Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to morning business and the following Senators on our side be recognized for the time amounts that I will give, alternating with Republican Senators on the other side if they so request, limited to 10 minutes. On the Democratic side the order would be: Senator Byrd for 15 minutes, Senator Kerry for 10 minutes, Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, Senator Murray for 10 minutes, Senator Conrad for 5 minutes, Senator Dodd for 10 minutes, Senator Brown for 5 minutes, Senator Landrieu for 5 minutes, Senator Levin for 5 minutes, and Senator Durbin for 5 minutes.

The unanimous consent would allow for every other Senator to be from that side, at your discretion. I did limit it to 10 minutes and I will be happy to amend the unanimous consent for Senator Grassley for 15 minutes following Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the supplemental appropriations bill we will be considering shortly.

Let me be very clear. I strongly disagree with the President on our course in Iraq. I was one of only 23 Members of the Senate to vote against going to the war in Iraq, and I am committed to changing the course, redeploying our troops, and refocusing our efforts on fighting the global war on terror. I have voted time and again for resolutions and amendments to change direction. I believe the President is wrong to continue on with an open-ended commitment to an Iraqi government that has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and take responsibility for its own country. I believe the President is wrong to continue to ignore the warnings of generals, experts, and the will of the American people.

But I also believe the President is wrong when, in his stubborn refusal to change, he also withholds money for our troops whom he has sent into harm's way. The President did just that on May 1 when he vetoed a congressionally approved supplemental that provided $4 billion more than he asked for for our troops. When the President vetoed that bill, he was the one who denied our troops the resources, equipment, and funding they need to do their jobs safely. The President was wrong, but he hasn't changed his mind. He and the majority of Republicans in Congress are blocking funding for our troops.

As we head into this Memorial Day, I will vote for this supplemental because the President has blocked this funding for too long, and I will vote for this supplemental because Democrats in Congress have changed our course. With this bill, we have taken a responsible path forward, in spite of the President, on many of our Nation's most pressing issues.

This bill, for the first time, funds the needs of our veterans and wounded warriors who have sacrificed for all of us and whose needs the President has refused to acknowledge as the cost of war. This bill makes our homeland more secure by investing critical funds in our ports and our borders, and this bill aids the recovery of hard-hit communities across the country and in the gulf coast where families have continued to suffer due to neglect from this administration. In just 5 short months, Democrats have provided a new commitment to the American people, a new direction in Iraq, and we are going to continue on this new path to change.

From the start of the war in Iraq, the Republican Congress allowed President Bush a free hand. They held few oversight hearings. They demanded no accountability. There were no wide-ranging investigations into this administration's endless mistakes. Year after year, they sent the President blank checks in the form of emergency supplementals. Now, 5 years into this war, after 5 years without accountability, 3,400 of our heroes have died, and over 25,000 have been injured. Our troops are now policing a civil war in Iraq. Billions of taxpayer dollars are unaccounted for. The reconstruction of Iraq is far from complete, and our veterans are facing awful conditions when they return home.

In November, voters asked for an end to this. They voted for us to stand up, ask difficult questions, and hold those who make mistakes accountable for them. Democrats heard that call.

Immediately after being sworn in, we began to hold hearings. We heard from military and foreign affairs experts and called administration officials to testify--under oath. We began conducting investigations into prewar intelligence, the waste of taxpayer dollars, and the treatment of our veterans. Democrats began holding vote after vote on Iraq. We forced Republicans to make clear to Americans where they stood on the war: Are they for escalation or redeployment? Are they for allowing Iraqis to continue to shirk their responsibility or for forcing them to stand up?

In January, President Bush ignored calls from Congress to follow the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Instead, he escalated our troops in Iraq. Congressional Republicans refused to criticize the escalation and stood by the President and attacked anyone who spoke out against that surge.

But congressional Democrats stood strong. We upheld our constitutional duties and what Americans put us in office for-- conducting oversight and holding the administration accountable for its actions. This trend continued for months, and eventually, though slowly, some of my Republican colleagues began separating from the President and siding with us and the American people. After months of this, Democrats overcame Republican opposition and passed a bill with redeployment provisions. We sent that bill, based on the advice from the Iraq Study Group and military leaders and supported by 64 percent of Americans, to the President. We hoped he would read that bill. We hoped he would realize it was the best way forward in Iraq. But he didn't, and he vetoed it.

Now, finally, after months of blindly following the President, more and more of our colleagues on the other side are beginning to stand up to the President, demanding benchmarks and a timeline for change in Iraq.

It is clear that despite a slim majority in the House and only a one- vote margin in the Senate, Democratic efforts are working. Today is further evidence of that.

The bill we pass tonight will not be perfect. It doesn't go nearly as far as many of us would like. We, along with the American people, have made it clear what we want--a new direction that forces Iraqis to take control of their own country. Unfortunately, the President has said he would veto that bill.

So today we have a bill that takes a step forward with our changing course in Iraq. It forces the White House to acknowledge the will of the American people and the role of Congress, it pressures Iraqis to stand up, and, importantly, it funds our troops. The hard truth, of course, is that not enough Democrats are here to override a veto. We realize that another veto will not serve our troops well. They need our funds; they don't need another White House delay. So we are moving ahead.

I will say it again: This bill is not all I hoped for, but this war is not going to be brought to a close in 1 day. It is not going to be brought to a close with one bill. We will support our troops, and we will bring an end to the war in Iraq. We will continue to debate and force votes on this war week after week after week. Americans will continue to hear where the Republicans stand on this war.

We face terror threats around the world. We must, and we will, defeat them. Unfortunately, the Iraqi civil war is not making us more secure. We do need to refocus our fight back on the war on terror, and we do need to rebuild our military. I support a new direction in Iraq so that we can focus on the larger security challenges our country faces, and they are high. But I know we can improve security at home, that we can track down and eliminate terrorists around the world, and that we can take care of our servicemembers. It is a matter of getting our priorities straight. Redeploying our troops from Iraq is an important first step toward getting those priorities straight. It is a step the Senate must take, just as passing this bill tonight is one.

This bill, however, is about much more than just Iraq; it is about taking care of the best military in the world, both when they are deployed and when they return home. It is about rebuilding here in America, on the gulf coast and on family farms from coast to coast, and it is about providing hard-working Americans struggling to care for their families with a desperately needed raise.

I am not satisfied with the Iraq language in this bill. I disagree with Senator Warner's language. I voted against it last week. But I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in this bill--in particular, taking care of the troops, which this bill does. It includes billions more than the President requested to train and equip and take care of our fighting men and women and to make sure we care for them when they come home.

So tonight, when we vote, I will cast my vote as a yes--not for the Warner language, not for the language on Iraq, but to make sure that those men and women whom we have sent to battle, despite how I feel, have the care and support they need.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think it is important that, in response to the comments of my friend Senator Enzi, I set the record straight for the Senate and the American people regarding the practice of including unrequested emergency funding in war supplementals.

The emergency supplemental bills approved by Republican Congresses in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 included emergency funding for many of the same issues that are in the emergency supplemental, such as: agriculture disaster assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental-- $500 million; border security--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$1.9 billion; pandemic flu--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$2.3 billion; wildland fire suppression--fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act, which carried $25.8 billion war supplemental--$500 million; airline security--fiscal year 2003 war supplemental--$2.396 billion; and fisheries assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$112 million.

The White House has complained about Democrats including agricultural disaster assistance in the war supplemental. Not only did the Republican Congress approve a targeted agriculture disaster package in 2006, but there is also precedent for including assistance to a sector in the economy that has been hard hit by a disaster. In 2003, Congress approved $515 million of relief for the aviation industry.

The White House has also complained about Democrats including other matter in a war supplemental, such as the minimum wage increase.

Yet under Republican control, war supplemental laws included such unrelated matters as the REAL ID Act, fiscal year 2005, a temporary worker program, fiscal year 2005, and budget process provisions, fiscal year 2006.

So I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify for my colleagues the real record when it comes to meeting the needs of the American people in emergency supplemental appropriation bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate, at 8:25 p.m., vote, without any intervening action or debate, on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206; that the time from 7:55 to 8:25 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders, with the majority leader in control of the last 15 minutes, and that no other amendments or motions be in order prior to the vote, with the time allocated as follows: Senator Durbin, 5 minutes; Senator Levin, 5 minutes; Senator Landrieu, 5 minutes, and Senator Brown, 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I congratulate Caitlin Snaring, a bright young woman from my home State of Washington. Today, she won the National Geographic Bee, a competition that starts with nearly 5 million students each year. Caitlin is from Redmond, WA, and this was her second time representing our State in the national competition held in Washington, DC.

On Monday, Caitlin and I sat near each other on the plane flight from Seattle to Washington, DC. While everyone else was reading magazines or watching a movie, Caitlin was studying her notebooks and preparing for the competition. I had a chance to talk with her, and I could see that she was really determined and focused. I remember thinking to myself, ``She's going places.''

After her victory today, I called her and said: ``Caitlin, I can tell that when you decide what you're going to be and what you want to do, you are going to achieve any dream you have.'' And I really believe that.

Caitlin won a $25,000 college scholarship. I understand that she is the second girl to win the geographic bee since the competition started in 1989 and the fifth winner from Washington State. In fact, Washington has produced more national winners than any other State.

I want to congratulate Caitlin, her family, and friends on this great achievement and on the wonderful example she has set for young people in Washington State and around the country.

If I can have about 5 minutes before the Senator goes, I would appreciate it. If not, I will come back.

Mr. President, I just wanted to come to the floor for a few minutes today and talk about the budget that is before us now. It reflects a lot of work. It reflects the priorities of families across this country. Importantly, it returns fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC. It invests in critical needs of all Americans.

I am very proud to be able to say I support it. It is tough and it is strong, which is exactly what we need to be doing today in the United States.

First and foremost, I do want to thank our chairman, Senator Conrad, on his work on this most difficult task. I have served with him through this process time and time again. I am always amazed and impressed by his thoughtfulness, his attention to detail, and, of course, his amazing charts. He always works well, along with his partner from the House, Congressman Spratt, to help us establish priorities of which all Americans can be proud.

Writing a budget of this size and scope is not easy, but Senator Conrad has again proven this year he is up to the task. I am proud to call him a colleague and a friend.

Mr. President, Senator Conrad and all of us as Democrats want a budget that reflects the priorities of American families. We do that in this budget by investing here at home--in our schools, in our infrastructure, and in our communities. We still provide every dollar the President asks for defense spending over the next 5 years.

At the same time, Americans want us to return to fiscal responsibility in Washington, DC. Every family knows the importance of balancing their own checkbooks and paying their own bills. They expect us, the Federal Government, to be responsible with their money as well.

Unfortunately, as Senator Conrad pointed out, for too many years under Republican control we have seen a failure to manage those taxpayer dollars. Year after year, they have produced some of the largest debts this country has ever seen. This budget, our budget, says ``no more.''

Our plan does include strong pay-as-you-go rules, and that means we are being responsible for today and not burdening our grandchildren with future debt. In fact, this budget produces a $41 billion surplus by 2012. I really want to say we owe Senator Conrad a debt for keeping us fiscally responsible yet investing in the right priorities, and still producing a surplus by 2012.

We recognize in this budget that American families want relief from taxes as well. This budget supports middle-class tax relief. It extends marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, and supports reform of the estate tax just to make sure that we protect small business and family farms, and, importantly, provides relief from the alternative minimum tax for 1 year, a tax that increasingly is a burden on middle-class families.

I am especially proud of what we have done in this budget that pays attention, finally, to our veterans when they come home. From stories we have heard of veterans who have been struggling to get mental health care for post-traumatic stress disorder, to some who had to wait months if not years to get the benefit checks they so need, or the lack of focus on traumatic brain injury, the signature issue of this war that is affecting thousands and thousands of our soldiers who have returned home.

What we have seen clearly is the President has not adequately funded veterans care. This budget reverses

that terrible trend and provides $43.1 billion for addressing those problems. That is a critical component of this budget that every Member of this Senate ought to vote for.

Importantly, our budget rejects the President's proposal to impose new fees and higher copayments on veterans. The President's budget that came to us said that he wanted to impose fees and copays on the veterans themselves to pay for veterans health care. We say no. We say these men and women have paid the price by serving us. We are not going to charge them again.

Very importantly, we keep the promise to our Nation's heroes and restore that by saying we will not impose fees on our veterans to balance this Nation's budget.

This budget also invests in critical port security needs. I was very proud to work last year on a bipartisan basis to pass the Safe Ports Act. But that bill did not adequately fund the critical infrastructure we need to keep our ports safe. This bill begins that process.

We have increased funding for the Safe Ports Act, which means more radiation detection centers at our Nation's ports, more partners in safe trade, and importantly, the personnel, custom officials to make sure this bill actually works.

On education, our budget reverses the painful cuts that we have seen year after year to education and provides the largest increase in funding for elementary and secondary education programs in 5 years.

Like all of my colleagues, I have been home. I have listened to my teachers, my administrators, my parents, and students at home who tell us the lack of funding in the promise to No Child Left Behind has hindered them from being able to do the right thing, to make sure our children get a good education.

Our budget, this budget that is before us, increases Department of Education funding by $9.5 billion above the President's request and keeps the promise we made when No Child Left Behind was enacted.

As a parent, a former teacher, I know the importance of investing in our children's education. I am very proud this budget does just that.

This budget also provides very important funding for SCHIP; that is the program that Senator Conrad talked about which is the children's health insurance program. Everyone talks about the incredible burden of health care in this country and who it is impacting most, our Nation's children. This budget expands health care coverage to nearly 6 million children.

Certainly, in this country today that ought to be our top priority. That is what Democrats are saying in the budget before us. We provided a very important step forward for American children with the investment in this budget.

I think it is important to note that in 3 of the last 5 years, the Republican majority failed to pass a budget. They had a much larger majority than we do here in the Senate today, and we saw what happened when a budget did not happen: historic debts that were passed on to our children and grandchildren.

Well, last November, in the election, Americans demanded a change. I believe this budget reflects that call. It returns fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC and, importantly, ensures our Nation's priorities are addressed. I am very proud to support this bill. I encourage all of our colleagues to do so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, in these dangerous times, we face terrorist threats around the world. The decisions we make here in the Senate must put us in a stronger position to fight and defeat terrorists wherever they hide. Just last week, the United States and German Governments unraveled the reported plot to attack American interests in Germany. This development reminds us that we face dangers all around the globe, and we need to be able to dispatch our resources wherever and whenever they are needed to keep us safe.

Unfortunately, having nearly 150,000 American troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq does not strengthen our ability to fight terrorists from around the globe. In fact, by forcing our troops to police a civil war and by not giving our troops the equipment and training they need, the President's current policy is impairing our military readiness and our ability to fight and win the broader war on terror. It is time to refocus our efforts back on to the broader war on terror. Yes, we will still fight and defeat the al-Qaida terrorists who are in Iraq. But we recognize that terror networks exist in many other countries, and we have to fight and defeat terrorists in those places as well.

That is why I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning. That amendment recognizes that leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not the best use of our military. It doesn't make us safer at home, it diminishes our ability to fight the broader war on terror, and it impairs our military readiness.

It is clear the Iraqi civil war cannot be solved militarily. It must be solved politically. Today we are 5 years into this war. Thousands of American lives have been lost, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Yet the Iraqis have not moved forward with meeting key benchmarks and beginning reconciliation. We have to show the Iraqis that we will not police their civil war indefinitely and that they must take responsibility for their own future. The redeployment language of the Feingold-Reid amendment from this morning makes it very clear to the Iraqis that our commitment is not open-ended and that they must make the necessary compromises to bring peace to their country.

In Iraq, our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. Now it is time to begin redeploying our troops, rebuilding our military, and getting back to fighting the war on terror.

As I look at these issues, I see four imperatives: First, we have to fight and defeat terrorists; second, we have to recognize the war in Iraq is impacting our ability to do that; third, we have to rebuild our military readiness, which has been seriously compromised by this war in Iraq. Finally, we have to be there to support our servicemembers, our veterans and their families, every step of the way.

First of all, we all recognize that we are in a war with terrorists around the world and we need to fight and win that war. This is not a war against countries. We are in a war against terrorists wherever they reside. President Bush wants us to believe the war in Iraq is the war on terror. It is not. The war on terror that our country faces is not the same thing as the civil war that is raging in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq is primarily a civil war between factions that have been in conflict for generations. The Feingold-Reid amendment empowers our military to target and destroy any terrorist elements in Iraq, but it would not force the majority of American troops to be stuck indefinitely in the crossfire of a civil war.

As we look at the terrorists our Nation confronts, al-Qaida is the most dangerous, according to the declassified National Intelligence Estimate from last year.

That NIE report said:

Al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the

homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist

organization.

The NIE also said the jihadists ``are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.''

Al-Qaida is the threat. We have to get back to fighting al-Qaida, and that is what the Reid-Feingold amendment would allow.

Under that amendment, while most troops would be redeployed, some would remain to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They would provide security for American infrastructure and personnel, and they would be allowed to train and equip the Iraqi security forces.

This administration's focus on Iraq has distracted us from the larger war on terror, and it has left us vulnerable. Our country faces possible threats from terrorists around the world, and we need a security strategy that ensures that we can fight those threats wherever they are. But, instead, the Bush administration has become increasingly focused on Iraq, which weakens our ability to fight that broader war on terror just when we must be strong.

Next, let's look at the relationship between the civil war in Iraq and our own security. Does having so much of our military tied up in Iraq's civil war make us safer? Does it help us fight terrorists around the world? The truth is, leaving our troops in Iraq is not making us more secure.

A State Department report from 2 weeks ago found:

International intervention in Iraq has been used by

terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist

activity that has contributed to the instability in

neighboring countries.

According to our own State Department, our involvement in Iraq is making the region less stable, not more stable. The war in Iraq has the potential to make it harder for us to respond to other threats around the world. That is because the conflict in Iraq is tying up large parts of our military and is degrading our military readiness, which brings me to my third point.

We must rebuild America's military. We can all be proud that our country is home to the finest fighting forces in the world. But we must also face the truth. The war in Iraq has impaired our military readiness, and that is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of military leaders and experts who say it may take us, now, 5 years to rebuild our military.

The Iraq war has impaired our readiness by forcing a hard-to-maintain tempo on our troops, by destroying our equipment, by reducing the capabilities of our Guard and Reserve, and by limiting the training that our troops receive. Today we are forcing a very tough tempo on our servicemembers. They all want to work, and they all want to work hard. But we have to

make sure the demands placed on them are reasonable. The Pentagon has extended tours of duty for our troops. It has deployed troops sooner than planned. It has sent troops without all the training and equipment they should receive. It has deployed troops without the downtime at home that our servicemembers and their families deserve.

Two Army brigades are on their fourth deployment now to Iraq and Afghanistan. That tremendous pace with little downtime in between is a strain on our troops. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address those strains on our servicemembers so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war is also impairing our readiness by destroying our equipment. The Army, for example, is supposed to have five brigades' worth of equipment prepositioned overseas, but because of the war in Iraq, the Army is depleting those reserves. GEN Peter Schoomaker told the Senate just last month:

It will take us 2 years just to rebuild those stocks.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the strains on equipment so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war has especially impacted the readiness of our National Guard. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Stephen Blum, testified that the readiness of National Guard forces is at a historic low. He said:

Eighty-eight percent of the forces that are back here in

the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army

National Guard.

A national commission looked at the National Guard and Reserve and sent its report to Congress last March, a few months ago. The commission said:

We believe that the current posture and utilization of the

National Guard and Reserve as an ``operational reserve'' is

not sustainable over time, and if not corrected with

significant changes to law and policy, the reserve

component's ability to serve our Nation will diminish.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the readiness of our Guard and Reserve so we can remain the best in the world.

We also rely on our Guard members when disaster strikes at home. We need their trained personnel and equipment to respond quickly. After the horrible tornadoes that occurred in Kansas just a few weeks ago, the Governor of Kansas said recovery efforts for those two States were hampered because there were not enough personnel and equipment. Where were those resources? In Iraq, not here at home.

COL Timothy Orr of the U.S. Army National Guard told the Senate that his brigade's homeland security capabilities have been degraded.

He testified to us:

Our ability as a brigade to perform these homeland missions

continues to be degraded by continued equipment shortages,

substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment between

the State and the Nation to support our deploying units.

I have shown now how the Iraq war has impacted the readiness of our troops, of our equipment, and of our National Guard. The pace of deployment to Iraq is also hindering another measure of readiness--the training that our servicemembers receive.

To meet the President's surge, the Pentagon has been sending some troops to Iraq earlier than was planned, and they are keeping other units there in Iraq longer than planned. That means our troops are getting less time at home, less time between deployments, and importantly, less time to train. Commanders are forced to shorten the training their troops receive so they are focusing now only on specific training that they need for Iraq, but not for other potential conflicts.

That makes sense if there is limited training time. We want all that time devoted to their most immediate need. However, many military leaders are now warning us that this fast pace diminishes our ability to respond to other potential conflicts. Here is how the colonel who commands the First Marine Regiment put it:

Our greatest challenge is and will remain available

training time, and because that time is limited, our training

will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. This

has, and will continue to, limit our ability to train for

other operations.

Army COL Michael Beech told the Senate in April that he believes our training strategy is broad enough to support a variety of other events. But he added:

However, if deployed in support of other emerging

contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy of some

specific tactical skills unique to higher-density conflicts.

We have military commanders telling us that they are concerned that our ability to train for other missions has been limited and certain tactical skills have atrophied. We don't know what the future of our world brings. We don't know what types of conflicts we will need to be prepared to fight. It is our responsibility, as leaders today, to be preparing for whatever the future brings for the next generation. By allowing our troops to only now be trained for today's mission, we are not meeting our responsibility for the long-term dangers our country must be prepared to defeat.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we have to address these training shortfalls so we can remain the best in the world.

I am also concerned at the billions of dollars that we are spending in Iraq, coming at the expense of our ability to be strong at home. I am very concerned that the Bush administration has chosen to fund this war in ways that have meant that homeland security priorities at home have not been fully funded. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to try to correct that in areas such as port security grants and first responder funding. But it is not easy to overcome years of misplaced priorities from this administration.

Let me share with you some of the examples from this President's latest budget proposal. President Bush, in his budget proposal to us, dramatically cut funding for first responders to pay for the war in Iraq. His budget cut critical State homeland security grants by $348 million, or about 60 percent, to pay for the war in Iraq. He reduced urban area grants by $185 million--that is a 25-percent reduction--to pay for the war in Iraq. He cut our local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants by $119 million. That is a cut of 33 percent at home to pay for the war in Iraq.

Mr. President, we know funds are limited, so we have to be smart. Policing a civil war in Iraq should not come at the expense of our security right here at home.

Finally, as we fight and win the war on terrorism and we rebuild our military, we have to be there every step of the way to support our servicemembers, our veterans, and, importantly, their families. We need to meet their needs every step of the way from the day they are recruited, while they are being trained, when they are deployed, and, importantly, when they transition back here at home.

Today, too many of our servicemembers are falling through the cracks and not getting the support they deserve. That is why I have been working on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee to identify those needs, to fund them, and to have the appropriate policies so we support those men and women who have so strongly supported us.

At the end of the day, our security comes down to people, people doing a job this country has asked them to do. We have to keep our promise to them. We face terrorist threats around the world. We must and we will defeat them. But to do so, we have to be smart and we have to be tough.

Unfortunately, the civil war in Iraq is not making us more secure; it is making us less secure. We need to refocus our efforts back on the war on terrorism and we need to rebuild our military. I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning because it sets a new direction for our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on the larger security challenges our Nation faces.

This is what I am fighting for in the Senate. I know we can do it. We can take care of our men and women in uniform, we can improve security right here at home, we can track down and eliminate terrorists around the world. It is a matter of getting our priorities straight.

Redeploying our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those other priorities is a critical first step in the Senate we have to take.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The Senator from Vermont.

I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Muriel Gibson for her 19 years of service to the U.S. Senate and the people of Washington State. Ms. Gibson has been a caseworker on my staff since I was first elected to the Senate in 1993, and she is leaving at the end of this week to continue her public service in another capacity.

Ms. Gibson has spent the last 15 years on my staff and 4 years on Senator Brock Adams's staff serving Washington State's veterans and members of the armed services. She has been a tireless advocate for the men and women of our State who served us through military service. As a country, we promise our servicemembers and their families support in exchange for their commitment to protect our Nation. Ms. Gibson has made sure that these promises are kept to these brave men and women.

The needs of our veterans and soldiers can often be demanding, and Ms. Gibson met those demands with compassion and understanding. As the daughter of a career soldier, she knows the challenges facing our military families firsthand. Whether assisting a World War II veteran to receive his long delayed Purple Heart or ensuring that a returning soldier from Operation Iraqi Freedom gets the medical care needed, Ms. Gibson saw to it that everyone who approached my office for assistance received the guidance and attention they deserved.

I am also pleased to say that her service to our Nation's veterans will not end when she leaves my office. She will be working toward a master's degree in social work and hopes to work for the Department of Veterans Affairs upon completion of her degree. I am comforted by the knowledge that a new generation of veterans will gain from her experience and dedication in the years to come.

I would like to thank Ms. Gibson for her years of distinguished service to the Senate, and I wish her happiness in her future pursuits.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation that my colleague from Washington, Congressman Doc Hastings, and I are introducing to name the soon-to-be-opened Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Wenatchee, WA, after Elwood ``Bud'' Link. Bud provided both the inspiration and the energy necessary to make this project a reality, thereby fulfilling a longstanding and serious need for his community.

Bud, a World War II veteran and an active member of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 10445, recognized the need for better, more accessible veteran medical services for those veterans living in north central Washington. Like countless others, Bud suffered from health problems attributed to his service in the Navy, where he bravely served aboard the USS Tracy escorting convoys throughout the South Pacific and protecting medical personnel after the deployment of the atomic bomb.

When Bud returned to the States, he, like so many other veterans, relied on the VA for health care. In order to receive the necessary treatment from the VA, however, Bud was forced to make a 3-hour drive in each direction to the VA medical center nearest to his home.

Realizing that this was the case for veterans all over his community, Bud, his wife of over 50 years, Helen, and his fellow VFW Post 10445 members, helped by the American Legion and other veteran service organizations, mobilized the community to work toward the creation of a new, more accessible outpatient veteran center.

I was proud to contribute to this effort. After several years of hard work, I stood with Congressman Doc Hastings at the Cashmere VFW hall on March 20, 2006 to announce the VA's final decision to create the Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Wenatchee, WA.

Although Bud sadly passed away before this exciting announcement was made, the creation of this facility in Wenatchee represents the culmination of Bud and his fellow veterans' efforts to make veterans' medical care more accessible and, in turn, to hold the Federal Government accountable for fulfilling its promises to the veteran community.

Bud dedicated his time and energy to addressing this and other veteran needs as an advocate, a leader, and a concerned citizen. Due in large part to Bud's work, the new CBOC, set to serve six counties in north central Washington, is likely to make over 25,000 visits by veterans more accessible next year.

Bud's life of service and activism, coupled with this final victory, reaffirms a valuable lesson for all Americans: even a single citizen can see a problem and fix it.

Bud Link dedicated his time and energy to helping other veterans, and now that the clinic he fought for is going to open, we have a chance to honor his lifetime of service. My bill will ensure that Bud's efforts and good example will not be forgotten, but rather, that the new CBOC will carry on Bud's legacy.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the work that Bud Link and his fellow veterans have done to make this new CBOC a reality.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation that my colleague from Washington, Congressman Doc Hastings, and I are introducing to name the soon-to-be-opened Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Wenatchee, WA, after Elwood ``Bud'' Link. Bud provided both the inspiration and the energy necessary to make this project a reality, thereby fulfilling a longstanding and serious need for his community.

Bud, a World War II veteran and an active member of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 10445, recognized the need for better, more accessible veteran medical services for those veterans living in north central Washington. Like countless others, Bud suffered from health problems attributed to his service in the Navy, where he bravely served aboard the USS Tracy escorting convoys throughout the South Pacific and protecting medical personnel after the deployment of the atomic bomb.

When Bud returned to the States, he, like so many other veterans, relied on the VA for health care. In order to receive the necessary treatment from the VA, however, Bud was forced to make a 3-hour drive in each direction to the VA medical center nearest to his home.

Realizing that this was the case for veterans all over his community, Bud, his wife of over 50 years, Helen, and his fellow VFW Post 10445 members, helped by the American Legion and other veteran service organizations, mobilized the community to work toward the creation of a new, more accessible outpatient veteran center.

I was proud to contribute to this effort. After several years of hard work, I stood with Congressman Doc Hastings at the Cashmere VFW hall on March 20, 2006 to announce the VA's final decision to create the Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Wenatchee, WA.

Although Bud sadly passed away before this exciting announcement was made, the creation of this facility in Wenatchee represents the culmination of Bud and his fellow veterans' efforts to make veterans' medical care more accessible and, in turn, to hold the Federal Government accountable for fulfilling its promises to the veteran community.

Bud dedicated his time and energy to addressing this and other veteran needs as an advocate, a leader, and a concerned citizen. Due in large part to Bud's work, the new CBOC, set to serve six counties in north central Washington, is likely to make over 25,000 visits by veterans more accessible next year.

Bud's life of service and activism, coupled with this final victory, reaffirms a valuable lesson for all Americans: even a single citizen can see a problem and fix it.

Bud Link dedicated his time and energy to helping other veterans, and now that the clinic he fought for is going to open, we have a chance to honor his lifetime of service. My bill will ensure that Bud's efforts and good example will not be forgotten, but rather, that the new CBOC will carry on Bud's legacy.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the work that Bud Link and his fellow veterans have done to make this new CBOC a reality.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. I know my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, will be here shortly as well to talk about a critical juncture at which we are now in terms of the war in Iraq.

Last week, both the House and Senate sent a very strongly worded bill to the President of the United States supporting our troops, saying we are there for them when they need us, but we also said it is time for a change of course in Iraq, that we can no longer leave our troops in the middle of a civil war. It is disappointing to all of us that the President chose to veto that bill and sent it back to us. But I think it is very important for us to set the context of where we are now as we look at what we are going to send back to the President.

These are the facts. There is increased violence in Baghdad as we speak. There is increased violence outside Baghdad today. In fact, over 100 American soldiers died last month alone, and at least 27 more American troops have been killed this month. In my home State of Washington, we got the sad news yesterday morning that six of our Fort Lewis soldiers were killed over the weekend. These are

families--husbands, children, grandchildren--who will be impacted forever and who will not forget.

Months ago, the President said to the American people that he was going to change his course by having a surge of American troops-- 25,000, 30,000, 40,000 new troops. They are now on the ground in Iraq. What we are seeing is increased violence inside and outside of Baghdad, more American soldiers losing their lives. And what are we looking at? An Iraqi Government that has not changed, has not stood up to the mark to care for their own country and make the tough decisions they need to make. The bill we sent to the President was designed to give him the tools to turn to Iraq and say: You need to take on your own battles and make these tough decisions. It is time for Iraqis to stand up. Four years after removing Saddam from Iraq, the Iraqis have still not made the political compromises necessary to bring peace to their own country. In fact, they are on pretty shaky ground today, even as we speak, as we hear of factions that may pull out.

Most important, what is happening here in our country? Mr. President, 64 percent of Americans and 65 percent of independents support setting a timetable for redeployment.

That is the ground we are now on, as the President vetoed that very important piece of legislation which funded our troops. We had funding for our veterans as they came home and important, critical funding for Katrina and other important causes.

Despite all the facts I just laid out--the increased violence, the soldiers being killed, the Iraqis not standing up for their own Government--we have seen Republicans on the other side of this aisle stubbornly stand with President Bush and refuse to set a timetable for our troops to come home, refuse to set a timeline to force Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and refuse to set a timetable to let Iraqis know we are not going to be there endlessly, month after month, year after year, for decades.

Mr. President, what is heartening to me today, after the President's veto, is we now are hearing from many of our Republican colleagues that they, too, believe we cannot continue to send a message that we will continue to be there forever.

Senator Schumer was just here on the Senate floor and spoke of some of our Republican colleagues who have been speaking out. House Minority Leader Boehner said:

Over the course of the next 3 to 4 months, we'll have some

idea how well the plan is working. Early signs are indicating

there is clearly some success on a number of fronts. But, by

the time we get to September or October, Members are going to

want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't,

what's Plan B.

We are now hearing, thankfully, our Republican colleagues set forth time tables of their own. I think it is important we listen to what they are saying because despite the fact they said no time tables in the bill, we are hearing them say there is a timeline; that this country cannot continue to send our troops to Iraq without Iraqis standing up.

Importantly, as well, we are hearing our Republican colleagues talk about benchmarks. We know benchmarks without consequences are pointless. But unlike the President, our Republican colleagues are starting to realize this and are breaking with the White House.

Senator Susan Collins said:

Obviously, the President would prefer a straight funding

bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports . . . Many

of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable.

I hear that as very promising language from our colleagues on the other side. We are hearing from many others--Senator Voinovich, who spoke out this weekend. We are hearing from House minority whip Roy Blunt, who says he ``can support binding benchmarks on the Iraqi Government tied to a `consequences package,' so long as it would not put restrictions on the military.''

Mr. President, we support our troops. The bill we sent to the President last week supports our troops. Our troops have done everything we have asked them to do and more, and they have done it courageously. It is time now for us to give them the tools they need so the Iraqis will stand up and take control of their own government.

We can no longer simply say: We will stand down when you stand up to the Iraqi people. I hope our Republican colleagues will join with us in standing up as well, now, to send a strong message to the Iraqi people that it is time for our troops to get the support they need and to know that they will be brought home in a timely manner.

It is encouraging to hear the comments we are hearing. I hope they are met by the courage of our colleagues on the other side to stand with us, find some language we can agree on, and send the supplemental to the President. I hope that is what we can do over the next several days. I encourage our colleagues to work with us to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve S. 357, the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Finance will meet on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit: Review and Oversight.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Will REAL ID Actually Make Us Safer? An Examination of Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns'' for Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Allen Gilbert, Executive Director, The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Montpelier, VT; Jim Harper, Director, Information Policy Studies, CATO Institute, Washington, DC; Dr. James Carafano, Assistant Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Senior Research Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; Bruce Schneier, Founder and Chief Technology Officer, BT Counterpane, Minneapolis, MN; and Janice Kephart, President, 9/11 Security Solutions, LLC, Alexandria, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, we are now in the fifth year of the war in Iraq. Once again this year, the President failed to include an honest cost of the war in the budget he sends to Congress every year. Why is that so important at this time? If the President had initially sent to Congress a realistic budget instead of one that is intended to make his fiscal policies look less irresponsible, our men and women in the service wouldn't be faced with debate after debate after debate on emergency spending bills to pay for the cost of the war. Unfortunately, again, he did not send us a budget that was honest and paid for the war. So what we have now is an emergency spending bill for Iraq and other emergencies.

Unfortunately, last night--and sadly, in my opinion--the President decided to say no to our men and women in Iraq, to our veterans, to victims of Katrina, and to many other people who needed this measure passed and signed by him.

Democrats understand that our troops and their families should not pay for the President's budget games. That is why we passed funding for the emergency supplemental at record speed--faster, in fact, than the Republicans did in the last 2 years. Back in 2005, the Republican Congress didn't send the President emergency funding until May 10. In 2006, the Republican Congress did not send an emergency funding bill until June 15. Not only did we send the White House a bill earlier than ever, we sent legislation that contained more funds than the President requested and all the money our troops need. Unfortunately for our troops, yesterday, 4 years after President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' and 12 days after it was reported that 104 American servicemembers died in April, making it the deadliest month since the surge began, the President decided to veto that bill. With that, he decided to delay the funding for our troops.

Included in that bill were billions of dollars to help solve the problems facing our men and women in uniform when they return home. The President didn't ask for those critical dollars. In fact, he has never included our wounded warriors as a cost of the war. Their families and now both Houses of the Congress understand the obligation to our heroes and have included them as a cost of war in this bill.

The bill we sent to the President provided money to improve Walter Reed and other VA facilities that we know are in disrepair and money to help increase access to medical and mental health services for our returning soldiers. More than $143 million was included to improve the VA's polytrauma center, which, among other things, would have helped the VA better diagnose and treat the increasing number of traumatic brain injuries which have emerged as a signature wound of this war.

The legislation also provided $100 million for the VA to target areas where mental health care is lacking. According to the VA's own statistics, more than 35 percent of returning Iraqi and Afghani veterans who have sought care have done so for mental health problems. We provide the funds in the bill we sent to the President. Unfortunately, he said no.

Additionally, we put in $61 million for hiring and training of new compensation and pension claims adjudicators. That is important money because we are hearing from far too many of our returning soldiers that it is taking them months to get the benefits they have earned. These new claims processors will help address that growing backlog of claims. Unfortunately, last night the President said no.

What we have today for our veterans, 4 years after President Bush declared ``mission accomplished,'' he decided to veto this bill. He decided to delay funds that would have addressed the problems facing our veterans.

Not only did Democrats send the President funding earlier than ever, we listened to the military leaders, we listened to the Iraq Study Group, and we listened to the American people and included a provision to redeploy our forces from the Iraqi civil war. Americans overwhelmingly oppose the President's escalation plan. General Abizaid, General Casey, and other top former officials have made clear that a surge will not be a solution to a civil war in Iraq. Reportedly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not in favor of escalation, and even Colin Powell opposes the escalation. In fact, Colin Powell, who we know saw combat in Vietnam, said:

I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into

Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian

violence, this civil war, will work.

GEN John Abizaid, former commander of U.S. Central Command, said:

I do not believe that more American troops right now is a

solution to this problem.

The Iraq Study Group, made up of Republicans and Democrats, called for the redeployment of our forces. But the President ignored all of them. He decided instead to escalate the number of troops in Iraq.

This escalation is in its third month, and so far the results are not promising. The Iraqi Government reported that violence from February to March increased. Officials said the number of car bombings in Baghdad is rising. According to the U.N., sectarian violence in the capital has not declined one bit. Officials have also reported that sectarian violence outside the capital has increased. As I mentioned, 104 American troops died in April--the deadliest month since this surge began.

The redeployment provision this Democratic-led Congress included in the bill provided the President with an opportunity to force Iraqis to finally take responsibility for their own country. We are in the fifth year of this war, and Iraqis have yet to stand up for themselves. They are not policing their own streets. They are not running their own army. Their Government is a mess. Something has to be done to show them they have to get their act together, they have to take ownership of their own future.

That is what the redeployment provision did in our bill. It said to Iraqis: After 5 years--5 years--and thousands of U.S. lives, you have to take responsibility for your future. It said: You must stand up.

Well, unfortunately, for America's security, 4 years after President Bush declared ``mission accomplished,'' and after we have lost 3,351 troops, the President, last night, vetoed the bill. By doing so, he ignored calls from military experts and the American people for redeployment and the need to make clear to the Iraqis they have to take responsibility for their own future.

The President asked our Nation for patience after the first and second years of this war. Then he asked the American people for more time after the third year, and more time after the fourth year.

This year, the fifth year of the war, he is now again asking us for patience, for the American people to just stand by as more of our young men and women die and as the Iraqis continue to shirk their responsibility for their own country.

It is clear our troops are now policing an open-ended civil war. Now, more than ever, we need a new direction in Iraq. Unfortunately, yesterday, and, sadly, the President vetoed a bill which

did provide a way forward. In doing so, he withheld millions of dollars for our troops and for our veterans and ignored the advice of military leaders and the Iraq Study Group and, importantly, the will of the American people.

Today the President stands alone against the vast majority of Americans desperately seeking a new direction in Iraq. It is now up to him to come to the negotiating table and provide the American people with a real strategy for success.

Mr. President, we also have before us today a bill on the FDA.

Can I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. President, I see another colleague on the Senate floor, and I ask him how much time he is going to need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to speak to the FDA bill that is in front of us today.

Mr. President, all of us in the Senate share the same goal of making sure the Food and Drug Administration stays as the gold standard for drug safety and effectiveness, and the legislation that is before the Senate today moves us toward that goal.

Throughout our country, researchers, scientists, and doctors are making 21st century medical advances, and the legislation we are looking at will ensure we have a 21st century FDA. It provides the resources, the authority, and the oversight to ensure that safe drugs move from the lab to our medicine cabinets without delay.

Like other Members of the Senate, I worked on the FDA reforms back in the 1990s. Those reforms responded to the challenges we faced then. The bill before us now responds to the challenges we face today.

In recent years, we have seen a lot of problems at the FDA with drug approval and postmarket surveillance. The bill we have addresses those challenges and ensures the FDA has the resources and the tools to promptly and thoroughly review new drugs and medical devices.

The bill reauthorizes and improves two pieces of legislation that will be critical in providing a timely review process. It creates a new system to actively monitor drugs after they have been approved by the FDA. It strengthens science at the FDA and, importantly, improves transparency. It improves oversight and information about clinical trials, and it works to prevent potential conflicts of interest among advisory committee members.

Like many Americans, I was shocked at the recent revelations concerning drugs that posed risks to public safety but remained on the market for far too long. This legislation moves to address those concerns by instituting strong, new protections, including postmarket studies that will be made available to the public. I believe this new transparency and vigorous oversight is the right path toward restoring public confidence in the FDA.

The bill takes critical steps also to improve medical care for our children. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act that is included in this bill uses incentives and regulations to put America's children first. It builds upon the legislation we enacted back in 1997 that ensures pediatric medicine is a priority and that information on pediatric drugs is readily available. It extends and improves a program that has undertaken nearly 800 studies and has helped to provide pediatric labeling information for 119 drugs.

The Pediatric Research Improvement Act included in this bill is another critical component of improving pediatric care. It provides needed safety measures through mandatory clinical trials. It will help to continue pediatric oversight programs that have required trials for more than 1,000 pediatric drugs since 1998. All too often, doctors are not given guidance on the proper dose of prescription drugs for children. This bill is going to eliminate that guesswork so our children get the right doses for safer, more effective treatment.

The bill also provides help to our Nation's children through the Pediatric Medical Devices Safety and Improvement Act. Every year, we see these wondrous technological improvements in medical devices. However, sometimes those improvements do not account for the needs of the children and the pediatricians who treat them. What that means is essential, often lifesaving devices do not meet the size or the scope or the needs of sick children. This bill will push manufacturers to develop and produce devices that are safe and effective for children and infants. Through incentives and investor outreach, this bill will ensure that exciting advances in lifesaving devices are not just limited to adults.

This legislation also delivers greater safety while providing better access. I believe it will improve the way we deliver safe innovative health care in America, and it is really my hope it will also begin to restore confidence in the institutions that safeguard our public health.

The American public deserves nothing less than the gold standard of care from our FDA. When a nervous parent or worried senior visits their corner pharmacy, they deserve to know the product they buy on that shelf has been approved by a thorough and complete process. When a patient begins to take a new drug, they deserve a system that has actively tracked that drug and provides the patient with information on any risks they might face. Everyone--drug companies, researchers, patients, and doctors alike--deserves a system that supports an efficient and timely FDA approval process.

So I am very eager to move this legislation forward and get it to a vote so we can begin to deliver what the American people deserve. I hope this Senate moves quickly on this bill and we are able to move it along in the process very shortly in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speakers be in the following order: that following Senator Hutchison, I be recognized for 5 minutes, then Senator Lieberman, then to Senator Durbin for 5 minutes, to Senator Inhofe, and then to Senator Kennedy for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I inform the Senator that I was limiting the Senators on our side to 5 minutes. The Senator from Oklahoma has unlimited time. I did not give time to speak on the Senator's side.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this supplemental appropriations conference report, and let me begin by thanking Senator Byrd, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, who has worked diligently throughout the process to bring us to this point today where we are addressing the critical infrastructure needs of this country as well as moving forward and changing course in Iraq.

I also thank and commend our majority leader, Senator Reid, for his courage and his diligence in speaking out to get us to a point where we will be sending a message to the President and to the country that we are willing to be courageous and change course in Iraq.

The agreement before us takes us on a responsible path on many of the most pressing issues of the day--the war in Iraq, as we have talked about and I spoke about on the floor yesterday, moving forward with the needs of our veterans and our injured servicemembers, homeland security, and the needs of our hard-hit communities here at home.

I realize my colleagues across the aisle would prefer that Congress obediently approve the President's request, but we are not. Instead, we are providing a funding bill that meets the needs of the American people and those bravely serving for us overseas and all of those here at home.

Last November, on November 7, the American people called for an end to the rubberstamp Congress, and today we are here to deliver. This is not, as some have tried to say, simply a war-funding bill. Instead, it provides funding for critical needs here at home in addition to the $100 billion in funding that is directed to our troops who are serving us so honorably overseas.

In recent weeks, there has been a lot of heated rhetoric and plenty of mischaracterizations about this important bill. Much of that has focused on the critically necessary language that is included in this bill that will transition our mission in Iraq and begin to redeploy our troops.

As Senator Byrd stated, there is much more in this bill. We need to pass this legislation because we need a new direction in Iraq, but we also need to pass this bill because it provides everything our troops need to complete their mission. It provides billions of dollars more to take care of them when they come home, and it will, finally, help American communities recover and rebuild.

In addition to funding for the troops overseas, this conference agreement provides more than $5 billion to ensure that our returning troops and veterans get the critically important healthcare they have earned and deserve and which we now so vividly see is needed.

It provides $6.9 million for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Senator Landrieu has been on the floor many times to talk about those families who have been forgotten on the gulf coast. We have not forgotten them in this bill, and this must get to the President and be signed to take care of those families.

We provide $2.25 billion in homeland security investments, including funds for port security and mass-transit security, for explosives detection equipment at our airports, and for initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed here in the Senate. These are needs which we cannot forget, and we include them in this bill.

We provide $3\1/2\ billion to provide relief for our farmers and our ranchers across the country. There are many families who are struggling and who have suffered from drought and agricultural disasters. For too long, we have forgotten them in this country or ignored them or blocked their needs. The Senate today is saying we have not forgotten.

Finally, this conference agreement includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, a critical need throughout the West; low-income energy assistance, drastically needed in many of our communities; and pandemic flu preparations that all of us know we cannot forget.

I was on the floor yesterday to talk about much of the funding, but critically important is the funding for our troops and our veterans when they come home. We all vividly saw the Walter Reed scandal just a few weeks ago. We provide the funding to make sure our soldiers, whether they are at Walter Reed or any of our facilities across the country, get the best of care, from traumatic brain injury to post- traumatic stress syndrome.

Of course, again, we do have the Iraq language, which is so critical. I hope our colleagues, as we move this bill to the President, will remind him and the country that this bill is essential for our troops, for those of us here at home, and for the future of this country. We urge him to read the bill and to sign it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent in the order that has already been placed, following Senator Kennedy, Senator Isakson be recognized, and then the following Senators be recognized on our side, alternating with Republicans, for 4 minutes each Senator: Cardin, Menendez, Webb, Schumer, Feinstein, Jack Reed, and Senator Inouye.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 30 additional seconds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on our side the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, be recognized; following her, going back and forth, then Senator Feinstein for 4 minutes, and then Senator Jack Reed for 4 minutes.

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

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, before the Senator proceeds, I wish to take a minute and thank all of our staffs who worked tremendously hard to get this bill to the floor, the staff on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd's personal staff--many Members worked very hard, along with their staff members but particularly those people who sit in the back row back there and are not recognized who stay up very late to get this to all of us. To all of our floor staff, I say thank you for your tremendous work in getting us to this point.

I yield the floor.