Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to ask, you are going to ask unanimous consent on H.R. 1255 also?

I will wait then.

Thank you very much.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong objection to the Webb amendment. I voted against this amendment when it was offered 2 months ago, and I will vote against it again today.

I will not support this slow-bleed strategy from Iraq. It ties the hands of our commanders. I cannot remember a time in history when the Congress of the United States has dictated to our commanders on the ground how to conduct their mission to this extent.

This is an extremely dangerous amendment. The junior Senator from Virginia would like for you to believe it helps our troops and that a vote in support of his amendment is a vote to support our troops. Wrong. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This amendment would be a nightmare to execute. It says a soldier must spend 1 day at home for every day the soldier is deployed. That may sound reasonable on its face, but anyone who knows how the military plans its missions knows it will be a logistical roadblock for our military planners.

The problem is when a unit returns from a deployment, its personnel are often reassigned to other units and other assignments. Divisions, brigades, battalions, and units don't stay together forever. In a military of millions of people, there are a lot of people reassigned each day.

This amendment would essentially require the Army and Marine Corps staff to keep track of how long each service man or woman has spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they have been at home, how long their unit was deployed, and how long it was home. This is absurd. This would mean pulling soldiers out of units scheduled to deploy if the servicemembers did not have enough dwell time.

This breaks up leadership and soldier teams, the formations of which are the purpose of the Army and Marine training system. Requiring the President to issue a certification to Congress to waive this requirement for every individual servicemember who might be affected by this is even more absurd.

This amendment takes tools and flexibility away from our commanders on the ground, such as General Petraeus. That is why it is being offered today.

Commanders make estimates about the forces they need based on assumptions about current and future threats. If a commander in Iraq or Afghanistan concludes that some event might require the deployment of additional forces to his theater, this amendment would restrict the units and personnel that could be sent.

The junior Senator from Virginia claims to be concerned for the welfare of our troops. Not one Member of this body is opposed to troops getting rest after a long deployment. But we need to be equally concerned about the dangers our soldiers face when they do not

have the necessary resources and reinforcements available to do their mission. This is the true purpose of this amendment. It cripples the ability of Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, and our other commanders on the ground to accomplish their mission and forces a drawdown of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will not support this strategy out of Iraq. It puts troops in harm's way, restricting the resources and reserves they need to successfully accomplish their mission.

This is not supporting our troops. It is wrong to cloak a troop pullout amendment in language that relates to troop rest, but that is exactly what this amendment does.

This week I had the pleasure of visiting with two brave Kentuckians who recently served in Iraq. They came to me directly to ask me to vote against the Webb amendment. These Kentuckians know the sacrifices their fellow soldiers and families make. They know and understand the importance of rest back home. They know the strains of war. They have experienced the heat of Iraq and the tragedy of knowing that some of their fellow soldiers never made it home.

But these two Kentuckians also know the intent of this amendment. They know why it was offered, and they do not want to tie the hands of the military so we are forced to leave Iraq and Afghanistan before the mission is completed. That is why they came from Lawrenceburg, KY, and Hebron, KY, to ask me to oppose the Webb amendment.

It is not Congress's role to mandate individual soldiers and unit deployments. I know the Democrats like to try to micromanage the war, but I am not the Commander in Chief and neither are any of my colleagues across the aisle. I want to remind everyone in this body of this fact.

If you want to truly support our troops, then vote against the Webb amendment. It was defeated 2 months ago on the Senate floor, and I can only hope it will be defeated again today.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak, yes.

Mr. President, I am dismayed at the lack of consideration given to Senator Cornyn's resolution on General Petraeus and the troops. I condemn the comments made by the Democrats concerning our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. The vendetta against our military must stop.

It sickens me to hear the comments some Democrats are making against General Petraeus. By attacking his character and reputation, these Democrats are attacking all our men and women in the military. On behalf of all these proud men and women who sacrifice their lives every day for our Nation, I am here to say these actions and accusations have no place in public discourse.

Americans do not attack the character of those who risk their lives to protect us. The lies, deceit, and disinformation the Democratic propaganda machines are feeding to the American people must stop.

To suggest that our troops and General Petraeus are motivated by politics rather than patriotism and love of our country is wrong. It diminishes the sacrifice each of them makes and their families have made in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world.

These attacks are made by some of the same people who voted on January 26--this year--to unanimously confirm General Petraeus.

At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record rollcall vote No. 33.

You will notice on this vote that not one Senator--not one--voted against General Petraeus. During the debate on his confirmation, no one questioned his integrity or ability to complete his mission--a mission the Senate gave him by confirming him. And now, nearly 9 months later, how do we greet him when he comes back to deliver a progress report on Iraq that we requested, the Democrats, also, in Congress requested? Instead of thanking him for his sacrifices and listening to him deliver his report, many Democrats who voted to confirm him are either attacking his personal character or not defending him from a personal smear attack by their allies at MoveOn.org. I cannot believe this slanderous campaign started before they even heard one word of General Petraeus's report.

I read a quote from an anonymous Democratic Senator in the Politico newspaper this morning. I want to share it with this body today. This Democrat, who did not want to give his or her name, made the following statement:

No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national

[television]. The expectation is that the outside groups will

do this for us.

I do not even know where to begin to describe my disgust with that one. It shows that the attack on General Petraeus is a coordinated attack by MoveOn and its allies.

Here is just some of what my Democratic colleagues have been saying:

I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view.

Here is another one:

At the end of the day, these are not totally independent

free agents. They are an appendage of the administration.

And another:

The fact that there are questions about General Petraeus'

report is not surprising. . . . By the general's admission,

the so-called surge has not achieved its goal. . . .

Wrong. I cannot believe these false statements have been made on the

floor of this Senate. It is outrageous to condemn a unanimously confirmed general and question his patriotism for this country simply for political sake.

I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are good, decent people. But I have to say, I am amazed that more of them have not denounced this kind of smear campaign.

The folks from MoveOn accuse General Petraeus of ``cooking the books.'' Is this because his counterinsurgency operation and the surge in Iraq are seemingly having positive results? Democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouths, and it is time for them to stop talking and start listening. Instead of taking political advice from leftwing activist groups, Democrats should actually take time to listen to General Petraeus's report.

I cannot tell you how disgusted I was to see the full-page ad yesterday in the New York Times--which cost $167,000; that is what it cost--questioning the character of a four-star general who only 9 months ago had the support of this entire body.

These tactics are insulting and should be condemned. In my book, the people who resort to this type of below-the-belt mudslinging are no patriots.

I happen to know General Petraeus. He is a good friend of mine and a good friend of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from his days as the commanding officer of the 101st Airborne Division. He is a brave patriot of the highest moral character and has made immeasurable sacrifices for our country. He has spent the last 4 years deployed from his home, from his family and his loved ones, overseas serving this great Nation. Three of these years he has spent in Iraq, where he has worked tirelessly to build security and stability throughout the country. His efforts are seeing positive results.

To suggest he is driven more by politics than by his love of our country may possibly be the lowest political attack I have ever seen in my time in the Congress. In the 4 years I have known him, not once did General Petraeus bring up politics--not once. I have no idea what he is--whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. In all of our discussions, including the hour I spent with him alone in my office before he left for Iraq to implement the surge, I do not believe the word ``Democrat'' or ``Republican'' was ever used. What I do know is he is a great patriot. He does not deserve to come home to be greeted by personal political attacks, especially by the very Democrats who asked him to come home and give us this report 9 months ago.

Let me be clear to my Democratic colleagues: Using leftwing attack groups such as MoveOn to discredit General Petraeus--these are the worst of the worst. Any politician willing to sacrifice the long-term security of the United States in an attempt to salvage a short-term political career is beyond deplorable. I will not stand for it. Our military will not stand for it. And the American public will not stand for it.

Just yesterday, a poll by the same New York Times reported that 68 percent of Americans trust the military commanders more than the Democratic Congress when it comes to Iraq policy. The American public supports our military. It is time for Congress to echo this support.

Yesterday, in my office, I had the opportunity to sit down one on one with a young, brave Kentuckian who had just returned from a long deployment in one of Iraq's hotspots. At the end of our visit, he turned to me and made one request. He asked for Congress to support the troops.

How can we expect General Petraeus and our troops to successfully complete their mission when we keep attacking them and threatening to cut off their funds? I promised this young man my support and will continue to do all I can to support our troops.

As we find ourselves 6 years from this tragic event, this terrorist event that occurred on September 11, 2001, we must not forget there are those out there who still want to harm us. The freedoms we enjoy daily are protected by the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, including General Petraeus and the young man with whom I visited in my office yesterday.

To all of those who suggest General Petraeus should be called ``General Betray Us,'' I have a message for you: You are the ones betraying our troops and the American people. You are giving aid and comfort to our enemies. We used to try people who did this as traitors.

Just 5 months ago, the Senate Democratic majority leader was quoted as saying:

No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats.

Well, I say to my friend, the majority leader, stand by your words. Let's focus on succeeding in Iraq and for once show a united support for our troops.

Every night, my wife Mary and I take about 10 minutes at 9 p.m. and say prayers for our troops and pray for the safety and security of our Nation. I suggest to all who are listening and who are in this body to do likewise. Maybe Democrats should take a moment of silence and stop criticizing our commanders and troops.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the two leaders today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the Cornyn resolution, the text of which is the exact language of the amendment which Senator Cornyn offered this morning. Further, I ask consent that if the resolution is agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Coleman amendment No. 2687. The amendment requires the use of emergency Federal funds paid by taxpayers from every State for security at the 2008 Presidential political party conventions in Minneapolis and Denver. If the amendment passes, both the Republican and Democratic political party conventions will each receive $50 million additional in Federal taxpayer dollars for State and local law enforcement costs associated with hosting the conventions. The $50 million for the Minneapolis convention is on top of the $12.5 million in Federal funds the State also will receive in the current version of the Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill. This is all on top of $70 million each party receives to host their conventions and run their political campaigns.

Spending an additional $100 million in taxpayer funds for political conventions in Minneapolis and Denver is pretty outrageous to me. States that bid to host political conventions know that winning the bid also means a high cost for security comes with it. Sure, the cost of security after September 11 has gone up, but States and cities that bid on the 2008 conventions knew that burden at the get-go.

Plus, the States will receive an enormous benefit from hosting the conventions. I have not heard one person say that the States or cities hosting the

conventions will go bankrupt from holding them. One estimate shows that Minneapolis will receive more than $150 million in benefits from hosting the convention. Denver will likely receive a similar financial benefit. The millions of dollars in benefits is the main reason cities bid to host conventions in the first place. That is why every 4 years many cities bid to host each of the conventions. This windfall comes from thousands of people staying at the hotels, eating at the restaurants, and shopping in the stores in Denver and Minneapolis. That will result in a lot of sales tax revenue and hotel tax revenue that will stay in each of those cities and States.

Paying for security definitely should not put States in the red. It is definitely not an unfunded mandate on the States or cities by the Federal Government. So if the States are receiving this huge benefit, why are taxpayers footing over $100 million additional in Federal funding for these political conventions? And how did we determine that figure of $50 million that was needed for each of these cities and States? Was this thoroughly researched? By whom? And what will the actual need be for Minneapolis? What will it be for Denver? Why has no Member of this body made this case?

At the 2004 convention in New York City that I attended, they spent about $58 million in security. Will Minneapolis and Denver, which are not as big as New York and not a major port city, need the same amount of funding? It seems we are just throwing taxpayer money needlessly around without seriously looking at the situation.

The legislation before us today provides over $109 billion for veterans and military construction projects all across the Nation. This legislation is supposed to help support our troops who are risking their lives overseas and to help the veteran men and women who so bravely fought for our country. With this in mind, I ask, why are we funding political conventions in this VA-Military Construction appropriations bill? What do political conventions have to do with the military? This is a combination of oil and water, and the Coleman amendment is trying to put them together. It doesn't mix.

I also have extreme concerns with the use of emergency Federal spending to pay for political party conventions--emergency Federal spending. This is just a budget gimmick to get around the need to offset the funds. I keep saying this over and over, but emergency spending should only be for just that--emergencies. Usually emergency funding goes to things such as the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, or victims of Hurricane Katrina, and other major disasters that occur in the United States. It should not go toward nonemergency funding such as the conventions. Come on. Everybody knew, once the winning conventions city and State bids were announced, that security would have to be somehow funded. Holding conventions takes advance planning from States and cities and their political parties. All this does not add up to an emergency situation requiring emergency Federal funding.

The fiscal year 2008 budget resolution allows for a point of order against amendments such as this that are not true emergency spending. It sets criteria for emergency spending which I do not think this amendment meets. Emergency spending must be only used for essential, sudden, and urgent matters that are unforeseen and not permanent. By my calculations, this amendment meets only one of those requirements, and none of the four other requirements. Because I think the overwhelming majority of the Senate will vote for this amendment, I will not raise the point of order against it.

I have been to every Republican convention since 1980. I want to make it clear I think security is as important for the Republican and Democratic conventions, but my objections to this amendment concern who should foot the bill for the security. I believe those States and cities hosting the conventions should provide that funding. That means those planning the conventions and those benefiting from the conventions in Denver and Minneapolis should pick up the security tab, not Federal taxpayers across the country.

For all these reasons, I oppose the Coleman amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. This amendment will pass, but we need to reevaluate how we finance political conventions in the future. When cities make bids to host these conventions, they should also make preparations to pay for security and include this information in their bids.

This emergency funding method, using Federal taxpayers' dollars for political conventions, is not in the best interest or the best way to proceed, and that is why I oppose this amendment. If we think about this, this is the way the old Soviet Union used to fund their conventions, which were phony. But the state paid for the whole thing. I do not think we should have the same thing happening here in the United States of America.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Will the Chair state how much time I have left?

Eighteen minutes. Mr. President, I will allow the Senator from Minnesota to use 5 of those minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to my friend from Minnesota.

First of all, it was only $25 million put in the New York security bill for the 2004 convention in New York, which I attended. My concern and my wonder is: Why did Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota, bid at all for the convention, or Denver, CO? Why did they bid? Did they bid to lose money? Did they bid to attract people into their States so they could make money on the conventions?

I was on the Republican National Committee for 8 years and was involved in three national conventions. We went to Detroit, Dallas, and New Orleans. All of those cities were pre-9/11, but all of those cities were responsible for the security.

Now, after 9/11, the people who are bidding--and there were more than just those two cities bidding. In fact, there were five that were narrowed down to three, and, finally, Minneapolis-St. Paul was chosen by the Republicans. The same thing occurred on the Democratic side, where there were five, and then down to three, and then down to one in Denver, CO.

Now, they knew there was going to be a cost for security after 9/11. They had to build that security cost into their bid for the convention. If they did not do that, they were poor planners. The mandates that come from the Federal Government were known prior to the bids being made because we had already experienced a New York convention which was held in a much bigger city with many more ports and many more people and many more police than there are now in Minneapolis-St. Paul or Denver, CO.

So it does not wash, the fact that this is an unfunded mandate from the Federal Government, because all of these cities that bid knew there were going to be additional costs for security if they were successful in hosting the convention.

The way it is done with emergency spending is a farce. We do this when we cannot pay for it in the normal budgeted manner. It is a gimmick used in budgeting when you do not want to pay for something in the year that you spend the money. I am shocked this is going to pass by the margin it will pass. I sincerely believe we need our conventions and we need to nominate whomever we nominate for President and Vice President on both the Democratic and Republican side, but I almost am at a loss for words we would use emergency spending for the conventions and for something that should have been planned for by the cities and States that are going to host the current conventions in 2008.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is as though we didn't know 9/11 occurred, that the security risk for a convention in 2004 and 2008 would not be planned for in the bid by the hosting cities. Then for the Federal Government to step in and use emergency funding as a tool, a budget gimmick tool to fund this $50 million extra because Minneapolis- St. Paul and Denver didn't plan well for their conventions--I don't think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to budget this as an emergency spending bill, so I urge the defeat of the Coleman amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program, Incorporated, EKCEP, for their recent accomplishments at the 2007 Workforce Innovations Conference.

The 2007 Workforce Innovations Conference provides the opportunity for State and local government officials, workforce and economic development officials, as well as private sector representatives to assemble and discuss new ideas about workforce development issues. During this conference, Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program's Coal Services Program was awarded the U.S. Department of Labor's Recognition of Excellence Award for ``Leveraging the Power of e3 Partnerships.'' The U.S. Labor Department's Employee and Training Administration presents Recognition of Excellence honors in five different categories. The e3 partnerships category presents value in projects that demonstrate sustained partnerships between employers, educators, and economic development leaders.

The EKCEP's Coal Services Program uses a variety of services that tackle the needs of employers and job seekers, such as crucial training for new coal miners and seasoned miners who need new training to increase mine productivity. Training is easily accessible for miners through Kentucky Community and Technical College System locations as well as a mobile miner training unit equipped with a high-tech classroom that features a computerized three-dimensional mining simulator.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating the Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program for their achievements and commitment in helping Kentucky's largest industry and our Nation's largest energy source.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Bradley Butler of Paducah, KY, for his accomplishments in the 2007 SkillsUSA State Competition.

SkillsUSA is a national partnership of students, teachers and industry, working together to ensure America has a skilled workforce. SkillsUSA chapters help students who are preparing for careers in technical, skilled and service occupations excel. Formerly known as VICA, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, SkillsUSA has more than 280,000 students and instructors as members annually.

Mr. Butler, a student at Paducah Area Technology Center and a junior at Paducah Tilghman High School, completed this competition as a gold medalist with a first place finish in related technical math. His success serves as an inspiration for his peers to achieve academically and give back to society.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Butler for his remarkable achievement and commitment to his education.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the faculty and staff of Maysville Community and Technical College for their efforts in promoting student engagement, service learning, and community service.

Maysville Community and Technical College is an exceptional venue for Kentucky students wishing to continue their education. M.C.T.C. offers several degree, diploma, and certificate programs to the surrounding region. They also offer several opportunities through the Kentucky Virtual University and degree programs in association with Morehead State University, Lindsey Wilson College, Midway College, and Northern Kentucky University.

This year, Maysville Community and Technical College is working to increase levels of student engagement by promoting organized service activities and community-based partnerships in order to provide a valuable learning experience for its students. This initiative teaches students essential civic responsibility and critical networking skills, while improving the local community.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating the Maysville Community and Technical College for creating a solid foundation for the future of Kentucky and the United States.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Allen Thompson of Hickory, KY, for his accomplishments in the 2007 SkillsUSA State Competition.

SkillsUSA is a national partnership of students, teachers and industry, working together to ensure America has a skilled workforce. SkillsUSA chapters help students who are preparing for careers in technical, skilled and service occupations excel. Formerly known as VICA, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, SkillsUSA has more than 280,000 students and instructors as members annually.

Mr. Thompson, a student at Paducah Area Technology Center and a senior at Graves County High School, completed this competition as a gold medalist with a first place finish in board drafting. His success serves as an inspiration for his peers to achieve academically and give back to society.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Thompson for his remarkable achievement and commitment to his education.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to authorize the National Park Service to conduct a comprehensive study to examine the extension of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the preparation or return phase of the expedition, commonly known as the ``Eastern Legacy.''

On May 14, 1804, Lewis and Clark, along with the Corps of Discovery departed from Camp Dubois, IL, to set out on voyage that would shed light on a landscape that had only been considered legend at the time. But this American tale of adventure, determination, and curiosity did not begin there. The 8,000-mile, 32-month expedition through the uncharted West and back to Washington, DC, started more than a year earlier in Virginia.

In 1803, Meriwether Lewis traveled through Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia purchasing supplies and learning everything he could about botany, paleontology, navigation, and field medicine. The intrepid explorer and his growing crew then traveled down the Ohio River through Ohio and Indiana, meeting up with William Clark in Louisville, KY. Along this rich trail are many landmarks and sites that serve to honor and educate about this important event in American history.

Whether it is commemorating the American spirit or teaching about the early Republic, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail is an enduring resource for education. A sea-to-sea trail would make it the largest and longest trail in the National Park System, guiding visitors from across the Nation to all parks and interpretive centers.

This extension, a few years after the successful bicentennial celebration, will continue to raise the profile of the Lewis and Clark Trail and increase the potential for tourism revenue in States across the country. Including the eastern portion of the trail will garner greater Lewis and Clark interest east of the Mississippi and bring unity to this American expedition of East meeting West.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to authorize the National Park Service to conduct a comprehensive study to examine the extension of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the preparation or return phase of the expedition, commonly known as the ``Eastern Legacy.''

On May 14, 1804, Lewis and Clark, along with the Corps of Discovery departed from Camp Dubois, IL, to set out on voyage that would shed light on a landscape that had only been considered legend at the time. But this American tale of adventure, determination, and curiosity did not begin there. The 8,000-mile, 32-month expedition through the uncharted West and back to Washington, DC, started more than a year earlier in Virginia.

In 1803, Meriwether Lewis traveled through Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia purchasing supplies and learning everything he could about botany, paleontology, navigation, and field medicine. The intrepid explorer and his growing crew then traveled down the Ohio River through Ohio and Indiana, meeting up with William Clark in Louisville, KY. Along this rich trail are many landmarks and sites that serve to honor and educate about this important event in American history.

Whether it is commemorating the American spirit or teaching about the early Republic, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail is an enduring resource for education. A sea-to-sea trail would make it the largest and longest trail in the National Park System, guiding visitors from across the Nation to all parks and interpretive centers.

This extension, a few years after the successful bicentennial celebration, will continue to raise the profile of the Lewis and Clark Trail and increase the potential for tourism revenue in States across the country. Including the eastern portion of the trail will garner greater Lewis and Clark interest east of the Mississippi and bring unity to this American expedition of East meeting West.

Madam President, my amendment is simple. It strikes the exemption for New York and New Jersey to get Federal dollars for covering families above 300 percent of poverty. No other State in the country gets that kind of an exemption. New Jersey's SCHIP program covers families up to $72,000 a year, 350 percent. New York is planning on covering families making up to $82,000 a year. It has not yet been approved by HHS.

Why should people in every other State subsidize Government health care for families in New York and New Jersey at these higher incomes? My amendment does not kick kids off SCHIP. The State can still cover them at their Medicaid matching rate. It is the State's choice. If people in these two States think this is a priority, then they should be willing to pay more for this type of benefit. I am sure New York and New Jersey are expensive areas to live. But those States have more resources and a larger tax base than others. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, I offer this amendment to the SCHIP bill. This is the same amendment I offered during the Finance Committee's consideration of this legislation.

I have heard a lot of talk about how the Baucus bill puts the focus for SCHIP back on low-income children--so much talk, in fact, that one would hardly know that the Baucus bill allows certain States to provide families making up to $70,000 or $80,000 a year in income with Government-run health care.

Let's start from the beginning. The way the SCHIP and Medicaid Program work is States get Federal matching dollars to help fund their programs. The SCHIP match from the Federal Government is higher than a State's Medicaid match. This means for my State, the Federal Government's match for Medicaid is about 70 percent, while the State pays the remaining 30 percent. For SCHIP, the Federal match is 80 percent, while the State match makes up the remaining 20 percent.

SCHIP was intended to help States provide health care coverage to children and families whose incomes were below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. These families were likely working but making too much money to qualify for Medicaid and couldn't afford private health insurance. I would like to note that 200 percent of the Federal poverty level is about $41,000 a year in income for a family of four.

The Baucus bill allows States to expand their SCHIP programs and receive the higher SCHIP matching rate for families with incomes up to 300 percent of the poverty level, or almost $62,000 for a family of four. Personally, I think that in and of itself is too high, especially when the national median income in this country was about $46,000 a year in 2005. In the Baucus bill, States that choose to go above 300 percent of poverty would receive their Medicare matching rate for those families which, remember, is the lower reimbursement rate.

However, the Baucus bill thinks families in New Jersey and New York deserve special treatment under SCHIP. The bill provides an exemption for States that have already gone above or are currently trying to go above 300 percent of poverty for SCHIP coverage. New Jersey already provides coverage for families up to 350 percent of poverty. New York is working to get approval to extend coverage up to 400 percent of poverty. I want to make sure everyone understands, 400 percent of poverty is $82,600 a year for a family of four; 350 percent of poverty is $72,275 per year. Are we really going to be providing Government health care for families making $70,000 to $80,000 a year?

My amendment is fairly simple. It strikes the exemption the Baucus bill has given to just New York and New Jersey so they have to play by the same rules as every other State. If these two States want to provide health care coverage to families above 300 percent of the poverty level, they can do so--they just cannot get a higher SCHIP matching rate. They would get their Medicaid matching rate. That at least leaves the playing field level.

There will be obviously some small savings from this if my amendment passes. My amendment would take these savings and provide additional money to outreach and enrollment grants.

Some people will try to say it is more expensive to live in these two States than it is in other States, and that is probably true in certain areas. However, SCHIP is a Federal program, and all States should play by the same

rules. Also, these two States can still cover these higher income families if they choose. They just have to get the lower Medicaid matching rate to do so.

If New York and New Jersey feel so strongly about letting families making $70,000 or $80,000 a year have Government health care, then the States should be willing to pay a little more from their own tax revenue. The last time I checked, money doesn't grow on trees around here--or at least it very rarely does. The Baucus bill is requiring people in other States such as Kentucky, New Mexico, Florida, and Maine to pay more so New York and New Jersey can cover families at these higher income levels. To me, that is grossly unfair.

Some people may also try to argue that New York is only thinking about going to 400 percent of the poverty level, and they would have to get a waiver or a plan approved by the Department of Health and Human Services for this increase. OK. So then why give them this special protection in the Baucus bill? Why create special rules for New York when they haven't even gotten approval yet? To me, it is outrageous that a program designed for lower income kids is being expanded to include families at 350 percent or 400 percent of the poverty level. That is too high, and it is unfair to ask people in other States to pay for these types of expenses.

So with my amendment, you have two options: more money for outreach and enrollment efforts and requiring all States to play by the same rules or covering kids and families most of us probably don't consider low income--those making up to $72,000 or $82,000 a year for a family of four.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment when it is appropriate.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

To the Senator from Connecticut? That would be perfectly all right, just so long as I get the time that was allotted to me.

Madam President, I would like to talk about the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP.

A few weeks ago, the Finance Committee passed the Baucus bill to reauthorize this program. I did not support this bill in committee and I will not be supporting it on the floor. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to explain my concerns with the Baucus bill. I would also like to talk about the SCHIP reauthorization bill I will be supporting this week and have helped to craft over the past couple of months--the Kids First Act.

This bill is a good piece of legislation that reauthorizes this important program in a fiscally sound way and keeps the focus of the program on what it was originally for, which is low-income children.

I have significant concerns with the budget gimmicks used, the SCHIP provisions, and the tax increases in the Baucus bill. The budget gimmick used to fund the Baucus bill is irresponsible, jeopardizes coverage under the program, and basically guarantees another tax increase 5 years from now. Under the bill, SCHIP spending in 2012 reaches $16 billion; however, the very next year, spending drops to $3.5 billion. While this strategy helps the drafters hide an additional $40 billion in spending, does any Member of the Senate really think that SCHIP spending in 2013 will be $3.5 billion? That is below the current spending level of $5 billion a year. Does any Member really think we will kick millions of kids off

this program in 2013 to accommodate this lowered spending? Of course, the answer is no. That means Congress will have to come up with a significant amount of money to pay for the increased spending, which will likely mean reaching into the wallets of hard-working Americans again.

I also believe SCHIP should be a program for low-income children. When Congress created the program in 1997, it was intended for children without health insurance who lived in families making less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty limit. For 2007, 200 percent of poverty is about $41,000 in income for a family of four.

Not many people realize adults are now covered under SCHIP. Most people rightly think this is a program only for children since it is the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is its name. Over the years, the Department of Health and Human Services has approved expansions to the program to allow States to cover these adults. These expansions should not have been approved in the first place, and it is Congress's responsibility in the reauthorization to rein in these abuses.

While the Baucus bill at least ends coverage for childless adults currently on SCHIP, it still allows other adults--specifically, parents--to stay on the program in certain States, and any State that currently covers parents can keep adding new parents to their programs.

The Kids First Act, which I am supporting, responsibly reauthorizes the SCHIP program and keeps the focus on low-income children. This bill reauthorizes the program for 5 years at a cost of about $39 billion. This would still be a significant but responsible increase over spending in the first 10 years of the program.

The bill would require States that want to cover children and pregnant women above 200 percent of the poverty level, or $41,000 for a family of four, to pay more from their State coffers than they do now to do so.

The bill also takes steps to limit the number of adults on the SCHIP program. While we would not require States to remove any adults currently on the program from their rolls, we would reimburse States at a lower amount for the childless adults and parents they currently have on their programs.

Also, States could not add any new childless adults or parents to their SCHIP rolls. If they want to cover these individuals, then they need to do it under their State Medicaid programs.

The Kids First Act also stops the Department of Health and Human Services from approving any more waivers or demonstration projects for States that want to cover parents or childless adults.

The Kids First Act is a good proposal that I hope will get full consideration on the Senate floor. It keeps SCHIP focused on low-income children, curtails States' ability to add new parents or childless adults to the program, and makes sense from a fiscal standpoint. Unfortunately, the Baucus bill falls short on these key points.

Also, the tobacco tax in the Baucus bill is fundamentally unfair to my State and the surrounding States. I want to show you a chart I have here, which shows the 50 States. This illustrates the real problem. It is compiled from data drawn from a CDC database on tobacco consumption and projections by Families USA concerning SCHIP spending. You will see here that there are big winners in this program, and they are in dark green on the chart. You can see Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, and California, which is $2.564 billion. New York is $1.684 billion. It shows Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and particularly Florida; it shows those States as dead net losers--$703 million in Florida; $602 million in Kentucky; $517 million in Indiana; $536 million in North Carolina, and so on. It also shows States that are neutral, such as Oregon, Idaho, Nebraska, and some other States that are kind of in the middle, such as West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and so on. You can see from the chart that we pick big winners and big losers, some neutral and some lower losers, not big such as the ones in dark brown. It is very important that you realize that is a completely unfair reason and method of funding SCHIP.

The problem with the tax is that the money comes from low-income smokers in my State and all of the dark brown States on this chart, and it is going to pay for an extravagant expansion of SCHIP in California, New York, Texas, and the States depicted in green.

This bill will also, without any doubt, add an enormous boost to black-market tobacco smuggling and counterfeiting. The plan would be a tremendous gift to organized crime and the black-market kingpins, who will profit handsomely from it in future years. There is plenty of past evidence of this. In 2002, for example, New York City increased its tobacco tax from 8 cents per pack to $1.50 per pack. The city's revenue estimators predicted an additional $107 million in revenue. Do you know what they got? It brought in $43 million. What is more, the tax increase on cigarettes cost the State over $600 million in tax revenue due to lower sales at convenience stores throughout New York State. An economist found that most of the reduction was due to smuggling, cross border sales, Internet sales, and sales on Indian reservations.

Even supporters of this bill acknowledge that the higher tax will have an impact on demand. It will reduce legal consumption of cigarettes. It is not likely to reduce total consumption, as the supporters of the bill say it will, because it will also increase smuggling. But legal consumption is what matters to the United States because that is the only part that is taxed.

The revenue estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows this. Revenue is projected to decline by $700 million per year by the last year of the estimating window. That is right. Understand this now. Revenue is expected to go down over time as the number of legal sales of tobacco products declines.

Whatever its other problems, the tobacco tax is a poor foundation for SCHIP. We are matching a declining source of revenue with a growing Federal problem. This does not make any fiscal sense.

If we were honest and we truly wanted to fully fund SCHIP spending with a tobacco tax, the Federal Government would have to encourage people to smoke.

That is what this next chart shows: additional smokers. The Federal Government would need an additional 22.4 million smokers by the year 2017. Of course, I don't support such an effort, but this highlights the budget gap, as you can see, from 2010 up to 2017. The revenue for this program is going to have to come from more tax increases down the road.

We all say we oppose regressive taxes, but what we are considering today is a highly regressive tax. In fact, this tax is among the most regressive type of tax we could consider.

In my State of Kentucky, the impact on low-income taxpayers will be compounded. It will hit low-income Kentuckians, Kentucky tobacco farmers, and every citizen in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Although there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of tobacco farmers in my State due to the tobacco buyout, tobacco continues to play an important role in Kentucky's agricultural landscape. Tobacco barns and small plots of tobacco still dot the Kentucky landscape. Cash receipts for tobacco are projected to contribute between $300 million and $350 million to Kentucky's economy this year.

An increase in the excise tax on tobacco will drive down demand for consumption, which will result in less tobacco being purchased from Kentucky tobacco farmers by manufacturers--both cigarette and non- cigarette. It will likely force the specialty growers in my State-- Kentucky burley leaf and Kentucky-Wisconsin leaf--completely out of business. These are small family farms in rural Kentucky that rely on these revenues for their crops. The money they get from the tobacco pays for their mortgages, puts their kids through school, and allows them to keep farming.

The CBO has estimated that the SCHIP proposal will result in a 5 to 6 percent reduction in demand for tobacco during its first year in existence. This will likely cause a $5.4 million reduction in payments to rural farmers

in my State under the master settlement agreement we signed a few years ago.

Some people will say there is nothing wrong with all of this because it will force some people to quit smoking and we are using the money to help poor children. But who gets credit for this supposed act of charity? This plan would take money from one group of poor people and give it to another.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Baucus SCHIP bill and support the Kids First Act.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to play my small part in this pointless political play put on by the Senate majority leader. It is an insult to the brave men and women in our Armed Forces and to the American taxpayer that we are here tonight for no other reason than for a publicity stunt. Instead of following the script written by MoveOn, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to be honest and frank with the American people.

I hear Democrats every day talk about public opinion polls on Iraq and on the President's approval rating. To some extent they are right. The American people are not satisfied with the war in Iraq and the President is at an all-time low in his approval rating.

But I rarely hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about public opinion polls of Congress. It is obvious why. President Bush has a higher approval rating than the current democratically led Congress. I have never been accused of being a political strategist, but I have been around this town long enough--over 21 years--to know that the American people resent their leaders for so often taking the politically expedient path instead of doing what they think is right.

The American people see right through this charade going on tonight. It is more political theater: phony images of cots, toothpaste, and sleepy politicians, meant to convince people that what goes on here at 3 in the morning may actually do some good. But it doesn't do any good.

In fact, it does a lot of bad. Because this debate is more about a political show and placating the ``MoveOn'' folks, than it is about talking about the real issue at hand. It is appalling that we use a bill that provides vital funding of our Nation's military as a political smokescreen for Democrats to gain points in the polls.

The safety and security of the brave men and women in our Armed Forces is not a game to me. Our troops should never be used as a basis to stage a cheap political stunt. If the Senate truly supported our troops, we would be here debating the nuts and bolts of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Instead, we find ourselves back debating whether to cut and run from Iraq, as we have done countless times before tonight.

Democrats would like for you to believe that Republicans will not vote on the Reed-Levin amendment. Give me a break. I am happy to vote on the amendment right now. I plan to oppose it, as I have opposed a similar version Senator Levin offered 2 months ago.

It is a bad amendment. It calls for a premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq before we have even had a chance to see the results of the surge. I wish to know how some of my colleagues know that the surge has already failed when it has only been in place for a month?

I wish to know how they know the situation in Iraq better than our commanders on the ground? The ink is not even dry on the President's plan and

Democrats are already declaring it a failure. This type of defeatist strategy is irrational and unfair.

It is important to remember the dangerous effect our debate in Washington can have on the message we are sending our enemies. Make no mistake about it, our enemies are watching us. They are watching us and using our debate on the war in Iraq to strengthen themselves. This morning, the new National Intelligence Estimate declared the United States is at an elevated threat level. It said our biggest threat is al-Qaida, specifically al-Qaida in Iraq.

This group is working to mobilize other extremist organizations in the region to mount a new attack against the United States. The report also found that al-Qaida will continue to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear materials for attacks; it will not hesitate to use them.

While al-Qaida is working to plan this attack, U.S. forces are working hand in hand with Iraqi security forces to break up this organization and root it out and root this terrorist network out.

This work is vital to our national security. We cannot forget the important lessons we learned from the tragedies of 9/11. There are still those out there who wish to do us harm. Wake up America. If we withdrew from Iraq, the terrorists will likely follow us home.

Democrats would like for us to believe we can responsibly leave Iraq and the conflict will end. This is delusional. Make no mistake, if we leave Iraq prematurely, there will be widespread chaos in the Middle East. Iran will work with Syria to dominate the region, while Sunni States scramble to oppose them. They will use any means possible to acquire the resources to bolster their nuclear weapons program in an effort to combat and conquer the United States.

The Kurds in Iran will form their own country, possibly with the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iran. This could lead to an armed conflict between the Kurds and the Turkish Government. There will be widespread attacks to wipe out Israel and to topple the democratic Government of Lebanon. These pillars of democracy in the Middle East that once stood as an example for freedom within the region will crumble.

The Government of Iraq will fail, and there will be civil war within the country. This will result in massive civilian casualties and displacement. Most importantly, our national security will be in jeopardy. This afternoon, we passed, by a large majority, Senator Cornyn's amendment that said we should not leave a failed state in Iraq. It also said we should not pass any legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.

I ask my colleagues: What are we doing right now? We are debating Senator Levin's amendment that will, without a doubt, result in a failed state in Iraq. Let me be clear to my colleagues that believe they can support both amendments. The strategy of cut and run will lead to a failed Iraq and will undermine our military's mission.

But Democrats have already decided the surge has failed before it has a chance to work. These are the same people who voted to overwhelmingly confirm General Petraeus and are now refusing to wait to hear his report in September. This is exactly the type of message our enemy wants to hear.

Well, I, for one, am working hard to send our enemies a different message: The United States will not back down from this fight. I stand behind our troops and General Petraeus. I promised in person, in my office, to General Petraeus, that I would wait to hear his report this fall. I intend to keep my promise. I urge my colleagues to do the same. The safety and security of all Americans depends on it.

I yield the floor.