Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1002 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that second-degree amendments may be filed until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, Wednesday, March 28; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1591, as provided under a previous order.

Mr. President, I appreciate everybody's patience in getting to this point. There has been a lot of down time, but it was necessary in order to be at a point where we could proceed in an appropriate manner tomorrow.

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

Please, go ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an extra 30 minutes for morning business.

Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will be in a period for morning business. At 3:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1591. As I announced earlier, there will be no rollcall votes today. This week is slated to be the last week of the work period prior to the Easter recess. However, we must work toward finishing the supplemental before we can do this, and I am going to be meeting in the next few minutes with the distinguished Republican leader to see if that is possible to do.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that H.R. 545 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I now object to any further proceedings at this time.

Mr. President, the first 3 months of the 110th Congress have been very productive. We have shown the American people that when Democrats and Republicans work together results flow. It is interesting, when that happens, there are a lot of positives that can be said by both parties. When we don't accomplish something, there is a lot of criticism that is shared by both parties.

This productive work began in January when we passed the ethics bill, the most sweeping reform in the history of our country. Next we worked to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade. After minimum wage, we finished the fiscal work of the last Congress, the 109th Congress, by passing a responsible continuing resolution with no earmarks. Then we went to homeland security and ensured that 5 years after 9/11, all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission will be implemented. Last week, we passed a balanced budget which includes over $180 billion in tax breaks for middle-class families and says in the future, if you are going to lower taxes, if you are going to increase spending, you have to have some way to pay for it. Ethics, minimum wage, the continuing resolution, the 9/11 recommendations and the budget--it is a record of which all of us can be proud. But, of course, we have so much more to do. From stem cell to immigration to energy, there are challenges ahead, and this week the Senate will turn its attention to the most pressing challenge of them all--the debacle of Iraq.

Today we begin consideration of the 2007 supplemental appropriations bill. This legislation includes more than $121 billion. The vast majority--90 percent of it--is for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also for enhancing military readiness generally, for improving veterans health care--and certainly in the wake of Walter Reed and other scandals regarding how veterans are being taken care of, this is certainly something that is necessary--for national priorities such as rebuilding the gulf coast and homeland security and I mention, Mr. President, drought assistance, farm disaster.

In the western part of the United States, because of this global climate change, we have had millions--I am speaking directly--millions, not thousands, but millions--of acres burned, and unless we figure out some way to restore that vegetation, that land is going foul, to say the least. That is what this is all about--farm aid assistance. Willie Nelson could sing for weeks about the need for this assistance to take place in the West. I am not an expert on wheat, corn, rice, and all those other products--a lot of people here are--but I am about rangelands and what has happened to Nevada.

The bill contains critical money, as I have indicated, for our troops. We need to get the money to them as quickly as we can. Our troops are serving under difficult conditions. The Senate will ensure they have everything they need to continue this fight as we have done.

Our support, though, for the troops does not stop at funding. We must also ensure our soldiers have a strategy for success. The Democratic- controlled Congress is listening to the American people and fighting to give our troops what they need and strategy--strategy worthy of their sacrifices. That is why in addition to the much needed changes for our troops, the bill also contains a strong message for President Bush: Change course in Iraq.

My friend, the distinguished Republican leader, criticized what is in this bill that will be reported to the floor shortly, saying it is not good for the troops. David Brooks, the very conservative editorial writer for the New York Times, said last Friday on the ``Jim Lehrer NewsHour'': This is ridiculous for anyone to criticize a democracy for debating the most important issue of the day, the war in Iraq. The very conservative David Brooks said this is what democracies are all about. The troops over there know this is good.

I have my BlackBerry on my hip. Someone BlackBerried his friend, one of my staff members, who is a full colonel in the Army National Guard out in Nevada. He keeps in touch with his friends. He said what happened in the House and what we put in our bill is good for the troops--this is a soldier e-mailing my friend from Iraq--because it lets the Iraqi Government know we are serious. He went on to say the deadline is important for the Iraqi people and the soldiers, and the Iraqi people know that.

Secretary Gates, when asked about this timeline, provisions in the bill relating to Iraq, said it doesn't affect the troops adversely at all.

Certainly the troops know we care about them. We give them everything they need. But last week, we entered the fifth year of this war. Think about that, the fifth year of this war, and there is no end in sight, I am sorry to say. The news this morning, when I first got up, was five more soldiers were killed yesterday, 238 this year alone. March 26, 238 dead Americans, just like the boy Raul Bravo, from Elco, NV. I talked to his mother--237 just like that young man. Three thousand two hundred forty-one so far in this war--dead Americans--25,000

wounded. One hospital in Texas has handled 250 amputations. There are 2,000 double amputees as a result of this war.

The war continues to move in the wrong direction and yet--instead of digging us out of the hole it created in Iraq--instead of stopping this downward spiral of destruction--instead of taking the fight to the terrorists who attacked us on September 11--this White House wants us to keep doing more of the same in Iraq.

In January, President Bush said he would escalate the conflict and send 21,500 new troops for a few months. Of course, we were misled on that. We now know the number is around 30,000, and they will be there indefinitely, and the President has said he might ask for more troops. There is no short-term surge, as the President has described. It is more of the same. The President is placing troops in the middle of an Iraqi sectarian civil war. More military solutions to a problem that General Petraeus, our top commander in Iraq, has said can only be solved politically. Our commander on the ground in Iraq has said that only 20 percent of it can be won militarily. That is not good enough for me. We need to find a new way forward.

If the President will not listen to the generals, if he will not listen to the American people, who have spoken for a new direction, then perhaps he will listen to us, Congress, when we send him a supplemental bill that acknowledges reality in Iraq. We must find a new way forward. The President can swagger all he wants, but we have 3,241 dead Americans.

The Iraq measure in this bill changes the mission of U.S. troops from policing a civil war to counterterror, training, and force protection. It rejects the notion that this war can be won militarily, and it sets a goal of redeploying our troops by March 2008. It includes a requirement for a political, diplomatic, and economic strategy to be implemented in conjunction with the redeployment.

The Iraq language is based on a simple premise: Iraq can be won only politically. In short, it offers a responsible strategy in Iraq that the American people asked for last November 7--a strategy that will enhance our country's ability to wage war on terror.

Contrary to what President Bush believes, the key to success in Iraq is not escalating the conflict by adding tens of thousands of additional troops to trod down the same dangerous road. It is to find a new way forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this supplemental. After 4 years of war, our troops deserve a strategy to help them complete the mission so they can come home.

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

Mr. President, I ask that morning business be closed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments, and that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement; further, that the pending Cochran amendment remain in order, notwithstanding this agreement.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum under rule XXII be waived.

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

Mr. President, before I introduce my legislation, The Combat Related Special Compensation Act of 2007, I would like to briefly talk about the unfair treatment and the deplorable health care conditions found at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I feel that the current situation there has some bearing on my legislation.

Walter Reed is one of the Army's best-known and premier medical facilities for wounded service members in the country. Numerous reports by the Government Accounting Office and transcripts of congressional testimony

indicate that many of our military facilities for wounded outpatients are in disarray. These facilities are plagued by mold, mice, stained carpets, and a system ill equipped to handle another generation of psychologically scarred veterans.

Nearly 4,000 outpatients are currently in the military's Medical Holding companies, which oversee the wounded. Soldiers and veterans across the country report bureaucratic neglect similar to Walter Reed's: untrained staff; misplaced paperwork; lost computer generated medical appointments; and long waits for consultations. These serious problems have resulted from bureaucratic red tape and substandard health care conditions. This situation is unacceptable. We have not fulfilled our covenant, nor have we kept our promise to take care of our troops.

Our dedicated service members took an oath to serve our Nation. We as policy makers have a moral obligation to take care of these dedicated service men and women that have shown heroic patriotism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

``As described in the Washington Post'', It is not just a problem at Walter Reed: others describe depressing living conditions for outpatients at military bases throughout the country. Let me share with you the comments of a 70-year-old soldier, Mr. Oliva, who is worried about the military health care our wounded will receive. He described his own troubling experiences at the VA hospital in Livermore, CA.

``It is not just Walter Reed,'' Mr. Oliva states. ``The VA hospitals are not good either except for the staff members who work so hard. It brings tears to my eyes when I see my brothers and sisters having to deal with these conditions.''

Mr. Oliva is but one voice in a vast outpouring of emotion and anger about the treatment of wounded outpatients at Walter Reed. Stories of neglect and substandard care have flooded in from soldiers, their family members, veterans, doctors and nurses working inside the system. This is appalling and an embarrassment to our Nation.

I am particularly concerned that some of the highest ranking officials were aware of the problem for almost two years, but took no action to correct the situation. While we have seen some positive signs from the fallout over the scandal, such as the firing of the head of Walter Reed and the establishment of a bipartisan commission, more must be done.

Our soldiers receive first class care in combat, and they should receive the same level of care in our own country. Congress must lead the way in this effort. We must continue our efforts and pass legislation that will improve the quality of life for all of America's heroes, including providing them with the benefits they have earned.

Today, I join with many of my Senate colleagues to fight and end the ban on current receipt so that disabled veterans can get the fair benefits they deserve. We have made some progress over the last few years, but as everyone knows, we still have a lot of work to do.

The legislation I am introducing today--the Combat-Related Special Compensation Act of 2007, would continue to chip away at this unfair policy, by giving pro-rated retirement benefits to our service men and women who are forced into early retirement because of their combat- related injuries.

Our veterans on a day-to-day basis sacrifice their life for our country. As public servants, we Americans owe it to our dedicated service men and women to end this inequity. We must support our troops; we must ensure that those who serve us with dignity and valor receive these deserving benefits. They have earned it and they deserve it.

My legislation will take care of soldiers who had hoped to make the military a career, but were discharged prematurely for an injury sustained in combat and forced to retire medically before attaining 20 years of service.

Like many of you, I have visited military hospitals on several occasions and have seen first hand the injuries sustained by our military personnel. Many of the members have reached the 10-, 12-, 14- year marks of their military careers and have been forced to retire medically before they meet the 20-year requirement to receive full benefits. Right now, these soldiers receive combat-related disability benefits, but are not eligible to receive retirement benefits because they cannot fulfill the 20-year service requirement.

This is a travesty to treat our dedicated service men and women inequitably. It's wrong.

We should not penalize veterans because they incurred a combat- related injury while serving their country. This legislation will ensure they will receive both their prorated military retirement pay, along with their disability compensation.

Let me point out that this legislation is especially important given the injuries sustained by these troops that are currently serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters throughout the world. This legislation is essential for the more than 23,000 injured personnel who are returning from war. The widespread use of improvised explosive devices (IED) has created numerous amputees and therefore, result in an increase in medically discharged veterans. As described in stories reported by the Washington Post, a 25-year-old soldier got to close to an IED in Iraq and was sent to Walter Reed, where doctors did all they could before shipping the soldier to the VA for the remainder of his life. Will this young soldier be one of the victims of war that do not receive disability compensation and military retirement pay?

Mr. President, ensuring our veterans receive retirement benefits they have earned is the right thing to do, especially in light of recent issues surrounding the treatment of patients at Walter Reed. We must never forget the sacrifices our service men and women have made to protect our freedom. They serve because they love this great country. Taking care of our veterans is not only the right thing to do; it is also important for our efforts to win the war on terror. In our all- volunteer military, it is critical to attract and retain professional and dedicated soldiers. In turn, they expect that we will honor our commitments to provide health care and other primary benefits for them and their families.

By ending this unfair policy, we now have an opportunity to show our gratitude to our veterans. If we are to truly honor the sacrifices of our veterans, we need to ensure that those who were injured in defense of our Nation receive these well deserved benefits.

While our Nation is at war, there is no better honor we could bestow upon them than to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I introduce my legislation, The Combat Related Special Compensation Act of 2007, I would like to briefly talk about the unfair treatment and the deplorable health care conditions found at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I feel that the current situation there has some bearing on my legislation.

Walter Reed is one of the Army's best-known and premier medical facilities for wounded service members in the country. Numerous reports by the Government Accounting Office and transcripts of congressional testimony

indicate that many of our military facilities for wounded outpatients are in disarray. These facilities are plagued by mold, mice, stained carpets, and a system ill equipped to handle another generation of psychologically scarred veterans.

Nearly 4,000 outpatients are currently in the military's Medical Holding companies, which oversee the wounded. Soldiers and veterans across the country report bureaucratic neglect similar to Walter Reed's: untrained staff; misplaced paperwork; lost computer generated medical appointments; and long waits for consultations. These serious problems have resulted from bureaucratic red tape and substandard health care conditions. This situation is unacceptable. We have not fulfilled our covenant, nor have we kept our promise to take care of our troops.

Our dedicated service members took an oath to serve our Nation. We as policy makers have a moral obligation to take care of these dedicated service men and women that have shown heroic patriotism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

``As described in the Washington Post'', It is not just a problem at Walter Reed: others describe depressing living conditions for outpatients at military bases throughout the country. Let me share with you the comments of a 70-year-old soldier, Mr. Oliva, who is worried about the military health care our wounded will receive. He described his own troubling experiences at the VA hospital in Livermore, CA.

``It is not just Walter Reed,'' Mr. Oliva states. ``The VA hospitals are not good either except for the staff members who work so hard. It brings tears to my eyes when I see my brothers and sisters having to deal with these conditions.''

Mr. Oliva is but one voice in a vast outpouring of emotion and anger about the treatment of wounded outpatients at Walter Reed. Stories of neglect and substandard care have flooded in from soldiers, their family members, veterans, doctors and nurses working inside the system. This is appalling and an embarrassment to our Nation.

I am particularly concerned that some of the highest ranking officials were aware of the problem for almost two years, but took no action to correct the situation. While we have seen some positive signs from the fallout over the scandal, such as the firing of the head of Walter Reed and the establishment of a bipartisan commission, more must be done.

Our soldiers receive first class care in combat, and they should receive the same level of care in our own country. Congress must lead the way in this effort. We must continue our efforts and pass legislation that will improve the quality of life for all of America's heroes, including providing them with the benefits they have earned.

Today, I join with many of my Senate colleagues to fight and end the ban on current receipt so that disabled veterans can get the fair benefits they deserve. We have made some progress over the last few years, but as everyone knows, we still have a lot of work to do.

The legislation I am introducing today--the Combat-Related Special Compensation Act of 2007, would continue to chip away at this unfair policy, by giving pro-rated retirement benefits to our service men and women who are forced into early retirement because of their combat- related injuries.

Our veterans on a day-to-day basis sacrifice their life for our country. As public servants, we Americans owe it to our dedicated service men and women to end this inequity. We must support our troops; we must ensure that those who serve us with dignity and valor receive these deserving benefits. They have earned it and they deserve it.

My legislation will take care of soldiers who had hoped to make the military a career, but were discharged prematurely for an injury sustained in combat and forced to retire medically before attaining 20 years of service.

Like many of you, I have visited military hospitals on several occasions and have seen first hand the injuries sustained by our military personnel. Many of the members have reached the 10-, 12-, 14- year marks of their military careers and have been forced to retire medically before they meet the 20-year requirement to receive full benefits. Right now, these soldiers receive combat-related disability benefits, but are not eligible to receive retirement benefits because they cannot fulfill the 20-year service requirement.

This is a travesty to treat our dedicated service men and women inequitably. It's wrong.

We should not penalize veterans because they incurred a combat- related injury while serving their country. This legislation will ensure they will receive both their prorated military retirement pay, along with their disability compensation.

Let me point out that this legislation is especially important given the injuries sustained by these troops that are currently serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters throughout the world. This legislation is essential for the more than 23,000 injured personnel who are returning from war. The widespread use of improvised explosive devices (IED) has created numerous amputees and therefore, result in an increase in medically discharged veterans. As described in stories reported by the Washington Post, a 25-year-old soldier got to close to an IED in Iraq and was sent to Walter Reed, where doctors did all they could before shipping the soldier to the VA for the remainder of his life. Will this young soldier be one of the victims of war that do not receive disability compensation and military retirement pay?

Mr. President, ensuring our veterans receive retirement benefits they have earned is the right thing to do, especially in light of recent issues surrounding the treatment of patients at Walter Reed. We must never forget the sacrifices our service men and women have made to protect our freedom. They serve because they love this great country. Taking care of our veterans is not only the right thing to do; it is also important for our efforts to win the war on terror. In our all- volunteer military, it is critical to attract and retain professional and dedicated soldiers. In turn, they expect that we will honor our commitments to provide health care and other primary benefits for them and their families.

By ending this unfair policy, we now have an opportunity to show our gratitude to our veterans. If we are to truly honor the sacrifices of our veterans, we need to ensure that those who were injured in defense of our Nation receive these well deserved benefits.

While our Nation is at war, there is no better honor we could bestow upon them than to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.