Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 208.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 209.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 1 p.m., Monday, May 21; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1348, comprehensive immigration legislation; and Senator Sessions be recognized, as provided for under a previous order; that following Senator Sessions, the remaining time until 5:30 p.m., be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders, or their designees; provided further that at 5:30 p.m., without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of H.R. 1495. The debate will continue until 10:30 on the four pending Iraq-related amendments.

The debate time until 10:30 is equally divided and controlled between the two leaders, with the final 20 minutes shared by the two leaders. I will have the last 10 minutes of that 20-minute period.

There will be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote. After the first vote, the remaining votes in sequence will be limited to 10 minutes. I hope Members would not leave the Chamber area during the votes as time for the votes will have to be strictly enforced. Since these amendments are first-degree amendments, except for the Feingold amendment, Members have until 9:30 this morning to file any germane second-degree amendments.

Once these Iraq-related amendments are disposed of, then the managers of the water resources legislation hope to shortly conclude the entire legislation. I hope that can be the case.

With the cooperation of the Senate last night, we have moved the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the immigration legislation until Monday, May 21. This will allow negotiations to continue for a few more days.

I mentioned that a lot of work is needed to be done this week, including the supplemental appropriations bill and the budget resolution. We have other things we are working on to get teed up for next week. We have so much to do, Mr. President.

Also, last night, with the cooperation of the Republican leader and the rest of the Senate, we forged a path for the consideration of these two items, these two items tomorrow, the budget and the WRDA matter. So I, again, thank the Members for their cooperation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my sitting down, Senator Biden have 4 minutes of our time; Senator Boxer, 3 minutes; Senator Feingold, 3 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 4 minutes; Senator Leahy, 4 minutes; Senator Levin, 4 minutes; Senator Murray, 3 minutes; Senator Reed, 3 minutes--that is Reed of Rhode Island--Senator Tester, 3 minutes; and Senator Whitehouse, 3 minutes. We should have enough time to cover all that. If not, I will yield a minute or so of my time.

I also ask that the quorum calls be equally divided.

Mr. President, the desk should get their clocks out because I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and that time will have to run equally from both sides. So each time that I have allotted will be reduced by whatever time the people don't show up here to get in their remarks.

I note the absence of a quorum.

After the Feingold vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is time remaining for the Republican leader. Is that right?

On my side, how much time do we have?

Mr. President, is Senator Cochran going to use some of the 7\1/2\ minutes?

There is 7\1/2\ minutes. Mr. President, what I would ask-- the reason I am asking my friend from Mississippi is, we have had a lot of confusion here today with amendments being withdrawn and a lot of people wanting to speak.

The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has been waiting to speak. I would be happy, if it is convenient to the Republicans, to give 3 more minutes to the minority and allow Senator Biden to speak for 3 minutes. Would that be permissible?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

Mr. President, I think the Republican leader wants to take 1 minute. No? If you would yield that back.

Mr. President, if I exceed the 5 minutes, I will use my leader time.

The Congress and the President are on the eve of a very important negotiation about the administration's failed policy in Iraq. Does anyone dispute that it has been a failed policy? Does anyone dispute that it has been a failed policy? I don't think so.

But there is one simple question that negotiators will be wrestling with: After more than 4 years of a war in Iraq, costing Americans more than 3,400 lives, tens of thousands wounded, a third of them grievously wounded, we have more than 2,000 double amputees in this war, head injuries like we have never seen before, approaching a trillion dollars in taxpayers' expenditure for this war.

Sadly, there is no end in sight. Isn't it time for the administration to change course? Now, Nevada is struck and struck very hard with the fact that one of our brave soldiers from Nevada may be a hostage or some say a prisoner of war. This is new experience even in Iraq.

The votes we are about to cast this morning will give every Member the

opportunity to tell the American people, the White House, and the Congressional negotiators where they stand on critical issues.

House and Senate Democrats stand with General Petraeus. General Petraeus says the war cannot be won militarily. There can only be a political solution, which my friend from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has been saying for almost 2 years. The administration and the leaders in Iraq have not listened to Carl Levin.

We stand united, we Democrats and a couple of stalwart Republicans, in our belief that our troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war, that we are pursuing a failed strategy that is making us less secure, not more secure, and that it is time to begin a responsible, phased redeployment.

We stand united in our efforts to get the administration to change course but do so now, immediately. The President's policy is not working, and it is not working for so many reasons.

The present path is not sustainable. The facts on the ground are certainly not encouraging. Everyone, today, look at USA Today. The attacks are up. The deaths are up, both of Iraqis and Americans; the injuries are up of both Iraqis and Americans.

Despite the fourth surge in U.S. forces since the start of the war, attacks on our troops have not decreased. The monthly casualty rate since the onset of the surge is close to the highest level we have seen since the start of this war. About three American soldiers are killed every day on average. Since the beginning of the surge, 300 Americans have been killed. I don't know how many have been injured but thousands. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Government remains in a dangerous stalemate--no oil law; no law on de-Baathification; no constitutional amendments. This paralysis has further fueled the sectarian violence, and our troops are caught in the middle. They protect the Sunnis. Our troops protect the Shia, protect the Kurds. In the process, they are all shooting at our troops.

The U.S. mission grows further and further disconnected from our strategic national interest. Instead of focusing on training, counterterrorism, and our regional interests, U.S. forces are patrolling Baghdad's streets, still kicking down doors, increasingly vulnerable to snipers, kidnappers, improvised explosive devices, and other acts of terror. American forces have done everything we have asked of them, and more. They toppled a dictator and helped pave the way for a new government. It is now up to the Iraqi political leaders, after 4 years, to step up to the plate and fight for their own nation. Again, as our leader on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, has said on many occasions: Take off the training wheels. The Iraqi Government has to do that.

Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve an exit strategy, instead of extending tours from 12 to 15 months, putting further strain upon our men and women in uniform. It is long past time to transition the United States mission in Iraq and begin a responsible, phased redeployment.

The Feingold-Reid amendment does just that. It achieves that goal. The amendment calls for the phased redeployment of our troops to begin within 120 days. It doesn't call for withdrawal--phased redeployment. After April 1, 2008, the sixth year of the war in Iraq--think about that--it would still permit U.S. forces to remain in Iraq conducting force protection, training, and targeted counterterrorism missions. As Senator Biden said: Go after the real bad guys.

I appreciate the efforts of my friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I say after more than 4 years of a failed policy he has watched, as I have, his amendment is very tepid, very weak, a cup of tea that has been sitting on the counter for a few weeks. You wouldn't want to drink that tea. You wouldn't want to vote for this amendment. If you look in the dictionary under ``weak,'' the Warner amendment would be listed right under it. I have the greatest respect for Senator Warner. I know he is trying to stick up for his President. Senator Warner has served this country honorably for more than 40 years. But the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. It requires actions, certainly not more reports, especially those without consequences. I will vote against the Warner amendment and I hope everyone votes against it. It is nothing.

The Cochran amendment, offered by my friend with whom I have had the good pleasure of serving in Congress for 25 years--he is a fine man and a real patriot; he has served this country so well for so long--I don't necessarily agree with every word and assertion the Senator included in his amendment, but I do agree with its thrust; namely, the White House and the Congress have an obligation to our troops to move quickly and complete action on the supplemental spending bill. But I do say to my friend from Mississippi: The President has asked for money. But for the first time in more than 4 years of this war, he has to deal with this constitutional body that was provided to our country by our Founding Fathers, called the Congress. It is another branch of Government. He has to deal with us. That is why there are negotiations prior to getting the President a conference report.

Had I drafted this amendment, I would have asked more of the White House than simply the Congress write a blank check to this administration. Too many blank checks have been given to this President, and look what we have as a result. It is important we deliver our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice. I would also have made improving their readiness a priority. What do people who have the military experience in this body focus on? Senator Webb of Virginia, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, they focus on readiness; that is, how are the troops being taken care of, how are they being rotated? Jim Webb, as we know, served gallantly in battle. He knows what it is to send troops into battle without proper readiness. He is concerned about that. We don't have enough about readiness, certainly, in the Cochran amendment.

We were going to have another vote on the Levin amendment. Basically, as I said to the Presiding Officer late last night, it was the amendment that went to the President and he vetoed it. The Levin amendment is the same thing except we gave the President waivers. You would think that would be a step in the right direction. But we have heard from all types of administration officials as late as last night: We will veto that. So we will make it easier for them. We are not going to go ahead and offer that. We will stand on the merits of what we sent to the President before.

Regardless of the outcome of today's votes, I want everyone listening to know that if my Republican friends choose to stick with a failed policy, congressional Democrats will take this fight up at the first available opportunity. We know we have to get a bill to the President, a conference report. We are going to do that. But there are other measures that are going to be moving through this body quite quickly-- defense authorization, for example. We are going to continue focusing, as Senator Biden said, on the President's failed strategy. Our troops and their families deserve no less.

Look what is going on now. Is the Commander in Chief fulfilling his obligations? We were told with this most recent surge that General Petraeus would be the guy who would take care of things over there. But he has told us we can't win militarily. Now today we read in the paper that General Lute is going to be the czar. The czar? What about that? Whose job is he taking? Is he taking General Petraeus's job? Is he taking President Bush's job? What is next in the continual march of the President's failed policy?

We must change course. That is why I am going to proudly vote for the Feingold-Reid amendment.

I object.

I will be happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia. I will then use 2 minutes to respond.

Mr. President, let me be very clear: I in no way suggested my friend from Virginia didn't act in good faith. That is the story of his life. I just say, another study? Look at the one in the newspapers today. They studied what is going on in Iraq today with the explosive devices--the people getting killed and maimed and injured. How many more studies do we need? The study that has already been completed in the minds of the American people is to change course in this civil war. We have too many people being killed and injured in that war. The course needs to change. I care a great deal about my friend from Virginia, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I have to call his amendment what I think it is. It is my opinion it is weak.

Amendment No. 1098

Mr. President, we have been told by Pentagon officials that there is money there to the end of June. We have been told by the Congressional Budget Office that there is money there until July. But in spite of all that, we sent the President a bill. He vetoed that bill.

We recognize the need to get money to the troops. We are going to do that. I stated on the floor yesterday that we will take whatever time it takes to complete this funding prior to the recess we have scheduled for Memorial Day, and we are going to do that. We will work with the minority to do that.

I also suggest that we are all going to vote for cloture on this amendment, so maybe we don't need to vote on it. If Senators are all going to vote for it, let's accept it by voice vote.

Mr. President, if there were ever a Senatorial odd couple, it is Boxer-Inhofe. But this odd couple has done some tremendous work legislatively. This bill is long in the making. They have worked extremely hard, through some very difficult negotiations.

I am sorry Mr. Inhofe is not here, but it is a wonderful piece of work, and they both should be very proud of their accomplishments. We are going to get this bill to conference as quickly as we can, and I am confident they will be able to work this out very quickly. This is a remarkably good piece of legislation. The public should know even odd couples in the Senate can do great things.

Mr. President, I didn't know Senator Thomas Dodd, but I know Senator Christopher Dodd, and I am sure Senator Thomas Dodd is smiling today.

This wonderful family that Senator Chris Dodd has includes a wonderful wife, Jackie, whom we know, she worked in the Senate and was part of the Senate family before she married Chris Dodd: and these two beautiful children, whom we in the Senate feel are part of us, Christina and Grace, we have watched them from the day they were born to now in the Senate gallery, and we really do feel they are partly ours.

It is a rare person we find in Senator Chris Dodd, who now is chairman of the Banking Committee and doing a wonderful job, that committee working with the ranking member, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby; and then also running for the Presidency of the United States.

So I say to Senator Christopher Dodd, I didn't have the opportunity to serve with Senator Thomas Dodd, but in this audience today, here in the Senate, are men--and I look and see two--who served with Senator Thomas Dodd: Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Robert Byrd. I have spoken to them about Senators in the past and, of course, they have always mentioned Senator Thomas Dodd because he certainly is a man who made a difference in the Senate, as his son is doing.

One of the things that goes without saying is the ability of Senator Christopher Dodd to express himself. What an eloquent speaker he is. This is one of the rare times, because of the emotion involved with the words that he spoke, in which he spoke from written text. He usually speaks off the cuff, and he is very good. I understand how difficult this was for him. I could tell, from the tears in his eyes and the lump in his throat, how much he loved his father, his family, and how much he loves his family today.

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. President, with the concurrence of the Republican leader, I now ask that the Senate turn to the consideration of H. R. 2206.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, I send a substitute amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that it be reflected that this amendment is on behalf of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment.

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

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the motion to the desk.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I now send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I send a second cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Reid-McConnell amendment to H.R. 2206 occur on Thursday 1 hour after the Senate convenes and notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, and that if cloture is invoked, the Senate remain on H.R. 2206 until it is disposed of, notwithstanding the provisions of rule

Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have worked very closely in the past week or two on the process we are following this evening. We both agree it is imperative that we get to conference with the House as quickly as possible, and adoption of the Murray amendment, which is the amendment which was offered here, will allow us to do just that. This is a procedural step.

We are anxious to get to conference to work with the President's Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. He has been available any time we have asked for his presence. He realizes there is going to have to be some serious negotiations. We also understand that it is not just the Senate. The House has to be involved in these negotiations, and we

certainly understand that and Mr. Bolton understands that.

We have a long way to go, but this was a tremendous step forward. We may disagree on a lot of issues dealing with the policy in Iraq, but the one point on which we agree--both Democrats and Republicans--is that the troops must have everything they need and more, and we are going to make sure that is the case.

The Republican leader and I agree, and I have spoken with the Speaker of the House at 5 o'clock today, and she agrees with me, that we are going to finish this bill and this conference report prior to our leaving for the Memorial Day recess. Everyone should rest assured we are going to do that. I hope we can do that without causing a lot of discomfort to Senators and Members of the House if we finish this bill at a reasonable time a week from Thursday or Friday, but if we can't, we are going no place until we finish this legislation and it gets to the President's desk.

Objection.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business now before the Senate?

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are on WRDA, then,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, May 16, when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1495, the time until 10:30 a.m. be for debate prior to the votes on the motions to invoke cloture on the following amendments: Feingold second-degree amendment No. 1098, Levin amendment No. 1097, Warner amendment No. 1134, and the Cochran amendment No. 1135, with the time equally divided and controlled between the majority and Republican leaders or their designees; that the votes occur in the order listed above; and that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled, and that each vote in this sequence after the first be limited to 10 minutes; that if cloture is not invoked, then the amendment be withdrawn; that no other amendments be in order prior to the cloture votes; and that second-degree amendments may be filed until 9:30 a.m.; further, that the mandatory quorums, as required under rule XXII, be waived with respect to the cloture motions covered under this agreement; further, that the 20 minutes immediately prior to the first vote be under the control of the majority and Republican leaders, with the time equally divided, with the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the amendments covered under this agreement, the Senate resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 1348, comprehensive immigration legislation, with the time until 2 p.m. for debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed--Mr. President, I withdraw this aspect of the consent request at this time, and stop where I was where there was no objection.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I, too, am happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin.

I support the understanding reached by the chairman and the Senator from Wisconsin.

I support the understanding reached by the chairman and the Senator from Wisconsin.

I support the understanding reached by the chairman and the Senator from Wisconsin.

I support the understanding reached by the chairman and the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Boxer and the Committee on Environment and Public Works for their hard work on S. 1248, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and the bill currently being considered by the Senate, H.R. 1495. The bill represents years of negotiations by her, members of the committee, and staff, and I appreciate her leadership in bringing a bill forward for this body's consideration.

Mr. President, I generally support this bill and understand that many of the projects are necessary to improve and maintain safe communities. But I am concerned about the effects of one project on Indian lands.

Both S. 1248 and H.R. 1495 include authorizing language for a flood damage reduction and environmental restoration project on Middle Creek, located in Lake County, CA. I certainly defer to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California congressional delegation as to the project's importance and the most appropriate plan to implement it, but would my friend from California describe the impact of the project on Indian lands in the area?

Madam Chairman, I understand the Rancheria's current casino will not be affected by this project if implemented--that the Rancheria could continue, if it chooses, to operate this casino once the project is completed. Is this correct?

Madam Chairman, I understand that neither the Senate nor the House bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for purposes of gaming on behalf of the Rancheria?

Thank you for that clarification. Madam Chairman, in Senate Report 110-58, the committee recommends that, in exchange for the existing reservation lands that would be included in the floodplain, the Secretary of the Interior accept three parcels of land into trust for the benefit of the Rancheria. Would you describe these parcels and their location in relation to the Rancheria's current reservation boundaries?

Mr. President, I thank my friend from California for describing the lands. While neither the House nor Senate bills would authorize the Secretary to take the transferred lands into trust as ``restored lands'' for the purpose of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the report recommends the Secretary do so.

I understand the Rancheria can continue to operate its on-reservation casino should this project be implemented, and I do not oppose the Rancheria's right to do so because these lands are located within its traditional reservation boundary and were taken into trust before the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, thus the casino was opened consistent with the requirements of IGRA. But as you know, I have long opposed off-reservation gaming, and while I understand that neither bill would authorize gaming on the transferred parcels, I do not support the committee's recommendation that the Secretary declare these parcels ``restored lands.'' As we know, should the Secretary declare the parcels as ``restored lands,'' the Rancheria would be allowed to conduct gaming on lands deemed outside of its reservation boundary and on lands acquired after enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I note that report language does not have the same legal status as legislative language.

Mr. President, I appreciate the clarifications and explanations that my friend from California has provided.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation focused on a devastating condition known as inflammatory bowel disease,