Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2007, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Mr. David George Nason, of Rhode Island, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions; Mr. Mario Mancuso, of New York, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration; Mr. Michael W. Tankersley, of Texas, to be Inspector General of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; The Honorable Bijan Rafiekian, of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Mr. Scott A. Keller, of Florida, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. Robert M. Couch, of Alabama, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ms. Janis Herschkowitz, of Pennsylvania, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; Mr. David George Nason, of Rhode Island, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; and Mr. Nguyen Van Hanh, of California, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on living marine resources.

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 Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Joseph Timothy Kelliher, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and R. Lyle Laverty, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Finance will meet on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Can the Middle Class Make Ends Meet? Economic Issues for America's Working Families.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to

meet on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. for a `` hearing titled ``Violent Islamist Extremism: Government Efforts to Defeat It.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' for Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Thad Cochran, United States Senator [R-MS]; The Honorable John Warner, United States Senator [R-VA]; The Honorable Carl Levin, United States Senator [D-MI]; The Honorable Trent Lott, United States Senator [R-MS]; and The Honorable Jim Webb, United States Senator [D-VA].

Panel II: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

Panel III: Janet T. Neff to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan and Liam O'Grady to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Managing the Department of Homeland Security: A Status Report on Reform Efforts by the Under Secretary for Management.''

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the issue of Iraq, to call on the President to sign the supplemental appropriations bill, the emergency bill that we will be sending him, and also to pay tribute to 43 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq from my State since January 30, 2007. This brings to 720 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 22 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record their names, their ages, the circumstances of their death.

Mr. President, if you come to my office--I think you have had the opportunity to do so--you will see in front of the entrance at 112 Hart four huge placards with very small print paying tribute to those from California who have died in this conflict. The sadness of all sadness is that we keep having to send these posters back to be printed in yet smaller print because we keep having to add so many to it, and we are actually running out of space. We will have to get special permission from the Architect of the Capitol to place yet another placard in front of our door.

But we will do it regardless because we must put names on this conflict, ages on this conflict, we must pay tribute to those who are being sacrificed, in my opinion, by a President who simply will not change course, for whatever reason, from a failed course.

Anyone who reads the Constitution--I highly recommend it; it is a very

readable document; it is a very concise document--will see that when it comes to war, there is a shared responsibility. As a matter of fact, if you read the Constitution, you will see Congress mentioned far more times, far many more times than the President. The President cannot act as if he is king. We already had a king, King George. We have a democracy. This is what the President says our young people are dying for in Iraq. Yet at home he acts as if he is a one-man show when it comes to Iraq.

Mr. President, the American people said no to that this past election. Yet it continues as if there is no Congress, there has been no election, there has been no change of heart by the American people, when, in fact, there has been an enormous change of heart by the American people. That change of heart is reflected in the election, in the composition of this Senate, and you, Mr. President, actually are part of that change, that message that we wanted a change in the leadership. With all of this, it just goes on and on.

Today is the fourth anniversary of the President's speech that major combat operations are over. Four years ago he said that, in a military outfit. Yet, still, in today's paper: April toll is highest of 2007 for U.S. troops. Over 100 killed this month. The Iraqi deaths are far higher.

Three years ago the President said: Major combat operations are over. Today we read: The deadliest month in 2007. As a matter of fact, in the past 3 days--as of yesterday, 3 days prior to that, we had 14 dead. That is about one for almost every person in the President's Cabinet.

What would it be like if 14 people sat around the President's Cabinet table, and every one of them had lost a child? How long would this war last? How long would this war last? But who is paying the price? Who is paying the price? Our military families. They want a change. We want success.

How do you get success? It is by changing course. It is what we sent the President. If you read what we sent the President in this emergency bill--I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you are so aware of it--it is a change in course. We are going to shift, as the Iraq Study Group suggested, from a combat mission to a support mission. We are going to gradually redeploy our troops out of there--not overnight--but sensibly. We are going to leave forces in Iraq to target al-Qaida, which never was in Iraq before this war, and now they are all over it because they want to go after our troops. So we are going to leave troops there in Iraq. That is what the Feingold-Reid-Boxer bill does as well. It says we have to have a mission there to go after al-Qaida when this war is over. We say training the troops is OK. Going after al- Qaida is what we want to do, and we want to have enough troops there for force protection.

So anyone reading this--when the President says it is irresponsible, maybe he has not read it. There is time, Mr. President. You have not gotten this bill yet. Read it again. Look at it. We are changing course in a responsible way, the way the Iraqi Study Group that you praised says we should do. That was a bipartisan group. We all remember it: Secretary Baker, Lee Hamilton, and the others.

Do you know why we have to change course? Because the mission you have given our military cannot be accomplished militarily. The mission now is--and since the mission has changed so many times, we have to go back. The mission now is: Bring stability and democracy to Iraq, and Iraq at peace within its own borders and with its neighbors, and an ally in the war against terror. That is the President's goal. That is a political and diplomatic goal, I say to you, Mr. President. It is not a military goal. The military cannot do that. The military has done everything asked of it, and more.

The first mission: Find the weapons of mass destruction. They went into every nook and cranny of Iraq. There were none. So that mission: done, accomplished.

The President said: Go get Saddam. They did it. That mission: accomplished. That tyrant is gone forever.

He said: Go get his sons because maybe they will get the idea we mean business. The military got his sons, put the pictures on television of their dead bodies. It did not do the job.

What was the next mission? We have to hold elections. The military did a magnificent job. Three elections were actually held, and they have a government. Now, that Government will go on vacation, as I understand it, for 2 months while our troops are dying.

The fact is, the military has done every single thing asked of it. We are now at a point where the only way to win this war is to win it diplomatically, politically. Yet, this President will not change course. His solution is, more military action, a surge, which was supposed to last a few weeks--now we are being told a few months--and our military is paying the price. They are paying the price.

I want to read from this news article today: ``April Toll Is Highest of '07 for U.S. Troops'':

On Monday, U.S. troops at Camp Victory, a sprawling base

near Baghdad International Airport, reflected on April's

deadly toll on their comrades. . . .

``It makes me feel depressed to be in Iraq right now,''

said [Private Richard] Gonzalez, [22 years old,] who is on

his second deployment. ``It's a whole lot different than last

time.''

Now, he said, soldiers at the base must carry weapons.

Return addresses on letters from home must be ripped off and

burned, so as not to fall into the wrong hands. On his first

deployment, eight months passed before his Baghdad base was

hit by mortar fire.

This time, incoming fire every single day--4 years after ``mission accomplished.''

``There's a whole lot more activity,'' said Spec. Krystal Fowler, 21, of Hampton, Va. She said it ``kind of bothers'' her to know other troops are taking hits in the field and she can't help.

SPC Natisha Jetter said:

Our fellow soldiers are out there dying, and we're here. .

. .

Gonzales said the deaths made him realize that ``there's a

war going on out there.''

Fowler sighed. It's a war between Iraqis, she said.

``We are just interfering, and letting our soldiers die.''

``I'd rather be out there helping people survive,'' Fowler

said. . . .

There was a pause, as the soldiers mulled that.

``It's just terrifying, because you can drive the same road

for eight months, and then one day it's over,'' Gonzalez

said.

``Over,'' Fowler echoed.

I ask, rhetorically, in light of what our troops are feeling, saying--going there for a second deployment, third deployment and more, and the increased number of deaths of our troops, and the horrific things that are happening in Iraq, detailed in the Red Cross report, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record, Mr. President, this International Red Cross report.

This report is called ``Civilians Without Protection.'' I will go into it in a minute. But in light of everything that is happening, how on Earth could the President sit in the Oval Office and say: ``I am vetoing this bill that is coming to me, and I want to just continue what I am doing''? A military solution is what he is doing, and he is going to continue it.

In light of everything that has gone on, doesn't this President understand it is time for a change? Doesn't he listen to the voters? Doesn't he read these articles? ``Send me the bill. I am going to veto it''--very macho like. I do not think it is macho like. I think it is wrong. I do not think it is brave to continue a policy that is failing. I do not think it is courageous not to admit it is time for a change. I do not think it shows strength. I think it is stubborn. I think it is wrong. And, worst of all, our troops are paying the price for this stubbornness. This is not the same as being stubborn in an argument we might have about some small matter. Oh, I think this book is better than this book, and I think this singer is better than this one. This is involving the lives of our soldiers.

Now, this ``Civilians Without Protection'' report is very tough to read, by the International Red Cross. Let me share some of it with you: the pictures, the headlines, the words.

One section is called ``A conflict that spares no one.''

In some regions, particularly Baghdad and area, families

are often too afraid to leave their homes to go to work or to

shop and too afraid to send their children to school because

of random violence and the threat of kidnapping for ransom.

This one is very tough to take--very tough to take. It is written by a young humanitarian worker from Baghdad. It is in the Red Cross report.

Once I was called to an explosion site. There I saw a four-

year-old boy sitting beside his mother's body, which had been

decapitated by the explosion. He was talking to her, asking

her what had happened. He had been taken out shopping by his

mom.

How do you sit back and say ``status quo''? How? How? Why not welcome a change? Why not welcome the Iraq Study Group? Why not welcome the work that has been done here in 50, 60 different hearings which we have held?

Another part: ``Sliding to disaster,'' in the International Red Cross report. Another part: ``Medical care under threat.'' Another part: ``Dirty and scarce--the water crisis.'' Another part: ``Torn apart--The fate of separated families.'' It goes into the agony. I ask us all to imagine what it would

be like to worry about our kids for even 15 minutes, let alone days and months.

This Red Cross report is printed in the Record.

Mr. President, also, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article I referred to from the newspaper be printed in the Record.

This President's policies left unchecked have been a disaster. And what does he want? More of the same. He criticizes us for coming up with a new policy, and this new policy will work because it combines a gradual redeployment of troops, a focus on getting al-Qaida, a focus on training the Iraqis, with a focus on diplomacy and a political solution, which is exactly what everyone says we need.

General Petraeus says we must have a political and diplomatic solution. Well, everyone has heard it, but obviously not this President. Mr. President, sign this bill. Have a change of heart. Read the paper today. Read the quote from this humanitarian worker. Read what our troops are saying. Read about it. Reconsider.

Also, Mr. President, take a look at what we have done for our people here at home in this bill. You deride it. You make it sound as though we are spending on things we should not. Why shouldn't we fix Walter Reed? Why shouldn't we fix the Veterans' Administration so when our soldiers come home they get mental health care? Why shouldn't we invest in better technologies to protect our troops from these horrific land mines, car bombs, et cetera? That is what is in this bill.

Why shouldn't we help our farmers who lost their money because of horrific droughts, horrific frosts? That is what these bills are for, emergencies. On Sunday, we all learned about the horror that happened in Oakland, with a gasoline tanker overturning on a major interstate connecter. It collapsed onto the freeway below. Miracle of miracles: the middle of the night, in the early morning, 3:40 or so a.m. No one killed. Thank you, God. And we pray that the driver survives.

But here is the point: There is money in this bill for emergencies such as that. There is a backlog of these emergency fixes that have had to be done to our freeways. So, Mr. President, there is real beef in this bill for our people, for our veterans, for our fighting men and women. And, most important, we change course. We change course. We don't have a hard-and-fast date to get out, as others have said. We have a goal to get out: in April of 2008.

When I went to Iraq 2 years ago, I met with General Petraeus at length. I watched how he was training the Iraqi soldiers. He was very complimentary. He said they are doing great. I said to him: If they are doing so great, why can't we go home? It is their country.

They have to defend their own country. He said: Well, pretty soon they will be able to do it. Clearly, they are not doing it. Clearly, the Iraqis are turning on each other. What is our military to do?

As Thomas Friedman said,

Our troops are protecting everyone, and yet they are

everyone's target.

They are protecting the Sunnis from the Shia. When they are protecting the Shia, the Sunnis get them. That is an irresponsible policy. So what we need to do is get through to this President. I ask all the American people to keep on speaking out, to ask the President in these next couple of hours to sign this bill. We can finally change course. We have been in Iraq longer than World War II. We can't afford this conflict, and that doesn't mean you cut and run. Anyone who says that is what we are saying is wrong. Read the bill. We redeploy out of Iraq, we stay in the region to go after al-Qaida and to train the Iraqi forces.

We can't afford this anymore. Mr. President: Sign the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for all his hard work on this issue of affordability of prescription drugs. He has been such a consistent voice. I stand with him on that. I thank him.

(The further remarks of Mrs. Boxer are printed in today's Record under Morning Business).

Mr. President, today I honor the memory of Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, a kind-hearted woman whose remarkable life touched so many of us.

Juanita was a loving mother, and a dedicated public servant who approached her work with an upbeat attitude and can-do spirit that was an inspiration to us all.

Her passing is a tragic loss for California, the 37th Congressional District she so ably represented, and the many Members of Congress with whom she has worked over the years.

Juanita's career broke through so many barriers for women and African Americans. Her rise as the first African American woman to chair a Congressional Committee was only the latest of many firsts in her career.

In her seven terms of service in the House of Representatives, she fought valiantly for the rights of women, for the security of our Nation, and for the protection of human rights across our Nation and the world.

Juanita's efforts to reach across the aisle made her one the most effective Members of Congress, but it was her bold initiatives that embodied the courage with which she followed her convictions.

In her first year in Congress, Juanita immediately demanded the attention of the nation when she brought then- CIA director John Deutsch to Watts to address a newspaper report that the CIA was using profits from domestic crack-cocaine sales to fund CIA-backed Contras in Nicaragua.

Juanita's commitment to the health of our communities has been profound, and her efforts addressed the needs not only of her constituents, but to the victims of disease around the world.

She led the charge to enact the Mother-to-Child HIV-AIDS Transmission Act that has become the foundation of President Bush's $15 billion African AIDS initiative. For nearly a decade, Juanita coordinated the annual AIDS Walk in her district to help continue to inform the community and raise awareness of this deadly disease.

During her tenure as the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, Juanita fought to ensure that every ballot that is cast is counted, and that all of the citizens of our country would know their voting rights.

Juanita has been inspiring young women since the beginning of her career as an educator in California, when she served the Los Angeles Unified School District as a career counselor and edited Images, a state textbook which encouraged young women to pursue non-traditional careers.

As the Democratic Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, she sought to address the plight of women globally, brought together the women of Congress with the first female Supreme Court Justices to discuss issues important to women across the Nation, and sought recognition for the women in uniform who have served our country in times of war with the first annual Memorial Day Tribute to Women in the Military at the Arlington National Cemetery's Women's Memorial.

On so many issues, I have been fortunate enough to consider Juanita a valuable ally and friend, but I will especially miss her work as a leading voice on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. As the Representative of a district with two of the busiest ports in the United States, Juanita was a passionate supporter of the effort to ensure that the movement of goods is safe, secure and efficient.

Through these past years, Juanita and I worked together to keep the C-17 production line from being mothballed by President Bush and furloughing hundreds of employees.

I know that Juanita's presence will be sorely missed by communities which she served so tirelessly. Today I send my sincere condolences to her husband James, her five children, her staff, and all those who knew and loved her. Together we will continue her important work.

Mr. President, once again we are faced with a proposal to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes my home State of California.

The amendment before us today would create a ``new'' Ninth Circuit, with California, Hawaii, and Guam, and a new 12th Circuit, consisting of other Western States.

I oppose this amendment for three reasons: First, splitting the Ninth Circuit would place a greater burden on California Federal appellate judges. Under the new plan, California judges would constitute only 58 percent of the former circuit's judicial staff, but required to handle more than 70 percent of former circuit's total caseload. Second, splitting the Ninth Circuit is unnecessary. The Ninth Circuit has performed well according to most performance measures, despite having one of the highest caseloads per judge in the country. Third, splitting the Ninth Circuit is opposed by the majority of people who would be most affected--the judges and attorneys of the Ninth Circuit.

I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary amendment that has nothing to do with court security, and creates new problems and costs for the parties, lawyers and judges that practice in the Ninth Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a respected law enforcement officer, Officer Robert Winget of the Ripon Police Department.

For the past 3 years, Officer Winget worked tirelessly to provide the residents of Ripon with safety and service. On the morning of April 10, 2007, Officer Winget's life was tragically cut short in the line of duty as a result of a vehicle accident while patrolling the heavily wooded banks of the Stanislaus River.

Officer Winget began his law enforcement career at the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1970s. In a career that would span 37 years, Officer Winget also worked for the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department before lending his considerable talents to the Ripon Police Department. Throughout his career, Officer Winget demonstrated a passion for law enforcement and commitment to helping others, qualities that enabled him to become a beloved member of the Ripon Police Department. Officer Wignet's colleagues and the people whom he protected shall always remember him for his devotion to serving the community.

Officer Winget is survived by his wife and four children. Officer Winget served the people of Ripon with honor and dignity and fulfilled his oath as a peace officer. His contributions to law enforcement and the many lives he touched will serve as a shining example of his legacy.

We shall always be grateful for Officer Wignet's service and the dedication that he displayed while serving the people of Ripon.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity today to solemnly commemorate the 92nd Anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century. From 1915 until 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were brutally killed by the Ottoman Turks in a systematic effort to eradicate the Armenian people. There were unbearable acts of torture; men were separated from their families and murdered; women and children were put on a forced march across the Syrian desert without food or water.

Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, recalled:

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these

deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a

whole race; they understood this well, and, in their

conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to

conceal the fact . . . I am confident that the whole history

of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.

The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost

insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian

race in 1915.

However, we were to witness other such horrible genocides later, including the Holocaust and the genocide in Darfur, which is happening today.

As with later genocides, some have tried to deny that the Armenian genocide happened. Shamefully, the Government of Turkey still refuses to admit that genocide occurred.

In order for democracy and human rights to flourish, we must not support efforts to rewrite and deny history. In the United States, we strive to make human rights a fundamental component of our democracy. It is long overdue for our nation to demand that the truth be told. We must recognize the Armenian genocide in the name of democracy, fairness and human rights.

At the beginning of the 21st century, as genocide is waged in Darfur, it is

even more critical to recognize the first genocide of the 20th Century. We must send a message that genocide and genocide denial will never be tolerated.

To that end, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Richard Durbin's S. Res. 106, calling on the President to accurately characterize the Armenian Genocide in his annual message around April 24 and to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian genocide.

It is important that we recognize the Armenian genocide while its survivors are still with us to tell their stories. We must recognize the genocide for the survivors. We must recognize the genocide because it is the right thing to do. We must recognize the Armenian genocide to help shed light on the darkness and move toward a more humane world.

Mr. President, today I recognize Joseph W. Cotchett of Burlingame, CA, on the occasion of his being honored by Santa Clara University School of Law as their 2007 Distinguished Advocate. Joe is a partner in the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and is widely considered to be one of the leading trial lawyers in the United States by plaintiffs and defense attorneys.

The renowned Santa Clara University, SCU, School of Law is honoring Joe for his exceptional lifetime of advocacy. For more than 15 years, SCU has carefully selected Distinguished Advocates and brought them to campus to expose students to outstanding trial lawyers. This month, Joe Cotchett joins an impressive list of Santa Clara University's Distinguished Advocates.

For the past 10 years, the National Law Journal has named Joe Cotchett one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle named him one of the Top Ten Lawyers in the San Francisco Bay Area, saying:

The Burlingame attorney has had a star career that's not

only talked about in legal circles but has made headlines

around the country. Known mostly as a plaintiff lawyer, many

of his cases are filed on behalf of fraud victims, and have a

widows-and-orphan flavor to them.

The San Francisco/Los Angeles Daily Journal has said that Joe is ``considered one of the best trial strategists in the state'' who built a career out of representing the underdog against powerful interests.

One of the Nation's best trial lawyers, Joe fights for what he believes is right. Joe has won settlements for investors in white- collar fraud cases and represented numerous California public agencies, including the California State Teachers' Retirement System. He took on corrupt energy giant Enron during California's energy crisis.

Joe was the lead trial lawyer for 23,000 elderly customers in the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association debacle. After a 4-month trial, he won one of the largest jury verdicts then recorded. For his work in defense of the watchdog group Consumers Union, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice honored Joe for his ``outstanding contribution to the public interest'' as ``Trial of the Year Finalist'' in 2000.

In the 1970s, Joe was involved in early environment lawsuits to save the California coast and numerous consumer actions which laid the groundwork for many of our present consumer laws in California. In recent years, Joe has focused on financial fraud on behalf of shareholders and public pension funds.

Joe is also my appointment to the Federal Judicial Advisory Committee, which President George W. Bush, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and I authorized.

It is clear that Joe is one of the top trial lawyers in the country. What is equally impressive is that while some people would have stopped there, satisfied with this outstanding accomplishment, Joe continues to give of his time and resources. And not just with worthy pro bono work.

Throughout his lifetime, Joe has been committed to fighting the good fight. From his days as a college student in the South, challenging segregation by drinking from segregated water fountains, to his work as one of nine members and chair of the California State Parks Commission; from his involvement with the Boys and Girls Club to his work with Disability Rights Advocates, which honored him in 2003 for his nearly 40 years of civil rights work, Joe's dedication to others has had an enormous reach.

Joe is deeply committed to giving back to his local community. He preserved the Debenedetti building, a Mission Revival Style building which is very special to residents of Half Moon Bay in California. He wrote ``The Lost Coast,'' the historical guide to the California coast between Santa Cruz and San Francisco. Joe is involved in numerous bay area charitable organizations involving animals, children, women, and minorities. He established the Cotchett Family Foundation to aid those in need.

Born in Brooklyn, Joe received his B.S. in engineering from California Polytechnic College in San Luis Obispo in 1960. He earned his J.D. from Hastings College of Law at the University of California in 1964. Joe served in the U.S. Army Intelligence Corps and was a Special Forces paratrooper and

JAG Corps officer. As a veteran, he has continued to assist veterans.

In 2000, UC Hastings opened the Cotchett Center for Advocacy recognizing Joe as one of its outstanding graduates. In 2004, Cotchett endowed a $7 million fund to support science and mathematics teacher education at California State Polytechnic University to serve inner- city and rural minority children. To honor Joe, Cal Poly renamed its landmark Clock Tower the Cotchett Education Building. In 2006, the Joseph W. Cotchett Business Studio for students was dedicated at Notre Dame de Namur University.

Congratulations to Joe Cotchett for being named Santa Clara University's Distinguished Advocate for 2007. This is a worthy addition to a very long list of accomplishments.

Mr. President, today I honor the memory of deputy sheriff Manuel Villegas, a dedicated public servant committed to protecting the safety of his community, the State of California, and the Nation. Just 17 months into his tenure with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Deputy Villegas tragically lost his life in an automobile collision while en route to a domestic violence call on March 19, 2007. It is testament to the heroism and commitment to duty of this young deputy sheriff that he died while trying to protect someone in need.

A native of Lindsay, CA, Deputy Villegas served honorably in both the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army before joining the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Deputy Villegas's exceptional work ethic and performance in the Army Airborne School earned him the parachutist rating and enabled him to join the selective ranks of the Army's paratroopers. For his service in the Army Special Forces Group, 307th Infantry Battalion and the Special Forces, 2nd Battalion, Deputy Villegas was awarded numerous distinctions including the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, and the National Defense Medal. He also earned campaign medals for his service in Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Deputy Villegas' decorated service in the U.S. Armed Forces was followed by an equally distinguished record at the Sheriff's Basic Academy. He proved to be an exemplary recruit upon entering the academy on November 14, 2005. He graduated first in his class and was awarded the California Academy Directors Association Award for serving as a model of excellence to fellow students and encouraging others to strive for success. Athletically talented, Deputy Villegas even set the Basic Academy's record for the mile-and-a-half run.

Deputy Villegas is described by his colleagues as having been an exemplary deputy sheriff who was well respected and highly invested in making

a difference in the lives of others through his career in law enforcement. Deputy Villegas demonstrated a commitment to the highest standards of his profession and continually sought to distinguish his service to his community and country through hard work and perseverance. He serves as a shining example of the talent, bravery, and richness of our Nation's law enforcement officials and military personnel.

The impact of Deputy Villegas' loss will have an immeasurable impact on the lives of his loved ones. His wife Xochitl, four children, Stacie Lee, Ezequiel, Xavier and Israel, and his colleagues at the Riverside County Sheriff's Department have lost a beloved husband, devoted father, and cherished friend. I am saddened to lose this exceptional public servant, yet I am grateful for the heroic sacrifice that he made to protect his community.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator for his leadership on behalf of family

farms. I will ask the Senator a couple of questions because he has been here a long time in Congress and we have served together for many years. I see Senator Conrad coming to the floor as well. The fact is--I want the Senator to let me know if he agrees with this--that the whole purpose of these emergency supplementals, if you look at the Web site that explains to people who want to know more about what we do on emergency supplementals, they have always been used--at least my research shows--is for emergencies, including especially natural disasters. Doesn't it strike the Senator as odd that the President of the United States would support $100 billion for the country of Iraq but tell us he doesn't support anything in this bill for the American people? Isn't that an odd thing?

Mr. President, I say to my friend from North Dakota, thank you for being here to talk about this issue because there is a huge misconception out there that is being perpetrated by the administration and that is that there is something wrong with the Democrats in Congress who are insisting the emergency needs of the American people be met in this bill.

Mr. President, in my question to the Senator from North Dakota, I was trying to make the point that history will show these emergency supplementals have always been used to help the American people. After all, it is their taxpayer dollars being used. The reason I wanted to take the floor this afternoon is because there are a number of amendments coming that will strip from this bill the help for the American people they deserve. Many of these people are the ``salt of the Earth'' people that we all know, that we visit, and I will talk about them in a minute. I will talk about the hardships they have gone through.

Here is something interesting. If you look at the Senate's Web site-- this is not part of my Web site; this is the Senate's Web site, so it is written with Republicans and Democrats--you will find a glossary of terms that is intended to help the public understand what it is we are talking about when we use terms of art on the floor, such as ``emergency supplemental appropriation.''

The Senate glossary--and remember it is bipartisan--states this:

Supplemental appropriations generally are made to cover

emergencies, such as disaster relief, or other needs deemed

too urgent to be postponed until the enactment of next year's

regular appropriations act.

So the supplemental appropriations are meant to cover emergencies in America. Now, the President has tried to lead people astray when he says: No, no, this is only about the war in Iraq; I want all of the money to go to Iraq. I don't want any money to go to the people of America because this isn't the right vehicle to take care of those problems. Not true.

I am delighted to yield for that purpose.

It is not only curious, it is wrong. That is why I am so proud of the work that Senator Conrad and so many others did to make this bill a balanced bill that meets the needs of our people. Yes, we are giving the President what he is asking for in Iraq. We have been critical that the President has not funded Iraq in the regular budget. So we are saying: OK. We are not happy about it, but, yes, we will give you every penny, plus what you ask for, for Iraq. But for goodness' sake, you are getting $102 billion for Iraq. How about $20 billion for the needs at home? I think my friend is right. It is curious, and it is wrong that he didn't balance his request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I believe I have the time. I ask unanimous consent for the additional time, if there are no objections.

Mr. President, I am going to yield to my friend for a question. But I say to my friend, Senator

Murray, when she has that agreement, I will be happy to suspend at that time.

My colleague is not only correct, but as I said, if we look at the Senate glossary written by both sides, its agreement on defining what a supplemental appropriations bill is--and I am going to quote it exactly for my colleague:

Supplemental appropriations generally are made to cover

emergencies, such as disaster relief, or other needs deemed

too urgent to be postponed until the enactment of next year's

regular appropriations act.

So it is absolutely in the definition on our Senate Web site.

My colleague is exactly right. All we are saying as Democrats to our friends is: Take care of the American people. Take care of them. They deserve it.

I am waiting for some photographs of the freeze that occurred in my home State. I see they have arrived. I need to share these with my friends.

There is a song called ``Strawberry Fields Forever.'' I want my colleagues to look at what happened to the strawberry fields in California as a result of the freeze. When we look at this, I say to my colleague from Washington--I want to get her attention just to look at this and to thank her for helping us. This is a strawberry field. It looks like an ice rink. The strawberries are destroyed.

I want to show my colleagues our oranges. This is an orange tree. This is what has happened because of the frost. This picture is of an orange. You can hardly see it beneath the frost. A picture is worth a thousand words. I say to the President and my Republican friends: Don't turn your backs on these good people who endured these losses. And, by the way, in my State, in the most Republican part of my State, what are you doing? We need to help people. We need to help the workers. That is what is in this bill.

Yes, we provide all the funding for the troops and more. And, yes, thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Washington and the Senators from Hawaii and the majority leader, we have funds in this bill for Walter Reed Army Medical Center. And, yes, we look at what happened in Louisiana. We look at what happened with the levees, and we tried to help those living in FEMA trailer parks.

Why would this President turn his back on the people of Louisiana once again? Once again. We saw the lack of response, and now in this bill we are saying help the people, Mr. President. You went down to New Orleans. You stood there--I will never forget the speech--and you said: We will stand with you. Yet he says he doesn't want help for the people of Louisiana in this bill.

My farmers have suffered $1.3 billion in losses. I showed the pictures of the freeze. We know about the drought that hit the Midwest. So instead of pledging to work together, we find this administration threatening to veto this bill.

I say to this President: If you veto this bill, then you come to my State and you look into the eyes of these farmers and you look into the eyes of these workers and you tell them they didn't have an emergency. You tell them they don't qualify for assistance from a country they love, to which they are devoted. It isn't right.

And, yes, we added some language to the bill that says: We are not going to have an open checkbook forever for Iraq, and we are not going to have this continuous stream of wounded and dead coming back. Yes, we want to have a timeline that is fair and just.

If the President vetoes that, he is ignoring the will of the people.

I will suspend, Mr. President, withhold my time, not lose the floor, and let the Senator from Washington make her request.

I yield.

I was happy to yield. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I won't do that, of course. I will complete in 5 minutes.

Mr. President, we have spent half a trillion dollars from our Treasury on the war in Iraq, and we know there are 3,000-plus dead, 20,000-plus wounded. I think it is instructive to listen to what President Ronald Reagan once said. He said:

History teaches that war begins when governments believe

the price tag of aggression is cheap.

Let me say that again:

History teaches us that war begins when governments believe

the price tag of aggression is cheap.

Well, the Bush administration thought the price of this war would be cheap. They were wrong. We heard Secretary Rumsfeld tell Congress: The war will last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. Budget Director Mitch Daniels said Iraq ``will be an affordable endeavor.'' And we remember the President saying, ``Mission accomplished,'' when it wasn't anywhere near accomplished. We remember Vice President Cheney proclaiming ``they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.''

They were all wrong, and Congress has to weigh in. That is what this last election was about. We were weighing in with the help of a couple Republicans yesterday. We said to this President: Your one-man show in Iraq is over, Mr. President. You need to deal with the people of this country through their elected representatives. And don't issue these veto threats because that doesn't move us forward.

Senator Reid has asked the President to please meet with us; we can talk, we can work things out. So it is really up to him. He is wielding a veto pen because he doesn't like the fact that Congress has finally a spine to say, no, we are not going to have an open checkbook anymore for Iraq, we are not going to keep sending our troops over there to die, we are not going to put them in the middle of a civil war, we are going to change the mission in Iraq from a combat mission to a support mission.

We say to this President: Accept reality, please; it is time you do that. If you love the troops, you have to give them a mission they can accomplish. If you love the troops, you don't send them to moldy hospital rooms to recuperate from their injuries. And thanks

to the Senator from Washington, we have money in this bill to fix Walter Reed. If you love the troops, you don't send them back to fight with a post-traumatic stress disorder and a bottle of antidepressants.

We will give the troops what they need, but we will also be heard when we say: Don't put them in the middle of a civil war, Mr. President. Give them a mission that works, a support mission, to train the Iraqis. It is their country. They have to stand up and fight. We can no longer do it for them. And that was the importance of yesterday's vote.

In this bill, we do a lot of good things. We deal with the problems we are facing in Iraq. We say we ought to change the mission and make it binding and give a date that says, yes, start bringing the troops home and a goal for when we will bring them all home, except for those limited missions.

It is a smart piece of legislation, I say to the President.

And, yes, don't forget America. Don't forget the people, the ``salt of the Earth'' people who are suffering because of this freeze. I will show a few more pictures as I wind down on my time.

My State was devastated by the freeze. It left thousands of farm workers without employment. One of my constituents, a 46-year-old single mother of two in Tulare County, spent years working in the citrus fields and now has no job.

In this picture we can see the ice icicles near these avocados.

A look at this picture tells a thousand words. We can't turn our backs on these people. We can't turn our backs on our salmon fishermen who have been suffering so much. We can't turn our backs on the American people.

In conclusion, we have to serve as a check and balance on the Executive. When this Executive says it has an open checkbook for Iraq, nothing for America, we say: Whoa, whoa, whoa, Mr. President. That is not right for the American people. Look at the people who have been suffering because of natural disasters. Look at for what we are supposed to use emergency appropriations bills. Come to the table with us. Don't wave your veto pen because we have a spine and we stand up for these people and we stand up for our fighting men and women. Come to the table, we say, let's work things out.

If we read the Constitution, that is exactly what we are supposed to do.

I was interested to hear Senator Hagel talk about the fact that this is not a monarchy, and he is right. We already had one King George, and that was enough.

It is my sincere hope that the President will respect the rule of the people and come to the table. I strongly support this bill, and I will vote against any amendment that hurts the people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007.'' I am joined by my Environment and Public Works Committee colleagues Senators Inhofe, Lautenberg, Alexander, Cardin, Lieberman, Clinton, and Klobuchar. This bill will reduce air pollution and save taxpayer money by accelerating the use of cost-effective technologies that reduce energy use in public buildings.

The goal of this legislation is to have the government lead by example. This bill will help to ensure less polluting and more cost- effective General Services Administration, or GSA, buildings. Under this legislation, the GSA, which is the Nation's largest public real estate organization, must establish a program to speed the use of cost- effective and energy-efficient technology and other actions, called ``cost-effective technologies and practices'', in its buildings. GSA also must assure that a manager is named who is responsible for accelerating the use of cost-effective technologies and practices for each GSA building.

In addition, the GSA must review current and available highly- efficient lighting within 90 days, and complete a plan within 6 months for installing highly-efficient lighting in GSA buildings. Within 1 year after enactment, GSA must issue a detailed timetable to replace all existing inefficient lighting in GSA buildings as quickly as feasible, within 5 years, using available funds.

A second provision in the bill requires GSA to complete a broader plan that will: (1) achieve a 20-percent reduction in operating costs at GSA facilities to the maximum extent feasible within 5 years after enactment through the application of cost-effective, highly efficient technologies and practices, using available funds; (2) describe the current and needed funding for these programs and any issues that may inhibit their implementation; (3) recommend uniform standards for federal agencies for highly efficient technologies; and (4) recommend ways to allow federal agencies to keep their savings from using efficient technologies and practices, to use them for additional investments and other purposes.

The bill also creates an EPA grant program to help local governments make their buildings more efficient. This $20 million per year matching grant program at EPA will help local governments renovate their buildings to make them more cost-effective and energy efficient. The grant program will require a 40 percent match from the local government, and will require grantees to show they will cut utility bills by 40 percent through renovations of a building or buildings that use highly efficient technologies and practices. Further, EPA will have to verify the efficiency and savings and issue guidelines for the program. Grants of up to $1 million will be allowed. In addition, the bill requires reports to Congress on progress under the program, savings achieved, and recommendations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007.'' I am joined by my Environment and Public Works Committee colleagues Senators Inhofe, Lautenberg, Alexander, Cardin, Lieberman, Clinton, and Klobuchar. This bill will reduce air pollution and save taxpayer money by accelerating the use of cost-effective technologies that reduce energy use in public buildings.

The goal of this legislation is to have the government lead by example. This bill will help to ensure less polluting and more cost- effective General Services Administration, or GSA, buildings. Under this legislation, the GSA, which is the Nation's largest public real estate organization, must establish a program to speed the use of cost- effective and energy-efficient technology and other actions, called ``cost-effective technologies and practices'', in its buildings. GSA also must assure that a manager is named who is responsible for accelerating the use of cost-effective technologies and practices for each GSA building.

In addition, the GSA must review current and available highly- efficient lighting within 90 days, and complete a plan within 6 months for installing highly-efficient lighting in GSA buildings. Within 1 year after enactment, GSA must issue a detailed timetable to replace all existing inefficient lighting in GSA buildings as quickly as feasible, within 5 years, using available funds.

A second provision in the bill requires GSA to complete a broader plan that will: (1) achieve a 20-percent reduction in operating costs at GSA facilities to the maximum extent feasible within 5 years after enactment through the application of cost-effective, highly efficient technologies and practices, using available funds; (2) describe the current and needed funding for these programs and any issues that may inhibit their implementation; (3) recommend uniform standards for federal agencies for highly efficient technologies; and (4) recommend ways to allow federal agencies to keep their savings from using efficient technologies and practices, to use them for additional investments and other purposes.

The bill also creates an EPA grant program to help local governments make their buildings more efficient. This $20 million per year matching grant program at EPA will help local governments renovate their buildings to make them more cost-effective and energy efficient. The grant program will require a 40 percent match from the local government, and will require grantees to show they will cut utility bills by 40 percent through renovations of a building or buildings that use highly efficient technologies and practices. Further, EPA will have to verify the efficiency and savings and issue guidelines for the program. Grants of up to $1 million will be allowed. In addition, the bill requires reports to Congress on progress under the program, savings achieved, and recommendations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Stop TB Now Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by Senators Gordon Smith, Dick Durbin, and Sherrod Brown.

For 8 years, I have worked with Senator Smith to fight the spread of international tuberculosis. I appreciate his help on this bill. I am also grateful for the support of Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, as well as Senator Brown, who was the leader on international TB issues when he was a member of the House of Representatives.

The need for this legislation is clear. Tuberculosis kills 1.6 million people per year--1 person every 15 seconds. One-third of the world is infected with the bacteria that causes TB and an estimated 8.8 million individuals develop active TB each year. And tuberculosis is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age and of people who are HIV-positive.

While developing nations are most heavily impacted by TB, there is also a concern here at home. My State of California has more TB cases than any other State in the country and 10 of the top 20 U.S. metro areas with the highest TB rates are in California.

The best way to treat TB is through DOTS, which stands for directly observed treatment, short course. This treatment ensures a steady and uninterrupted supply of drugs to prevent the spread of multi-drug resistant TB. It costs just $20-100 per person to treat regular TB with DOTS. But it costs 1,400 times that amount to treat a person with multi-drug resistant TB.

Today, we face an even more dangerous problem--the outbreak of extremely drug resistant TB. In some cases, this form of TB is untreatable. In one South African town, 53 TB patients were found to have XDR-TB. All but one died. We must fully fund international TB control efforts because drug-resistant TB happens when people fail to complete treatment.

To stop the spread of tuberculosis, the international community came together last year to develop the Global Plan to Stop TB, a comprehensive assessment of the resources and actions needed to cut the number of TB deaths in half by 2015.

My bill will bring U.S. policy in line with this plan by authorizing $330 million for fiscal year 2008 and $450 million for fiscal year 2009. for foreign assistance programs that combat international TB. The bill also authorizes $70 million for fiscal year 2008 and $100 million for fiscal year 2009 for the Centers for Disease Control programs to combat international TB.

TB kills more people than any other curable disease in the world. We have a moral obligation to take the steps necessary to meet this challenge.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Stop TB Now Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by Senators Gordon Smith, Dick Durbin, and Sherrod Brown.

For 8 years, I have worked with Senator Smith to fight the spread of international tuberculosis. I appreciate his help on this bill. I am also grateful for the support of Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, as well as Senator Brown, who was the leader on international TB issues when he was a member of the House of Representatives.

The need for this legislation is clear. Tuberculosis kills 1.6 million people per year--1 person every 15 seconds. One-third of the world is infected with the bacteria that causes TB and an estimated 8.8 million individuals develop active TB each year. And tuberculosis is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age and of people who are HIV-positive.

While developing nations are most heavily impacted by TB, there is also a concern here at home. My State of California has more TB cases than any other State in the country and 10 of the top 20 U.S. metro areas with the highest TB rates are in California.

The best way to treat TB is through DOTS, which stands for directly observed treatment, short course. This treatment ensures a steady and uninterrupted supply of drugs to prevent the spread of multi-drug resistant TB. It costs just $20-100 per person to treat regular TB with DOTS. But it costs 1,400 times that amount to treat a person with multi-drug resistant TB.

Today, we face an even more dangerous problem--the outbreak of extremely drug resistant TB. In some cases, this form of TB is untreatable. In one South African town, 53 TB patients were found to have XDR-TB. All but one died. We must fully fund international TB control efforts because drug-resistant TB happens when people fail to complete treatment.

To stop the spread of tuberculosis, the international community came together last year to develop the Global Plan to Stop TB, a comprehensive assessment of the resources and actions needed to cut the number of TB deaths in half by 2015.

My bill will bring U.S. policy in line with this plan by authorizing $330 million for fiscal year 2008 and $450 million for fiscal year 2009. for foreign assistance programs that combat international TB. The bill also authorizes $70 million for fiscal year 2008 and $100 million for fiscal year 2009 for the Centers for Disease Control programs to combat international TB.

TB kills more people than any other curable disease in the world. We have a moral obligation to take the steps necessary to meet this challenge.