Floor Statements

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, Congress approved legislation that would have changed the course of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. I say occupation because, frankly, that is what this is. Our troops won the battle they were sent to fight. The dictator Saddam Hussein is deposed and executed. His rotten government is no more, replaced with a democratically elected Parliament, President, and Prime Minister. We all are cheered at the skill of our soldiers.

But, sadly, this President has not done justice by our brave troops. The dreadful management of this occupation has resulted in chaos. Iraq is at war with itself and our troops are caught in the middle. That is why this Congress established a new direction for bringing our troops home from this misbegotten occupation. The bill the President vetoed would have refocused our military, not on the civil war in Iraq but, rather, on Osama bin Laden and his base of operations. It is time for the President to take off his blinders and uncover his ears. White House obstinacy cannot continue to drive our military plans in Iraq.

With this supplemental funding legislation we begin to shift the responsibility for Iraq's future off the shoulders of our military, and onto the shoulders of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. The White House wanted a blank check for the President's mangled occupation of Iraq. We are not going to sign on that dotted line--not now, not ever. The legislation that is before the Senate today is a step toward that goal. It is not a giant leap, but it is progress. And it is only a first step. In a few weeks, this Senate is expected to focus on the Defense Department authorization bill. I shall press for a vote on the proposal Senator Clinton and I have outlined in the authorization for the Iraq war and to give Congress a chance, just a chance, to decide whether the so-called new mission in Iraq should continue. If this mission is so critical, then let the administration make its case and let the people's elected Representatives--that is us--let the people's elected Representatives vote.

In July we will turn our attention to the Pentagon's fiscal 2008 funding request, and in September we will consider the $145 billion war funding request for the next fiscal year. Each of these bills is an opportunity to shape the future course of the mission in Iraq. Clearly, Congress is not turning from the debate on Iraq. On the contrary, we are just beginning this debate.

We have all committed to protecting our men and women in uniform. This legislation provides the funding to do just that. We ensure $3 billion for the purchase of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. The 2,000 additional advanced armored vehicles that will be built with these funds will help to save the lives of American soldiers and American marines as they travel the lonely streets of Baghdad--the lonely streets of Iraq.

If our soldiers are injured in battle, this legislation ensures they will receive high-quality health care when they come home. The fiasco at Walter Reed should be seared into our national consciousness. That is why this legislation provides $4.8 billion to ensure that troops and veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service.

A few weeks ago, we watched Kansas families try to put their lives back together after deadly tornadoes ripped through their homes. The Kansas Governor pointed out that her State's National Guard equipment was parked in Iraq and not at home, slowing cleanup and recovery efforts. Other States faced the potential for the exact same problem. This supplemental bill provides $1 billion--that is 1 dollar for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$1 billion for the National Guard and reserve to replace the trucks and heavy equipment that Guard units have been directed to leave in Iraq.

Again today President Bush warned of terrorist attacks on American soil. He talks a great deal about the threats of such attacks, but very seldom does he provide resources to protect the country. If the President's warnings are accurate, the $1 billion contained in this bill should help to save lives.

We include funds for port security and for mass transit security, for explosive detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate, including a more aggressive screening of cargo on passenger airlines. We will not--no, we will not--close our eyes to the huge gaps in our protections at home.

We also work to heal the devastated communities still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. To this day, mangled trash heaps stand where homes and families once lived. This White House, the Bush White House, sends billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad but ignores the overwhelming needs in New Orleans, Slidell, Biloxi, and so many other places at home.

This bill invests $6.4 billion--that is $6.40 for every minute since Jesus was born--this bill invests $6.4 billion to rebuild the gulf coast communities and to restore the vibrance of this proud region.

I close, and I thank my ranking member, Senator Thad Cochran, for his help. I thank Representative Dave Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and the Senate leaders, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell. I thank the Appropriations Committee staff: staff director, Charles Kieffer; Republican staff director, Bruce Evans; and our subcommittee and professional staff members.

I appreciate, I deeply appreciate the long hours they have worked-- yes, long hours they have worked to craft the supplemental legislation. I urge Senators, all Senators on both sides of the aisle, to support this legislation. It is the product of bipartisan negotiations. That is right, isn't it, Thad?

It meets the critical needs of this country. It moves us forward in our efforts to change the dynamic in Iraq. We must challenge--we must challenge--this President, our President, to open his eyes to the truth and adopt the new direction in Iraq that this Nation and the world so eagerly--yes, so anxiously--awaits.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the following are additional explanatory materials regarding the appropriations for the Department of Defense made by the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206.

I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

John McCrae, who wrote ``In Flanders Fields,'' was a Canadian physician. He fought on the western front in 1914 before he was transferred to the medical corps and assigned to a hospital in France. He died of pneumonia while on active duty in 1918, and his volume of poetry was published in 1919.

This Monday, in veterans cemeteries around the Nation, flags will be placed, tenderly placed--tenderly placed--before gravestones that carefully and simply mark the thousands of enlisted men and officers, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who, like John McCrae, did not come home to ticker tape parades but, rather, to slow caissons trailed by weeping families, final gunfire salutes, and the haunting melodies of ``Taps'' played by a lone bugler. Some of those graves will be lush with sod, and the final dates will bring back great battles in the campaigns from the Pacific, Africa, or Europe. Other graves will still be raw Earth, with dates on the headstones that mark the ambushes and improvised explosive devices of modern urban insurgent warfare. But on this day, none--none--will be forgotten, and all will be honored for their sacrifice, whatever their rank, whatever their service, and whatever their last proud moment. The red of the poppies and the red stripes in the flags recall the red badge of their courage.

The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have also given rise to some new ways to remember and honor the fallen. On the Internet, each soldier lost in Iraq has his or her name, his or her picture, and the date and the place of their death listed on a number of Web sites, including those hosted by several newspapers. A traveling exhibit of 1,319 portraits lets ``America's Artists Honor America's Heroes'' through their own talents--through their own talents. When the exhibit is over, those portraits will be given to the soldier's family. In these ways, each of us can put a face to these statistics. We can see the faces, young and old, just as their families remember them.

The Senate this week has also remembered those who have fallen and those still in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Appropriations Committee has finalized the emergency supplemental bill to fund the operations of the military and provide more protective gear and technology to our troops in the field. I hope that this time the President, our President, will sign the bill and speed those funds to the troops. Also this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill. This bill too will look after all of our Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve forces that face the prospect of

additional and longer tours in Iraq in the months ahead. Like the emergency supplemental bill put together by the Appropriations Committee, the Defense authorization bill will continue the work of ensuring that the wounded from these conflicts receive the best care and support as they recover from their injuries.

In 430 BC, after the first year of the Peloponnesian War, the Greek historian Thucydides recorded the funeral oration delivered by Pericles, the great Greek general. Thucydides records that Pericles did not speak of the battles but, rather, of the glories--the glories--of Athens and what a privilege it was--what a privilege it was--for each Athenian to live in such a perfect place. Pericles said that the sacrifice of those fallen in battle to keep the nation strong left them with the:

Noblest of all tombs--the noblest of all tombs, I speak not

of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which

their glory survives.

Pericles felt there could be no better place to live than Athens and no place more deserving of a soldier's sacrifice. Almost 2,500 years later, I feel confident that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who has fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq probably felt the same way--yes--about the United States.

They were proud to be in uniform and ready to serve the Nation that they loved and held in such high regard. The Nation will ever mourn their loss and honor their sacrifice.

Mr. President, I thank the chair for the effort he has taken. I hesitate very much to impose on the time of the Senate. But there ought to be a time now and then when one might impose on the time of the Senate.

Let me read from the Standing Orders of the Senate, Standing Order 105.

Hear this: ``Resolved, That it is a standing order of the Senate that during yea and nay votes in the Senate, each Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator.''

I always try to do that, Mr. President. That was by S. Res. 480, 90th Congress, second session. October 11, 1984. I will tell you who authored that resolution. That was my former colleague, my former late colleague Jennings Randolph. I have never forgotten it. Once in a while, I vote from the well of the Senate, and sometimes I cast my vote from here. But that is what this book says: ``Resolved, that it is a standing order of the Senate that during yea and nay votes in the Senate, each Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator.''

There was a reason for that. I won't take the time of the Senate this evening to talk about this further, but I will have something to say one day about that. ``[E]ach Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator. S. Res. 480, 90th Congress, second session, October 11, 1984.

May God bless his name, Jennings Randolph.

I thank the Senate, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, here we are once again--deja vu--debating supplemental funding for the President's disastrous misadventure in Iraq. Now in its fifth year of occupation, the U.S. death toll in Iraq is over 3,380. What a shame, shame, shame. The death toll of innocent Iraqis is largely unknown, but it probably numbers in the tens of thousands.

The United States of America has spent over $378 billion in Iraq. Do you know how much a billion dollars is? That is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. So the United States has spent over $378 billion in Iraq, and we are all familiar with the horrendous tales of waste and abuse by U.S. contractors in Iraq. The taxpayer--that is you out there--has been ravaged by the profiteering in Iraq. But even worse, despite the billions, our brave troops have been shortchanged with inadequate equipment to protect their lives and shoddy medical care, if they make it back home, to treat wounds of the body and of the mind.

Now the President has threatened to veto the House bill, which is before the Senate, because it sets a date to withdraw, provides funding until late July and ``could unreasonably burden the President's exercise of his constitutional authorities, including his authority as Commander in Chief.''

President Bush has also objected to funding for rebuilding the Gulf Coast States after Hurricane Katrina, funding to improve health care for our troops and our veterans, funding for the shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, funding for Low-Income Heating Assistance Program, and more funding for Homeland Security.

Mr. President, this President--our President--has a single-minded obsession with Iraq, and he appears to see no value in anything except continuing his chaotic ``mission impossible.'' While tilting at windmills may have been a harmless procedure for Don Quixote, Mr. Bush's war is turning the sands of Iraq blood red.

Mr. Bush raises constitutional concerns in his latest veto threat. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. I don't no whether to laugh or to cry. I suppose one could be encouraged that constitutional concerns exist in the Bush kingdom. After setting aside the Constitution whenever convenient to justify preemptive attacks, illegal searches, secret wiretapping, clandestine military tribunals, treaty violations, kidnapping, torture, and a rejection of habeas corpus, one has to wonder about the nature of these purported ``constitutional concerns.'' If the Constitution is finally to be read, let us read it in its entirety, including the articles which give the people's representatives--that is us--the power over the purse--yes, the power over the purse; don't ever forget it. That is the real power. It gives the people's representatives the power over the purse and the power to declare war.

In its statement of administrative policy, the administration claims that the House bill before us `` . . . is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq. . . .'' Mr. President, what do we have now if not chaos in Iraq? Securing Iraq has unaccountably morphed into securing Baghdad, and even that goal eludes us. I doubt if building a wall around the green zone is going to be of much consequence in securing Baghdad, not to mention the very strange message such a wall conveys concerning our purported liberation of Iraq.

The President--our President--continues to miss the point. Iraq is at war with itself. America cannot create a stable democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun. While our troops succeeded in toppling Saddam Hussein, it is the President's profound misunderstanding of the dynamics in Iraq that have led to the failure of his Iraq policies. Why in the world should we now believe the claims that he makes in his veto threat?

There must be an end to this occupation of Iraq. Yes, I say occupation for it is no longer a war in which U.S. troops should be involved. Our troops won the war they were sent to fight, and they should not now be asked to serve as targets in a religious conflict between Sunni and Shiites that has raged for thousands of years. It is reported that even a majority in the Iraqi Parliament now supports legislation which demands a scheduled withdrawal and an immediate freeze on the number of foreign soldiers in Iraq.

In April, Congress set a new course for the war in Iraq. Sadly, the President--our stubborn, uncompromising President--chose to veto that bill. As we prepare to go to conference again, the President continues--our President--to close his eyes and cover his ears to the reality in Iraq, and the urgent need for a new direction. Whatever decision is made in conference will not be the last chapter in this sad story. God willing, this Senator will not close his eyes, nor will he cover his ears, nor will I stand by in silence. Hear me.

We need to conclude this terrible, awful mistake that we have made in Iraq. I said in the beginning that we ought not go into Iraq. But we are there. Anti-Americanism is more robust now than in any period in our history because of Iraq. Do you hear that? The international community is skeptical--why should they not be? They are skeptical of U.S. intentions because of Iraq. Our Constitution has been trampled-- hear that. Our Constitution has been trampled because of Iraq. Thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens have lost their lives because of Iraq. Thousands more are maimed physically or mentally because of Iraq. Billions of U.S. dollars have been wasted because of Iraq.

President Bush has lost all credibility. President Bush, our President, has lost all--all--credibility because of Iraq.

Terrorism is on the rise worldwide because of Iraq. May God grant this Congress--that is, us--may God grant this Congress the courage to come together and answer the cries of a majority of the people who sent us here. Find a way to end this horrible catastrophe, this unspeakable--unspeakable--ongoing calamity called Iraq. May God help us in the United States.

Mr. President, May 19 is Armed Forces Day. This is the day our country sets aside each year to remember and to honor the brave and patriotic Americans who serve today in the United States Armed Forces.

On Armed Forces Day in 1953, President Dwight David Eisenhower noted, ``It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this nation and the peace of the free world.''

More than a half century later, his words still ring true. The survival of freedom still costs the commitment and sacrifice of America's sons and daughters. I want to use this opportunity to let them know that we in the United States Congress are thinking of them, and that we thank them for their service to our country.

I would also like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to another brave and patriotic American, Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles, who currently resides in the historic town of Charles Town, WV, and who served in the Armed Forces of the United States 90 years ago.

That's right--90 years ago.

Mr. President, last month, April 6 marked the 90th anniversary of the America's entrance into World War I.

That was the ``war to end all wars.'' That was the ``war to make the world safe for democracy.'' We know that did not happen. But World War I was the historic, global conflict that brought the United States onto the international scene. And it marked the emergence of the United States as a superpower.

Mr. President, 4.7 million Americans served in the U.S. military during that war--the ``great war'' as it was called.

Of the 4.7 million Americans who served in World War I, only 4 are still living. One of them is Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles of Charles Town, WV.

Mr. Buckles was born in Harrison County, MO, on February 1, 1901, about 40 miles from the birthplace of his future commander, GEN John J. Pershing, the commander of the American Expeditionary Force in World War I.

Mr. Buckles was only 16 years of age when the United States entered the war.

Therefore, when he went to enlist in the Marines in order to fight the kaiser, he was rejected because he was too young.

So he then tried the Navy. This time he was rejected because he was flatfooted.

Determined to serve his country, Mr. Buckles went into the Army. This time, he was successful in enlisting because he lied about his age. On August 14, 1917, Mr. Buckles enlisted in the United States Army. Four months later, in December, 1917, he sailed ``over there'' aboard the RMS Carpathia, the vessel that had rescued the survivors of the Titanic 5 years earlier.

As a doughboy, Private Buckles drove dignitaries around England and an ambulance around France. Mr. Buckles usually downplays his wartime experience, explaining: ``There was nothing dramatic about it. Sometimes I was driving in Winchester, England, sometimes France.'' But his experience was indeed dramatic and it was important. Once war was declared, Mr. Buckles did not wait for his country to call him. He went from one military service to another until he was able to enlist, even if it meant fabricating his age. It was the willingness of 4.7 million brave and patriotic Americans to enter the military and to serve our country that won that war. On this Armed Forces day, we need to remember them as well as the men and women currently wearing our Nation's uniforms. We must keep all of them in our hearts and prayers, and make sure our country serves them, just the way they have served our country.

Mr. Buckles was discharged from the Army in 1920 at the age of 18. He attended business school, and then worked in various jobs in the United States and Canada, including a stint in the bond department at Bankers Trust in New York City.

But his love of adventure and sense of excitement eventually led him out to sea again, this time working for different shipping lines as a purser and quartermaster. He first worked off the coast of South America, then on to Europe.

In the 1930s, his work on a steamship line took him to Nazi Germany, where he attended the 1936 Olympics in Munich. Here he saw the great Jessie Owens win a gold medal to the great embarrassment of German Chancellor Adolph Hitler, who he also saw at the games.

In 1940, his work on steamship lines then landed him in the Philippines. He was working in Manila when the Japanese invaded. Mr. Buckles was captured and spent the next 3\1/2\ years in Japanese prison camps. Although he was a civilian, he was treated as a prisoner of war. At dawn, February 23, 1945, the same day that the American flag was raised on Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi, the 11th Airborne Division liberated Mr. Buckles and his fellow prisoners.

After his release from prison camps, Mr. Buckles finally decided he had enough adventure and excitement. ``I had been bouncing around from one place to another for years at sea,'' he explained. ``It was time to settle down.'' So he married Audrey Mayo.

I am pleased to point out that in 1954, Mr. Buckles and his wife settled on a 330-acre farm in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, the same area where his ancestor, Robert Buckles, had settled in 1732.

For the next five decades--that's right, five decades--Mr. Buckles has continued to operate his beloved farm.

Maybe it is from breathing that good, clean West Virginia mountain air, or, perhaps, it is his own eternal youth and vigor. Whatever the reason, at the age of 106, this hardy West Virginian is still going strong. He will serve as grand marshal of the World War I section of the Memorial Day parade, here in Washington DC. A few years ago, the

President of France presented Mr. Buckles with the Legion of Honor at a ceremony honoring World War I veterans at the French embassy here in Washington, DC. And he has been the subject of feature stories in USA Today, the Charleston Daily Mail, and ``America's Young Warriors,'' and a number of other newspapers and magazines.

Mr. President, on this Armed Forces Day, I salute this brave and patriotic American. And I again salute and thank all those men and women serving in our Armed Forces today for their commitment and their sacrifice.

No, no, let's vote.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I knew Tom Dodd. I served with Tom Dodd. He reminded me of a Roman Senator. God bless him. It has been quite some time since Senators talked about the case for censure against Senator Tom Dodd. These remarks on the floor today bring back to mind those difficult days.

I have grown quite close to Tom Dodd's son, Senator Chris Dodd. We have sat next to each other in the Senate for ten years. He is a fine Senator and a fine man.

Mr. President, Sunday, May 13, is Mother's Day. Motherhood and May are a perfect pairing of all that is warm and nurturing. The earth is soft and green, with the buds of new leaves and new life appearing everywhere. Birds fill the air with their love songs and flowers scent the breezes with their soft perfumes. All around us, if we but look, we see the signs of happy motherhood, from the ducklings in a neat line behind their mother on a pond to calves curled up asleep by their mother's feet in deep green pastures. In neighborhood parks, mothers bring their toddlers out to play in the sunshine before their afternoon naps or push sleeping newborns in strollers along shade- dappled paths. In the springtime, the great cycle of life is at its fullest flow.

On this one lovely spring Sunday, the Nation heeds the Biblical admonition to ``honor thy mother.'' It is an opportunity to make up for those times all year that we may have overlooked our own mother's contributions to our well-being, or snapped at her well-meaning advice and loving attempts to straighten our collars and smooth our hair. Such is the lot of mothers--to be essential but so often unappreciated. Mothers are like water--without a mother, life could not exist, while not enough mothering can stunt growth like a plant in a desert, but too much mothering can be as smothering as floodwaters on a field of corn.

Motherhood is a delicate high-wire act, balancing love and discipline, care and independence, attention and self-reliance. It is time consuming, often stressful, unpaid, and with no promotion and little recognition. It is a Sisyphean task. Yet mothers persevere, rising each day to begin anew, building families with every meal they prepare, every schedule they coordinate, every book they read with their children, every dirty sock they collect and transform into clean and folded laundry. It takes strong women to do it well and to keep up the effort over the many years of childrearing, for this is not a job that one can hand in a resignation letter or shop around a resume to find a better position. It is a job that is truly what a mother makes of it, for good or for ill. ``The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world,'' observed W.R. Wallace.

Many great men have noted the influence of their mothers. George Washington wrote that ``All I am I owe to my mother.'' Abraham Lincoln said that ``I remember my mother's prayers and they have always followed me. They have clung to me all my life.'' Booker T. Washington said that ``. . . If I have done anything in my life worth attention, I feel sure that I inherited the disposition from my mother.'' Andrew Jackson observed that ``The memory of my mother and her teachings were, after all, the only capital I had to start life with, and on that capital I have made my way.'' Their mothers' hands surely influenced the world through their mothering.

Most mothers will tell you that childrearing does not end after their children are officially grown up, either. Mothers remain a constant in the lives of their offspring for years afterward, sometimes actively involved and sometimes waiting in the background in case they are needed. The strains of sustaining the military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in many more military families calling upon grandmothers and grandfathers to raise their grandchildren while their military parents are deployed overseas for long periods. Strong families and loving mothers make this possible, if not desirable.

Often mothers with children also find themselves taking up a new and

unnamed role as mother to their own mother as she ages. Single women, too, can become mothers in this way, picking up more and more of the care of their aging parents. The willingness and love with which children care for their parents is a direct reflection of how good a job their parents did raising them. The writer Charlotte Gray observed that ``Children and mothers never truly part--bound in the beating of each other's heart.'' It is just that sometimes, the roles of mother and child, caretaker and care-receiver, reverse. And while it can be sad to see one's mother failing, the burden of her care is lightened by the warm memories of all the nights her hands tucked in the bedcovers or checked a forehead for fever, and by all the prayers her lips have uttered on her child's behalf.

Mr. President, I close with a poem by an unknown author, entitled ``Mother's Love'':

Mother's Love

Her love is like an island

In life's ocean, vast and wide

A peaceful, quiet shelter

From the wind, the rain, the tide.

'Tis bound on the north by Hope,

By Patience on the West,

By tender Counsel on the South,

And on the East by Rest.

Above it like a beacon light

Shine Faith, and Truth, and Prayer;

And thro' the changing scenes of life

I find a haven there.

Mr. President, last month, this Chamber celebrated a milestone day in the life of our dear colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. On April 13, the senior Senator from Alaska became the longest serving Republican Senator in history. This was an important day for him. It was an historic day for us.

But having served in this Chamber with Senator Stevens for more than four decades, and knowing him as I do, I feel confident that, in a few days, he will be celebrating what to him will be an even more important day. This Saturday, May 12, his lovely, talented, and beloved daughter Lily will graduate from law school. She will receive her Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

I extend my heartiest congratulations to Lily, whom I know quite well. I remember her as an infant when her father carried her around the Capitol in a basket. I remember attending the birthday parties that her father gave her. I enjoyed watching her grow up. Now she is the graduate of one of our Nation's most prestigious law schools. And she is ready to embark upon what I am confident will be a rewarding, productive, and most successful career.

Knowing Lily as I do, I am sure that she will see her graduation, not as the end, but as just another step in her educational endeavors. As Solon, one of the seven wise men of Greece, observed, ``I grow old in the pursuit of learning.'' Although Lily is a young woman, I am confident that she will grow old ``in pursuit of learning.''

Today, I congratulate her and wish her the best as she completes an important milestone in her education and her life, and embarks upon the next endeavor.

And I also congratulate her father, Senator Ted Stevens.

Mr. President, I voted against Senator Durbin's amendment because it would have forced the removal of the best scientific minds from the oversight of the safety of our Nation's food and prescription drug approval process. Though well intentioned, the Durbin amendment would have limited the advice available to the Food and Drug Administration for critical decisions pertaining to consumer safety. I will support the efforts to ensure that conflicts of interest do not interfere with the safety of the American people, and I will work to ensure that the country's best experts continue to secure our medications and food supply.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

May we have order. May we have order.

Madam President, may we have order.

Would the Senator mind saying that again, please.

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

Madam President, President Bush marked the fourth anniversary of his announcement that major combat operations in Iraq have ended by vetoing war funding legislation because he claimed it limited his ability to prosecute a war unconditionally and indefinitely. Our Armed Forces are now well into their fifth year of combat operations--longer than the U.S. was involved in World War II-- and the time is overdue to examine and update U.S. policy in Iraq.

The legislation, which President Bush vetoed, would have set a responsible, new course for the war that was a balanced and fair proposal that I was pleased to support. Sadly, the President continues to believe peace and stability can be forced on the Iraqi people at the point of a gun. He was wrong in 2002 when he sought authorization to go to war, and he is wrong today.

However, now that the President has insisted on continuing down this failed path, it is our responsibility to discuss alternatives that can become law. The Congress is not an ATM, spitting out billions whenever the President requests it. It is a policy arm of the Government, as well as its banker. The Constitution says the Congress shall have power to provide for the common defense. It is the Congress--yes, it is the Congress--that is given the sole power to declare war. The Congress is sworn to raise and support armies. The Congress and the people of the United States have a right to expect clarity in our mission and a foreseeable end to this conflict.

The situation in Iraq, in 2007, is very different from what it was in 2002, when the Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. The President himself said this:

This is not the war we entered in Iraq, but it is the war

we are in.

It is time to rethink, reset our goals, and consider a new authorization which outlines the mission as the President now sees it. The October 11, 2002, authorization for the President to use force in Iraq was very specific. After expressing support for diplomatic efforts to resolve the causes of conflict with Iraq, the authorization allowed the use of force for two purposes. The first was to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. The second reason was to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iraq.

In 2002, and early 2003, President Bush made his case to Congress and to the American people for the invasion of Iraq. His stated goals included the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction programs that Iraq was thought to possess, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. By that yardstick, the U.S. military has achieved brilliant success. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq--not just weapons that could threaten the national security of the United States but also no weapons of mass destruction of any description. Saddam Hussein and his Government are gone. The Iraqi people have elected a new government. The U.S. military has achieved success in Iraq, and that success has come at a high price, both in dollars and in lives. Thus far, over 3,350 American men and women have been killed, and many more have been wounded. Including the funding in the emergency supplemental vetoed by the President, over $450 billion has been provided by Congress to execute this war.

The October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course. It is time--past time--to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives. If the President has more that he wants to do in Iraq, then he needs to make that case to Congress and to the American public. Our continuing presence in Iraq is not supported by the people or the Congress. The President must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way. Success will elude us without the support of the people whose sons and daughters are being asked to die daily in the sands--yes, the sands--of Iraq.

I propose October 11, 2007, as the expiration date for the 2002 authorization and that the President seek a new authorization from the elected representatives of the people in Congress. The President must be clear about what he now hopes to accomplish in Iraq and how he intends to achieve it. President Bush must build support for his plan. Without the support of the public and the Congress, we should no longer be in this fight. It is now an Iraqi fight for national reconciliation, not a war to ensure U.S. national security. If the President sees a further role for U.S. troops, he should articulate it and seek consensus for a changed mission. I hope my colleagues on both sides of this important debate and on both sides of the aisle can agree that the 2002 authorization has run its course. It is no longer viable, and it should be set aside.

What I propose does not mandate redeployment on any date certain. It simply calls on the President to make the case for the new situation in which we find ourselves. My proposal does not set limits on troop levels, nor prevent them from doing what is necessary to protect themselves and U.S. personnel. It also does not prevent us from pursuing terrorists who may have set their sights on the United States. What it does is stop our troops from fighting endlessly in an Iraqi civil war after October 11, 2007, unless the President--our President-- receives a mandate from the American public and the U.S. Congress.

Let us try to give the President a chance to refocus his vision on the changed circumstances in Iraq, free

from the shackles of a shamelessly outdated grant of authority. I deplore the political gamesmanship which has polarized our Nation. I regret the harsh partisanship which rages while our brave troops fight and die.

A fresh start could help to change the dynamic in this country. A concerted effort by the White House to reassess its goals and opportunities in Iraq could point a path to progress. A new debate in Congress could resolve confusion and contention about continuing a strategy for Iraq that no longer addresses the exigencies of today. We need a new mission which makes clear the changed role of our troops. We need a diplomatic component to the plan which might encourage the national reconciliation so badly needed to quell the violence in Iraq. We need a plan to reach out to other countries in the area which share our interest in seeking stability in Iraq. But first we need to clear the cobwebs and the confusion caused by a grant of authority that no longer has any relevance to the present conditions of Iraq.

I ask other Senators to consider my proposal, whether this proposal is considered on the supplemental, on the Defense authorization bill, or on the Defense appropriations bill. I ask cooler heads to see the possibilities of beginning a new assessment of where we are and where we are going. I ask for a cease-fire in the political war in Washington for the sake of our troops and for the sake of our country.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

With a ``b''?

No. No.

Mr. President, thank God for Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont. Thank God. Sail on, brother.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, 4 years ago, I stood in this very spot and warned against an ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Today, the situation in Iraq has spiraled out of control, into a bloody, deadly, sectarian civil war. Yet the President and his team continue to hold fast to their ``stay the course'' nonsense. While they do, thousands of brave young Americans place their lives in jeopardy every day. That reality is one this Nation and the world did not have to experience. It is a tragic reality, brought on by a war of choice and an occupation that has yielded neither stability nor reconciliation.

Four years ago today, the President landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare, ``Mission accomplished.'' Four years ago-- it feels like an age. For thousands of our soldiers and their families, and likely for the Iraqi people, it feels like a lifetime. How wrong our President was then, and how wrong our President continues to be today.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,

adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

No matter how many times the President wishes it were so, peace in Iraq will not be found at the barrel of an American gun. No matter how hard the President hopes that it will happen, sectarian violence will not be quelled with U.S. forces occupying the Iraqi nation. Cross your fingers, pull out your lucky rabbit's foot, even nail a horseshoe over the Oval Office door, but hoping for luck will never change the deadly dynamic in Iraq.

Peace demands an Iraqi-led political solution to transcend the ethnic and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart--a political effort which, to date, the Iraqi Government has been unable or unwilling to take on. Our legislation could have spurred that progress, but President Bush has defiantly said no. This White House clings to its ``foolish consistency.''

When he took office as President more than 6 years ago, George W. Bush issued a call for renewed responsibility in government. Where are the echoes of that call today? What is responsible about clinging to this failed course in Iraq and refusing to consider a new path? What is responsible about the President continuing to foster and manipulate the fears of the American people?

Faced with the tragic consequences of its misjudgments in Iraq, the Bush administration is paralyzed, unwilling to acknowledge, much less remedy, its catastrophic blunders. President Bush has gone so far as to say that the way out of Iraq will be decided by future Presidents.

What an outrageous abdication of responsibility. It is unacceptable to pass this buck to future leaders while our brave troops fight and die today in the crosshairs of this Iraqi civil war. The time to begin rectifying this dreadful blunder is now, not in 2 years, not with the next President but now.

With the supplemental bill, Congress responded to the call of the American people. We offered a new beginning in reconstruction and stability for Iraq. Our proposal could have generated political reconciliation and economic security in Iraq. Our bipartisan plan shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi nation's long-term success to the Iraqi

people themselves. But plainly Congress offered a plan that could have meant a brighter future for Iraq, a future controlled by the Iraqi people themselves with continued support from the United States. But the President has flatly rejected that plan. It is a sad day for our Nation and for the world.

Before the war began, I urged the President to think through the consequences. There was no doubt as to the military outcome of the war between the United States and Iraq. Our military might was certainly unquestioned. I was very concerned about the repercussions that would follow this certain military victory. Tragically, the repercussions I feared all have come to pass. Oh, how I wish, yes, how I wish that I had been wrong.

Once again, I urge the President to think through the consequences of his choices, the consequences of his rejection of this new plan for Iraq, the consequences of clinging to false hopes, for that is what this veto does. This veto endorses the falsehoods that took us to war. It cements failed policy in place. This veto ensures that hundreds, maybe thousands, more will die in Iraq without any true plan for peace. It forces our military to continue to pursue a mission impossible, creating democracy at the point of a gun.

I am sorry this day has come to pass. I am so sorry the horrors of this deadly and mishandled occupation have become the stuff of political gamesmanship. There is ample blame to go around for that fact.

I have seen clashes between the legislative and executive branches. I have seen Presidents make mistakes in the past. Everyone, yes everyone, makes mistakes. I certainly have made mistakes, but I have never seen such arrogance in a White House that seals its eyes and ears and blindly sends so many people to their doom. I pray for our troops, for our President--yes, I do--and I pray for our country, yes, for our country, and for the people of Iraq.

President Bush has chosen to hold hostage $100 billion for our troops to his, President Bush's, policies, his failed policies. But his choice, his choice, is not the last word. Congress will get to work on a new version of the supplemental appropriations conference report. We, with the Lord's will, will not delay, but we also will not stop our efforts to stand for what is right and to craft policies that reflect the true strength of America: humility, modesty, honesty.

We will continue to press for a strong, intelligent foreign policy that does not rely on military might alone. And we will not stop in our efforts to bring peace to Iraq and our troops home from war, so help me God.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.

It has been 4 years since the President sent our troops into Iraq, 4 long years. That is longer than it took to win World War II. More than 3,300 troops have sacrificed their lives in Iraq, and nearly 25,000 have been wounded--many severely.

With passage of this conference agreement, Congress will have appropriated more than $450 billion for the war in Iraq. Did my colleagues hear that? Four hundred and fifty billion dollars. That compares with the $296 billion which the United States spent on World War II. Yet in the 4 years since our troops succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein from power, the President has failed--and I say this with all due respect when I speak about the President--the President has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq. The troops had the courage and the strength to win the war, but the President has not had the wisdom to win the peace. It is time--past time--for a new direction in Iraq.

The agreement before us today provides that new direction. But rather than admit the need to change course, the President--and I say this with all due respect--continues to try to mislead the American public about the war in Iraq.

He recently asked Congress to ``put partisanship on hold.'' But then he, the President, voiced the incredible assertion that the attacks on 9/11 are linked to the war in Iraq. That is not true, and the American people know it.

The President complained that Congress is holding funding for the troops hostage to funding for domestic needs. President Bush claims that Democrats are adding porkbarrel spending to a bill intended for the troops. The President has charged that Democrats are ``legislating defeat'' in Iraq.

President Bush has tried to scare the pants off the public by suggesting that our bill could result in death and destruction in America. What utter nonsense. What hogwash. This Senate must not be a rubberstamp for this or any President. Under the Constitution, Congress has a duty to question the war policies of this or any President. We must listen to the voices of the people, and the American people have sent a very clear message to Washington: It is time to start to bring our troops home from Iraq.

The Congress has responded, crafting a new direction that will spur the Iraqi Government to pursue real political reconciliation in that country. The American people do not support an open-ended U.S. military occupation in Iraq. It is time for the truth; it is time for the White House to stop the fear mongering and face the truth.

In the book of John, chapter 8, verse 32 of the King James version of the Holy Bible are these words:

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you

free.

The Congress is not holding funding for the troops hostage to domestic porkbarrel spending. The $6.9 billion for rebuilding the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina is not pork barrel spending. Ask the citizens of New Orleans. The $1.8 billion for the VA to provide first- class health care to our wounded veterans is not porkbarrel spending. Ask the troops who are waiting for care, and ask their families. I know $20 million to repair Walter Reed Hospital is not pork barrel spending. The $650 million for the SCHIP child health program to deal with the shortfall in 14 States is not porkbarrel

spending. Ask the parents with sick children. The $2.25 billion for securing the country from terrorist attack, including port and border security, transit security, funds to improve screening for explosives at airports, and/or screening cargo on passenger aircraft is not porkbarrel spending. It is homeland security to prevent the death and destruction which President Bush warns about.

This country must not forsake critical domestic needs because of this President's single-minded obsession with his failed mission. Congress has appropriated more than $38 billion for rebuilding Iraq, and this agreement adds another $3 billion. I simply do not understand why this President--our President--is eager to commit billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad but absolutely opposes additional money to rebuild the gulf coast here in America. Why does President Bush decry needed funds for the Veterans' Administration to build a first-class health care system for our brave troops?

Porkbarrel spending? I think not. The conference agreement that is before the Senate today totals $124 billion. It is lower than the House bill. Yet essential funding for gulf coast recovery, veterans medical care, homeland security, and agricultural disaster relief remains.

The conference report also includes an increase in the minimum wage-- the first increase since 1997. It is needed, it is fair, and it is long overdue.

There is also $4.9 billion in tax incentives for small businesses that are fully paid for in the bill. Small business is the backbone of our economy and these incentives will help economic growth.

This bill includes more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense--nearly $4 billion above the President's inadequate request. It protects the troops by including $1.2 billion above the President's low number for mine-resistant vehicles.

This bill cares for the troops by providing $2.1 billion more than the President for health care, including more resources for troops with traumatic brain injury. Porkbarrel? I think not.

The President--our President--claims this is a partisan bill. The President claims Congress is trying to micromanage the war, substituting our judgment for the judgment of our generals. The President knows better.

The Constitution says that ``the Congress shall have power''--do you know what that means? The Congress, that is us--``the Congress shall have power to . . . provide for the common Defence.'' It is the Congress--yes, it is the Congress--that is given the sole power to declare war. The Congress is sworn to ``raise and support Armies.'' The Congress has heard the voices of the people, and we have responded as we are elected to do.

This conference agreement provides a new directive for the war in Iraq. It is patriotic, not partisan, to help the President to see the truth--the truth. It is our duty. It is a duty born of love for this great country, the Constitution, and the American people.

If the President decides to veto the bill, he will be holding funding for the troops hostage to his stubborn insistence on going into Iraq and the resulting disaster caused by his, the President's, war policies.

I encourage all Members to vote for this conference report. We can send a strong message to the White House. We can help this President face the truth. Four years after our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power, the President's policies simply are not working. They must change. We must come together as a country to repair the damage caused by this horrendous war--this horrendous war--and chart a new direction in Iraq.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I thank the Chair.

The Senator said it well. The Senator could not have said it better. Senator Murray is right.

I thank Senator Murray, and I thank the Chair.