understanding that Senator Feingold has up to 30 minutes to speak on the bill. He and I discussed it. If he has any added time, he has graciously agreed to yield it to me with the understanding that if he wants additional time, I will get it back to him later. But I think, if it is necessary for me to make such a request, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time the Senator yields back be yielded back to me with the understanding he will be able to speak again if he so chooses.

Mr. President, is it a fact that I have 34 minutes remaining on my manager's time?

Senator Feingold graciously said he would yield me the remainder of his time with the understanding that if he needed more, I would give him some of it. So what is his amount that is remaining?

I ask unanimous consent that that be done.

Mr. President, again, in a way I am glad I didn't have a chance to speak before because there has been so much interest in this bill that I waited until we had a little quieter time on the floor, although several are coming.

Part of our work is making sure that in coordination with local governments and State governments and communities and the American people, we do what we need to do so we can build our economy, so our economy has behind it the infrastructure it needs. What happens when an infrastructure fails? We saw that in Minnesota when the bridge collapsed.

I am proud the Environment and Public Works Committee held a very strong hearing at the behest of Senator Klobuchar, and we are moving forward on a way to ensure that we can fund those kinds of improvements. We saw what happens when water infrastructure fails, when we look at what happened in Hurricane Katrina. We saw that the levees we thought were built to protect against category 5 storms simply didn't stand up.

There is no way we can talk our way out of the problem we face in America. The problem we face is we have an aging infrastructure. Whether it is our roads or bridges, our highways, or our water infrastructure, these need attention. That is why today is such an important day and why I am so proud to stand here, because even though not every Member will support this bill, I would say almost every Member will. Senator Feingold was eloquent and he was disappointed that we didn't do everything he and Senator McCain asked us on Corps reform. I understand that. We are very close friends and colleagues. The fact is, I see it a little differently. We went a very long way. I know he and I have our differences. What I wish to do, rather than take the

time to engage in an argument, is to place in the Record the program highlights of Corps reform initiatives that are in this bill. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

What everyone will be able to read is the independent review we now have in place in the bill that is truly independent, done by the National Academy of Sciences, which includes safety assurance reviews, mitigation, planning principles and guidelines, watershed- based planning, levee safety, and other program improvements, including expediting the process for deauthorizing the unconstructed backlog of projects. Rather than get into a big argument, to me it is such a positive day today.

I see the Senator from Virginia coming to say a few words.

This is a very important day. We are struggling in the Senate to work together. The war in Iraq has torn us apart. It is very hard. But on this matter of building an infrastructure and making sure it works, we are as one. This conference report has the support of my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, the entire Environment and Public Works Committee. It is important to note that the conference report was signed by every conferee from both Chambers. The conference report was signed by every conferee, Republican, Democratic, Independent, as they may be, in both Chambers. The conference report has already received an overwhelming vote in the House: 381 in favor; 40 opposed. Imagine what a wonderful message that is that we can work together.

I also say for the record that this conference report fully complies with the rules of the Senate as amended by S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Under the requirements of new rule XLIV, I certify that each congressionally directed spending item in the conference report and the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for that item has been identified through a chart that has been available on the committee Web site at least 48 hours prior to the vote on this conference report. So we have been faithful as we must be to the new rule XLIV on our ethics, where you can see what every Senator requested and a certification that in fact there is no conflict of interest, no pecuniary interest on the part of the Senator or any member of the immediate family. This is truly a bipartisan bill.

I am going to make a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of my 10 minutes, Senator Cardin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and that then Senator Warner be recognized.

Well, the Senator from Maryland has been on the floor all day.

How much time would my colleague wish?

Then why don't we give you 5 minutes first and then 10 minutes for Senator Cardin.

He is very pleased with that.

How many more minutes do I have on my 10 minutes?

So, again, we have complied with the new ethics rules. I want to say also, in terms of the Corps reform matters, there is an environmental organization, American Rivers, and they have written a very important release that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

They certainly believe we should have gone further with Corps reform. That is clear.

But they do say:

The reforms in this bill begin to put the Corps on track

towards becoming a more reliable and credible agency.

This is important. They do say:

The gains in the WRDA bill would not have been possible

without the tireless work from lawmakers on both sides of the

aisle.

They name some names of Senators.

Even though, as I say, they would have wanted 100 percent of what Senator Feingold asked for, they again say:

Congress has taken a first step towards more responsible

river management.

I feel pleased with this result. I know sometimes we see a glass half full and sometimes we see it half empty. I see it half full. I am proud we made these amazing strides toward Corps reform. Senator Feingold is, shall we say, very disappointed, and I respect that. I do not see it the way he sees it.

So when I come back to some more of my time--but I will yield at this time--I will talk about how important this bill is to the health and safety of our families, our communities, and our economy. At this time I yield and we will go to the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, if I might make a unanimous consent request before my good colleague speaks.

First of all, because my friends on the other side are looking for time, I yield them 3 minutes of my time, to Senator Inhofe, right off the bat--3 minutes. If the Chair could add that to the time they have remaining.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Cardin, Senator DeMint be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

I object. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say this. For 7 years, we waited for flood control and then we saw Katrina. For 7 years, we have waited for environmental restoration. For 7 years, we have waited for navigation improvements. For 7 years, we have waited, and the bottom line is, every single project in this bill has a letter attached to it saying who asked for it, whether it was added in conference, added in the first bill, the second or the third.

I would urge that we get on with this today, and I object to the unanimous consent request that we slow this thing down.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes at this time.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that now I have 14 minutes remaining on my side. Senator Inhofe has how much time remaining?

And Senator Feingold retains 20 minutes.

If he doesn't take that 20 minutes, Senator Inhofe and I will share that time.

I am sorry that Senator DeMint has left the floor, which oftentimes happens after a Senator speaks. But I have to say that when I said we need to do these Katrina-related fixes, his answer was that the reason we had a problem with Katrina in the first place is the Corps didn't do a good job, and I think certainly the Corps didn't live up to our expectations. But what Senator DeMint doesn't mention is that in this bill before us, because of the hard work of Senator Feingold and others, we have now put into this bill an independent review process where there will be no projects going forward unless and until there is an independent report that the National Academy of Sciences will, in fact, oversee. We have gone light years from where we were before. That is why we have so much strong support for the bill. The Audubon Society supports the bill, along with the Clean Water Fund, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Society, the National Water Resources Association, and on and on and on. The fact is, if we had allowed the DeMint request to go forward, we would be back to square one. We cannot afford that. It has been 7 long years.

Again, the health of our communities is at stake. The safety of our families is at stake. I could talk about Sacramento. Finally, we have language in the authorization to move forward with the proper flood control for the community of Sacramento. Mr. President, 300,000 people live there. It is the home of our State, the capital of our State. We finally reached agreement. These are not agreements that come from the top down; they come from local government up. I think it is important, as colleagues come to the floor to in a way demean this process, to understand if they demean the process, they are demeaning their own communities. In Oklahoma, or in California, or Georgia--I see Senator Isakson here. He and Senator Baucus were invaluable to Senator Inhofe and me in doing all of this.

The fact is these projects and these ideas and these needs come up from local governments. As a matter of fact, homeowners' associations find themselves faced with dangerous circumstances because a river is rising and there have not been the needed improvements. Senator Inhofe and I share a commitment to shoring up our infrastructure, including water resources, and I think when we look at all of the things that come before us--and we are so torn in half here, Democrat versus Republican--here we have an opportunity to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. As Senator Inhofe would say in his way, because he has been hammering at this, this is one step of a very important process. We have added these independent reviews so that we have checks and balances all the way through.

I will retain the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to Senator Landrieu of Louisiana.

Will my friend yield just on the time issue?

It is my understanding that Senator Feingold has yielded us 20 minutes, so

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe get an additional 10 minutes and I get an additional 10 minutes.

Madam President, could you tell us how much time remains between Senator Inhofe and myself?

Madam President, let me say as we wind down that I think this committee, of which I am so proud to be the chairman, and I am so pleased to work with Senator Inhofe on these infrastructure issues, has done its work. I think we have done our job.

Now, of course, you can always find something that somebody doesn't like in a bill, but the fact is, as Senator Inhofe explained with a most instructive set of charts--and I thank him so much for going back through the history of the difference between appropriations and authorizations--this is an important step and a necessary step in the process but by no means the last step.

He talked about the appropriations process, and I talked about the process now that Senator Feingold and Senator McCain got added to this bill. Although they are still not happy with everything we have done, it creates an independent review. So we will have independent review, we will have appropriations. Therefore, this is a very necessary first step after these projects have come up really from our constituents, from our homeowners, from our city councils, from our boards of supervisors, from our mayors and governors, et cetera. So I believe we have put together a bill that meets our communities' needs, and I think we have done it in the very best way we can. We have complied with the new ethics rules.

By the way, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated today from Majority Leader Reid and the Rules Committee chair, Senator Feinstein, replying to Senator DeMint on the issue of whether the Senate rule XLIV point of order applies to authorization bills.

So, Madam President, we have complied in full with the Ethics Committee, and we worked with the Parliamentarian every step of the way to make sure we were in total concert with that new law because we are respectful of it. We have letters from every Senator. We have a transparent process here. Everyone who asked for a project put their name on the line, and we made sure there was no pecuniary interest of a Member or their family.

So this is an important day for our country. We have all said this in different ways, but we are authorizing projects our communities need to help protect millions of people in our Nation from catastrophic flooding. It also will help restore the great wetlands, estuaries, and rivers of our Nation, places where wildlife thrive and that our families enjoy today. We want to make sure they enjoy them in the future--the hunting, the fishing, the boating, the camping, the outdoor industries.

By the way, those outdoor industries are a very important part of our economy. We call it the recreation economy. Without these projects, they simply won't be able to thrive.

WRDA makes other important contributions. It authorizes projects for our communities that they need to increase their capacity at their ports, to make shipping easier, safer, and more efficient. It literally keeps America's economy moving. You cannot have a great country if you don't keep up with the infrastructure needs. We saw what happened when a bridge collapses, and we are dealing with that in the committee as well.

Look what happens if we don't keep up with our water projects. We are not going to be able to move our ships. I know there are, for example, in California so many ports, but in many cases a lot of silt builds up and they can't move those ships through. So we need to do that. These are our gateways to the world. Our manufactured goods, such as computer chips, agricultural goods, grains, wines, and fruits, pass through our ports and harbors to be sold around the world. We have $5.5 billion worth of goods passing through our ports each day and more than 2.5 billion tons of trade moving through our ports each year. Colleagues, that volume is expected to double over the next 15 years.

That is why we say to this President: Please, please sign this bill. Why do we have to fight over every single thing? The fact is, you can't have a great economy, the greatest economy in the world, if we can't keep our goods moving. And we need to create thousands of new jobs right here in America. The port economy is responsible for approximately 5 million jobs--and ``jobs'' is your middle name, Madam President. So this bill will keep jobs being created and keep goods moving. WRDA is essential for goods movement.

I mentioned recreation. Maybe some people don't know this, but the Corps of Engineers is the largest provider of outdoor recreation, operating more than 2,500 recreation areas at 463 projects and leasing an additional 1,800 sites to State or local parks and recreation authorities or private interests. At these projects around the country, the Corps hosts 360 million visitors a year at its lakes, beaches, and other areas. One in ten Americans--25 million people--visits a Corps project at least once a year, and this generates 600,000 jobs related to all of this movement.

So, colleagues, we can all agree that public health and safety, economic growth, and environmental protection are important goals, and this bill helps to achieve them.

Finally, I wish to say a word of thanks to leader Harry Reid, who has just come onto the floor to make a statement of his own. I know Senator Inhofe and I spoke to Senator Reid many, many times, and I know it is difficult for him because, just so the public understands, everyone who gets a bill out of his or her committee goes right to the majority leader to beg for time.

He made a commitment to me. He told me, and I remember it: When the Jewish holidays are completed, we will turn to WRDA. And that is what he did. He is a man of his word. This is so very important for the country.

Finally, let me thank the staff. First, the Democratic staff: Bettina Poirier, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushforth; EPW Republican staff: Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, Let Mon Lee--I have gotten to know these as family; also, the staff of Senator Baucus: Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins; and staff of Senator Isakson: Mike Quiello.

This has been not an easy time. But when you get a bill that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, and the three biggest construction labor organizations--Laborers' International, International Union of Operating Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners--when you get all those, plus a host of local people, plus a host of water people, I think we are answering a need.

Again, I thank each and every member of the staff, my dear friend Senator Inhofe for being such a good fighter for this, and all the Members of the Senate. I know we are going to have a great vote.

It is my understanding Senator Inhofe may have a closing word prior to Senator Reid speaking, so I yield my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Monday, September 24, 2007, at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider scientific assessments of the impacts of global climate change on wildfire activity in the United States.

Mr. President, I support passage of the Levin-Reed amendment and a new course of action in Iraq.

This amendment makes three significant and important changes in our involvement in Iraq that to this point the administration has been unwilling to make, even though the American people have been demanding change for over a year.

First, it removes our troops from the civil war they are now policing and gives them three achievable missions:

to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist organizations; to train and equip Iraqi Security Forces; and, to provide security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure.

Second, the amendment calls for the safe redeployment of those troops not required for these three missions beginning in 3 months and to be completed within 9 months of this bill's passage.

And finally this amendment acknowledges what we have known all along that there is no military solution to this conflict. It calls for the implementation of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to jump start the process of reconciliation and stability. This strategy would include sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community and the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq under the United Nations Security Council. The mediator would have the authority to engage the political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in a political process that aims to avoid no one wants--regional civil war.

For nearly 5 years, our troops have done everything asked of them. It is time for Iraqis to provide the security for their own country. I urge adoption of the Levin-Reed amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2947 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading those words. I hope Members of the Senate heard them well because in this amendment, what we are doing is saying that there is essentially a terrible trend in America today: to launch attacks on honorable people who serve in the military. By the way, it isn't just folks who were mentioned or alluded to. I have an article I would like to have printed in the Record from the San Diego Union Tribune, April 16, 2004, and another from the Seattle Times of May 13, 2007.

I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record.

This is one where General Zinni, who criticized the war in Iraq, said, ``I have been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things.'' Outrageous--because he spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Then you have retired General Batiste, who lashed out on the war and says he gets e-mails with the heading, ``Traitor.''

My friend from Texas is taking one example, attacking an organization that he doesn't agree with--I am sure of that--and we are going to be pretty busy in the Senate if we turn into the ad police. When Senator Cleland was attacked we didn't have a resolution on the floor of the Senate. When Senator Kerry was attacked we didn't do it. When General Batiste was attacked we didn't do it. For General Zinni we didn't do it. We did speak out, and we did speak out about the ad, all of us on both sides of the aisle, that attacked General Petraeus. But we didn't have a resolution all these times.

Suddenly, now, a political organization is attacked by name in a resolution in something that reminds me of the old, bad days in America when organizations were attacked by the Government. So what we have done is we have written this. I thank Senators Levin and Reid and Durbin and other Senators who believe what we see is a trend to attack heroes. We say it is wrong. We don't go after one organization. We say it is wrong.

Let me show you the Max Cleland ad. We have the picture of Max Cleland in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

This is what Senator McCain had to say about that ad. Here is what he said:

I've never seen anything like that ad. . . .Putting

pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a man

who lost three limbs on the battlefield, it's worse than

disgraceful, it's reprehensible.

But we didn't come down and pass a resolution attacking the campaign that ran this ad. But now we have an attack on one organization. It is wrong. It should be defeated. This amendment I have offered is the one that ought to pass this Chamber.

I yield to Senator Durbin my remaining time.

Mr. President, I might say that my friend and colleague-- maybe he didn't read the Boxer amendment because we specifically pointed to the Petraeus ad, and we say, in fact, that it was an unwarranted personal attack. I will just tell you right now, if my colleague wants to vote no on all such attacks, whether it is against General Batiste or Zinni, then vote no on the Boxer amendment. If you want to vote no on the amendment that says two things here--we reaffirm our strong support for all the men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, and we strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving as or has honorably served in the U.S. Armed Forces by any person or organization--if my friend wants to vote against this, then so be it because just to attack one organization and not look at the larger problem of what is happening out there in our country seems to me a political vendetta and nothing more.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Levin.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, could I ask what the parliamentary situation is? I thought Senator Cornyn was going to have an amendment and I was going to have an amendment this morning. Is that accurate?

Mr. President, John Kerry and Max Cleland are great heroes. My colleagues on the other side voted not to condemn the attacks against them, even though the Senator from Arizona did so, and I have the chart of what he said.

This is about politics, let's face it. Since when are we the ad police who go after organizations by name and wave around their name? What are we going to do next when there is a health care debate? Are we going to condemn one organization on one side and one on the other, or are we going to do it on choice and hold up some very tough ads that we see running all over this country? I would hope not.

This is the United States of America. We condemn all attacks against our men and women serving honorably in the military, not just one organization. We condemn all the attacks. I hope our colleagues will vote ``no.'' Otherwise, we are starting a terrible precedent around here we will regret.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold-Reid amendment.

This amendment would remove our troops from the middle of a civil war and give them three achievable missions. First, to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist organizations; second, to train and equip Iraqi security forces that have not been involved in sectarian fighting or attacks against our forces; and third, to provide security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure. For all other U.S. forces not essential to these three missions, the amendment calls for their safe redeployment beginning in 3 months and to be completed by June 30, 2008.

On May 16, the Senate failed to end a filibuster on the Feingold amendment by a vote of 29-67. Since that time, 389 Americans have been killed in Iraq. In fact this has been the deadliest summer for U.S. forces since the war began.

Our troops have done everything asked of them. They achieved every mission they have been given. When they were given a clear task, it was accomplished. Our military forces defeated the Iraqi army, hunted for nonexistent stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, captured Saddam Hussein and his sons, provided security for three elections, and trained 350,000 Iraq police and army.

But there are some missions that are beyond the capacity of our military. Our military cannot give the Iraqi people the political will to achieve a national reconciliation among Sunni, Shia and Kurds. And, our military cannot convince Iraq's neighbors to play a positive role in ending the violence in Iraq.

The Iraqi people do not want us in Iraq and 70 percent of them believe that the surge has made the security situation worse.

Passage of the Feingold-Reid amendment will allow us to renew our focus on al-Qaida.

I voted to go to war against al-Qaida. I strongly supported the decision to use military force in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban government. But then this administration made one of the biggest strategic blunders in the history of this nation. It took its eye off of al-Qaida and became obsessed with Iraq, a country that had no links to al-Qaida.

The cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, recently wrote, ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaida.''

It is finally time to change the mission in Iraq and redeploy our troops out of the middle of this civil war.

And so, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Feingold-Reid amendment.

Madam President, will my friend yield?

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague very much for pointing out the inconsistency of an attack on one organization that I guess my friend doesn't admire anyway, and that is his right. It is also our right to speak the truth on this floor. The fact of the matter is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went after a war hero and told stories to the American people that were not true and tried to sully a hero's reputation.

But he is not the only Senator who was attacked, as my friend remembers what happened to our colleague, Max Cleland. I know he does. Here is a veteran who gave three limbs for his country--three limbs. It is harder for him, for the first 2 hours of every day, to get ready for the day than it is for the Senator from Texas or myself or the Senator from Illinois to do our work for a month. Yet this man was viciously attacked and his patriotism called into question. Oh, yes, my friend might say, it was during a political campaign. It was disgusting. So we raise these issues.

What I wish to ask my friend is this: I was thinking--as the Senator from Texas, my friend and colleague, was speaking--I was thinking about some retired generals who spoke out against this war and said they were called traitors and worse. So I am looking at ways to incorporate into this a condemnation of anyone who would attack a retired general for speaking out against a war because I think that was low and it was horrible. It was frightening because, in a way, it was saying to these retired generals that they had no voice, no independent voice.

So I wish to thank my colleague, and I wonder if he recalls these generals. I will have more details as I put together my second-degree amendment as well.

Mr. President, today I rise to laud the passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act conference report, which is a strong symbol of our commitment to higher education access and affordability. This bill includes key tools and resources to enable students and families across our Nation to attain the American dream of a quality education.

I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi and their staff for their hard work on this important legislation. Their tireless efforts have succeeded in making higher education a reality for millions more young people.

Specifically, a key component of this legislation is the increase in college aid by roughly $20 billion over the next 5 years, including the much needed increase in the maximum Pell grant award. For many years now, one of my top education priorities has been to increase the Pell grant award for college students with the greatest financial need.

Twenty years ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered 40 percent of costs for attending a 4-year college in California. Today, it covers just 30 percent. This bill helps our students when they start out by increasing the maximum Pell grant award from $4,300 today to $5,100 in fall of 2008 and $5,400 in fall of 2011. This provision is particularly important to California, which has over 584,580 Pell grant recipients-- more than any other State in the country.

The bill also includes a provision which I introduced with Senator Feinstein that would remove a barrier, known as the tuition sensitivity clause, in the Pell grant system that unfairly prevented students who attend lower-tuition colleges from receiving the maximum grant. According to the Congressional Research Service, the elimination of the tuition sensitivity clause will benefit approximately 96,000 students in the next academic year and would provide an average Pell grant scholarship increase of over $110 per student.

The bill also tackles the problem of student loan debt upon graduation. Currently, 46 percent of seniors at 4-year colleges in California graduate with debt, owing on average $15,000 in student loans. This bill helps students by capping Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income. The bill also encourages public service by rewarding those who choose to work in nursing, teaching, or law enforcement for 10 years by forgiving their remaining debt after that time period.

I also want to thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi for the consideration and adoption of my amendment regarding Upward Bound. Upward Bound seeks to capture potential, first-generation college students--many of whom are low-income youth--and prepare them for the rigors of college. Upward Bound is a fantastic tool for America's youth. These programs provide mentoring, academic tutoring, summer classes, and other services to youth across our Nation to provide them with the resources and skills they need to be successful in college.

In my home State of California, we have 73 Upward Bound programs that serve approximately 5,600 students a year. Due to funding shortfalls, 186 programs nationwide are in jeopardy of being cut, including 11 programs in California. Four of these programs are in San Bernardino, a low-income area in southern California. These four programs were cut, not because of performance--they actually have proved to be very successful and have high program scores--but because of a lack of funding.

The conference report also includes the creation of an Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Higher Education Serving Institution designation, a provision that I and Senator Akaka have championed in past. This designation would allow grants and other Federal assistance to be awarded to institutions that have a student enrollment of at least 10 percent Asian American and Pacific Islander and has a significant enrollment of financially needy students. The additional funding would help AAPI-designated institutions to fulfill their missions to assist students to meet their educational goals. The AAPI designation would apply to approximately 86 colleges and universities nationwide, and would apply to approximately 40 schools in California alone.

I am pleased to strongly support the passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act Conference Report.

No one should be denied the opportunity to go to college simply because of cost. This landmark legislation will help ensure that students and families across the country have the opportunity and freedom to attend the college of their choice. I strongly believe an investment in college aid is an investment in our Nation's future--and this bill advances this vision.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, can you tell me what the order is, please.

Madam President, will you let me know when I have used 20 minutes of time?

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2719, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to offer a very important amendment that could significantly enhance the health and well-being of millions of women around the globe. This amendment would overturn the so-called Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which undermines a number of key principles and goals on which our country is based.

As many of you know, this policy was put in place at a conference in Mexico City in 1984. When we learned what it really did, we dubbed it the ``global gag rule.'' As many of my colleagues know, the policy literally gags foreign organizations that receive USAID family planning funds.

Let me be clear about this issue. Under the gag rule, international family planning organizations that provide perfectly legal family planning services with their own funds in the countries in which they operate are prohibited from receiving U.S. assistance if they provide legal abortion services and those services include counseling or referral services, or they also do not get the funds if they publicly support the right to comprehensive reproductive health care.

Let me bring this home to you. I know you are a mom of a young child. If a mom walks into one of these family planning clinics that receives USAID funds with her 11-year-old daughter who has been raped and wants to be counseled as to what the options are or wants to be told where she can take that child, this organization will lose all their USAID funds if they help that mom and that traumatized daughter. Is this America? We are talking about punishing family planning clinics all over the world if they use their own funds for perfectly legal activities to help families.

I will give you a clear example. Until 2004, abortion in Ethiopia was illegal unless the life of the mother was at stake, and complications from unsafe procedures were the second leading cause of death among hospitalized women. The Government decided to have a national debate about how to fix this problem which was taking a terrible toll on Ethiopian women. That is right, the Ethiopian Government said: Let's talk about what is right for our people, what is right for our customs, what is right for our way of life, and how can we save women's lives.

In order to weigh in on this debate, the two largest family planning organizations in Ethiopia actually had to give up their U.S. funding. That is why we call it a gag rule. The organizations were gagged from expressing themselves. They could not engage in the debate for fear of losing their funds. So the two largest family planning organizations in Ethiopia decided they would give up their U.S. assistance in order to spare women's lives. Imagine, as a result of this misguided policy, U.S. misguided policy, the two largest family planning organizations in Ethiopia lost U.S. funds simply because they wanted to weigh in on a debate about reproductive health care.

One of the things about President Bush that we all love is when he speaks about democracy and how democracy should be the centerpiece of our foreign policy. I ask you, what is democratic about gagging people? What is democratic about saying you have no right to free speech unless you agree with me? Then, if you agree with me, I support your right to speak. That is what the global gag rule is. Free speech is only allowed, under this administration, when that speech agrees with them. What is happening as a result? Women are dying and there are unnecessary abortions. This is a terrible result of this policy. Basically, we say to people who are doing hard work to help their people: If you don't agree with us, gag it. If you don't gag it, you are not going to get funds. This feeds into the stereotype of America that is around the world today. Most foreigners do not like us very much these days. They look at this administration, and they say that our strategy is: Do as we say; don't do as you choose.

I always thought that a legitimate democracy had the right to self- determination, that they were not punished if they said what they thought. We are not talking about spending a penny of U.S. money for abortions abroad. That has been illegal since 1976. We are not talking about using one cent of U.S. money to pay for lobbying for abortions. That also has been illegal all those years. We are talking, again,

about gagging family planning organizations that use their own money, in a legal way in the country in which they are present, to help women who desperately need help, to help children who are raped, to help children who are victims of incest.

In both 2003 and 2005, this Senate debated this exact amendment, and it passed with bipartisan support on both occasions. Why am I back? Because, sadly, the Senate never took final action on those bills, so we need to go back again and back again and back again until there is a clear decision on this issue. That clear decision is America, the greatest democracy in the world, is not going to tell other countries they have to see everything the way a particular administration sees it. They should have the right to make their own decisions. As a country that believes in democracy, free speech, and improving the health and well-being of people all over the world, it is time for us once and for all to do away with this harsh and cruel policy. The health and lives of millions of women depend on it, and that is why repealing this global gag rule is so important.

This is not a small matter; this is a large matter. In the bill currently on the floor of the Senate and in the House bill, some steps have been taken to ease the burden of the global gag rule. However, it really does not go the distance. The bill before us today tries to address it by allowing contraceptives to be provided by the United States to international family planning organizations that would otherwise be ineligible. But at the end of the day, these organizations are still gagged, they still can't lobby for changes in the law in the countries in which they work. They still cannot even refer someone for an abortion.

Again, I take the case of the mother who walks into one of these clinics with a child who is the victim of rape or incest and the mother is desperate: Where can I take my child? Please tell me.

We can't tell you because if we tell you, we are going to lose our funding.

Meanwhile, the child is losing time here in a battle to save her health. That is shameful. That is not something to be proud of.

Let's face it, these organizations need the funding and they need the freedom to exercise the most basic rights of humankind: the rights to free speech and expression to try to change policies they think are fundamentally wrong. In truth, we need family planning clinics to have open doors, not just to provide contraceptive services--which are so important--but to attend to all the aspects of reproductive health care.

Let me tell why I get so emotional about this issue. Approximately 500,000 women die from pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum complications every year--500,000. Think of your largest cities-- 500,000 women a year, 1 woman every single minute. This includes deaths from a horrific condition known as obstetric fistula, which occurs when women's bodies are too young or underdeveloped to give birth. In Ethiopia, this problem is particularly prevalent, where child marriage rates are extremely high and some girls actually get married at 7, 8, and 9 years of age.

The fact that we as a country would do anything to harm access to comprehensive family planning is shameful. This is the 21st century. Even if you would never, ever want a member of your family to have an abortion, even if you would want a member of your family never to know that it even exists as an option, put aside your own feelings and allow other people to make their choice.

Let me give a specific example of what happens when international family planning organizations are barred from speaking out against injustice in the countries in which they operate. I will tell you a story I have told on the floor before, a story that a nongovernmental organization leader from Nepal told us at a hearing I chaired in the Foreign Relations Committee in 2001.

Like so many nonprofits, this NGO was forced to make an impossible decision when faced with the unjust imprisonment of a 13-year-old girl named Min Min. What did Min Min do? A 13-year-old girl--why was she in prison? Because she was raped by her uncle. A relative took her for an abortion, and instead of going after the uncle, they put her in jail; a 13-year-old girl, sentenced to 20 years in jail. But because of this outrageous gag rule, the organizations that operated inside Nepal were faced with a horrific choice: They would either lose their funding or they would keep their mouths shut and not try to free Min Min and change the laws. Do you know what they did? They gave up the money and they struggled, but they did the right thing, because Min Min was raped by a relative, she became pregnant, her family forced her to have an illegal abortion, and therefore she was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Imagine--a 13-year-old girl sent to jail for 20 years for the crime of being raped by an uncle.

Is that the kind of country we are, that we would tie the hands of an organization that wants to help that child and tell them: If you try to help that child and change the laws here, you lose your American funding. Doesn't that make us proud as Americans? No, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't make me proud. I hope it doesn't make anyone proud who would vote on this important amendment later on today.

I praise that nongovernmental organization, that health care agency for saying: You know what, it is not worth the money; it is not worth the money. These countries have people in them who struggle for money. This child celebrated her 14th birthday in prison, her 15th birthday in prison, but because that health care organization, that NGO, was able to change the laws, Min Min was set free. That organization lost $100,000 in funding because they saved a child, and they had to let 60 staff members go. That meant stopping a program that reached more than 50,000 people in remote communities.

What are we doing? What are we about? Are we about helping families? Oh, we hear it all the time: family values. I have them. I want to help that mom who walks into a clinic with a pregnant 11-year-old girl who was raped. I don't want to punish the people who help her. I don't see how you stand for family values if you do that. It doesn't make sense.

What we are doing by keeping the gag rule in place is saying to clinics and doctors: You have to choose between helping the people in your country by speaking out, by offering them referrals and counseling, or American dollars. This is not a good policy for this country. This is a shameful policy for this country. I am very optimistic that, again, we will have a successful vote to overturn this global gag order.

President Bush says he will veto it. Let's have the debate. Let's have the debate because I think any moderate, sensible American will say this policy is misguided, and at the end of the day women and children are being hurt by it.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I would ask how much time I have remaining.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I think this debate has been a good one, and Senator Brownback and I are used to debating this issue. I think we lay out our case the best we can. But let me be clear. I deplore gendercide. I am the mother of a daughter. I would do anything to protect her. I deplore hurting girls. I deplore hurting women.

That is why it is so difficult for me to understand my friend's position on the Mexico City global gag rule policy. If he says he deplores hurting women, hurting children, hurting girls, then why would he support a policy that would punish a health care organization operating abroad from using its own funds to protect women, girls, children, families? Why would he support that?

He says: Oh, we are not gagging anybody. They can say anything they want. They just will not get our money. Well, this is America. We help people who are doing good things. That is the reason at one time we were beloved in the world. Is it not a good thing to help an organization that is using its own funds to help girls and women, to protect an 11-year-old who was raped to make sure she gets the health care she needs? Would not we want to think that American funding should help get contraceptives to families abroad? Should we help them if they have an unintended pregnancy or a rape or incest in their family?

That is why I do not understand how my friend's rhetoric matches his actions. I think it is cruel to continue the global gag rule. I think it is cruel to punish an organization that had to give up all of its money and all of its staff to go to work to change the law, to free a young girl who was raped by her uncle, and instead of the uncle going to jail, because of the laws in Nepal at that time, the child went to jail, and had her 14th and 15th birthday in jail and could have had 18 more years in jail had the organization not walked away from U.S. funding. How does that make you feel as an American? It makes me feel very sad.

Then my colleague says he agrees that women are dying from these policies. But he does not define what are ``these policies.'' Well, let me define these policies. Women are dying because of Mexico City language, because of the global gag rule known as Mexico City.

Let me read from the New Republic.

The destructiveness of the gag rule is hard to overstate.

The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 500,000

women in developing countries die each year from causes

related to pregnancy and childbirth. Of those, roughly 70,000

die from back-alley abortions. And aid restrictions have hurt

those groups best positioned to help. In Kenya, for example,

two health organizations have had to shut down their clinics

since 2001 after proving unable to abide by the gag rule and

losing their USAID funding. Many of these clinics were the

sole providers of health care for women and children in their

respective regions, and most had offered post-abortion care--

critical in a country where abortion is illegal, unsafe, and

causes an estimated one-third of maternal deaths annually.

Imagine a clinic had to shut down its doors because America withheld its funding. They could not afford to keep it open. And women came crying into the front door there, bleeding from back-alley abortions. This is something my friend speaks about as being humane and kind and good.

Well, today the Senate has a chance to take a stand against the global gag order. The Senate has a chance to express itself in favor of the health of women, of girls. I am proud to be offering this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to retain the remainder of my time, set aside the amendment, at which time we will have a vote on it at a later time.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe. I ask for the attention of colleagues because women's lives are on the line. The Senate has twice passed this amendment which overturns the Global Gag Rule, otherwise known as the Mexico City policy.

Colleagues, I wish to tell you a story, a compelling story of what happened in Nepal in 2001. A little 13-year-old girl was raped in Nepal by her uncle. A family member took her for an abortion.

Under the laws of Nepal, they sentenced that little girl to 20 long years in jail. Because a family planning agency helped her and because that family planning agency in Nepal, an NGO, spoke out on behalf of changing the laws that put a little girl in jail and let the uncle free, America withheld its funds. That is shameful. It is wrong. Please help me overturn this Mexico City global gag rule.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, colleagues, if you voted to repeal the global gag rule, then the obvious way to vote on this amendment is no.

What the Senator is trying to do is to strip a very simple thing out of the bill, which says that we are not going to deny contraceptives to family planning groups simply because they do not toe the line with the global gag rule. If you voted with us to do away with the global gag rule, you certainly would vote to do away with this amendment.

Why would we deny contraception to families who need it desperately? It would be a terrible vote to vote aye on this amendment because you are consigning a lot of women to abortion, and we do not want to do that. We want to get them contraception. So if you believe in family planning, this is a very clear ``no'' vote on the Brownback amendment.

I thank my colleagues very much.

Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I remain deeply concerned about reports of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.

The people of the United States and the Philippines enjoy a close friendship that is deeply valued on both sides. Our nations have a strong bond that is supported and celebrated by the 3 million

Americans of Philippine ancestry that live in the United States today. California alone is home to more than 1 million Filipino Americans.

Because of the close ties between our two nations and our two militaries, it is essential that the government of Gloria Arroyo take strong action to end the killings and punish those who have committed abuses.

Over the past 6 years, hundreds of extrajudicial killings have taken place throughout the Philippines. Those targeted have included journalists, religious leaders, political figures, human rights activists, and union leaders.

For too long, the Government of the Philippines has not taken sufficient action to address extrajudicial killings and bring those responsible to justice.

Last year, pressure from international human rights groups, foreign governments, and political leaders forced the government of President Arroyo to launch an investigation into the killings that was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo. The Melo Commission report, which was made public early this year, found that the killings of activists appear to be part of an ``orchestrated plan'' and that the Philippine National Police has made little progress in investigating or prosecuting cases.

Philip Alston, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has stated that the Philippine Armed Forces were in ``a state of almost total denial'' on the need to address ``the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them'' and that a ``culture of impunity'' exists within the Philippine justice system.

In response, the Philippine Government has announced that it is taking steps to address these abuses. President Arroyo has said herself that ``these killings will be resolved and the military will continue to be a vanguard for freedom.''

Last week in Manila, hundreds of relatives and supporters of those who are missing or killed marched to demand action and justice. One of the marchers carried a picture of her son, an activist who was reportedly abducted from a mall last April by seven armed persons who identified themselves as police officers. The car used in the abduction was traced to a vehicle impounded at a Philippine military base. Despite an order from the Supreme Court, the military has not released the missing activist.

During a hearing I chaired in March on this issue, a bishop from the United Church of Christ in the Philippines testified that, ``with such an appalling death toll of extrajudicial killings in our country at this time of the Arroyo administration, nobody could ever claim that she or he is not afraid and is safe. I admit that I have that fear . . . ''

I am very pleased that Senator Leahy has included language in the Senate State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bill that fences $2 million of military assistance on the condition that the Secretary of State certifies that the Philippine Government is implementing the recommendations of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, that the Philippine military is not engaging in acts of intimidation or violence against members of legal organizations that advocate for human rights, and that the Government is investigating and prosecuting those who have committed extrajudicial killings.

This binding legislative language is critical. I hope that Secretary Rice is able to produce a report that states that the Philippine Government is taking real action and the Philippine military is no longer responsible for the deaths of innocent persons.

Senator Leahy, if the Philippine Government fails to meet the three conditions contained in this act, will you work with me to place additional limitations on future U.S. military assistance to the Philippines?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I have come over to the floor, and I am a little out of breath because this amendment was somewhat of a surprise to me, although Senator Feinstein was a little worried about it possibly coming. I am sorry Senator DeMint isn't on the floor at this moment because I would like to look him in the eye and tell him that his amendment is misguided. It does damage to the veterans of this country and the faith they put in us.

As Senator Feinstein eloquently stated, and just reiterated to me, the individual who gave this land for the veterans happened to be a Republican from Nevada who wanted to make a commitment to our veterans. So here we have a circumstance that is so bizarre because this amendment that Senator Feinstein wrote, which Senator DeMint is trying to pull out of the bill, and is now in the bill, is a very wise one. It is one that keeps faith with the veterans of this country at a time when they deserve that support.

In some ways, I say to my colleagues, we have battled many times on this floor for California and for the environment and for women's rights and all the rest. But I remember when another administration at another time tried to sell the Presidio army base for billions of dollars, when the people were promised it would be a park and it was written in legislation that it would be a park. That administration said we could get billions of dollars. But the fact is that certain things you cannot put a price on because, in the long run, it is the wrong thing to do. In the long run, it is wrong in this case to harm our veterans.

Now, here we have this land. As Senator Feinstein has explained to my colleagues, it is in the middle of Los Angeles. Land is a precious commodity in Los Angeles. We have a huge number of veterans who need services in Los Angeles--maybe the highest concentration of veterans in the country. I would have to check that out, but I would not be surprised; it is certainly one of the highest concentrations. Here we are in the middle of a war and we all know the horrors our soldiers are facing. We know there are great unmet needs in the Veterans' Administration all over this country, and certainly in California. For example, we didn't even have a burn unit in California and this war has brought so many problems with serious burns.

We finally were able to accommodate some beds in San Diego for that purpose. We finally were able to accommodate some of those who have lost their limbs because they were not able to get the services in California.

This, I say to my friend, Senator DeMint of South Carolina, is not the time, not the place, not the moment to say to our veterans: You are not important; it is more important to have a rental car agency here or a movie studio here. This is not the time to tell that to our veterans. They are sacrificing.

We may have to have a women's clinic there someday. We may want to expand services for homeless veterans. Those of us who have lived through the Vietnam era know that homelessness followed our veterans. And still when you go on the streets of our cities, whether it is San Francisco, Los Angeles, or anywhere else, you will find a third to 45 percent of our veterans are from that era. They are Vietnam-era veterans who are homeless and struggle.

We may need to have job training centers for these returning veterans. Posttraumatic stress--my senior Senator made the point that we are now learning the depth of the problems we have. Is this the time to take this land away from the veterans? It is outrageous, and it is wrong.

Senator Feinstein has absolutely done the right thing in this bill. I praise all of her colleagues on the committee. I wrote to Mr. Nicholson about this issue several months ago saying: Why are you doing this? I will ask to place that letter in the Record in a moment.

Senator Feinstein is right not only for our community in southern California but for the veterans throughout this country.

I sent a letter on June 6, 2007, on this subject to the Honorable James Nicholson, Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I sent to Secretary Nicholson.

Madam President, I talked about the fact that at least a million veterans reside within a 50-mile radius of the west Los Angeles VA property, more than in 42 other States combined. When we consider that this number continues to grow, this is clearly the wrong thing to do.

Let me say that what my colleague has done in this bill is in concert with everyone in our area. I don't think she or I would walk in and offer an amendment that was a direct blow to a community in South Carolina. We would never do that. That would not be the right thing to do.

The community is opposed to what Mr. DeMint wants to have happen. Local government, many veterans, from the mayor's office, to the city council, to the board of supervisors, to the full congressional delegation, there is enormous support for the provision that Senator Feinstein has placed in this bill. Dozens of local veterans groups are in support of her provision.

I am going to read some of these supporters because I want to give a sense to my colleagues that they should stick with us on this issue because Senator Feinstein's language that she got placed in this bill is strongly supported.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire list.

Madam President, I will name a few. The County of Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles, Representative Waxman, and every other Representative from that area; Howard Berman, Harman, Sherman, the L.A. City Council president, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, all those local folks, former Los Angeles Mayor Riordan, AMVETS Post 2, AMVETS Post 116, American Legion Post 123, VFW Post 875, Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 446, and then a slew of homeowners associations, including the Coalition of Homeowner Associations Council District 5, the Coalition for Veterans Land, Friends of Westwood, and it goes on and on.

Then we have the religious community: St. Paul the Apostle Catholic parish. We have the chamber of commerce. We have the neighborhood council. It just goes on. The park conservancy, the civic association. The administration is wrong to take this action.

Senator Feinstein is right. She mentioned colleagues on the committee who were very helpful to her. It is very important to note that she moved in a very bipartisan way.

In conclusion, I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for withdrawing her motion to table to give me this opportunity to express myself because I think what she did was so important, and certainly she spoke for both of us when she did it.

I hope she will make this motion to table at the appropriate time, and we can table this amendment and send a message tonight to the veterans across this country that we stand with them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.

I have never seen the Senator from New Hampshire so emotional and so excited. You would think the record we have seen in terms of this economy has been stellar. It reminds me of the expressions: ``He doth protest too much'' and ``the best defense is a strong offense. Get excited and wave your hands.'' Let's talk about what has happened here. This President and the Republicans in this Senate are trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. In fact, they turned a $236 billion surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $248 billion deficit. They oversaw the three largest budget deficits in U.S. history, and they are responsible for a $3 trillion increase in the national debt. Now, let me say this: Who owns that debt? Foreign countries--China, Japan. I don't hear the Senator from New Hampshire bemoaning the fact that they can hold us hostage.

We need a change here. We need fiscal responsibility. We need investments in things that help our children, education, for one, and help our families, health care, for two, and a way to make sure our veterans truly get what they need. Instead, the President gives us as head of the OMB Mr. Nussle, who is closely associated with all of these policies and failed as chairman of the Budget Committee three out of six times to get a budget and work with Democrats. This is an absolute outrage.

Now, I voted for so many of the President's appointees. I didn't vote for Alberto Gonzales, but I did vote for most.

I will not vote for a man who put a bag over his head in the House of Representatives. That, to me, shows complete hostility to this great democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Would the Senator yield?

I am so pleased that my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, the distinguished ranking member--and was the distinguished chair of the EPW Committee--has taken to the floor to state the case.

You know, we fight so much, debate so much about so many issues, but this is one, I would say to my friend, where we have come together because we recognize that to have a great country, you have to have infrastructure that is capable, that is going to meet the needs of our people.

I would say to my friend, is it not true that even though you and I might not agree with every single project--as my friend pointed out, this is the authorizing bill, and we did have criteria here. We did work with Members. I would say to my friend, isn't it true that we were the first committee that actually followed the ethics rules that were not even law? We filled out our conflict of interest forms, we presented the bill, and this bill was 7 years in the making.

I just want to say to my friend, when he goes home and when he speaks about this, does he expect to have a good, receptive audience? I think my friend will. As I go to California, I am going to do the same thing.

Many people will call us the odd couple because we do not agree on everything. But on this one, is it not true that we see eye to eye?