Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Michigan, whom we are so proud of, for all his efforts in supporting our troops and leading our efforts as it relates to the defense of our country and for once again leading this very important bill on the Defense reauthorization.

It is time to put aside for a brief moment the overall debate of the war and focus on the troops. Regardless of whether you supported going into Iraq or, as I did, voted no on going into that war, we come together and we hear frequently from colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, of course, we support our troops. We want what is best for the brave men and women who are fighting in harm's way, who didn't take that vote and didn't decide the policy but who are, in fact, stepping up to defend that policy and defend our country.

The question is, What is best for the troops on the ground right now, in the middle of these conflicts that have gone on now for over 4\1/2\ years? We are here today to talk about what is best for our military, our troops, and for their families.

We are not here to debate the merits of the mission. I certainly am willing to do that and do that with other amendments. But this particular amendment, the amendment of Senator Webb, is an effort to determine what makes sense when it comes to deploying our armed services, what is best for those who have been willing to put their lives on the line for our country, who follow the leadership of the Department of Defense and operate under the policies that have been set by this Congress and this President.

What is very clear is that the current system is broken for our troops. We are forcing our troops into longer and longer combat deployments and giving them shorter and shorter rest periods. We are demanding multiple combat deployments over very short periods, with many units on their second, their third, or even their fourth redeployment in the war in Iraq. We are denying the men and women who put their lives on the line for America the time they need off from the front lines to recuperate, to retrain, to prepare themselves physically and mentally to return to combat and, just as important, to spend time with their families, to be able to reconnect with the loved ones they have left behind when they have gone into this war.

We are placing an unfair and unreasonable burden on those military families, families who are willing to sacrifice, who have sacrificed; families who count on us to be there for them, representing their interests and the interests of their loved ones who are on the front lines. They are doing all of it in the name of a policy that the military itself has indicated is not only unreasonable but unsafe. The Department of Defense itself has said that the conditions under which they are operating have been unreasonable and unsafe.

Historically, the Department of Defense, as has been said, has mandated a combat-to-rest ratio of 1 to 2--1 month on, 2 months off as an example; 1 year in combat, 2 years at home--to rest, retrain, and prepare for the next deployment. In fact, the historic 1-to-2 ratio is currently the stated policy of the DOD. We are hearing from colleagues on the other side of the aisle as if this is some outrageous idea, that we put some parameters around the deployment and redeployment of our troops. Yet it is the stated policy of the Department of Defense: 1 month or 1 year on, 2 months or 2 years here at home.

The Webb amendment merely sets a 1-to-1 ratio, a floor that only gets us halfway to the standard the Department of Defense itself has called for. The policies pursued by this administration have stretched our men and women in uniform to the breaking point. Our Armed Forces are getting the job done under the most extreme

and trying conditions imaginable. Most of us have had an opportunity, firsthand, to see them in action, to see what they are doing and the conditions under which they are operating. They are getting the job done. No one is surprised because we have the best and the brightest, but they are under extreme and trying conditions. They face an enemy who often cannot be identified. They face an environment that is harsh and hot and unbearable. They do their jobs with pride, with honor, with dignity, and most certainly with excellence.

The current deployment schedule places an unfair burden not only on our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines but on the families they leave behind. Military families have, in their own way, been called to serve this country, been called to sacrifice. They demand our respect and support for the sacrifices they are making. What we are currently asking of them is simply unreasonable. When our troops go into combat, the people they leave behind shoulder the burden of keeping the family together while mom or dad--mother, father, sister, brother--is fighting in service to their country. They are left to face not only the practical problems that come with having a family member gone for long stretches of time but also the constant uncertainty and stress of simply not knowing what is happening to their loved one. Are they safe? Will they come home safely? Our troops and their families have done everything we have asked of them. They have been there for America. And now the answer to the question must be that we will be there for them.

The young Americans who volunteer to put on the uniform and fight for our country are truly our best. They are the best-trained, the best- equipped, the bravest fighting forces in the world, and they are one of the Nation's most valuable assets and greatest resources. Current administration policy is abusing their willingness and desire to serve. This has to stop. By straining and stretching our military, we are undercutting our own national security. We are compromising everything we have done to build up a force that can defend America and properly respond to the dangers we face in today's uncertain world.

Senator Webb has crafted an amendment that addresses the concerns of our military leaders. It includes reasonable waivers in the face of unexpected threats to America. It includes a transition window that will allow a shift in the deployment schedule without a disruption of our fighting forces. We have worked with the military to develop a policy that makes sense. I commend Senator Webb for his foresight and his willingness to work with the Secretary of Defense and others to make the changes, to make this even more workable. We compromised where it makes sense to strengthen the legislation, but we will not compromise on the safety of our troops or on the support for their families.

This amendment is not about where we stand on the war. It is not about partisan politics. It is about doing the right thing for our troops and for their families. I urge my colleagues to stand up and vote for the Webb amendment. Stand with the people we have sent to war and their families waiting at home, and stand with all Americans who want us to have the right kind of policy to support our troops and to keep us safe for the future.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SMA Treatment Acceleration Act. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Isakson, Warner, and Whitehouse, for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation.

In April, I met with Malorie Fox, a beautiful 4-year-old from Ada, Michigan, and several other Michigan families about Spinal Muscular Atrophy, SMA, the number one genetic killer of children under 2 years of age. SMA is a degenerative disease that weakens the body's muscles until they can no longer function, that includes the ability to breathe.

Sadly, Malorie was diagnosed with SMA shortly before her first birthday. Her parents were told by her doctors that most children diagnosed with SMA never reach this milestone. Thankfully, Malorie survived, and with her parents Michelle and James, she continues to fight this disease. On her homepage, Malorie wrote: ``My mommy & daddy focus on the things I CAN do, not those that I cannot.''

Malorie and her family are not alone. It is estimated that SMA occurs in about 1 in every 6,000 births. Approximately 1 in 40 individuals, 7.5 million Americans, carry the gene that causes SMA, making it the second most common autosomal recessive genetic disorder. This incidence rate shows neither racial nor gender bias.

Presently, there is no known treatment for SMA, though there have been several exciting research breakthroughs over the past decade. In fact, the National Institutes of Health singled out SMA from more than 600 neurological disorders as the disease closest to treatment based on scientists' advanced genetic understanding of the disease. Private foundations and national nonprofit organizations dedicated to finding a cure for SMA have also made substantial financial contributions.

To support the investigators and families who are working to find a treatment or cure, the SMA community, including Fight SMA, Families of SMA, and the SMA Foundation, has united behind this legislation. This bill will provide a roadmap and federal funding to better coordinate and facilitate SMA research and treatment. Additionally, the legislation will establish a program to provide information and education on SMA to health professionals and the general public related to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of SMA and the provision of care to SMA patients.

Next Monday is Malorie's birthday, and I couldn't wish for anything more for her birthday than a cure for SMA. This legislation will be an important step forward in fulfilling that wish. I urge my colleagues to join with us in passing it.

I ask unanimous consent that letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SMA Treatment Acceleration Act. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Isakson, Warner, and Whitehouse, for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation.

In April, I met with Malorie Fox, a beautiful 4-year-old from Ada, Michigan, and several other Michigan families about Spinal Muscular Atrophy, SMA, the number one genetic killer of children under 2 years of age. SMA is a degenerative disease that weakens the body's muscles until they can no longer function, that includes the ability to breathe.

Sadly, Malorie was diagnosed with SMA shortly before her first birthday. Her parents were told by her doctors that most children diagnosed with SMA never reach this milestone. Thankfully, Malorie survived, and with her parents Michelle and James, she continues to fight this disease. On her homepage, Malorie wrote: ``My mommy & daddy focus on the things I CAN do, not those that I cannot.''

Malorie and her family are not alone. It is estimated that SMA occurs in about 1 in every 6,000 births. Approximately 1 in 40 individuals, 7.5 million Americans, carry the gene that causes SMA, making it the second most common autosomal recessive genetic disorder. This incidence rate shows neither racial nor gender bias.

Presently, there is no known treatment for SMA, though there have been several exciting research breakthroughs over the past decade. In fact, the National Institutes of Health singled out SMA from more than 600 neurological disorders as the disease closest to treatment based on scientists' advanced genetic understanding of the disease. Private foundations and national nonprofit organizations dedicated to finding a cure for SMA have also made substantial financial contributions.

To support the investigators and families who are working to find a treatment or cure, the SMA community, including Fight SMA, Families of SMA, and the SMA Foundation, has united behind this legislation. This bill will provide a roadmap and federal funding to better coordinate and facilitate SMA research and treatment. Additionally, the legislation will establish a program to provide information and education on SMA to health professionals and the general public related to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of SMA and the provision of care to SMA patients.

Next Monday is Malorie's birthday, and I couldn't wish for anything more for her birthday than a cure for SMA. This legislation will be an important step forward in fulfilling that wish. I urge my colleagues to join with us in passing it.

I ask unanimous consent that letter of support be printed in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, this resolution designates September as ``National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.'' I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Dole and Clinton, to shed some light on this disease.

This year alone, ovarian cancer will be diagnosed in an estimated 20,000 women, and approximately 15,000 more women will die of this disease. Unfortunately, ovarian cancer is usually caught in an advanced stage, meaning there is only a 29 percent survival rate over five years. We must acknowledge these statistics and overcome the challenges of diagnosing this deadly disease.

Earlier this year, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to meet with nine-year survivor Carolyn Benivegna of Novi, Michigan. After being misdiagnosed by a number of doctors, Carolyn finally learned that she had ovarian cancer. However, Carolyn is not letting the cancer run her life. Instead, she has become an advocate for the Survivors Teaching Students program, which aims to enhance medical students' understanding of the symptoms and risk factors of ovarian cancer to facilitate early diagnosis and detection when they begin practicing medicine. I am proud that both Michigan

State University and Wayne State University are starting Survivors Training Students programs for their medical students.

While there is no definitive screening test, recent studies have shown common symptoms of ovarian cancer such as bloating, abdominal pain, and difficulty eating. However, we must take active steps to educate the community and medical providers of the newest discoveries in prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of this disease.

Mr. President, by recognizing September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, we can show our support for ovarian cancer survivors and their families and join the fight to conquer this disease.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2620

Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished Finance Committee chairman in a colloquy.

I want to express my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, and those of Ranking Member Grassley, in working to ensure the health and well-being of our Nation's children.

As the chairman knows, more than 1,700 schools offer on-site, comprehensive well care, illness-related care, and dental care to nearly 2 million students from rural, suburban, urban, and Native American communities where access to such care is limited or nonexistent. A recent article in the March issue of Health Affairs discusses the role of school-based health centers as

an effective means of helping children get the care they need.

I was prepared to offer an amendment to the pending Children's Health Insurance Program bill that would ensure that school-based health centers are recognized as a provider under both Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. While the vast majority of these centers receive Medicaid reimbursement, only one in four receives reimbursement under the Children's Health Insurance Program for the providing the exact same quality services that a child might receive at another provider.

After discussing this with the chairman, we noted that my amendment is included in section 121 of the House version of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill. Therefore, to finish the Senate reauthorization as quickly as possible, I am prepared to not offer my amendment. But before I do that, I wanted to ask the chairman if he would support the House provision recognizing school-based health centers in conference?

I thank the chairman for his support and assurance. I will not offer my amendment.

diabetes

Mr. President, again, as I said when we first took up this bill on Monday evening, I thank the chairman of the committee for his passion in bringing us to this point, he and the ranking member, Senator Grassley, as well as, of course, Senator Rockefeller with his deep commitment, and Senator Hatch as well.

This is a truly bipartisan effort. It is the way we should be legislating--coming together. It is a compromise. If I were writing a bill by myself, I would add more dollars. There are Members on the other side of the aisle who would, in fact, do less. But it is a real compromise.

I start out today speaking to the fact that it is a compromise. As a member of the Budget Committee, having worked with our chairman and members very hard to produce a budget resolution that really does reflect a new direction in values and priorities, I worked very hard to have us achieve a set-aside of $50 billion for children's health care in the budget resolution.

In my heart of hearts, that is where I want to be. I also know that any significant expansion is a victory not only for us and for the Senate but, most importantly, for children and their families.

I know there will be an effort to expand to the full amount that we all wish to do--I think on this side of the aisle, certainly, that is where we want to be, and our House colleagues have focused on that as well. But I also know that we have a President of the United States who shockingly has said that he will veto providing children's health care, an expansion of more than 3.3 million children to receive health care, children of working parents. The vast majority of them have a mom or a dad working one job, two jobs, maybe three jobs trying to make ends meet, but who can't afford health insurance, don't qualify for Medicaid, but find themselves desperately wanting to make sure their children have all that they need, as all of us want as parents.

So we are in a situation where the President of the United States has indicated he does not share that view. His budget, in fact, is a budget that he proposed to us that would cut children. It would cut children who are currently being provided health insurance. It would eliminate their health insurance. So on the Finance Committee, we came together under very strong bipartisan leadership to find a common ground, the middle ground, to be able to increase the number of children who receive health insurance and be able to make sure that the 6 million children who currently have health insurance are allowed to maintain that insurance. We have come to a compromise, and it is a compromise I support.

As we face a potential veto from this President, it is critical that we have the strongest possible bipartisan vote coming from the Senate. If in fact the President follows through and vetoes this, I hope we will have enough votes to override that veto in a strong bipartisan spirit, the spirit that brought us together originally when the Children's Health Insurance Program was originally passed. I urge colleagues to support the Finance Committee version and what we have done as the best way to get us real health care expansion for children.

Then we will come back, and I will be right back as a member of the Budget Committee next year, proposing again that we expand what we are doing to make sure that every child who does not have health insurance, whose family is working hard but doesn't qualify for Medicaid and doesn't have the ability to get private insurance, has the health care they need.

We have, I understand, another proposal in front of us, an amendment that would take us backward. I understand Senator Lott has offered an amendment that has actually been dubbed the CLIP amendment, instead of CHIP--Children's Health Insurance Program--CLIP meaning ``Children Losing Insurance Program.'' Again, we don't need anything that is going to take us backward and have fewer children receiving health insurance.

I want to see us make a major commitment to universal health insurance in the greatest country in the world so that everyone has the opportunity to be able to receive the health care they need. We should be striving to achieve nothing less than that.

The Lott amendment, first, will cut children's health care and take us down the road of debating the number of policies individually that Members may support, policies I find great concern about, and policies that will actually increase the number of uninsured, such as expanding the health savings accounts. I urge colleagues to oppose the Lott amendment because it takes us in absolutely the wrong direction if we want to cover children of low-income working families, and if we want to make sure they have what they need to be able to grow up and be successful in America.

I have also heard debate about the cost of this legislation, and it is important to look at what we are talking about in terms of our values and priorities when we debate any piece of legislation. Everything we do here is about values and priorities. Right now, every month, we are spending $12 billion in Iraq--$12 billion. Regardless of how any one individual feels about the war in Iraq, we are spending $12 billion--not paid for, not a part of the budget--$12 billion a month. This bipartisan effort to provide health insurance for more than 3 million more American children in this country is a cost of $7 billion a year--a year; less than what we are spending in 1 month in Iraq. That is the right value and the right priority. This is paid for, it is responsible and, most importantly, it is the moral thing to do in the greatest country in the world, in my opinion. This is not too much to invest in the future generation of America.

Yesterday, the chairman and I, a number of us, had an opportunity to be with a wonderful woman, Kitty Burgett, from Ohio, who spoke about the importance of children's health care in her family. I know it was a very moving experience to hear her, and I wanted to share her story. I have certainly other stories from Michigan as well, but Kitty came to the Nation's capitol to share what the Children's Health Insurance Program has meant to her and to her family.

Kitty is a widow whose husband died in 1990, leaving Kitty and her two young children without income or insurance. She had Social Security survivor's benefits, but even that little income put her and her children over the Medicaid eligibility levels, so they didn't qualify for low-income health insurance because of their survivor benefits. She started working but earned very little. Nonetheless, she purchased insurance for her children, because like all of us who are parents, she wanted to make sure her children had what they needed. She wanted to make sure if they were sick, she was able to care for them with health insurance. So she purchased that insurance, but the cost rose every 6 months, and she finally had to drop it because of the cost. That is an uncommon story in America today.

Then along came the Children's Health Insurance Program. Kitty immediately enrolled her children. She had a daughter who was 12. Her son was a bit younger. Her daughter then began to develop problems, and, ultimately, at age 15, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was ill. She was hallucinating and she had major mood swings--as those of us who are familiar with that disease understand--from depression to highs and hallucinations. She couldn't concentrate at school. The Children's Health Insurance Program was there so Kitty could get her daughter some help. It covered her medications and therapy and eventually some new medicines that brought

her illness under control. Her daughter is now 22 years old. She is married, she is working, and she is insured. She has an 18-month-old daughter named Scarlet. Kitty says the Children's Health Insurance Program kept her daughter from a lifetime of institutionalization, and, instead, she is a productive, contributing member of society and a loving mother to Scarlet.

That is what this is all about, giving people in America--parents, the vast majority of whom are working--the ability to provide their children with the health care they need so they can go on to be successful, thriving, contributing adults in America.

I might also mention I am very pleased that the bill in front of us expands the opportunity for what is called mental health parity, so that if there is insurance provided, mental health care will be a part of that. I congratulate Senator Kerry and Senator Smith, who have led that effort to expand us into the area of more adequately covering mental health care for children.

This program covers children all over the country. It is interesting to note that there are more children uninsured in rural areas than in urban areas. This will make sure that, in fact, all of the children who qualify under this program are able to receive the health care they need. Right now, in Michigan, we have about 60,000 children who are on the Children's Health Insurance Program and another 90,000 who are eligible--who qualify right now under the program we wrote--but because funds aren't available for outreach, funds aren't available to do what is necessary, we are not able to provide those families, those children, with health insurance. This bill goes a long way to making that happen.

I have heard so many stories from Michigan, and it touches your heart when you think about the way families are struggling to be able to care for their children at the same time costs are going up at every turn. We have folks who are working harder than ever: They turn around and gas prices go up; they turn around and their insurance premium goes up; they turn around again and look at the cost of college, and those costs have gone up. We addressed the cost of college last week. Those things go right to middle-income families--student loans and Pell grants and those programs that allow more people to have the opportunity to go to college and send their children to college.

The reality is that on every side families are feeling squeezed-- working harder and costs going up and up and up. Children's health care is one way, another critical way, we can help families. I think of Chad, a gentleman in Michigan. He and his wife have two young children. He works for a small landscaping business with an ``off season'' of 3 to 4 months in the winter when he is not working. If the couple purchased insurance through Chad's employer, it would be an additional $300 a month, which for them is not affordable. Through MIChild, which is our children's health program, both his sons are able to get the inhalers they need for their asthma. How basic, in America, in the greatest country in the world, to make sure that children can handle their asthma.

I also heard from Pam, who is a full-time preschool teacher and mother. Her monthly premiums of $384 a month, or over $4,500 a year, take up over one-fifth, or 20 percent, of her pay. Through the MIChild program, she was able to get the specialized care she needed for her youngest daughter, who suffers from a rare seizure disorder.

I could go on and on, but I will not. We all have stories of families who are wanting the best for their children, who want the American dream. They do not want to go to bed at night and have to say, please, God, don't let the kids get sick, don't let something happen tonight or tomorrow because I don't know what I am going to do--we don't have health insurance. We are the greatest country in the world and there is no excuse for any family finding themselves in that situation.

We have in front of us a bill that is a true bipartisan compromise. For me, it is a step in the right direction to universal care, and an opportunity to come up with a uniquely American way to provide universal health care for everyone in America. I believe health care is a right, not a privilege, in the greatest country in the world, and we should act like that. This important legislation is part of keeping that promise.

We started down the road with covering children whose parents are working, who do not qualify for low-income help through Medicaid because they are just above that limit, but aren't able to get the insurance they need for their families. We have children who qualify today but, because the resources aren't there, they are not able to get the health insurance they need. This legislation will say that more than 3 million more children--families--in this country will not have to go to bed at night worrying about whether their kids are going to get sick tomorrow.

Finally, I say again that this is about values and priorities. Always it is about values and priorities. This is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. When we find ourselves in the situation of spending $12 billion a month on the war in Iraq, not paid for, and in front of us we have the ability with $7 billion a year to cover over 3 million more children with children's health care, the 6 million who have insurance now and over 3 million more in America, responsibly done and paid for, this is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do.

This is a great success story, and I am very hopeful we will see a very strong bipartisan vote when this comes before the Senate for a vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first thank our chairman of the committee for his passion in caring for children, always keeping us focused as we brought together a bill that truly is a compromise in the best sense of the word. It is as we should be doing in the Senate, coming together with a number of perspectives and coming up with a final product. I thank the chairman for leading us in that effort and working with the ranking member. Together they have been a great team on this legislation.

The chairman has constantly said to us: It is about the children. It is about the children. Keeping us focused on what this is really about will allow us to come together in a very strong bipartisan vote for a very important bill.

I also thank Senator Rockefeller for his passion in caring about children and his leadership in creating the children's health program. He and Senator Hatch have been a critical part of getting us to this point as well.

This is a step forward, and as with any compromise, it always involves give and take. I come from a State that has received 1 of the 15 waivers to cover some adults in our State. That is being phased out. That is not my first preference, but it is a compromise. It is a way to recognize this is a children's health program, and we are all coming together and coming to the middle to work together to get a product that the vast majority of the Senate can support.

We are talking about a program for uninsured children, 78 percent of whom live in working families. So we are talking about moms and dads who are working one minimum wage job, maybe two, maybe three to make ends meet. We have helped that family by passing an increase in the minimum wage.

This second piece for families who are working very hard, who care about their families and want to make sure their children have the health care they need, is very critical to supporting working families. That is really what the Children's Health Insurance Program is all about.

In Michigan, according to the University of Michigan, the number of uninsured children in our State grew by 7 percent just in 4 years, between 2000 and 2004. At the same time, we have seen employer-based coverage cut back and more and more families paying more and more of the health care bill and more and more families, as well, relying on Medicaid.

Last year in Michigan, MIChild, which is the children's health program, one-third of the children relied on MIChild or Medicaid for health coverage. One-third of all the children in Michigan in a State of 9 million people were relying on the support of this program and other public programs under Medicaid to have the health care they need. Again, three-quarters of these children came from a home with at least one working parent. So this is very much a program for families who are working hard to make ends meet, families who go to bed at night and don't want to have to say a prayer that their kids don't get sick during the night or the next day. This allows families to have the integrity of work and know that their children are able to receive the care they need.

It is also very important to point out the fact that this is very much about rural families in Michigan and around the country, not just urban families. Certainly, we care about urban children, but we know that in Michigan, the fact is, the majority of dollars are going to rural communities. Thirty-two percent of all rural children receive our children's health care program or Medicaid, 32 percent as compared to 26 percent. So this is very important for children in every part of Michigan, as well as the country.

Because of the importance of the children's health program for so many families, I urge my colleagues not to listen to the negative attacks on this carefully crafted compromise as we move forward.

There are always challenges drafting a standard 5-year reauthorization and fitting it into a budget window. In this Congress, we have or will address several other 5-year reauthorizations: the farm bill, FDA prescription drug user fees, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and the ``Leave No Child Behind'' education bill.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I remind my colleagues of the problems in advancing the administration's proposal for reauthorizing the children's health program. The Senate, in a bipartisan vote, rejected this proposal.

The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposed less than half of the funding needed for states to cover existing children, let alone to make progress in covering more uninsured low-income children.

This would be a step backwards for our children. Under the President's budget, the number of States facing shortfalls in 2012 would increase to 46.

Enrollment of children and pregnant women over the course of a year would fall by 1.6 million by 2012.

This is not acceptable. We have a chance before us to make a real difference in the lives of millions of children, many of whom are in working families.

We all made compromises on moving CHIP forward. For example, I want to work out something that keeps my State whole, but I recognize the need to continue to work in the bipartisan spirit that created CHIP in the first place.

I know some of my colleagues want to debate a whole other set of options. We should have a full debate on health care, but this is the opportunity to cover more children.

We are eager to tackle many pressing issues, especially a plan for small businesses. But the Children's Health Insurance Program expires at the end of September. Right now, we must focus our energy on reauthorizing this successful program.

Let us remember the bipartisan spirit that created this great program for our Nation's children. CHIP is a great success story that we can all be proud of.

I know my time is up, my short 5 minutes are up. I again urge all my colleagues to join us in what truly is a wonderful, bipartisan effort to cover children with health care in the United States.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this amendment is very clear. It reaffirms that illegal immigrants cannot and will not receive Social Security benefits. It focuses the Attorney General to strongly and vigorously enforce this provision, and it focuses enforcement efforts against those who are here illegally, not American citizens who are naturalized and here legally.

Unfortunately, whether intended or not, the Ensign amendment would threaten the Social Security benefits of millions of Americans. It makes no sense. We need to focus the Attorney General on those who are here illegally, and make it very clear that no one who is here illegally can receive Social Security benefits, period.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Mr. President.

At this 3 o'clock hour in the morning, I think it is important to refocus on exactly what the vote will be in the morning as it relates to the issue in front of us, the Levin-Reed amendment. First, let me do this. Let me thank Senator Snowe, who was here a moment ago, for her eloquence and her courage in laying out the facts, and for her thoughtfulness. I wish to thank our Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, who has been laser focused on what, in fact, we need to be doing to change the course in Iraq based on the facts, based on the iron will of the American people.

I appreciate all he has done to keep us focused on this critical issue of our time.

I also thank Senator Carl Levin, my senior Senator from Michigan. We are very proud of him in Michigan for all he does, advocating for our troops and for a foreign policy and an armed services policy that makes sense for our country, for all of us. I thank Senators Levin and Jack Reed for introducing an amendment that is currently being filibustered.

What we have in front of us and what we are doing is demonstrating through this all-night debate--which is very important, regardless of where someone comes from on this issue; it is very important that we have this debate and discussion. I appreciate all of my colleagues expressing themselves. What we have in front of us is the question of whether we are going to end a filibuster tomorrow, and whether we are going to have an opportunity to have a simple majority vote--a yes-or- no vote--on a change in direction in Iraq, which would in fact change the mission by next year, by April 30 of next year. I find it amazing that our men and women right now who are fighting for democracy, fighting for majority rule--to put together a coalition to create a working majority and that the majority should rule. Yet here we are not allowed to have the majority make the decision--a majority being 51, or in this case 50 at the moment, being able to vote and determine what the policy is.

Last week, we had a very significant debate and issue in front of us that Senator Webb from Virginia brought forward in terms of supporting our troops, supporting them as it relates to the deployment and redeployment policies right now for our National Guard and our full- time military. There were 56 members--a clear majority of this body-- who voted for that policy, that change in policy. So if you are deployed for 12 months, you would be home on dwell time for 12 months with your family and with an opportunity to be retrained, to regroup, in order to be able to go back. Fifty-six members, a clear majority, said yes. Yet we were stopped. Why? Because our Republican colleagues insist on filibustering and not allowing a vote.

We are saying to the other side of the aisle, let us vote. Let us do what we assume everybody in the American public assumes in a democracy with a majority, that the majority would have their say, that whoever is in the majority has an opportunity to win a vote. But that is not the case anymore in the Senate. We are not talking about 50 or 51 but 60. So we have in front of us a filibuster that is going on as to whether we will even vote on a policy that has a majority of this Senate, and it is clearly supported by a majority of the American people.

(Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, there are no good wars or bad wars; there are only necessary wars or unnecessary wars. Five years ago, I was proud to stand along with the distinguished Presiding Officer on the floor of this body and argue that going into war with Iraq was unnecessary. It wasn't an easy day for any of us. No burden weighs heavier on the shoulders of any one of us than questions of war and peace. We deliberate countless and important issues in this Chamber, but none are as serious as sending America's sons and daughters into harm's way. I stood here that day in October and said this is a vote of conscience, also a vote of historic consequence, because what we debate and decide here will not only significantly affect this great Nation, but will immediately influence global events for years to come. No matter how difficult the decision may be, it is one each of us must make for the sake of our country. We have an obligation and a duty to carefully weigh the consequences of a preemptive attack. I went on to say that before we engage in war, we must understand that the results of war are irrevocable and a peaceful solution should always be our first choice.

Today, we are living with the consequences of this war. We will continue to live with those consequences in our communities, in terms of young lives lost and shattered, and families who will never be whole again, and the emptiness left by neighbors who gave their last full measure in this fight. As a nation, we will live with these consequences for years to come as we face a world we shaped by this unnecessary war--a world in which we must now deal with a reinvigorated al-Qaida and a less stable Middle East today than when the first American tanks rolled into Baghdad.

We cannot go back and change the mistakes and missteps that have brought us here, but we can and we must begin to dig ourselves out of the hole that we have dug in Iraq. We can and we must embrace a strategy that brings our troops home safely and responsibly. We can and we must make the tough choices to end this war.

Twenty-three of us stood up against the war on that October afternoon. Today, there are more of us. We have all watched the events of the last half decade play out in front of us. We have watched the violence and the horror of modern war play out on our television sets. We have listened over and over again as the administration's rhetoric has become more and more detached from the reality of what is going on in Iraq. What were merely predictions and concerns in 2002 have today become reality. Militarily, we are paying the price every day for the administration's neglect in planning for the aftermath of initial combat operations in Iraq.

Our troops are fighting and working in extreme conditions. They face an

enemy they often cannot identify, one that has shown a total disregard for human life and a willingness to sacrifice themselves, their families, and innocent bystanders merely to inflict damage on American forces and innocent Iraqi citizens. Every day, they face an environment to test their physical limits, in 100-plus degree heat. We know it is very hot now. Those of us who have been to Iraq understand the kind of conditions with the heat and the sand and the conditions that are happening there that are, in many cases, unimaginable. They face an Iraqi Government that refuses to take responsibility for the future of the people of Iraq, one that leans on American forces instead of effectively partnering with them to allow our forces to step back and Iraqi security forces to step into the front line.

Our fighting forces are stretched to their limit. They are getting the job done and they are bravely doing that. We are proud of them. But by forcing multiple redeployments without proper rest, this administration has let them down. We have alienated countless foreign allies, squandered the international good will that was at our fingertips after the attacks of 9/11. We turned Iraq into a breeding ground and training school for terrorists, providing international rallying points for extremists. There was not an organized presence of al-Qaida in Iraq until this administration chose to invade.

The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate, released today--yesterday at this point--specifically notes that ``al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.''

This NIE reveals the sobering truth. Not only has this unnecessary war not increased the safety of the American people, but al-Qaida's recovery is a direct result of this administration's decision to invade Iraq. Meanwhile, conditions in Iraq have spiraled. The daily headlines of our newspapers seem to be ripped from the pages of a Greek tragedy: Suicide bombers; civil war; American soldiers unable to tell friends from foes; units serving second and third and now even fourth redeployments; American troops returning home physically mangled, emotionally drained, and psychologically injured; lives and families changed forever.

Five years ago, Americans had never heard of an IED or a traumatic brain injury. They are now part of our everyday news. We have paid the price in American lives--3,613 dead and 26,806 wounded. We have paid the price in misdirected resources. The billions we have spent in Iraq represent countless missed opportunities here at home, opportunities to strengthen our communities, schools, and hospitals, to create jobs and support our families. When I think of the fact that the latest numbers are now $12 billion a month being spent, and we will debate next week a children's health care plan that we want to fund at $10 billion a year--$12 billion a month versus $10 billion a year to cover every child of a working low-income family who doesn't have insurance in America--this is wrong.

We have also paid the price with our international reputation. America, the world's moral leader, has lost the faith of too many. The hearts and minds we needed to win have too often turned their backs on this administration's arrogance. For too long now, I have watched the Republican leadership engage in legislative games and political posturing to avoid taking an up-or-down vote on this war.

That is what we are asking for. Let us vote. Stop the filibuster and let us vote. They have turned their backs on their responsibilities to the people who elected them and to our troops--most important--and their families because they don't like that they may lose a vote. I have stood on the floor of the Senate time and again to voice my opposition to the war.

Sending more Americans into combat without a strategy for success will not improve the situation on the ground, and it will not bring our men and women in uniform home any sooner. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq, and American troops cannot be seen as a substitute for Iraqi resolve.

The so-called surge has done nothing but reinforce this reality. We are rushing more American troops into combat every day and not seeing the increase in security that is needed. Why would we go farther down the path that has led us to this point? Why? Why would we repeat previous mistakes and call it a new strategy?

This administration failed our troops by committing them to this war without a clear reason or goal. This administration failed our troops by not having a clear mission for our armed services in Iraq. This administration has failed our troops by not providing the proper equipment, body armor, and logistical support for our forces. They failed our troops with poor planning for the invasion of Iraq and their total lack of planning for how to secure the country. They have failed our troops by sending them back into harm's way over and over and over again, without the proper rest between redeployments.

Our armed services have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. They have shouldered a heavy burden with pride, patriotism, confidence, and honor. We have asked extraordinary things from them at every turn, and at every turn they have delivered magnificently. They have made us all proud. They have faced tough situations. They have made tough choices and done their duty. Now we need to do what is right for them.

Unlike the President, all of us go home and face our constituents-- our neighbors. We see them at church, at the grocery store, at the kids' schools, and at events all over our States. They sent us here to be their voice. As we know, this is not Washington, DC's war. We may set policy here, we make speeches here, we take votes here, but this is America's war. The men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq every day are from every size town and city--from farms and factory towns. There is no red or blue America when it comes to the war in Iraq. War knows no political party. Americans do not watch their nightly news or read about the troops that didn't make it home in their local papers and think, well, I am a Republican or a Democrat. They think I am an American, I want a change, I have had enough. Enough is enough.

We sit here in this historic Capitol while Republican colleagues filibuster and stop the Senate from voting yes or no on a proposal to change course and end this war. While we do that, communities across the country bury their loved ones, schools hold vigils for alumni laid to rest too young, churches comfort parishioners who have lost sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers.

We are the voices of these communities, of these towns and cities and counties. We were elected with their sacred trust to come to Washington and speak out for them, to make our mark for them on the issues that face them and face our country.

By continuing to stonewall a vote on this Levin-Reed amendment, the Republican minority has stripped all Americans of their voice in this debate. They have said to the people who elected us that this issue of war is not important enough to have their elected representatives vote yes or no on the substance.

Too often in the white noise of politics, we lose sight of the responsibilities we bear. We get bogged down in the politics of partisanship and lose sight of why we were elected.

I believe we owe it to the American people to take this vote--take the vote--not to just stop the filibuster but to have the vote on the policy. There is nothing more important or more pressing to the people of this country right now than this war. It is the responsibility of the Congress to engage in shaping the policy concerning the war on behalf of all of the American people.

The Levin-Reed amendment is as simple as it is necessary. It sets a firm start and end date to transition the mission and begin the reduction of U.S. forces, beginning 120 days after its enactment and completed April 30 of next year, 2008.

The amendment limits the U.S. military mission after April 30 to counterterrorism, training of Iraqi security forces, and protection of U.S. personnel and assets.

Finally, it requires that the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, regional, political and economic effort, and it appoints an international mediator to bring together the warring factions.

The President's strategy in Iraq has not worked. This war was started on a

false rationale. It was executed based on false assumptions. It has led to heartbreaking consequences.

Supporters of the war in Iraq have claimed that one of their goals is to spread democracy throughout the region--an ironic statement considering they are stifling the democratic process right here on the floor of the Senate. This issue is too serious not to take an up-or- down vote on changing policy. The American people want to bring our sons and daughters home. It is our job to vote yes or no and let them know where we stand, not to use parliamentary procedural votes to stand in the way of the people's will.

I have said it before and it remains true tonight: History will judge this administration on how they have waged this war. History will judge us on how we end it. We have all walked different paths to get to this point. Many of us were here when the war began. Some have joined this body in the intervening years. Many who today stand with us were once for the war. None of that matters at this point. What matters is the facts and what we are prepared to do about them. Are we prepared to stand up to the White House and say enough is enough? Enough is enough.

It is morning in Baghdad right now, and our troops are waking up or are on duty, another day on the front lines. The unpleasant truth is that too many American men and women will be wounded today while doing their jobs. Odds are that some will lose their lives in service to their country. But they are there, focused on their job. They are focused on their duty. They assume we are back here focusing on the mission and the strategy and making sure we get it right. They are counting on us to get it right, as they are focused on their jobs every day. They are getting the job done. Everybody who woke up in Iraq this morning and put on the uniform is a hero. Every day we let this war drag on is another day they are fighting without a strategy that works for them. We should all be able to agree that is simply unacceptable.

I would like to close with the same words I closed with in October of 2002. We have witnessed a lot in the last 5 years, but these words are as true tonight as they were then:

We are a strong and powerful nation, made that way by our

willingness to go that extra mile in the name of liberty and

peace. The time is now for us to work together in the name of

the American people and get it right.

I urge my colleagues to vote to end the filibuster and support the Levin-Reed amendment.

I yield the floor.

Ideally, 10 minutes, 8 minutes--somewhere in that range--7, 8 minutes.

Madam President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquence and passion and knowledge and leadership on all of these critical issues related to Iraq and what we need to be doing to keep our country safe.

I thank also Senator Carl Levin, our senior Senator from Michigan, for all his wonderful leadership as he has moved this bill and so many other bills through the Congress that deal with supporting our troops, being a strong military, and now making sure we are there for our troops when they come home.

I thank also Senator John McCain for his graciousness today, as well as for his work with Senator Levin. I thank Senator Danny Akaka, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Larry Craig, the ranking member, for their bipartisan effort.

This has truly been an excellent example of what we can do when we work together on something such as the wounded warrior amendment, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. But the bipartisan effort, the effort between two committees of the Senate, working together, has been wonderful, and we now have an amendment in front of us, the Levin- McCain and others amendment, that is critically important to pass.

I stand here today as a daughter of a World War II Navy vet and the wife of an Air Force vet of 14 years, and I am very proud of what we are doing and what our new majority is doing to advocate for our troops and our veterans.

For too many soldiers and marines, the flight out of Iraq or Afghanistan is the first step in a long journey back to the lives they left at home.

Those wounded in combat face a second tour of duty--a tour of duty marked by long hours of rehabilitation, often painful medical procedures, and a physical or psychological adjustment to a life lived with the scars of war.

When the men and women of our Armed Forces put on the uniform, they

are making a promise to defend America. In return, we promise them that their Nation will be there for them when they come home.

Our Armed Forces truly are the finest patriots our Nation has to offer--truly. As members of an all-volunteer military, charged with defending the greatest democracy on Earth, our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines have proven their bravery, courage, and honor time and again. They don't need more empty promises. What they need and what we owe them is a system that works for them when they are wounded, either physically or mentally, in the service of our country.

I am very proud of the fact that our new majority has made both supporting our troops and our veterans one of our very top priorities. The budget resolution we passed earlier this year places fully funding veterans' health care, working with all of our veterans service organizations, as one of our very top budget priorities. Now we have in front of us another important way to support our troops coming home who are wounded.

We are a nation at war. We know that. We are currently ill-equipped to deal with the human consequences of that war.

The administration's failed planning for this war did not end at the borders of Iraq. It stretched into Walter Reed Hospital and into every veterans' health care facility, into every community that has sent an able-bodied son or daughter off to fight, only to be faced with the realities of an injured veteran returning home. Repeated redeployments have only compounded the problem, as we talked about yesterday, as we debated the important Webb amendment which, I might add, was passed and supported by 56 Members, although we could not break the filibuster of the Republican caucus. Mental health injuries have increased dramatically as troops have been forced to face their second, third, and fourth combat redeployments. The lack of time between redeployments has increased the physical danger to our troops by sending them back on the front lines, overtired, underequipped, and without the increased training they need.

Our heavy reliance on our National Guard has resulted in wounded veterans returning to cities and towns all across our country, often to communities that are far away from veterans' health care facilities or the traditional infrastructure of the military health care system. Our troops deserve better in Iraq, and they deserve better when they come home.

Earlier this year a bright light was turned on the deplorable conditions faced by some of our returning wounded veterans at Walter Reed. The true tragedy of these events is that they are merely a symptom of larger problems with a system that too often has let our soldiers and veterans down. I am very proud of the leadership coming from our caucus, our leader, Senator Reid, and our caucus leadership, in focusing the light of day and taking action that has brought us today to this very important amendment. There is no room for bureaucratic or political squabbling when it comes to the treatment of our soldiers and our veterans. The system should serve one mandate and one mandate only: providing the highest quality service available to all of them, while causing them the least amount of personal hassle and frustration.

Senator Levin's wounded warrior amendment is a much needed step, and it is a needed systemwide approach that has been put together on a bipartisan basis. It addresses many problems that plague this far too often burdened and difficult process while enhancing health care for wounded service men and women, including treatment of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, which has been viewed now as the signature injury of this war.

The number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is growing every day. These brave men and women don't have time to wait. They need their country to step up right now, and that is what we have the opportunity to do together with this amendment.

We have many disagreements in this body. The various pieces of legislation we face on a daily basis require robust debate and oftentimes we find ourselves on different sides of the issue of the day. I can't imagine, though, how any one of us would oppose this amendment. The facts are simple. The system is broken and in need of repair. The ones paying the price are our soldiers, our veterans, and their families. We need to make changes and we need to make them now.

This was a war of choice in Iraq, not of necessity. But dealing with the consequences of this war is unquestionably a necessity. Our troops have done their job and now we need to do ours. I urge my colleagues to support the wounded warrior amendment.

Amendment No. 2024

Madam President, before my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island leaves, I thank him for the incredible contributions I know he made to this legislation that is in front of us. He, too, has had a distinguished career serving his country in the armed services as well as in the Senate, and we congratulate him for his service.

I also start by congratulating our Michigan senior Senator whom we are all so proud of for all of the important work he does, and none is more important for Michigan and for the country than serving as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

This National Defense Authorization Act and all that it brings in terms of additional tools for our troops, issues that directly relate to supporting the troops and their families, the equipment, the new technology, the new policies for the future that they need, all of these things are incredibly important, and Senator Levin has been the leader on these issues for us. We in Michigan are extremely proud of all he has done.

I specifically today raise my voice in support of the Webb amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Tonight in Iraq, 1,644 members of the Michigan National Guard will bed down after a long day of working and fighting. They work in 100-degree weather, sand blowing in their faces, facing dangers at every turn, in the harshest physical conditions imaginable. For every single one of those men and women, there is a family at home in Michigan who will go to bed tonight worried and saying a prayer for the safety of their loved one, for the safe return of their son, their daughter, father, mother, sister, brother.

The true cost of this war cannot be measured in dollars and cents, although there is a huge financial cost to what is happening. But the true cost is measured by the sacrifices of our troops and their families; every single day, day in and day out. The cost is more than just the possibility and the reality of physical danger; the cost includes the sacrifices that entire families are making, financial sacrifices, emotional sacrifices, sacrifices being made because they are apart day after day, month after month, and now year after year.

It is not right; it is not fair; it is not safe. We need to change this policy. That is what the Webb amendment does. In Michigan, 1,644 Guard members, 1,644 families, 1,644 missed birthdays, Father's Day, Mother's Day, missed high school graduations, baby's first steps, anniversaries, family funerals, Christmas, other holidays.

It is also 1,644 missed paychecks. It may be the only paycheck in the family--the paycheck that is paying the mortgage, the paycheck that is there to help send the kids to college, to pay the car payment, to be able to have the standard of living we all want for ourselves and our families--sidetracked careers, small businesses and farms put in economic danger, 1,644 lives that will never be the same, 1,644 sets of missed opportunities, missed moments that can never be replaced.

These members of the Michigan National Guard make up only a fraction of the 160,000 men and women in uniform currently serving in Iraq and countless others who have served. In too many cases, these men and women are back in Iraq for their second, third, and now fourth redeployment.

Our fighting men and women are the greatest resource we have. They make us proud every single day. But, unfortunately, this Government is abusing this resource, these people. America puts its trust in our military to defend us. When our sons and daughters join the military, they put their trust in us, in the Congress, in the President of the United States, to give them the tools and the resources they need and to treat them with the respect they have earned. Current administration policies on redeployment have violated that trust. These policies have let our troops down. They have let their families down.

I am proud to join with my colleague from Virginia in saying: Enough is enough--enough is enough--when it comes to abusing our Armed Forces by stretching them to the breaking point with redeployment after redeployment.

Our armed services have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. They have shouldered a heavy burden with pride and confidence and honor. We have asked extraordinary things--extraordinary things--from them at every turn. And at every turn they have delivered. They have made us all proud. They have faced tough situations, made tough choices, and have done their duty.

Now we need to do our duty. We need to do what is right for them. It is our time to face the tough situations. It is our time to make the hard choices. It is our time to make them proud. That is what this amendment is about. That is what this bill is about. That is what further discussions we will have about how to end this war will be all about.

America's soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines are always there for us when they are called. The question is, Will we be there for them? Will we be there for them today and tomorrow and the next day?

This legislation Senator Webb has proposed is something that is simply the right thing to do and is a very important piece of supporting our troops.

First of all, for our regular forces, the amendment requires that if a unit or a member deploys for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, they will have the same time at home--what is called ``dwell time''; down time, as I would say; our forces would call it dwell time--before being redeployed. So if someone is deployed for 6 months, they would have dwell time for 6 months, whether that is being home with the family, whether that is retraining, whether that is time to regroup. If they are deployed for 12 months, they would have 12 months at home; 15 months, 15 months.

For the National Guard and Reserve, no unit or member will be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment. Now, this is strictly a floor, but it will stabilize Guard and Reserve deployment cycles in a much more predictable way. It is good for them, it is good for us from a safety standpoint, preparedness standpoint, and it certainly is good for the families we are asking to make such sacrifices.

We understand this is a dangerous and unpredictable world we live in, so this amendment also includes an important provision, a provision enabling the President to waive these limitations if he certifies to Congress that deployment is necessary in response to a vital national security interest of the United States.

Now, why is this down time or dwell time so important? Longer and more predictable dwell time is needed for many reasons. Most importantly, it allows for members to readjust from combat and spend time with their families. It also allows troops the time they need to be ready for the next combat mission. We have to remember that

when our people return from their deployments, the majority of their time is spent retraining, refurbishing, and reequipping prior to being redeployed.

The bottom line is that the Webb amendment will ensure that our men and women in uniform have a more predictable deployment schedule, with adequate time between tours. We have a responsibility to prevent further needless damage to our military, and the Webb amendment does that.

Five years ago, I was proud to stand on this floor as one of 23 Members who believed this war was the wrong choice. For the past 5 years, I have been proud to cast vote after vote supporting the troops, working to ensure they have the resources they need so they can get the job done as soon as possible and come home safely.

Today, I stand on the floor and once again say: Enough is enough. The American people are saying: Enough is enough.

This administration failed our troops by committing them to this war without a clear reason or goal. This administration failed our troops by not having a clear mission for our Armed Forces in Iraq. They failed our troops by not providing the proper equipment, body armor, or logistical support for our forces. They failed our troops with their poor planning for the invasion of Iraq and their total lack of planning for how to secure the country, despite the best efforts of our brave men and women. And they have failed our troops by sending them back into harm's way over and over and over again without the proper down time between redeployments. History will judge this administration on how they have handled this war. History will judge us now on what we do for the troops and what we do to end this war.

We need a new strategy for Iraq, a strategy that brings our troops home safely and responsibly. We need to treat our troops with respect-- the respect they deserve, they have earned--while they are serving us. They put their lives on the line every day for us. The least we can do is to make sure they have what they need and they have the time they need between combat deployments to be with their families and to prepare for the future. And they need a strategy. They are asking us to be paying attention to what is going on.

So many of us have been to Iraq and have seen what is happening on the front lines. They are in the battle every day. They are focusing on their mission, on staying alive, keeping their buddies alive. They are counting on us to have their back. They are counting on the President to have their back. They are counting on people here getting it right, doing the right thing--whether it is making sure they have the time they need, which the Webb amendment does, to focus on their needs and their families' needs or whether it is to make sure there is a strategy that makes sense. That is what we are now debating on this floor.

I believe the American people have spoken very loudly and very clearly, and it is time for us to listen. It is our job to listen, to do the right thing for the troops, to do the right thing for their families, to do the right thing for communities and for our country.

When I look around the Senate, I am struck by the fact that we have all taken different paths to get here, to this debate right now. It has been a long 5 years. Some of us have stood up against this war since day one. Many have come to understand the tragedies of this war and the failures of this administration and have come at a different time. But no matter what path each of us has taken, no matter how we have gotten here today, now we have the opportunity to do the right thing. That is what this debate is about.

I am so grateful to our Senate leader, Harry Reid, for making sure we stay focused on what is clearly the most critical issue in front of us, what is happening in the war in Iraq and with our troops and our families, and what we need to do to focus on the real threats--the real threats--here at home, through his leadership, on the 9/11 Commission legislation, as well as focusing on the real threats abroad.

So we have seen leadership bringing us back to this issue, creating this opportunity now for us to do the right thing. We need to do the courageous thing. The Webb amendment is an opportunity to do the courageous thing for our troops. We cannot change the past, but we have to change the future, and that means acting now.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Webb amendment for the brave men and women who are serving us and counting on us to understand what we are expecting of them as they do their duty, with the sacrifices they are making, their families are making. They are counting on us to do the right thing. They are counting on us to do the right thing on the overall strategy on this war.

This legislation, this time, this debate in the next few days is an opportunity for us to tell the American people: We hear you. We hear you. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. It is time to get this right and to bring our men and women home safely and responsibly.

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

Mr. President, I thank Judiciary Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for their assistance in moving forward the nominations of Judge Paul Maloney and Judge Janet Neff and Robert Jonker to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Judge Paul Maloney has served as a circuit judge on the Berrien County Trial Court for over 10 years. Judge Maloney also brings a wealth of public service experience to the bench, including: working as a Berrien County prosecutor, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice and as chairman of the Michigan Sentencing Commission.

Judge Janet Neff has served as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Michigan for nearly 20 years. In addition to her distinguished career on the bench, Judge Neff has been an active leader in Grand Rapids, including serving as the first woman president of the Grand Rapids Bar Association.

Robert Jonker has been a partner at Warner, Norcross & Judd in Grand Rapids for over 12 years. A life-long Michiganian, Robert Jonker is a graduate of Calvin College and the University of Michigan Law School, and has served as a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Robert Feikens in the Eastern District.

This situation is critical for my State. Currently, the Western District has only one full-time judge hearing cases, and the Judicial Conference has declared it a judicial emergency. Even when the bench is full, this district presents logistical challenges because it covers Michigan cities all the way from Marquette to Benton Harbor--St. Joe.

I was deeply disappointed that in the last Congress, the Senate failed to act on these three nominees despite a bipartisan agreement between myself and Senator Levin and the administration.

I am pleased the full Senate will be voting to confirm the three nominees, who will all bring distinguished legal careers to the Federal bench.

This is an important example of how we can work together. I hope the administration sees the value of working together in a bipartisan fashion with the Senate to ensure an independent and impartial judiciary that is accessible to all.

Senator Levin and I have worked closely with the White House. While it has taken longer than we would have liked to come to this point, we are extremely pleased and grateful to our distinguished chairman, who has worked very hard on our behalf, Senator Leahy, and the ranking member, Senator Specter. Both Senators have worked hard to bring these nominees forward. These are three very distinguished people from Michigan with tremendous credentials for the bench. They will serve ably, and I am proud to support them.

Mr. President, I speak in support of the Great Lakes Short Sea Shipping Act of 2007. This legislation will exempt from the harbor maintenance tax certain commercial cargo loaded or unloaded at U.S. ports in the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence System.

In recent years, transportation planners have been struggling to identify ways to move people and goods more efficiently. Congested highways, particularly at the Detroit, Michigan/Windsor, Ontario border crossing, the busiest border crossing in North America, acts as a huge constraint to economic growth.

The purpose of the Harbor Maintenance Tax, HMT, is to generate revenue from port users for port maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps maintains Federal shipping channels by conducting periodic dredging, which is necessary to remove sand and silt that occur naturally in shipping channels. HMT receipts are placed in the harbor maintenance trust fund, which serves as a source of revenue for the Corps' dredging budget. The HMT is assessed on cargo transported between U.S. ports and cargo imported to U.S. ports from other countries. Exports are not assessed a tax. More specifically, the tax is not paid by the vessel owner, nor the port, but by the owner of the cargo in each ship. The bill would provide a narrow exemption to the HMT for the movement of nonbulk only commercial cargo by water in the Great Lakes region, which includes the movement of freight and people between the U.S. ports on the Great Lakes and between Canadian and U.S. ports on the Great Lakes.

This very narrow exemption would remove the current disincentive to moving freight by water and allow the region's transportation planners to develop new shipping services to not only relieve highway congestion, but to improve air quality as well. Moreover, the legislation could open up new shipping services to be offered on the Great Lakes, thus creating jobs in the maritime sector. One of the other benefits is that this exemption will offer options for trucks that may choose to use the bridges, tunnels, or now ferry service. Because the Detroit/Windsor border crossing is the busiest border crossing in North America, any alternative mode of transportation that allows for commerce to flow more smoothly, quickly, and efficiently is beneficial not only to the Great Lakes region, but to the country. Also, in this time of us working to be more responsible and have a cleaner environment for our children, allowing trucks off of the congested highways and onto ferries where they can cut off engines and not idle, will reduce air emissions, improve air quality, and cut down on gasoline usage.

Moreover, since trucks currently use roads rather than ferries to move around the Great Lakes region, the Federal Government does not HMT on their cargo. Under this proposed legislative exemption, if a truck boarded a ferry, the Federal Government would still not collect a tax.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a moment?

Mr. President, I would like to thank our majority leader for his effort. He read a list in the last few moments that goes through quite quickly a whole list of things that have required an extraordinary amount of effort to be able to accomplish, and I wish to thank him personally.

This has not been an easy 6 months. I think our friends on the other side of the aisle have wished to slow things down, with procedural motions over and over again, to even go to a bill, and to see the leader's patience and determination and perseverance has been extraordinary.

I am very proud of the fact, when we compare our first 6 months to the 6 months in previous Congresses, that this gentleman has been a task master. He has kept his nose to the grindstone and has kept us focused on things that matter to the American people, from the war in Iraq and bringing that to the forefront, to having hearings where we have asked for accountability and attempted to change the direction on the war, as well as to things we in Michigan are desperately caring about every day, in terms of our economy and our quality of life.

So I wish to thank the leader personally for all he has done and will continue to do. I know that with all of us working together, we are changing the direction of this Congress and working very hard to address the things that people care about every day.